Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[James H. Fetzer]

Apparently you do not even know the difference between a question and an assertion. If I asked you, "Do you weight more than 150 pounds soaking wet?", I am not thereby asserting that you weight more than 150 pounds soaking wet. I am asking a question, the answer to which, "Yes" or "No", makes an assertion--if "Yes", then you assert that you DO weight more than 150 pounds soaking wet; if "No", you assert that you do not.

When I asked, "Has Josiah Thompson turned you into a brainless buffoon?", therefore, I have not said that you ARE a brainless buffoon. I am asking you to think seriously--far more seriously than you have--because you are falling to a pattern of cheap, petty and thoughtless attacks issuing from you, which remind me of those I received from Tink over decades. I don't think you are a buffoon, but you are starting to act like one.

I can't believe that you are continuing on with this drivel about Lyndon not controlling EVERY ASPECT of the handling of Oswald, for example. I asked then whether I needed to explain to you the nature of multi-layered covert intelligence operations. Each of the key players, including CIA, was doing its thing, where other patsies were in place in other locations like Chicago, as Abraham Bolden has explained, if the agency needed them.

This illustrates your shoddy practice of exaggerating my position to make it easier to attack. You have done it on the EF and you are doing it here. If I think Barr McClellan's book has something to contribute, then you imply that I must therefore endorse ALL OF IT. I think that particular book has some serious flaws, but it also makes a contribution on a vary narrow but nevertheless significant point, namely, the involvement of Ed Clark.

So I don't think you are entitled to berate me, especially in relation to "RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador". That you appear to be hypersensitive to the rather obvious points I have made in taking apart your reasoning or valuing the contribution I have made in explaining where you and Morley and Talbot went wrong is an example of one of the most important kinds of original research that we can undertake: figuring out who got it right!

You don't know anything about photographs or films. You need a tutorial from Jack about how easily they can be altered. That photo was not from the Ambassador, in case you haven't noticed. This is another example of your incapacity to reason on the basis of the totality of the evidence. The photograph is interesting, but the arguments I have presented outweigh it. If they were Bulova officials, they were certainly not acting like Bulova officials!

In fact, in case you haven't noticed, this entire thread is devoted to whether or not Madeleine Duncan Brown, Billy Sol Estes, Barr McClellan, E. Howard Hunt, Noel Twyman, Phil Nelson, Nigel Turner, and Evelyn Lincoln, among others, got it right in fingering LBJ as the pivotal player in the assassination. I think they are right and that Jack Ruby spoke the truth when he observed that, if LBJ had not been Vice President, President Kennedy would not have been hit.

Jim:

I don't if you realize the hole you are digging for yourself. Just like with Baker, there are people reading this thread as lurkers. They see that you are using cheap invective towards me, like calling me a buffoon. And for some off the wall reason comparing me with Tink Thompson. What that means, I do not know.

Bottom line on your work on the Ambassador: You did not do any original work on that. All you did was recycle the work of others, and then you put your spin on it. You did not even include any photos. I mean the photo in Shane's book of Johannides is simply devastating to your argument. Since no on can look at that and say the guy in the films is him. Therefore, its Owens. And if its Owens, then its Roman. And that is it for your argument.

Concerning LBJ and the conspiracy, you did not answer any of my points that I listed. Repeat: the plot to manipulate Oswald before the murder did not need LBJ. The cover up afterward did not fully rely upon him. The actual mechanics of the cover up were done by Hoover and the Troika on the WC i.e. Ford, McCloy and Dulles. We have that very clear now. I mean Hoover was at the race track on Saturday. He took calls there on their phone. According to Tony Summers, the case was essentially closed in 24 hours by the FBI. ANd Hoover needed no urging to go along with the cover up. We know that through the phone calls he made to RFK informing him of his brother's death. Which took place before LBJ ever got back to Washington.

Nelson's book was terribly misconcieved. In addition to that he used some very bad sources like McClellan and Hersh.

You made a mistake Jim. Just like you did with Baker.

[Albert Doyle]

In my mind the reason people are so able to make a case for Johnson being the mastermind is because the conspiracy was so deep and robust, and spread-out so widely, that any individual member could be assigned causatory status. It should be immediately apparent that the reason the mafia, CIA, Cubans, right-wingers, oligarchs, military etc have all been accused of being the guilty party is because they were. Each and every one of them.

Those trying to place the initiating control on Johnson are ignoring the clear fingerprint of another organization that specializes at these things. I give you just the one example of Johnson blackmailing his way onto the Kennedy ticket. Masterminders suggest it was Johnson who practiced sexual compromise blackmail as his specialty. I find it rather bizarre to ignore the fact there was a much more able and practiced entity practicing that craft that was much more known for doing it than Johnson. How masterminders could ignore the fact the blackmail dirt came from Hoover - which was a source outside of Johnson and directly from the very influencing agencies that were responsible, is somewhat confounding. Isn't it obvious that those powers influenced Johnson getting on the ticket in order to hedge their bets against a Nixon loss? And that they did it through their usual methods. To credit Johnson for what is obviously a classic intel manuever is somewhat short-sighted in my opinion.

Another thing, Johnson's promotion of the Civil Rights Bill was the assuming power's means of throwing the public a placating biscuit while they swept-in the table full of chips they rewarded themselves with for the slaughter of Kennedy. It cost them very little but allowed them to look like progressives. And maybe even justify allowing the blacks to be drafted into the Viet Nam cauldron in order to pay for their newly-won freedom. Tricky fellows these...

[James H. Fetzer]

While most of Phil Dragoo's outline is correct, no one who understood the character and personality of Lyndon Baines Johnson would ever mistake him for anyone's "lacky". Robert Morrow is a brilliant and aggressive student of this case, who came to his conclusions independently of Phil Nelson. In my opinion, Charles' performance here is simply appalling and cannot possibly conform to the policies of this forum.

I find it offensive that the "master of ceremonies" continues to used derogatory language in discussing him, addressing him as "Nerrow minded"! How childish can we get? Dawn got on me for a very dispassionate and brief mention of a demonstration of deference to Jefferson Morley, where I was offering the mildest reprimand. Anyone who reviews this thread will find that Charles has been abusive from the beginning.

I cannot believe that anyone who has actually read the book would make some of the claims that have been made here. I asked him simple questions about when he obtained the book and when he read it but which, so far as I have been able to discern, he has side-stepped with endless ravings about the meaning of the word "mastermind", as though that issue had not already been thoroughly discussed. This is very bad.

And he continues to use the phrase, "idiot son"! I most certainly have not been reassured as yet by any of his responses since I first raised the question. He feigns that he does not care. It is not a question of friendship. I hope that he has read it and that we continue to remain friends. But I cannot place friendship ahead of truth. If we place friendship ahead of truth, then there is only friendship and no truth.

Perfectly reasoned, Phil.

The Morrow "filibuster," as you put it, further identifies the Nelson/Morrow clique with the tactics of those who confuse repetition with rationality. Not to mention with those who serve a very dark agenda.

The last time this happened on DPF was when an apparently emotionally disturbed fellow named, if memory serves, Hanson made post after bandwidth-consuming post attempting to "prove" the long-dismissed "theory" that JFK was shot from inside his limousine.

Hanson later went on to forge my reply in which I demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that he was lying, twisting its meaning 180 degrees and posting it on his site and others over my signature.

Morrow is just another Hanson. They can't help opening their kimonos.

Charles

Charles

[Robert Morrow]

Oswald enlisted in 1956 and became an undercover intelligence operative for ONI, CIA and FBI.


His file was manipulated by Angleton; his movements by Agency handoffs which included Banister and DeMohrenschildtand his last call was to Hurt in North Carolina.


The patsy was Agency.


That would be Dulles, who manipulated Kennedy with the Bay of Pigs invasion, intending to extort involvement of U.S. forces by means of public opinion supporting the invasion's beachhead.


Dulles pupil Bundy cancelled the last raid on the Castro jets, insuring disaster.


Upon Dulles' firing, his pupils the Bundy brothers ascended to National Security Advisor to the President and Undersecretary of Defense at the White House.


Greg Burnham deems Bundy the likely author of the draft NSAM 273, a telltale of the war made possible by the assassination.


Bundy icy as the blood-red carpet is rolled out in the Oval Office per Moynihan there with Sorenson in the essay "It's Over."


Helms in Vietnam for the Diem coup, with Bundy and his deputies advising Lodge to proceed, a mutiny in progress.


For this is the way of U.S. Government: the national security establishment runs the world, changes governments, involves and disengages, and the president must get with the program.


Douglass masterfully showed Kennedy marked out for assassination for having amassed a criticality of "Bay of Pigs" type impasses with this establishment.


When the time came, the Vice President was amenable, being under threat of being dropped from the 1964 ticket and subject to investigation in the Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker scandals.


The Director of the FBI was amenable. He loathed the Kennedys. They had threatened to retire him by refusing him the waiver.


The General Counsel of Treasury, acting Secretary of the Treasury on the Big Day, was married to the Bundy sister Harriet. And the Secret Service was amenable. Per Abraham Bolden they boasted of their hate for the traitor, the "nigger-lover", boasted they would let Kennedy be assassinated. And Palamara has them dead to rights for blatant security stripping.


The Warren Commission was likely a brainchild of Bundy to Katzenbach to Moyers.

Dulles and McCloy and Ford the active members, and Rankin the protege of Hoover.


Ford figured in the future, beyond Nixon.


All the killing to prepare for Nixon in 1968, King and Bobby. And after Nixon, Ford, and Ford named Rockefeller Vice President and put him in charge of investigating CIA, and put GHWBush in as DCI.


The 35th was not down with the program. Ike had been, all too amenable to letting Nixon run that side of it, who let that Bay of Pigs thing be run by CIA.


And its doom was Kennedy's doom.


Johnson begged, "No mas!" March 1968, believing Uncle Walter the CIA Steppinfetchit who called Tet for the North.


Lo and behold the very next month King is down. The next month Bobby is down.


LBJ. King. Bobby.


And Nixon sweeps in.


And Hoover heart attacks in 1972. Johnson in 1973. Nixon is sabotaged by the CIA and does his "effective noon tomorrow" August 8, 1974.


Enter Ford to name Rockefeller and Bush to key positions.


And the band plays on to this very day in the poppy fields of Junkistan.


The silver train ain't stopping for any temporary resident of the White House.


Johnson is not Holmes' Professor Moriarity, nor Sax Rohmer's Fu Manchu.


He strutted and fretted his time upon the stage and was sandbagged by the Langley stagehands' union.


No salvo, volley or fusillade of insult and belittlement, no filibuster of multiple postings can promote a mere facilitator to the position of prime mover.

And if E. Howard Hunt says it was Johnson, it wasn't.

As surely as the sun will brighten the eastern horizon tomorrow morning.

That is an excellent recap by Phil Dragoo. A few quick points - E. Howard Hunt ALSO said that the CIA killed John Kennedy. Is that not true, too? Remember, E. Howard Hunt is confessing all this stuff to his SON St. John Hunt, not the public at large. So I think Hunt is a lot more trustworthy in these conversations. Saint John was the one of helped his dad destroy evidence, as Hunt was covering up for Watergate. I think Hunt was basically being true with St. John, but it seems that he was protecting himself ("backbencher, my butt!), Allen Dulles, Helms and Angleton.

Hunt's semi-confession reminds me of LBJ telling Madeleine Brown that it was Texas oil and the CIA who murdered John Kennedy, but leaving himself out of the mix. Hunt and LBJ were both far more involved than they let on.

Secondly, Bill Bundy who came in after JFK's death - he was the one who DRAFTED THE GULF OF TONKIN RESOLUTION! Of course that was the carte blanche resolution, based on lies, that really got the USA deeply involved in the Vietnam War.

Another thing that folks seem to FORGET are the close ties of Lyndon Johnson and his key supporters like Clint Murchison, Sr. to the white hot core of US intelligence: folks like Allen Dulles, Nelson Rockefeller, and John J. McCloy.

The odds are extremely high that LBJ and Murchison, Sr. were lobbying folks like Allen Dulles, Nelson Rockefeller to get the machinery of the CIA to murder John Kennedy. Folks like Ed Lansdale, Richard Helms, James Angleton and it now seems likely McGeorge Bundy would carry out these orders from the ultra-rich, connected shadow government elite of Texas oil barons and the Rockefellers. That is your JFK assassination, not some mid level plot by the CIA!

Check out this Newsweek piece by Henry Kissinger on McGeorge Bundy -
Henry Kissinger was the right hand man of Nelson Rockefeller. Kissinger, if I am correct was going to Bilderberger conferences in the 1950's. Kissinger writes "McGeorge Bundy was the dean of faculty when I was at Harvard."

READ this article:
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/10/24/what-...es-us.html

In Seymour Hersh's the price of power, there is a very snotty comment by Kissinger coming to a meeting in the White House, and only JFK and Bobby being served soup and no one else. Reminds me of Allen Dulles' comment: "That little Kennedy … he thought he was a god."

So you have the Bundys being acolytes of Allen Dulles (am I correct or incorrect on that point?; I have not studied it much). And you have Kissinger as a key right hand man to Republican Nelson Rockefeller, WHO Democrat Lyndon Johnson secretly supported for president in spring, 1968.

Do not overlook the relationships of Lyndon Johnson and Clint Murchison to key players like Allen Dulles, Nelson Rockefeller, and John J. McCloy. Because if you do, you a missing out on a key reason the JFK assassination was allowed to happen.

And also fast forward to the 1980's when George Herbert Walker Bush and Henry Kissinger were running elite, highest level "executive action" assassination squads. Read all about that by googling "Chip Tatum Pegasus." One of the founders of this forum David Guyatt can tell you ALL about Chip Tatum and why he is so important because he gives us a window into how the world's most powerful mafia operates.

http://www.google.com/search?q=chip+tatum+pegasus&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=

Here is another nugget: letter of Prescott Bush to Clover Dulles, the widow of Allen Dulles, in 1969. Note how BITTER Prescott Bush is towards the Kennedys (both of whom had been assassinated by 1969):

"He [Allen] tried to make a pleasant evening of it, but I was rather sick of heart, and angry too, for it was the Kennedy's that brought about the fiasco. And here they were making Allen to be the goat, which he wasn't and did not deserve. I have never forgiven them."

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/prescott.htm

So the Bushes were close friends with the Allen Dulles family ... and they both (Prescott Bush, Allen Dulles) hated John Kennedy. And folks *wonder* why folks like me think that age 39 George Herbert Walker Bush was deeply involved in the JFK assassination ...


One MORE key point, in summer 1963 John J. McCloy went hunting whitewing doves with Clint Murchison, Sr. "That summer McCloy relaxed more than he had in years. He hunted whitewings with Clint Murchison on the Texas oil man's Mexico farm." (p. 542, Kai Bird, The Chairman: John J. McCloy and the making of the American Establishment). That is Clint Murchison, LBJ's biggest patron, spending a leisurely week on his Mexican ranch with John J. McCloy, Rockefeller emissary, chairman of the CFR from 1953-1970, deep intelligence from OSS days - both friends with Allen Dulles.


Hey, what do you think they (Murchison and McCloy) were saying about the Kennedys that week? Anyone want to venture a guess? Answer they were both extremely unhappy with what the Kennedys were doing.

And what was the mood at the Murchison household AFTER the JFK assassination, while Khrushchev was crying, Castro was worried? ...the Murchison family maid May Newman describes the scene: "The mood in the Murchison family home was very joyous and happy. For a whole week after like champagne and caviar flowed, every day of the week. But I was the only one in that household at that time that felt any grief for his assassination."

[Charles Drago]

A few quick points - E. Howard Hunt ALSO said that the CIA killed John Kennedy. Is that not true, too?

No.

Your analysis suffers from superficiality commonly associated with failing students in 101 courses.

The CIA "killed John Kennedy" the same way the hammer built the White House.

Hunt was fucking with us, giving us a limited hang-out, reinforcing the simple-minded notion that the CIA was a Sponsor, rather than a Facilitator's tool, in the JFK hit.

He further attempted to support the absurd appreciation of the CIA as a monolithic entity without severe ideological fracture lines.

And you and Nelson and, I fear, my friend Jim F. are buying it all.

Grow up.

Remember, E. Howard Hunt is confessing all this stuff to his SON St. John Hunt, not the public at large. So I think Hunt is a lot more trustworthy in these conversations.

A totally worthless, sophistic argument.

Saint John was the one of helped his dad destroy evidence, as Hunt was covering up for Watergate. I think Hunt was basically being true with St. John, but it seems that he was protecting himself ("backbencher, my butt!), Allen Dulles, Helms and Angleton.

SINgin "helped his dad." As usual, you've failed to get beyond a Leave it to Beaver level of intellectual engagement.

Another thing that folks seem to FORGET is the close ties of Lyndon Johnson and his key supporters like Clint Murchison, Sr. to the white hot core of US intelligence: folks like Allen Dulles, Nelson Rockefeller, and John J. McCloy.

Define "close ties." Explain why you include NR in a discussion of the "hot core of US intelligence." Dazzle us with your insight.

On second thought, don't. One more belly laugh and I'll need a truss.

The odds are extremely high that LBJ and Murchison, Sr. were lobbying folks like Allen Dulles, Nelson Rockefeller to get the machinery of the CIA to murder John Kennedy. Folks like Ed Lansdale, Richard Helms, James Angleton and it now seems likely McGeorge Bundy would carry out these orders from the ultra-rich, connected shadow government elite of Texas oil barons and the Rockefellers.

Now why would an all-powerful "mastermind" need to "lobby" anyone? Shouldn't he be expected to snap his fingers and watch the world do his bidding?

Defend your placement of "Texas oil barons" within the "shadow government." Define "shadow government." Defend your lateral positioning of Clint Murchison and Nelson Rockefeller.

On second thought, don't.

You are, miraculously, correct about one thing: Phil Dragoo's analysis is superb -- especially the following:

"Johnson is not Holmes' Professor Moriarity, nor Sax Rohmer's Fu Manchu.

"He strutted and fretted his time upon the stage and was sandbagged by the Langley stagehands' union.

"No salvo, volley or fusillade of insult and belittlement, no filibuster of multiple postings can promote a mere facilitator to the position of prime mover.

"And if E. Howard Hunt says it was Johnson, it wasn't."

All of which puts the lie to Nelson. And it exposes you -- once again -- as someone so dense that you can't see your executioner as he's putting the noose around your neck.

[Jim DiEugenio]

RM: A few quick points - E. Howard Hunt ALSO said that the CIA killed John Kennedy. Is that not true, too? Remember, E. Howard Hunt is confessing all this stuff to his SON St. John Hunt, not the public at large. So I think Hunt is a lot more trustworthy in these conversations. Saint John was the one of helped his dad destroy evidence, as Hunt was covering up for Watergate. I think Hunt was basically being true with St. John, but it seems that he was protecting himself ("backbencher, my butt!), Allen Dulles, Helms and Angleton.

Hunt's semi-confession reminds me of LBJ telling Madeleine Brown that it was Texas oil and the CIA who murdered John Kennedy, but leaving himself out of the mix. Hunt and LBJ were both far more involved than they let on.

Hunt did not say that the CIA killed Kennedy.

And you hint at what he really said later in this post.

What he is really saying is that a rogue operation of mid level and even low level CIA operatives killed Kennedy. How else does one define people like Sturgis and Morales? And then he throws in Cord Meyer?

I mean c'mon Rob. If you don't see the problem with that, then you really don't understand the CIA or Hunt. Cord Meyer was not an operator. He was a specialist in propaganda. In fact, he later became a prime CIA asset when he donned cover as a news reporter. The only reason Hunt includes him in his motley crew is because of the alleged affair JFK had with Mary Meyer, his former wife.

And for you and Fetzer to still rely on Saint John and his story about "destroying evidence" the night of the Watergate break in shows you have not studied Watergate either. As I noted, it was not Hunt but Baldwin who took the surveillance stuff home that night. He took it to McCord's house. Hunt did not go home after the break in. He went to his office at the White House, and then to the Mullen Company.

See, Hunt was not really involved with the electronic surveillance stuff during Watergate. THat was really Baldwin and McCord. So Saint John appears to be fabricating this aspect to give the impression that Dad let him in on some of his black ops prior.

And you guys fell for it.

[Phillip F. Nelson]

What a greeting for a new member!

Even before I discovered that the debate which started on the Education Forum, then moved to JFK Lancer (where a copy of the Green Review had also been posted) had moved on to its third venue, the level of invective for me and my book reached dizzying heights:

• "Neither he (Robert Morrow) nor Phillip Nelson demonstrate the slightest sophistication as thinkers or writers. The thoughtless -- if not sinister -- choice of the word "mastermind" as applied to LBJ reveals the total absence of deep political awareness/analytical thought"
  

• "Nelson's transparently disinformative book"
  

• "Nelson's two goals/assignments: Further factionalize the research community. The other, of course, is to fortify LBJ's FALSE Sponsorship role, and thus prolong the interminable debate and protect the true Sponsors."
  

• "Is Nelson an enemy agent of disinformation? A simple-minded executioner of the mother tongue?"
  

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

• "I HAVE read Nelson's LBJ/"mastermind" book. It is an abomination in every sense of the word"
  

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the hubris around here is downright suffocating? I have to assume that this treatment was designed specially for me and that this is not the usual discourse with which a new member is treated even before his first post. Given this "less than warm" greeting, rest assured that I will not "overstay my welcome." This will be my first, last and only post on this forum; I may be found lurking around the other two from time to time but I do have other fish to fry and can allocate only so much time to defending myself from unscrupulous attacks by armchair critics who seem to be more interested in perpetuating myths than they are in solving crimes, even the one generally referred to as the "crime of the century."


The Trashing of Seymour Hersh

Last week I posted the same response on Lancer that I originally wrote for EF and awaited further "dialog" on there. After it became apparent that DiEugenio had picked up his marbles and left, I then stumbled across the fact that it had then resumed on DPF. The reason for the latest shift in venue may never be known, but it may have something to do with Mr. DiEugenio's conduct at that forum when it became clear that his lies about Seymour Hersh had caught up with him. This was all explained in the original post of my response to the Green "review" by Jim Fetzer, who kindly posted a copy of those responses. I will not go into detail about them here again (see post #22 for specifics, particularly the second, "Appendix" part) however, I cannot understand why he would continue to argue that Hersh was a CIA stooge (Ref. Post #1 above), given that I have already demonstrated the falsity of that assertion.

This continuing, shameless character assassination of one of the foremost heroes of our time is disgusting. Seymour Hersh exposed the gruesome details of the March, 1968 carnage at My Lai in a blockbuster news report on November 12, 1969, shortly after Calley was arrested. It had taken that long for the news to leak out because of the cover-up within the military. By August, 1970, after further investigating the incident, Hersh reported in a New York Times article, that the massacre was part of a larger campaign of the CIA called Operation Phoenix. For this remarkable accomplishment in exposing the awful truths, Seymour Hersh established his bona-fides as a great investigative reporter, one who learned his craft from his famed mentor, I. F. "Izzy" Stone, another great and honorable man working at the edges of a machine quite capable of destroying those who attempt to expose its secrets.

Instead of giving up and apologizing for his mistake, now DiEugenio wants to perpetuate the myth of Seymour Hersh being a CIA asset on a completely new forum rather than admit that Hersh has been exposing the most sordid and deadly activities of the CIA:

". . .apparently Nelson never read Hersh's first book on My Lai, which predates the articles he notes. I did. In that book, he maintains a government cover up about what happened. As the months wore on, and it became obvious that Calley and the higher ups were being protected by the military and Nixon, even a stooge like Hersh understood the cover up could not be maintained."

So now, he maintains that Hersh wrote another book sometime before August of 1970 where he denies any CIA involvement. Please enlighten us, Jim, when was that book published and what was the name of it? Give us a quote from that one; you seem to be anxious to leave the previous lies about him behind you, back at those other two forums. This other book is news to me; I see no reference in all the materials I have checked. In that nine month period, evidently, he asserts that Hersh continued "protecting" the CIA and even published another book, which I cannot locate. Yet the record shows that it was the military and intelligence agencies who continued burying facts and deceiving the public. Even though Hersh did not acknowledge CIA sponsorship of the massacre during this nine month period, perhaps the reason was that he was still investigating it and had not yet been able to make an effective case; perhaps the delay was due to his merely using journalistic restraint and caution before coming out with still another important expose.

Seymour Hersh was a genuine American hero then and he still is now, regardless of the specious and outrageous lies perpetrated by DiEugenio. In 1969, he alone proved that he had the brass cojones to stand up to the military intelligence machine that took us to war and exposed the most horrid story of that unbelievably insane point in time. Most rational and objective people would put him at the head of the list if asked to vote on for the single best example of a real swashbuckling iconoclast, as opposed to a "wannabe" version like Mr. DiEugenio, who can safely hide behind the walls of various organizations which condone his "untruths".

So in this instance, here we have an organization supposedly interested in exposing truths about the "dark side" of an invisible government warmly accepting into their fold someone who is not above crafting the most outrageous lies about a true hero. His bringing those distortions directly into this forum and continuing to denigrate Hersh's accomplishments by accusing him of being a part of the very organization at the center of the "Deep Politics" conundrumthe very one that Hersh has worked so hard to investigate and exposeconstitutes a huge injustice to a true and great American hero. "Disgraceful" is an understatement and does not nearly describe such drivel.


Webster definition of "Mastermind": "a person who supplies the directing or creative intelligence for a project" Can you say "ambiguous"? Nothing there about "controlling every single detail" of the "project" that I can see. Hell, given that definition, a person who only had the original germ of an ideaand then had nothing whatsoever to do with its executioncould still qualify.

It seems that most of the invective directed by folks on this board to the book relates to my use of the word "Mastermind." This is a term that I (apparently mistakenly) thought the book itself, in roughly 700 pages, would define. The parameters of Johnson's involvement described in every chapter of the book defined his participation in the plot to kill John F. Kennedy. In case anyone missed it, I defined his participation in the event as beginning in 1958, two years before the presidential election. I will not use my limited time here to explain all of that; if anyone needs to understand that he or she will need to review at least chapter 5, preferably the entire book if its not too much trouble.

It has been asserted here that Johnson was not equipped or empowered to have been the "Mastermind". The problem seems to have more to do with semantics than anything substantive with the plot I have advanced. Why is it so difficult for so many to be unable to comprehend that the term is inherently ambiguous and subject to the interpretation of every individual who considers it. At Deep Politics, there seems to be an unwillingness to even acknowledge any definition other than their own, which is "by definition" (see above) misguided. And incorrect. And simply wrong, not to put too fine a point on it.

For clarification purposes, I will once again attempt to define and summarize what I meant by using that term: LBJ, set out in 1958-59 to put himself into the office of vice-president of the United States; in so doing, he forfeited any idea of actually running for the presidency at that time. He did this because he saw it as his only path into the presidency itself, in accordance with his self-defined destiny, at a time and place to be determined. Once he became vice president, he began sabotaging practically every domestic and international initiative advanced by JFK as he collaborated with his associates and other high officials within the military and intelligence organizations of the U.S. government. Between 1961 and 1963, as a result of numerous, repeated incidents as outlined in the book his relationship with a number of these military and intelligence officials grew greater, and tighter, just as JFK's deteriorated to a point that many of them decided that his presidency presented too many risks to what they perceived as the "national security" of the United States.

No one knows for sure, of course, precisely how all of these relationships evolved and when the planning for the assassination commenced; precise timelines and detailed assassination plans cannot be established because none of these "understandings" were ever committed to paper. My contention is that Johnson was the original initiator because, by definition, the "invisible government" which Mr. Drago evidently sees as the single and unique sponsor of the event could not possibly have been thrown into gear until at least after the election and probably not really until a number of Kennedy's "sins" (e.g. BOP, Cuban missile crisis, nuclear arms treaty, "Peace Speech" etc., etc.) had been committed.

My book goes to some lengths to describe the evolution of some of the relationships between Johnson and the members of the "invisible" force; this description is not located on any single page or sets of pages, but appears throughout the book. Therefore, to understand how the book describes all of this, one must, of course, read the book. One such referencewhich explains, again, why Johnson was not involved in the more detailed tasks such as arranging for the pristine bullet (CE 399)appears on page 368:

"Although it was Lyndon Johnson who would initiate the overall "macro-level"plan, and be in the position after its execution to enforce a complete cover-up,it is clear now, based upon the meticulous research of Noel Twyman in1997 and further elaboration by Larry Hancock in 2006 and Doug Horne in2009, that he was not the only planner involved; as dictated by the precepts of plausible deniability, Johnson would not be involved in the details of the assassination, other than planning of the motorcade itself. The gathering consensus is that Bill Harvey was put in charge of the microplanning level,aided by David Morales at the street level. . . "

For DiEugenio to continue making the ridiculous assertion that any "mastermind" would necessarily have to be the one and only person to know every possible detail of the pre and post-assassination conspiracies is, for lack of a better word, simply "ludicrous." In his post #90, he adds to the list the following ridiculous examples of things that any "mastermind" of the event would have to control:

"Precisely what did LBJ have to do with the following:
1.) Oswald being introduced to the Paines by the Baron.
2.) Oswald being manipulated in the New Orleans area by Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister.
3.) Ruth Paine picking up Marina and separating her from Lee and Lee from his possessions at the time of the murder.
4.) The Oswald charade in Mexico City which is crucial to the plot.
5.) Oswald getting his job at the TSBD.
6.) Ruth Paine producing all that phony evidence after the murder
7.) The military curtailing the autopsy

Only number 7 on his list has any pertinence of what Johnson's role might have been. The rest are just more instances of how he is unable to absorb the notion that there were a number of other planners of the event at the "micro" level, such as Bill Harvey and David Sanchez Morales. I feel as though this point will never go away. Has nobody else come to this conclusion? Is there some better way that I might explain this? Perhaps I'm simply not articulate enough to accomplish this. Perhaps the problem does not lie within the pages of this book. In any event, I shall not pursue this further.

Insofar as I have explained all of this over and over until I'm now literally "blue in the face" to no avail, I cannot see the point in going further. Perhaps Jim is right and my critics have not even bothered to read the book! But no more; after this, at least on this forum, you may continue picking the bones off the carcass that I leave behind (this post) just like other forms of vultures do in the "real world", but I do not intend to continue repeating myself merely because you are not willing to consider what I have already explained, repeatedly and ad nauseum.

Contrary to the strident and spurious charges that the book "ignores" the national security state, it actually addresses this issue directly and, if I may say so, quite thoroughly, in the context of its interface with the main perpetrator. That is why the book is over 700 pages long; Mr. Green felt that was way too long and that it should be shortened to 200 pages, evidently because he skipped over the very material he also said was missing. I am not the only one who saw the absurdity of that argument, yet it has still not been acknowledged by either Mr. Green or his chief sponsor, who may actually know no better.

I think the real controversy is caused, as noted above, by the fact that the book focuses more on LBJ's involvement than it does on the institutional entity called "the national security state". While I admit that I could have changed this proportion, to be less LBJ oriented and more "national security state" oriented, I suppose certain people would have been more satisfied with the book. Had I done that, I could have then named the book a little less provocatively, something very benign like "LBJ: From Pawn to King". While some folks here might have been less antagonistic towards the book, it would have also probably been ruinous to it. At the very least, the book would have grown to be much larger than it is, which is already on the outer edges of what a book publisher will even consider. By citing other books which focused on the "national security" aspects of the cabal, I extended the book's reach accordingly; I even stated that Twyman's book, for one, was essentially incorporated into the book in its entirety by proxy, because this is one book which I have absolutely no disagreements with (other than that Twyman does not actually see LBJ as the "mastermind", only as its most critical and indispensible actor). It was essentially the same technique I used to embrace other books as well. For example, Gerald McKnight's book on the Warren Commission is a good case on point; if anyone wants to see the complete details of issues I only address tangentially, the point is, the full details are completely available within the other cited works.

More Misstatements:

DiEugenio noted on post #49: "Green writes that Nelson also propogates the whole RFK being in on MM's murder thesis." For the record, the following excerpt from the book explains that this is not true:

Author Donald H. Wolfe, in The Last Days of Marilyn Monroe, made a compelling case that Robert F. Kennedy was not only the last visitor of Marilyn Monroe before she died but was actually involved in it in some way. To be sure, other authors, including Donald Spoto in his book Marilyn Monroe, disagree vehemently with such a conclusion. It is not our purpose here to settle that case; however, it is clear that whatever involvement Bobby may have had would have been known to his nemesis, J. Edgar Hoover; he wouldn't hesitate a moment to use the secret scandals known only to the handful of people who had access to the FBI reports to keep Bobby Kennedy rattled and under his own complete control. RFK had found out about Hoover's channels when he ordered the FBI to confiscate the records of her telephone calls from General Telephone within hours of her death. He knew that Hoover knew all about the outgoing and incoming telephone calls, not just the precise times of each call but the taped conversations as well. Since August 4, 1962, J. Edgar Hoover possessed information on both Kennedy brothers that was so potentially damaging that it could end their political careers.

According to credible accounts, RFK, with Peter Lawford, visited Marilyn Monroe the day before she died. And thanks to the constant monitoring of everything going on in her bungalow by his wiretaps, Hoover would have known exactly what went on, even if was nothing more than a shouting match. That is the sum and substance of what I wrote; I specifically stated that I was reporting only what two other authors had written, one which said he was involved in her death, the other vehemently disagreed and that this book did not take either side. I can only conjecture how DiEugeio could have missed it.

Conclusions:

Mr. Drago stated that "Hunt's absurdly transparent final fiction and Nelson's just plain absurd "hypothesis" both are intended -- in my educated opinion -- to prolong the JFK debate, reinforce the coverup, and protect the anonymity of the true Sponsors of Dallas and beyond."

This is the real sophistry which is clearly prevalent on this forum; it is transparently ridiculous and, if anything, the opposite of reality. It is the perpetuation of the idea that the only force that could have possibly been behind the assassination was this murky confluence of invisible--and only partially identifiedpeople that has itself perpetrated the cover-up of the crime. Maybe that's the objective of his dismissal of my book: to preserve the illusion that "the national security state" was responsible rather than actual human agents acting on their motives and beliefs.

That is the inevitable result of the creation of the ultimate "strawman": the one which insures that the assassination will never be solved. One result of that is the fact that a miniseries is about to be produced which re-postulates the very same "official story" that so few people even believe in. The people who subsequently remain unpersuaded by that fictional "entertainment" will then be offered up an equally ridiculous movie designed to convince them that it was all Fidel's doing. In the meantime, the real killers get yet another pass. Jim Fetzer in "Forrest Gump on the grassy knoll" recognizes the danger in those works of "entertainment" and has sought to warn the public about it. The armchair pundits at this forum prefer only to commiserate about how such shows don't reflect their singular culprit: the enigmatic "invisible government", which controls everyone and which will only be exposed if they continue their hand-wringing and the verbal combat with themselves in their tiny corner of cyberspace. Terrific, but count me out.

A logically thinking cynic, after absorbing the debate going on here, might even conclude that an organization which calls itself "Deep Politics Forum" might even resort to attacking any book that attempts to outline the only realistically plausible story of the assassination, simply because it does not comport with the premise upon which they exist. Moreover, following simple rules of logic, their real motive might even be more insidious and sinister; why would they mount such a colossal effort to keep the waters muddy and un-navigable? Could such an organization even "pull all the plugs" to destroy a book because of the perception that it is a threat to its own credibility or existence? Is it in the DPF's own interest to keep the lid on the most plausible story simply to preserve their own existence?

If all of this is so, then the inescapable conclusion is that this organization is not really wedded to the pursuit of truth. By logical extension, which I find very troubling, it appears difficult to deny that the DPF may exist for ulterior motives, a hidden agenda that only surfaces intermittently, as it seems to have done here.

[James H. Fetzer]

DiEugenio continues to display his mediocrity on this thread. First he exaggerates
what Lyndon has to have controlled in order for him to have properly qualified as
"mastermind". Now he trivializes the evidential support for inferring that LBJ was
the pivotal player, where he suggests that I am deriving my position SOLELY FROM
"The Final Confessions of E. Howard Hunt"! How can he suggest as much on this
very thread? And he expects anyone to take him seriously as a thinker or a scholar?

I have cited the books of Madeleine Duncan Brown, Billy Sol Estes, Barr McClellan,
Noel Twyman, Jim Douglass, Phil Nelson, and of many others, including, of course,
Nigel Turner in the final segment of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Robert Morrow is
doing a brilliant job of explaining some of the evidence that supports this conclusion,
including even a letter from Evelyn Lincoln, where the woman who knew JFK best
and the woman who knew LBJ best both believe that Lyndon was profoundly involved.

Instead of confronting the evidence, he wants to dredge up ancient history about
Gregory Douglas, which I long since addressed on Assassination Research, which
anyone can verify at http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2.html . Since his
gambits are not going anywhere, he wants to return to Judyth and the extended
debate that occurred on the longest thread in the history of the EF, where I had to
fault him for the methodological blunder of placing more weight on a more recent
interview with Mary Morgan than on her consistent and repeated earlier testimony.

Robert Morrow has done a nice job of explaining this to DiEugenio, but, as in the
case of the CIA at the Ambassador, he plays the game of picking and choosing the
evidence he prefers, no matter how much there may exist to the contrary. And he
is reckless in his confidence when he finds what he is looking for. I suppose no one
should be surprised, since he has no grasp of scientific reasoning. He has no way to
know the provenance of the formal photograph on which he relies in his quite feeble
attempts to salvage his position, EVEN AFTER I HAVE EXPLAINED HIS BLUNDERS.

Similarly, he now thinks he can get some mileage out of resurrecting the controversy
over Judyth. We've all "been there, done that", in case he hasn't noticed. And once
again he is wiling to select just the evidence that supports his position and disregard
the rest. That is the tactic of politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen. I
hate to say it again, but if he would only take into account ALL OF THE AVAILABLE
RELEVANT EVIDENCE, even he might have more appreciation for what it has to tell
us. By coincidence, I just received an email about ME & LEE, which I want to share:

Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 10:05:19 -0800 [12:05:19 PM CST]
From: "John ______" <______@yahoo.com>
To: JFetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: RE: Judyth Baker

Hey Dr. Fetzer:

Thank you for promoting the efforts of Ms. Baker to exonerate her former friend and lover, Lee Oswald, in the killing of our beloved president, John Kennedy.

I just read Ms. Baker's book, and I must say, her writing and the supporting evidence have convinced me that, indeed, she knew Lee Oswald well in New Orleans and likely received information from him about the efforts to eliminate the President. She wrote that Lee was a very kind, loving, and considerate person who really cared about others.

During the Holiday break, I did some catching up on what is going on with the JFK case, and I happened to review the last words of Lee Oswald which were compiled and posted on the Net by Mae Brussell. This evidence shows Lee expressed genuine concern for his little daughters, Junie and Rachel, and that he reminded Marina to buy some shoes for Junie, even though he had just been charged with murder and was in grave danger of losing his life. His words and the associated voice analysis while at the police station also demonstrate that Lee did not shoot anybody and that he was just a patsy as he proclaimed. The consideration and kindness he exhibited at the police station is also wholly consistent with how Lee acted towards Judyth and others in New Orleans as recounted in Judyth's book. With Judyth's evidence, the case in general makes so much more sense now. For that, I'm very thankful to you and Judyth, as I've been reading about this case for over 20 years.

Best wishes,

John _____

In my opinion, this fellow displays more sensitivity to significant aspects of the case
as they relate to Judth Vary Baker than does Jim DiEugenio, even though DiEugenio
is suspposed to the the expert here. But regardless of that case, where he hopes that
those who disagree with me about her are going to agree with him now, he continues
to display the inadequacies in research for which I am now forced to repeatedly fault
him. The selective use of evidence (by picking and choosing and ignoring the rest) and
the straw man (by exaggerating what would have to be true for LBJ to properly qualify
as the "mastermind" and by minimizing the evidence that supports it) is irresponsible.

And that is not to mention relying on evidence the worth of which he does not know
(in the case of his attempt to rebut my on outing the CIA at the Ambassador), which
adds new weight to a growing body of proof that this guy really is as incompetent as
I have feared. He not only has no idea whether that photograph looks like the person
he takes it to be but doesn't even seem to appreciate that we all have photographs of
ourselves at different times that don't really look a lot like ourselves. And for him to
shift the discussion to WATERGATE is scrapping the barrel's bottom. He is desperate
to find some sliver by which he might excuse his own incompetence. BUYER BEWARE!

RM: A few quick points - E. Howard Hunt ALSO said that the CIA killed John Kennedy. Is that not true, too? Remember, E. Howard Hunt is confessing all this stuff to his SON St. John Hunt, not the public at large. So I think Hunt is a lot more trustworthy in these conversations. Saint John was the one of helped his dad destroy evidence, as Hunt was covering up for Watergate. I think Hunt was basically being true with St. John, but it seems that he was protecting himself ("backbencher, my butt!), Allen Dulles, Helms and Angleton.

Hunt's semi-confession reminds me of LBJ telling Madeleine Brown that it was Texas oil and the CIA who murdered John Kennedy, but leaving himself out of the mix. Hunt and LBJ were both far more involved than they let on.

Hunt did not say that the CIA killed Kennedy.

And you hint at what he really said later in this post.

What he is really saying is that a rogue operation of mid level and even low level CIA operatives killed Kennedy. How else does one define people like Sturgis and Morales? And then he throws in Cord Meyer?

I mean c'mon Rob. If you don't see the problem with that, then you really don't understand the CIA or Hunt. Cord Meyer was not an operator. He was a specialist in propaganda. In fact, he later became a prime CIA asset when he donned cover as a news reporter. The only reason Hunt includes him in his motley crew is because of the alleged affair JFK had with Mary Meyer, his former wife.

And for you and Fetzer to still rely on Saint John and his story about "destroying evidence" the night of the Watergate break in shows you have not studied Watergate either. As I noted, it was not Hunt but Baldwin who took the surveillance stuff home that night. He took it to McCord's house. Hunt did not go home after the break in. He went to his office at the White House, and then to the Mullen Company.

See, Hunt was not really involved with the electronic surveillance stuff during Watergate. THat was really Baldwin and McCord. So Saint John appears to be fabricating this aspect to give the impression that Dad let him in on some of his black ops prior.

And you guys fell for it.

[Peter Lemkin]

A good and fair rebuttal....and I for one hope you will change just one thing....your promise to not return. I think you and your ideas [book] need a fair hearing. I've not yet read it and was, myself, a bit surprised [and said so above] at the level of venom aimed at you and at others posing pro and con on various parts or its entirely. It is probably unfortunate timing that you come upon this thread so late in its game, but I understand. I don't habit the Lancer Forum and am banned from EF, so was unaware of pre-game plays.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Well, Nelson apparently does not read dates or footnotes well. Instead he likes calling me a liar. FIrst, its buffoon by Fetzer, and now this.

Hersh wrote two books about My Lai. One in 1970, and one two years later.

I read them both. If you read the first one, it is called My Lai 4. I ask anyone to read it and tell me Hersh is describing a CIA secret op sanctioned by the government.

Now, the second book appeared after the Peers Commission let off everyone but Calley. And then Nixon reduced Calley's term to a three year house arrest. This after over 500 people were slaughtered. Therefore, anyone could surmise, something was wrong someplace. By this time, bits and pieces of the Phoenix Program were being circulated.

So in 1972, Hersh wrote a second book. This was called Cover Up. Now, Nelson insinuates that in footnotes to the Valentine book--which he previously tried to discredit--Doug uses articles written by Hersh in the Ny Times to mention Phoenix. Not so. Doug uses excerpts from the second book. At this time, for reasons previously stated, Hersh could no longer really maintain that My Lai was a spontaneous outburst by combat troops run amok. He had to at least mention Phoenix, since others had also. And this made much more sense as an explanation.

But the incredible thing about the second book is that Hersh still tried to have it both ways. Because although he mentions Phoenix, he also adds this on pages 97-98:

"There was no conspiracy to destroy the village of My Lai 4; what took place there had happened before and would hapen again in Quang Ngai province--although with less than drastic results. The desire of Lt. Colonel Barker to mount another successful, high enemy body count operation in the area. The desire of Ramsdell to demonstrate the effectiveness of his operations, the belief shared by all the principals that everyone living in Son My was staying there by choice because of communists....And the basic incompetence of many intelligence personnel in the Army--all those factors combined to enable a group of ambitious men to mount an unnecessary mission against a nonexistent enemy force, and somehow to find the evidence to justify it all."

Recall, this is 1972. How anyone could write such drivel by that time is just amazing. Apparently Nelson read neither book and he just cherry picked Valentine's. This is a hallmark of his research. He then ignores what Hersh has done with Watergate, his association with Bill Colby in his dispute with Angelton, his work on KAL 007, and most of all his association with Bob Loomis, Mr. JFK Cover up at Random House and sponsor of Jerry Posner. He also ignores the fact that CIA asset Hersh started his book in 1992, right after Stone's film came out.

THat is a lot of stuff to ignore about Nelson's great American Hero.

As per his qualifications now about LBJ as a mastermind, well does this not show the book was mistitled? And I would even argue that point number seven in my list did not at all necessitate Johnson. The military could have curtailed the autopsy itself. But Phil is being less than candid. As Green notes, Nelson goes the whole David Lifton route here. He has LBJ in on the autopsy hijinks right in Dallas. That is how much of a mastermind LBJ really was.

Further, he mentions Harvey and Morales as being enlisted in my previous six points. Harvey has nothing to do with Mexico City or the Paines. Same for Morales. Where was Harvey in New Orleans?

The likely suspects squiring Oswald around as mid level managers from New Orleans to Mexico City to Dallas were Phillips and Hunt. For that we have evidence. For Morales and Harvey we don't.

PS Now that i destroyed Hunt's "confession" and his less than reliable son, Fetzer falls back on Brown, Estes etc. Its his endless shell game.

But like any shell game, there is nothing under the shell.