"JFK's own dirty trick" by Mark Feldstein [For Nixon to call Kennedy "a dirty politician" is rich]

[Charles Drago]

For me, a major sheepdipping of False Sponsors would make sense. I don't object to the premise of Brown's story.

Alas, this one is too theatrical. It is too grandiose. The incrimination of the Facilitators among those at the alleged party surely took place -- but most likely on smaller stages and in less grand fashion.

And the only source for the story is a woman whose vulnerabilities to manipulation can only be guessed at.

The notion that this meeting was convened so that a final vote on the assassination could be taken is too ludicruous to entertain. In order for this to have taken place, the masterpiece conspiracy would have had to be constructed along the lines of a high school civics class exercise.

And the masterful conspirators would have had to agree to rendezvous at virtually the scene of the crime.

Further, and at the risk of opening old wounds, I am obliged to note in a spirit of collegial academic discourse that support for this story from Messrs. Nelson and Morrow is tantamount to a Politburo vote in support of Uncle Joe.

If we are now reduced to citing the likes of these failed "scholars" (in one case an all too successful disinformationalist, in the other his sexually obsessed tout*) to bolster our work, we might as well give it all up and apply for Bilderberg membership.

For as long as I have the strength to put words to paper (cyber and foolscap), I shall not allow such vile product and its originators/vessels to be associated positively with the name of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
________________________________________

*Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot over the use of this language ... think about it. The strong, documented case for the former characterization has been made ad nauseam and stands unrefuted. The case for the latter is repeatedly -- and, thankfully, elsewhere -- self-made.

[Lauren Johnson]

Further, and at the risk of opening old wounds, I am obliged to note in a spirit of collegial academic discourse that support for this story from Messrs. Nelson and Morrow is tantamount to a Politburo vote in support of Uncle Joe.

If we are now reduced to citing the likes of these failed "scholars" (in one case an all too successful disinformationalist, in the other his sexually obsessed tout*) to bolster our work, we might as well give it all up and apply for Bilderberg membership.

For as long as I have the strength to put words to paper (cyber and foolscap), I shall not allow such vile product and its originators/vessels to be associated positively with the name of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
________________________________________

*Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot over the use of this language ... think about it. The strong, documented case for the former characterization has been made ad nauseam and stands unrefuted. The case for the latter is repeatedly -- and, thankfully, elsewhere -- self-made.

Oh, goody. We could be heading for the first test of the Bear Cave.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Jim D, we agree to disagree about Nigel Turner. I loved that show. Yes there were some serious errors but overall it was a marvelous series and that it was on tv right after JFK was wonderful. Got lots of people thinking about the assassination as conspiracy.

I totally agree about Jack Anderson, he has lied about JFK and the assassination as long as I can remember. In the 70's trying to link Castro ...I never trusted him.
Remember he also lied about Tom Eagleton, McGovern's first veep choice. Said he had a drunking driving conviction. A total lie.

I loved Anthony Summer's work Conspiracy BUT I don't trust him. He went out of his way to smear Jim Garrsion trying to link him to the Mob. And of course Garrison called him "One of the CIA's more accomodating prostitutes".

Thanks Jim F for reminding me of Steve. I knew that a long time ago but had forgotten the details.

Now the party? I just don't know. It just seems way to pat to be believed. And Ms Brown had a powerful motive to augment her story. I absolutely believe she was LBJ's mistress and that they had a son. If he was indeed murdered because he made a claim then I can see why she would tell all and then some.

I see neither Jim nor Jack has addressed the society column- Van Ims or something like who allegedly wrote of the party. The column was never to be found. Why would Ms. Brown say there was such a story? Revenge perhaps?
Dawn

Dawn I did not mean the original five part series by Turner. That was not too bad, except for the Christian David, Steve Rivele crap.

What I meant was the follow ups, especially the last parts with Judy Baker and Barr McClellan. Please do not say you thought those were good. Turner actually got sued on that and had to settle. That is what a bad researcher he is.

The original Val Imms story about the so called Dallas high society party was actually quoted by Penn Jones, but was not even about the Murchison myth. It was about a party hosted by Paul Ragorodsky, allegedly associated with Permindex. When I studied this, I noted it to Livingstone who I was arguing with about it at the time. I said that Penn segued from this real party in the paper, to a completely different affair which he only heard about second hand way after the fact. But yet he calls the second affair something like an assassination meeting. And he then relates it, get this ,to another assassination meeting which he says took place in Shreveport. He only mentions the last in passing. So how or why he calls it that is never dealt with.

When I started examining this genesis, that is when I began to trace it through all the books it was mentioned in. And I saw how it had gained a life of its own. ANd time after time, more people were added to it. Until Brown capped it off with Hoover and McCloy--who, as Seamus shows, could not have been there.

I don' t know how they missed Hunt or Phillips. But here is the irony there: they actually WERE IN DALLAS at the time. But the fact they were ignored, while McCloy and Hoover were added, tells you what you need to know about this tale.

[Charles Drago]

I don' t know how they missed Hunt or Phillips, who actually WERE IN DALLAS at the time. But the fact they were ignored, while McCloy and Hoover were added, tells you what you need to know about this tale.

Bravo.

[Jan Klimkowski]

The original Val Imms story about the so called Dallas high society party was actually quoted by Penn Jones, but was not even about the Murchison myth. It was about a party hosted by Paul Ragorodsky, allegedly associated with Permindex. When I studied this, I noted it to Livingstone who I was arguing with about it at the time. I said that Penn segued from this real party in the paper, to a completely different affair which he only heard about second hand way after the fact. But yet he calls the second affair something like an assassination meeting. And he then relates it, get this ,to another assassination meeting which he says took place in Shreveport. He only mentions the last in passing. So how or why he calls it that is never dealt with.

When I started examining this genesis, that is when I began to trace it through all the books it was mentioned in. And I saw how it had gained a life of its own. ANd time after time, more people were added to it. Until Brown capped it off with Hoover and McCloy--who, as Seamus shows, could not have been there.

Research of this quality, tracing back to the original sources, and then meticulously seeing how this source material is used and abused, is fundamental to any search for the truth.

In this instance, Jim DiEugenio, with assistance from other researchers, has made a very strong case that the "assassination eve party" could not have happened with the cast of high profile figures as described by Madeleine Brown.

The onus is now surely on those who maintain that the "assassination eve party" did take place to provide corroborating evidence other than the testimony of LBJ's mistress and a "chauffeur".

If such evidence is not forthcoming, then I can only concur with Jim DiEugenio's conclusion that:

I don' t know how they missed Hunt or Phillips. But here is the irony there: they actually WERE IN DALLAS at the time. But the fact they were ignored, while McCloy and Hoover were added, tells you what you need to know about this tale.

In other words, the "assassination eve party" story is either a fabrication for mundane reasons, or - more sinisterly - active disinformation to discredit genuine investigation.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Bumped.