+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book (/thread-5184.html)
Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book - Paul Rigby - 14-01-2011
...with Otto Eisenschiml fingering Stanton for the Lincoln hit. And Eisenschiml was a frequently quite brilliant researcher.
Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book - Charles Drago - 14-01-2011
Just running out the door for what passes for debauchery in Providence, RI.
Until I'm back with a more detailed response, I offer this:
"Catalyst" -- No. LBJ may have been maneuvered to think of himself in such a role, and we definitely are being manipulated -- by Nelson and other disinformationalists -- to assign such (False) Sponsorship to him.
"Sine qua non" -- No. JFK was going to be hit, one way or another. The Sponsors and Facilitators were going to be protected, one way or another. The coverup was going to happen, one way or another.
The "power" of the presidency was the sine qua non. And herein lies the critical distinction. If not LBJ, then another. He either went along with the game or risked "ejection."
Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book - Paul Rigby - 14-01-2011
Charles Drago Wrote:If not LBJ, then another. He either went along with the game or risked "ejection."
Or in Morrow-speak, ejaculation.
Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book - Morgan Reynolds - 15-01-2011
Well, let's shine some more light in dark places, Charles.
My dictionary says a mastermind is "A highly intelligent person; especially, one who plans and directs a project." You do not say why you find this a preposterous role for LBJ in the crime of the century. Why preposterous or objectionable? You know it did not happen that way? How? On its face? The evidence you adduced to prove your position is...?
I explained why LBJ had the capability, history and intense motivation to be Macbeth in this regicide, granted, a few layers removed. LBJ was the Political Operator Supreme, was he not? For example, he made his big money by accepting bribes for "services rendered," fixing this, that and the other in service of big bucks, etc. Operator Supreme. Then we have ruthless, ambitious, bitter, humiliated, cornered, all that stuff. There is no doubt in my mind that LBJ had the motivation, intelligence and other attributes to "get the job done," assisted by many others at the hub and spoke. Yet this apparently is an impossibility to you. It certainly is "anathema" to you, yet WHY? Look at all the skullduggery LBJ committed throughout his life. What is your argument and evidence to back up your opinion that LBJ was a bit player pre-assassination, if that is a proper inference about your theory? I don't know and that's why I'm asking for it. Maybe you have some new facts to bring to our discussion.
False sponsor? You define that and maybe I'll have an answer.
And JFK's assassination was going to happen anyway? What? Instigated by what, the forces of history? By international bankers? Without participation by LBJ? Name who was standing in the wings and how that would work. History is made by acting individuals, not "forces." Crimes are committed by specific criminals for specific motives, not structure or some other abstraction. In any case, it's not clear why we need this "counterfactual." We can always use more facts that are relevant to improve understanding.
And what does "the power of the presidency was the sine qua non" mean? All I get from that is that gigantic means would not be applied to acquire it if the office were powerless and/or worthless. That is a given though, too obvious, so I'm not sure what you mean. I wonder how far you go? Do you deny that LBJ was and had to be in on it in advance?
I'm asking to find out how far to back up to find common ground. Pure negativity does not tell me what your theory and evidence are, all I see is that you gag at the thought of LBJ as mastermind, shout prevarication, etc. Speaking of disinfo, what lie(s) did Nelson tell?
Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book - Charles Drago - 15-01-2011
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:My dictionary says a mastermind is "A highly intelligent person; especially, one who plans and directs a project."
As I've previously noted, "my" dictionary, Merriam-Webster, defines "mastermind" as "a person who supplies the directing or creative intelligence for a project."
Such is your extraordinary claim for LBJ. Provide your extraordinary evidence. Show us your model for the "project." I have shown my model for the assassination conspiracy, a model jointly developed by myself and George Michael Evica. In it we define "False Sponsor." Please find it on DPF, study it, and respond with your analysis.
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:I explained why LBJ had the capability, history and intense motivation to be Macbeth in this regicide, granted, a few layers removed.
Now we may be on to something. Define "a few layers removed" from the Macbeth role.
And while you're at it, demonstrate to us how LBJ had the "capability" to detect and select and manipulate LHO, the perfect patsy. For starters. After all, the "mastermind" of the JFK conspiracy must have had sufficient savvy to appreciate the overarching significance of selecting a patsy whose c.v. would taint so many agencies and operations so as to deflect post-assassination investigations. Said operations would include, but not be limited to, HTLINGUAL and the false defector provocations.
Of course, you may argue, LBJ needn't know about such things. All he had to bring to the task was the authority to command those who did.
So prove such an extraordinary claim.
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:LBJ was the Political Operator Supreme, was he not? For example, he made his big money by accepting bribes for "services rendered," fixing this, that and the other in service of big bucks, etc. Operator Supreme.
Make the leap to JFK assassination "mastermind." "Political Operators" were a dime a dozen. Still are. So too those who "accept bribes for 'services rendered."
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:Then we have ruthless, ambitious, bitter, humiliated, cornered, all that stuff.
Granted.
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:There is no doubt in my mind that LBJ had the motivation, intelligence and other attributes to "get the job done," assisted by many others at the hub and spoke. Yet this apparently is an impossibility to you.
This is weak. Very weak. Define "other attributes." The devil is in this very detail. You're making the claim, the onus is on you to demonstrate precisely how the "humiliated, cornered" LBJ had the authority to command the deep political state to do his bidding.
More on your "intelligence" gambit at post's end.
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:It certainly is "anathema" to you, yet WHY? Look at all the skullduggery LBJ committed throughout his life. What is your argument and evidence to back up your opinion that LBJ was a bit player pre-assassination, if that is a proper inference about your theory?
So you equate the "skullduggery" commited by a no-holds-barred political fixer like Landslide Lyndon to the knowledge, skills, and authority necessary to construct and execute the JFK assassination conspiracy?
By all means, thrill us with the finer points of this argument.
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:False sponsor? You define that and maybe I'll have an answer.
I already have. On many occasions. Please do your homework and get back to us.
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:Crimes are committed by specific criminals for specific motives, not structure or some other abstraction.
Not just "motives," I'm afraid. You've left out "means" and "opportunity." Please elaborate on these areas vis a vis LBJ.
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:And what does "the power of the presidency was the sine qua non" mean? All I get from that is that gigantic means would not be applied to acquire it if the office were powerless and/or worthless.
Ahh, just what I was waiting for. No offense intended, Morgan, but here you are demonstrating a rather pedestrian appreciation of deep politics.
By "the power of the presidency," I am referencing the chief executive's ability to intimidate, direct, and otherwise run roughshod over certain government agencies and the media. This power is vested in the for-public-consumption notion of the presidency -- a sleight-of-hand trick. Ask Richard Nixon just how much power his presidency had when he demanded information from the CIA. Ask John Kennedy how much power his presidency had in April, 1961.
LBJ's pivotal role in the coverup was dependent upon the limited but useful traditional power of his office to command those elements of the government and the media to do his bidding.
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:Do you deny that LBJ was and had to be in on it in advance?
No.
Morgan Reynolds Wrote:Speaking of disinfo, what lie(s) did Nelson tell?
In summation? One word will suffice.
EDIT: ADDITION -- Your understanding of disinformation seems rather superficial, if I may say. "Disinformation" and "lies" are not synonymous. The spreading of false information is but one component of a disinformation operation -- the key element of which is the selective presentation of verifiable fact. Nelson tells us nothing we did not already know. A great deal of what he professes to be true is true. Like all disinformationalists he uses such statements of fact to establish his bona fides, and then goes on to present, for example, the Hersh abominations as fact with the expectation that his readers will accept these arguments from authority.
Previously on this thread I have demonstrated how Nelson has attempted to back away from his now crumbling "mastermind" deception even though in his book he steadfastly maintains, in no uncertain terms, that LBJ did indeed supply the directing or creative intelligence for the assassination conspiracy. You tell me the proper word to describe Nelson's action.
Finally, Morgan, I am disappointed in your effort to conflate LBJ's intelligence with the authority, skills, and knowledge necessary to be the "mastermind" of the JFK assassination.
You're creating a strawman with all of this posturing, and I'm not buying it for a minute. Nowhere has it been argued -- at least by me -- that LBJ was a dolt. Far from it.
So while Jim Fetzer -- your tag-team partner here -- may be thrilled by this diversionary exercise, I suggest that you drop it. It's embarrassing. And not to me.
Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book - Jim DiEugenio - 15-01-2011
Can I ask a question and hope not to be presumptuous?
If this is the Morgan Reynolds from the 9-11 field, you know, no planes hit the WTC and all that, what is his background in the JFK case?
I mean most of us have been studying this case for many, many years and have written books, articles, essays etc. So when we say that it is highly unlikely that LBJ was the mastermind of the plot, we know of what we speak. And we can back it up with more than generalities. And CD and I have done so. We have also shown that Nelson used some highly questionable sources in his book e g. Mr. CIA asset, Sy Hersh and the unreliable Barr McClellan. He also made some assertions for which he had no evidence i.e. that LBJ was somehow in on a body alteration plot. This had to be specualtive since Lifton's theory, as expressed in Best Evidence, the hijacking of the body off of AF One is speculative.
I have never read an article or essay on this case from Mr. Reynolds. Can he point me to where he has ever done such work?
Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book - Charles Drago - 15-01-2011
In my most recent post above I added the following material:
Your understanding of disinformation seems rather superficial, if I may say. "Disinformation" and "lies" are not synonymous. The spreading of false information is but one component of a disinformation operation -- the key element of which is the selective presentation of verifiable fact. Nelson tells us nothing we did not already know. A great deal of what he professes to be true is true. Like all disinformationalists he uses such statements of fact to establish his bona fides, and then goes on to present, for example, the Hersh abominations as fact with the expectation that his readers will accept these arguments from authority.
Previously on this thread I have demonstrated how Nelson has attempted to back away from his now crumbling "mastermind" deception even though in his book he steadfastly maintains, in no uncertain terms, that LBJ did indeed supply the directing or creative intelligence for the assassination conspiracy. You tell me the proper word to describe Nelson's action.
To it I would add this: If in fact LBJ embodied the directing or creative intelligence for the JFK assassination conspiracy, then surely it follows that he would have played the same role in the MLK and RFK plots. Or will you argue that LBJ's genius was so staggering that others used his perfect plan as a template upon which to base subsequent deep political murders?
Also, remember that, as I've documented elsewhere in this too-long thread, Nelson claims that LBJ was hands-on throughout the plot, pre- and post-shooting. He allegedly was handling "hundreds or thousands" of coverup details. Keep this in mind if you choose to argue that LBJ simply gave the orders and let others devise the particulars.
Finally, I'd like you to tell me what kind of "mastermind" stages a presidential assassination in his home state and sends his publicly acknowledged closest advisors to oversee details?
Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book - James H. Fetzer - 15-01-2011
Why am I not surprised? Anyone can enter "Morgan Reynolds, JFK" on google and come up with multiple articles and interviews he has done about JFK, some of which I consider to be quite brilliant. I don't understand why this guy appears to be too lazy to do the least research about something as simple and straightforward as this.
PLUS what would it matter if this were his first outing on JFK? That DiEugenio is even raising the question is not only a form of self-promotion but an obvious ad hominem attack. If he disagrees with Morgan's position, let him offer evidence and arguments to defeat it. If Jim pays attention, he is going to learn from him about JFK and 9/11.
The Assassination of JFK, 9/11 And David Rockefeller
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=rockefeller
Talking with Jim Marrs about JFK and 9/11 Parallels
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=jim_marrs_JFK_911
Death in Dallas
http://www.assassinationscience.com/DeathInDallas.pdf
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Can I ask a question and hope not to be presumptuous?
If this is the Morgan Reynolds from the 9-11 field, you know, no planes hit the WTC and all that, what is his background in the JFK case?
I mean most of us have been studying this case for many, many years and have written books, articles, essays etc. So when we say that it is highly unlikely that LBJ was the mastermind of the plot, we know of what we speak. And we can back it up with more than generalities. And CD and I have done so. We have also shown that Nelson used some highly questionable sources in his book e g. Mr. CIA asset, Sy Hersh and the unreliable Barr McClellan. He also made some assertions for which he had no evidence i.e. that LBJ was somehow in on a body alteration plot. This had to be specualtive since Lifton's theory, as expressed in Best Evidence, the hijacking of the body off of AF One is speculative.
I have never read an article or essay on this case from Mr. Reynolds. Can he point me to where he has ever done such work?
Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book - David Guyatt - 15-01-2011
Gentlemen, please keep the discussion pointed at the facts and avoid the tendency to engage in ad homs at all costs.
Thanks.
Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book - James H. Fetzer - 15-01-2011
I do not want to get in the way of what should be a most interesting exchange between Morgan Reynolds and Charles Drago, especially since I have already done what I can to explain that Charles' position suffers from the straw man by adopting an exaggerated conception of what it would take to qualify as the "mastermind" of JFK's assassination. No one had a larger role and most certainly not some abstraction.
Appeals to some nebulous "national security state" don't face up to the fact that real decisions affecting the course of events are made by real people who are in positions of power. No one was in a stronger position of power--for a multiplicity of reasons--at that historical moment in time than was Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Read Madeleine and Billy Sol but don't forget the historians. LBJ was a master of power.
No one has a stronger claim on that distinction than LBJ as the pivotal played both BEFORE and AFTER the ambush in Dallas. Lyndon was the one who stood to gain the most and who had the least to lose. He was in desperate straits and knew how to push the buttons and pull the levers of power. And he had no inhibitions about taking out his political enemies or even his own sister, if she became "inconvenient" to him. He had his own hitman!
Lies occur when someone deliberately makes an assertion that they know to be false with the intention of misleading their audience. Disinformation, similarly, involves the deliberate assertion (propagation, dissemination) of information they know to be false with the intention to mislead their audience. Typically, as in the case of the reasons Bush and Cheney gave for invading Iraq, it is promulgated for political purposes.
The selective use of evidence can be part of a disinfo op, but it is not strictly necessary, as long as there are ways to present it that make it plausible. Articles in The New York Times, for example, were used to bolster the case for invading Iraq, even though those reasons were not well-founded. It follows that having verifiable evidence is not a requirement for the deployment of disinformation.
So claiming that the key to it is "the selective use of verifiable fact" is incorrect. The selective use of fabricated evidence can work just as well, as occurred when Bush and Cheney claimed that Saddam was seeking yellowcake from Niger, which turned out to be based upon crudely forged documents. What was "verifiable" was not fact and, indeed, facts tend to pose obstacles to the use of disinformation.
Demonizing Saddam Hussein was in itself an act of disinformation, where, in that case, the history of his conduct of the affairs of the nation were subject to exaggeration. We thought we could pin the existence of WMDs on him because we had sold them to him, but Saddam had skillfully disposed of them in anticipation of that being used against him, as UN inspectors would subsequently confirm.
My contribution here is meant to be conceptual. While it is the case that the best sources of disinformation offer a proportion of truth and fiction on the order of 80/20, the parallel with lying is quite appropriate. I would even go so far as to suggest that these continued attacks on Seymour Hersh are an example, since he has done so much to expose malfeasance at home and abroad. Attacking him is wrong.
I am still astounded that, when well-placed sources from Jack Ruby to Evelyn Lincoln finger LBJ as the pivotal player--where Ruby said the assassination would not have taken place had someone else been the Vice President--and Phil Nelson has given us such a superb study of his warped character and political genius, this is still supposed to be a debatable issue! I think Morgan has it just about right.
Charles Drago Wrote:In my most recent post above I added the following material:
Your understanding of disinformation seems rather superficial, if I may say. "Disinformation" and "lies" are not synonymous. The spreading of false information is but one component of a disinformation operation -- the key element of which is the selective presentation of verifiable fact. Nelson tells us nothing we did not already know. A great deal of what he professes to be true is true. Like all disinformationalists he uses such statements of fact to establish his bona fides, and then goes on to present, for example, the Hersh abominations as fact with the expectation that his readers will accept these arguments from authority.
Previously on this thread I have demonstrated how Nelson has attempted to back away from his now crumbling "mastermind" deception even though in his book he steadfastly maintains, in no uncertain terms, that LBJ did indeed supply the directing or creative intelligence for the assassination conspiracy. You tell me the proper word to describe Nelson's action.
To it I would add this: If in fact LBJ embodied the directing or creative intelligence for the JFK assassination conspiracy, then surely it follows that he would have played the same role in the MLK and RFK plots. Or will you argue that LBJ's genius was so staggering that others used his perfect plan as a template upon which to base subsequent deep political murders?
Also, remember that, as I've documented elsewhere in this too-long thread, Nelson claims that LBJ was hands-on throughout the plot, pre- and post-shooting. He allegedly was handling "hundreds or thousands" of coverup details. Keep this in mind if you choose to argue that LBJ simply gave the orders and let others devise the particulars.
Finally, I'd like you to tell me what kind of "mastermind" stages a presidential assassination in his home state and sends his publicly acknowledged closest advisors to oversee details?