10-08-2015, 06:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-08-2015, 05:57 PM by Albert Doyle.)
Jim,
The problem with your CTKA Mary Meyer article is it tries to undo the Mary Meyer tale through guilt by association. The article does have its merits in showing how some sleazy disinformationist authors influenced the Mary Meyer tale through Simkin and Janney. Thanks to your educating us on Heymann, I wouldn't grab on to a life preserver he threw me. Heymann is just an out and out fraud author. Your article does good by teaching us the rotten parts to trim from the Mary Meyer story as far as sources.
The problem I have with your approach is it is a book-read-type criticism that tries to debunk the Mary Meyer tale through sources. While that is a legitimate approach, and does discredit some aspects of the formulation of that story, to me it is a spin-like attempt to discredit the Mary Meyer story by association rather than a direct analysis of the actual story and its evidence.
Your dismissal of Leary is too thin and seeks to discredit him by the opinion of another author. However if we go to Leary's actual accounts he describes the colorful fall foliage and deep blue sky of a New York autumn. He describes the color and type of the rental car Mary picked him up in from LaGuardia Airport. He more importantly describes crawling out onto his roof and being consoled by a housemate upon getting word of Mary's death. Leary documents other people witnessing his investigation of Mary's death in New York City. All things detailed enough, in my mind, to be true. Your approach seeks to discredit these things by book reference and the personal history of crank authors. I hope you see the problem with that. Your approach fails to realize that even if Leary fabricated the drug part it still has legitimate aspects that are quite valid. You can drop the drug part all together and there is still good evidence there for a motive to assassinate Mary Meyer. What you fail to give proper exposure to is this relationship gave Mary access to Kennedy where she then experienced the political parts that were dangerous.
You're bullying Janney, Jim. Peter is a doctor academic and psychologist and not a veteran Kennedy scholar and researcher like yourself. He doesn't have the background to suss out the bogus sources that your intense Kennedy research gives you. Criticism of his bad sources is fair game, but it might be understandable with a person of his background. You can see he doesn't have good sense in that direction because he is a portraited member of the Cinque group. God help him. But that alone doesn't make his story bogus. Janney's strength is his background with Meyer and CIA through his father.
The problem with your article on Mary Meyer is, after it is finished discrediting the sources, it does nothing to actually address the evidence for the case outside of those sources. It doesn't look at the merit of the case alone. You've managed to skunk the Mary Meyer story by examining all the charlatans who told it. But that doesn't discredit the actual story itself or its factual components. What you are doing is like showing all of the charlatans who wrote disinformation books on the Kennedy Assassination and coming to the conclusion that therefore, by association, claims of a conspiracy are all bogus.
What strikes me the most from your article is that even if we subtract the drug claims and agendas in smearing Kennedy in a second assassination of his character, there's a still remaining core to Mary Meyer's story that is quite legitimate and could easily be claimed to be a motive for her assassination. Your article uses a strawman-like build-up that makes Mary look like some kind of peace Rasputin in Kennedy's court. You then knock this down, claiming it is a ridiculous portrayal. However you never give notice that Mary did have a peace background, did have an LSD group background, and was recorded visiting Kennedy at the White House and elsewhere. Even if you remove all the drug claims there was a serious mutual political philosophy between Mary Meyer and JFK that would create a unique relationship that was seriously dangerous to the killers of Kennedy. Your article emphasizes the fraud parade and its agenda but does nothing to disprove this basic core relationship and its necessary conclusions.
When we get back to the basics of the case far away from Heymann, Douglas, Damore, and others we still have Mitchell giving all too enthusiastic false witness to a murder for which there was no evidence. We still have Wiggins saying he felt he was set-up. There's still no trace of the owner of the broken down car. There's no fiber evidence on Mary Meyer. Mitchell still lived at a CIA safehouse. He still worked at a CIA cover job. He still lied about the funding for his England hiatus. There were still serious timing and knowledge of Mary's death problems with the CIA members Janney witnessed directly. Toni Shimon, who had no connection to second assassination of Kennedy disinformationists said her father Joe admitted that sometimes people like Mary were done away with. The timing of the black man's face peering out of the bushes was still impossible even if we are generous with Pease's timing. There's still a 10-15 minute gap the evidence doesn't account for.
Jim, did it ever occur to you that the Mary Meyer story might be adapted by frauds like Douglas in order to discredit it exactly because it was real? Also Angleton might not want to expose the affair parts of Mary's diary because it would only bring unwanted attention to the overall story and his role in it. It would only make people ask more questions about her death and what else was in the diary. Just because people want to smear Kennedy doesn't make Mary Meyer's covert assassination bogus. There's still a sound core of political sympathy and a Dorothy Kilgallen-like threat Mary posed that you haven't touched and can't be dismissed by exposing fraud authors and their agendas in my opinion. Credible exposure of crank authors and their agendas does not equate to destruction of Mary Meyer's covert assassination.
.
The problem with your CTKA Mary Meyer article is it tries to undo the Mary Meyer tale through guilt by association. The article does have its merits in showing how some sleazy disinformationist authors influenced the Mary Meyer tale through Simkin and Janney. Thanks to your educating us on Heymann, I wouldn't grab on to a life preserver he threw me. Heymann is just an out and out fraud author. Your article does good by teaching us the rotten parts to trim from the Mary Meyer story as far as sources.
The problem I have with your approach is it is a book-read-type criticism that tries to debunk the Mary Meyer tale through sources. While that is a legitimate approach, and does discredit some aspects of the formulation of that story, to me it is a spin-like attempt to discredit the Mary Meyer story by association rather than a direct analysis of the actual story and its evidence.
Your dismissal of Leary is too thin and seeks to discredit him by the opinion of another author. However if we go to Leary's actual accounts he describes the colorful fall foliage and deep blue sky of a New York autumn. He describes the color and type of the rental car Mary picked him up in from LaGuardia Airport. He more importantly describes crawling out onto his roof and being consoled by a housemate upon getting word of Mary's death. Leary documents other people witnessing his investigation of Mary's death in New York City. All things detailed enough, in my mind, to be true. Your approach seeks to discredit these things by book reference and the personal history of crank authors. I hope you see the problem with that. Your approach fails to realize that even if Leary fabricated the drug part it still has legitimate aspects that are quite valid. You can drop the drug part all together and there is still good evidence there for a motive to assassinate Mary Meyer. What you fail to give proper exposure to is this relationship gave Mary access to Kennedy where she then experienced the political parts that were dangerous.
You're bullying Janney, Jim. Peter is a doctor academic and psychologist and not a veteran Kennedy scholar and researcher like yourself. He doesn't have the background to suss out the bogus sources that your intense Kennedy research gives you. Criticism of his bad sources is fair game, but it might be understandable with a person of his background. You can see he doesn't have good sense in that direction because he is a portraited member of the Cinque group. God help him. But that alone doesn't make his story bogus. Janney's strength is his background with Meyer and CIA through his father.
The problem with your article on Mary Meyer is, after it is finished discrediting the sources, it does nothing to actually address the evidence for the case outside of those sources. It doesn't look at the merit of the case alone. You've managed to skunk the Mary Meyer story by examining all the charlatans who told it. But that doesn't discredit the actual story itself or its factual components. What you are doing is like showing all of the charlatans who wrote disinformation books on the Kennedy Assassination and coming to the conclusion that therefore, by association, claims of a conspiracy are all bogus.
What strikes me the most from your article is that even if we subtract the drug claims and agendas in smearing Kennedy in a second assassination of his character, there's a still remaining core to Mary Meyer's story that is quite legitimate and could easily be claimed to be a motive for her assassination. Your article uses a strawman-like build-up that makes Mary look like some kind of peace Rasputin in Kennedy's court. You then knock this down, claiming it is a ridiculous portrayal. However you never give notice that Mary did have a peace background, did have an LSD group background, and was recorded visiting Kennedy at the White House and elsewhere. Even if you remove all the drug claims there was a serious mutual political philosophy between Mary Meyer and JFK that would create a unique relationship that was seriously dangerous to the killers of Kennedy. Your article emphasizes the fraud parade and its agenda but does nothing to disprove this basic core relationship and its necessary conclusions.
When we get back to the basics of the case far away from Heymann, Douglas, Damore, and others we still have Mitchell giving all too enthusiastic false witness to a murder for which there was no evidence. We still have Wiggins saying he felt he was set-up. There's still no trace of the owner of the broken down car. There's no fiber evidence on Mary Meyer. Mitchell still lived at a CIA safehouse. He still worked at a CIA cover job. He still lied about the funding for his England hiatus. There were still serious timing and knowledge of Mary's death problems with the CIA members Janney witnessed directly. Toni Shimon, who had no connection to second assassination of Kennedy disinformationists said her father Joe admitted that sometimes people like Mary were done away with. The timing of the black man's face peering out of the bushes was still impossible even if we are generous with Pease's timing. There's still a 10-15 minute gap the evidence doesn't account for.
Jim, did it ever occur to you that the Mary Meyer story might be adapted by frauds like Douglas in order to discredit it exactly because it was real? Also Angleton might not want to expose the affair parts of Mary's diary because it would only bring unwanted attention to the overall story and his role in it. It would only make people ask more questions about her death and what else was in the diary. Just because people want to smear Kennedy doesn't make Mary Meyer's covert assassination bogus. There's still a sound core of political sympathy and a Dorothy Kilgallen-like threat Mary posed that you haven't touched and can't be dismissed by exposing fraud authors and their agendas in my opinion. Credible exposure of crank authors and their agendas does not equate to destruction of Mary Meyer's covert assassination.
.