JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then

[James H. Fetzer]

Charles,

I know where you are coming from, given our past exchanges, but what in the world do you mean by "arguments from authority" as you use it here?

The best Jim Fetzer can do in defense of the indefensible Nelson is to make arguments from authority. It saddens me beyond measure to note that, because of the myriad frailties he exhibits throughout this sordid Nelson affair, it is now clear that Jim Fetzer's authority has been consumed by the fires of his own ego and enfeeblement.

You know I HAVE read the books that you take glee in acknowledging you have NOT read. Which means that the evidence I have available to assess the situation is far more extensive than yours. In that sense, yes, I have greater epistemic authority than do you, where I find it embarrassing that you go on and on about all this WITHOUT BOTHERING TO READ THEIR BOOKS.

I have asked you before and I must ask again: Have you actually read Phil Nelson's book? Because if you had, then I could not imagine that you would be making such sophomoric attacks upon him. He has done overwhelmingly more thorough and painstaking research on LBJ than have you. It appears to me you don't even understand the meaning of appeals to authority.

There are fallacious and non-fallacious appeals to authority. A fallacious appeal occurs when an expert in one area is cited as if he were an expert in another. A non-fallacious appeal occurs when an expert on one subject is cited on that subject. Citing David W. Mantik for his work on the autopsy X-rays is non-fallacious. Citing him on Shakespeare, however, might well not be.

Certainly, Phil Nelson is an expert on LBJ and others I have cited, including Madeleine, Billy Sol and E. Howard Hunt knew the man far better than you or I. The only person who fits the role of having been the pivotal player without whose complicity the assassination could not have taken place and who was in contact with the principal players was Lyndon Baines Johnson alone.

I spoke with Madelenine on more than 100 occasions. I have read her book and discussed her experiences with LBJ with her in person. I interviewed her at the Lancer conference in Dallas in 1998, which can be obtained on a DVD from that source. She was "the real deal" and her testimony about Lyndon has been corroborated by others who knew him "up close and personal".

Your attacks are far beneath your stature, at least, so I would have thought. You offer no evidence, only belittlement. You admit you have not studied the evidence or read their books, yet you offer yourself as not merely an expert but as possessed of definitive opinions about these matter where you acknowledge your own ignorance. This is a quite stunning performance.

Indeed, since you know not whereof you speak, it is simply absurd to charge others with appeals to authority--except, of course, you do not appear to know the difference between fallacious and non-fallacious appeals. Given your admitted failure to have studied their work, Charles, let me assure you that your appeals here to your own vast authority are blatantly fallacious.

Phil,

Lyndon was not photogenic and, in the age of television, would have had a hard time reaching the top. He forced his way onto the ticket, later explaining that he was "a gambling man" and had discovered one in four occupants of the office did not live to the end of their terms. LBJ was ANYTHING BUT a "gambling man" who only acted on certainties. Have you read Phil's book? I have nothing but scorn for those who denigrate his research, which is thorough, meticulous, and compelling. During our two hour interview, by the way, I specifically invited him to explain his use of the term, "mastermind". In my opinion, he has it exactly right--and we have abundant corroborating evidence from Madeleine, Billy Sol, Barr and E. Howard Hunt. How anyone can casually dismiss the incriminating testimony of those who knew him best--"up close and personal"--is simply beyond me. Check out two interviews.

An Open Letter to All For Whom the Truth Matters

In accepting at face value JFK "evidence" proffered by E. Howard Hunt, professional intelligence operative, master propagandist, known liar, and accessory to the murder of JFK, convicted criminal and LBJ associate Billy Sol Estes, and Madeline Brown, queen of the unsubstantiated, the esteemed Jim Fetzer presents us with a terrible choice: Is he cognitively impaired, complicit in the cover-up of JFK's murder, or both?

Further, Jim Fetzer equates proximity to a subject with ... what? ... insight? Truthfulness?

Utter balderdash!

Nelson's "research" is nothing more than the rehashing, regurgitation, and/or disfigurement of previously presented material. His conclusions reveal not a scintilla of deep political insight.

Other than simplemindedness, there is no innocent explanation for Nelson's witting use of the term "mastermind" to describe LBJ's role in the JFK assassination. He's either an idiot or an enemy agent. And no one -- not Jim Fetzer or any other alleged JFK assassination "authority" -- can defend said usage other than by the application of cheap rhetorical tricks, ad hominems, and/or logical fallacies. More on the latter in a moment.

But Nelson's worst offense -- by far -- is the manner in which, wittingly or otherwise, he aids and abets the cover-up of the truth in the JFK assassination by reinforcing the position of LBJ as a Sponsor of the crime.

The creation of False Sponsors -- as opposed to the proper identification of true Facilitators, a category into which LBJ surely falls -- remains one of the most effective, difficult to counter tactics in the overall cover-up strategy. An individual of Jim Fetzer's qualifications and accomplishments should be expected to A) understand this long-established truth, and B) fight tooth and nail against the agent provocateurs who engage in the False Sponsor gambit.

Yet Jim Fetzer embraces Nelson's depraved fantasies as holy writ. And again, we are forced to make a choice between equally distressing explanations of this behavior.

The best Jim Fetzer can do in defense of the indefensible Nelson is to make arguments from authority. It saddens me beyond measure to note that, because of the myriad frailties he exhibits throughout this sordid Nelson affair, it is now clear that Jim Fetzer's authority has been consumed by the fires of his own ego and enfeeblement.

Phillip Nelson adds his intellectual pop-gun to the weaponry being employed in the post mortem assassination of JFK. Jim Fetzer stands by his side, delivering escape-and-evade services.

Another shooting team has been identified.

[James H. Fetzer]

The difference, Albert, is that Lyndon forced himself on the ticket so that he could accede to the presidency by assassination. That was the plan.

Lyndon was not photogenic and, in the age of television, would have had a hard time reaching the top. He forced his way onto the ticket, later explaining that he was "a gambling man" and had discovered one in four occupants of the office did not live to the end of their terms. LBJ was ANYTHING BUT a "gambling man" who only acted on certainties.

I don't think it is honest to the facts to suggest Johnson, a corrupted Texas politician, was capable of penetrating the White House to the degree implied. The obvious thing here is you can't just force yourself onto a ticket without the assistance of the greater powers that were manipulating things at the time. I think we know who those greater powers were. Johnson "forcing" himself onto the ticket is no different than a woefully underqualified recent Texas Republican with even greater entrenched deep corruption ending up in charge. The way these statements grind against the more than obvious greater established realities involved should be obvious without explanation to any veteran Kennedy Assassination researcher. These are rogue twists right at the gate of the argument. Common sense and reality won't let any Assassination researcher allow himself to be so crudely forced through the wrong door. Johnson was obviously aided into the Vice Presidency by the same powers who aided him in the Assassination. He was put in there as a hedge against a Nixon loss in 1960. The only thing Johnson was gambling over was that his rogue criminal past would be concealed by those same powers that placed him into office.

I did learn something however. It is possible Johnson quit in 1968 because CIA wanted a new chief in their next move against the next threat to them - RFK. Nixon then served the same purpose Johnson did against JFK. If you have a finer tuned ear to the Assassination, this move right here tells you who was the mastermind. Any credible researcher should jump when Nelson blithely suggests Johnson thought up the plan and "CIA went along". That right there should make any credible researcher howl because any fool would realize a hack Texas politician doesn't get the world's most notorious machiavellian intelligence institution to go along with his impulses. I would no more suggest that than attend a serious JFK symposium with a toilet seat around my neck at the podium. Johnson represented the gut constituency of CIA power. However the thinking head that manipulated that constituency came from different precincts. The head is the mastermind not the gut.


Why we still allow CIA to exist I don't know. We're a democracy. We can vote those fascist bastards out of existence if we want.

[James H. Fetzer]

Charles is making some rather serious attacks upon me for a reference to a book that I have read and like but which, so far as I can tell, he has never read but dislikes nonetheless. I leave to the reader to decide which of us is adopting a more rational stance. But even more stunning to me is his complete and utter disregard of the evidence I present that Oswald was on the steps of the TSBD watching the assassination as it took place!

And that makes me incredulous that he would make such an issue out of the "old hat" difference between us about Lyndon when I am presenting an argument that, to the best of my knowledge, is completely new. I even use a photo from McAdams that is meant to focus on Billy Lovelady and to divert our attention from the obscured face to his left/front. And I now have to ask if Charles is not practicing the same technique as McAdams.

Until he began his bizarre assaults on me in relation to Phil's work, I would never have cast the least doubt in his direction. But at this point in time, it is occurring to me that something more may be at work here. Why should he be resurrecting an old and familiar dispute about the word "mastermind" when I am offering new and original proof that Oswald cannot possibly have been the assassin based upon more direct evidence than before?

There are more than twenty (20) important points about the assassination that are being presented in this article, which was meant as a summary of what we know now that we didn't know then on the eve of the 48th observance of the assassination. It would be a good thing if we were to converge in agreement on those twenty points--and celebrate new proof that Lee cannot possibly have been a shooter. So why this massive fit instead?

He writes, "How tragic that Jim Fetzer chose to conclude his otherwise compelling and even heroic presentation of fact with the endorsement of LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination". But the complementary question is, "How stunning that Charles Drago ignores the compelling and even heroic presentation of fact with an attack on my endorsement of LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination," which was incidental to the point of my summation?

Because I am the author of this piece, I included suggestions in which I firmly believe (about two books I regard as masterpieces). But why in a situation like this, where I am laying out so many points on which students of the assassination ought to converge in agreement, would a man in his position instead cite the only apparent point of disagreement between us, which functions as a gratuitous diversion and promotes division instead of unity?

These findings thus indicate that at least some of those involved had to have been among the nation's highest officials, a result that receives further support from James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable (2008) [B]and Phillip Nelson, LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination (2010).

It is long past time that the American people are entitled to know the truth about the death of our 35th president.

How tragic that Jim Fetzer chose to conclude his otherwise compelling and even heroic presentation of fact with the endorsement of LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination, a book that, intentionally or otherwise, supports the cover-up of JFK's murder and the broader agenda of that crime's prime movers, or Sponsors.

And to add insult to injury, Jim would assassinate the good name and grand work of James Douglass by favorably comparing that inspired, inspiring, and spiritually rejuvenating author and book with the assault on truth and justice that is Phillip Nelson's published defiling of the spirit of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

It is long past time that the American people are entitled to know the truth about the de facto aiding and abetting of the cover-up that is contained in the dangerous nonsense that is the central conceit of the Nelson book.

If I did not know Jim Fetzer better than I do, I would accuse him of conducting an operation designed to disparage Douglass' work and minimize its positive impacts on our culture and collective spirit by attempting to create a FALSE sense of level playing field for it and the Nelson garbage.

Phillip Nelson, intentionally or otherwise, is acting to protect the true Sponsors of JFK's assassination by elevating Lyndon Baines Johnson to a sponsorship status which, by definition, it was impossible for him to attain.

Based upon his academic and literary credentials, Jim Fetzer is expected to understand where the power to order the death of JFK truly resided and how far removed from such power alleged "mastermind" LBJ always was. There is only one way to understand Jim's endorsement of Nelson's perfidy:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination and with a reasonable understanding of political power in 1963 who does not conclude that Lyndon Baines Johnson had neither the political power nor intellectual capacity to meet any reasonable definition of the term "mastermind" of that crime is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

[Adele Edisen]

I write this at risk of making some people very angry with me. I truly respect Jim Fetzer, and the others here who have ideas similar to his on the question of Lyndon Johnson and his possible role in the assassination of John Kennedy. I am most grateful to Dr. Fetzer for his extensive radio interview of me on February 16, 2011. That gave me more courage to speak out and write, even a letter to President Obama, now posted on Bill Kelly's website, http://www.jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com, in July of this year.

I have learned much from Jim's books and postings, as I have from so many others on the various forums and at Dallas meetings over the years. I am grateful to everyone for my assassination education, and my gratitude extends as well to those with whom I did not and could not agree, because I did learn something from everyone.

Because of my experiences in April of 1963 when I learned of the impending assassination of President Kennedy from Jose A. Rivera of the National Institutes of Health, I set about to try to understand why and how the assassination happened. I remembered my father telling me of the attempted overthrow of President Roosevelt in 1933-1934 when I was about 11 or 12 years old. I had been reading an article in the Sunday New York Times Magazine section about Benito Mussolini and his takeover of the Italian monarchy in the early 1920s. In my mind's eye I can still see the photograph of Mussolini on a white horse with his blackshirt army standing behind him. King Victor Emmanual had been deposed.

I asked my father if this could ever happen here in America. We had been studying US history and different forms of government in school, so I was very concerned as world news on the radio every day was about events in fascist countries, Spain, Italy, and Germany. He said that it almost had happened some years before. He proceeded to tell me about US Marine General Smedley Butler who literally had saved us from fascism. During my college years, I looked for more information about this event in US history books, but never found any mention of it. Many years later I came across Jules Archer's book, THE PLOT TO SEIZE THE WHITE HOUSE, and I learned more on the Internet and Google. A few years ago, the History Channel made a program on it, and Jules Archer narrates a portion of it. It is on You Tube.com with the title "The Plot to Overthow FDR." I highly recommend it.

I had always been a curious reader and because of discussions with my father, I developed an interest in history, politics, and economics, not unusual because World War II was raging at the time. My father had built his own radios and we listened to short wave broadcasts from London, Moscow, and Berlin, news and propaganda all in English. So it was after I graduated from the College at the University of Chicago I almost decided to obtain a graduate degree in Political Science. But I also had a deep interest in Psychology and Physiology, especially in the brain and the nervous system with a desire to do research, so it was this choice I finally made and became a neurophysiologist. However, I still read books related to political thinking, economics, and history.

Largely due to these interests, I think, my view of the Kennedy assassination (and the assassinations of Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcom X) is a bit different from many other peoples' views and approaches. From my father I learned to analyze political events in terms of their economic underpinnings, as for example, looking at the rise of fascirm in the three European countries I mentioned earlier, as well as the fascist plot by Wall Street bankers, financiers, and industrialists in 1933-1934. This class of people in the United States were the same types of people who placed dictators into power in Italy, Spain, and Germany. Along with Japan these became the Axis Powers of World II. And we also have to remember that through international cartels and other connections, Wall Street of America helped Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco rise to power. The definition of Fascism is the Corporate State.

It made perfectly good sense to me to think of the assassination of John Kennedy as a political-economic crime. For that reason, I would not consider someone like Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy's Vice President, as his murderer. He was an important part of his administration, helpful in getting civil rights and other types of legislation based on the Democratc Party platform through Congress, and in winning votes in the Southern Dixiecrat States. Lyndon Johnson tried to keep Kennedy from being driven through Dallas because he knew of the right-wing crazies there, having been spat upon, booed, and hit in the lobby of the Hotel Adolphus when campaigning in Dallas in 1960 with his wife, Ladybird.

When I was on Rich DellaRosa's forum, I posted a study of Lyndon Johnson's schedule on Thursday, November 21, 1963. He had been at his ranch since November 10, working on preparing for the Texas trip and especially for the final date's fund-raiser in Austin on the evening of November 22. He was calling and writing to as many people he could to get them to the Austin dinner. On Thursday morning, he and Ladybird met the President's plane at the San Antonio International Airport, and traveled with him and his entourage on to the medical facilities at Brooke Army Medical Center, BAMC, and then after lunch both Air Force I and II took off for Houston for a dinner and speeches. According to their planned schedule. both groups would leave Houston at 10:00 pm to fly to Carswell Air Force Base, set to arrive at 10:45 pm, and then drive the five or so miles to Fort Worth and the Hotel Texas in 20 minutes to arrive at the hotel at 11:05 pm. That was the plan, but there must have been a slight delay because the two planes landed at Carswell a few mionutes after !!:00 pm instead of the scheduled 10:45 pm.

It would have been impossible for Lyndon Johnson to have been anywhere else but on Air Force II at 10:30 pm on Thursday, November 21, 1963.

My post on JFKresearch.com is now gone, but the information can be found on Google, if anyone is interested.

Adele Edisen

[Charles Drago]

Well, if you aren't going to consider the evidence--and I take NOTHING "at face value"--then of course you are not going to put together the big picture.

Straw man nonsense. You present a conclusion for which there is zero valid evidence. I have given deep consideration to the evidence which you accept as valid -- let's take the Hunt "confession" as a valid exemplar thereof -- and concluded that it is, in essence, disinformation, misinformation, and ultimately propaganda. In short, NOTHING about E. Howard Hunt's life leading up to the moment of his death bed proffer suggests that his last public words were anything other than the culmination of his vile life's work. Yet you accept it all, and when we attempt to understand your motives, we are left with very disturbing choices.

James Douglass explained how JFK had antagonized the most powerful special interests in the country, including the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the Mafia, the Eastern Establishment, and the Texas oil men.

Your never-ending attempts to conflate the towering achievement of intellect and spirit that is James Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable with the worthless drivel that is Phillip Nelson's LBJ "mastermind" disinformation can be explained only as the product of cognitive impairment and/or a conscious effort to disinform. You are convincing no one of this demonstrable nonsense -- with the exception of certain psychologically disturbed self-described "researchers" the likes of your sex-obsessed Texas acolyte. Again we must ask ourselves why you insist upon this course of action. If I didn't know you better, I'd say that you were targeting future generations so as to create the illusion of equal value for these books based on your argument from (waning) authority. What might be the goal of such action? To maintain the uncertainty upon which control of the many by the few is itself maintained.

Lyndon has aspired to the presidency his whole life and was ruthless in its pursuit. He forced his way on the ticket using information about JFK's health and his dalliances and threatened to block any legislation he sent to Congress if he were not the VP nominee. But he and his allies were intent on making sure that Jack did not live out his term: this was no "gamble", it was a sure thing. Have you thought about what Jack Ruby said about the assassination? You might give it some thought, because there was only one man who was able to induce the Secret Service to set him up for the hit, the CIA to take him out and the military and the FBI to cover it up. I know you are infatuated with your structural analysis of sponsors, facilitators, and executioners, but Lyndon was the one and only person, as the successor to the dead president, who could insure that no one would be prosecuted for the crime.

Within this monstrously argued and constructive paragraph, you present a textbook example of disinformation of the sort that would have made your late champion E. Howard Hunt proud.

The key ingredient in all disinformation is the truth -- offered in harmless amounts so as to establish the bona fides of the disinformation agent who will go on to assault the truth.

To argue that LBJ was the "one man" who could have "induce[d] the Secret Service" to betray JFK, the "CIA to take him out" and the "military and the FBI to cover it up" is to reveal a fatal diminution of your critical faculties. This all rests on your assumption that the only political power structure in place then was the overt political power structure taught in high school civics classes and talk radio. On your world, the power of the presidency alone then (and now, Jim?) controlled the arms of government -- overt and covert.

This pitifully naive view of the world is contradicted by, along with so many distinguished scholars, the very James Douglass you would compare favorably to Nelson.

But you save your worst transgression for the final sentence above. For therein you describe one of the actual roles played by LBJ in the assassination conspiracy -- that of strong-arm man who was charged with intimidating relatively weak bureaucrats into towing the assassination sponsors' and high-level facilitators' cover-up line -- to make the following, central, all-important, all-revealing disinformative claim.

[LBJ was the privotal player and, as Phil has clearly explained, is the only one who deserves the title of "MASTERMIND".

You continue to refuse to accept that the public broadly understands the term "mastermind" to mean the ultimate planner of an event -- the most powerful, influential force in said event's inception, development, execution, and, in terms of its desired results, perpetuation. There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that Lyndon Baines Johnson occupied that position in the JFK assassination conspiracy, and there is a plethora of evidence to demonstrate that, in its complexity, reach, and depth, the JFK assassination conspiracy was beyond LBJ's understanding, let alone control.

What is your game, Jim?

[Charles Drago]

Charles,

I know where you are coming from, given our past exchanges, but what in the world do you mean by "arguments from authority" as you use it here?

The best Jim Fetzer can do in defense of the indefensible Nelson is to make arguments from authority. It saddens me beyond measure to note that, because of the myriad frailties he exhibits throughout this sordid Nelson affair, it is now clear that Jim Fetzer's authority has been consumed by the fires of his own ego and enfeeblement.

You know I HAVE read the books that you take glee in acknowledging you have NOT read. Which means that the evidence I have available to assess the situation is far more extensive than yours. In that sense, yes, I have greater epistemic authority than do you, where I find it embarrassing that you go on and on about all this WITHOUT BOTHERING TO READ THEIR BOOKS.

History repeats itself.

Backed into a corner, you now call me a liar.

Of course you're wrong. And you know it.

So it goes, so it goes.

[Charles Drago]

Because I am the author of this piece, I included suggestions in which I firmly believe (about two books I regard as masterpieces). But why in a situation like this, where I am laying out so many points on which students of the assassination ought to converge in agreement, would a man in his position instead cite the only apparent point of disagreement between us, which functions as a gratuitous diversion and promotes division instead of unity?

Why, Jim?

Because, Jim, of the potentially terrible impact of Nelson's "mastermind" conclusion -- and your bizarre, discomforting endorsement of it -- on what I'll yet conclude are our shared goals of revealing truth and bringing about justice in the assassination of JFK.

You are a gifted user of rhetoric. And so you save your positive Douglass-Nelson comparison for the prime rhetorical kill spot. You thus deftly coerce your readers to conclude that, based on your authority, they dare not reject Nelson's disinformation. For Jim Fetzer says that, if they do, they reject the works of James Douglass and -- God save us -- Jim Fetzer.

In the full post above you're reducing yourself to schoolyard taunting of the "I know you are, but what am I?" variety. Compelling stuff.

But the fact remains: You know your way around rhetoric, and for the most part it all works for you. But I've got your number the same why I've got Nelson's number.

And as they say in that aforementioned schoolyard, "Don't try to bullshit a bullshitter."

[Albert Doyle]

He forced his way on the ticket using information about JFK's health and his dalliances and threatened to block any legislation he sent to Congress if he were not the VP nominee.

Dirty information that was the modus operandi of the government agencies that were in the business of collecting such material. That right there tells you LBJ was guided and was not the controller of that information.


.

[Albert Doyle]

The difference, Albert, is that Lyndon forced himself on the ticket so that he could accede to the presidency by assassination. That was the plan.

Which suggests Lyndon felt safe doing an otherwise obvious assassination of a US president. I think people get so wrapped-up in the delusion of this theory that they forget the surrounding reality. The suggestion here is that Johnson could be witnessed forcing himself onto the ticket in order to assassinate JFK and not be noticed or exposed. If you are a sharp detective you'll notice that the language used by LBJ when giving enthusiastic notice to Madeleine Brown that "those Kennedy's won't bother me any more" was language that suggested notice being given to LBJ and not orders coming from him.

The key to this spurious misdesignation of Johnson is putting deliberate misapplication of interpretation onto events like Johnson "forcing" himself into the Vice Presidency. Johnson didn't 'force' he was guided. It's silly to think Johnson could pull-off such a diabolical coup and not be noticed unless he felt the safe protection and guidance of the greater powers that helped him. As if he could do all that and not be noticed. I consider this a delusional ignoring of reality caused by over-emphasis of Johnson's role at the expense of the other causes. Giving Johnson "mastermind" status is too big a bug for the spiderweb that catches it and rips down the whole web. The ambitions and methods of the CIA all the way back to 1947 are much more meaningful compared to the personal interests of LBJ. This theory suggests CIA, which watches everything, sat back and said to itself, hey look what Lyndon is doing there. Cool. Let's lay back and go along with it. It's silly.


One of the worst effects of this is the public coming to see serious researchers as promoting comic book-like theories. The public isn't entirely stupid. They'll realize that Johnson couldn't possibly be ascribed "mastermind" status and start thinking that researchers are going off the deep end thinking-up comical scenarios where Johnson is plotting in some underground James Bond-like bunker. The fact well-known names in Kennedy research are seen publicly endorsing this will draw ridicule on all researchers.


.

[James H. Fetzer]

Adele,

Please know that I am a huge fan and was profoundly impressed with your story as a featured guest on "The Real Deal". I highly recommend anyone who wants to understand the unique perspective that you bring to the study of the death of JFK to track down our interview, which is available and archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. I presume that your observations about the timeline on 21 November 1963 are intended to suggest that LBJ was not at the home of Clint Murchison the evening before the assassination and therefore could not have participated in the social event that was described by Madeleine Brown and confirmed by Nigel Turner in the final installment of his brilliant series, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", in particular, in the final segment, "The Guilty Men", even though Nigel had tracked down the chauffeur who drove J. Edgar to the event and the chef who prepared the hors d'oeuvres and included them in this segment.

Madeleine also identified Richard Nixon as having been driven there by a local Republican leader, who worked in the same bank building where she was a young advertising executive. Others who were there in George Brown of Brown & Root and John J. McCloy, our former High Commissioner to Germany and the past CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank. It was late in the evening when Lyndon showed up and these heavy hitters disappeared into a board room for 15 or 20 minutes, after which he strode over toward her. She expected him to whisper "sweet nothings" in her ear, but instead he told her (in what she has described as "a hateful tone of voice" that after tomorrow those goddamn Kennedy boys were not going to embarrass him any longer--and that that was not a threat but a promise. I have no doubt whatsoever that this story is true. So I am pressed to respond to your research.

The key sentence here, of course, is, It would have been impossible for Lyndon Johnson to have been anywhere else but on Air Force II at 10:30 pm on Thursday, November 21, 1963. There is a missing clause, however, namely: if my research is well-founded and based upon authentic and non-fabricated documents and records and that he could not have been there if that were the case. That, of course, especially the time that Lyndon arrived at the ranch, is something that you could not possibly know and which has probably never even crossed your mind. Lyndon was a duplicitous, calculating, and completely "hands on" kind of guy, who not only sent his chief administrative assistant, Cliff Carter, down to Dallas to make sure the arrangements were in place for the assassination but, if my inferences are correct, had his own personal hit-man, Malcolm "Mac" Wallace, who murdered around a dozen persons for him, including one of his own sisters, participate as one of the shooters in Dealey Plaza, as Billy Sol suspected.

That Lyndon was there, in my opinion, is not in doubt. Connie Kritzberg, a reporter for The Dallas Times Herald, as I recall, confirmed that a notice had originally appeared in the social column of her paper or that of The Dallas Morning News, which, as I also recall, seems to have disappeared. She also has pointed out how the FBI had changed the story she had published about the Parkland press conference with Kemp Clark, M.D., and Malcolm Perry, M.D., where, after describing the wound to the throat and the blow-out at the back of his head, a sentence was added that they doctors were not sure if the wounds had been caused by one bullet or two. When she checked with her editor, he explained that the FBI had called and, to make sure what she reported was accurate, insisted that that sentence be added. You can find a similar qualification in Tom Wicker's piece in The New York Times for 23 November 1963.

My suggestion, therefore, is that a lot of planted history was taking place right from the beginning. This is not the sort of thing that the Mafia or anti-Castro Cubans or the KGB could possibly have arranged, but it was well within the capabilities of a new and powerful president who had thought through every aspect of this event in collusion with his close personal friend, J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI. So we have to acknowledge that the public record is not necessarily either accurate or complete, where much of it may reflect revisions or misinformation about what happened and when it happened. Even the National Archives, I understand, is actually a branch of or under the control of the CIA. So our recorded history is really not something we can take for granted, especially in a case like this, where I would be surprised if you were to disagree with me about this rather important point.

I rather strongly doubt that Lyndon was "calling and writing" from his ranch to get a large crowd for an event that he knew would not occur, but it makes for a great cover story--and parts of it may even be true. Persons like Madeleine, the driver, the cook, and the reporter are persons who had no reason to lie or deceive and have authenticated the social event the evening before the assassination. The right parties were represented to make this (what I am convinced it was) a ratification meeting for the assassination of the 35th president of the United States. Sorting these things out is a complicated matter, where we are of necessity operating on the basis of probabilities and likelihoods. If there is a bona fide conflict between those records and the reported event, I have no doubt that the event took place and the records have been fudged. While Lyndon cannot have been in two places at the same time, his being in one place but being reported to have been in another is something that the CIA does all the time with its operatives, who are required to keep diaries for the purpose of knowing where they actually were should it become important to plant evidence that they were somewhere else. But I am not yet quite convinced there is a genuine conflict in light of the following considerations.

In his book, on pages 382-384, Phil Nelson discusses objections not dissimilar to the one you have raised, the first of which was meant to dispute that Lyndon may have arrived much later than you suggest. He may have arrived "very late, even well after midnight". Others he addresses include that Clint Murchison had suffered a debilitating stroke and that J. Edgar was in his office late the next morning. Since the first is most relevant to your concerns, how confident are you that he has to have been there by 10:30? That has never been my impression, so I am extremely interested in why it should be yours. "This party and meeting", Phil notes, "was first reported by Penn Jones Jr. in his book, Forgive My Grief, and confirmed by Harrison Livingstone in his book, Killing the Truth." He mentions Madeleine's book and that Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman, and I have found her to be a very credible witness despite the complexities of her relationship with Lyndon. As he also observes, "she had no reason to make up such a charge out of thin air, and her description of the event has been affirmed over the years by others who were there", by whom I believe he means those Nigel Turner presented in "The Guilty Men".

My suggestion would be that this range of authorities on the assassination of JFK, which includes Penn Jones Jr., Harrison Livingstone, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman, Nigel Turner and me, representes a formidable convergence of expert opinion about the social event under consideration, which others, who were actually there, including Madeleine, the the chauffeur who drove J. Edgar to the event and the chef who prepared the hors d'oeuvres, have confirmed. While I admire you greatly and appreciate your speaking out about your own research on this matter, what you present does not persuade me that we are wrong about this. Far more likely, I would suggest, is that the conflict in time is more apparent than real and that, had there actually been a need to have records reporting Lyndon's presence at a location other than the party that evening, it would have been easy to arrange. So I want you to know that I am not only not disturbed by what you have had to say but welcome the opportunity to lay out why I believe you are wrong, not necessarily in your "facts of the matter", but with regard to their significance for the role of Lyndon Baines Johnson in the assassination of his predecessor, John F. Kennedy.

Jim

I write this at risk of making some people very angry with me. I truly respect Jim Fetzer, and the others here who have ideas similar to his on the question of Lyndon Johnson and his possible role in the assassination of John Kennedy. I am most grateful to Dr. Fetzer for his extensive radio interview of me on February 16, 2011. That gave me more courage to speak out and write, even a letter to President Obama, now posted on Bill Kelly's website, www.jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com, in July of this year.

I have learned much from Jim's books and postings, as I have from so many others on the various forums and at Dallas meetings over the years. I am grateful to everyone for my assassination education, and my gratitude extends as well to those with whom I did not and could not agree, because I did learn something from everyone.

Because of my experiences in April of 1963 when I learned of the impending assassination of President Kennedy from Jose A. Rivera of the National Institutes of Health, I set about to try to understand why and how the assassination happened. I remembered my father telling me of the attempted overthrow of President Roosevelt in 1933-1934 when I was about 11 or 12 years old. I had been reading an article in the Sunday New York Times Magazine section about Benito Mussolini and his takeover of the Italian monarchy in the early 1920s. In my mind's eye I can still see the photograph of Mussolini on a white horse with his blackshirt army standing behind him. King Victor Emmanual had been deposed.

I asked my father if this could ever happen here in America. We had been studying US history and different forms of government in school, so I was very concerned as world news on the radio every day was about events in fascist countries, Spain, Italy, and Germany. He said that it almost had happened some years before. He proceeded to tell me about US Marine General Smedley Butler who literally had saved us from fascism. During my college years, I looked for more information about this event in US history books, but never found any mention of it. Many years later I came across Jules Archer's book, THE PLOT TO SEIZE THE WHITE HOUSE, and I learned more on the Internet and Google. A few years ago, the History Channel made a program on it, and Jules Archer narrates a portion of it. It is on You Tube.com with the title "The Plot to Overthow FDR." I highly recommend it.

I had always been a curious reader and because of discussions with my father, I developed an interest in history, politics, and economics, not unusual because World War II was raging at the time. My father had built his own radios and we listened to short wave broadcasts from London, Moscow, and Berlin, news and propaganda all in English. So it was after I graduated from the College at the University of Chicago I almost decided to obtain a graduate degree in Political Science. But I also had a deep interest in Psychology and Physiology, especially in the brain and the nervous system with a desire to do research, so it was this choice I finally made and became a neurophysiologist. However, I still read books related to political thinking, economics, and history.

Largely due to these interests, I think, my view of the Kennedy assassination (and the assassinations of Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcom X) is a bit different from many other peoples' views and approaches. From my father I learned to analyze political events in terms of their economic underpinnings, as for example, looking at the rise of fascirm in the three European countries I mentioned earlier, as well as the fascist plot by Wall Street bankers, financiers, and industrialists in 1933-1934. This class of people in the United States were the same types of people who placed dictators into power in Italy, Spain, and Germany. Along with Japan these became the Axis Powers of World II. And we also have to remember that through international cartels and other connections, Wall Street of America helped Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco rise to power. The definition of Fascism is the Corporate State.

It made perfectly good sense to me to think of the assassination of John Kennedy as a political-economic crime. For that reason, I would not consider someone like Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy's Vice President, as his murderer. He was an important part of his administration, helpful in getting civil rights and other types of legislation based on the Democratc Party platform through Congress, and in winning votes in the Southern Dixiecrat States. Lyndon Johnson tried to keep Kennedy from being driven through Dallas because he knew of the right-wing crazies there, having been spat upon, booed, and hit in the lobby of the Hotel Adolphus when campaigning in Dallas in 1960 with his wife, Ladybird.

When I was on Rich DellaRosa's forum, I posted a study of Lyndon Johnson's schedule on Thursday, November 21, 1963. He had been at his ranch since November 10, working on preparing for the Texas trip and especially for the final date's fund-raiser in Austin on the evening of November 22. He was calling and writing to as many people he could to get them to the Austin dinner. On Thursday morning, he and Ladybird met the President's plane at the San Antonio International Airport, and traveled with him and his entourage on to the medical facilities at Brooke Army Medical Center, BAMC, and then after lunch both Air Force I and II took off for Houston for a dinner and speeches. According to their planned schedule. both groups would leave Houston at 10:00 pm to fly to Carswell Air Force Base, set to arrive at 10:45 pm, and then drive the five or so miles to Fort Worth and the Hotel Texas in 20 minutes to arrive at the hotel at 11:05 pm. That was the plan, but there must have been a slight delay because the two planes landed at Carswell a few mionutes after !!:00 pm instead of the scheduled 10:45 pm.

It would have been impossible for Lyndon Johnson to have been anywhere else but on Air Force II at 10:30 pm on Thursday, November 21, 1963.

My post on JFKresearch.com is now gone, but the information can be found on Google, if anyone is interested.

Adele Edisen