Bruce, let's try to look at this from a very simple and basic view. The reason that you catch so much static is because the feelings towards JFK run very high. To a lot of us, he was the best President that we ever had. And we are very aware of what we lost, especially in days like the present.
So let us examine why a lot of your claims do not receive acceptance.
When JFK was inaugurated, he already had a long list of enemies. You can imagine Nixon was not overjoyed to losing that election. A little later, we had the Bay of Pigs fiasco. How many enemies did JFK get from this one? A little bit farther and he made the decision to fire Dulles and Cabel and the others. Now these were big powerful boys with friends in high places also. Moving on to the Missle crisis, he stood fast on his decision not to invade Cuba. There was already strong speculation that he was soft. To the hawks, his actions proved it. Consider also, Jimmy Hoffa. At the time, Hoffa was one of the most powerful men in America and Bobby Kennedy was on him like white on rice. Not to mention others in organized crime that were feeling the effects from the investigations. Mix all these people up, consider the amount of influence and power,collectively, was there, and then ask yourself, if JFK was such a deviate, why did not even a hint of it come out while he was alive? The early 60's were a time of high morals. A sex scandal would have put an end to JFK. Consider John Profumo of England.And does it not seem conceiveable that with all of that power and influence against JFK, a conspiracy to assassinate him would not have been needed. He would assassinate himself by his misdeeds and misconduct.This would have been much easier and less costly and it would have effectively eliminated the entire Kennedy family from politics.
But it did not happen because he simply did not do things like order murders of movie stars and such. These are tales that eminate from cheap and scandalous and unscrupulous folks just interested in making a quick buck.
Now, enough name calling and threats. I am not a coward but I do not plan on visiting Chicago any time soon. Got better things to do.
But Bruce, please stop wasting your time with these "rumors" and get on to the important things like getting your books out. The bottom line is this: can you produce?
bobc
JFK'S FIRST MARRIAGE TO MS. DURIE MALCOLM:
-
Tim Carroll
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Accountability and Sourcing Methods
Bruce is now attempting to change his previous assertion, despite the record conclusively demonstrating otherwise:
Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Tim, I don't need to Slander JFK. All I need to do is tell the truth about things that he has done. Also, my comment about 2,000 people killed before, during, and after The Bay of Pigs was extremely accurate.His previous statement, posted here, speaks for itself that he was addressing the captured members of Brigade 2506, during their captivity, and not "before, during, and after the Bay of Pigs":Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:What about the 2,000 Americans, and Cubans loyal to America that JFK first said he would protect at the Bay of Pigs, then he betrayed, who were castrated, blinded, burned alive, had fingers cut of digit by digit, hot irons put up their rectums, and then all ultimately murdered by Castro's Assassination Squads?And that 2,000 figure isn't "extremely accurate" in any re-worked context. The 2,000 figure flies in the face of the fact that the entire Brigade was comprised of less than 1,500 men. They began their numbering at 2,501 for propaganda reasons, and the number 2506 comes from the number of the first member to die (in a training accident). There is no record of any Bay of Pigs prisoner being killed while incarcerated by Castro.Tim Carroll wrote:In remarkable contrast to Bruce's assertion that over 2,000 men involved in the Bay of Pigs were "all ultimately murdered by Castro's assassination squads," only 114 of the men in the Brigade died. That's about five percent of Bruce's figure. 1,189 men were captured and later freed. 150 were unable to land or were never shipped out or were able to make their way back.
I have provided extensive sourcing for my assertions, previously, while Bruce has attributed his information to some vaguely undefined History Channel program. Here's another highly credible, confirming source of the figures I've produced and sourced: Michael R. Beschloss, The Crisis Years, 1991, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, p. 123:
"Finally Kennedy approved a compromise. For one hour, six jets from the Essex could fly over the beachhead to protect the Brigade's ammunition supply flights and their B-26 escorts. The jets must not fire at Castro's planes or ground targets unless the Brigade's aircraft should be attacked. Rusk reminded him of his pledge not to use American forces: 'The President shouldn't appear in the light of being a liar.' Kennedy raised his right hand to the base of his nose: 'We're already into it up to here.'... On Wednesday, April 19, after dawn, the U.S. Navy jets approved by the President took off from the Essex. A timing mistake [failing to consider the different time zones between Nicaragua and Cuba] brought them too early over the beaches of the Bay of Pigs. Without proper defense, the Brigade's supply flights were driven away and two of its B-26s were downed. That afternoon the demoralized exiles began surrending. One hundred and fourteen [114] dead. The other 1,189 were captured by Castro's troops."
I challenge Bruce to produce a quote from any source that supports his assertion of 2,000 members of the Bay of Pigs invasion who were "all ultimately murdered by Castro's Assassination Squads?" Elsewhere I have posted photos taken at the Monument to Brigade 2506, just off Calle Ocho in the Little Havana section of Miami. There are 114 names of the dead thereon, including that of Wade Carroll Gray.
Tim
Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Tim, I don't need to Slander JFK. All I need to do is tell the truth about things that he has done. Also, my comment about 2,000 people killed before, during, and after The Bay of Pigs was extremely accurate.His previous statement, posted here, speaks for itself that he was addressing the captured members of Brigade 2506, during their captivity, and not "before, during, and after the Bay of Pigs":Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:What about the 2,000 Americans, and Cubans loyal to America that JFK first said he would protect at the Bay of Pigs, then he betrayed, who were castrated, blinded, burned alive, had fingers cut of digit by digit, hot irons put up their rectums, and then all ultimately murdered by Castro's Assassination Squads?And that 2,000 figure isn't "extremely accurate" in any re-worked context. The 2,000 figure flies in the face of the fact that the entire Brigade was comprised of less than 1,500 men. They began their numbering at 2,501 for propaganda reasons, and the number 2506 comes from the number of the first member to die (in a training accident). There is no record of any Bay of Pigs prisoner being killed while incarcerated by Castro.Tim Carroll wrote:In remarkable contrast to Bruce's assertion that over 2,000 men involved in the Bay of Pigs were "all ultimately murdered by Castro's assassination squads," only 114 of the men in the Brigade died. That's about five percent of Bruce's figure. 1,189 men were captured and later freed. 150 were unable to land or were never shipped out or were able to make their way back.
I have provided extensive sourcing for my assertions, previously, while Bruce has attributed his information to some vaguely undefined History Channel program. Here's another highly credible, confirming source of the figures I've produced and sourced: Michael R. Beschloss, The Crisis Years, 1991, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, p. 123:
"Finally Kennedy approved a compromise. For one hour, six jets from the Essex could fly over the beachhead to protect the Brigade's ammunition supply flights and their B-26 escorts. The jets must not fire at Castro's planes or ground targets unless the Brigade's aircraft should be attacked. Rusk reminded him of his pledge not to use American forces: 'The President shouldn't appear in the light of being a liar.' Kennedy raised his right hand to the base of his nose: 'We're already into it up to here.'... On Wednesday, April 19, after dawn, the U.S. Navy jets approved by the President took off from the Essex. A timing mistake [failing to consider the different time zones between Nicaragua and Cuba] brought them too early over the beaches of the Bay of Pigs. Without proper defense, the Brigade's supply flights were driven away and two of its B-26s were downed. That afternoon the demoralized exiles began surrending. One hundred and fourteen [114] dead. The other 1,189 were captured by Castro's troops."
I challenge Bruce to produce a quote from any source that supports his assertion of 2,000 members of the Bay of Pigs invasion who were "all ultimately murdered by Castro's Assassination Squads?" Elsewhere I have posted photos taken at the Monument to Brigade 2506, just off Calle Ocho in the Little Havana section of Miami. There are 114 names of the dead thereon, including that of Wade Carroll Gray.
Tim
-
Mark Johansson
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Re: TIM CARROLL:
Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Dear Mr. Tim Carroll,I have just reviewed your Response. I will study it more completely tonight.Tim, some good argumentative points.Bob C, you're a clown, with a very big mouth, and no guts, and even lessknowledge about JFK. Very unstable, and unprofessional.I live in Chicago, Illinois, if you ever want to meet me to tell me in person.We will determine who is the coward.Tim Carroll and I argue, and post under our real names. Tim is a man's man, even when I disagree with him. You're just a sissy.Respectfully,Bruce Patrick Brychek.
BOBC is a good friend of mine and drag his name through the mud is not accepted by me. Watch your word of choice in the future. We are here for one reason and the reason is to solve the mystery of our beloved President.
Mark
BOBC is a good friend of mine and drag his name through the mud is not accepted by me. Watch your word of choice in the future. We are here for one reason and the reason is to solve the mystery of our beloved President.
Mark
-
Bruce Patrick Brychek
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
NAME CALLING:
Dear JFK Forum Readers,
On another post Bob C. called me a liar, a coward, and guilty of treason.
I responded by calling him a clown, and a sissy. Not my best work, I admit it. However, if Bob C. wants to call me names like that, then all of
you people who can't or don't read jump on me.
It figures.
Tim Carroll, I have personally interviewed witnesses from The Bay of Pigs,
in addition to my research.
My Original purpose was to attack JFK with everything that I could find, to
generate people's opinions based upon whatever JFK may have accomplished.
Tim Carroll never really responded to my points about JFK'S First Marriage,
other than to say that the attorney whole stole the files at JFK'S request was
76 at the time of the interview.
Nobody has told me anything that JFK had actually accomplished. I still defy anybody to site some authority that demonstrates what, if anything,
JFK actually accomplished. It will be a very short list if it focuses on positive things.
Further, since most of you have not seen Files on JFK, nor have most of you read the book, nor have most of you listened to Judyth Vary Baker's
story about Lee Harvey Oswald, her boyfriend, then what have you to talk about ?
Tim Carroll give me your address and I'll send you $ 100.00 to buy the DVD, and book, or I'll send Wim the $ 100.00 and have him send it to you.
The reason that the JFK devotees are all upset is that most of them are unaware of what a degenerate JFK actually was.
Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
On another post Bob C. called me a liar, a coward, and guilty of treason.
I responded by calling him a clown, and a sissy. Not my best work, I admit it. However, if Bob C. wants to call me names like that, then all of
you people who can't or don't read jump on me.
It figures.
Tim Carroll, I have personally interviewed witnesses from The Bay of Pigs,
in addition to my research.
My Original purpose was to attack JFK with everything that I could find, to
generate people's opinions based upon whatever JFK may have accomplished.
Tim Carroll never really responded to my points about JFK'S First Marriage,
other than to say that the attorney whole stole the files at JFK'S request was
76 at the time of the interview.
Nobody has told me anything that JFK had actually accomplished. I still defy anybody to site some authority that demonstrates what, if anything,
JFK actually accomplished. It will be a very short list if it focuses on positive things.
Further, since most of you have not seen Files on JFK, nor have most of you read the book, nor have most of you listened to Judyth Vary Baker's
story about Lee Harvey Oswald, her boyfriend, then what have you to talk about ?
Tim Carroll give me your address and I'll send you $ 100.00 to buy the DVD, and book, or I'll send Wim the $ 100.00 and have him send it to you.
The reason that the JFK devotees are all upset is that most of them are unaware of what a degenerate JFK actually was.
Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
-
Tim Carroll
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Contributions
Bruce Patrick Brychek wrote:Tim Carroll give me your address and I'll send you $ 100.00 to buy the DVD, and book, or I'll send Wim the $100.00 and have him send it to you.
Kind offer, but I don't need the money. I performed well more than that value in legal services for Wim. If he had any class at all, he would have sent the materials rather than making an issue of it.
So am I to take it from Bruce that he stands by his Bay of Pigs numbers? Yet still not sourcing....
Tim
Kind offer, but I don't need the money. I performed well more than that value in legal services for Wim. If he had any class at all, he would have sent the materials rather than making an issue of it.
So am I to take it from Bruce that he stands by his Bay of Pigs numbers? Yet still not sourcing....
Tim
That's it.
Carroll's red card !
What a nerve! To first steal my properties, lie and violate my confidence, then ask me to be reinvited in my home, only to insult me further (silly, irrational, etc) and finally accuse you me of lack of class, only because you're too cheap to buy the book and DVD, in fact expecting it as a gift.
You can only blow up a balloon untill it bursts , Carroll!
Good luck and bye,
Wim
Carroll's red card !
What a nerve! To first steal my properties, lie and violate my confidence, then ask me to be reinvited in my home, only to insult me further (silly, irrational, etc) and finally accuse you me of lack of class, only because you're too cheap to buy the book and DVD, in fact expecting it as a gift.
You can only blow up a balloon untill it bursts , Carroll!
Good luck and bye,
Wim
For Wim
Mr. Dankbaar, I take enormous exception to the fact that you allow and permit JFK's name to be dragged through the nmud. There are a lot of people that have stood beside you and tried their best to help you. There is a number of us that admire Mr. Kennedy. This type of posting is nothing but sensationalism and an attack on someone that is unable to defend themselves.
I request, here in this Forum, that you define your beliefs and opinions of Mr. Kennedy. Personally, it sounds as if you and Brycheck are out to ruin the name of JFK and portray him to be such an utterly reprehensible person, that Files is a hero for ridding the world of such a despot.
Wim, you are disappointing and letting a lot of people down that have really stood behind you. Are you a researcher who deals in facts or Bruce Brychck's lapdog?
bobc
Bob Clemens
I request, here in this Forum, that you define your beliefs and opinions of Mr. Kennedy. Personally, it sounds as if you and Brycheck are out to ruin the name of JFK and portray him to be such an utterly reprehensible person, that Files is a hero for ridding the world of such a despot.
Wim, you are disappointing and letting a lot of people down that have really stood behind you. Are you a researcher who deals in facts or Bruce Brychck's lapdog?
bobc
Bob Clemens
Bob,
First of all, the question if JFK was a great President or not, whether he was good or bad, hated or loved, is not the central issue for me. The central issue is that he was killed as the result of a conspiracy, that the truth of his death was covered-up, that it was crime, that it was anti-democratic to do that, and that the truth of his murder should be exposed.
Hence what I think is of the man is really irrelevant to what I see as my challenge. That said, I have stated before that I admire his policies and the things he was trying to to accomplish for the world. I believe those were all good things. I certainly do not commend and praise Files for killing JFK. On the contrary. Nor do I approve of anyone stating it was the right thing to do, to kill or remove an elected President. I do commend Files for telling the truth about it.
I cannot speak for Bruce, but what I think he is trying to do, is provoke you to challenge him on lesser known facts about JFK's private life and conduct. Facts that are less admirable. I guess it irritates him that JFK is unconditionally made into heroic icon, and that his admirers close their eyes for what Bruce believes are also facts. I would recommend to challenge him on the veracity of those. He is entitled to his opinion as long as he keeps it within the rules of this forum. In that regard I have already told him of my dissaproval for calling you a clown.
Finally, No, I am not Bruce's lapdog. We are good friends and hold each other in high esteem, although we do not always agree on everything. I think we can say the same of you and me.
Wim
First of all, the question if JFK was a great President or not, whether he was good or bad, hated or loved, is not the central issue for me. The central issue is that he was killed as the result of a conspiracy, that the truth of his death was covered-up, that it was crime, that it was anti-democratic to do that, and that the truth of his murder should be exposed.
Hence what I think is of the man is really irrelevant to what I see as my challenge. That said, I have stated before that I admire his policies and the things he was trying to to accomplish for the world. I believe those were all good things. I certainly do not commend and praise Files for killing JFK. On the contrary. Nor do I approve of anyone stating it was the right thing to do, to kill or remove an elected President. I do commend Files for telling the truth about it.
I cannot speak for Bruce, but what I think he is trying to do, is provoke you to challenge him on lesser known facts about JFK's private life and conduct. Facts that are less admirable. I guess it irritates him that JFK is unconditionally made into heroic icon, and that his admirers close their eyes for what Bruce believes are also facts. I would recommend to challenge him on the veracity of those. He is entitled to his opinion as long as he keeps it within the rules of this forum. In that regard I have already told him of my dissaproval for calling you a clown.
Finally, No, I am not Bruce's lapdog. We are good friends and hold each other in high esteem, although we do not always agree on everything. I think we can say the same of you and me.
Wim
Wim
You are an excellent sportsmen. You can duck and dodge with the best of them. Allow me to make myself perfectly clear. 1st. This is not a matter of frienship. It goes much deeper than that. This is about ethics honesty and morality. So, again, what is YOUR position and beliefs on JFK the person. Do you support bruce in his accusations. Just a simple yes or know will do.
Thank You Bob
Thank You Bob
"This is about ethics honesty and morality"
What is that supposed to mean? You are still not "perfectly clear". Do you want to allege a lack of honesty, ethics and morality on my part?
On to your next question, since you seem to believe my thoughts on Bruce's statements are so important: I support many of Bruce's claims, I do not always agree to the way he words them, but I certainly will not blame him for raising them.
Again, if Bruce takes issue with statements like JFK was such a great example, a family man, a saint that loved his wife etcetera, and he wants to point out that JFK had VD, held private nude swimming parties in the White House, screwed celibrities and Cuban prostitutes, had a formed marriage secretly annulled, made Judyth Exner and Marilyn Monroe pregnant to have them aborted by Giancana, made a deal with the mob to rig his election, offered Jackie a million bucks not to divorce him, and more matters like that, why do you expect me to censor him?
First , this is a forum of free speech where people can raise topics and debate them, secondly it is not a requirement for me to agree or disagree when such a topic is raised, thirdly I have not seen any significant rebuttal of what Bruce has brought up, only that some members here do not like his statements. As a moderator I will only make sure the basic rules are respected, I cannot guarantee that everyone likes each other statements and opinions.
If that is ducking and dodging in your opinion, then we can agree to disagree.
Wim
What is that supposed to mean? You are still not "perfectly clear". Do you want to allege a lack of honesty, ethics and morality on my part?
On to your next question, since you seem to believe my thoughts on Bruce's statements are so important: I support many of Bruce's claims, I do not always agree to the way he words them, but I certainly will not blame him for raising them.
Again, if Bruce takes issue with statements like JFK was such a great example, a family man, a saint that loved his wife etcetera, and he wants to point out that JFK had VD, held private nude swimming parties in the White House, screwed celibrities and Cuban prostitutes, had a formed marriage secretly annulled, made Judyth Exner and Marilyn Monroe pregnant to have them aborted by Giancana, made a deal with the mob to rig his election, offered Jackie a million bucks not to divorce him, and more matters like that, why do you expect me to censor him?
First , this is a forum of free speech where people can raise topics and debate them, secondly it is not a requirement for me to agree or disagree when such a topic is raised, thirdly I have not seen any significant rebuttal of what Bruce has brought up, only that some members here do not like his statements. As a moderator I will only make sure the basic rules are respected, I cannot guarantee that everyone likes each other statements and opinions.
If that is ducking and dodging in your opinion, then we can agree to disagree.
Wim