Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[Morgan Reynolds]

My dictionary says a mastermind is "A highly intelligent person; especially, one who plans and directs a project."

CD: As I've previously noted, "my" dictionary, Merriam-Webster, defines "mastermind" as "a person who supplies the directing or creative intelligence for a project."

MR: You asked for a definition and I gave one from a dictionary. What's your problem? Is your dictionary better than mine? This is Drago hair splitting because there is no significant difference between the two definitions. Both involve "intelligence" or "intelligent," "plans" or "creative," "directs" or "directing," and "project."

CD: Such is your extraordinary claim for LBJ. Provide your extraordinary evidence. Show us your model for the "project." I have shown my model for the assassination conspiracy, a model jointly developed by myself and George Michael Evica. In it we define "False Sponsor." Please find it on DPF, study it, and respond with your analysis.

MR: There is no "extraordinary claim for LBJ." As I said earlier, when a president is assassinated, the vice president should automatically be suspect numero uno. Reagan/Bush/Hinckley anyone? Nor is extraordinary evidence required to investigate and assemble evidence on behalf of this thesis. It is a murder and Nelson assembles a rich assortment of evidence, virtually all of it previously known, but assembled via a new interpretation. This is common practice in history and criminal investigations, where facts are usually stipulated but a novel assembly of facts inspired by a "fresh" theoretical approach overthrows previously-held views.

You have a model? Impressive. The world is short of "models" with lots of moving parts, parameter estimates via exotic techniques and well-measured variables. Back tested against sound data sets? Confirmed by repeated assassination events? Oh joy. And you won't define false sponsor in 25 words or less? Spare me.

I explained why LBJ had the capability, history and intense motivation to be Macbeth in this regicide, granted, a few layers removed.

CD: Now we may be on to something. Define "a few layers removed" from the Macbeth role.

MR: Macbeth committed the murder directly, he was the killer, while LBJ and others at the hub relied on spokes and wheel (layers of seconds, if you will), especially shooters, as "real killers." That's all I meant.

CD: And while you're at it, demonstrate to us how LBJ had the "capability" to detect and select and manipulate LHO, the perfect patsy. For starters. After all, the "mastermind" of the JFK conspiracy must have had sufficient savvy to appreciate the overarching significance of selecting a patsy whose c.v. would taint so many agencies and operations so as to deflect post-assassination investigations. Said operations would include, but not be limited to, HTLINGUAL and the false defector provocations.

Of course, you may argue, LBJ needn't know about such things. All he had to bring to the task was the authority to command those who did.

So prove such an extraordinary claim.

MR: LBJ would not get into very many technical details about execution of the crime or patsies like LHO. That's for experts in the trade like Dulles, Harvey, Angleton, Phillips, Hunt, etc. The biggest deal for LBJ pre-assassination was to "influence" the Secret Service to lower its shield so the shooters could do their work. That's one of the best parts of Nelson's work that I couldn't figure out earlier. I had even wondered if Secretary of the Treasury Douglas Dillon, a CFR/Rockefeller guy and overlord of the Secret Service, had issued coded orders for the stand down but Nelson makes a pretty convincing case for LBJ's staffers and Connally being the primary culprits, witting or unwitting depending upon individual, for lowering the shield. LBJ, probably in a panicky, jumpy mood, did get into "inadvisable" technical details post-assassination at times, like calling Dr. Crenshaw about a LHO deathbed confession or DPD Capt. Fritz to cease the LHO investigation, but I can't name one pre-assassination now.

LBJ was the Political Operator Supreme, was he not? For example, he made his big money by accepting bribes for "services rendered," fixing this, that and the other in service of big bucks, etc. Operator Supreme.

CD: Make the leap to JFK assassination "mastermind." "Political Operators" were a dime a dozen. Still are. So too those who "accept bribes for 'services rendered."

MR: As I wrote earlier, LBJ was no run-of-the-mill political operator. He was the absolute best, the best ever in the U.S. Senate if not the best in U.S. history. How many other Senators were elected whip with only two years of seniority, minority leader two years later, and then majority in another two years? The guy ascended to become Democratic U.S. Senate leader in four years! And then dominated the Senate like no other boss (assisted by J. Edgar's files on Senators of course). Not only ruthless, shrewd, a political genius, etc., but a workaholic to boot (if alcoholic too).

CD: Granted.
This is weak. Very weak. Define "other attributes." The devil is in this very detail. You're making the claim, the onus is on you to demonstrate precisely how the "humiliated, cornered" LBJ had the authority to command the deep political state to do his bidding.

MR: It's a matter congruent interests, not central command. Virtually everybody on a forum like this knows the background JFK and LBJ operated in 1960-63, including LBJ's back channels to intel, Pentagon, FBI, Secret Service, etc.

CD: More on your "intelligence" gambit at post's end.

So you equate the "skullduggery" commited by a no-holds-barred political fixer like Landslide Lyndon to the knowledge, skills, and authority necessary to construct and execute the JFK assassination conspiracy?

By all means, thrill us with the finer points of this argument.

MR: Straw man.

CD: I already have. On many occasions. Please do your homework and get back to us.
Not just "motives," I'm afraid. You've left out "means" and "opportunity." Please elaborate on these areas vis a vis LBJ.

And what does "the power of the presidency was the sine qua non" mean? All I get from that is that gigantic means would not be applied to acquire it if the office were powerless and/or worthless.

Ahh, just what I was waiting for. No offense intended, Morgan, but here you are demonstrating a rather pedestrian appreciation of deep politics.

By "the power of the presidency," I am referencing the chief executive's ability to intimidate, direct, and otherwise run roughshod over certain government agencies and the media. This power is vested in the for-public-consumption notion of the presidency -- a sleight-of-hand trick. Ask Richard Nixon just how much power his presidency had when he demanded information from the CIA. Ask John Kennedy how much power his presidency had in April, 1961.

MR: Straw man. Everybody knows that a newly elected government brings in its political appointees at the top of most departments and agencies, and they shift policies, within legal limitations, toward White House wishes, but the mil-intel-ind- complex, including FBI, and outside organizations like the Fed Res, they're different, they were/are not subject to those same "invasions" of new political appointees at the top. btw, I was Chief Economist at the US Dept. of Labor 2001-2002, a Bush-Cheney appointee and saw this from the inside. I was also a senior visiting economist for the Joint Economic Committee, 1993-94, minority, and a resident of Texas for 28 years.

CD: LBJ's pivotal role in the coverup was dependent upon the limited but useful traditional power of his office to command those elements of the government and the media to do his bidding.

Do you deny that LBJ was and had to be in on it in advance?

No.

Speaking of disinfo, what lie(s) did Nelson tell?

In summation? One word will suffice.

EDIT: ADDITION -- Your understanding of disinformation seems rather superficial, if I may say. "Disinformation" and "lies" are not synonymous. The spreading of false information is but one component of a disinformation operation -- the key element of which is the selective presentation of verifiable fact. Nelson tells us nothing we did not already know. A great deal of what he professes to be true is true. Like all disinformationalists he uses such statements of fact to establish his bona fides, and then goes on to present, for example, the Hersh abominations as fact with the expectation that his readers will accept these arguments from authority.

Previously on this thread I have demonstrated how Nelson has attempted to back away from his now crumbling "mastermind" deception even though in his book he steadfastly maintains, in no uncertain terms, that LBJ did indeed supply the directing or creative intelligence for the assassination conspiracy. You tell me the proper word to describe Nelson's action.

Finally, Morgan, I am disappointed in your effort to conflate LBJ's intelligence with the authority, skills, and knowledge necessary to be the "mastermind" of the JFK assassination.

You're creating a strawman with all of this posturing, and I'm not buying it for a minute. Nowhere has it been argued -- at least by me -- that LBJ was a dolt. Far from it.

MR: Good, stipulated that LBJ (crude rube, Colonel Cornpone, redneck, etc.) was not a dolt. Whew, what a relief! Now we're getting somewhere. My surmise that a lack of intelligence made the "mastermind" a thesis to hold up to public ridicule and reject out-of-hand was wrong, I guess. OK. That leaves the real reasons yet unexplained by the DiEugenio-Drago axis.

CD: So while Jim Fetzer -- your tag-team partner here -- may be thrilled by this diversionary exercise, I suggest that you drop it. It's embarrassing. And not to me.

MR: Thanks for your advice, Mr. Drago. I'll pass your opinion on to my wife and the rest of my personal embarrassment damage-control team.