02-01-2011, 07:37 PM
I must say, Alan, that when I notice you are not only taking Madeleine's name in vain but also those of Ed Hoffman, Beverly Oliver, Gordon Arnold, and Jean Hill as well (to leave the more controversial case of Judyth to one side, even though I am among those who believe what she has to tell us), it raises serious questions in my mind as to where you are coming from. Have you ever met or spoken with any of them or done any serious research about them? Have you watched any of their interviews on, for example, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"? What do you know about them?
Let's just focus on Madeleine for the time being. You heard that she mentioned the name of Sam Rayburn during a presentation as one of "LBJ's co-conspirators", which you think is "absurd" and on that basis discount her. So what precisely did she say? And what do you know abut the relationship between LBJ and Sam Rayburn? Do you also discount the possibility that the Joint Chiefs (Allan Dulles, J. Edgar Hoover, and others) were involved because that, too, would be "absurd"?
I am inclined to speculate that you may belong to the DiEugenio School of Intuitive Research, where if Jim doesn't think something sounds right (such as the presence of CIA officials at the Ambassador the evening that Bobby was assassinated, which I have reviewed in "RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador"), then it isn't right. The problem, however, is that we all have different backgrounds and abilities and tend to take different claims as "reasonable" or not, which doesn't resolve these issues.
But if different people at the same time or the same person at different times can view the same claim as "reasonable" or as "unreasonable", we have to ask whether or not those who arrive at those opinions have any good reasons to support them in the form of evidence. I therefore ask you, granting that you are inclined to discount anything Madeleine has to tell us, even though she was LBJ's mistress and bore him a son, who was not his only offspring out of wedlock but the only male, what is you evidence?
Let's just focus on Madeleine for the time being. You heard that she mentioned the name of Sam Rayburn during a presentation as one of "LBJ's co-conspirators", which you think is "absurd" and on that basis discount her. So what precisely did she say? And what do you know abut the relationship between LBJ and Sam Rayburn? Do you also discount the possibility that the Joint Chiefs (Allan Dulles, J. Edgar Hoover, and others) were involved because that, too, would be "absurd"?
I am inclined to speculate that you may belong to the DiEugenio School of Intuitive Research, where if Jim doesn't think something sounds right (such as the presence of CIA officials at the Ambassador the evening that Bobby was assassinated, which I have reviewed in "RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador"), then it isn't right. The problem, however, is that we all have different backgrounds and abilities and tend to take different claims as "reasonable" or not, which doesn't resolve these issues.
But if different people at the same time or the same person at different times can view the same claim as "reasonable" or as "unreasonable", we have to ask whether or not those who arrive at those opinions have any good reasons to support them in the form of evidence. I therefore ask you, granting that you are inclined to discount anything Madeleine has to tell us, even though she was LBJ's mistress and bore him a son, who was not his only offspring out of wedlock but the only male, what is you evidence?
Alan Dale Wrote:Hello Magda,
First allow me to say how much I appreciate the quotations you chose as your signature.
With regard to Madeleine Brown's story, I believe that if I knew nothing beyond her public identification of Sam Rayburn as one of LBJ's co-conspirators, I would conclude that she was probably not being truthful and that she was definitely not very well informed about contemporary history.
No one in a position of influence or authority who may have whispered something to her as a taste of what was to come could have made such an error.
Rayburn was certainly old and probably fuzzy during President Kennedy's first year in office. I don't think it's plausible that anyone would concoct such an absurd revelation as that which she promoted (briefly), unless they simply didn't know what they were talking about.
I'm new here and still enjoying and reviewing the mountains of interesting material.
Thank you for allowing me to participate.
