On another note (so to speak) my University Honors Thesis is available online…:-)

This paper is the result of more than a year’s worth of research, actually on two continents, as I found myself fascinated with Ben Jonson while I was a student at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. I discovered to my delight and surprise that a major book on Jonson, The Broken Compass, had been written by one of my profs at Bucknell, Ned Partridge. When I returned to Bucknell I requested that he be my English Lit advisor for this project, as was Dr. Robert Hilliard, my mentor, in History.

I was fortunate to graduate as one of two in my class, and the only woman, with a University Honors degree that year.



Sad to share…

I am deeply saddened to have to share that my dear husband and passionate JFK researcher Donner Brown has passed away. Donner worked with me on all my presentations and was my producer, putting together all the powerpoint presentations and providing the most wonderful support for me. Just about any credibility I have in this arena I feel I owe to him. He always pushed me to do more. We were just starting work on our first book, in fact, about the JFK limo and its star witness.

Here is Donner’s obit:

The photo above was taken on the roof of the Dallas Grand Hotel.

Let’s not forget the QMII follow-up car…

Right behind SS100X on 11.22.63 was the stunning SS parade limo (for some strange reason both a convertible and armoured).  It carried the SS men who were told to stay off of SS100X, and was driven by SA Sam Kinney.

This car is, to my thinking, every bit as interesting as SS100X.  It was sequestered with SS100X following the assassination, but there is no record of what, if anything, was done with it.  SA Robert Frazier did not do a forensic exam on it, as he did on SS100X.

It was the QMII that was used for the Warren Commission reenactment in May, 1964.  That is another story, as the reason it was used instead of the actual assassination limousine was that SS100X had been gutted to bare metal to be rebuilt and was, therefore, conveniently unavailable.

Here is an interesting page on the QMII:


The Nature of the Ongoing Coverup…EF reply…

It seems to me that there is information that those still pushing the Ongoing Coverup don’t care about.  Then there is information they don’t want the rest of us to have.  One example of that, from my experience, is the Ferguson Memo, which was sent to me by mistake long before they had RIFs when I asked for everything NARA had on the limo.

Prior to the acquisition of the information in the Ferguson Memo there was a great deal of confusion about what happened to the limo once it returned to the White House Garage.  Once I published the Ferguson Memo at my website a tsunami occurred.  Everyone’s pet theory was up for grabs.  Therefore, it seems to me those involved in the Ongoing Coverup use confusion to their advantage.  By refusing to release certain documents which they know would clear up the confusion, they can just let everyone go around in circles, coming up with crazy theories, which they can then point to as evidence of CT ‘looniness’…

When I published the Ferguson Memo, Mr. Marsh went to NARA demanding a copy of it. They refused, saying that it was still being withheld.  Marsh then produced MY copy of the Ferguson Memo and the people at NARA went “whoops.”  So they then had no choice but to release it.  But when they did so, they cut off the date of the memo, which on my copy had been December 18, 1963



Was this just an ‘accident’?  Or part of a deliberate process to encourage confusion?

Another issue is NARA withholding access to documents they have.  When you go to NARA for serious work, you are assigned to one of their people.  They vett you and know what you are looking for.  On one trip I hoped to see the Jim Garrison files, notes, memos, etc, that had just recently been donated to NARA.  I was told that I had not allotted enough time to do so (I had two days) and was denied access to any of the material at that time.  What that said to me was (1) the files had not been ‘gutted’ yet and (2) that they were, in their original state, dynamite.

So, basically, in whichever direction one goes, there will be those sincerely confused and doing their best, and those in-the-know who are trying to withhold information.  Ironically, the more controversy your research generates, perhaps the more on-target it is, especially if you find that people seems to be coming out of the woodwork to try to discredit you…


Whitaker used to try to ‘poison the well’ re Ferguson…ef reply…

Unfortunately, Greg seems to have fallen prey to the fallacy of false alternatives.

Also, imo, the ‘poisoning of the well’ was done when the ‘nameless witness’ that later was revealed to be Whitaker was forced onto the JFK research community when those doing this had ample documentation available to them that demonstrated his statements were false.  No one bothered to pony up a single bit of documentation connecting him to the limo in any way.

It is my thinking that this campaign has gone on unchecked in order to ‘poison the well’ against the man who wrote the memo that NARA sent to me by mistake, Vaughn Ferguson.  There is documentation connecting him to the limo in the days following the assassination.  He was the one who took possession of some of the bloody back seat leather.  There are photos of him with the limo.

My logic is this — fool me once shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

From my standpoint on the limousine, Horne has driven himself into the pothole that the lies about Whitaker represent.  That is his choice.  But as long as he or anyone is maintaining a false position on a major issue in the assassination it is unrealistic not to anticipate that they will fall into potholes in other areas of their research.

Another reply…Greg just doesn’t seem to get it…:-0

Speak for yourself, Greg.  That was not my intent.

You pointed out a fallacy by using a fallacy.  That is what I pointed out.  I don’t think your position has merit as a result.

At least we agree that everyone should read all that is available and decide for themselves what to think.  I am attempting to provide definition for anyone who chooses to ask questions about the limo issue that I think causes us to have to ask questions about Horne’s credibility on every other issue.

Curious that you seem to have complimented me on ‘bumping’ Doug’s article while failing to pony up a single bit of objective documentation connecting the ‘nameless witness’ to the limo, which is the focus of my criticism.

Greg also seems to be forgetting my position, which is not to tell people what to think, but to give them all the information available and ask that they think things through for themselves.



MB2B — Ed Forum reply…

Thank you for your kind words.  My research philosophy is quite simple — I don’t ask that anyone ‘believe’ or ‘disbelieve’ what I say, but weigh and evaluate the information I am bringing forward and then decide for yourself what to think.  As the limo is at the center of the assassination, there are probably more wacky theories involving it than any other area of research, so I feel I speak from a position of experience.

It is tough for me to watch researchers who have honest intent fall into potholes regarding the limo.  The most insidious of these is a need for a t+t bullet hole in the windshield in order for there to be a conspiracy.  Once someone falls into that pothole, they may never be able to climb out.  That said, I hope I am providing a timeline of documentation for what I believe happened to SS100X after the assassination that will provide a reference point for anyone wishing to dig deeper or move forward.