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

[Jim DiEugenio]

[URL="http://www.ctka.net/reviews/Pease_Janney_Mary's_Mosaic.html"]



http://www.ctka.net/reviews/Pease_Janney...osaic.html[/URL]

I didn't want to put Lisa's wonderful critique in that other thread since that was like "Waiting for Godot" over there. A lot of insinuation and finger pointing and anticipation before the fact. So the link is above.

Well here is the real thing and she does a nice job on this farceur Janney.

But this is only the half of it. This guy is such an illusionist it takes two installments to expose all of his cheap tricks. Suffice it to say I am working on part 2 right now.

I really think this is the worst book since Ultimate Sacrifice. And that is saying something.

[Seamus Coogan]

[URL="http://www.ctka.net/reviews/Pease_Janney_Mary's_Mosaic.html"]



http://www.ctka.net/reviews/Pease_Janney...osaic.html[/URL]

I didn't want to put Lisa's wonderful critique in that other thread since that was like "Waiting for Godot" over there. A lot of insinuation and finger pointing and anticipation before the fact. So the link is above.

Well here is the real thing and she does a nice job on this farceur Janney.

But this is only the half of it. This guy is such an illusionist it takes two installments to expose all of his cheap tricks. Suffice it to say I am working on part 2 right now.

I really think this is the worst book since Ultimate Sacrifice. And that is saying something.

Look out chief there's a few Janney fans around here. This is much welcome Cool-Aid.

[Jim DiEugenio]

A few Janney fans??

What? Hard to believe. This guy's book is as phony as a 3 dollar bill. Or to put it another way, its as fake as Ultimate Sacrifice.

And it begins in the first chapter.

But like I said Lisa can only get so much of this in one installment. I am working on part 2. It takes that many pages to expose all the cheap tricks in this book.

These are precisely the kind of books we don't need heading into next year. Nothing but a useless and unfounded diversion.

[Seamus Coogan]

A few Janney fans??

What? Hard to believe. This guy's book is as phony as a 3 dollar bill. Or to put it another way, its as fake as Ultimate Sacrifice.

And it begins in the first chapter.

But like I said Lisa can only get so much of this in one installment. I am working on part 2. It takes that many pages to expose all the cheap tricks in this book.

These are precisely the kind of books we don't need heading into next year. Nothing but a useless and unfounded diversion.

I'm just grateful for the cavalry lol.

[Jim DiEugenio]

There's more coming.

I actually thought that although Lisa's essay was her usual sharp and informed self, she was a little soft on him.

Do you know what this guy does in his portrait of the young JFK?

He actually uses the Collier and Horowitz book. Now that is bad enough. But yet, it now gets worse.

He actually pulls a quote to show how shallow and self centered he was, and what an empty playboy he was at heart. Do you know who that person is that he uses to tell us this?

Priscilla Johnson.

So in other words, in Janney's world, you cannot trust the CIA and Washington Post about Mary Meyer.

But you can trust them about John Kennedy. Its all part of the overall scheme (scam) of the book which is very clear if you understand what he is up to. That is if you have done your homework on this anti-Kennedy genre. Which I have. So I understood it fairly early.

And man, Gregory Douglass? A proven liar and forger. How low can you go? In this case, pretty low.

[Seamus Coogan]

There's more coming.

I actually thought that although Lisa's essay was her usual sharp and informed self, she was a little soft on him.

Do you know what this guy does in his portrait of the young JFK?

He actually uses the Collier and Horowitz book. Now that is bad enough. But yet, it now gets worse.

He actually pulls a quote to show how shallow and self centered he was, and what an empty playboy he was at heart. Do you know who that person is that he uses to tell us this?

Priscilla Johnson.

So in other words, in Janney's world, you cannot trust the CIA and Washington Post about Mary Meyer.

But you can trust them about John Kennedy. Its all part of the overall scheme (scam) of the book which is very clear if you understand what he is up to. That is if you have done your homework on this anti-Kennedy genre. Which I have. So I understood it fairly early.

And man, Gregory Douglass? A proven liar and forger. How low can you go? In this case, pretty low.

Douglas and Priscilla Johnson, Horowitz and Collier. That's an impressive list of sources to avoid!

[Charles Drago]

Will you two just get a room?

[Seamus Coogan]

Will you two just get a room?

Not unless you join us CD. Its a big room! Oh yesh! I came across an old comment you made vis a vis the Israeli's killed JFK bollock's. It was the hilarious tune "How long has it Ben Gurion". God it's over a year later and I still can't get the tune or the lyrics outta my head. Not to mention the stains outta my pants. Brilliant mate!

[Albert Doyle]

While all true, I have trouble dismissing the actual circumstances of the murder itself. To be honest I think it's a mistake to dismiss the possibility of CIA involvement in the murder knowing what we know about their methods vis a vis hypnotic assassination etc. Yes, a chain of uncredibility can be established by tracing Janney's sources and methods but that doesn't mean that the actual murder itself wasn't a covert event. When analyzing the description of the witnessing it is still well within CIA capability for covert murder. For example OJ Simpson's cut hand could be used to indict him in an identical way, but we now know there was much more to it than that. Mark David Chapman was pretty friggin guilty and right out front, however we know there was much more to it than that.

If Crump's zipper was unzipped does that mean he was going to rape her in the middle of the canal path? Kind of an unprivate place in my opinion. I think it is a mistake to mix unsound research with conclusions of unsound theories. If you analyze CIA covert murder practices it is still possible Crump shot Mary Meyer but was acting for others. To me hasty rejection of covert murder based on critical methodology is almost as bad as unsound conclusions from bad sources and research.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Albert:

C'mon. Did you read Lisa's article?

They somehow matched his clothes THAT MORNING!

What, did they have a guy standing outside of Penney's with a walkie talkie? Getting the approximate size and then going in to buy the stuff?

And then what about the problem of Crump's race? Why would you have someone white killing Mary when Crump is black? So you have an exquisite, commando raid a la the Mossad, but you forgot that key point. Sort of like this: "Oh, get these clothes since he has this stuff on." Five minutes later. "Oh shit, he's black!"

So what does the farceur Janney now do? Realizing he has a problem, he now proposes two--not one--possible solutions. Michael Jackson like, the CIA can alter skin pigmentation (apparently instantaneously.) Or there is a stand in who is black on the scene. I am not kidding. See for yourself on pages 332-35. Except for the latter, as Lisa points out in her essay, Janney has to cheat in his arithmetic.

Janney is stuck with the white guy Mitchell. So therefore he cannot be logical with his own assumptions. Namely, if this really was a precision commando team, they would have imported someone who was black that morning.

Even on its own terms, which I do not accept at all, its all a flight of fantasy.

But its even worse than that, because as I am going to show, there was no reason for the CIA to do this to her. Janney does not prove with any credible evidence that Mary Meyer A.) Was really guiding JFK to his world wide detente scheme, or B.) Had become a critic of the Warren Commission the equivalent of say Vincent Salandria. Concerning the latter, the report was issued on 9/28, she was killed about two weeks later. There are over 6, 000 footnotes in the report. Almost all of them are to the volumes. Yet, Mary Meyer, WITHOUT THE VOLUMES AT HAND, was breaking down the WR?

Give me a break. It took months for Salandria to do that.

I mean did anyone actually read this book? Or the footnotes?