03-07-2012, 09:56 PM
ALbert:
This is what I am talking about.
I have written about this matter twice now. The first time was in 1997 in Probe. And I used that letter to the LA Times and analyzed it. And then placed it in the context of the other renditions of this story--there are at least two others. And they don't match up. The second time I will review it is in my review of Janney's book which will go up tonight or tomorrow.
See, the letter you quote is from the Angleton side of the argument. As you can see, it is opposed to the Bradlee version. And once you read my critique, you will see that not only do you have to factor in the Angleton vs. Bradlee feud, you also have to factor in the Truitt vs. Bradlee feud, which stemmed from Bradlee firing Truitt in 1969. Truitt had become an alcoholic and showed signs of mental instability. WHen you read my review you will see what happened to the poor Jim Truitt.
Anyway, this will all be gone over in my essay. But it is necessary to know all this in trying to figure out what are the true facts about any "diary". Which has never showed up in 48 years. And also why Angleton was there.
And this is what I mean. Just because someone knows the JFK case, or thinks they do, the Meyer case is a different field entirely. And you have to be careful before jumping in. It takes homework. This is why I don't understand people like Doug Horne, Jim Marrs, and even Catherine Austin Fitts commenting on Janney's book without studying the record first. Because there is a body of literature to study, before you make any kind of measured opinion that has any value.
This is what I am talking about.
I have written about this matter twice now. The first time was in 1997 in Probe. And I used that letter to the LA Times and analyzed it. And then placed it in the context of the other renditions of this story--there are at least two others. And they don't match up. The second time I will review it is in my review of Janney's book which will go up tonight or tomorrow.
See, the letter you quote is from the Angleton side of the argument. As you can see, it is opposed to the Bradlee version. And once you read my critique, you will see that not only do you have to factor in the Angleton vs. Bradlee feud, you also have to factor in the Truitt vs. Bradlee feud, which stemmed from Bradlee firing Truitt in 1969. Truitt had become an alcoholic and showed signs of mental instability. WHen you read my review you will see what happened to the poor Jim Truitt.
Anyway, this will all be gone over in my essay. But it is necessary to know all this in trying to figure out what are the true facts about any "diary". Which has never showed up in 48 years. And also why Angleton was there.
And this is what I mean. Just because someone knows the JFK case, or thinks they do, the Meyer case is a different field entirely. And you have to be careful before jumping in. It takes homework. This is why I don't understand people like Doug Horne, Jim Marrs, and even Catherine Austin Fitts commenting on Janney's book without studying the record first. Because there is a body of literature to study, before you make any kind of measured opinion that has any value.