Albarelli's "A Secret Order"

[Paul Brancato]

Thanks for that info Jim. So assuming you are right, and JFK just became more public about his real views after he became president, in what way does that nullify Mary Pinchot's relationship with JFK, or Leary's later story about Mary and LSD? You know what kind of background Mary Pinchot had. She was clearly sophisticated in her views and freely expressed them. Can you not imagine her and JFK as kindred spirits? Have you ever taken LSD? Do you dismiss the Angleton tie with the family or with the diary? I don't.

Janney clearly made mistakes, and had a bias based on his own boyhood crush on his neighbor Mary. I am aware of this, and also agree that his postulations at the end of the book as to how the murder might have occurred are kind of ridiculous. But none of this, or your appreciated corrections of my assumptions about JFK's latter day change of heart, change my views on her importance to the story. And as for JFK and the Unspeakable, it is a very valuable book, and even though Douglass wasn't the first to point out JFK's problems with the Joint Chiefs, he tells it in a way that leaves a deep impression of the rift between them. Given that the military industrial complex was the actual beneficiary of the assassination, does that not suggest foul play? The military's footprints are all over this event.

[Paul Brancato]

Also, I am halfway through Albarelli's fascinating book. Sure, its not a scholarly dissertation with detailed footnotes, and many sources are unnamed. But he has covered some interesting subjects with originality and plenty of thoughtful probing. Regardless of the reactions on this board, I highly recommend this book.

[Guest Tom Scully]

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 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.

as someone who lurks here a lot, Hank, I wouldn't abandon places like this, as nasty as they can get some times. I have both your recent books, and there is is a lot of important stuff in them; the Secret Order less so, I think, because it does seem to have indications of a lack of independent corroboration of some things which are questionable in the whole assassination picture; things which have been regularly addressed by the very assassination community you attacked a few posts back. Which doesn't mean that you would necessarily change your mind about them; it would, however, give you some necessary background.

I too feel like an outsider here, but there is just too much good info - from people like Jim, Martin Hay, Bill Kelley, Greg Parker - to ignore if you want to keep up with the latest. It just takes a discerning personal filter.

Thanks, Allen. Thank you for your comments. I understand your point, and I do know there are lots of excellent folks here on site. I, however, find the approach of many here [skully and DiG] to be a bit strident and quite rude. I have no idea who Skully is, yet he makes demands of me like I were someone he well knows; the same with DiG, who I have never met or communicated with, and whose work leaves much to be desired in places. I am not a conspiracy buff or huge JFK buff; I'm a historian who looks closely at facts, regardless the source in some cases. In my latest book I acknowledge many of the folks who work I admisre the most on this forum. You use the word outsider and I find that interesting for many reasons {many related to Colin Wilson] but please know that I choose to be an outsider to many of the theories advanced by some on this forum because I simply disagree with them, but, I guess I'm old fashioned, I don't make strident demands of people I do not know... is there no decorum here or effort to be courteous to anyone: Skully says "I owe the public"-- which public is that, Tom? Most folks in the US could care less who killed Mary M. And as time goes by, most folks in the US care less and less about who killed JFK ? ask any teenager picked at random.... in my view, the so-called "JFK assassination community" leaves a lot to be desired, but that's another day's topic... my book, A SECRET ORDER merely took a few very seriopus topics that were/are strange and formatted them into stopry-chapters: it is no attempt to solve the murder, but, and this is a big but, it dows contain many facts, many well corrobrated facts, that do turn certain things on their heads, but lets leave that for the "experts" who have yet to address these matters. In closing, thanks for being a gentleman and offering kind words of wisdom. As siad to the others, I enjoy discourse thru e-mails and don't mostly have the time to sort thru this forum on a regular basis... if you're ever on the Gulf coast of FL. give me a ring and I'll buy you dinner and a drink or two.

Putting this in proper perspective, I am not an author who has assisted another author in making extraordinary claims, accusations that a man who turns out to be a Berkeley PhD was a CIA assassin.

If I had assisted in such a thing, I would defend my assistance and support with extraordinary proof, or .....? Hank, this is not about me. You reiterated that the man who we now know has the following bona fides is, according to you and Peter Janney, a CIA assassin who murdered Mary Meyer. If you knew of the documented background of "the accused" and signed off on associating your name with what Janney published and attributed to you, I am sure you have your reasons. Read the quote box near the end of this post. Peter Janney maintains that this academic still is the CIA assassin of Mary Meyer.

Peter Janney published a book making accusations of "murder for the CIA," naming with sources from you, among others, a "missing" person, someone who Janney claimed could not be found.

I am a nobody, empowered only by the following information. If you read what I've presented in this thread in an Associated Press report in a newspaper, you would not be misspelling the name of the AP reporter, minimizing the size of the newspaper's circulation, even if the AP reporter described your continuing lack of reaction as inexcusable. If you had known about the background of the man you still seem to maintain is an assassin murderer and you still would have permitted Peter Janney to attribute you as a source of support for these accusations against William L. Mitchell, you would not be posting that you do not know who I am or what my agenda is.

However, accusations of assassin murder against a missing person are not extraordinary claims.

Making the same accusations against Dr. William L. "Bill" Mitchell, PhD, are extraordinary claims and require more support. Am I reading that right, your opinion that not many people read this forum is part of your defense of maintaining your accusations against Dr. Bill Mitchell, PhD? Is anybody better than the quality of the information they present, especially if they are selling it?

Annual Report to the President - Page 3

books.google.com Cornell University. College of Engineering - 1961 - Snippet view

Spring Term only) Mr. William Mitchell (5th yr. B.M.E. Candidate. Fall Term only)

News and Notices - JStor

The Annals of Mathematical Statistics - Volume 34 - Page 1135

Vol. 34, No. 3 (Sep., 1963), pp. 1133-1146

www.jstor.org/stable/2238500

Mitchell, William L., B.M.E., (Cornell University); Graduate Student, Operations Re- search, Harvard University; 70 Perkins Hall, Harvard University, Cambridge

New York mathematical society. List of members, constitution, by-laws

books.google.comAmerican Mathematical Society - 1964 - Snippet view

American Mathematical Society. MISARE ... AI Math., Computation Lab., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, Mass. ... MITCHELL, WILLIAM L. I Pentagon, OR Group, Systems Dept., USADSC, Washington, D. C. l500 Arlington Blvd., Apt. l022,

Combined membership list of the American Mathematical Society and ...

books.google.com American Mathematical Society, Mathematical Association of America, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics - 1965 - Snippet view

...... MITCHELL, WILLIAM L. I Pentagon, OR Group, Systems Dept., USADSC, Washington, D. C. 1500 Arlington Blvd., Apt. 1022, Arlington, Va. MITCHELL,

Harvard alumni directory

books.google.comHarvard Alumni Directory (Office), Harvard Alumni Association, Harvard University

MltcheU, WUliam Lockwood, 1500 Arlington Blvd. , Apt. 1022, Arlington, Va. 22209. g62-63

Optimal Service Rate Selection in Piecewise Linear Markovian ...books.google.com/.../Optimal_Service_Rate_Selection_in_Piecew.ht...

Title, Optimal Service Rate Selection in Piecewise Linear Markovian Service Systems. Author, William Lockwood Mitchell. Publisher, University of California,

Directory of computer education and research - Volume 3 - Page 192

books.google.com/books?id=MzUsAQAAIAAJ

T. C. Hsiao - 1973 - Snippet view - More editions

... 1963 - Same as above - 825-5751 MITCHELL, WILLIAM L. - Assistant Professor of Business Administration Department of Management Sciences School of Business and Economics CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD Hayward,

Who's who in computer education and research - Page 192

books.google.com/books?id=ytRWAAAAMAAJ

T. C. Hsiao - 1975 - Snippet view

... 1963 - Same as above - 825-5751 MITCHELL, WILLIAM L. - Assistant Professor of Business Administration Department of Management Sciences School of Business and Economics CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, HAYWARD Hay ward

The Berkeley Engineering Alumni Directory - Page 225

books.google.com/books?id=f6V8AAAAIAAJ

1987 - Snippet view

MITCHELL, Dr. William L; 70 PhD IE;...

Directory of Emeritus Faculty - California State University, East Bay

www20.csueastbay.edu/oaa/files/docs/DirectoryEmeriti.pdf

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View

Emeritus, 2001

MITCHELL, BILL (1969), Associate Professor of Business Administration: B.M.E., 1962, Cornell

University; M.S., 1963, Harvard University; Ph.D., 1970, University of California, Berkeley. Emeritus, 1989

"The Public" are readers of Peter Janney's book and praising it. They have read that the mysterious assassin of Mary Meyer, a witness who gave perjured testimony at the Crump murder trial in 1965, could never be found. : http://www.amazon.com/Marys-Mosaic-Conspiracy-Kennedy-Pinchot/dp/1616087080

They are the researchers who attended Peter Janney's Lancer Conference presentation in Dallas last November.:

audience member - (mocking Peter Janney’s presentation ) Was it Bill or William? (Big Laughter ) Ah, both.

They are the audience of Peter Janney's presentations.:

• by nctvcommunity
• 1 month ago
• 358 views

Psychologist and Author Peter Janney visited the Media Education Foundation Thursday, April 11th to discuss his new book, ...

• by thebostonglobe
• 1 month ago
• 36,045 views

(Boston Globe) North Shore author Peter Janney, author of the book Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F.

......Peter Janney's

third from the top. There is a crude transcript option that helps somewhat to located various points Peter Janney covered.

He talked of initiating a wrongful death civil suit against William L Mitchell in the State of California later this year. I would expect he

would need to show standing and he would be challenged to prove in court that he is an injured party. One of Mary Meyer's survivors might be able to overcome the standing hurdles, but then there would be the matter of evidence.

In the November podcast with Jim Fetzer, both Peter and Jim stated that it was a problem that they could find no record of Mitchell

earning a Masters of Science degree at Harvard in 1963. In this presentation Peter does not mention Harvard. When an audience member questions Peter near the end of the video, Peter confirms that the Mitchell he confronted in Berkeley late last August is definitely the Crump trial witness, a fit man in his 70's who knows how to take care of himself, "he is a runner," Janney states......

https://post.harvard.edu/olc/pub/HAA/register/register.cgi?FNC=Detail__Aresults_html___HAA___338207

Registration Step 3. Name William Mitchell Name As Student Mitchell State/Province CA Country Degree Master of Science School Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Class Year 1963

Edited June 9, 2013 by Tom Scully

[Dawn Meredith]

Edited June 9, 2013 by Dawn Meredith

[Guest Gary Loughran]

This decision was a reaction to Albarelli's email John quotes and has its foundations in a long standing dispute between Janney, Simkin and Di Eugenio. No one post is to blame, as I understand it. Tom's problem was caused by the Mitchell exposé which was becoming a source of embarassment - again as I understand it.

John is attempting to revert the forum to its original aims and should be supported in this endeavour.

I completely agree with Daniel Wayne Dunn's post and it pretty much resonates, more eloquently it has to be said, with my own minority view in moderation.

To be clear, this was a unilateral, not a moderated decision.

Martin, Dawn and others can I caution you to be circumspect in your reaction. This thing needs no more casualties.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

So in other words Jim was kicked off the forum because John doesn't like what Jim has to say and not because he broke any forum rules, is that what you're saying?

I'd say Jim was kicked off because he needs a course in anger management.