Do pictures prove LBJ was NOT at Murchison Ranch Nov. 21, 1063?

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
I watched The Guilty Men on You Tube.
Some of the comments in a critique included one from Gary Mack who said
that there are photos of LBJ with JFK at an event the night before, and
they later retired in their respective suites at a hotel (Houston or Texas
Hotel?) in a town that was a quick flight away from Dallas (I should know
that city but can't recall off the top of my head).
Is this true?
Are there pictures and can we see them here or elsewhere, anyone?
Was the Murchison Ranch close by car to the town that the President and
Vice-President stayed the night before leaving for Fort Worth/Dallas the
next morning?
Gerry Simone

The answer to all of your questions that inadvertently suggest an innocent
answer is "no". The answer to all of your questions that intentionally
suggest a guilty answer is "yes".

Everyone in the world who was identifiable as a JFK rival was pure
unadulterated murderous evil -- so obviously all of them were at a party
on the night before, which amounted to a coven of witches and warlocks
(somewhat reminiscent of the climax of Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story,
"Young Goodman Brown"). Where else would they be?

And the sole purpose of the party was to celebrate in anticipation of the
blessed event that was to happen the next day and to create an
incriminating oral history of it.

In this spirit, LBJ even got up in the middle of the night after a hectic
day on the stump for the sole purpose of attending this party so that he
could make a self-incriminating statement at it.

But then I didn't need to tell you any of this. Robert Harris sends his
love and informs you that you should now be independent enough to answer
these questions without his help.

Gerry Simone (O)

2007-02-15 03:51:57 UTC

You are wasting my time and everyone's else.

If you don't have any knowledge of such pics or public event the night
before that would serve as an alibi for LBJ, then wait for someone else
who does.

The answer to all of your questions that inadvertently suggest an innocent
answer is "no". The answer to all of your questions that intentionally
suggest a guilty answer is "yes".
Everyone in the world who was identifiable as a JFK rival was pure
unadulterated murderous evil -- so obviously all of them were at a party
on the night before, which amounted to a coven of witches and warlocks
(somewhat reminiscent of the climax of Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story,
"Young Goodman Brown"). Where else would they be?
And the sole purpose of the party was to celebrate in anticipation of the
blessed event that was to happen the next day and to create an
incriminating oral history of it.
In this spirit, LBJ even got up in the middle of the night after a hectic
day on the stump for the sole purpose of attending this party so that he
could make a self-incriminating statement at it.
But then I didn't need to tell you any of this. Robert Harris sends his
love and informs you that you should now be independent enough to answer
these questions without his help.

Grizzlie Antagonist

2007-02-15 17:23:05 UTC

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
You are wasting my time and everyone's else.
If you don't have any knowledge of such pics or public event the night
before that would serve as an alibi for LBJ, then wait for someone else
who does.

Oh no, not at all. You're completely wrong for three reasons:

1) This fanciful story about a bunch of malefactors sinisterly
meeting at the Murchison Ranch on "the night before" is the stuff of
spy novels and/or murder mysteries.

And the notion that LBJ would confide such a shockingly guilty secret
to his mistress is equally fictitious.

I guess that you think that, in real life, women who sleep with
powerful men aren't expected to relate what they hear to third parties
and that it would have made perfect sense for LBJ to say something
like that to his mistress.

But this isn't even remotely believable as history. It didn't even
make any sense for LBJ to HAVE a mistress if he was planning to murder
his superior. So the burden of proof isn't on those who would
question such a story. The burden of proof is on those who would
maintain such a story.

You're sitting there with your arms folded and your toes tapping
waiting for someone to provide an alibi for LBJ. But no one has to do
that. The burden of proof is on you to prove LBJ guilty.

2) If you want to believe that this happened, you will believe that
this happened. No one will persuade you otherwise.

You've already decided that Murchison Ranch was "a quick flight away"
or "close by car" from where LBJ stayed the night before -- so what
good would those "pics" do if anyone were to produce them to you?

3) Madeline Brown's story also has Richard Nixon at the Murchison
Ranch that night, but his presence THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE EVENING at
the Statler Hilton in the company or sight of other celebrities during
the time that he was supposed to be at the Murchison Ranch has been
well-documented.

But notwithstanding this fact, the Madeline Brown story still lives on
as part of the legend connected with the assassination. So if Nixon's
alibi doesn't satisfy those who want to promote this story, why should
Johnson's?

See again Reason Number 2. You'll believe anything that you want to
believe.

Texas

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Hotel?) in a town that was a quick flight away from Dallas (I should

know

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
that city but can't recall off the top of my head).
Is this true?
Are there pictures and can we see them here or elsewhere, anyone?
Was the Murchison Ranch close by car to the town that the President and
Vice-President stayed the night before leaving for Fort Worth/Dallas the
next morning?
Gerry Simone

The answer to all of your questions that inadvertently suggest an innocent
answer is "no". The answer to all of your questions that intentionally
suggest a guilty answer is "yes".
Everyone in the world who was identifiable as a JFK rival was pure
unadulterated murderous evil -- so obviously all of them were at a party
on the night before, which amounted to a coven of witches and warlocks
(somewhat reminiscent of the climax of Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story,
"Young Goodman Brown"). Where else would they be?
And the sole purpose of the party was to celebrate in anticipation of the
blessed event that was to happen the next day and to create an
incriminating oral history of it.
In this spirit, LBJ even got up in the middle of the night after a hectic
day on the stump for the sole purpose of attending this party so that he
could make a self-incriminating statement at it.
But then I didn't need to tell you any of this. Robert Harris sends his
love and informs you that you should now be independent enough to answer
these questions without his help

Gerry Simone (O)

2007-02-16 04:43:21 UTC

My principal and relevant question is still unanswered. I didn't ask you
about the Murchison meeting. Are you evading the question?

What about LBJ? Are you aware of Gary Mack's comment about LBJ being seen
with JFK the night before? Was there any chance that if LBJ was within
driving distance, that it was plausible for him to attend such a meeting.

Even if Murchison had a meeting, it wouldn't matter at all if LBJ wasn't
there. That would definitely discredit Madeleine Brown on the face and
her allegation of LBJ's foreknowledge of the assassination.

As for the Murchison Ranch meeting, it was supposedly a birthday
celebration for FBI head, J. Edgar Hoover.

The episode Guilty Men supposedly shows witnesses other than Madeleine
Brown who were there, i.e., servants, etc.

Hey Grizzlie, ever hear of 'kiss and tell'?

1) This fanciful story about a bunch of malefactors sinisterly
meeting at the Murchison Ranch on "the night before" is the stuff of
spy novels and/or murder mysteries.
And the notion that LBJ would confide such a shockingly guilty secret
to his mistress is equally fictitious.
I guess that you think that, in real life, women who sleep with
powerful men aren't expected to relate what they hear to third parties
and that it would have made perfect sense for LBJ to say something
like that to his mistress.
But this isn't even remotely believable as history. It didn't even
make any sense for LBJ to HAVE a mistress if he was planning to murder
his superior. So the burden of proof isn't on those who would
question such a story. The burden of proof is on those who would
maintain such a story.
You're sitting there with your arms folded and your toes tapping
waiting for someone to provide an alibi for LBJ. But no one has to do
that. The burden of proof is on you to prove LBJ guilty.
2) If you want to believe that this happened, you will believe that
this happened. No one will persuade you otherwise.
You've already decided that Murchison Ranch was "a quick flight away"
or "close by car" from where LBJ stayed the night before -- so what
good would those "pics" do if anyone were to produce them to you?
3) Madeline Brown's story also has Richard Nixon at the Murchison
Ranch that night, but his presence THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE EVENING at
the Statler Hilton in the company or sight of other celebrities during
the time that he was supposed to be at the Murchison Ranch has been
well-documented.
But notwithstanding this fact, the Madeline Brown story still lives on
as part of the legend connected with the assassination. So if Nixon's
alibi doesn't satisfy those who want to promote this story, why should
Johnson's?
See again Reason Number 2. You'll believe anything that you want to
believe.

Texas

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Hotel?) in a town that was a quick flight away from Dallas (I should

know

The answer to all of your questions that inadvertently suggest an innocent
answer is "no". The answer to all of your questions that

intentionally

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
suggest a guilty answer is "yes".
Everyone in the world who was identifiable as a JFK rival was pure
unadulterated murderous evil -- so obviously all of them were at a party
on the night before, which amounted to a coven of witches and warlocks
(somewhat reminiscent of the climax of Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story,
"Young Goodman Brown"). Where else would they be?
And the sole purpose of the party was to celebrate in anticipation of the
blessed event that was to happen the next day and to create an
incriminating oral history of it.
In this spirit, LBJ even got up in the middle of the night after a hectic
day on the stump for the sole purpose of attending this party so that he
could make a self-incriminating statement at it.
But then I didn't need to tell you any of this. Robert Harris sends his
love and informs you that you should now be independent enough to answer
these questions without his help

Grizzlie Antagonist

2007-02-16 05:11:39 UTC

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
My principal and relevant question is still unanswered. I didn't ask you
about the Murchison meeting.

Quote: "Was the Murchison Ranch close by car to the town that the
President and Vice-President stayed the night before leaving for Fort
Worth/Dallas the next morning?"

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Are you evading the question?

You are evading your own question.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
What about LBJ? Are you aware of Gary Mack's comment about LBJ being seen
with JFK the night before? Was there any chance that if LBJ was within
driving distance, that it was plausible for him to attend such a meeting.

Again, you are accepting Madeline Brown's story at face value because
you want to accept it and you are defying others to prove LBJ's
innocence.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Even if Murchison had a meeting, it wouldn't matter at all if LBJ wasn't
there. That would definitely discredit Madeleine Brown on the face and
her allegation of LBJ's foreknowledge of the assassination.

Only in the real world. Not in Conspiracyville. I see that you've
"evaded" my point about Nixon's presence at the meeting ALREADY having
been disproven.

Why don't you think that THAT "discredits Madeline Brown on the face"?

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
As for the Murchison Ranch meeting, it was supposedly a birthday
celebration for FBI head, J. Edgar Hoover.

Really? A November 21st birthday celebration for a man born on
January 1st?

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
The episode Guilty Men supposedly shows witnesses other than Madeleine
Brown who were there, i.e., servants, etc.
Hey Grizzlie, ever hear of 'kiss and tell'?

Yes, and so did LBJ, I'm sure. That's why if such a plot had ever
existed, he never would have confided it to his mistress.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
I watched The Guilty Men on You Tube.
Some of the comments in a critique included one from Gary Mack who

said

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
that there are photos of LBJ with JFK at an event the night before,

and

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
they later retired in their respective suites at a hotel (Houston or

Texas

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Hotel?) in a town that was a quick flight away from Dallas (I should

know

and

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Vice-President stayed the night before leaving for Fort Worth/Dallas

the

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
next morning?
Gerry Simone

The answer to all of your questions that inadvertently suggest an

innocent

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
answer is "no". The answer to all of your questions that

intentionally

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
suggest a guilty answer is "yes".
Everyone in the world who was identifiable as a JFK rival was pure
unadulterated murderous evil -- so obviously all of them were at a

party

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
on the night before, which amounted to a coven of witches and warlocks
(somewhat reminiscent of the climax of Nathaniel Hawthorne's short

story,

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
"Young Goodman Brown"). Where else would they be?
And the sole purpose of the party was to celebrate in anticipation of

the

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
blessed event that was to happen the next day and to create an
incriminating oral history of it.
In this spirit, LBJ even got up in the middle of the night after a

hectic

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
day on the stump for the sole purpose of attending this party so that

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
could make a self-incriminating statement at it.
But then I didn't need to tell you any of this. Robert Harris sends

his

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
love and informs you that you should now be independent enough to

answer

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
these questions without his help- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gerry Simone (O)

2007-02-16 23:16:28 UTC

That was a follow up question to my main question about LBJ's whereabouts,
which you didn't answer.

You just wanted to answer my question indirectly by disproving the Murchison
party, which is really secondary.

If Murchison had a party and people heard that they talked about killing
JFK, it would NOT prove that LBJ had foreknowledge from that party a la
Madeleine Brown if he wasn't there in the first place or couldn't get there
even if he tried.

I'm really testing Madeleine's Brown account not accepting it at face value,
but you seem to argue around my main question.

I guess I should ask Mr. Mack.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
My principal and relevant question is still unanswered. I didn't ask you
about the Murchison meeting.

Quote: "Was the Murchison Ranch close by car to the town that the
President and Vice-President stayed the night before leaving for Fort
Worth/Dallas the next morning?"

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Are you evading the question?

You are evading your own question.

Again, you are accepting Madeline Brown's story at face value because
you want to accept it and you are defying others to prove LBJ's
innocence.

Only in the real world. Not in Conspiracyville. I see that you've
"evaded" my point about Nixon's presence at the meeting ALREADY having
been disproven.
Why don't you think that THAT "discredits Madeline Brown on the face"?

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
As for the Murchison Ranch meeting, it was supposedly a birthday
celebration for FBI head, J. Edgar Hoover.

Really? A November 21st birthday celebration for a man born on
January 1st?

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
The episode Guilty Men supposedly shows witnesses other than Madeleine
Brown who were there, i.e., servants, etc.
Hey Grizzlie, ever hear of 'kiss and tell'?

Yes, and so did LBJ, I'm sure. That's why if such a plot had ever
existed, he never would have confided it to his mistress.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
I watched The Guilty Men on You Tube.
Some of the comments in a critique included one from Gary Mack who

said

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
that there are photos of LBJ with JFK at an event the night before,

and

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
they later retired in their respective suites at a hotel (Houston or

Texas

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Hotel?) in a town that was a quick flight away from Dallas (I should

know

and

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Vice-President stayed the night before leaving for Fort Worth/Dallas

the

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
next morning?
Gerry Simone

The answer to all of your questions that inadvertently suggest an

innocent

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
answer is "no". The answer to all of your questions that

intentionally

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
suggest a guilty answer is "yes".
Everyone in the world who was identifiable as a JFK rival was pure
unadulterated murderous evil -- so obviously all of them were at a

party

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
on the night before, which amounted to a coven of witches and warlocks
(somewhat reminiscent of the climax of Nathaniel Hawthorne's short

story,

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
"Young Goodman Brown"). Where else would they be?
And the sole purpose of the party was to celebrate in anticipation of

the

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
blessed event that was to happen the next day and to create an
incriminating oral history of it.
In this spirit, LBJ even got up in the middle of the night after a

hectic

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
day on the stump for the sole purpose of attending this party so that

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
could make a self-incriminating statement at it.
But then I didn't need to tell you any of this. Robert Harris sends

his

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
love and informs you that you should now be independent enough to

answer

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
these questions without his help- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sammy, G.

2007-02-17 06:23:41 UTC

Top Post for Gerry. I think testing Brown's story is an excellent step. I
would be interested in any findings, and or conclusion that you've made,
or make in the future.

Some people might not understand that Brown's story either way would not
serve to exonerate LBJ.

I've just recently come across some very intriguing facts concerning LBJ
and MANY of JFK's ever so prominent enemies.

Thanks

Sammy, G.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
That was a follow up question to my main question about LBJ's whereabouts,
which you didn't answer.
You just wanted to answer my question indirectly by disproving the Murchison
party, which is really secondary.
If Murchison had a party and people heard that they talked about killing
JFK, it would NOT prove that LBJ had foreknowledge from that party a la
Madeleine Brown if he wasn't there in the first place or couldn't get there
even if he tried.
I'm really testing Madeleine's Brown account not accepting it at face value,
but you seem to argue around my main question.
I guess I should ask Mr. Mack.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
My principal and relevant question is still unanswered. I didn't ask you
about the Murchison meeting.

Quote: "Was the Murchison Ranch close by car to the town that the
President and Vice-President stayed the night before leaving for Fort
Worth/Dallas the next morning?"

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Are you evading the question?

You are evading your own question.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
What about LBJ? Are you aware of Gary Mack's comment about LBJ being

seen

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
with JFK the night before? Was there any chance that if LBJ was within
driving distance, that it was plausible for him to attend such a

meeting.

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Again, you are accepting Madeline Brown's story at face value because
you want to accept it and you are defying others to prove LBJ's
innocence.

Only in the real world. Not in Conspiracyville. I see that you've
"evaded" my point about Nixon's presence at the meeting ALREADY having
been disproven.
Why don't you think that THAT "discredits Madeline Brown on the face"?

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
As for the Murchison Ranch meeting, it was supposedly a birthday
celebration for FBI head, J. Edgar Hoover.

Really? A November 21st birthday celebration for a man born on
January 1st?

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
The episode Guilty Men supposedly shows witnesses other than Madeleine
Brown who were there, i.e., servants, etc.
Hey Grizzlie, ever hear of 'kiss and tell'?

Yes, and so did LBJ, I'm sure. That's why if such a plot had ever
existed, he never would have confided it to his mistress.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
You are wasting my time and everyone's else.
If you don't have any knowledge of such pics or public event the

night

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
before that would serve as an alibi for LBJ, then wait for someone

else

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
who does.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
I watched The Guilty Men on You Tube.
Some of the comments in a critique included one from Gary Mack

who

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
said

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
that there are photos of LBJ with JFK at an event the night

before,

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
they later retired in their respective suites at a hotel

(Houston or

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Texas

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Hotel?) in a town that was a quick flight away from Dallas (I

should

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
know

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
that city but can't recall off the top of my head).
Is this true?
Are there pictures and can we see them here or elsewhere,

anyone?

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Was the Murchison Ranch close by car to the town that the

President

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Vice-President stayed the night before leaving for Fort

Worth/Dallas

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
next morning?
Gerry Simone

The answer to all of your questions that inadvertently suggest an

innocent

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
answer is "no". The answer to all of your questions that

intentionally

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
suggest a guilty answer is "yes".
Everyone in the world who was identifiable as a JFK rival was pure
unadulterated murderous evil -- so obviously all of them were at a

party

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
on the night before, which amounted to a coven of witches and

warlocks

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
(somewhat reminiscent of the climax of Nathaniel Hawthorne's short

story,

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
"Young Goodman Brown"). Where else would they be?
And the sole purpose of the party was to celebrate in
anticipation

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
blessed event that was to happen the next day and to create an
incriminating oral history of it.
In this spirit, LBJ even got up in the middle of the night after a

hectic

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
day on the stump for the sole purpose of attending this party so

that

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
he

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
could make a self-incriminating statement at it.
But then I didn't need to tell you any of this. Robert Harris

sends

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
his

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
love and informs you that you should now be independent enough to

answer

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
these questions without his help- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Gerry Simone (H)

2007-02-18 04:53:43 UTC

Here's Mr. Mack's reply which I post with his permission.

There are many sources confirming LBJ's true whereabouts. Start with

Manchester's book. Then read the Friday morning Houston newspapers for
their coverage of the previous night's Albert Thomas dinner/speech at
which Kennedy and LBJ attended. Then watch Four Days In November -
about 23 minutes in - to see LBJ on the dais in Houston with JFK at
9:30pm. Then read Manchester to see when Air Force Two took off from
Houston with LBJ aboard and landed in at Carswell Air Force Base in
northwest Fort Worth shortly after 11pm. The Sixth Floor Museum's
collections and resources have films and photos showing LBJ at Carswell
along with the Kennedys.
Then read the Fort Worth morning newspaper on 11/22 to see when the
Kennedy motorcade from Carswell arrived at the Hotel Texas (it was just
before midnight). At least one news film in the Museum's collection
shows LBJ entering the hotel. Then read the book about the Murchisons
and where they lived; it's called The Murchisons: The Rise and Fall of
a Texas Dynasty. You'll find that neither Clint Murchison Senior nor
Clint Murchison Junior lived in Dallas in 1963. It was the other
brother, John, who lived in the big house in north Dallas. Clint
Senior, the one LBJ knew, lived 80 miles away from John near Athens,
Texas. I've heard that John was out of town the night of 11/21, but I
cannot document it.
Either way, had LBJ immediately left the Hotel Texas, he could not have
driven to John's house before 1am. Couple that with Madeleine Brown's
earliest version of the party story (the one she told me directly in
the
80s) in which she and LBJ were there around 8pm and you'll realize that
anyone who falls for her story is a fool.....or worse.
Gary Mack
Top Post for Gerry. I think testing Brown's story is an excellent step. I
would be interested in any findings, and or conclusion that you've made,
or make in the future.
Some people might not understand that Brown's story either way would not
serve to exonerate LBJ.
I've just recently come across some very intriguing facts concerning LBJ
and MANY of JFK's ever so prominent enemies.
Thanks
Sammy, G.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
That was a follow up question to my main question about LBJ's
whereabouts,
which you didn't answer.
You just wanted to answer my question indirectly by disproving the Murchison
party, which is really secondary.
If Murchison had a party and people heard that they talked about killing
JFK, it would NOT prove that LBJ had foreknowledge from that party a la
Madeleine Brown if he wasn't there in the first place or couldn't get there
even if he tried.
I'm really testing Madeleine's Brown account not accepting it at face value,
but you seem to argue around my main question.
I guess I should ask Mr. Mack.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
My principal and relevant question is still unanswered. I didn't ask you
about the Murchison meeting.

Quote: "Was the Murchison Ranch close by car to the town that the
President and Vice-President stayed the night before leaving for Fort
Worth/Dallas the next morning?"

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Are you evading the question?

You are evading your own question.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
What about LBJ? Are you aware of Gary Mack's comment about LBJ being

seen

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
with JFK the night before? Was there any chance that if LBJ was within
driving distance, that it was plausible for him to attend such a

meeting.

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Again, you are accepting Madeline Brown's story at face value because
you want to accept it and you are defying others to prove LBJ's
innocence.

Only in the real world. Not in Conspiracyville. I see that you've
"evaded" my point about Nixon's presence at the meeting ALREADY having
been disproven.
Why don't you think that THAT "discredits Madeline Brown on the face"?

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
As for the Murchison Ranch meeting, it was supposedly a birthday
celebration for FBI head, J. Edgar Hoover.

Really? A November 21st birthday celebration for a man born on
January 1st?

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
The episode Guilty Men supposedly shows witnesses other than Madeleine
Brown who were there, i.e., servants, etc.
Hey Grizzlie, ever hear of 'kiss and tell'?

Yes, and so did LBJ, I'm sure. That's why if such a plot had ever
existed, he never would have confided it to his mistress.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
You are wasting my time and everyone's else.
If you don't have any knowledge of such pics or public event the

night

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
before that would serve as an alibi for LBJ, then wait for someone

else

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
who does.

On Feb 13, 2:51 pm, "Gerry Simone (O)"

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
I watched The Guilty Men on You Tube.
Some of the comments in a critique included one from Gary Mack

who

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
said

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
that there are photos of LBJ with JFK at an event the night

before,

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
they later retired in their respective suites at a hotel

(Houston or

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Texas

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Hotel?) in a town that was a quick flight away from Dallas (I

should

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
know

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
that city but can't recall off the top of my head).
Is this true?
Are there pictures and can we see them here or elsewhere,

anyone?

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Was the Murchison Ranch close by car to the town that the

President

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Vice-President stayed the night before leaving for Fort

Worth/Dallas

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
next morning?
Gerry Simone

The answer to all of your questions that inadvertently suggest an

innocent

answer is "no". The answer to all of your questions that

intentionally

suggest a guilty answer is "yes".
Everyone in the world who was identifiable as a JFK rival was pure
unadulterated murderous evil -- so obviously all of them were at a

party

on the night before, which amounted to a coven of witches and

warlocks

(somewhat reminiscent of the climax of Nathaniel Hawthorne's short

story,

"Young Goodman Brown"). Where else would they be?
And the sole purpose of the party was to celebrate in
anticipation

blessed event that was to happen the next day and to create an
incriminating oral history of it.
In this spirit, LBJ even got up in the middle of the night after a

hectic

day on the stump for the sole purpose of attending this party so

that

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
he

could make a self-incriminating statement at it.
But then I didn't need to tell you any of this. Robert Harris

sends

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
his

love and informs you that you should now be independent enough to

answer

these questions without his help- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Grizzlie Antagonist

2007-02-19 02:06:06 UTC

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
That was a follow up question to my main question about LBJ's whereabouts,
which you didn't answer.

No, it's not. Outside of the reference to the Murchison party, Johnson's
whereabouts are unimportant.

Again, you are assuming that such a party took place because this is what
you WANT to believe, and you are requiring Johnson to prove his innocence.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
You just wanted to answer my question indirectly by disproving the Murchison
party, which is really secondary.

The Murchison party is NOT secondary because the legend that it took place
is what gives rise to your questions about Johnson's whereabouts in the
first place.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
If Murchison had a party and people heard that they talked about killing
JFK,

Again, this is a point that you're assuming without proof. You're defying
others to prove that it didn't happen, instead of attempting to prove that
it did.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
it would NOT prove that LBJ had foreknowledge from that party a la
Madeleine Brown if he wasn't there in the first place or couldn't get there
even if he tried.

But once you get others to accept the idea that such a party took place,
you've established the existence of a conspiracy -- with or without LBJ --
and getting others to accept the idea of conspiracy is the only goal that
you had in mind.

But again, you have not even bothered to attempt to prove that such a
party took place and you have been exposed to a great deal of evidence
that it NEVER took place, which seems to have made no impresion on you,
since that's not what you wanted to find out.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
I'm really testing Madeleine's Brown account not accepting it at face value,
but you seem to argue around my main question.

No, I have a better understanding of what the main question is than
you would wish.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
I guess I should ask Mr. Mack.

He's already answered you. What do you think of his answer?

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
My principal and relevant question is still unanswered. I didn't ask you
about the Murchison meeting.

Quote: "Was the Murchison Ranch close by car to the town that the
President and Vice-President stayed the night before leaving for Fort
Worth/Dallas the next morning?"

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Are you evading the question?

You are evading your own question.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
What about LBJ? Are you aware of Gary Mack's comment about LBJ being

seen

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
with JFK the night before? Was there any chance that if LBJ was within
driving distance, that it was plausible for him to attend such a

meeting.

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Again, you are accepting Madeline Brown's story at face value because
you want to accept it and you are defying others to prove LBJ's
innocence.

Only in the real world. Not in Conspiracyville. I see that you've
"evaded" my point about Nixon's presence at the meeting ALREADY having
been disproven.
Why don't you think that THAT "discredits Madeline Brown on the face"?

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
As for the Murchison Ranch meeting, it was supposedly a birthday
celebration for FBI head, J. Edgar Hoover.

Really? A November 21st birthday celebration for a man born on
January 1st?

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
The episode Guilty Men supposedly shows witnesses other than Madeleine
Brown who were there, i.e., servants, etc.
Hey Grizzlie, ever hear of 'kiss and tell'?

Yes, and so did LBJ, I'm sure. That's why if such a plot had ever
existed, he never would have confided it to his mistress.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
You are wasting my time and everyone's else.
If you don't have any knowledge of such pics or public event the

night

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
before that would serve as an alibi for LBJ, then wait for someone

else

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
who does.

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
I watched The Guilty Men on You Tube.
Some of the comments in a critique included one from Gary Mack

who

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
said

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
that there are photos of LBJ with JFK at an event the night

before,

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
they later retired in their respective suites at a hotel

(Houston or

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Texas

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Hotel?) in a town that was a quick flight away from Dallas (I

should

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
know

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
that city but can't recall off the top of my head).
Is this true?
Are there pictures and can we see them here or elsewhere,

anyone?

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Was the Murchison Ranch close by car to the town that the

President

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Vice-President stayed the night before leaving for Fort

Worth/Dallas

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
next morning?
Gerry Simone

The answer to all of your questions that inadvertently suggest an

innocent

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
answer is "no". The answer to all of your questions that

intentionally

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
suggest a guilty answer is "yes".
Everyone in the world who was identifiable as a JFK rival was pure
unadulterated murderous evil -- so obviously all of them were at a

party

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
on the night before, which amounted to a coven of witches and

warlocks

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
(somewhat reminiscent of the climax of Nathaniel Hawthorne's short

story,

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
"Young Goodman Brown"). Where else would they be?
And the sole purpose of the party was to celebrate in anticipation

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
blessed event that was to happen the next day and to create an
incriminating oral history of it.
In this spirit, LBJ even got up in the middle of the night after a

hectic

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
day on the stump for the sole purpose of attending this party so

that

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
he

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
could make a self-incriminating statement at it.
But then I didn't need to tell you any of this. Robert Harris

sends

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
his

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
love and informs you that you should now be independent enough to

answer

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
these questions without his help- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

dyandell

2007-02-19 06:09:36 UTC

Clint Murchison, Sr., friend and publisher of J. Edgar, etc., had a major,
incapacitating stroke in 1958, after which he moved away from the ranch
where Madeleine claimed the party was held (though it stayed in his
family). Conrary to Brown's claims, he gave no party in 1963 and couldn't
have been as she described, given his condition (confirmed via various
sources including Dave Perry interview with Murchison family servant Eula
Tilley (8/21/2002)):

I asked her if she remembered anything about Mr. Murchison giving a
party at the time of the Kennedy assassination. Her response was as
follows:

"Both Warren and I worked for Mr. Murchison for a long time. He had
seven houses, you know. He had one in Acapulco and we would go there to
take care of him. I know he wasn't at any party when Kennedy was shot. He
did not have a home in the Dallas area. He was at his Glad Oaks Ranch
between Athens and Palestine (Texas). I'm not sure how long before the
assassination we were at the ranch but it was more than a few days. I
remember because I was serving lunch to Mr. Murchison and his neighbor
Woffard Cain. One of them said Kennedy had been shot."

Mrs. Tilley went on to explain that several years before Mr. Murchison
had a stroke and was "very sick." He would have not been able to host such
a "party" if he wanted to.

From http://home.comcast.net/~dperry1943/browns.html

THERE WAS NO MURCHISON PARTY, folks.

There's a lot more of interest at the page link above; Perry lays out the
series of discoveries about her lies that led him to reject the claims of
his friend when he investigated.

As far as I can tell from several discussions of Hoover, he was at FBI HQ
when phoned with the tragic news. Does anyone know of any reason to think
that he was in Texas late the night before? It seems unlikely that he was
being thrown a party by his disabled friend at the remote rural ranch that
Clint Sr. moved to in 1958 in Texas but made it to work in DC the next
day.

Since Brown's crucial claim was that LBJ announced to her after a secret
meeting at the party that JFK would be assassinated.

Since there was no party, several of the crucial guests were nowhere near
the ranch, LBJ was nowhere near it, and we know for certain that Brown
lied again and again about the occurrences at this non-existent event,
what will it take for people to drop it?

The Brown nonsense is exactly the stuff CT folks need to drop if the
discussion of significant issues is going to propceed. Typically, this is
true of stories produced decades after events when several crucial figures
can no longer defend themselves and then evolve to include explosive claim
after claim that had no reason not to be revealed initially.

Madeleine Brown was a fraud. Her lies aren't evidence of anything.

Best to all,
Dave

Anthony Marsh

2007-02-20 00:28:10 UTC

Post by dyandell
Clint Murchison, Sr., friend and publisher of J. Edgar, etc., had a major,
incapacitating stroke in 1958, after which he moved away from the ranch
where Madeleine claimed the party was held (though it stayed in his
family). Conrary to Brown's claims, he gave no party in 1963 and couldn't
have been as she described, given his condition (confirmed via various
sources including Dave Perry interview with Murchison family servant Eula
I asked her if she remembered anything about Mr. Murchison giving a
party at the time of the Kennedy assassination. Her response was as
"Both Warren and I worked for Mr. Murchison for a long time. He had
seven houses, you know. He had one in Acapulco and we would go there to
take care of him. I know he wasn't at any party when Kennedy was shot. He
did not have a home in the Dallas area. He was at his Glad Oaks Ranch
between Athens and Palestine (Texas). I'm not sure how long before the
assassination we were at the ranch but it was more than a few days. I
remember because I was serving lunch to Mr. Murchison and his neighbor
Woffard Cain. One of them said Kennedy had been shot."
Mrs. Tilley went on to explain that several years before Mr. Murchison
had a stroke and was "very sick." He would have not been able to host such
a "party" if he wanted to.

From http://home.comcast.net/~dperry1943/browns.html

THERE WAS NO MURCHISON PARTY, folks.
There's a lot more of interest at the page link above; Perry lays out the
series of discoveries about her lies that led him to reject the claims of
his friend when he investigated.
As far as I can tell from several discussions of Hoover, he was at FBI HQ
when phoned with the tragic news. Does anyone know of any reason to think
that he was in Texas late the night before? It seems unlikely that he was
being thrown a party by his disabled friend at the remote rural ranch that
Clint Sr. moved to in 1958 in Texas but made it to work in DC the next
day.
Since Brown's crucial claim was that LBJ announced to her after a secret
meeting at the party that JFK would be assassinated.
Since there was no party, several of the crucial guests were nowhere near
the ranch, LBJ was nowhere near it, and we know for certain that Brown
lied again and again about the occurrences at this non-existent event,
what will it take for people to drop it?
The Brown nonsense is exactly the stuff CT folks need to drop if the
discussion of significant issues is going to propceed. Typically, this is
true of stories produced decades after events when several crucial figures
can no longer defend themselves and then evolve to include explosive claim
after claim that had no reason not to be revealed initially.
Madeleine Brown was a fraud. Her lies aren't evidence of anything.
Best to all,
Dave

Thanks for the info. So Murchison was so incapacitated that it was
impossible for him to attend any parties? Is that the gist of the denial?

dyandell

2007-02-22 04:31:20 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
Thanks for the info. So Murchison was so incapacitated that it was
impossible for him to attend any parties? Is that the gist of the denial?- Hide quoted text -

I didn't say that quite, Anthony, though I enjoy the leading question.
Are you an attorney? :)
I said that Murchison couldn't have been as Brown portrayed him.

No doubt he did occasionally entertain, as Eula Tilley says he had a
neighbor over for lunch on 11/22/63, but he wasn't the major figure in
Dallas social circles that Brown pretends and hadn't been for several
years. Note that we're talking (as she clearly was) about Clint, Sr.,
who was the one who was friends with Hoover, etc.

But the gist of the "denial" is (a) Nixon wasn't there, (b) Johnson
wasn't there, (c) Hoover wasn't there so far as checking has indicated
so far, (d) Clint Sr. didn't live near Dallas anymore, though MB
claimed it was at his house there, (e) Clint Sr. wasn't as she claimed
he was, (f) the one servant who actually worked at Clint Sr's home at
the time that we've heard from flatly denies they had a party the
night before the sad day ...

Then there are all the other lies Dave Perry discovered (see his site
at link in previous post) about other events MB claimed to have
attended at this time and other matters, her having been convicted of
forging a will, etc. (see Perry's discussion of this issue regarding
her being found technically innocent on appeal since she forged it but
got a lawyer to file it), ... One could say that Perry is just a WC
LNer making stuff up, but he isn't, he's a CTer and I've long been
impressed by his honesty, willingness to admit his mistakes, etc. I'm
sure many of you folks know him; I don't have the pleasure but he
isn't a kneejerk guy on either side and he does serious investigative
work and documents what he says.

Plus, she never told her story until almost 20 years later and then it
grew and grew and grew (kinda like Files, Judyth, etc.); this is
rarely a good sign.

One wonders if Tito, Hubert Humphrey, and Fatty Arbuckle could have
been squeezed in if she'd lived longer. ;-)

Hunt was prominent enough that someone with access to the papers down
there might well be able to find out that he wasn't there that night,
but how many of the crucial aspects of the story have to be decisively
shown to be false before people drop this one? For that matter, one
might be able to find out whether she really parked next to Hunt many
times (as she claimed) so that they chatted. It seems less than
certain that the billionaire parked in a regular lot (did he not have
a chauffeur or at least his own reserved space?), but at a certain
point one loses interest in pinning down all the lies.

Best wishes,
Dave Yandell

Grizzlie Antagonist

2007-02-20 00:33:05 UTC

Fromhttp://home.comcast.net/~dperry1943/browns.html

THERE WAS NO MURCHISON PARTY, folks.
There's a lot more of interest at the page link above; Perry lays out the
series of discoveries about her lies that led him to reject the claims of
his friend when he investigated.
As far as I can tell from several discussions of Hoover, he was at FBI HQ
when phoned with the tragic news. Does anyone know of any reason to think
that he was in Texas late the night before? It seems unlikely that he was
being thrown a party by his disabled friend at the remote rural ranch that
Clint Sr. moved to in 1958 in Texas but made it to work in DC the next
day.
Since Brown's crucial claim was that LBJ announced to her after a secret
meeting at the party that JFK would be assassinated.
Since there was no party, several of the crucial guests were nowhere near
the ranch, LBJ was nowhere near it, and we know for certain that Brown
lied again and again about the occurrences at this non-existent event,
what will it take for people to drop it?
The Brown nonsense is exactly the stuff CT folks need to drop if the
discussion of significant issues is going to propceed. Typically, this is
true of stories produced decades after events when several crucial figures
can no longer defend themselves and then evolve to include explosive claim
after claim that had no reason not to be revealed initially.
Madeleine Brown was a fraud. Her lies aren't evidence of anything.
Best to all,
Dave

Ah, but Dave, you don't understand.

Gerry Simone has LBJ in her sights. So she is seeking to find out whether
LBJ COULD HAVE attended this non-existent party IF IT HAD TAKEN PLACE
(even though it did not take place).

Once she establishes that LBJ COULD HAVE attended this non-existent party
IF IT HAD TAKEN PLACE, she's GOT him! Somehow. In some alternate
universe. Or under some philosophical construct.

Anthony Marsh

2007-02-22 03:44:21 UTC

Fromhttp://home.comcast.net/~dperry1943/browns.html

THERE WAS NO MURCHISON PARTY, folks.
There's a lot more of interest at the page link above; Perry lays out the
series of discoveries about her lies that led him to reject the claims of
his friend when he investigated.
As far as I can tell from several discussions of Hoover, he was at FBI HQ
when phoned with the tragic news. Does anyone know of any reason to think
that he was in Texas late the night before? It seems unlikely that he was
being thrown a party by his disabled friend at the remote rural ranch that
Clint Sr. moved to in 1958 in Texas but made it to work in DC the next
day.
Since Brown's crucial claim was that LBJ announced to her after a secret
meeting at the party that JFK would be assassinated.
Since there was no party, several of the crucial guests were nowhere near
the ranch, LBJ was nowhere near it, and we know for certain that Brown
lied again and again about the occurrences at this non-existent event,
what will it take for people to drop it?
The Brown nonsense is exactly the stuff CT folks need to drop if the
discussion of significant issues is going to propceed. Typically, this is
true of stories produced decades after events when several crucial figures
can no longer defend themselves and then evolve to include explosive claim
after claim that had no reason not to be revealed initially.
Madeleine Brown was a fraud. Her lies aren't evidence of anything.
Best to all,
Dave

Ah, but Dave, you don't understand.
Gerry Simone has LBJ in her sights. So she is seeking to find out whether
LBJ COULD HAVE attended this non-existent party IF IT HAD TAKEN PLACE
(even though it did not take place).
Once she establishes that LBJ COULD HAVE attended this non-existent party
IF IT HAD TAKEN PLACE, she's GOT him! Somehow. In some alternate
universe. Or under some philosophical construct.

Prove to us which parties DID take place the night before and which
parties did NOT take place the night before.

dyandell

2007-02-16 23:17:01 UTC

Bad Grizzlie.

James Reston beamed Nixon back and forth between the Hilton and the
Murchison ranch while Nixon was pretending to use the bathroom. (Why
do you think they called Reston "Scotty"?)

LBJ rode to and from the ranch on an American Cream Eskimo dog (bred
to honor a real American Hero) sent back from the future by Irv
Kupcinet's daughter's ghost. He'd been surgically altered to resemble
Clyde Tolson, so that people wouldn't know Clyde was taking down a pre-
confession from Jack Ruby and David Ferrie.

The party was hosted by Clay Shaw, wearing only gold paint, and joined
by three gay Cuban mob generals from the CIA (one of whom was Howard
Hunt). All 67 people at the party later opened fire on Kennedy while
wearing badges and carrying umbrellas, after popping up from their
underground network of Bunkers in Dealey Plaza, so the FBI had to kill
hundreds of tangentially connected people over the next 40 years to
cover it up.

If only JFK and RFK had lent Marilyn Monroe to DeGaulle for one night
of passion and secret-sharing about Permindex, none of this would have
happened.

Of course, this is all at the surface, leaving out the Russians,
Mexicans, Sicilians, Marsellaise, Freemasons, and Chuck Barris, but at
least we've spotted the tip of the iceberg.

;-)
Dave

Anthony Marsh

2007-02-17 02:58:38 UTC

Post by dyandell
Bad Grizzlie.
James Reston beamed Nixon back and forth between the Hilton and the
Murchison ranch while Nixon was pretending to use the bathroom. (Why
do you think they called Reston "Scotty"?)
LBJ rode to and from the ranch on an American Cream Eskimo dog (bred
to honor a real American Hero) sent back from the future by Irv
Kupcinet's daughter's ghost. He'd been surgically altered to resemble
Clyde Tolson, so that people wouldn't know Clyde was taking down a pre-
confession from Jack Ruby and David Ferrie.
The party was hosted by Clay Shaw, wearing only gold paint, and joined
by three gay Cuban mob generals from the CIA (one of whom was Howard
Hunt). All 67 people at the party later opened fire on Kennedy while
wearing badges and carrying umbrellas, after popping up from their
underground network of Bunkers in Dealey Plaza, so the FBI had to kill
hundreds of tangentially connected people over the next 40 years to
cover it up.
If only JFK and RFK had lent Marilyn Monroe to DeGaulle for one night
of passion and secret-sharing about Permindex, none of this would have
happened.
Of course, this is all at the surface, leaving out the Russians,
Mexicans, Sicilians, Marsellaise, Freemasons, and Chuck Barris, but at
least we've spotted the tip of the iceberg.
;-)
Dave

You seem to know too much about that party. You must have been there
taking notes. Got any pictures?
;]>

Sammy, G.

2007-02-17 06:24:13 UTC

TOP POST TO DAVE

I thought you said you were new here?
Sounds like veteran to me!

Thanks

Sammy, G.

Anthony Marsh

2007-02-16 05:06:29 UTC

1) This fanciful story about a bunch of malefactors sinisterly
meeting at the Murchison Ranch on "the night before" is the stuff of
spy novels and/or murder mysteries.

Why can't all those guys just be getting together innocently? After all,
it WAS a party. Maybe they just adjourned into the study to talk about
politics and some of them suggested that Kennedy should be shot. Perfectly
innocent, eh?

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
And the notion that LBJ would confide such a shockingly guilty secret
to his mistress is equally fictitious.

You need to get out more.

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
I guess that you think that, in real life, women who sleep with
powerful men aren't expected to relate what they hear to third parties
and that it would have made perfect sense for LBJ to say something
like that to his mistress.
But this isn't even remotely believable as history. It didn't even
make any sense for LBJ to HAVE a mistress if he was planning to murder
his superior. So the burden of proof isn't on those who would
question such a story. The burden of proof is on those who would
maintain such a story.

You're telling LBJ that he is not entitled to have a mistress? Who are
you, the Moral Majority?

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
You're sitting there with your arms folded and your toes tapping
waiting for someone to provide an alibi for LBJ. But no one has to do
that. The burden of proof is on you to prove LBJ guilty.
2) If you want to believe that this happened, you will believe that
this happened. No one will persuade you otherwise.
You've already decided that Murchison Ranch was "a quick flight away"
or "close by car" from where LBJ stayed the night before -- so what
good would those "pics" do if anyone were to produce them to you?
3) Madeline Brown's story also has Richard Nixon at the Murchison
Ranch that night, but his presence THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE EVENING at
the Statler Hilton in the company or sight of other celebrities during
the time that he was supposed to be at the Murchison Ranch has been
well-documented.
But notwithstanding this fact, the Madeline Brown story still lives on
as part of the legend connected with the assassination. So if Nixon's
alibi doesn't satisfy those who want to promote this story, why should
Johnson's?
See again Reason Number 2. You'll believe anything that you want to
believe.

Texas

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Hotel?) in a town that was a quick flight away from Dallas (I should

know

The answer to all of your questions that inadvertently suggest an innocent
answer is "no". The answer to all of your questions that intentionally
suggest a guilty answer is "yes".
Everyone in the world who was identifiable as a JFK rival was pure
unadulterated murderous evil -- so obviously all of them were at a party
on the night before, which amounted to a coven of witches and warlocks
(somewhat reminiscent of the climax of Nathaniel Hawthorne's short story,
"Young Goodman Brown"). Where else would they be?
And the sole purpose of the party was to celebrate in anticipation of the
blessed event that was to happen the next day and to create an
incriminating oral history of it.
In this spirit, LBJ even got up in the middle of the night after a hectic
day on the stump for the sole purpose of attending this party so that he
could make a self-incriminating statement at it.
But then I didn't need to tell you any of this. Robert Harris sends his
love and informs you that you should now be independent enough to answer
these questions without his help

Gerry Simone (O)

2007-02-17 02:52:34 UTC

Agreed.

LOL.

1) This fanciful story about a bunch of malefactors sinisterly
meeting at the Murchison Ranch on "the night before" is the stuff of
spy novels and/or murder mysteries.

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
And the notion that LBJ would confide such a shockingly guilty secret
to his mistress is equally fictitious.

You need to get out more.

You're telling LBJ that he is not entitled to have a mistress? Who are
you, the Moral Majority?

Texas

Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Hotel?) in a town that was a quick flight away from Dallas (I should

know

The answer to all of your questions that inadvertently suggest an innocent
answer is "no". The answer to all of your questions that

intentionally

Grizzlie Antagonist

2007-02-19 06:15:58 UTC

1) This fanciful story about a bunch of malefactors sinisterly
meeting at the Murchison Ranch on "the night before" is the stuff of
spy novels and/or murder mysteries.

Why can't all those guys just be getting together innocently?

Because they didn't get together at all.

Post by Anthony Marsh
After all,
it WAS a party. Maybe they just adjourned into the study to talk about
politics and some of them suggested that Kennedy should be shot. Perfectly
innocent, eh?

Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
And the notion that LBJ would confide such a shockingly guilty secret
to his mistress is equally fictitious.

You need to get out more.

How many posts have you contributed to this forum? You're not in a
position to tell me that I need to get out more

You're telling LBJ that he is not entitled to have a mistress? Who are
you, the Moral Majority?

This isn't a serious question, is it? This is some sort of ploy on
your part, right?

The answer to your question is: No, Niccolo Machiavelli.

Or better still, Harry Hotspur as Shakespeare portrayed him.

----------------
HOTSPUR
Come, wilt thou see me ride?
And when I am on horseback, I will swear
I love thee infinitely. But hark you, Kate;
I must not have you henceforth question me
Whither I go, nor reason whereabout:
Whither I must, I must; and, to conclude,
This evening must I leave you, gentle Kate.
I know you wise, but yet no farther wise
Than Harry Percy's wife: constant you are,
But yet a woman: and for secrecy,
No lady closer; for I well believe
Thou wilt not utter what thou dost not know;
And so far will I trust thee, gentle Kate.

LADY PERCY
How! so far?

HOTSPUR
Not an inch further.

Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part I, Act 2, Scene 3
----------------

They say that a nonsensical question brings about a nonsensical
answer, but you got a great deal more content than you paid for on
this go-around.

curtjester1

2007-02-22 04:50:45 UTC

1) This fanciful story about a bunch of malefactors sinisterly
meeting at the Murchison Ranch on "the night before" is the stuff of
spy novels and/or murder mysteries.

Of course it is. It's so tantalizing that it will seep into the minds of
the most prestigious 'storytellers'.

Pat Shannan found one.

In 1994, I began a series of interviews with a former CIA pilot who had
fallen from grace a decade earlier after he began to blow the whistle on
the agency's part in the American drug activity. He had been confined for
more than six years in the Springfield, Missouri federal "hospital" and
force-fed mood and mind altering drugs. Because of a promise not to put
his name in print during his lifetime, we shall refer to him throughout as
"The Colonel."

The Colonel, himself, is a book walking around waiting to be published but
never will. He was an OSS pilot in WWII and moved over to the CIA in the
year of its birth, 1947. He admitted committing some despicable acts "in
the name of democracy" (such as the kidnapping and murder of the Shah of
Iran and his whole family in 1952 - a mission headed up by Norman
Schwartzkopf, Sr., father of the celebrated Army General) but finally put
his foot down in 1983, when it came to drugging American kids.

The Colonel would always wince when reminded of the tap dance of "the only
two adults in America" who couldn't remember where they were the day
Kennedy was shot - George Bush and Richard Nixon. "I knew where both the
lying !@#$%*&! were," he said with a beaming grin. "They were right there
in Dallas with me. We were at Clint Murchinson's house at a party the
night before the assassination." The Colonel said that it was he who had
flown the "triangular assassination team" into Dallas but was reluctant to
discuss any further details either then or in our several subsequent
interviews, finally becoming visibly angered at my repeated inquiries.

Private investigation had already turned up the Murchinson party that took
place on Thursday night, November 21st, but the reports were all third
party hearsay with no participants or eyewitnesses willing to talk. A book
or two had mentioned it in passing, but there was nothing solid until now.
Suddenly the unasked question became Did The Colonel read this somewhere
or had he really been there? He recited a whole laundry list of
muckety-mucks which I was fairly confident had never been published
before, in addition to Nixon and Bush and including Henry Kissinger, J.
Edgar Hoover, H. L. Hunt, and Lyndon Johnson. I wanted to believe, but it
was out of the mouth of only one source, so the interview was tucked into
a file drawer for future reference. I needed some confirmation, and that
would be four more years in coming.

CJ

tomnln

2007-02-14 06:39:16 UTC

Ask Gary Mack to produce/verify time for those pictures.

Gerry Simone (O)

2007-02-15 03:52:26 UTC

Maybe he'll see this post. I'll cc: him.

Post by tomnln
Ask Gary Mack to produce/verify time for those pictures.

Gerry Simone (O)

2007-02-16 04:43:37 UTC