Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[James H. Fetzer]

Has there ever been a time when Charles Drago issued so many posts filled with so much vitriol and stocked with so many ad hominems in the history of this forum? If DiEugenio needed an ally to salvage him from intellectual dismemberment, Charles rose to the call. No doubt, it was inspired by his common cause with shared beliefs, where it is not Nelson/Morrow we should contemplate but DiEugenio/Drago. And, if Charles is indeed the cause of Phil's non-admission to this forum, that must be reversed immediately. Phil has been savaged by Charles and, to a lesser degree, by DiEugenio and deserves the opportunity to defend himself from these baseless and unjustified allegations. And I stand by every argument presented in this post, which are the issues deserving of attention as opposed to those, including me, who have presented them here. Admit him and let the debate go forward. To do otherwise would be grossly unfair and betray the principles of this forum. And then we can continue.

Shameful things are going on at the EF, Lancer, and now the DPF, but they are surely not being committed by me or Phil Nelson. For someone who lacks the least grasp of the character and personality of LBJ, it is simply stunning that Jim DiEugenio continues to peddle tripe about LBJ's involvement in the assassination. If this guy had only understood my PREFACE to Phil's fine rebuttal, he would know more than he evinces here. And if he wants to post his replies to Phil's refutation, let him do so. Instead, he unloads (what I can only describe as) a dump truck of mindless manure on me and on Phil's magnificent book.

Lyndon B. Johnson was the most fascinating character ever to dominate the American political stage. He had an uncanny ability to discern the weaknesses in the personality and values of those he proved capable of manipulating through out his entire career. If this guy had actually read Phil's book, even only the first few chapters, he would not be making such frivolous and falsifiable claims. As John Connally observed, when he was asked to describe LBJ, "That would take every adjective in the dictionary!", because Lyndon had so many strengths both for good and for evil! And he was a political genius.

I used to believe that DiEugenio was a force for good, even though it bothered me that he seemed to understand neither the medical evidence nor the proof of fabrication of the film. In my opinion, those limitations severely restrict his capacity to make informed judgments about other aspects of the case. When he "reviewed" Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB and faulted Doug for praising David Lifton's work, I had to post and ask him if he had actually READ THE BOOK, because the evidence for alteration of the throat wound and of surgery to the head, which Horne substantiates, vindicates Lifton's early research.

And that extends to Horne's extraordinarily detailed reconstruction of multiple entries of multiple caskets into the morgue. To this day DiEugenio does not appear to understand that JFK was ALREADY IN THE MORGUE when the gray Navy ambulance carrying Jackie herself pulled up in front of Bethesda Naval Hospital. As Jerrol Custer explained to Lifton and as he and I discussed it in person, he was headed upstairs in the company of Secret Service agents with X-rays that had been exposed but needed to be developed when he looked out the window and saw the formal entourage arrive. But the autopsy had already begun. Since JFK's body was in the morgue, it cannot also have been in the hearse.

Anyone who thinks that Lyndon Johnson was going to be riding in an open car in the very motorcade in which the only man standing between him and the presidency was going to be assassinated by a cross fire and NOT TAKE CHARGE OF THAT EVENT has lost their grip on reality. As Billy Sol first explained to William Raymond, a French investigative reporter, and later repeated in his book, A TEXAS LEGEND, Lyndon even sent Cliff Carter, his chief administrative assistant to Dallas to make sure that all of the arrangements were in place to effect the transition of governance from JFK to him.

DiEugenio disillusioned me on the old Judyth Vary Baker thread when he attempted to debunk the testimony of Mary Morgan, the daughter of a Louisiana state senator whom Lee Oswald was visiting in a feigned "search for a job", when he suggested that an interview with Mary, decades after she had described a mystery woman who was in the car while Lee was speaking with her father, should carry more weight than her consistent and repeated testimony in the past. I knew then that I was dealing with a person who, even in relation to historical methodology, had diminished understanding.

The next major development in my growing disillusionment with DiEugenio's research competence arose in the course of my inquiry into the conflict over the identification of three officials of the CIA at the Ambassador when Bobby was killed, George Joannides, Gordon Campbell, and David Sanchez Morales. What I discovered was that, even though Jefferson Morley and David Talbot had attempted to debunk them, the evidence supporting Bradley Ayers and Wayne Smith's IDs was actually far stronger than they had represented and the evidence against them far weaker, where DiEugenio was advancing feeble reasons to discount them, as I have explained in "RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador", which I recommend to compare our work.

So he needs to fault Barr McClelland, who actually worked in the office of one of Lyndon's attorneys, who was involved in planning the assassination and the cover up. He also has to debunk the book by Madeleine Duncan Brown, with whom I had over a hundred conversations, and another by Billy Sol Estes, both of whom knew Lyndon as well as anyone possibly could. And of course he also has to extend his blanket dismissals to E. Howard Hunt--and therefore to Jesse Ventura's JFK "Conspiracy Theory" program--for the simple reason that Jesse takes Hunt's confession seriously, which undermines his attempts to deflect and undermine any evidence that implicates LBJ in the crime.

Somewhere DiEugeio acknowledges that Lyndon might have been the ambitious and narcissistic megalomaniac that others, including Phil Nelson, have described, but he would not know because he was never that close to LBJ! That's a remarkable admission for someone who is attempting to trivialize the most important study of this fascinating personality, where Robert Caro's superb series documents those tendencies in spades. And, most importantly, DiEugeio's admitted weakness is the great strength of Madeleine Duncan Brown, Billy Sol Estes, Barr McClelland, and even E. Howard Hunt. They all knew LBJ "up close and personal", none more so than Madeleine Duncan Brown.

If anyone had any doubts about the character of Jim DiEugenio, it is manifest here in his allusion to the difference between my first and second takes about REGICIDE by Gregory Douglas. I found his depiction of the role of James Jesus Angleton ferreting out that JFK had been communicating with Nikita Krushchev so fascinating that I did not initially pay sufficient attention to the alleged Soviet intelligence report about the assassination, which, by a coincidence too incredible to be true, reported that JFK had been taken out where three and only three shots had been fired. Since I already knew the number was actually eight, nine, or ten, I realized something had to be wrong.

So I undertook further analysis of Gregory Douglas, even arranging to meet him for lunch in Chicago. But he never showed up. I reassessed my views about him, for the first time revised a review of a book of mine on amazon.com, and wrote about it in assassinationresearch.com, where you can find my own candid evaluation of what I had been through at http://assassinationresearch.com/v1n2.html . This happened in 2002, however, and has no relevance to understanding LBJ. The very fact that he has now brought up this obscure incident from long ago reminds me of the extremely petty and shallow criticisms that I have had to deal with in the past from Josiah Thompson.

Like almost all of Tink's criticisms, almost all of DiEugenio's are baseless. I have no idea why he would suppose I do not understand the Douglass book. I interviewed Jim Douglass on JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE on 15 April 2009 and Phil Nelson on LBJ: MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION on 3 September 2010. (The interviews can be found at my program's archives, http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.) if anyone can find any reason to suspect that I did not understand either book, I would be fascinated to know of it. I have compared their books, because Jim's explains how JFK antagonized the country's most powerful special interests, including the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the Mafia and the banksters, for example, while Phil's book explains what they did about it.

Phil Nelson has objected to DiEugenio's latest trashing of Seymour Hersh, who has to qualify as one of our best, if not our very best, investigative journalists. Not only did Hersh expose the My Lai massacre, which took enormous courage, but he has, more recently, exposed the existence of an executive assassination ring operating out of the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, which I addressed in "Has Cheney been Murdering Americans?" While I thought that THE DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT was a bit excessive about JFK's alleged escapades--since I do not believe he was physically capable of some of these exploits because of his back injuries--this has struck me as the last straw. I agree one of us is a mediocrity, but ask yourself if it's me.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Joseph Green's reply to Nelson, which Fetzer was never going to post:

Joseph Green replies:

"Kevin Costner (as Jim Garrison): "I'm sorry, Mr. Ferrie, but I simply find your story unbelievable."

Joe Pesci (as David Ferrie):"Really? What part?"

I am sorry for not recommending Mr. Nelson's book. Nothing personal was intended.

Just for the record, I am not (so far as I am aware) a minion of Jim DiEugenio. It's clear that some people seem to think that DiEugenio either ghostwrites the reviews or sits behind the scenes running the machinery, like some sort of Lyndon Johnson figure. For example, I wasn't necessarily expressing a negative view of Caro's scholarship, as Nelson seems to think. What I was saying was this: the heavy reliance on a single source means that the book borrows a great deal from Caro rather than introducing original research, just as the middle section heavily borrows from Barr McLellan. There is not, on its face, anything wrong with that, but it does mean that the value of the book entirely rests on whether the interpretation of the previously written material is correct or not. If the thesis doesn't work, then the book is a just a summary of a rather odd juxtaposition of other authors. For another, I mentioned Ed Tatro because he is a well-known figure associated with the LBJ thesis, and because I happen to personally like him. So far as I know, he has not been "officially endorsed" by CTKA. I think some folks are reading a bit too much into this.

Nelson's book posits that LBJ was the mastermind of JFK's assassination. That requires two elements of proof, then: (1) LBJ was a mastermind and (2) LBJ organized JFKs assassination. And I gave Nelson credit for sticking to his guns on that thesis and riding it out to the end. I just don't think that he succeeded in making his case, and feel like I explained why in the review. There is not, so far as I can detect, any evidence that Johnson was a mastermind capable of arranging something like the JFK plot (and, more specifically, arranging the plot in the way that Nelson presents, with Liftonite body alteration, not as a real-time reaction to events but in accord with prior pre-planning). Box 13 is not evidence of this, and nor is Johnson's maneuvering to get onto the ticket in 1960. If anything, the prior murders attributed to Johnson, assuming he did "mastermind them" are notable for their crudeness of execution, not their detailed planning. This seems almost too obvious to even reply with.

A couple of long quotes follow.

Nelson writes:"All of his actions at Love Field were part of his grand scheme; nothing he did was spontaneous and without some underlying purpose: By taking over Air Force One and holding it on the tarmac while he waited for JFK's body to arrive with his widow, he could force the Secret Service agents to quickly secure the body, wresting it away from the hapless Dr. Rose and eliminate any chance that a rigorous, well-executed autopsy would be performed. He had clearly planned this weeks before, knowing that a "special" autopsy would be necessary, one that would obliterate any evidence that Kennedy was shot from anywhere but behind." (546)

Nelson writes: "In the aftermath of the assassination, the"invisible hand" quickly produced a "verdict" for the hapless "patsy" followed by a curtailed and corrupted "investigation" which was given over to a commission which completely accepted the tainted FBI reports, added their own distorted analysis, and fabricated evidence based largely on the most incredible witnesses creating fanciful if outrageously absurd "theories" in the process , and dutifully added the imprimatur of the U.S. government to its report back to the instigator of the entire crime; only Lyndon B. Johnson was in a position to control every aspect of the pre- and post-assassination conspiracies." (669)

In other words, LBJ actually knew in advance that the Secret Service would take the body out of Texas, he knew the autopsy at Bethesda would be compromised, and knew that Horne/Lifton like, there would be a secret pre-autopsy that would result in surgery that would create "trajectory reversal". Then, Johnson controlled every aspect of an official investigation that, as Don Gibson has shown, he did not even wish to create. And if one follows the executive session hearings, it is pretty clear that, Dulles, Ford and McCloy actually controlled the Commission.

So if someone really believes Nelson's statements to be true, then God bless, I am certainly not going to convince that person otherwise. As I have noted, virtually the entire value of the book rests on whether Nelson's interpretation of his grab-bag of sources, good and bad, is accurate. And as I have further noted, Nelson thinks that: (1) LBJ had foreknowledge of the need for head surgery on JFK's body and that he would need to get the body out of his home state of Texas, (2) that it would be possible to get the body while he was distracting everyone with his swearing-in ceremony, (3) that the murder of J.D. Tippit had nothing to do with the assassination, (4)that Oswald was a deluded loner who dreamed about being a spy, (5) that J. Edgar Hoover and Curtis LeMay would take direction from Johnson, (6) that Bobby Kennedy was involved in Marilyn Monroe's death, etc. I let the reader make his or her own judgment about those aspects. If those seem like plausible conclusions, then you may like this book better than I did."

[Jim DiEugenio]

Now let us look at the problems with using con man Barr McClellan's book. Fetzer had no problems with either Nelson or Horne using this guy as sources in their books. I did. Below, I excerpt from the last part of my Horne review to explain why:


"Why Horne would source Barr McClellan's book Blood, Money and Power is a complete puzzle to me. Seamus Coogan was criticized by George Bailey who runs the "Oswald's Mother" site about his reference to the McClellan book as the worst in the last 15 years. Bailey said that no, Case Closed was the worst. Since the Posner book was published more than 15 years ago, Bailey was off base. Perhaps Reclaiming History could then qualify. But then, how many people have read that whole book? The McClellan book did get some publicity. This is unfortunate since it really is a very bad book. (One must differentiate between the book and the annex by the late Nathan Darby on the fingerprint evidence.)

One of the problems with it is that there is very little annotation to all of the most sensational charges. For instance, the author states that LBJ went into psychotherapy toward the end of his life and confessed to his doctor that he was behind the murder of President Kennedy. (McClellan, p. 3) What is his source for this? Not the doctor himself, nor any written report. It is a conversation he said he had with a partner in Johnson's law firm, Don Thomas. The obvious questions are twofold 1.) Why would the partner reveal this to McClellan? And 2.) Why would LBJ tell the partner? If you can believe it, the author says that Johnson wanted to somehow elevate his reputation out of the Vietnam gutter, and this is why he claimed credit for Kennedy's murder. (ibid, pgs. 283-84)

The entire text of the book is like this. One gets these sensational disclosures, and then one searches in vain for the backing in the End Notes. We are to believe that LBJ learned about the art of assassination from the attempt on FDR. (ibid p. 39) Thomas told McClellan that he was involved in the famous stealing of the 1948 senatorial election by LBJ from Coke Stevenson. Then you go to the sourcing. This is what it says: "The information came in many ways. Over drinks after work, during the firm parties, at early Saturday morning coffee, and just the daily office talk." (ibid ,p. 350) Sorry, not good enough.

McClellan later says that his boss, attorney Ed Clark, brokered a deal with Joe Kennedy to put LBJ on the 1960 ticket. When one looks for the sourcing on this, you will find: "The deal was advertised to clients on several occasions." (ibid, p. 356)

But this is nothing compared to how McClellan deals with the actual facts of the assassination. He says that Clark started the plot going in 1962 by looking for a second sniper , the first of course being Mac Wallace. And he called Leon Jaworksi for help. When one goes to the footnote for this, you will find: "Despite several solid leads and close ties to Clark, the better course for the present is to withhold judgment pending further research and strong corroborating evidence. At this time our leads are through Jaworksi and Cofield, and our key suspects fit into the Clark modus operandi. The accomplices may never be identified with certainty." (ibid, p. 358) In other words, he has nothing to back up this assumption.

Later on McClellan writes that he does not know how Wallace met Oswald, but they did meet, and that they were together on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository when Kennedy was shot. (ibid, p. 179) There is next to no evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor that day. But further, the author then makes up a scenario for Wallace meeting Oswald. The problem is that it takes place at a print shop in Dallas in late 1962. Yet, Oswald did not print any flyers at that time! So how could it happen? (ibid, p. 267)

Further, in defiance of the ballistics evidence, the author has Oswald firing at Edwin Walker and killing Tippit. (ibid, pgs. 211, 267) And in further defiance of the puzzling postal records, the author says Oswald ordered the murder weapons. (ibid, p. 267)

Backing up the whole Penn Jones/Madeleine Brown scenario, McClellan goes with the Murchison murder gathering on the eve of the assassination. (ibid, p. 271) During which the infamous ads that ran in the papers were on poster on the walls. And Mr. Clark predicted that very soon LBJ would be the new president. Cheers broke out among the partygoers. So now, even more details have been added to this ever-evolving story about the gathering.

McClellan says he has found out how Clark was paid for the operation. (p. 234) To say his evidence is unconvincing is to give it too much credit. He then says that although Mac Wallace died in a car accident, he was actually killed by people associated with Clark. (p. 242) This is his evidence:The medical report shows extensive physical injuries that are not consistent with the damages to the auto. (ibid, p. 362) This is weird because McClellan says that Wallace was in a weakened state by attempted carbon monoxide poisoning, and this is what caused the accident. How could that attempted poisoning cause "extensive physical injuries".

Maybe someday someone will write a convincing and scholarly book on Johnson's involvement in the JFK murder. But these two fall far short of that mark. And Horne should not have used them, since by doing so he implicitly recommends them. They are not worth recommending. Not by a longshot. In fact, once analyzed, they are the kinds of books that can be used to caricature researchers."

If we are ever going to be taken seriously by the public it will not be by using sources like McClellan, who by the way, is Alex Jones' favorite author on the JFK case. The fact that Jones had McClellan on and not Douglass tells you all you need to know about the two authors.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Deep Politics Forum was founded, and resurrected following treachery and sabotage, by researchers from across the world, with disparate skills and specialisms.

Two of the founders are JFK specialists. The rest of us are not.

This thread is already one of the most heated on DPF, and a primary reason for this is that independent research into the slaughter of JFK is now into its sixth decade. This independent research became necessary because of the sheer implausibility of the official narrative of the assassination of JFK (at its most absurd, that a lone nut killed Kennedy with a magic bullet), and the fact that MSM refused and refuses to engage in a rigorous investigation of the murder, and labels anyone who departs from the approved script as a "conspiracy theorist".

The dedicated and often self-financing citizen researchers who have continued to investigate the assassination have had to contend with the deliberate planting of disinformation, particularly the floating of "false sponsors" of the murder.

LBJ is considered by many, but not all, JFK researchers to be a prime example of a "false sponsor".

So, my first question for Phillip F Nelson, who is now a member here, is to ask him to define his use of "mastermind" and his application of it to LBJ.

[Charles Drago]

Are you the reason why Phil Nelson has not been admitted to the Deep Politics Forum? Kindly admit him. He deserves it.

Jim,

From the moment I learned of Nelson's application for DPF membership, I wholeheartedly and IN WRITING stated my approval.

Such was the UNANIMOUS decision of DPF owners.

Please cease and desist from implying anything to the contrary.

Charles

[Dawn Meredith]

Spare me your arguments from authority.

And yes, I understand that, when all is said and done, that's all you've got when you attempt to defend the indefensible "LBJ as 'mastermind'" nonsense.

Nelson, Hunt, McClelland, and Estes are criminals -- in varying senses of the word. Their stock in trade? DISINFORMATION!

Ms. Brown is something other than a scholar of deep politics.

You are a respected, indeed honored member of the research community. But you're dead wrong on this issue.

Sleep warm.

And seriously, I wish you and yours a most peaceful and prosperous New Year.

In friendship,

Charles

The name is Barr McClellan guys. (CD and JIm Fetzer). Barr is an old friend and I like him a great deal. However when I read his book I was just stunned at all the errors. I immediately wrote a three page single spaced email to him pointing out the errors.
I learned that Walt Brown had spent hours on the phone with him correcting these errors. But the corrections did not make it into the book. THe best part of this book is the Mac Wallace information, and the fingerprint match.
LBJ was a "stone cold killer" who utilized Malcolm "Mac" Wallace on many occassions to take care of those who would attempt to bring down LBJ.
But was Wallace really on the 6th floor? I do not know. I know the fingerprint evidence is solid because Nathan Darby was the best and he was also honest to a fault. He took not a dime for his work and, when on October 25, 2003 at a joint birthday party I had here for Nathan and myself he explained the match point by point to myself and Richard Bartholomew.
Could someone have planted Wallace's print on the 6th floor? Quite likely. Or he was there. Either way this does NOT make LBJ the mastermind.
Barr wrote his book sans any knowledge of the true facts about the assassination of JFK. He simply made things up: like Mac Wallace and LHO target practicing together. Good God. And many more equally troubling falsehoods.

However there is proof that LBJ was seeing a psychiatrist and that he had a mental breakdown. Barr has spent years trying to obtain these records. With no success, as can be imagined.

With all that is known about the assassination of our 35th President a person setting out to write a book about any aspect of this case must first take sufficient time to acquaint him or herself with the evidence that has stood the test of time.

My friend Barr did not do this and it appears that Mr. Nelson erred in the same manner.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

Has there ever been a time when Charles Drago issued so many posts filled with so much vitriol and stocked with so many ad hominems in the history of this forum?

Has there ever been a time when a more dangerous-to-the-cause claim as Nelson's "LBJ as 'mastermind'" been propagated by someone ostensibly on the side of the angels?

If DiEugenio needed an ally to salvage him from intellectual dismemberment, Charles rose to the call. No doubt, it was inspired by his common cause with shared beliefs, where it is not Nelson/Morrow we should contemplate but DiEugenio/Drago.

I have not formed any sort of alliance with Jim DiEugenio on this matter. I do not champion his analyses of Nelson's disinformation other than to state publicly that I share Jim D.'s appreciation of the LBJ as "mastermind" canard as just that: at best, an absurd, unjustified-by-fact conclusion.

Period.

Can't you see that your presentation of an Us v. Them paradigm is precisely what a hostile agent provocateur would wish to stimulate?

And for the record, I have not made the charge that Nelson is a de facto agent provocateur. I write again: If a man shoots you in the head because he honestly believes that it will cure your migraine ... you still end up dead.

The severity of my language regarding Nelson and his book is a function of my appreciation of the de facto assault on truth -- and on the sacrifices of so many warriors for the truth, including you -- represented by his "mastermind" conclusion.

We are at war with the true Sponsors of JFK's murder. I shall not engage in polite debate with anyone who, intentionally or otherise, would protect the true Sponsors by nominating false Sponsors.

Nor should you.

Charles

[James H. Fetzer]

Given the intensity of Charles' assaults on Phil Nelson and his book from the beginning of this thread, it is hardly surprising that I would entertain the conjecture that Phil's inability to post here just might be due to Charles' opposition to allowing that. I am glad to know that is not the case and I certainly hope that Charles will be more moderate and rational in dealing with the issues involved here. Certainly, his performance so far does not justify any self-righteous attitude that I would raise such an obvious and reasonable question.

BLOOD, MONEY & POWER is a very flawed book, but it does point in the right direction, as I and many others, including Madeleine Duncan Brown, Billy Sol Estes, E. Howard Hunt, Nigel Turner, and others among us attest. The very idea that Jim DiEugenio can concede that he does not know Johnson's character because he was never that close, on the one hand, while dismissing what those who knew him best have to tell us, on the other, strikes me as hypocritical in the extreme and irresponsible as JFK research.

Even Walt Brown expressed enthusiasm over the book: "It's hard not to read this work and not shout 'Guilty as hell'." -- Walt Brown, editor of JFK / Deep Politics Magazine. Which suggests that it can't be as bad as Drago/DiEugenio contend. The book has many flaws, of course. I agree that Lee probably did not fire a shot at Gen. Walker, certainly did not kill Officer Tippit, was framed with a mail-order weapon that could not have fired the bullets that killed JFK and was not even on the 6th floor at the time. And I don't claim this list is exhaustive.

So we know that Barr McClellan is not an assassination expert. But the fingerprint suggests that Mac Wallace was involved in staging the "sniper's lair". He offers many reasons to believe that Ed Clark was involved, which is fascinating in its own right. And he is also on the right side of history in supporting the occurrence of the "ratification meeting", as I tend to describe it, at the home of Clint Murchison the night before, where those present appear to have included H.L. Hunt, J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Nixon, John J. McCloy, George Brown and, of course, the last to arrive, Lyndon Baines Johnson.

While it deals with only a very narrow slice of the pie (a very small piece of the puzzle), therefore, it still makes a valuable contribution when cast in the context of what else we know about all of this. Jan has observed that some here believe that LBJ has been used as a "false sponsor" of the assassination, which I can appreciate. But we must remain open-minded about new evidence and new hypotheses or surrender our status as rational with regard to our beliefs. I am sure that every member of this forum joins me in the optimistic expectation that we can do better from here on out.

The name is Barr McClellan guys. (CD and JIm Fetzer). Barr is an old friend and I like him a great deal. However when I read his book I was just stunned at all the errors. I immediately wrote a three page single spaced email to him pointing out the errors.
I learned that Walt Brown had spent hours on the phone with him correcting these errors. But the corrections did not make it into the book. THe best part of this book is the Mac Wallace information, and the fingerprint match.
LBJ was a "stone cold killer" who utilized Malcolm "Mac" Wallace on many occassions to take care of those who would attempt to bring down LBJ.
But was Wallace really on the 6th floor? I do not know. I know the fingerprint evidence is solid because Nathan Darby was the best and he was also honest to a fault. He took not a dime for his work and, when on October 25, 2003 at a joint birthday party I had here for Nathan and myself he explained the match point by point to myself and Richard Bartholomew.
Could someone have planted Wallace's print on the 6th floor? Quite likely. Or he was there. Either way this does NOT make LBJ the mastermind.
Barr wrote his book sans any knowledge of the true facts about the assassination of JFK. He simply made things up: like Mac Wallace and LHO target practicing together. Good God. And many more equally troubling falsehoods.

However there is proof that LBJ was seeing a psychiatrist and that he had a mental breakdown. Barr has spent years trying to obtain these records. With no success, as can be imagined.

With all that is known about the assassination of our 35th President a person setting out to write a book about any aspect of this case must first take sufficient time to acquaint him or herself with the evidence that has stood the test of time.

My friend Barr did not do this and it appears that Mr. Nelson erred in the same manner.

Dawn

[Jim DiEugenio]

Notice, that Green writes that Nelson also propogates the whole RFK being in on MM's murder thesis. I have done a lot of work on this, which started with my analysis of the whole Hersh/Cusack imbroglio. Below I excerpt part of my writing from my discussion of the Regicide book hoax:

"Some of the things Heymann's interview subjects tell him are just plain risible -- to everyone except him. Jeanne Carmen was exposed years ago by Marilyn Monroe biographer Donald Spoto (see p. 472) as very likely not even knowing her. Heymann acts as if this never happened. So he lets her now expand on the dubious things she said before. Apparently she forgot to tell Anthony Summers that she herself also had an affair with JFK, "And he wasn't even good in bed." (p. 313) Carmen also now miraculously recalls that Bobby, Marilyn and her, actually used to go nude bathing at Malibu. (p. 314) The whole myth about Bernard Spindel wiretapping Monroe's phone has also been exposed for years. But Heymann ignores that, and adds that it wasn't just Spindel and Hoffa but also the FBI and CIA who were wiretapping Marilyn's phone. The whole chapter on Monroe had me rocking in my chair with laughter. It concludes with Carmen saying that the cover up of Monroe's murder was so extensive that the perpetrators broke into her home too! (p. 324) One of the things Heymann relies on in this Saturday Night Live chapter is an interview he says Peter Lawford gave him. Which is kind of weird. For two reasons. Apparently Lawford told him things he never told anyone else. Second, Heymann says he interviewed Lawford in 1983, which is the year before the actor died. It actually had to be that year. Why? Because Heymann's book on Barbara Hutton came out in 1983. And there was no point in interviewing Lawford for that book. When it came out, Heymann got into trouble and was actually investigated for charges of fraud. The original publisher had to shred 58, 000 copies of the book. It got so bad Heymann fled the country to Israel and reportedly joined the Mossad. But, amid all this hurly burly he somehow was prescient enough to know that he should interview Lawford before he left since he knew he would eventually be writing about the Kennedys. And Lawford trusted this writer under suspicion with sensational disclosures he never duplicated for anyone else."

[Charles Drago]

As I have previously explained, LBJ was the pivotal member of the plot, since it could not have gone forward without him.

Agreed -- but I would be more precise in noting that LBJ's pivotal role was as the guarantor of post-plot security (or, if you prefer, the cover-up).

In the underinformed minds of the vast majority of low-level Facilitators, the power of the presidency was unchallenged. To those who understood deep political realities, the power of the presidency was then, as it is now, a convenient illusion.

Yes, the plot could not have "gone forward" without LBJ. Which means nothing more or less than LBJ was a mega-important tool. Not the carpenter. Not the architect. Only the biggest hammer in the tool belt.

Those who are familiar with the reports of Madeleine Duncan Brown, Billy Sol Estes, Barr McClelland, and E. Howard Hunt should appreciate what I am asserting.

As one who is familiar with Estes and Hunt as prime fonts of disinformation, with McCelland as an unsophisticated source of misconception and exaggeration, and Brown as a lowest level regurgitator of emotion-clouded anecdote, I appreciate what you are asserting as a textbook example of appeal to false authority.

The plan was to take out JFK and that no one would pay a penalty for participating in the assassination. ONLY LBJ COULD CONTROL THAT.

Yes. Which makes him nothing more or less than the biggest hammer in the tool belt.

So far, not a hint of even the flimsiest evidence for LBJ as assassination "mastermind."

Plus Lyndon was a very "hands on" guy, who even sent his chief assistant, Cliff Carter, to Dallas to make sure all of the arrangements were in place.

Now there's a true "mastermind" at work: sending his publicly acknowledged "chief assistant" to the major city in his home state where his "masterful" plot to assume the presidency would manifest.

I respect those who hold different views, but were it not for LBJ, as Jack Ruby observed, JFK would not have been taken out.

Jim, this statement is disingenuous, and you know it. Ruby clearly was indicating NOT that LBJ was any sort of "mastermind," but only that he was sufficiently corrupt and controllable so as to go along with big plan.

I regard this as one of the best books ever published about "The Big Event"[.]

And I regard this as one of the most dangerous-to-the cause, book-length presentations of disinformation ever published about the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

So what?

am just the least bit distressed to find worthies like Charles Drago being so dismissive of others like Robert Morrow, who, in my opinion, is on the right track.

In other words, you are distressed when "worthies" find fault with your positions.

So what?

Robert Morrow, as evidenced by his sophmoric appreciations of all things deeply political, engages not in informed speculation, but only in linguistically challenged shouting matchs. He buys Nelson's indefensible central thesis hook, line, and sinker. I have not the slightest respect for his intellect or for his command of the subject matter.

And if he did not agree with your positions, neither would you.

I am troubled that ad hominems may now become as prevalent here as they are at the EF, especially since one reason for creating the DPF was to rise above them there.

Don't worry about DPF, Jim. We'll take care of ourselves and maintain our standards. You might be better served by focusing on a very simple question -- one that I've posed over and over again, but which you decline to answer. So let's try one more time:

How do you define "mastermind" as the word is used by Nelson to describe LBJ's role in the assassination?

As I see it, you and I are at loggerheads in two areas: the "mastermind" definition, and the ways in which we view the likes of Estes and Hunt.

But the person who benefited the most from that was LBJ himself.

Please quantify that statement.

And he took steps to insure that it would be successfully executed and successfully covered up. He was the pivot. As Ruby observed, after being granted a new trial,

Jack: Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts, of what occurred, my motives. The people had, that had so much to gain and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world.

Reporter : Are these people in very high positions Jack?!

Jack : Yes. . . .

Jack: "When I mentioned about Adlai Stevenson--if he was vice president there would never have been an assassination of our beloved President Kennedy"--[and was] asked if he would explain it again, Ruby continued, "Well, the answer is the man in office now."

I agree that LBJ had much to gain from JFK's murder -- including a "Get Out of Jail Free" card and all the wealth that the (limited) power of the presidency can generate.

But none of this brings us to a logical conclusion that LBJ was the "mastermind" of the assassination. And not even you have dared define the term, let alone defend the premise.

Jim, I reiterate: Nelson's book, informed by selective research and ultimately invalidated by illogical conclusion, is a disinformation textbook.

Here, in a nutshell (nut case?), is the process which, if we are to conclude that Nelson is an otherwise innocent naif, led to his "mastermind" conclusion:

A scientist trains a flea to fly. "Fly, flea," the scientist would say, and the flea would fly. "Fly, flea," and off it would soar.

Then one day the scientist surgically removed the flea's wings.

"Fly, flea," said the scientist. But the flea would not fly.

And so the scientist concluded, "When one removes the wings from a flea, it becomes deaf."