16-09-2012, 02:55 AM
Its always good to trace back to origins, that way we find out how things began and why. That helps elucidate why someone said what they did at the time. And why they are saying something now.
When Damore, and then Janney, worked on what became the fairy tale of Mary's Mosaic, they decided that Mitchell was going to be their fall guy. They then added an air of mystery: Mitchell disappeared into thin air after his appearance at the trial.
Albert, and then Horne, really dug this angle. Even though, by reading what Lisa and I wrote about the book, it was clear that neither writer could be trusted since they were so agenda driven. Horne wrote an embarrassing valentine to the book on Amazon and he got it up first. That critique shows us much about his analytical skills as a critic. He bought the whole mess of a book--including Mitchell.
But then, as I warned, that was not actually accurate. There does appear to be a William Mitchell who moved to California after going to Oxford. Therefore, if Janney and Damore could not find the man, it appears they did not look very hard. And that is not good research or writing. Another problem is that Damore and Janney violated another cardinal rule: They trusted their CIA sources all too willingly. Niether Horne nor Albert can find it in their critical canon to mention any of this.
So now, Horne is stung. He looks kind of silly. So what does he say, and Albert now echoes: Well why is this Mitchell guy not up in arms? This transferral is supposed to conceal the fact that Horne got duped in the first place. In other words, it doesn't matter if Mitchell disappeared or if he did not: Horne wants it both ways in order to disguise his gullibility.
The problem is this, and anyone who has done these kinds of searches should be familiar with it--as Albert clearly is not. That name is a very common one. Its not like, say, my name. William Mitchell is almost as generic as Joe Smith. Therefore, although it does appear to be him, you cannot be positive. This is a responsible approach to an issue that Janney polarized without doing due diligence.
Normally, what one does in these situations, when the indicators are positive, you turn over the info to a private detective. He takes it from there in order to confirm. This is what Janney, or Damore, should have done. Its unfair and a little outrageous to expect people who are not involved with a book to spend their own money on someone else's allegations. After all, Janney is making money off this book. No one else is.
Therefore, at this stage, other devices are being used. And they take longer.
There you go Albert, as Sean Connery said to Eliot Ness, "What do you want a free lesson in police work?" Well, you got one.
One would think that the observers would be more concerned with what the researchers and writers of the book should have done, instead of what people completely divorced from the book have to take upon themselves. But that is the topsy turvy world of the phantasmorgic Mary's Mosaic.
When Damore, and then Janney, worked on what became the fairy tale of Mary's Mosaic, they decided that Mitchell was going to be their fall guy. They then added an air of mystery: Mitchell disappeared into thin air after his appearance at the trial.
Albert, and then Horne, really dug this angle. Even though, by reading what Lisa and I wrote about the book, it was clear that neither writer could be trusted since they were so agenda driven. Horne wrote an embarrassing valentine to the book on Amazon and he got it up first. That critique shows us much about his analytical skills as a critic. He bought the whole mess of a book--including Mitchell.
But then, as I warned, that was not actually accurate. There does appear to be a William Mitchell who moved to California after going to Oxford. Therefore, if Janney and Damore could not find the man, it appears they did not look very hard. And that is not good research or writing. Another problem is that Damore and Janney violated another cardinal rule: They trusted their CIA sources all too willingly. Niether Horne nor Albert can find it in their critical canon to mention any of this.
So now, Horne is stung. He looks kind of silly. So what does he say, and Albert now echoes: Well why is this Mitchell guy not up in arms? This transferral is supposed to conceal the fact that Horne got duped in the first place. In other words, it doesn't matter if Mitchell disappeared or if he did not: Horne wants it both ways in order to disguise his gullibility.
The problem is this, and anyone who has done these kinds of searches should be familiar with it--as Albert clearly is not. That name is a very common one. Its not like, say, my name. William Mitchell is almost as generic as Joe Smith. Therefore, although it does appear to be him, you cannot be positive. This is a responsible approach to an issue that Janney polarized without doing due diligence.
Normally, what one does in these situations, when the indicators are positive, you turn over the info to a private detective. He takes it from there in order to confirm. This is what Janney, or Damore, should have done. Its unfair and a little outrageous to expect people who are not involved with a book to spend their own money on someone else's allegations. After all, Janney is making money off this book. No one else is.
Therefore, at this stage, other devices are being used. And they take longer.
There you go Albert, as Sean Connery said to Eliot Ness, "What do you want a free lesson in police work?" Well, you got one.
One would think that the observers would be more concerned with what the researchers and writers of the book should have done, instead of what people completely divorced from the book have to take upon themselves. But that is the topsy turvy world of the phantasmorgic Mary's Mosaic.