09-03-2013, 03:10 AM
Peter:
Can we stick to the topic? The whole thing about decades previous does not really impact on Janney and his book.
As per an idee fix, I was on the Mary Meyer thing for over a decade previous to Janney's book being published. You can read my essay on the subject in The Assassinations.
Also, I was privy to his outline on the book. That is how I know about his talks with Heymann. Which, in my view, there is simply no excuse for.
And Peter, I know all about Albarelli and Janney also. Including some private conversations someone had with Hank in which he was not at all kind about Janney's work.
And also, Tom S pretty much took care of the whole CIA safehouse address that supposedly Janney confirmed with his CIA sources. One has to always be careful about such "confirmation", because one never knows if one is being played.
Now, I have allowed in the past for the MM murder being unsolved. ALthough with what has come out about Crump of late (and to a lesser extent Roundtree) that is harder to support now.
But I won't give any support to the scenario outlined by Janney. I mean, "Albert Doyle" cannot even keep it straight. The use of Douglas, Leary, Damore, Collier /Horowitz, that is not my idea of resarch. Not in this day and age.
But to each his own.
ANd BTW, when did I ever claim I was infallible? And, I have never changed my mind on anything? Peter, I used to think that JG was off base in saying Vietnam was a reason for Kennedy's assassination. I have no problem today admitting I was wrong. That is just one instance. I could easily name two more.
But I don't want to detract from my image of "infallibility".
Can we stick to the topic? The whole thing about decades previous does not really impact on Janney and his book.
As per an idee fix, I was on the Mary Meyer thing for over a decade previous to Janney's book being published. You can read my essay on the subject in The Assassinations.
Also, I was privy to his outline on the book. That is how I know about his talks with Heymann. Which, in my view, there is simply no excuse for.
And Peter, I know all about Albarelli and Janney also. Including some private conversations someone had with Hank in which he was not at all kind about Janney's work.
And also, Tom S pretty much took care of the whole CIA safehouse address that supposedly Janney confirmed with his CIA sources. One has to always be careful about such "confirmation", because one never knows if one is being played.
Now, I have allowed in the past for the MM murder being unsolved. ALthough with what has come out about Crump of late (and to a lesser extent Roundtree) that is harder to support now.
But I won't give any support to the scenario outlined by Janney. I mean, "Albert Doyle" cannot even keep it straight. The use of Douglas, Leary, Damore, Collier /Horowitz, that is not my idea of resarch. Not in this day and age.
But to each his own.
ANd BTW, when did I ever claim I was infallible? And, I have never changed my mind on anything? Peter, I used to think that JG was off base in saying Vietnam was a reason for Kennedy's assassination. I have no problem today admitting I was wrong. That is just one instance. I could easily name two more.
But I don't want to detract from my image of "infallibility".