General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy believed President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. [View all]stopbush
(24,396 posts)as a witness against LBJ and his using the words Irish Mafia?
YOU. ARE. CITING. A . FICTION.
You're NOT citing an example of the words "Irish Mafia" being used because LBJ was never at the party Brown alleges took place for him to say those words to her.
Here's a few of the many claims made by Madeline Brown:
In the documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Brown placed FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon at a social gathering at Murchison's Ft Worth mansion on November 21, 1963 the night before the assassination of President Kennedy. This is the party where Brown would have us believe LBJ expressed prior knowledge of JFK's assassination. Unfortunately, all a lie:
1. J Edgar was in Washington DC on Nov 21 & 22. That's been thoroughly document. Easily disproved lie #1.
2. LBJ was seen at a political rally in Houston with JFK until about 10 on Nov 21. He then flew to Carswell Air Force Base near Fort Worth. After touching down at 11:07 p.m., he was driven to the Texas Hotel in Fort Worth, where he and Lady Bird were photographed at 11:50 p.m. on their arrival. No way LBJ was at that alleged party. Easily disproved lie #2.
3. The alleged "Murchinson Party" was held at a home which Murchinson had moved out of 4 years before the assassination. On Nov. 21, he was living at his Glad Oaks Ranch between Athens and Palestine, ie: 100-plus miles outside of Dallas. Two longtime personal assistants to Murchinson placed him at his East Texas ranch on Nov. 22, receiving the news of JFK's death at that ranch around 1pm. Easily disproved lie #3.
4. Tony Zoppi, the longtime entertainment columnist for The News, said he had seen Nixon introduced at a bottlers convention at a downtown Dallas hotel about 11 p.m. on Nov. 21. That sighting made it virtually impossible that Nixon could have attended the alleged Murchison party. Easily disprove lie #4.
"Brown also claimed to have seen Lee Harvey Oswald with Jack Ruby in the latter's Carousel Club prior to the assassination. In addition, Brown said that on New Year's Eve 1963, Johnson confirmed the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, insisting that "Texas oil and those fucking renegade intelligence bastards in Washington" had been responsible. Brown said that the plan to kill the President had its origins in the 1960 Democratic Convention, at which John F. Kennedy was nominated presidential candidate with Johnson as his running mate." (Source: Wikipedia)
Is it plausible to believe that LBJ - who had been sworn in as president on Nov 22, 1963 - would actually put himself in a situation where he would be able to meet with a mistress on a holiday evening that is one of the biggest nights of the year around the world? Really? Did LBJ have Brown invited to the various Presidential New Year's Eve functions in DC, where his wife Lady Bird would most surely also be, and where he (LBJ) would be surrounded by staff, pols, flacks and hacks all seeking to be close to the president on a holiday eve?
You believe THAT, but you don't believe the forensic evidence in the case presented in the WCR?
Brown was a liar and a spinner of fables who didn't know enough to shut up before her tales lurched into absolute absurdity. One could perhaps believe that she was a mistress of LBJ, but to then believe that she also saw Oswald and Ruby together pre-assassination, that LBJ told her he was plotting to kill JFK, and that she just happened to be in all the right places at all the right times to hear LBJ confirm that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK is beyond what any rational person could possible believe as being true.
Yet here you are, citing her as yet another of your "I have no evidence for this, but maybe it really happened, hee-YUCK!!" fantasies about the JFK killing, while denying the science that lies behind the evidence of the WCR.
At this point, I really can't take anything you're saying seriously. Obviously, you have a far-out "pet theory" about the JFK assassination that would make Oliver Stone throw up in his mouth. You've been slowly rolling out your pet theory over the course of this thread. First, you start with a faulty look at the real evidence in the WCR, trying to look reasonable about it so you can say, "I've looked at YOUR evidence, and I have problems with it. Here's what I think..." This is important for you to do because you hope it will rope others into a false equivalency, where the WCR believers will feel the need to be nice and "look at AF's "evidence," just as he looked at the WCR evidence.
You then hope to get the WCR believers to give up a point or two in the WCR argument because you believe that will open the door for you to claim - as you have - that doing so "destroys" the WCR evidence in the case. It doesn't.
Now, you're at the point where you're rolling out your REALLY crazy JFK CT crap, hoping it will resonate with others. Unfortunately, you haven't laid the ground work for others to make the giant leaps that you have (ie: believing Madeline Brown's fantasies about LBJ) to get to your "pet theory," which is simply ridiculous on its face. The reason you didn't lay the groundwork was because your half-truths and faulty reading of the evidence in the case has been thoroughly and effectively dismantled by the science-believing contributors to this thread.
Madeline Brown. That's like shit icing on top of the shit CT cake you've been baking in this thread.