MARY'S MOSAIC: A litmus test of JFK research integrity

[Jim DiEugenio]

I don't "bash" books.

I never have, and I never will.

I once talked about this on BOR. That is how I learned what the art of criticism was really about. That is finding value in someone's work even if the overall product is not good, and mentioning weaknesses even if something is really good. But more importantly, showing why that is the case. In other words, explaining why something is good or why its not. And doing it in an understandable and demonstrable way, with comparisons to other works in that particular field.

When I reviewed the Douglass book, I explained in depth what I thought was good about it. And I mentioned at the end, however briefly, some of the problems with it.

In my review of Horne, I went into depth what I thought was good about it--his x ray analysis, his photo analysis of the brain--and what I thought the problems were.

(It turns out, there were even more problems with it than I thought. And I will be addressing this.)

With Janney, I was very specific about what I thought was wrong with the book. First, it was very derivative--relying on the work of others, even when that work was not really reliable. For example, Tim Leary, and Damore, and, if you can comprehend it, Gregory Douglass. Second, the portraits he drew of the main personages were so skewed as to be unsupportable. And they were skewed in a way to serve an agenda. There simply is no evidence in the record to make MM any kind of foreign policy maven. Janney then doubles down on this by turning JFK into a Horowitz/Collier empty playboy, who has no views of his own on the issue. When in fact, that is simply and completely false. Perhaps no president since WW 2 was as educated and sophisticated about foreign affairs as Kennedy was when he entered the White House. Or else, he would not have done what he did in 1961 BEFORE the Missile Crisis.

And I was not just whistling in the dark about this. Because in my book I am very specific about what JFK did in 1961 that was at odds with the Cold War stasis. Its a difference I had with Douglass also, and I briefly mentioned it there in my review of his book.

So therefore, this idea that Kennedy needed to be wised up by this aspiring painter, is in my view, simply not reflected in the factual record. Just like its not in the record about how she was a budding Sylvia Meagher also about the WC.

When one questions an author's main suppositions--and those two are his main suppositions--and one can back it up with evidence, as I did, that is not "bashing". It is bringing one's experience and knowledge forth in trying to elucidate--either positively or negatively-- the work at hand. To me that is what criticism is really supposed to be. Its helping the reader see something in the work that he could not see on his own. If you don't like it, fine. But what I wrote was factual and footnoted. Plus I actually interviewed and consulted books to further back up what I said.

And I have to say, Tom Scully at Spartacus did some really good work on this also. And it was really gutsy for him to do so. Because, as everyone knows, Simkin was a dyed in the wool Leaeryite and Janneyite from the get go on this. I mean, at one time, they both actually backed up and advocated for--its hard for me to type this name--the late David Heymann! When Lisa Pease exposed the deceased fabricator for what he was, they both backed off of him.

BTW, Scully was the only mod there who tried to enforce rules also. It was Tom who began to move against (among others) Rago. No one else. And if it was not for Tom, Rago--or whoever he was--might still be there. Even after it was exposed that he used a false name. Which you are not supposed to do. But apparently, that was OK with Simkin --and everyone else there..Even though it was breaking a rule.

I would like to know why Tom is gone. Because in addition to being the best mod, he was an interesting poster. He was good at tracking down these hidden relations among the Power Elite. The work he did on the relationship between Allen Dulles and Priscilla Johnson was good. I mean no one ever knew about that before.

[Albert Doyle]

Thanks CHarles.

And BTW, you may be right about whoever "Albert Doyle" is.

Because he doesn't even understand Janney's pastiche.

Or he would not have written what he just did.

See, according to Janney, Crump did not have to be MK/Ultra'd at all. Since he was completely innocent.

I don't know how one can validate an hypothesis, even one as wild as Janney's, if you don't understand it.

You're not answering the point Mr D. It is saying that your analysis of the flaws in Janney is correct however you failed to account for the fact there very possibly could be an MK-ULTRA explanation safely existing within the known facts. I don't think you are recognizing that the truth could be beyond the conclusions you reached. Frankly Mr D, I'm not sure who's doing the misunderstanding here. You could be causing a dismissal of the notion that CIA killed Meyer which could be a horrible injustice and against the purpose of JFK research.

[Charles Drago]

You're not answering the point Mr D. It is saying that your analysis of the flaws in Janney is correct however you failed to account for the fact there very possibly could be an MK-ULTRA explanation safely existing within the known facts. I don't think you are recognizing that the truth could be beyond the conclusions you reached. Frankly Mr D, I'm not sure who's doing the misunderstanding here. You could be causing a dismissal of the notion that CIA killed Meyer which could be a horrible injustice and against the purpose of JFK research.

How much longer is this "Albert Doyle" madness going to be tolerated here?

Read again the "Doyle" paragraph above.

Got it?

Now compare it to these two samples of "Doyle's" writing:

"Which is why I think people should press DiEugenio and others more on which ignoring and silence they pick and choose."

AND

"This can't be answered with Orwellian lording if any objective degree of Deep Political analysis is going to be upheld."

None of this gets the writers out of middle school English, yet the inconsistencies are painfully obvious.

With each and every post it makes, the "Albert Doyle" entity is furthering the enemy's goals.

One of the goals of the operators of "Doyle" provocation, by the way, is to pit the owners of DPF against each other by exacerbating the friction caused by our differences of opinion regarding the true nature of "Doyle."

Let me offer them (the operators, that is), a bit of heartfelt advice:

Give it up, assholes.

We, the owners of DPF at times may not see eye to eye. But we forever stand shoulder to shoulder.

Fuck off, "Albert Doyle."

[Peter Lemkin]

I don't "bash" books.

I never have, and I never will.

I once talked about this on BOR. That is how I learned what the art of criticism was really about. That is finding value in someone's work even if the overall product is not good, and mentioning weaknesses even if something is really good. But more importantly, showing why that is the case. In other words, explaining why something is good or why its not. And doing it in an understandable and demonstrable way, with comparisons to other works in that particular field.

When I reviewed the Douglass book, I explained in depth what I thought was good about it. And I mentioned at the end, however briefly, some of the problems with it.

In my review of Horne, I went into depth what I thought was good about it--his x ray analysis, his photo analysis of the brain--and what I thought the problems were.

(It turns out, there were even more problems with it than I thought. And I will be addressing this.)

With Janney, I was very specific about what I thought was wrong with the book. First, it was very derivative--relying on the work of others, even when that work was not really reliable. For example, Tim Leary, and Damore, and, if you can comprehend it, Gregory Douglass. Second, the portraits he drew of the main personages were so skewed as to be unsupportable. And they were skewed in a way to serve an agenda. There simply is no evidence in the record to make MM any kind of foreign policy maven. Janney then doubles down on this by turning JFK into a Horowitz/Collier empty playboy, who has no views of his own on the issue. When in fact, that is simply and completely false. Perhaps no president since WW 2 was as educated and sophisticated about foreign affairs as Kennedy was when he entered the White House. Or else, he would not have done what he did in 1961 BEFORE the Missile Crisis.

And I was not just whistling in the dark about this. Because in my book I am very specific about what JFK did in 1961 that was at odds with the Cold War stasis. Its a difference I had with Douglass also, and I briefly mentioned it there in my review of his book.

So therefore, this idea that Kennedy needed to be wised up by this aspiring painter, is in my view, simply not reflected in the factual record. Just like its not in the record about how she was a budding Sylvia Meagher also about the WC.

When one questions an author's main suppositions--and those two are his main suppositions--and one can back it up with evidence, as I did, that is not "bashing". It is bringing one's experience and knowledge forth in trying to elucidate--either positively or negatively-- the work at hand. To me that is what criticism is really supposed to be. Its helping the reader see something in the work that he could not see on his own. If you don't like it, fine. But what I wrote was factual and footnoted. Plus I actually interviewed and consulted books to further back up what I said.

And I have to say, Tom Scully at Spartacus did some really good work on this also. And it was really gutsy for him to do so. Because, as everyone knows, Simkin was a dyed in the wool Leaeryite and Janneyite from the get go on this. I mean, at one time, they both actually backed up and advocated for--its hard for me to type this name--the late David Heymann! When Lisa Pease exposed the deceased fabricator for what he was, they both backed off of him.

BTW, Scully was the only mod there who tried to enforce rules also. It was Tom who began to move against (among others) Rago. No one else. And if it was not for Tom, Rago--or whoever he was--might still be there. Even after it was exposed that he used a false name. Which you are not supposed to do. But apparently, that was OK with Simkin --and everyone else there..Even though it was breaking a rule.

I would like to know why Tom is gone. Because in addition to being the best mod, he was an interesting poster. He was good at tracking down these hidden relations among the Power Elite. The work he did on the relationship between Allen Dulles and Priscilla Johnson was good. I mean no one ever knew about that before.

Jim, You are very well versed on the JFK assassination - and I agree with you on most things. On MPM and Janney's book I do NOT. I know from painful experience that despite your 'renown' and 'expertise' you are quick to make decision [thumbs up/thumbs down], sometimes all too quickly. I remember very well when you, I and other were meeting regularly at the Rose Cafe in Venice, CA forming a nascent group....and I pledged a huge sum of money [which I then had - had not yet been taken away by the three letter agencies] and sweat and tears to help your groups efforts...but was met by you and one other person at LAX while I was transferring flights to Dallas - and was accused in the harshest of tones as being a infiltrator in 'your' midst. From that day on, while so many others lauded you, I always kept my peace. You realized at some point you were wrong about me, but never said 'sorry' - privately nor publicly. I have a long memory. If this seems like doing one's dirty linen in public, so be it...it is not my dirty linens.

Now, on Janney, and on MPM, I think you are way WAY off base and time will show you are. Your were spot on on Begliosi/Belegosi and so many other things....but infallible you are not [nor am I]. Again, you are very knowledgeable about the events of Dallas, a good writer, a prolific writer...but....you BASHED Janney and his research....and I think you are wrong. If you want to get to brass tacks, we can......Albarelli, another person I think does excellent research and will have a dynamite book out on new aspects of Dallas in TWO weeks [according to Amazon] was interacting with Janney. Janney even convicted his OWN father in the plot. Bradlee and Angleton and others he names were involved, clearly, IMO. The official bullshit version of MPM murder was [as with all other political assassinations] lies, disinformation and mis-direction. You are quick to form an 'idee fixe' and it is usually never changed. Lucky for you, you usually get it right. On MPM and Janney [and me in the past] you got it all wrong.

Sincerely,

[Phil Dragoo]

Timothy Leary. Really? And, Damore, defamer of Edward.

Depiction of Mary as Sylvia--points for Jim DiEugenio (hey, I could be Mr. D) for clarity via simile.

Again, we are being spoon fed Mary by the son of a member of Hunt's agency, and Hunt died deflecting to a plot including Cord.

Hunt, forger of cables.

Janney has been reviewed.

And as for Janney's thesis Mary led John

John was in Vietnam in 1951 conferring with Gullion

The premise of Unspeakable is that he was surrounded by enemies

See also Battling Wall Street

In his first year it was classic irresistible force meets immovable object

In his third year. . .

Arguments contrary to the review of Janney are speculative in nature

In fact, one contrarian is a consortium

[Jim DiEugenio]

Peter:

Can we stick to the topic? The whole thing about decades previous does not really impact on Janney and his book.

As per an idee fix, I was on the Mary Meyer thing for over a decade previous to Janney's book being published. You can read my essay on the subject in The Assassinations.

Also, I was privy to his outline on the book. That is how I know about his talks with Heymann. Which, in my view, there is simply no excuse for.

And Peter, I know all about Albarelli and Janney also. Including some private conversations someone had with Hank in which he was not at all kind about Janney's work.

And also, Tom S pretty much took care of the whole CIA safehouse address that supposedly Janney confirmed with his CIA sources. One has to always be careful about such "confirmation", because one never knows if one is being played.

Now, I have allowed in the past for the MM murder being unsolved. ALthough with what has come out about Crump of late (and to a lesser extent Roundtree) that is harder to support now.

But I won't give any support to the scenario outlined by Janney. I mean, "Albert Doyle" cannot even keep it straight. The use of Douglas, Leary, Damore, Collier /Horowitz, that is not my idea of resarch. Not in this day and age.

But to each his own.

ANd BTW, when did I ever claim I was infallible? And, I have never changed my mind on anything? Peter, I used to think that JG was off base in saying Vietnam was a reason for Kennedy's assassination. I have no problem today admitting I was wrong. That is just one instance. I could easily name two more.

But I don't want to detract from my image of "infallibility".

[Charles Drago]

Peter:

Can we stick to the topic? The whole thing about decades previous does not really impact on Janney and his book.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Charles, here's another adage:

Those who weren't there don't know what happened.

[Charles Drago]

Charles, here's another adage:

Those who weren't there don't know what happened.

I wasn't commenting on the accuracy -- or lack thereof -- of Peter's narrative, but rather on the wisdom -- or lack thereof -- of your "forget the past, nothing to see there" admonition.

As for your statement quoted above: I wasn't in Dealey Plaza at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63, but I damn well know what happened then and there.

[Jim DiEugenio]

I wasn't saying forget the past.

I was saying that I did not understand how that issue affected Lisa's or my critique of Janney's book.

Lisa's critique was done independent of mine. I did not see it until she was done.