08-07-2012, 08:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2012, 08:37 PM by Jim DiEugenio.)
Dawn:
This was reported as far back as Nina Burleigh in her book, which was published many, many years ago.
And this is what I mean by a useless distraction.
If you term this like say Janney wants you to do--right after Dallas, what were they after--then yes, you can jump to a conspiratorial conclusion. But to place it in Janney's specific framework, then it has to be only one thing, the so-called diary. What else could it be in Janney's construct?
Here is the problem with the Janneyesque creation: The best evidence is that there was no such diary. At least not in the normal sense. What it was was a sketchbook with traces of her romance with Kennedy. And this is if you believe Ben Bradlee. But he is the best of the worst, so I go with him.
And further, no so called "diary" has ever showed up anywhere. In over 48 years. Yet, if you read Janney, Damore found it three times! Except its not anywhere to be seen today. And guess what? Angleton had a copy! But yet, that is nowhere to be found. And somehow Jim A. could not get it into the NY TImes? (Yeah bullshit. It would have been on the front page.) Guess what else? Mitchell had one too! So did the AIM group. Maybe Angleton was running off copies, like Oswald with his flyers in Banister's office? Except we have those flyers today. No one has this so called diary today. No one has even a facsimile of it. No one has one pulled page of it. No one has the cover of it.
I wonder why.
See, when you do something like that, you just go to his Facebook page and pull a quote and say, "Well look at this Jim!" See, that is kind of insulting to me. I know you don't mean it that way. But here is why: Its what I wrote on Spartacus. Janney tries to take advantage of people who do not know the Meyer case well. Lisa does know it. And I know it even better than Lisa does. So I understand the techniques Janney uses to ensnare the novice--like what just happened with you. I did a lot of reading on the Meyer case many years ago for my original essay, "The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy". And I minutely examined every written source on this so called "search for the diary". There were at least five. And i reviewed them all there. Perhaps you forgot. OK. But you cannot understand the Meyer case unless you read that essay--which Janney does not want you to do.
Therefore, what do you call a supposed lead that is based upon a mythological artifact? And what do you call an author who uses that technique to entice the reader? (BTW, Robert Slatzer then borrowed this "diary" lead for his book on Marilyn Monroe.) Its a technique that goes nowhere, except into a cul de sac.
If that is not disinfo, I need your own definition then. Therefore I reserve my right to classify Janney with Saint John Hunt and Waldron-Hartmann. I earned it many years ago. The hard way.
This was reported as far back as Nina Burleigh in her book, which was published many, many years ago.
And this is what I mean by a useless distraction.
If you term this like say Janney wants you to do--right after Dallas, what were they after--then yes, you can jump to a conspiratorial conclusion. But to place it in Janney's specific framework, then it has to be only one thing, the so-called diary. What else could it be in Janney's construct?
Here is the problem with the Janneyesque creation: The best evidence is that there was no such diary. At least not in the normal sense. What it was was a sketchbook with traces of her romance with Kennedy. And this is if you believe Ben Bradlee. But he is the best of the worst, so I go with him.
And further, no so called "diary" has ever showed up anywhere. In over 48 years. Yet, if you read Janney, Damore found it three times! Except its not anywhere to be seen today. And guess what? Angleton had a copy! But yet, that is nowhere to be found. And somehow Jim A. could not get it into the NY TImes? (Yeah bullshit. It would have been on the front page.) Guess what else? Mitchell had one too! So did the AIM group. Maybe Angleton was running off copies, like Oswald with his flyers in Banister's office? Except we have those flyers today. No one has this so called diary today. No one has even a facsimile of it. No one has one pulled page of it. No one has the cover of it.
I wonder why.
See, when you do something like that, you just go to his Facebook page and pull a quote and say, "Well look at this Jim!" See, that is kind of insulting to me. I know you don't mean it that way. But here is why: Its what I wrote on Spartacus. Janney tries to take advantage of people who do not know the Meyer case well. Lisa does know it. And I know it even better than Lisa does. So I understand the techniques Janney uses to ensnare the novice--like what just happened with you. I did a lot of reading on the Meyer case many years ago for my original essay, "The Posthumous Assassination of John F. Kennedy". And I minutely examined every written source on this so called "search for the diary". There were at least five. And i reviewed them all there. Perhaps you forgot. OK. But you cannot understand the Meyer case unless you read that essay--which Janney does not want you to do.
Therefore, what do you call a supposed lead that is based upon a mythological artifact? And what do you call an author who uses that technique to entice the reader? (BTW, Robert Slatzer then borrowed this "diary" lead for his book on Marilyn Monroe.) Its a technique that goes nowhere, except into a cul de sac.
If that is not disinfo, I need your own definition then. Therefore I reserve my right to classify Janney with Saint John Hunt and Waldron-Hartmann. I earned it many years ago. The hard way.