Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[James H. Fetzer]

The allusion to "no planes" qualifies as (what is known as) an appeal to popular
sentiments, since most of us have not studied the question and are inclined to
supposed that the position is absurd. That is the case with respect to many of
the most contentious issues in JFK, for example, where the fabrication of the
Zapruder film may seem implausible to those who haven't studied the evidence.
"Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" is a nice case in point.

Since there may be members of this forum who wonder what it means, which
is not what the phrase may be misinterpreted to mean, here are some points
that I would make about "no planes", even though there are others who take a
somewhat stronger stance, where Morgan speaks eloquently for himself on this
issue. I should say that it was because of Morgan that I was finally able to open
my mind to the possibility of video fakery on 9/11 just as the Z-film was faked.

THE MEANING OF "NO PLANES"

The phrase "no planes" in this context does not mean (or does not necessarily
mean) that there were LITERALLY no planes but rather as I use the phrase that
there are problems about the planes at each of the four alleged "crash sites":

* There is no evidence that Flight 93, a Boeing 757, crashed in Shanksville

* A Boeing 757 flew toward the Pentagon but then swerved and flew over it

* A flying something hit North Tower but does not appear to be a Boeing 767

* Whatever we see hit the South Tower appears to have involved video fakery

Since most of the discussion that follows concerns the South Tower, anyone
who wants more about the other alleged "crash sites" may want to review the
following resources:

* Killtown on Shanksville,
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2010/11/gue...-show.html

* Jim Fetzer, "What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon",
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/...tagon.html

* Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm

* Jim Fetzer, "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Pro...9-132.html

Some addition sources about this may be found here:

No planes -- just manufactured videos
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/401.html

WTC No Plane Theory (Part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBpTWYUgvcM

9/11 No Plane Manifesto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElG-J3RlEs

Gentlemen, please keep the discussion pointed at the facts and avoid the tendency to engage in ad homs at all costs.

Thanks.

[Dawn Meredith]

I am not even touching the no planes or different planes theory, as this is a JFK assassination section of the forumn. For those who insist that LBJ was the "mastermind" I have yet to see one of them address the question of then who killed MLK and RFK.

There is no doubt that LBJ was in the 63 coup up to his eyeballs. But mastermind or at the top, not a chance. The same powers that killed JFK killed MLK and RFK and are still in power as we speak.

Dawn

[James H. Fetzer]

Well, DiEugenio dropped his little "bomb shell", in case you hadn't noticed. It is
tempting to infer than, if most people think something is false, then it must be
false. This especially affects those who have not studied the evidence. Since
you say that "the same powers" are still in power as we speak, are you talking
about Allen Dulles, J. Edgar, Clint Murchison, and LBJ? Do you think that "the
national security state" or some other abstraction exists apart from real people
who make real decisions and whose identities change across time? I think we
have a problem in sorting things out, where I have argued that the CIA played a
key role in the deaths of JFK and of RFK, but I would not suggest that the same
players, such as David Sanchez Morales, George Joannides, or Gordon Campbell
are "still in power". I think there is some degree of confusion here, where "the
national security state" sounds appealing as an explanation but cannot explain
any specific actions taken by any specific players on any specific occasion. So I
think your objection, which also appears to inspire Charles, is simply misguided.

I am not even touching the no planes or different planes theory, as this is a JFK assassination section of the forumn. For those who insist that LBJ was the "mastermind" I have yet to see one of them address the question of then who killed MLK and RFK.

There is no doubt that LBJ was in the 63 coup up to his eyeballs. But mastermind or at the top, not a chance. The same powers that killed JFK killed MLK and RFK and are still in power as we speak.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

Well, DiEugenio dropped his little "bomb shell", in case you hadn't noticed. It is
tempting to infer than, if most people think something is false, then it must be
false. This especially affects those who have not studied the evidence. Since
you say that "the same powers" are still in power as we speak, are you talking
about Allen Dulles, J. Edgar, Clint Murchison, and LBJ? Do you think that "the
national security state" or some other abstraction exists apart from real people
who make real decisions and whose identities change across time? I think we
have a problem in sorting things out, where I have argued that the CIA played a
key role in the deaths of JFK and of RFK, but I would not suggest that the same
players, such as David Sanchez Morales, George Joannides, or Gordon Campbell
are "still in power". I think there is some degree of confusion here, where "the
national security state" sounds appealing as an explanation but cannot explain
any specific actions taken by any specific players on any specific occasion. So I
think your objection, which also appears to inspire Charles, is simply misguided.

I am not even touching the no planes or different planes theory, as this is a JFK assassination section of the forumn. For those who insist that LBJ was the "mastermind" I have yet to see one of them address the question of then who killed MLK and RFK.

There is no doubt that LBJ was in the 63 coup up to his eyeballs. But mastermind or at the top, not a chance. The same powers that killed JFK killed MLK and RFK and are still in power as we speak.

Dawn

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

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

I do not want to get in the way of what should be a most interesting exchange between Morgan Reynolds and Charles Drago, especially since I have already done what I can to explain that Charles' position suffers from the straw man by adopting an exaggerated conception of what it would take to qualify as the "mastermind" of JFK's assassination.

Wrong. It is Nelson who "exaggerates" LBJ's role, and I will not let him off that hook -- as desperately as he squirms.

As I've previously posted:

Phillip F. Nelson, author of LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination, unmistakably confirms his acceptance of [the Merriam Webster definition of "mastermind"] as it applies to LBJ when he writes:

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

Then there's this:

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

These clear, unambiguous, wholly-at-variance-with-the-facts statements by Nelson render inoperative the frantic efforts by his champion, Jim Fetzer, and others to replace "mastermind" with what they beg us to believe is the synonymous "pivotal player."

MW defines "pivotal" as "vitally important."

I submit that anyone who accepts "mastermind" and "pivotal" as being synonymous within the larger context of JFK assassination roles attributed to LBJ is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

No one had a larger role.

Purely your opinion -- unless, of course, you are willing to offer in detail the roles played by Messrs. A. Dulles, Angleton, and Phillips -- for starters. Anything less than a detailed comparison of roles will reduce yours to an argument from (false) authority.

No one was in a stronger position of power--for a multiplicity of reasons--at that historical moment in time than was Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Read Madeleine and Billy Sol but don't forget the historians. LBJ was a master of power.

Pure, unadulterated opinion unsupported by deep political analysis. LBJ cannot be both a cornered, soon-to-be felon and a "master of power." Prove to me that LBJ could speak, and the deep political state would obey his every order. Show me that the so-called power of the presidency is something more than an illusion. If need be, ask JFK and RMN to support your argument.

And again, I reject the authority of Brown and Estes for numerous, powerful reasons. Trot them out all you'd like; the facts remain.

Lyndon was the one who stood to gain the most and who had the least to lose.

Pure, unadulterated opinion. Define your terms. Quantify "more to lose." Show us how LBJ had "more to lose" than Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante -- among other False Sponsors with motive.

He had his own hitman!

So was Mac Wallace a triggerman in DP? Or was his presence -- real or fabricated -- meant to help implicate and thus control LBJ as a False Sponsor.

So claiming that the key to [disinformation] is "the selective use of verifiable fact" is incorrect.

Wrong again, Jim. Take E. Howard Hunt's phony "confession" -- which you do. Almost every component of it, it may be strongly argued, is grounded in fact. The disinformation comes with the implication that Hunt's story is complete.

Demonizing Saddam Hussein was in itself an act of disinformation, where, in that case, the history of his conduct of the affairs of the nation were subject to exaggeration. We thought we could pin the existence of WMDs on him because we had sold them to him, but Saddam had skillfully disposed of them in anticipation of that being used against him, as UN inspectors would subsequently confirm.

Basic truth underpinning lies and distortions. You make my point for me.

While it is the case that the best sources of disinformation offer a proportion of truth and fiction on the order of 80/20, the parallel with lying is quite appropriate. I would even go so far as to suggest that these continued attacks on Seymour Hersh are an example, since he has done so much to expose malfeasance at home and abroad. Attacking him is wrong.

Interesting. I wasn't aware that a disinformation formula existed. But thanks again for making my point. As for the Hersh attacks: Are they morally wrong? Factually wrong? Or is Hersh the perfect laboratory example of the disinformationalist -- writing brilliant, courageous, truthful investigative pieces that set up his grand Dark Side disinformation?

I am still astounded that, when well-placed sources from Jack Ruby to Evelyn Lincoln finger LBJ as the pivotal player--where Ruby said the assassination would not have taken place had someone else been the Vice President--and Phil Nelson has given us such a superb study of his warped character and political genius, this is still supposed to be a debatable issue! I think Morgan has it just about right.

Here we go again with "pivotal" v. "mastermind." I do not accept the "credentials" of Ruby or Lincoln as experts in deep political structures in general and the JFK plot in particular. I submit to you my interpretation of Ruby's quote: The assassination would not have taken place AS IT DID had a LESS CONTROLLABLE, CORRUPT, VULNERABLE VICE PRESIDENT been in office.

Morgan has it quite wrong, as does your "brilliant student" Robert "JFK Was a Sex Freak" Morrow.

As do you.

[James H. Fetzer]

Well, I have addressed Bobby's death in "RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador",
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/...6464.shtml This appears to have been
a case of "tying up loose ends", where the agency wanted to make sure that he
would not be in the position to reopen the investigation into his brother's death.

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

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

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

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

Well, DiEugenio dropped his little "bomb shell", in case you hadn't noticed. It is
tempting to infer than, if most people think something is false, then it must be
false. This especially affects those who have not studied the evidence. Since
you say that "the same powers" are still in power as we speak, are you talking
about Allen Dulles, J. Edgar, Clint Murchison, and LBJ? Do you think that "the
national security state" or some other abstraction exists apart from real people
who make real decisions and whose identities change across time? I think we
have a problem in sorting things out, where I have argued that the CIA played a
key role in the deaths of JFK and of RFK, but I would not suggest that the same
players, such as David Sanchez Morales, George Joannides, or Gordon Campbell
are "still in power". I think there is some degree of confusion here, where "the
national security state" sounds appealing as an explanation but cannot explain
any specific actions taken by any specific players on any specific occasion. So I
think your objection, which also appears to inspire Charles, is simply misguided.

I am not even touching the no planes or different planes theory, as this is a JFK assassination section of the forumn. For those who insist that LBJ was the "mastermind" I have yet to see one of them address the question of then who killed MLK and RFK.

There is no doubt that LBJ was in the 63 coup up to his eyeballs. But mastermind or at the top, not a chance. The same powers that killed JFK killed MLK and RFK and are still in power as we speak.

Dawn

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

Dawn

[James H. Fetzer]

Charles,

In this case, you have gone off the deep end--and not for the first time! When
you challenged me to explain the meaning of "mastermind", I introduced the
notion of "the pivotal player". That is how most words are defined: by means
of other words. I have offered too many arguments and too much evidence to
want to resume this exchange with you. I did not expect the kind of attacks you
have launched on me, Phil, and Morgan. I'm sorry but, "Been there, done that!"

When it comes to ad hominems, by the way, it seems to me that you are far
and away the greatest offender. I have been astonished at the liberal use you
make of personal vilification and verbal assaults, including some nice examples
in this very post. I am berated for making very mild and thoroughly justifiable
remarks about the scholarship of others, but you launch wholesale attacks with
impunity. I have the impression you regard the forum as your personal preserve.

Jim

I do not want to get in the way of what should be a most interesting exchange between Morgan Reynolds and Charles Drago, especially since I have already done what I can to explain that Charles' position suffers from the straw man by adopting an exaggerated conception of what it would take to qualify as the "mastermind" of JFK's assassination.

Wrong. It is Nelson who "exaggerates" LBJ's role, and I will not let him off that hook -- as desperately as he squirms.

As I've previously posted:

Phillip F. Nelson, author of LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination, unmistakably confirms his acceptance of [the Merriam Webster definition of "mastermind"] as it applies to LBJ when he writes:

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

Then there's this:

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

These clear, unambiguous, wholly-at-variance-with-the-facts statements by Nelson render inoperative the frantic efforts by his champion, Jim Fetzer, and others to replace "mastermind" with what they beg us to believe is the synonymous "pivotal player."

MW defines "pivotal" as "vitally important."

I submit that anyone who accepts "mastermind" and "pivotal" as being synonymous within the larger context of JFK assassination roles attributed to LBJ is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

No one had a larger role.

Purely your opinion -- unless, of course, you are willing to offer in detail the roles played by Messrs. A. Dulles, Angleton, and Phillips -- for starters. Anything less than a detailed comparison of roles will reduce yours to an argument from (false) authority.

No one was in a stronger position of power--for a multiplicity of reasons--at that historical moment in time than was Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Read Madeleine and Billy Sol but don't forget the historians. LBJ was a master of power.

Pure, unadulterated opinion unsupported by deep political analysis. LBJ cannot be both a cornered, soon-to-be felon and a "master of power." Prove to me that LBJ could speak, and the deep political state would obey his every order. Show me that the so-called power of the presidency is something more than an illusion. If need be, ask JFK and RMN to support your argument.

And again, I reject the authority of Brown and Estes for numerous, powerful reasons. Trot them out all you'd like; the facts remain.



Pure, unadulterated opinion. Define your terms. Quantify "more to lose." Show us how LBJ had "more to lose" than Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante -- among other False Sponsors with motive.



So was Mac Wallace a triggerman in DP? Or was his presence -- real or fabricated -- meant to help implicate and thus control LBJ as a False Sponsor.



Wrong again, Jim. Take E. Howard Hunt's phony "confession" -- which you do. Almost every component of it, it may be strongly argued, is grounded in fact. The disinformation comes with the implication that Hunt's story is complete.

Demonizing Saddam Hussein was in itself an act of disinformation, where, in that case, the history of his conduct of the affairs of the nation were subject to exaggeration. We thought we could pin the existence of WMDs on him because we had sold them to him, but Saddam had skillfully disposed of them in anticipation of that being used against him, as UN inspectors would subsequently confirm.

Basic truth underpinning lies and distortions. You make my point for me.

While it is the case that the best sources of disinformation offer a proportion of truth and fiction on the order of 80/20, the parallel with lying is quite appropriate. I would even go so far as to suggest that these continued attacks on Seymour Hersh are an example, since he has done so much to expose malfeasance at home and abroad. Attacking him is wrong.

Interesting. I wasn't aware that a disinformation formula existed. But thanks again for making my point. As for the Hersh attacks: Are they morally wrong? Factually wrong? Or is Hersh the perfect laboratory example of the disinformationalist -- writing brilliant, courageous, truthful investigative pieces that set up his grand Dark Side disinformation?

I am still astounded that, when well-placed sources from Jack Ruby to Evelyn Lincoln finger LBJ as the pivotal player--where Ruby said the assassination would not have taken place had someone else been the Vice President--and Phil Nelson has given us such a superb study of his warped character and political genius, this is still supposed to be a debatable issue! I think Morgan has it just about right.

Here we go again with "pivotal" v. "mastermind." I do not accept the "credentials" of Ruby or Lincoln as experts in deep political structures in general and the JFK plot in particular. I submit to you my interpretation of Ruby's quote: The assassination would not have taken place AS IT DID had a LESS CONTROLLABLE, CORRUPT, VULNERABLE VICE PRESIDENT been in office.

Morgan has it quite wrong, as does your "brilliant student" Robert "JFK Was a Sex Freak" Morrow.

As do you.

[Jan Klimkowski]

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

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

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

It is likely that JFK was assassinated because he was one of a very few American Presidents who was attempting to make use of the constitutional powers of the Presidency to effect change which threatened deep power structures (whatever label one chooses to use to describe them).

For instance, there is increasing evidence that JFK was attempting to prevent war in Vietnam, to limit the powers of the Federal Reserve, and to clip the wings of various intelligence agencies.

Such actions threatened deep political structures, and their accumulation of vast quantities of treasure at the cost of the pointless slaughter of millions of men, women and children, and the destablization of countries around the globe, through false flag wars and coups, economic strangulation and narco-trafficking.

In other words, JFK took the powers of the Presidency seriously, and was attempting to use them.

This marks him as entirely different from the actors and apparatchiks - eg LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton - who understood that the powers vested in Presidential office are not to be used by the incumbent except in the interests of their real masters. The only acting they did was in disguising the real nature of power and providing a folksy face to a corrupt and uncontrolled beast.

Of course people perform actions.

Of course people die.

However, the location of true power has not changed in decades.

And it is only theoretically located in those who rule our countries, be their name Barack Obama or Tony Blair.

[Charles Drago]

Charles,

In this case, you have gone off the deep end--and not for the first time! When
you challenged me to explain the meaning of "mastermind", I introduced the
notion of "the pivotal player". That is how most words are defined: by means
of other words. I have offered too many arguments and too much evidence to
want to resume this exchange with you. I did not expect the kind of attacks you
have launched on me, Phil, and Morgan. I'm sorry but, "Been there, done that!"

When it comes to ad hominems, by the way, it seems to me that you are far
and away the greatest offender. I have been astonished at the liberal use you
make of personal vilification and verbal assaults, including some nice examples
in this very post. I am berated for making very mild and thoroughly justifiable
remarks about the scholarship of others, but you launch wholesale attacks with
impunity. I have the impression you regard the forum as your personal preserve.

Jim

Jim,

I reject all of the above out-of-hand. As I do your defense of Nelson's disinformation.

End of story.

Charles

[Dawn Meredith]

Well, I have addressed Bobby's death in "RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador",
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/...6464.shtml This appears to have been
a case of "tying up loose ends", where the agency wanted to make sure that he
would not be in the position to reopen the investigation into his brother's death.

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

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

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

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

Well, DiEugenio dropped his little "bomb shell", in case you hadn't noticed. It is
tempting to infer than, if most people think something is false, then it must be
false. This especially affects those who have not studied the evidence. Since
you say that "the same powers" are still in power as we speak, are you talking
about Allen Dulles, J. Edgar, Clint Murchison, and LBJ? Do you think that "the
national security state" or some other abstraction exists apart from real people
who make real decisions and whose identities change across time? I think we
have a problem in sorting things out, where I have argued that the CIA played a
key role in the deaths of JFK and of RFK, but I would not suggest that the same
players, such as David Sanchez Morales, George Joannides, or Gordon Campbell
are "still in power". I think there is some degree of confusion here, where "the
national security state" sounds appealing as an explanation but cannot explain
any specific actions taken by any specific players on any specific occasion. So I
think your objection, which also appears to inspire Charles, is simply misguided.

I am not even touching the no planes or different planes theory, as this is a JFK assassination section of the forumn. For those who insist that LBJ was the "mastermind" I have yet to see one of them address the question of then who killed MLK and RFK.

There is no doubt that LBJ was in the 63 coup up to his eyeballs. But mastermind or at the top, not a chance. The same powers that killed JFK killed MLK and RFK and are still in power as we speak.

Dawn

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

Dawn

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

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

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

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

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