James H. Fetzer Wrote:As a professional philosopher, I certainly have nothing against abstractions as concepts that are removed from specific instances of their embodiment, such as the meanings of probability, truth, justice, and knowledge. When "truth" is defined as correspondence with reality (where a sentence is true when what it asserts to be the case is the case, for example), that does not tell us which sentences are true. In the search for truth, we use correspondence as its definition and coherence as our criterion, where the extent to which the available relevant evidence "hangs together" tends to be the measure of support for alternative hypotheses and theories, which can be made more precise using likelihoods and probabilities. In relation to the events of 22 November 1963, our interest is in power and who was in the position to exercise it with regard to the assassination and the cover-up.

Power (in political context) is a disposition or capacity to be able to control people and their actions, which may include access to resources that are denied to others. When one individual or group has more power than another, that implies they have a greater capacity or ability to control those resources (physical, financial, whatever) than does the other. But power does not exist in a vacuum. Power only exists insofar as some individual or group can control others and their actions and thereby affect the course of events. Corporations are nice examples, insofar as they represent legal powers to control individuals and assets under the authority of their directors and CEOs. In relation to the assassination, the question becomes, Which individual or group have more power to control the course of events?

Lyndon Johnson had spent his entire life controlling other persons and exercising power. He had a political genius for sizing up the strengths and weaknesses of men, especially those who had anything to do with politics in relation to making decisions and allocating resources. By virtue of an intricate network of relationships that LBJ had developed over the course of his career, he had established connections with an enormous range of individuals and groups, including the Directors of the FBI and of the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the Speaker of the House, and virtually every other powerful figure whose resources might make a difference to conducting the removal of his predecessor by the use of violence. He even devoted time to cultivating relations with members of the Secret Service.

Because of his network of associations and collaborations, Lyndon was uniquely placed to encourage resentment of JFK and to promote political opposition to his actions and policies. He had always aspired to be president of all the people and had demonstrated the capacity for overcoming obstacles that stood in his way from the earliest stages of his development. He was perceptive, cunning, relentless, and brutal, but he could also be loving, caring, generous and charitable, which was why his close friend, John Connally, observed, when asked to describe him, that that would take every adjective in the dictionary (because he had so many strengths, both for good and for evil). By virtue of his position as Vice President, he was the one and only person who could control the apparatus of the government in relation to the pursuit of those who were responsible for the death of JFK.

And since they included Lyndon himself, others who wanted JFK out were willing to collaborate with him in the undertaking on the understanding that NO ONE would pay any price for the assassination. That was the key. The CIA, the Chiefs, and the assets and ops they controlled were willing to proceed with that understanding. And local leaders, including the Mayor, whose brother JFK had removed from the CIA, were more than eager to contribute their part. In order to have been the pivotal player, Lyndon did not have to control very detail of a complex operation. He had to be the one who would be in the position to make sure that no one paid any price for taking out JFK. He even sent his chief administrative assistant, Cliff Carter, to Dallas to make sure that all the arrangements were in place for the assassination. A "hands on" kind of guy, LBJ was going to make sure that this event was a success, since nothing would have been worse for the conspirators than a wounded but not mortally wounded target.

And once it had been done, he was very active in covering it up. We know Lyndon was profoundly involved from those who knew him best, including Madeleine, Billy Sol, and others who were not quite as close, such as Barr McClellan and E. Howard Hunt. We know that JFK had antagonized the most politically powerful individuals and groups in the country, from the CIA to the Chiefs to the Mafia, the Texas oil men and the bankers and financiers behind the scene, as James Douglass has explained. Their resentment and distrust led them to support the coup, where Lyndon was the person who played the crucial role that enabled it to proceed by guaranteeing that no one would play a price for their involvement. Phil Nelson has laid it out in such a thorough, meticulous, detailed and coherent fashion that I find it difficult to understand why anyone would contest Lyndon's role as the pivotal player.

After all, ask yourself, who else had the kinds of connections that Lyndon possessed in relation to the CIA, the Chiefs, and the Texas oil men? Who was closer to J. Edgar and could more effortlessly collaborate with him to cover it up? Who else could induce his probable successor in office, Richard Nixon, to become involved, where the culmination of their planning was the ratification meeting at the home of Clint Murchison the night before? Hoover, Nixon, McCloy, Murchison, and others present represented the major interests who were responsible for bringing this about. How can anyone doubt that, when Jack Ruby observed this would not have happened had anyone else been Vice President, he was speaking the truth? Those who want to appreciate the model that was implemented in this historic event should return to Noel Twyman, who sketched the elements of a perfect conspiracy, which is precisely what we had in this case. And the pivotal player--the political mastermind, if you will--was Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The coherence of the evidence that Nelson brings together, when combined with the background that Noel has provided, creates an intricate and interrelated network of individuals and groups who shared a common interest in removing JFK from office. The CIA wanted to retain its power, the Chiefs wanted to aggressively confront the expansion of international, Godless communism, the Mafia wanted Bobby off their backs and to reclaim their resorts and casinos in Havana, the Texas oil men wanted to preserve their oil depletion allowance, the bankers wanted to keep the FED, J. Edgar wanted to remain as Director of the FBI and Lyndon to become President. As Ruby observed, they all had very tangible, material motives for taking the course of action they pursued, where the evidence coheres to make the case for Lyndon as the pivotal player who promoted the assassination, insured its success, and covered it up. No one else was in that position or could have overseen it with greater competence than LBJ.

Dawn Meredith Wrote:

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Well, I have addressed Bobby's death in "RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador",
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_6464.shtml This appears to have been
a case of "tying up loose ends", where the agency wanted to make sure that he
would not be in the position to reopen the investigation into his brother's death.

As for Martin, that seems to me to have been a more localized matter, where his
location at the Lorraine Motel and even his room number, 306, was broadcast over
local radio and television. His death, I suspect, was largely a result of racism,
though I would not be surprised if J. Edgar, among others, had had a hand in it.

I am not an expert on MLK, but my point is rather simple. When you claim that
"The same powers that killed JFK killed MLK and RFK and are still in power as we
speak", what you are saying cannot be literally true. Most of those who were in
on JFK and RFK, for example, are among the dear departed. They are dead.

If they are dead, then they are not "still in power". My point was not to deny the
continuity of institutional interests, but rather to observe that abstractions do not
have the kind of explanatory power that you, among others, tend to ascribe to
them. It is specific individuals who make specific decisions and take specific actions.

There is no need to feel offended. My concern is that there is a tendency on the
"Deep Politics Forum" to treat entities like "the national security state" as though
appealing to it could explain specific events on specific occasions. It has a place
in inviting our attention to enduring interests but cannot explain specific events.

Dawn Meredith Wrote:This post is almost too absurd to even respond to. JIm I did not say PEOPLE I said powers. Power passes from one group of people to a different, but connected group after the former passes on. For example here in Austin the law firm of Ed Clark once held enourmous power. That power still exists. It WAS passed on. But I will not name the people it passed to.
Of course I mean "real people". I cannot believe I am even having to say this. And once again you ignored my question: who killed MLK and RFK?

Dawn

Jim: I am not going to discuss this further as I simply do not have the time to argue with someone who is not geting my point either on purpose or....???

I am not offended. If you do not understand that power passes from one group of people to the next then I cannot make it more plain. It was people who assassinated all three- the most powerful people in the world. That is why they got away with it. They are those who want more war, so anyone who threatens this is elimated. Be it John Kennedy or John Lennon. That is just one example of what the power brokers want. Drug dealing is another. The puppets in office, including LBJ go along or are killed. This is what JFK learned. And gave his life for. I realize your area of expertize is the Z film, which I consider a side issue, but you have read books like JFK and The Unspeakable, or ealier books like The Last Investigation right? Nothing in either of those books suggests LBJ is behind the killing of JKF. And those are just the first two books that came to mind.

All the principlas who assisted in Barr McCLellan's book are/ were good friends of mine, including Barr. However that does not make LBJ THE prime mover. It makes him involved.

MLK's killing is hardly "local". My God. Just read ony book on the subject.

RFK was going to delve into the murder of his bother as well as end the war in Viet Nam- a war JFK had already ended- and was killed by the same forces that killed his brother. I don't know if the same triggermeen were used. Or if the exact same people who masterminded JFK, but if not, the people to whom the power passed. Not necessarily relatives, but politically connected.
Dawn

Jack White Wrote:As stated below by Jim, I see little to find fault with. This does not
rule out that others (as Jack Ruby put it) "IN THE BACKGROUND, WHO
HAD THE MOST TO GAIN" were not in the cabal.

I suggest that Jim Marrs was one of the earliest to grasp the correct
idea when I first met him in the 1970s. Very early he fingered the
key members of the cabal as LBJ, JEH, Dulles, the Joint Chiefs, the SS,
and "backgrounders" like Rockefeller, Nixon, et al. As Jim often put it,
the cabal was NOT an organized group, but "A CONCERT OF INTERESTS"...
people of a like mind with a single objective for varied reasons. No order
to kill was issued, but a simple agreement was reached...JFK had to be
removed from the presidency. It was not a MURDER CONTRACT, but
a simple agreement of persons protecting their own turf. Jim still holds
his CONCERT OF INTERESTS belief, and I agree with him.

Jack

Charles Drago Wrote:

Jack White Wrote:As stated below by Jim, I see little to find fault with. This does not
rule out that others (as Jack Ruby put it) "IN THE BACKGROUND, WHO
HAD THE MOST TO GAIN" were not in the cabal.

I suggest that Jim Marrs was one of the earliest to grasp the correct
idea when I first met him in the 1970s. Very early he fingered the
key members of the cabal as LBJ, JEH, Dulles, the Joint Chiefs, the SS,
and "backgrounders" like Rockefeller, Nixon, et al. As Jim often put it,
the cabal was NOT an organized group, but "A CONCERT OF INTERESTS"...
people of a like mind with a single objective for varied reasons. No order
to kill was issued, but a simple agreement was reached...JFK had to be
removed from the presidency. It was not a MURDER CONTRACT, but
a simple agreement of persons protecting their own turf. Jim still holds
his CONCERT OF INTERESTS belief, and I agree with him.

Jack

Jack,

Again, please know that I would deeply benefit from your take on the following:

Do you agree with Nelson that:

"[The conspiracy] was all according to the grand play -- a masterpiece of design and execution -- which had been developed over a period of nearly four years by the most brilliant, and evil, political force the country had ever seen: Lyndon Baines ('Bull') Johnson[.]" [emphasis in original] [p. 576]

and

"More than any other person, [LBJ] had the means, motive, and opportunity to have been the singular key conspirator-instigator and the mastermind of the operation." [emphasis added] [p. 668]

Or do you repudiate this outburst of comic book-level disinformation?

This goes beyond semantics, I'm afraid.

Nelson, knowingly or otherwise, is giving aid and comfort to the enemy and otherwise reinforcing the coverup when he bestows Sponsorship status on LBJ.

In anticipation,

Charles

Charles Drago Wrote:

Morgan Reynolds Wrote:My dictionary says a mastermind is "A highly intelligent person; especially, one who plans and directs a project."

CD: As I've previously noted, "my" dictionary, Merriam-Webster, defines "mastermind" as "a person who supplies the directing or creative intelligence for a project."

MR: You asked for a definition and I gave one from a dictionary. What's your problem? Is your dictionary better than mine? This is Drago hair splitting because there is no significant difference between the two definitions. Both involve "intelligence" or "intelligent," "plans" or "creative," "directs" or "directing," and "project."

CD: 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.

MR: There is no "extraordinary claim for LBJ." As I said earlier, when a president is assassinated, the vice president should automatically be suspect numero uno. Reagan/Bush/Hinckley anyone? Nor is extraordinary evidence required to investigate and assemble evidence on behalf of this thesis. It is a murder and Nelson assembles a rich assortment of evidence, virtually all of it previously known, but assembled via a new interpretation. This is common practice in history and criminal investigations, where facts are usually stipulated but a novel assembly of facts inspired by a "fresh" theoretical approach overthrows previously-held views.

You have a model? Impressive. The world is short of "models" with lots of moving parts, parameter estimates via exotic techniques and well-measured variables. Back tested against sound data sets? Confirmed by repeated assassination events? Oh joy. And you won't define false sponsor in 25 words or less? Spare me.

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.

CD: Now we may be on to something. Define "a few layers removed" from the Macbeth role.

MR: Macbeth committed the murder directly, he was the killer, while LBJ and others at the hub relied on spokes and wheel (layers of seconds, if you will), especially shooters, as "real killers." That's all I meant.

CD: 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.

MR: LBJ would not get into very many technical details about execution of the crime or patsies like LHO. That's for experts in the trade like Dulles, Harvey, Angleton, Phillips, Hunt, etc. The biggest deal for LBJ pre-assassination was to "influence" the Secret Service to lower its shield so the shooters could do their work. That's one of the best parts of Nelson's work that I couldn't figure out earlier. I had even wondered if Secretary of the Treasury Douglas Dillon, a CFR/Rockefeller guy and overlord of the Secret Service, had issued coded orders for the stand down but Nelson makes a pretty convincing case for LBJ's staffers and Connally being the primary culprits, witting or unwitting depending upon individual, for lowering the shield. LBJ, probably in a panicky, jumpy mood, did get into "inadvisable" technical details post-assassination at times, like calling Dr. Crenshaw about a LHO deathbed confession or DPD Capt. Fritz to cease the LHO investigation, but I can't name one pre-assassination now.

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.

CD: 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."

MR: As I wrote earlier, LBJ was no run-of-the-mill political operator. He was the absolute best, the best ever in the U.S. Senate if not the best in U.S. history. How many other Senators were elected whip with only two years of seniority, minority leader two years later, and then majority in another two years? The guy ascended to become Democratic U.S. Senate leader in four years! And then dominated the Senate like no other boss (assisted by J. Edgar's files on Senators of course). Not only ruthless, shrewd, a political genius, etc., but a workaholic to boot (if alcoholic too).

CD: Granted.
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.

MR: It's a matter congruent interests, not central command. Virtually everybody on a forum like this knows the background JFK and LBJ operated in 1960-63, including LBJ's back channels to intel, Pentagon, FBI, Secret Service, etc.

CD: More on your "intelligence" gambit at post's end.

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.

MR: Straw man.

CD: I already have. On many occasions. Please do your homework and get back to us.
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.

MR: Straw man. Everybody knows that a newly elected government brings in its political appointees at the top of most departments and agencies, and they shift policies, within legal limitations, toward White House wishes, but the mil-intel-ind- complex, including FBI, and outside organizations like the Fed Res, they're different, they were/are not subject to those same "invasions" of new political appointees at the top. btw, I was Chief Economist at the US Dept. of Labor 2001-2002, a Bush-Cheney appointee and saw this from the inside. I was also a senior visiting economist for the Joint Economic Committee, 1993-94, minority, and a resident of Texas for 28 years.

CD: 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.

MR: Good, stipulated that LBJ (crude rube, Colonel Cornpone, redneck, etc.) was not a dolt. Whew, what a relief! Now we're getting somewhere. My surmise that a lack of intelligence made the "mastermind" a thesis to hold up to public ridicule and reject out-of-hand was wrong, I guess. OK. That leaves the real reasons yet unexplained by the DiEugenio-Drago axis.

CD: 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.

Charles Drago Wrote:

Jack White Wrote:This has become a hangup over semantics.

I agree that words ought to always be used with great precision.

However, an argument over whether LBJ was a "mastermind" or a
"pivotal player" or an "essential part" is significant only in a slight
degree in describing the activity of a vile corrupt villainous criminal.

It is like arguing who was worse...John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy,
the Son of Sam, Charlie Manson, or the guy who shoots a 7-11 clerk
during a robbery.

Truth is, I think we all agree, that the plot was a conspiracy involving
many such people, and each played an important role, but none was
entirely responsible for all actions. A large group killed Caesar, including
Brutus.

Jack

I appreciate your thoughts here, Jack. But please consider the negative impact of Nelson's "mastermind" assertion in terms of its elevation of LBJ to Sponsor status.

Do you agree with Nelson that:

"[The conspiracy] was all according to the grand play -- a masterpiece of design and execution -- which had been developed over a period of nearly four years by the most brilliant, and evil, political force the country had ever seen: Lyndon Baines ('Bull') Johnson[.]" [emphasis in original] [p. 576]

and

"More than any other person, [LBJ] had the means, motive, and opportunity to have been the singular key conspirator-instigator and the mastermind of the operation." [emphasis added] [p. 668]

Or do you repudiate this outburst of comic book-level disinformation?

This goes beyond semantics, I'm afraid.

Nelson, knowingly or otherwise, is giving aid and comfort to the enemy and otherwise reinforcing the coverup when he bestows Sponsorship status on LBJ.

Charles