Craig Zirbel's new book The Final Chapter On the Assassination of John F. Kennedy

[James H. Fetzer]

Robert,

Everything I have read about it--including the material available on-line--suggests that this,
like Nelson's LBJ masterpiece, has the right take on history. I am sorry to see the reception
that work like this receives here, as though it were heretical! Sad but true to say that there
is a prevailing paradigm here that substantiated truth cannot penetrate, as this thread shows.

Jim

For the benefit of new folks, I do believe that Lyndon Johnson was the most key player in the 1963 Coup d'Etat. Here is my blog: http://lyndonjohnsonmurderedjfk.blogspot.com/

Craig Zirbel, author of the Texas Connection, has come out with a new book on the JFK assassination entitled The Final Chapter on the Assassination of JFK. It focuses on the role of Lyndon Johnson. Here is the link:

http://www.thefinalchapteronjfk.com/page2.html

Foreward to the book:
I hope you appreciate the irony of the cover case to this book. It is a
replica of the exhibit volumes issued by the Warren Commission. The
Commission issued twenty-six volumes of supporting records to their
report. As such, it seemed appropriate that this book should be the
Commission's twenty-seventh volume.
This is a time of good news for those interested in the Kennedy
assassination. Sealed records have been released, new evidence has been
found, and aging witnesses have started coming out of the shadows to tell
what they know.
Unfortunately, there have still been a few powerful people who do
not like this. In the recent past, Lyndon B. Johnson's widow and his
longtime aide, Jack Valenti, decided that our right to free speech does not
apply to certain matters relating to the Kennedy assassination. In a
desperate attempt to stop a full scale discussion of JFK's murder, this small
contingency publicly attacked the Discovery Channel for broadcasting a
documentary film about the assassination events in relationship to LBJ's
potential involvement. In fact, they actually bullied the Arts &
Entertainment Network to agree to no longer air the "objectionable"
documentary, and to in fact host a pro LBJ symposium.
Can you imagine that almost fifty years after the fact, Lyndon B.
Johnson from his grave still yields enough power to prevent a public
examination of his potential involvement in this murder? And, this is in
spite of recent evidence coming forward from LBJ's mistress, some of his
old friends, one of his lawyers, the KGB, and even Lee Harvey Oswald's
own murderer - implicating Johnson in the crime! This of course begs the
question as to whether the issue is actually so blasphemous that it should
be censored, or whether this is one last attempt by Johnson's few remaining
followers to blockade the public's quest for the truth?
From a personal perspective, I have been enjoying watching the
antics of LBJ's supporters. This is the first time that they have publicly
stepped forward in attempt to stem the tide of accusers. Up until this time,
these people always lurked behind the scenes to yield their clubs. Many of
my readers may recall that twenty years ago when my first Kennedy
assassination book came out, The Texas Connection: the Assassination of
John F. Kennedy, the treatment that I received for my opinions was major
media blacklisting. In fact, I still remember the time that I was invited to
appear in New York for a national morning television show, appearing, and
then being told by the producer just before airtime that "a call just came in
from the powers above" and that he had been ordered not to allow me on
the air to discuss the topic of my book.
Fortunately things have changed since then and will continue to
change, especially with the recent deaths of LBJ's widow and his top aide.
In recent polls; a large contingent of Americans now believe that LBJ, in
some capacity, was involved in President Kennedy's death. This probably
explains why those remaining in the Johnson camp have now decided that
since their behind the scenes intimidation no longer works, they now must
resort to public threats in an attempt to try to preserve historical fiction.
In this book, I analyze the surrounding facts to the assassination
confirmed by witnesses and documentary proof. The book starts with the
seeds to the assassination, which involves the mob placing Johnson on the
Kennedy presidential ticket to hedge their bet of backing Kennedy in the
event of his untimely death due to Addison's disease, tracks Vice President
Johnson to the doorsteps of a known mob meeting in Miami before JFK's
death, and then ultimately follows the rewards bestowed upon the
participants after the fact. And, you should note that some of the rewards
that were supplied were mind boggling! I believe that the result produces
a "common sense" end to the assassination mystery.
But, what do I know? Just enjoy the read!
Table of Contents
Foreward
Chapter 1 Introduction.......................................................................5
Chapter 2 John F. Kennedy:
"A Star Is Made" ..............................................................13
Chapter 3 Lyndon Baines Johnson:
"I Shall Be President".......................................................23
Chapter 4 Organized Crime:
"Playing Politics" ..............................................................39
Chapter 5 The First Conflict:
"Money Talks" ..................................................................49
Chapter 6 The 1960 Primaries:
"Johnson Leaves A Loser"................................................55
Chapter 7 The 1960 Democratic Presidential Convention:
"Organized Crime Extracts A Promise"...........................69
Chapter 8 The 1960 Presidential Election:
"The Mob Comes Through" ............................................87
Chapter 9 The Kennedy Presidency:
"Robert Kennedy Pursues The Mob"...............................95
Chapter 10 Vice President Johnson:
"Idle Hands Make Mischief...........................................109
Chapter 11 Planning The Assassination:
"LBJ Flies To Miami" ....................................................133
Chapter 12 The Trap:
"Enticing Kennedy To Texas".........................................143
Chapter 13 Motorcade Preparations:
"Kennedy/Johnson Seating Dispute"..............................151
Contents Continued
Chapter 14 The Dallas Motorcade:
"Local Security Could Not Have Been Worse" .............159
Chapter 15 The Aftermath In Dallas:
"Oswald Did It?" ............................................................167
Chapter 16 President Johnson:
"Absolute Power Again" .................................................179
Chapter 17 The Warren Commission:
"Protecting American History" ......................................195
Chapter 18 Jack Ruby:
"I Want To Talk" ............................................................215
Chapter 19 Billie Sol Estes:
"I Refuse To Talk" ..........................................................225
Chapter 20 Bobby Baker:
"I Know Too Much To Talk" .........................................229
Chapter 21 America's 36th President:
"Resurrection Of The Mob"...........................................237
Chapter 22 The Dominican Republic:
"The Mob's New Cuba" .................................................241
Chapter 23 The Final Chapter:
"Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt" ................................251
Acknowledgements ............................................................................263
Sources ...............................................................................................265
Source Notes ......................................................................................275
Index...................................................................................................301

[Seamus Coogan]

Jim,

Don't write like an idiot. Nigel LEARNED MORE about the case as he went
along. By your theory, none of us should ever CHANGE OUR MIND about
anything--because then we are not being "consistent". But consistency is
only important in relation to a specific set of beliefs at a particular time. If
we learn more on the basis of new evidence at a later time, the fact that we
no longer believe the same thing at time t2 that we believed at time t1 does
not mean we are "inconsistent". We have simply revised our beliefs based
upon new information (evidence), which is a rational response to acquiring
data we didn't possess before. You are smarter than this. Use your brain!

Jim

CD:

You didn't notice something interesting about the New Zirbel?

In his first LBJ did it book, back there in 1991, he was all for a Texas Conspiracy.

Now, a generation later, from the Contents, he has changed it to a Johnson/Mafia conspiracy.

You know, I don't think consistency is too much to ask in a writer.

This reminds me of that goofball Nigel Turner. In the first go round, he posits Steve Rivele's fruity Corsican Connection via Christian David.

Then, over a decade later, in 2003, he comes up with the whole Barr McClellan/Murchison/LBJ thing.

And no one is supposed to notice? Or ask questions?

Its this kind of thing that gets us marginalized into the tin foil hat crowd.

Look around and see where 'using your brains' has gotten you Mr Fetzer. Endorsing the likes of Rob Morrow and every other cranky, bad theory, researcher and tin foil hat wearing kook thats come down the pipes since 1963.

It isn't a good look. Nor is comparing Phil Nelsons work to Jim Douglas's nor is saying that Jim Douglas's work endorses numerous works of crap foistered upon us by the likes of yourself. Your level of kookery makes Alex Jones look sensible by default and it takes some serious levels of incompetence to make Jones look credible.

Whether or not Mr Fetzer you were 'Ron' on the bridge in Ventura's show is irrelevant and I can accept that it was not yourself. What is relevant however is that a number of researchers and concerned citizens believed that the bogus evidence presented at the beginning of that show could well have come from you. Not only is that bad enough. But many of these people obviously believed that you and you alone would have been foolish and attention seeking enough to have pulled a stunt like that.

It says much about the levels of respect you are held in by your peers. Not to mention the low levels practically all of us in the younger crop coming through hold you in. Your the president of the research communities very own tin foil hat crowd.

Would any body ever accuse Jim DiEugenio, CD, Lisa Pease, Bill Davy or even my old sparring partners like Greg Burnham, Bob Fox and George Bailey of pulling such a stupid and pathetic stunt on that bridge?

No they wouldn't! Some of the only other people I can think of worthy of such accusations are Paul Kangas and John Hankey. Now that's some esteemed company your keeping there Professor. Way to go!

Nigel Turner didn't learn more as he progressed. What he did was 'regress'.

I find it ironic (more like moronic really) that you criticise DiEugenio for being critical of Zirbels expansion into the mafia and then saying gibberish like 'people are allowed to change their minds' when did Di Eugenio ever say that people weren't allowed to? He was merely making a sarcastic comment about Zirbels crap book.

Oh and if anybody is offended by what I write here I ask them to take a good long hard look at the posts and attacks Mr Fetzer has made over time and they'll find I am positively mild.

Go get em professor the McAdams and Macks of this world are positively trembling at the thought of you.:pinkelephant:

[James H. Fetzer]

Lyndon was from Texas. He told Madeleine, when she confronted him
at the Driskill Hotel on New Year's Eve of 1964, that the CIA and the
"oil boys" had decided JFK had to be taken out. I have not read what
Craig has in this new book (apart from what's available on-line), but
it looks very good to me and to others who understand this case. For
you to make up piles of garbage with no foundation is despicable, but
that appears to be your greatest strength. You really do smell bad--
and that's quite a trick over the internet--but somehow you manage it!

Jim,

Don't write like an idiot. Nigel LEARNED MORE about the case as he went
along. By your theory, none of us should ever CHANGE OUR MIND about
anything--because then we are not being "consistent". But consistency is
only important in relation to a specific set of beliefs at a particular time. If
we learn more on the basis of new evidence at a later time, the fact that we
no longer believe the same thing at time t2 that we believed at time t1 does
not mean we are "inconsistent". We have simply revised our beliefs based
upon new information (evidence), which is a rational response to acquiring
data we didn't possess before. You are smarter than this. Use your brain!

Jim

CD:

You didn't notice something interesting about the New Zirbel?

In his first LBJ did it book, back there in 1991, he was all for a Texas Conspiracy.

Now, a generation later, from the Contents, he has changed it to a Johnson/Mafia conspiracy.

You know, I don't think consistency is too much to ask in a writer.

This reminds me of that goofball Nigel Turner. In the first go round, he posits Steve Rivele's fruity Corsican Connection via Christian David.

Then, over a decade later, in 2003, he comes up with the whole Barr McClellan/Murchison/LBJ thing.

And no one is supposed to notice? Or ask questions?

Its this kind of thing that gets us marginalized into the tin foil hat crowd.

Look around and see where 'using your brains' have gotten you Mr Fetzer. Endorsing the likes of Rob Morrow and every other crankie bad theory, researcher and tin foil hat wearing kook thats come down the pipes since 1963.

It isn't a good look. Nor is comparing Phil Nelsons work to Jim Douglas's nor is saying that Jim Douglas's work endorses numerous works of crap foistered upon us by the likes of yourself. Your level of kookery makes Alex Jones look sensible by default and it takes some serious levels of incompetence to make Jones look credible.

Whether or not Mr Fetzer you were 'Ron' on the bridge in Ventura's show is irrelevant and I can accept that it was not yourself. What is relevant however is that a number of researchers and concerned citizens believed that the bogus evidence presented at the beginning of that show could well have come from you. Not only that but many obviously believed that you and you alone would have been foolish and attention seeking enough to have pulled a stunt like that.

It says much about the levels of respect you are held in by your peers. Not to mention the low levels practically all of us in the younger crop coming through hold you in. Your the president of the research communities very own tin foil hat crowd.

Would any body ever accuse Jim DiEugenio, CD, Lisa Pease, Bill Davy or even my old sparring partners like Greg Burnham, Bob Fox and George Bailey of pulling such a stupid and pathetic stunt on that bridge?

No they wouldn't! Some of the only other people I can think of worthy of such accusations are Paul Kangas and John Hankey. Now that's some esteemed company your keeping their Professor. Way to go!

Nigel Turner didn't learn more as he progressed. What he did was 'regress'.

I find it ironic (more like moronic really) that you criticise DiEugenio for being critical of Zirbels expansion into the mafia and then saying gibberish like 'people are allowed to change their minds' when did Di Eugenio ever say that people weren't allowed to? He was merely making a sarcastic comment about Zirbels crap book.

Oh and if anybody is offended by what I write here I ask them to take a good long hard look at the posts and attacks Mr Fetzer has made over time and they'll find I am positively mild.

Go get em professor the McAdams and Macks of this world are positively trembling at the thought of you.:pinkelephant:

[James H. Fetzer]

You are allowing garbage posts like this from Seamus Coogan,
which have no foundation with regard to these smears, when
I have always believe that DPF was categorically different than
the EF. This guy is pulling this stuff right out of his ass and making
up ridiculous allegations. I find it offensive and request he be banned.

[Jim DiEugenio]

In Fetzer Land what is not "an exceptional contribution"?

Phil Nelson's gibberish? Exceptional contribution, right up there with Jim Douglass.

Russ Baker's piece of pretension, is an exceptional contribtution.

Joe Farrell, fresh from Conspiracy LA LA Land, an exceptional contribution.

Madeline Brown, wonderful witness.

Judy Baker, a living saint.

Doug Horne, a tremendous contribution.

David Lifton, a brilliant book.

Nigel Turner, learned more as he went along.

What utter and demeaning crapola. The problem here is two fold.

Nigel Turner completely blew a fantastic opportunity. He had several hours to make a fine case with the best the research community had to offer at the last anniversary, the 40th.

What does the jerk put on? Of all people, all people, Judy Baker! He then doubles down and puts that loud mouthed blowhard Barr McClellan on.

But even that is not enough. He then puts on some Liftonesque stuff about altering the body. This was one he got sued on. But even that is not enough. To cap it off, he gives time to the Murchison party also!?

Please Jim. Please.

The worst part of his series was the fact that he completely wasted Aguilar and Mantik who got buried in the tin foil stuff. I guess he never saw any of the cheap thrills--aka prat falls-- in them that the likes of Judy Baker gave him.

That show was enough to set us back for a decade. That is how bad it was. Thanks to Ventura we got a reprieve. But even Jesse had to go and put that idiot opportunist Saint John Hunt on, which as Seamus pointed out, almost ruined the show.

Finally, I don't condemn the right of anyone to change their minds in this field. I actually used to think that the King and RFK cases were not conspiracies.

But if you are going to actually be as wild and irresponsible as to tell the American public who was on the grassy knoll, you had better have some really good evidence--I mean really good. Or else why do it at all? Turner was clearly wrong here, as later research--which he should have done himself--proved.

Then, without blinking, he then says well, its not the Corsican Mafia, but LBJ and Mac Wallace etc. Without telling the viewer that McClellan's book says it was Wallce not on the GK, but on the Sixth FLoor, firing away RIGHT NEXT TO OSWALD!!!

Yeah Jim. That is what Turner has learned, Oswald was shooting at Kennedy. Or did you miss that?

You have become an apologist and publicist for every half-baked nonsensical snake oil salesman out there on this case. (And you initially fell for that lying forger Gregory Douglass.) If you are positioning yourself for anything its maybe Alex Jones Jr.?

Wow, what an ambition: "LBJ was ready to radio in the helicoptered Swat teams if JFK made it out of the Kill Zone."

Hey, in Fetzer Land, why not?

[James H. Fetzer]

I embarrassed DiEugenio on the EF by demonstrating--based on his own
reply to a post of mine--that he does not understand either the medical,
the ballistic, or the photographic or film evidenced in this case, so he is
here to bellyache about it. He flipped out when I explained there were
shooters at six locations, which I have justified on the basis of the kinds
of evidence he does not understand. For those who want to understand
what DiEugenio has revealed that he does not, consider this presentation:

"Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?"
http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconferenc...pter30.pdf

In Fetzer Land what is not "an exceptional contribution"?

Phil Nelson's gibberish? Exceptional contribution, right up there with Jim Douglass.

Russ Baker's piece of pretension, is an exceptional contribtution.

Joe Farrell, fresh from Conspiracy LA LA Land, an exceptional contribution.

Madeline Brown, wonderful witness.

Judy Baker, a living saint.

DOug Horne, a tremendous contribution.

David Lifton, a brilliant book.

Nigel Turner, learned more as he went along.

What utter and demeaning crapola. The problem here is two fold.

Nigel Turner completely blew a fantastic opportunity. He had several hours to make a fine case with the best the research community had to offer at the last anniversary, the 40th.

What does the jerk put on? Of all people, all people, Judy Baker! He then doubles down and puts that loud mouthed blowhard Barr McClellan on.

But even that is not enough. He then puts on some Lifotnesque stuff about altering the body. This was one he got sued on. But even that is not enough. TO cap it off, he gives time to the Murchison party also!?

Please Jim. Please.

The worst part of his series was the fact that he completely wasted Aguilar and Mantik who got buried in the tin foil stuff. He never saw any of the cheap thrills that the likes of Judy Baker gave him.

That show was enough to set us back for a decade. That is how bad it was. THanks to Ventura we got a reprieve. But even Jesse had to go and put that idiot opportunist Saint John Hunt on, which as Seamus pointed out, almost ruined the show.

FInally, I don't condemn the right of anyone to change their minds in this field. I actually used to think that the King and RFK cases were not conspiracies.

But if you are going to actually be as wild and irresponsible as to tell the American public who was on the grassy knoll, you had better have some really good evidence--I mean really good. Or else why do it at all? Turner was clearly wrong here, as later research--which he should have done himself--proved.

THen, without blinking, he then says well, its not the COrsican Mafia, but LBJ and Mac Wallace etc. Without telling the viewer that McClellan's book says it was Wallce not on the GK, but on the Sixth FLoor, firing away RIGHT NEXT TO OSWALD!!!

Yeah Jim. That is what Turner has learned, Oswald was shooting at Kennedy. Or did you miss that?

You have become an apologist and publicist for every half-baked nonsensical snake oil salesman out there on this case. If you are positioning yourself for anything its maybe Alex Jones Jr.

Wow, what an ambition: "LBJ was ready to radio in the helicoptered Swat teams if JFK made it out of the Kill Zone."

Hey, in Fetzer Land, why not?

[Seamus Coogan]

I embarrassed DiEugenio on the EF by demonstrating--based on his own
reply to a post of mine--that he does not understand either the medical,
the ballistic, or the photographic or film evidenced in this case, so he is
here to bellyache about it. He flipped out when I explained there were
shooters at six locations, which I have justified on the basis of the kinds
of evidence he does not understand. For those who want to understand
what DiEugenio has revealed that he does not, consider this presentation:

"Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?"
http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconferenc...pter30.pdf

In Fetzer Land what is not "an exceptional contribution"?

Phil Nelson's gibberish? Exceptional contribution, right up there with Jim Douglass.

Russ Baker's piece of pretension, is an exceptional contribtution.

Joe Farrell, fresh from Conspiracy LA LA Land, an exceptional contribution.

Madeline Brown, wonderful witness.

Judy Baker, a living saint.

DOug Horne, a tremendous contribution.

David Lifton, a brilliant book.

Nigel Turner, learned more as he went along.

What utter and demeaning crapola. The problem here is two fold.

Nigel Turner completely blew a fantastic opportunity. He had several hours to make a fine case with the best the research community had to offer at the last anniversary, the 40th.

What does the jerk put on? Of all people, all people, Judy Baker! He then doubles down and puts that loud mouthed blowhard Barr McClellan on.

But even that is not enough. He then puts on some Lifotnesque stuff about altering the body. This was one he got sued on. But even that is not enough. TO cap it off, he gives time to the Murchison party also!?

Please Jim. Please.

The worst part of his series was the fact that he completely wasted Aguilar and Mantik who got buried in the tin foil stuff. He never saw any of the cheap thrills that the likes of Judy Baker gave him.

That show was enough to set us back for a decade. That is how bad it was. THanks to Ventura we got a reprieve. But even Jesse had to go and put that idiot opportunist Saint John Hunt on, which as Seamus pointed out, almost ruined the show.

FInally, I don't condemn the right of anyone to change their minds in this field. I actually used to think that the King and RFK cases were not conspiracies.

But if you are going to actually be as wild and irresponsible as to tell the American public who was on the grassy knoll, you had better have some really good evidence--I mean really good. Or else why do it at all? Turner was clearly wrong here, as later research--which he should have done himself--proved.

THen, without blinking, he then says well, its not the COrsican Mafia, but LBJ and Mac Wallace etc. Without telling the viewer that McClellan's book says it was Wallce not on the GK, but on the Sixth FLoor, firing away RIGHT NEXT TO OSWALD!!!

Yeah Jim. That is what Turner has learned, Oswald was shooting at Kennedy. Or did you miss that?

You have become an apologist and publicist for every half-baked nonsensical snake oil salesman out there on this case. If you are positioning yourself for anything its maybe Alex Jones Jr.

Wow, what an ambition: "LBJ was ready to radio in the helicoptered Swat teams if JFK made it out of the Kill Zone."

Hey, in Fetzer Land, why not?

Phew. Look at the insults and tirades coming from Mr Fetzer.

I'd like to ask anybody here (in particularly the mods) to please compare my post to Mr Fetzers and compare his abusive tones to say Jim DiEugenio's. Indeed do it over a prolonged search throughout the Forum. Let's see whose abusive and bullying shall we?

Id like to ask Mr Fetzer what is particularly untrue about my post?

The point that most younger researchers (indeed all of them I communicate with) think the professors work is not of a standard is an extreme 'truism'. It's also truthful that Fetzer is mocked by a vast tract of people in the 9/11 community. I've even had 9/11 people ask why he's tolerated in JFK circles.

Again I can find evidence of all of this.

But lets continue. Does Mr Fetzer want evidence of numerous people believing that 'Ron' on the bridge (regardless of whether or not it is Fetzer and like I said chances are it's probably not him) is the sort of cock eyed attention seeking stunt that he'd pull? Certainly numerous people I have spoken too believed that the bogus CIA documents and their slanted information was the sort of mumbo jumbo mr Fetzer hawks.

Hence Fetzers glowing appraisal of the show on this very forum confirms he greatly enjoyed this banal sequence. After your embrace of Gregory Douglas Mr Fetzer:loco: It should be no insult too you that people believe yourself capable of such acts.

I'm looking forward to having you interview Paul Kangas and John Hankey on your show.

There's not enough comedy in the community nowadays!

[Jim DiEugenio]

Fetzer embarassed me?

WHen he said there were six assassins from six positions, I quoted it and summe up my argument with this, "Six assassins? Case Closed."

ANd it is.
I mean what happened, were they ramming each other in the parking lots in their haste to escape?

[Seamus Coogan]

Fetzer embarassed me?

WHen he said there were six assassins from six positions, I quoted it and summe up my argument with this, "Six assassins? Case Closed."

ANd it is.
I mean what happened, were they ramming each other in the parking lots in their haste to escape?

Nope Jim it's completely different to that. There was no thought of escape. I have this from a reliable source. They all leapt into the boots of their cars which had secret labs and they were all trying to alter the body and the Zap film while calling JVB and Maddie Brown for dates that night. Jim I also heard one of the six was a waiter that night at Murchisons party. Greg Douglas can also prove this for me and I'm going to get confirmation from John Hankey and RD Morningstar and Kangas!!!!!!!!

Sheeesh these guys dont just know it. They own the case!

And my dad was Vulcan. Did you know I'm Spocks nephew?

[Jim DiEugenio]

Thanks Seamus.

Cleared it up for me.