John Simkin Posted October 20, 2005 Author Share Posted October 20, 2005 Pat raises a good point that the looney theories about the assassination can turn off serious assassination researchers. This is the point I have attempted to make when they have been entire threads trying to link people like William F. Buckley, Jr. and Douglas Dillon to the plot, without a shred of evidence to support such blood libel. Where do such postings get us? Absolutely no where. All they do is discredit the serious work done by some members of the Forum. That is of course what most members think about your theories about Castro and the KGB. So far, you have never quoted any of your own research for these opinions. Instead you rely on the work of people like Gus Russo, Edward Epstein and Joe Trento. They in turn relied on the information provided by James Angleton. Have you read the CIA document produced by Cleveland C. Cram “Of Moles and Molehunters”. He has a lot of interesting things to say about Angleton and researchers like Trento and Epstein. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5194 Shanet raised the possibility that there were possible links between Douglas Dillon. I recently did the same about William Buckley. I will be returning to this thread later (I am still awaiting the arrival of some important documents). Your only objection to these two men being named was that they were members of the Republican Party. It seems that is as far as your critical facilities go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Come to think of it, I may have Dave Perry confused with David Reitzes on the LN issue. I recall that one of them specifically wrote somewhere that he was no longer a CTer, and it may have been Reitzes. Which is not to say that it wasn't Perry or that it wasn't both of them. I don't know. It was Dave Reitzes, and not Dave Perry, who declared that he had switched from a CT to a LN. Reitzes website is still a very valuable resource, by the way. Mr. Perry is, to my best knowledge, a SERIOUS researcher, and if Jack White has anything derogatory to say about him he should not be afraid to to say it. I believe it was Alexander Hamilton who established the principle in American law that truth is a defense to a defamation claim, and I believe that is still the law today. So fire ahead, Mr. White, and tell us all the good stuff that proves that Madeleine Brown is credible, while Dave Perry is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 May I ask you gentlemen, a few questions, please? How many of you, have actually read Madeleine's book? How many of you have compared what Mr. Perry states in his article to the exact information given in said book...? And how many have done any actual research on Madeleine Brown's information....? I have and Madeleines Brown's basic story is very true, and through the years, more and more of what she gave us, has and is being backed by further research into all involved in her story... But carry on with all your guesses, and I think's, it does look very good on such a group of intelligent men.. Dave Perry is a contrarian.. and seeminging has enjoyed the twisting of her given information... BTW, she knew this would happen, and said as much. But she felt her information, perhaps would help researchers such as yourselves.. apparently it has not... Please do not ask for my information, it would be a complete waste of time ...to post such..on my part. Who would want to,when your attitude is thus.. and you apparently have already made up your minds.. What Jack White says is very true....so like it or lump it.. I fully agree.... Do your own research, and stop with the I thinks... when you do not know...and have not done your own...Baiting does not work... Mr. Carroll. B.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Please do not ask for my information, it would be a complete waste of time ...to post such..on my part...Who would want to,when your attitude is thus.. and you apparently have already made up your minds.. ...... Do your own research, and stop with the I thinks... when you do not know...and have not done your own...Baiting does not work... Mr. Carroll. B.... Ms. Moore, I think you may be making some unwarranted assumptions about my beliefs (and research) concernng the assassination. For present purposes I submit that we will never reach the truth by relying on witnesses like Madeleine Brown. If we were to believe her, she was an accessory to murder, and if she was an accessory to murder, nobody is going to consider her a very reliable witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 I've read Madeleine's book. The sex scenes with Lyndon are hilarious. ("As I lay there naked and exposed, he reached up with both hands and in one savage jerk ripped his shirt open. The popped buttons of his garment made sharp staccato counterpoints as they struck the wall and rained down upon the bed.") But nothing in the book can match the back cover, where the publisher (Harrison Edward Livingstone) calls it "some of the greatest historical writing in American literature." I still look at the book now and then for comic relief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Dear Gary Mack..... Thanks for the Love note.....expected, and always appreciated. So nice to hear from you, it has been a little while... But you must empty your Forum email. it is full. Therefore you cannot receive what I wrote in reply, nor email from any others ...will send privately..... Thankyou so very....here have one.. B.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 I've read Madeleine's book. The sex scenes with Lyndon are hilarious. ("As I lay there naked and exposed, he reached up with both hands and in one savage jerk ripped his shirt open. The popped buttons of his garment made sharp staccato counterpoints as they struck the wall and rained down upon the bed.") But nothing in the book can match the back cover, where the publisher (Harrison Edward Livingstone) calls it "some of the greatest historical writing in American literature." I still look at the book now and then for comic relief. Ron, I've tried that but I've never been able to get the staccato sound off the wall quite right. I've gotta get that book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 You should have heard her tell about his penis, and his pride in it. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Richards Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 You should have heard her tell about his penis, and his pride in it.Jack Jack, I guess some have more reason to be proud than others. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 (edited) "Have you ever seen anything as big as this?" - LBJ (in a men's restroom, quoted in Caro's Master of the Senate, p. 121) Edited October 22, 2005 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted October 22, 2005 Author Share Posted October 22, 2005 May I ask you gentlemen, a few questions, please?How many of you, have actually read Madeleine's book? How many of you have compared what Mr. Perry states in his article to the exact information given in said book...? And how many have done any actual research on Madeleine Brown's information....? I have and Madeleines Brown's basic story is very true, and through the years, more and more of what she gave us, has and is being backed by further research into all involved in her story... Gary Mack published an account of Madeleine Brown's LBJ party story on 14th May, 1997. What do you make of his account (see below): Madeleine has claimed over the years that she attended a party at Clint Murchison’s house the night before the assassination and LBJ, Hoover and Nixon were there. The party story, without LBJ, first came from Penn Jones in Forgive My Grief. In that version, the un-credited source was a black chauffeur whom Jones didn’t identify, and the explanation Jones gave was that it was the last chance to decide whether or not to kill JFK. Of course, Hoover used only top FBI agents for transportation and in the FBI of 1963, none were black. Actually, there is no confirmation for a party at Murchison’s. I asked Peter O’Donnell because Madeleine claimed he was there, too. Peter said there was no party. Madeleine even said there was a story about it in the Dallas Times Herald some months later (which makes no sense), but she had not been able to find it. Val Imm (Society Editor of the Dallas Times Herald) told Bob Porter (of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza staff) recently she had no memory of such an event and even looked through her notes - in vain. Could LBJ have been at a Murchison party? No. LBJ was seen and photographed in the Houston Coliseum with JFK at a dinner and speech. They flew out around 10pm and arrived at Carswell (Air Force Base in northwest Fort Worth) at 11:07 Thursday night. Their motorcade to the Hotel Texas arrived about 11:50 and LBJ was again photographed. He stayed in the Will Rogers suite on the 13th floor and Manchester (William Manchester - author of The Death of a President) says he was up late. Could Nixon have been at Murchison’s party? No. Tony Zoppi (Entertainment Editor of The Dallas Morning News) and Don Safran (Entertainment Editor of the Dallas Times Herald) saw Nixon at the Empire Room at the Statler-Hilton. He walked in with Joan Crawford (Movie actress). Robert Clary (of Hogan’s Heroes fame) stopped his show to point them out, saying “. . . either you like him or you don’t.” Zoppi thought that was in poor taste, but Safran said Nixon laughed. Zoppi’s deadline was 11pm, so he stayed until 10:30 or 10:45 and Nixon was still there. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbrownM.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 24, 2005 Share Posted October 24, 2005 In 1988 she told Jack Anderson ...On 24th February, 1992, Brown gave an interview on the television show, A Current Affair. Brown claimed that on the 21st November, 1963, she was at the home of Clint Murchison...[she claimed LBJ told her] "After tomorrow those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again - that's no threat - that's a promise." Despite being responsible for some important scoops Jack Anderson does not have a very good reputation for reliability. LBJ was a very shrewd character. I doesn't make sense that he would make such and incriminating statement to his mistress. John already destroyed the story about the party in addition it doesn't make sense that such well know figures as LBJ, Hoover and Nixon would meet so publicly the night before the "hit". What would have been the motive for reactionaries like Nixon and Hoover to want to make LBJ president at that time, virtually guaranteeing he would be elected in '64 and probably reelected in '68? Bernice , you chide the men on this forum for denigrating Brown without any evidence and say that history has redeemed her, but you didn't cite a single bit of evidence to support your claim. Isn't that a double standard? Can you cite some examples? Jack once again you are making accusations without citing any evidence and remain silent when people ask you for some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wim Dankbaar Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 I got this video from Gaylon 4 years ago. Apparently he has decided to make it wider availble: http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=192...76415&q=jfk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Come to think of it, I may have Dave Perry confused with David Reitzes on the LN issue. I recall that one of them specifically wrote somewhere that he was no longer a CTer, and it may have been Reitzes. Which is not to say that it wasn't Perry or that it wasn't both of them. I don't know. It was Dave Reitzes, and not Dave Perry, who declared that he had switched from a CT to a LN. Reitzes website is still a very valuable resource, by the way. Mr. Perry is, to my best knowledge, a SERIOUS researcher, and if Jack White has anything derogatory to say about him he should not be afraid to to say it. Jack afraid to state his view about Dave Perry or Reitzes? Please! Perry is full of s***. Reitzes may be a LNer now but wrote a very good article several years ago on the Mac Wallace case. "Yellow Roses", or something to that effect. Then I saw his Garrison smear in Walt Brown's journel. (A horrible and dishonest review of Davy's book). Never trusted Reitzes after that. Wonder if he still believes all the LBJ/ Mac Wallace stuff and how he justifies this with a LN position. I had the pleasure of sepnding several hours with the late Mad Brown in Dallas in '98 and found her to be both credible and charming, so again I side with Jack here. My good pal J Harrison spent a long time trying to prove- (or disprove)- the Murchison party- no conclusion was reached, that I recall. But J did believe Ms. Brown on other issues. She sure as hell did not "make up" having a child with LBJ- a child LBJ supported until his death. (LBJ's , the boy died very young, under mysterious circunstances, as well). Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 (edited) Come to think of it, I may have Dave Perry confused with David Reitzes on the LN issue. I recall that one of them specifically wrote somewhere that he was no longer a CTer, and it may have been Reitzes. Which is not to say that it wasn't Perry or that it wasn't both of them. I don't know. It was Dave Reitzes, and not Dave Perry, who declared that he had switched from a CT to a LN. Reitzes website is still a very valuable resource, by the way. Mr. Perry is, to my best knowledge, a SERIOUS researcher, and if Jack White has anything derogatory to say about him he should not be afraid to to say it. Jack afraid to state his view about Dave Perry or Reitzes? Please! Perry is full of s***. Reitzes may be a LNer now but wrote a very good article several years ago on the Mac Wallace case. "Yellow Roses", or something to that effect. Then I saw his Garrison smear in Walt Brown's journel. (A horrible and dishonest review of Davy's book). Never trusted Reitzes after that. Wonder if he still believes all the LBJ/ Mac Wallace stuff and how he justifies this with a LN position. I had the pleasure of sepnding several hours with the late Mad Brown in Dallas in '98 and found her to be both credible and charming, so again I side with Jack here. My good pal J Harrison spent a long time trying to prove- (or disprove)- the Murchison party- no conclusion was reached, that I recall. But J did believe Ms. Brown on other issues. She sure as hell did not "make up" having a child with LBJ- a child LBJ supported until his death. (LBJ's , the boy died very young, under mysterious circunstances, as well). Dawn Dawn... Madeleine brought Steve to the Marrs JFK advanced study group at UTA several times. Against his mother's advice, he decided to sue the Johnson estate, not for money, but to be declared Lyndon's son. This probably cost him his life. (in person, he was the spittin' image of a young LBJ). Shortly after the his last appearance at the Marrs meetings, Madeleine phoned Marrs frantically saying that Stephen had mysteriously disappeared. As I recall, she hired a private detective to investigate. After several months, Steven was located IN WASHINGTON DC, suffering from CANCER (he was very young for cancer). He had been kidnapped in Dallas and it is unclear how he turned up in Washington. He died shortly after Madeleine found him, and she became "quiet" for a long time...but returned to the public eye when Oliver Stone sought her out. Jack Edited September 15, 2006 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now