Mary's Mosaic: Entering Peter Janney's World of Fantasy

[Albert Doyle]

We can assume Sirhan and Mark Chapman were Manchurian Candidate hypno-programmed. So what precludes Crump from being an early version of this and doing it himself? Who knows how early that technique was successfully developed?

Then Damore, Leary, Heymann and others come along and stick warts on the face of this thing that are intended to make everyone reject it. However if you remove the incorrectly-applied disinformation warts a credible covert murder face appears.

Intruders, midnight calls, and disappearing witnesses all point towards something that isn't so easily dismissed. It isn't that Damore couldn't find Mitchell, it's that nobody could find him. Still can't, even now.

[Jan Klimkowski]

We can assume Sirhan and Mark Chapman were Manchurian Candidate hypno-programmed.

Actually, we can't.

We can certainly hypothesize that Sirhan Sirhan and Mark Chapman were Manchurian Patsies, probably victims of narco-hypno-trauma programming.

The difference is crucial.

[Seamus Coogan]

The Crump MK-Ultra notion is to be honest loose as heck, but in an odd way Al I guess it's more plausible than the current state of Janney's Meyer hit. God I am just re-reading it now talk about total overkill. Thus is the Meyer scenario a potential case ruined by Janney and his cronies? Maybe, maybe not. I don't hold a candle of hope for every two bit story that comes down the pipes. But I do agree with you and CD that disinformation and lies can definitely cripple cases. As stubborn as I am Al, I agree that its always important to keep that in mind. Not all cases are like that of course. Underneath the crap is well crap created by some agency of government or rabid types, but yes as said it's always something to bare in mind.

I say this because quite clearly Paul Kangas, John Hankey and Russ Baker were wrong with regards to George Bush and JFK. This still doesn't stop some people believing that he was a high stakes player or involved in the JFK case. The big problem is these guys went as deep as they could and came up well short. In many cases Baker actually used at least some documents and did a good job on Bush in the Air Command. What's interesting here is that CD to the best of my knowledge would go along with Jim and I for the most part on Bush and judging from my recollections you have as well Al. Meyer on the other hand is different, this time around you both lean on the side of there being something more to the case. While I don't there is anything more to her death than its use as a mid 70's smear campaign on JFK (which at the very least that's something I think we all concur). Looking back on all the discussion this thread has generated, I think disagreements of this sort though heated in some ways are in reality pretty bloody normal.

Ultimately Janney's take on Meyer was not up to scratch. Full stop as GB and PD say lets move on.

The only thing I am actually left concerned about is CD lumping Janney and Jim Di into their own paradigm. While I don't see it that way and I think there is a monumental difference between the two. I do agree that Jim's comparison between the EF and the DPF, was slightly misguided. Full respect to the people at the EF, but the modding here is pretty consistent and if Jim had another look around he'd see that the DPF is generally speaking a lot more in tune with CTKA related stuff than opposed. I think this is the very real danger of researchers hanging around forums. You pour some big hours into something, you often can't help get ones ego involved. The smallest disagreement can be taken as a slight and what was a snowball becomes an avalanche. Trust me I've been there I think we all have. Al if you come up with an alternate line on Janney's dross, I'd like to have a read at the very least.

[Charles Drago]

I say this because quite clearly ... Russ Baker [was] wrong with regards to George Bush and JFK.

"Quite clearly"??? If your certainty derives from the fact that Jim has pronounced this to be so, you need to pursue another line of work.

What's interesting here is that CD to the best of my knowledge would go along with Jim and I for the most part on Bush.

Your knowledge, in this instance, is fatally flawed.

The only thing I am actually left concerned about is CD lumping Janney and Jim Di into their own paradigm.

This from the person who wrote, "I say this because quite clearly Paul Kangas, John Hankey and Russ Baker were wrong[.]" Please try to read more carefully; when you reach these clearly unjustified conclusions, you call into question the validity of the body of your work.

Please re-read the following points I made previously:

"The MPM discussion on this thread has devolved into a profoundly counter-productive DiEugenio v. Janney steel cage match. Perhaps by design."

AND

"In re my previous point: The reputations of Messrs. DiEugenio and Janney as they may be impacted by the MPM matter are -- or at least should be -- of no interest to anyone who reads these words (except, of course, the combatants themselves). To pick a side in such a non-fight is to make a classic false choice."

Try it again: Precisely define what I am comparing here.

Jim's comparison between the EF and the DPF, was slightly misguided.

It's a start, at least.

[Albert Doyle]

I guess what Jim is missing is the fact once you calculate the strange death rate of JFK assassination witnesses into the formula, and include that MPM was most-likely under surveillance with the intruders, the chances that the jogging path incident was a random event goes way down according to probability. The canal path would have been a place where intel monitoring of habits would have placed a good opportunity for a plausibly-deniable death. God knows what the background was on Crump or where they would have had a chance to program him? So, yes, there is a possibility this was a random act and coincidence. But it would be the exception in the Kennedy case.

Even if it was random, however, that doesn't mean that intel wasn't interested in MPM or monitoring her. We all know the JFK case was a wicked conspiracy so therefore intel could have been shocked by the murder and reacted in haste. That would explain many of the events Janney labels as suspicious. Intel was covering all the bases in the assassination. Even if MPM was simply a voice with enough public credibility in relation to JFK to be a danger for potentially speaking out against the official story that would be enough to be a covert person of interest. For God's sake we know the extreme level of reaction the conspirators were applying. If this is so MPM was a danger because she was close in enough to both the presidency and CIA establishment to be a potential witness to what was going-on while having no bureaucratic restriction to keep her from talking. Jim likes to reduce her to a single mom but the truth is she was a regular political dinner party attendee whose skirt brushed directly against the political currents running through the most powerful players. Very similar to Dorothy Kilgallen in a way. Kilgallen didn't need to ingest the entire Warren Report. She just needed to have the right suspicions and confront the right player at the right time to get the full gist. In my mind the right ingredients and modus operandi are all there too prominently to be ignored.


And, geesh, I'd hate to be the person trying to argue that Sirhan and Chapman weren't hypno-programmed.

[Seamus Coogan]

1) I don't accept I'll get a retraction or an apology from CD lol. But here's the reality mate. My piece on Hankey was the very first Bush article on CTKA. Further, that Jim never coaxed me to write anything on him. THAT'S A FACT! Jim's explained this point countless times on BOR and on the EF. Jim and I have also had some big disagreements lol. Jim doesn't take everything I suggest or write either. Sure I have Jim's back but we all have our mates don't we? Help if I am such a dupe I wouldn't have taken him to task for the EF call would I? Further, we all have our research totems GME was yours and Jim is mine. You're also someone whose opinions I value. Though you choose to take a my way or the high way attitude towards it all. I think our passions for our mentors work is about the same as well, this can be for good or ill.

Anyhow, the sad thing is you've obviously never read anything of mine at CTKA to the best of my knowledge. The only thing you have read is the Diana stuff. Jim had nothing at all to do with that by the way.

This leads to another matter here. While I do my best to follow you, there is nothing the other way. While no one in their right mind would doubt your long years of activism on the case. I've Googled and Yahoo'd I've even asked where I can get more of your stuff. But outside one or two pieces there is really nothing, bar in house forum stuff to be frank. Surely after all this time CD and all these years, there really should be a far more substantial amount of ones own written and published stuff outside of your forums. There isn't by any stretch...in fact its the opposite really isn't it? Lets be honest hence this is kinda sad. If people like yourself and others were writing some nuts and bolts reviews or putting in some of their own shop floor research or opinions, I think research would be all the better for it...even if you I or Jim would knock heads from time to time.

In saying all this I appreciate that it's very, very hard to actually get stuff out anymore. Very few JFK websites offer fresh articles nowadays. CTKA funnily enough, would welcome any extensions to say the MPM issue from yourself. The cooool post a few days back placing Meyer inside a framework was for the most part bloody intriguing. It'd be good to see that kind of thing expanded upon. Why? Well I'll get to that soon.

2) As for Mr Bush that's another shame. I assumed from you're backing myself up over Fetzers bollocks reply to my Hankey piece that you had no time for his take (at they very least) on the GWB angle. Your coming to my assistance publicly on that thread was a fantasy I and a whole bunch of people here conjured up. Thanks for clearing up the fact you believe GWB could have been involved. I bare no malice lol.

3) Jim was wrong in his comparison with the Ed Forum. Nonetheless CD I feel there is no false paradigm Jim is offering, or allowing himself to get sucked into here. Janney's the individual that if this was a 'steel cage match' would be the sort of pulp, you regularly turn some poor souls into. I really don't think picking a side here is thus making a false choice. Though I want to make it clear, as I have stated before, a better alternative to Janney I.E That's someone like you kind sir, would help take the debate away from any potential entrapment. You of course may disagree, but I think CD you kick Janney's ass? How dare I say that! Boy that's a really low blow what an asshole I am for suggesting such blasphemy? By not engaging more fully, you are creating a paradigm (at least in you're own mind) that's untested and potentially unfair. Would Jim reach some form of compromise with Janney? I severely doubt it. Would Jim and you (with all due respect shown to each other) give people two possible alternate points that no one really loses out on? I think the answer to that between your two big brains is a unanimous 'yes! '

This isn't about me and my take. Nor about my crap 4:AM in the morning grammar. In reality it's about you. The offer is on the table anyhow, your presence is sorely missed in the wider debate.

[Dawn Meredith]

1) I don't accept I'll get a retraction or an apology from CD lol. But here's the reality mate. My piece on Hankey was the very first Bush article on CTKA. Further, that Jim never coaxed me to write anything on him. THAT'S A FACT! Jim's explained this point countless times on BOR and on the EF. Jim and I have also had some big disagreements lol. Jim doesn't take everything I suggest or write either. Sure I have Jim's back but we all have our mates don't we? Help if I am such a dupe I wouldn't have taken him to task for the EF call would I? Further, we all have our research totems GME was yours and Jim is mine. You are also someone whose opinions I value. Though you choose to take a my way or the high way attitude towards it all. I think our passions for out mentors work is about the same as well, this can be for good or ill.

Anyhow, the sad thing is you've obviously never read anything of mine at CTKA to the best of my knowledge. The only thing you have read is the Diana stuff. Jim had nothing at all to do with that by the way.

This leads to another matter here. While I do my best to follow you, there is nothing the other way. While no one in their right mind would doubt you're long years of activism on the case. I've Googled and Yahoo'd I've even asked where I can get more of you're stuff. But outside one or two pieces there is really nothing, bar in house forum slurs to be frank. Surely after all this time CD and all these years, there really should be a far more substantial amount of you're own written and published stuff outside of your forums. There isn't by any stretch...in fact its the opposite really isn't it? Lets be honest hence this is kinda sad. If people like yourself and others were writing some nuts and bolts reviews or putting in some of you're own shop floor research or opinions, I think research would be all the better for it...even if you I or Jim would knock heads from time to time.

In saying all this I appreciate that it's very, very hard to actually get stuff out anymore. Very few JFK websites offer fresh articles nowadays. CTKA funnily enough, would welcome any extensions to say the MPM issue from yourself. You're post a few days back placing Meyer inside you're framework was for the most part bloody intriguing. It'd be good to see that kind of thing expanded upon. Why? Well I'll get to that soon.

2) As for Mr Bush that's another shame. I assumed from you're backing myself up over Fetzers bollocks reply to my Hankey piece that you had no time for his take (at they very least) on the GWB angle. You're coming to my assistance publicly on that thread was a fantasy I and a whole bunch of people here conjured up. Thanks for clearing up the fact you believe GWB could have been involved. I bare no malice lol.

3) Jim was wrong in his comparison with the Ed Forum. Nonetheless CD I feel there is no false paradigm Jim is offering, or allowing himself to get sucked into here. Janney's the individual that if this was a 'steel cage match' would be the sort of pulp, you regularly turn some poor souls into. I really don't think picking a side here is thus making a false choice. Though I want to make it clear, as I have stated before, a better alternative to Janney I.E That's someone like you kind sir, would help take the debate away from any potential entrapment. You of course may disagree, but I think CD you kick Janney's ass? How dare I say that! Boy that's a really low blow what an asshole I am for suggesting such blasphemy? By not engaging more fully, you are creating a paradigm (at least in you're own mind) that's untested and potentially unfair. Would Jim reach some form of compromise with Janney? I severely doubt it. Would Jim and you (with all due respect shown to each other) give people two possible alternate points that no one really loses out on? I think the answer to that between you're two big brains is a unanimous 'yes! '

This isn't about me and my take. Nor about my crap 4:AM in the morning grammar. In reality it's about you. The offer is on the table anyhow, you're presence is sorely missed in the wider debate.

Seamus: God mate will you please do me a favor. Every time you type "you're" when it should be "your" will you just stop and read back to see if you are intending to say "you are" as that is what "you're" is. You made that error all over the above piece and it is so annoying that I cannot read it for content. I don't give a fuck if it is 4 am. Go to bed. Don't post. But how on earth can you consider yourself a writer when you make third grade errors over and over and over? It's an embarrassment to yourself and to DPF.

I won't post this again, as I just made a post about this about a month ago. But it simply drives me nuts.

Dawn

[Seamus Coogan]

How on earth I am disgrace to the forum I really don't know. But I can certainly redo the post. I guess this why you never read the posts I made about John Hankey and JFK junior ahhhhhh thats right. I guess it was because of the spelling yes thats it. I have also completely retratced the comments concerning 'slurs' on forums. That is totally not true on CD's behalf, I've enjoyed a hell of a lot the wisdom as tough as it gets.

[Dawn Meredith]

How on earth I am disgrace to the forum I really don't know. But I can certainly redo the post. I guess this why you never read the posts I made about John Hankey and JFK junior ahhhhhh thats right. I guess it was because of the spelling yes thats it.

Seamus: I have read all of your posts. :banghead:

[Seamus Coogan]

Dawn lass I have people who like me enough to edit myself when I publish lol.

I hasten to add if indeed you read all my posts. How do you explain the Hankey/JFK Jr posts? Remember the ones I had to repeatedly tell you about that I had not written anything on JFK Jr nor Hankey's take on it?

Let's not bring back bad memories for you, nor get petty.

This whole thing is bigger than you and I.

If CD is really concerned about false paradigms in discussions such as the Meyer case. It would be great to see him construct an essay/s in which he could expand on potential implications of MPM's death. Writings I am sure CTKA would be more than willing to put up on the site. We may differ to him on occasion but that's how much esteem CD observations are held in. That's the kind of bloke one can create a cool paradigm with. I mean check out the hilarious yet informative "Hemming does Dallas" I advise anybody here who hasn't to do so.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...eId=222386

Thus it's not just MPM there's a whole heap of stuff I know I'd pay money to see CD discuss or expand upon outside of DPF. I mean where the hell is 'Autumn too Long?' Did the ARRB have an impact on the direction of the novel? Why has CD decided to go for novelizations and screenplays about say Diana rather than old style conventional research? Did he get bored? In many ways this sort of format is more challenging than conventional analysis, in particularly if one has the integrity of a real researcher. Simply put you need to be informative, but you also have to please an audience. Often that means having to dumb it down. Oh yes and as complex as JFK got, Stone had to dumb stuff down, not only that cut out stuff he really liked.

In our little bubbles we forget that not that many people really read the forums. Sad but true people, its pretty much JFK in house. Do an internet search there's way, way, way more on say Phil Nelson or Jim Fetzer than CD or GME. Now, I don't know about anyone else but that for me is a huge problem. Because invariably, it means that the average punter (the most important person in all this) is increasingly unlikely to encounter CD's stuff. That's a very real problem and it's out of all proportion to CD's efforts over the years.