Because this thread has shown that is exactly what you do not have.
All you do is troll around at questionable sources, the LA Times, Janney's web site etc., and you then come back and say, "Well what about this?" Time after time, I show either where the info is questionable, or nonsense or a non sequitir. That does not stop you. Lamar Waldron like, you ignore that bit of enlightment or correction and just take another repeat swing with something that I already dealt with.
But that is not the worst part. The worst part is this: You do all that without dealing with any of the stuff I (or Lisa) have evidenced which reduces Janney's ideas to mush. (Or maybe you think Mary actually did do in two weeks what it took Salandria four months to do). :loco:
The difference is that what Lisa and I do is based upon evidence--and we back that up. What you do is based upon ignorance of that case--and you don't care if you cannot back it up.
Let's take for instance your almost shocking comparison of what Janney does in this case with what happened at the Ambassador. This makes me wonder if you have even studied what happened with RFK.
What Janney is saying here, and I read it twice, is that they just decided to frame Crump that hour. So they sent out for clothes, used skin pigment dye, and brought in a stand in.
WTF! Where on earth is that paralleled in the RFK case?!?
With all due respect sir, please show me where it is!? OK? It is nowhere. And I have studied that case, including the primary documents. Have you sir?
In that case, there was a girl in a polka dot dress who guided two other guys into the Ambassador (one of them Sirhan), and who's dress, as well as coffee, then served as post hypnotic suggestion since Sirhan had been programmed in advance by Bryan. Who then wen t on the radio that night to say that the shooting had the earmarks of the film The Manchurian Candidate.
Please show me, with all due respect sir, where there is a parallel for that in the Meyer case. I have read all the literature on the Mary Meyer case. And I have never seen a whiff of this anywhere.
And if this is just baseless conjecture on your part, from someone who has no expertise in the case, then its worth a thimble full of spit as evidence.
In the RFK case, one can prove with documents and evidence that a formal cover up was enacted and this extended over to planting spies in Sirhan's defense team and falsifying evidence presented in court. Plus, having the lead lawyer compromised in a quid pro quo deal.
WHERE IS THAT IN THE MEYER CASE? PLEASE SHOW ME WITH ALL DUE RESPECT SIR!
In fact, Crump, in my opinion, a guilty man, was set free simply because he had a very bright and skillful lawyer--which is exactly what Sirhan, an innocent man, was deprived of. And there was no rigging of evidence in the Meyer case.
To contaminate and pollute the excellent work done on RFK by people like Lynn Mangan, the late Larry Teeter, Lisa Pease, Bill Turner, the late Phil Melanson, the late great Greg Stone etc. to equate that great work with what Janney does is, to someone like me, just nauseating nonsense.
And this is why I don't wish to reply to you. Since your "all due respect" is transparently hollow. Not only do you have none of that for me, but you have none of it for any person I just named. And to someone like me, who really values their labor on that case, to put the name of Phil Melanson in the same realm as Janney or Damore, I mean, that is something there is no excuse for. Save utter ignorance. Or empty bombast.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:The "all due respect" card is hollow.
Because this thread has shown that is exactly what you do not have.
All you do is troll around at questionable sources, the LA Times, Janney's web site etc., and you then come back and say, "Well what about this?" Time after time, I show either where the info is questionable, or nonsense or a non sequitir. That does not stop you. Lamar Waldron like, you ignore that bit of enlightment or correction and just take another repeat swing with something that I already dealt with.
I have nothoing but respect for CTKA and JD's material. It isn't "hollow". I know a steel trap when I see one and depend on it for weeding-out the crap. However no matter how good one is there's a thin line between pronounced infallibility and truth. I assure you I'm sincere in this and not 'trolling'.
Waldron suggested the mafia was the sponsor of the assassination. He's obviously wrong.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:But that is not the worst part. The worst part is this: You do all that without dealing with any of the stuff I (or Lisa) have evidenced which reduces Janney's ideas to mush. (Or maybe you think Mary actually did do in two weeks what it took Salandria four months to do). :loco:
Because you suggest the Mary Meyer as political counselor model is THE only model and then knock it down doesn't mean Mary Meyer didn't have some kind of lesser political relationship with JFK that CIA was worried about. Hence the intruders in Mary Meyer's house (which I believe). I've asked you several times to explain the intruders and you've ignored it. You have to understand the intruders place Mary Meyer on a much higher level of intel possibility, which is why I mention it. Somebody was worried about her. Why? I think you're failing to realize that Janney could be completely wrong about the Mary Meyer as Kumbaya/LSD guru but that doesn't mean there wasn't some kind of political sympathy going on between Meyer and JFK. JFK was enacting serious liberal moves. It is very reasonable to think he would seek a person of similar political persuasion as a sounding board or, at minimum, sympathetic supporter. This doesn't require the ironbound scenario of LSD guru. It simply requires a person whom JFK could possibly have mentioned his motives and enemies to that CIA would be worried about post-assassination. I also consider Florence Smith as a direct analog.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:The difference is that what Lisa and I do is based upon evidence--and we back that up. What you do is based upon ignorance of that case--and you don't care if you cannot back it up.
The Innocence Project is full of people who were convicted on what the prosecutors were confident was sound "evidence".
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Let's take for instance your almost shocking comparison of what Janney does in this case with what happened at the Ambassador. This makes me wonder if you have even studied what happened with RFK.
What Janney is saying here, and I read it twice, is that they just decided to frame Crump that hour. So they sent out for clothes, used skin pigment dye, and brought in a stand in.
WTF! Where on earth is that paralleled in the RFK case?!?
With all due respect sir, please show me where it is!? OK? It is nowhere. And I have studied that case, including the primary documents. Have you sir?
In that case, there was a girl in a polka dot dress who guided two other guys into the Ambassador (one of them Sirhan), and who's dress, as well as coffee, then served as post hypnotic suggestion since Sirhan had been programmed in advance by Bryan. Who then wen t on the radio that night to say that the shooting had the earmarks of the film The Manchurian Candidate.
Please show me, with all due respect sir, where there is a parallel for that in the Meyer case. I have read all the literature on the Mary Meyer case. And I have never seen a whiff of this anywhere.
And if this is just baseless conjecture on your part, from someone who has no expertise in the case, then its worth a thimble full of spit as evidence.
In the RFK case, one can prove with documents and evidence that a formal cover up was enacted and this extended over to planting spies in Sirhan's defense team and falsifying evidence presented in court. Plus, having the lead lawyer compromised in a quid pro quo deal.
WHERE IS THAT IN THE MEYER CASE? PLEASE SHOW ME WITH ALL DUE RESPECT SIR!
In fact, Crump, in my opinion, a guilty man, was set free simply because he had a very bright and skillful lawyer--which is exactly what Sirhan, an innocent man, was deprived of. And there was no rigging of evidence in the Meyer case.
To contaminate and pollute the excellent work done on RFK by people like Lynn Mangan, the late Larry Teeter, Lisa Pease, Bill Turner, the late Phil Melanson, the late great Greg Stone etc. to equate that great work with what Janney does is, to someone like me, just nauseating nonsense.
I see a dangerous parallel in the woman and liquor bottle in comparison to the sexy woman and coffee Sirhan was led to drink. My simple question to you is what proof do you have that this riverside picnic wasn't a perfectly-identical leading of a hypno-patsy to a close-to-the-scene introduction of the hypnotic chemicals by means of this likely 'bait'? Ms Meyer's canal path routine is something that could have been studied and figured as the best place to create a plausibly-deniable death with patsy. The trial could also have been stacked and infiltrated by the CIA spook Mitchell who is now as unknown as the fence shooters in Dealey Plaza as far as identification. This man is real because he testified at Crump's trial. It's a serious red flag that he cannot be identified now. "Baseless conjecture"? Hardly. I seriously consider these direct parallels to CIA's most cutting-edge black operation practices of the time as evidenced in RFK's case and John Lennon's.
I'm not your enemy. You can protest "you have no evidence", but in the end it doesn't answer these questions.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:And this is why I don't wish to reply to you. Since your "all due respect" is transparently hollow. Not only do you have none of that for me, but you have none of it for any person I just named. And to someone like me, who really values their labor on that case, to put the name of Phil Melanson in the same realm as Janney or Damore, I mean, that is something there is no excuse for. Save utter ignorance. Or empty bombast.
My good sir, you haven't answered why they were in Mary Meyer's house?
I think Dunne is relying on technical sophistry as his main basis and perhaps Janney is wrong and you are entirely right in your criticisms. There's also no doubt you have seriously swung the issue in your favor with your review and clarified many important matters. However that still doesn't answer these questions. I guess where I am is Charles' point.
Your nose is growing Pinochio. Either that or you have avery short attention span.
First of all, these so-called home invasions are all reported secondhand. Its Mary through an acquaintance saying it after the fact. There is nothing solid or written, like a police report to verify them.
Second, you are not the one who brought this up. Dawn did. It is at post 107.
THen you say I did not reply to this.
Wrong again partner. I replied at length in post 108.
I won't even comment on the so called woman and a liquor bottle analogy with the Girl in the Polka dot Dress. Except with this::lol:
Al you're a good bloke. But the tone you are setting not to mention the bullshit reasoning (flogging a very deceased horse comes to mind) is clutching at straws. Jim is not above being questioned, no one is but for Christs sakes he doesn't need to be asked the same thing over and over. So what if MM was killed as part of a conspiracy? If just 'if' she was, I see nothing connecting her in anyway to Kennedy's death. Bar dubious comments by Cord...comments which in light of the authors cred I totally and utterly freaking doubt. I'm sad for her in as much as anybody is saddened by a murder and it's aftermath-not to mention the family left behind. Nonetheless, bar some interesting ties and activities, I really couldn't give a two hoots. Her passing away had the impact of a sparrows fart in all reality. In the unreality of disinformation and red herrings all it serves to do is stain the paint job of ones car.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
Walking back over the field, I find He said, She said
Hamburg spoke to Hunt:
Hunt concluded his analysis with these suggestive comments: "Journalist Leo Damore wrote in the New York Post that a CIA source told him that Mary's death was probably a professional hit because "She had access to the highest levels. She was involved in illegal drug activity. What do you think it would do to the beatification of Kennedy if this woman said, "It wasn't Camelot it was Caligula's court'?" So I think it was probably a professional hit by someone trying to protect the Kennedy legacy." Or, perhaps, to cover up her knowledge of the Kennedy assassination.
So here's Hunt who would later tell Saint John, LBJ using Cord using Harvey using David Sanchez Morales using the French Gunman on the Grassy Knoll
And in the accounts we are continually told Angleton admitted the Diary was about a drug-and-sex affair between Mary and JFK
Angleton who manipulated Oswald's file to frame him for the assassination and shield CIA, Dallas police, organized crime figures, performers from Cirque de Soleil, dancing bears on roller skates, et cetera, is a very good source on all of this
And of course Learythere's no problem with his admission being a couple of decades after the fact and a score of books leapt over like semis beneath Evel Knievel
John Potemkin walking over Camelot in golf shoes, spitting tobacco here and there, arm in arm with Seymour Herschsimply unimpeachable
And that Janney's daddy was Agencyye gods and little fishes, there's nothing to see here, how many times. . . .
Did I mention (again) Damore who now seems to be talking to Tippit with Helen Markham
The diary was in the air pocket
How many rodeo clowns can dance on the head of a pin
We shall learn next year
It'll be a thund'rous Riverdance of shills shilling
Again, I was in New York with YAF drafting Goldwater when she was taken out on the pathlikely by a violent misogynist-slash-rapista vile, base deed
Which is the stock in trade of Angleton and Hunt and others unnamed
But not here
--no, not Jack Kennedy looking in a mirror and watching himself become old and young, a hag or a devil, a woman, a man. . .turning to the stars above, the hatbox galaxies spinning in concentric symphonies. . .the sister flowers telescoping open and shut, their petals crying
No, that's another movie. That's not the 35[SUP]th[/SUP] president who was on the ground in '51, who had all the enlightenment he needed there and with pre-emptive proposals and of course the modest proposal Northwind
Why, Janney, why
It's still the same old story the fight to make Jack gory as if to say he earned it
So, unless and until the steel box surfaces with a draft of the American University speech in Mary's hand, I remain
And of course Learythere's no problem with his admission being a couple of decades after the fact and a score of books leapt over like semis beneath Evel Knievel
I have been both perplexed and somewhat entertained by the posts in this thread. Both "sides" (for lack of a better word) have made good points.
I agree with Charles to a limited degree, in his observation (among others) that:
Quote: Charles Drago said: "The fact that Lamar Waldron presents a demonstrably specious argument for an OC-sponsored conspiracy in JFK's death does not lead us to conclude that there was no conspiracy in Dallas. Does it?
Indeed, absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.
I also observe, what I perceive to be, a defensiveness on the part of Jim. No need for that. State your case, make an argument, mindful that it needs to be strong in this company. Impeccably so.
Having said that...I too, like Phil, remain skeptical...to the extreme.
Indeed, I tend to chalk-up Janney's latest to an ill conceived "didn't quite make it to the tabloid press" bit. Thankfully that. *
* or maybe I'm behind and it did?
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
Indeed my lack of deep political insight (what ever the heck that is) was criticized for stating that this book would be dog shit. As Cliff Huxtable used to say..."I told you sooooooooo" hahahahahahahaha.
I don't think Jim's being tooooo defensive. Surly, yes lol but more frustrated with having to repeat himself over and over (trust me I know the feeling).
This whole fear of throwing the baby out with the bath water thing in the JFK case works only about 5-10 percent of the time. If that.
Used to its fullest extent brothers it keeps false hopes and frauds like Janney and Lamar Waldron alive! Because yes, both are just as bad as the other. Pity the country that has to choose between them.
Thus in my ruthlessness I don't know how many dreams I've snuffed out and babies I've lost. Frankly folks I really don't give a poo. If an author is shite, their sources used in the book are likely shite and indicates to me that the whole premise has been based on fraudulent claims. Then it is shite! A cigar is a cigar a piece of shite is a piece of shite...tell me peeps is there a colonel of truth in the JFK MJ-12 documents? The short answer to that is a big fat noooooooooo. Look at the bullshit in the Torbitt document. People have been picking gnat shit out of pepper (thank you so much JFK lol) over that sort of crud for years, the Meyer case is the same. Quite frankly folks there are better and more productive things to do than screw around with bad research, bad evidence and a bad case which has no baring what so ever on the Kennedy assassination, except as a tool to posthumously slag Kennedy with. If people wanna go off and do better research than Janney and try and make a better 'non Kennedy' death scenario case then go ahead. Prove to me that it was a 'deep political act' CD, AL or anyone else. But whose got the balls to dismiss the Kennedy angle with Meyer if conspiracy, who here has got the balls to discard Janney's shite and start anew? I don't see anybodies hands going up. If people can't put up decent evidence and decent sources outside this bilge then stiff shit.
So don't get angry about Jim and Lisa throwing Janney out of the window while he was being washed in his baby bath tub by Greg Douglas. From where I stand he's correct and the entire Meyer case is misleading disinfo.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
Your nose is growing Pinochio. Either that or you have avery short attention span.
First of all, these so-called home invasions are all reported secondhand. Its Mary through an acquaintance saying it after the fact. There is nothing solid or written, like a police report to verify them.
Again, deficient answer in my opinion. Nothing you wrote precludes those intrusions from happening. I believe it because it strikes me as true from the circumstances. I do not believe these intruder stories were fabricated post-Mary Meyer murder. The intruder stories strike me as real and remembered because they were told with genuine worry to the witness. There's many reasonable explanations for why Meyer would not report these invasions to the police. The main one being her ex-husband was CIA.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:I won't even comment on the so called woman and a liquor bottle analogy with the Girl in the Polka dot Dress. Except with this::lol:
May I remind you you take a similar position to some of the trolls I see on the internet mocking the Mark David Chapman and even Sirhan Sirhan hypno-patsy evidence. I really hate to do this to James DiEugenio because of my sincere respect for him, however I'm forced to say that some might accuse you of being unable to answer. What I wrote may be preposterous and deserving of ridicule, but in my mind someone who has been in this business as long as you have should be worried if it isn't.
I think you and Seamus are missing an obvious point. Conspiracy research was well into its second decade when this Leary, Damore stuff came about. CIA was quite capable of concocting an easily-refuted conspiracy case like Damore's in order to destroy the credibility of a very real black op.
It is very possible Mary Meyer got several jumps ahead of the Warren Report by being an insider like Janney and having a direct ear to the CIA constituency surrounding the assassination. These are subtle things that strictly factual research might miss.
I can't explain this without sounding ridiculous but the bigger picture critical key factors all line-up like in other proven covert wacks.
Jim is not above being questioned, no one is but for Christs sakes he doesn't need to be asked the same thing over and over. So what if MM was killed as part of a conspiracy? If just 'if' she was, I see nothing connecting her in anyway to Kennedy's death. Bar dubious comments by Cord...comments which in light of the authors cred I totally and utterly freaking doubt. I'm sad for her in as much as anybody is saddened by a murder and it's aftermath-not to mention the family left behind. Nonetheless, bar some interesting ties and activities, I really couldn't give a two hoots. Her passing away had the impact of a sparrows fart in all reality. In the unreality of disinformation and red herrings all it serves to do is stain the paint job of ones car.
