Jim DiEugenio Wrote:This is another point I did not bring up: CD's quote from p. 576 clearly states that LBJ had been dreaming up this plot for almost four years!

This was before Kennedy became president!!! Before LBJ became VP!!

This is what I mean about these solipsistic books that are written from a preconceived viewpoint.

And then Fetzer trots out Howard Hunt again. I wonder if Fetzer actually knows the real story behind Hunt's phony "confession" and the whole ersatz article in Rolling Stone? Probably not. Because Fetzer does not discriminate in finding sources. That article is sourced of course to Saint John Hunt. Seamus Coogan showed who this guy really was in his 1.) Alex Jones series, and 2.) His discussion of Jesse Ventura's special. Suffice it to say, there is another side to this story which Fetzer obviously does not care about. But its much more convincing and has much more documentation to it than Saint John's.

As I proved, Saint John lied to Rolling Stone. He could not have dumped the electronic surveillance stuff in a river with his father, as he told the magazine. Why? Two reasons. It was not Hunt who drove home the electronics stuff--since he was not directly involved with the taping. Alfred Baldwin, McCord's assistant drove the stuff to McCord's house that night. And Hunt did not go home that night right after the arrests. He got home very late since he first went to his office at the White House, and then went to the Mullen Company. These facts are all in Jim Hougan's masterful book Secret Agenda. Which, apparently, Fetzer has not read. Even though it has been out since 1984.

The idea that Sturgis would go to Hunt and ask him to become involved is ludicrous. For the simple reason that Sturgis had always been below Hunt in the chain of command. But what this fiction device does is 1.) Establishes that Hunt had some knowledge of a phony plot, and 2.) Keeps him out of it, and 3.) Keeps out the true uper echelon of the operational part of the conspiracy, i.e. Helms, Dulles, Angleton. Ha Ha Ha. The idea that anyone with any experience in the field would fall for this deception is stunning. It is clearly Howard getting a last laugh at Kennedy--a man he completely despised--and the researchers, like Weberman, who have pursued him ever since 1975.

So Jim, please don't bring up this motely crew again. You know, that twice convicted convict and con man Billy Sol Estes who says he has tapes of Carter explaining the plot to him. Yeah, sure, and he went to jail twice rather than playing them in court. Or Ruby, who everyone knows was being drugged by Jolly West. Or Madeleine Brown, who ended up subscribing to that ever enveloping Murchison assassination cabal, or McClellan who actually has Oswald on the sixth floor firing away.

This is what I mean by a tradition of the best the research community has to offer from Weisberg to Douglass. None of the above fits into that tradition. Just like Nelson's book does not. And if we lead with this at the 50th, we are lost.

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

Morgan Reynolds Wrote:[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.

Morgan Reynolds Wrote:[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.

Morgan Reynolds Wrote:[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:[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.

Morgan Reynolds Wrote:[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:[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).

Morgan Reynolds Wrote:[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.

Morgan Reynolds Wrote:[MR: Straw man.['QUOTE]

"Straw man" my ass! You have not earned the right to be dismissive. Nothing about what you've posted demonstrates mastery of the subject or sufficient wit to get away with it. Nice try. You fail.


[quote=Morgan Reynolds][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.

Morgan Reynolds Wrote:[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.

Morgan Reynolds Wrote:[MR: Thanks for your advice, Mr. Drago. I'll pass your opinion on to my wife and the rest of my personal embarrassment damage-control team.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Charles seems to derive more pleasure from restating his position endlessly than do I. My position has been defined here more than once and I stand by everything I have said about this. Lyndon Johnson had been nurturing his plan for years for the obvious reason that, as he well knew, he was not a personally attractive or charismatic personality. He was a genius at the manipulation of others and bending them to his will. But he well knew that his only access route to the presidency he coveted was to be in the position to assume the presidency after its occupant was removed. He set about implementing this plan with great skill and pursued it with enormous vigor and ultimate success with the help of his many friends, including Speaker Rayburn and J. Egar. What I cannot abide from anyone here, including especially Charles Drago, is this completely unjustified and intellectually dishonest slamming of a brilliant book, which is beautifully written, copiously documented, and--to any rational mind!--ultimately convincing. Charles vicious and unwarranted attacks on the book and its author are irresponsible and unwarranted. They are disgusting and discredit him, not Phil Nelson, whom I admire for the excellence of his research, even if he is unable to affect some of those here whose actions, in my opinion, are as corrupt and dishonest as those of Vincent Bugliosi in his assault on conspiracy research. In my opinion, Charles owes Phil and the whole forum an apology for the excess of his attacks, which have gone far beyond the boundaries of civil discourse and obviously violate the principles that are supposed to govern exchanges on this, the Deep Politics forum.

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

Charles Drago Wrote:

James H. Fetzer Wrote:Charles seems to derive more pleasure from restating his position endlessly than do I. My position has been defined here more than once and I stand by everything I have said about this. Lyndon Johnson had been nurturing his plan for years for the obvious reason that, as he well knew, he was not a personally attractive or charismatic personality. He was a genius at the manipulation of others and bending them to his will. But he well knew that his only access route to the presidency he coveted was to be in the position to assume the presidency after its occupant was removed. He set about implementing this plan with great skill and pursued it with enormous vigor and ultimate success with the help of his many friends, including Speaker Rayburn and J. Egar. What I cannot abide from anyone here, including especially Charles Drago, is this completely unjustified and intellectually dishonest slamming of a brilliant book, which is beautifully written, copiously documented, and--to any rational mind!--ultimately convincing. Charles vicious and unwarranted attacks on the book and its author are irresponsible and unwarranted. They are disgusting and discredit him, not Phil Nelson, whom I admire for the excellence of his research, even if he is unable to affect some of those here whose actions, in my opinion, are as corrupt and dishonest as those of Vincent Bugliosi in his assault on conspiracy research. In my opinion, Charles owes Phil and the whole forum an apology for the excess of his attacks, which have gone far beyond the boundaries of civil discourse and obviously violate the principles that are supposed to govern exchanges on this, the Deep Politics forum.

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

I cannot address a person whose critical faculties are so terribly diminished.

In which case my response, Professor Fetzer, is a most appropriate "bite me."

Morgan Reynolds Wrote:Does anyone else on this thread detect Drago's principal weapon: argument by intimidation? Such is not an argument of course, but rather a means to bypass reason and evidence by psychological pressure. Examples:
a) Your inability -- or is it unwillingness -- to see it tells us all we need to know about your intellectual acuity and dedication to truth.
b) Resort to "automatic" knee-jerk responses to your hearts content. When you can demonstrate the discipline and learning to go beyond such childish responses, get back to me.
c) The onus is on you to find the Evica/Drago model of the assassination and comment cogently upon it. You dare not. You bore me. And you reveal your limitations with every word you type.
d) Until you can demonstrate more than a pathetically pedestrian appreciation of the JFK conspiracy, you are relegated to the peanut gallery.
And so on.

It's all about the Drago superior intellect and the inferior learning and capacity of others who use their minds and come to different conclusions, defensible conclusions.

I've not heard Drago and company ID the principals in the assassination. And I doubt they ever will except to refer to "forces, the "puppet masters," powers that be, shadow government, international bankers, etc. They never name persons and offer their evidence to back it up, nor do I expect they ever will. Welcome to the matrix.

When I joined this forum, I was attracted by the "Deep Politics Forum" name alone, and a thread on Nelson was attractive if only because I was fascinated with the book and sought out to find informed criticism and assessment of evidence, praise, shortcomings, etc. Yet critics have showed me NADA thus far. I hoped to find rational assessment and debate about the evidence for and against Nelson's thesis of LBJ as the mastermind of JFK's assassination. That hope has been dashed.

This is probably a preview, unfortunately, of 9/11 research 47 years hence: honest researchers vexed by a den of vipers blocking and smearing legitimate hypotheses and empirical research.

Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Jim:

I have now read two more of Kennedy's inner circle first person memoirs on this whole LBJ as VP subject: Powers and O'Donnell, and Salinger's.

With little variance, they back up Sorenson and Schlesinger. And I should add, it is clear that none of these three men wanted LBJ as VP.

In each case, it is clear that LBJ was the favorite and that he was the only man JFK seriously considered. There is no mention of this extension of an offer to Symington in any of these four books. And I repeat, these were the closest men to Kennedy at the time to write about the subject. For instance, Schlesinger got hold of a memo written by Phil Graham after the convention. Because it was Graham and Alsop who were pushing for LBJ--not LBJ himself.

Now unless you can come up with a credible source written by one of Kennedy's advisers from this time period, then I do not find Hersh's reliance on a con man like Raskin 35 years later to be deserving of any worth at all. Especially since nothing else in Hersh's book is worth believing either.

You can always say that all five men were involved in a conspiracy and cover up, but then you have to extend it out to Alsop, Graham and JFK himself. And recall, THe O'Donnell and Powers book was written in 1972, many years later. ANd as I said, neither they nor Salinger liked LBJ. They preferred someone else, like Freeman, Jackson, or Symington. And they still do not back up Nelson's thesis.

James H. Fetzer Wrote:[B]Here's a summary by Robert Morrow that has it right about LBJ and JFK