Take a look at the title of the topic here and we will see that we are drifting away from that.
My main criticism is that independent researcher/investigators who support the official story are praised and heralded as truth bringers and setting the record straight. At best some of their ideas are inconclusive from what I see. Those who question the official story are ridiculed and looked upon as heretics or even less. There is something twisted about this. Those who do not agree demonstrate my point. I'm done with this thread and will return with more specific questions.
I started a sincere thread ..'Have you ever been to Dealey Plaza?' and see who came along and hijacked and muddled it up with silly unrelated videos ...the usual suspects.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1816.msg52093.html#msg52093
Jerry, all of my research results are conclusive, I quickly amend any claim I cannot defend against any argument of more solid, verifiable fact,
so, why not consider the reaction of members of the "CT community" with more "fans" than I happen to have, to newly discovered facts of my independent research results. I present them rapidly, upon confirmation of them, ....believe it or not, because I have thin hope of stimulating collaboration of other independent researchers...such as, Mr. Parnell! I welcome anyone I can learn something new from, (and more reliable than what I believe)... John Armstrong, if he offered something that is new to me and stands up to fact checking.
I reserve scorn only for those who "shoot the messenger" when they disagree with what I present but, as "a matter of fact" have no other option, aside from admitting the facts go against what they have published or otherwise presented. Not even going to post examples of the ridicule I routinely receive (from posters I've rarely learned anything new from) for the "offense" of discovering new facts using leads often gleaned from wedding announcements and obituaries.
Is your opinion of the research results and analysis presented by Mr. Parnell, actually beneficial to you, or to anyone?
Would I experience any worse if I were inaccurate or untruthful? I really cannot see how!
Why does anyone bother, considering the "appreciation" I have experienced in response,
to seek and learn the truth and then to present it publicly? Can you not even consider why I take your attitude to be, "I have other priorities I hold higher than the verifiabe facts." Can you actually provide even one reasonable reason for punishing those few who present "unappreciated," but otherwise newly discovered, verifiable facts, except to make examples of such messengers in the hope any others will not come forward with anything else uncomfortable to you, but verifiably true?
IOW, where is your similar indignation with regard to those who you consider to be, "on your side," a few of whom I have named, below?I was on a road trip in May
and missed posting in this thread during its brief but busy period of activity. Unlike the responses of CTs who predictably react to facts I discover that threaten or dismantle a particular belief or assumption, I don't regard Mr. Parnell as someone who "shoots the messenger". IOW, Parnell does not seem an angry hypocrite, a purported "truth teller" who is a truth "slayer" with the full support or at least no objections whatsoever, from his "fans".
In fact, these truth "slayers" are rewarded, vs exacting a "price" from me in reaction to my impertinence. "How dare that Scully confront me with new facts!"
My "sin" was having the temerity to identify and locate the "arch villain" of Janney's book; "Lt. William Mitchell," Crump trial "witness" allegedly "missing" since his 1965 trial testimony. Janney accused Mitchell of assassinating Mary Meyer on behalf of the CIA,
and almost everyone loves BS like that, actual truth not withstanding!Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, ...
https://books.google.com › books
Peter Janney - 2016 - History
... Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace: Third Edition Peter Janney ... written by a DiEugenio protégé whose name, I discovered, was Tom Scully, but ...
In 2012,
Douglas Horne accuses me of working, "for the agency."https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RWKKPDXQXFKPD/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1510708928In second page of comments:
Ralph Yates 5 years agoReport abuse
Fess up Rational Voice. Janney's got the right man. Is it likely an author could openly accuse an emeritus college professor from the University of California of murdering Mary Pinchot Meyer in writing in a book and not have any reaction what so ever? Look at what we are talking about here. A professor of high stature being openly accused of being a CIA agent who murdered Kennedy's mistress in order to cover-up CIA's murder of president Kennedy. Is it likely such a person would react with zero response in that situation if they were falsely accused? This is a serious scandal and perfect opportunity for the media to destroy a nutty conspiracy theorist on the 50th anniversary. Why haven't they?
He's got the right man.
Douglas 7 years ago
... Are you a third party surrogate (or a direct employee) working for the USG whose mission here is to attempt to discredit the confession of a hit-man?....Your citations seem to me like the kind of detailed biographical information that would be maintained by the same "outfit" that would have maintained Mitchell's operational file at the Agency. Who the hell else would know these things? What ordinary reader would have the ability to look up and find the citations you so conveniently found?.....Why don't you "get real" and tell us who you are, and how you found your citations? What tools did you use? Did someone lead you to them? Did someone provide them to you? Your postings have the odor to me of a disinformation/spin operation, designed to cast doubt, and to make readers forget the basic fact that a "William L. Mitchell" confessed to murdering Mary Meyer for the CIA, to author Leo Damore. Attorney Jimmy Smith's notes of his phone call with Leo Damore prove that.....
HP Albarelli, Jr. posting on the Ed Forum, in reaction to my research...: (
Note the date, vs. Simkin, on June 9, 2013...)
Posted May 29, 2013
My options are laid out here? I don't even know who the hell Tom is? or what his agenda is... he seems to have a hard on for Peter (Janney) and I have no interest in attacking a serious researcher...
Jim: I don't need you to set yourself up as some sort of fixer here; what Peter reported in his book about our conversatiopn is accurate; as to the rest of his book I don't know because as I said yesterday
I have not read it. [My source knew Mr. Mitchell quite well and indeed still communicates and occasionally visits with him; that I passed this on to peter was entirely appropriate.} There is far more to the Mary M. story than has been released thus far. I expect that will come out soon. If Tom has info he should it out in the proper places. [Few read this forum.]
You didn't reply on my comments on what you know and don't know about my sources, Jim. Peter did not violate my trust. I spoke to him freely and told him all that I knew, with a few exceptions regarding names and places
of residence. He can verify this.
I provided my e-mial above; it's hankalbarelli@mac.com. Anyone here or elsewhere can write to me about anythingh of legitimate interest. Again, I don't engage here because I don't find it particularly useful and it frankly takes too much time.
A Secret Order: Investigating the High Strangeness and …
H. Albarelli, Jr. – 2013 –
(Mexico City hosted the Summer Olympics in 1968. See more on Proctor and McNutt in Notes on this chapter.) Several seasoned assassination researchers, including John Simkin and Tom Scully of the JFK Education Forum, discovered that Proctor practiced law in New York with Paul Vories McNutt. …
Almost every forum member who posted in reaction to Simkin punishing a truth teller was supportive of the "punishment".
Several who posted in objection, including forum administrator Gary Loughran, were also summarily banned!
John Simkin - Posted June 9, 2013
...Last week I received an email from Hank Albarelli Jr. about a thread about his book, "A Secret Order"
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19016
I had not read the thread before and would have assumed it would have been dealt with by the moderators. In fact, the main offender was one of the moderators, Tom Scully, where he breaks the Forum rules by calling Albarelli a xxxx.
Hank argues:
The recent posts and actions of James DiEugenio and one Tom Scully are accomplishing nothing but the gross discrediting, and perhaps destruction, of the forum. ....
I find I am in complete agreement with Hank’s comments and have decided to delete Jim DiEugenio and Tom Scully membership. This is a start of a new regime at the Forum. If any other member makes abusive comments about a fellow member, their membership will also be deleted. If anyone tries to subvert this measure by posting comments of banned members, they will also be removed from the forum.
This is the last chance for the JFK Forum. If this new approach does not work, the whole forum will be removed.
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted June 16, 2013
I haven’t missed the point, Evan; I believe you may have missed mine...
...Because authors were invited by John, he no doubt hoped that they’d be treated with civility by the Forum membership. Contrary to the analogy offered, I don’t think this is John’s living room, but his classroom. He has invited visiting lecturers, through whom we might benefit by learning more, and they might benefit by selling some books.
Unfortunately for some of those authors, the membership here proved to be as well versed - or more so - than the authors who presume to educate us. Fireworks is predictably inevitable, particularly if authors expected deference rather than civility. Haughtiness ensues, due to wounded pride. But whom should we fault for this? The authors, whose case has not been made beyond a reasonable doubt? Or the members who point out that failing on the authors’ part?
This is multiply true in the case of Peter Janney’s book. John Simkin not only invited Peter here, but I believe provided him with some material aid in preparing his book (please correct me if I’m wrong on this), and subscribes to the book’s central premise that CIA murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. (As it happens, I am inclined to concur with that assertion. That does not require me - or anyone - to accept Janney’s scenario for the crime if compelling evidence is not presented.)
Both the ousted members found reasonable fault with Janney’s book and demonstrated that some of the evidence presented was underwhelming at best, incorrect at worst. In fact, ex-moderator Tom Scully seemed to have located the man Janney accused of being Mary Meyer’s murderer, a man whom Janney himself claimed he was unable to find. Most of the comments made by the ousted members seemed fair game to me. But then, I don’t have a personal relationship with Peter Janney.
I believe that John has inadvertently admitted that he put his thumb on the scale in Janney’s favour:
“The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend.”
If a friend has been proved wrong, as I believe Janney had been by the ousted members, he doesn’t need protection; he needs correction. If he is unwilling to be corrected when shown persuasive evidence by forum members, a true friend shares some harsh truth with him. The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum’s raison d’etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be.
Those who refused to remain silent were the ones made to pay the price of excommunication, well after Janney ceased to post here.
I have written the foregoing to respond to something directed specifically to me. If DiEugenio and Scully are not re-instated as members, it will be my last post here, for reasons I think I have made sufficiently clear.
And in reaction to the same research results....
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RHETJR89AG4KJ/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1510708928H.P. Albarelli Jr.5 years ago In reply toan earlier postReport abuse
It's truly sad that Mr. Scully has "suffered" at the hands of several people. I urge everyone who feels sorry for him to send him flowers.
Leave a reply
Ralph Yates5 years ago (Edited)Report abuse
Some of Janney's evidence is loosely rendered and his affiliation with Ralph Cinque is bizarre to say the least. At minimum it shows extremely bad judgment. However there's some key clues that Janney is keen on like the Rambler having no record of it as if it was a plausibly deniable set-up designed to get a Military Police profile witness in place. I have to temper my Fetzer bs detector because Janney is on the verge of triggering it in several places. However he has a sharp instinct for clues and sees right through many obvious smoking guns like with the diary and Rambler. Janney was there with his hand on the wire when he looked at his father's expression when Mary was killed. Those are things that can't be appreciated by people who didn't experience them. He has a strong case in my opinion because there's no way Crump would have come back 100% clean on the fiber and blood evidence after going through the scene at the canal path.
Janney gains credibility when you consider Crump was confined to the tow path area after the shooting. Therefore it isn't likely the gun would be able to disappear so easily. Even with DiEugenio's criticism of Janney's timing estimates it does look like Crump was captured and in custody when Sylvis saw the man stick his face out from the trees. Something's wrong here because Crump would not be able to hide a gun so easily from his friends and family. The little things are what count here and if Crump had attended a female prior to the incident it would be unlikely he would have attacked Mary Meyer for sexual reasons. There's every reason to suspect a classic plausibly deniable black op here.
There's a couple of things that give Janney credibility, but what Janney calls the master key clinches it. There's no way Wistar could have called Meyer and Bradlee at 2pm if Mary's identity hadn't been determined until 6pm. And don't forget Janney caught his father faking lack of knowledge until the 8pm call from the police informing them of Mary Meyer's murder. Plus there are numerous CIA insiders casually admitting Mary Meyer was one of their jobs off the record.
It's the little things that add up and Mitchell's transfer to England was a way of getting a potential liability near to the wicked domain of MI-6 where he could be taken care of if needed. Mitchell's transformation to a hippy was just a way of diminishing him and his CIA status. Don't forget Mitchell lied about his sponsorship for that trip. Follow the money. The company paid for that relocation. There's no way any innocent emeritus college professor would allow someone to openly accuse him of being the CIA assassin who murdered Mary Meyer in a book without any response. Face it Scully, Janney's got his man.
In 2018, DiEugenio twists my verifiable, original research into my being a stooge of a CIA sponsored (Holland) stooge's stooge, (author Carpenter).
Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio on 8 December, 2018
Tom, I like you personally and I think you usually do good work and I defended you when people were attacking your approach at EF.
But I am at a loss to explain how you fell for Carpenter. This is a guy who writes for Max Holland.....
My offense was, after discovering Garrison had hid from the world the facts David Baldwin communicated to Clay Shaw in March, 1967, in the process of verfying (I had pointed out that Shaw biographer Carpenter was the only other source on the internet even mentioning the curious familial ties I had independently unearthed...) Garrison had indeed suppressed the familial ties of Joan Mellen's "CIA People," Edward and David Baldwin, to Garrison's wife and David's wife to prominent Jim Garrison and later, Oliver Stone critic, Nicholas B. Lemann. With that insult his last word, Jim DiEugenio refuses to actually discuss the problem of Shaw, Garrison, and Nicholas B. Lemann all keeping the identical secrets!
Judith Shulevitz, Nicholas Lemann - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/07/style/judith-shulevitz-nicholas-lemann.html
Nov 7, 1999 - Judith Anne Shulevitz and Nicholas Lemann, writers in New York, are to be ... He is the son of Thomas B. Lemann of New Orleans and the late ..
https://jfkfacts.org/hardway-declaration-cia-stonewalled-jfk-investigation/#comment-880768
Tom S. - June 6, 2016 at 11:37 pm
..Here is the link to Nicholas Lemann and Zachary Sklar trading letters in GQ, after the Lemann’s Jan., 1992 article was published…..
Lemann responds on pg. 2, to Sklar’s letter which begins on pg 1.:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/S%20Disk/Stone%20Oliver%20JFK%20Movie/Gentleman's%20Quarterly/Item%2002.pdf
No disclosure in Nicholas’s rebuttal to Zachary Sklar, or from Sklar about Lemann’s conflicts/background:
https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-853431
Tom S. January 25, 2016 at 5:38 pm
......
http://files.usgwarchives.net/la/orleans/obits/1/l-11.txt
003004 Lemann – Mildred Crumb Lyons Lemann, A Homemaker, Died Friday At Her Home In New Orleans. She
Was 94. Mrs. Lemann Was A Lifelong Resident Of New Orleans. … In 1929, She Worked At Metairie Park
Country Day School, Where She Coordinated The School’s Non-Academic Activities. Survivors Include A Daughter,
Mildred Lyons Baldwin;
A Sister, Ethel Crumb Brett; Two Stepsons, Thomas B. Lemann, And Stephen B. Lemann; …. Times Picayune 01-14-1990
http://files.usgwarchives.net/la/orleans/obits/1/b-03.txt
000618 Baldwin – Mildred Lyons Baldwin, Age 79 Years, On Monday, August 12, 2002 At Touro Infirmary.
Mrs. Baldwin Attended Metairie Park Country Day School And William And Mary College. She Was An
Accomplished Classical Pianist Who Loved Chopin And Debussy. Other Interests Included Acting, Modern
Dance And Cooking. She Was The Wife Of The Late David G. Baldwin For 50 Years. She Is Survived By 2
Sons, Stephen Brooks Baldwin Of New York City, Geoffrey Stuart Johnston Baldwin Of New Orleans And An
Adopted Daughter, Jean A. Cunningham Of Los Angeles, Ca. Private Services Will Be Held. In Lieu Of
Flowers Memorial Contributions To Metairie Park Country Day School Would Be Appreciated. Times Picayune
08-13-2002
....
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Unredacted_-_Episode_1_-_Transcript.html
Unredacted Episode 1: Transcript of Interview with Joan Mellen
Joan Mellen is the author of A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK’s Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History. This interview was conducted on 22 Feb 2006. Tyler Weaver provided the introduction, and the interview was conducted by Rex Bradford.
…….
REX: I – I think –
JOAN: – when (Atty. Edward) Baldwin was present, he was a CIA asset, his brother worked for the International Trade Mart and Clay Shaw, David Baldwin, and these, these are CIA people…
........
