21-07-2014, 01:21 PM
To me the most pressing question is, was he certified on the day he did the affidavit. If he was, then Mellen is wrong to print a story that alleges anonymous sources claiming inside info that say he wasn't certified. If he wasn't, then he committed aggravated perjury (since he got paid for his work), which certainly makes him less credible. The only source that anyone should be willing to rely on is the IAI. They refused to publicly reveal information from Darby's file. I assume that means that they won't publicly affirm or deny Mellen's story either.
If Darby was still alive, he'd sue somebody.
As to whether or not there is/was some sort of covert operation to posthumously discredit Darby, I would ask, "Why?" If Darby was wrong about Wallace, his work is the single best expert "rabbit trail" that could be imagined.
If Darby was still alive, he'd sue somebody.
As to whether or not there is/was some sort of covert operation to posthumously discredit Darby, I would ask, "Why?" If Darby was wrong about Wallace, his work is the single best expert "rabbit trail" that could be imagined.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."