04-03-2010, 06:19 PM
Adrian, Nixon even attended the ratification meeting at the home of Clint Murchison the night before, as Madeleine Duncan Brown, with whom I had more than 100 conversations, has told me. Lyndon showed up late and they--Murchison, H.L. Hunt, Nixon, Johnson, George Brown, John J. McCloy, and J. Edgar included--went into a conference room for about fifteen mintues, after which Lyndon strode over to Madeleine and told her, in a hateful tone of voice, that he wouldn't have to put up with those Kennedy boys "after tomorrow". The meeting was confirmed in spades in "The Guilty Men", the final segment of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Six weeks later, during a rendezvous at the Driskill Hotel in Austin on New Year's Eve, she confronted him with rumors, rampant in Dallas at the time, that he had been involved, since no one stood to gain more personally. He blew up at her and told her that the CIA and the "oil boys" had decided that JFK had to have been taken out. She wrote about it in her book, TEXAS IN THE MORNING, and Billy Sol Estes confirmed it in his A TEXAS LEGEND. I have told this story so many times I thought it was common knowledge within the JFK research community, but apparently I am wrong. There's quite a lot about GHWB having been involved, where I believe I was the first to identify him standing in front of the BOOK DEPOSITORY following the assassination in a photograph in Jessie Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE, which I discuss in some detail in a chapter in MUDER about whether Lee Oswald could have been convicted in a court of law. Without any doubt, he could not have based upon the evidence, although a rigged trial would have been probable.
Adrian Mack Wrote:Dr. Fetzer, I did research chemtrails, insofar as anybody can, and I found no there there. But I did find a lot of mindfuckery from the likes of Bearden.
Quote:On JFK, if you don't know that LBJ and Egar were principals along with major players from the CIA and supported by the Joint Chiefs and elements of the Mafia, you are obviously out of date.Who says I don't? My point is that your source made an unequivocal statement that confuses and conflates the roles of the above and then adds bit or non-players like Bush 1 and Nixon into the equation. Admittedly, I don't know what he/she means by "signed finding", but if it suggests Hoover's or Johnson's specific foreknowledge of the assassination, then I think it's contestable. Hoover and Johnson as principals in the cover-up, however? No argument from me.
I've read the very fine Douglass book.