Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[James H. Fetzer]

You are right again, Jack. I meant 13-0 record, which is most impressive. I also
wrote my post entirely in caps, but when it came up, it was in lower case. That
does not matter. Your team played a superior game and deserved the Rose Bowl!

Thanks, Jim. But you have our record wrong. We are still undefeated
and should be #2 in BCS final standings behind winner of "championship"
game.

Jack

[Jack White]

You are right again, Jack. I meant 13-0 record, which is most impressive. I also
wrote my post entirely in caps, but when it came up, it was in lower case. That
does not matter. Your team played a superior game and deserved the Rose Bowl!

Thanks, again, Jim. Thanks for the correction.

The new forum software does NOT ALLOW all caps.

Jack

[Alan Dale]

Madeleine Brown seems to be one of the necessary figures among those who promote LBJ as a Murderous Mastermind. I'm slightly bewildered by that.

In 1982 Madeleine Brown spoke at the Press Club of Dallas to promote the upcoming publication of her memoir, Texas In The Morning. At that appearance she stated that Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn was complicit with LBJ in planning President Kennedy's assassination...

Sam Rayburn was a Texas democrat who died on November 16, 1961.



I think she was a fantasist.

[Magda Hassan]

She may be but she may not be Alan. She may well be telling the absolute truth as she heard it from others but were they telling her the truth? Was LBJ inflating his own importance and power to her? Wouldn't be the first time some fellow has spun BS to his lover to appear more than he is. :pinkelephant:

[Alan Dale]

Hello Magda,

First allow me to say how much I appreciate the quotations you chose as your signature.

With regard to Madeleine Brown's story, I believe that if I knew nothing beyond her public identification of Sam Rayburn as one of LBJ's co-conspirators, I would conclude that she was probably not being truthful and that she was definitely not very well informed about contemporary history.

No one in a position of influence or authority who may have whispered something to her as a taste of what was to come could have made such an error.

Rayburn was certainly old and probably fuzzy during President Kennedy's first year in office. I don't think it's plausible that anyone would concoct such an absurd revelation as that which she promoted (briefly), unless they simply didn't know what they were talking about.

I'm new here and still enjoying and reviewing the mountains of interesting material.

Thank you for allowing me to participate.

[Jack White]

Hello Magda,

First allow me to say how much I appreciate the quotations you chose as your signature.

With regard to Madeleine Brown's story, I believe that if I knew nothing beyond her public identification of Sam Rayburn as one of LBJ's co-conspirators, I would conclude that she was probably not being truthful and that she was definitely not very well informed about contemporary history.

No one in a position of influence or authority who may have whispered something to her as a taste of what was to come could have made such an error.

Rayburn was certainly old and probably fuzzy during President Kennedy's first year in office. I don't think it's plausible that anyone would concoct such an absurd revelation as that which she promoted (briefly), unless they simply didn't know what they were talking about.

I'm new here and still enjoying and reviewing the mountains of interesting material.

Thank you for allowing me to participate.

I am a strong supporter of the basics of Madeleine's story. I talked
with her dozens of times and found her quite consistent and believable.

Jack

[Alan Dale]

Thank you, Jack.

I'm sure there are many who feel the same as you.

My concern is that witnesses who come forward with sensational claims, whether it's Beverly Oliver, Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold, Judyth Baker, even Jean Hill, actually do us much more harm than Bugliosi, Posner, or any of the WC defenders ever could.

I've read many statements by some of the most adamant "Johnson did it" proponents, and I find their insistence not persuasive. I try not to overlook the value of discarding previously held beliefs against which new evidence may be weighed. So far, I remain skeptical of many aspects of the stories represented by the figures I've named.

I'm sure there are many issues upon which we will agree.

[Jack White]

Thank you, Jack.

I'm sure there are many who feel the same as you.

My concern is that witnesses who come forward with sensational claims, whether it's Beverly Oliver, Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold, Judyth Baker, even Jean Hill, actually do us much more harm than Bugliosi, Posner, or any of the WC defenders ever could.

I've read many statements by some of the most adamant "Johnson did it" proponents, and I find their insistence not persuasive. I try not to overlook the value of discarding previously held beliefs against which new evidence may be weighed. So far, I remain skeptical of many aspects of the stories represented by the figures I've named.

I'm sure there are many issues upon which we will agree.

I believe Beverly Oliver, Ed Hoffman, Gordon Arnold, Jean Hill, and Madeleine
Brown. I believe portions of the Roscoe White story. I do not believe James
Files, Chauncey Holt and Judyth Baker.

Jack

[James H. Fetzer]

I must say, Alan, that when I notice you are not only taking Madeleine's name in vain but also those of Ed Hoffman, Beverly Oliver, Gordon Arnold, and Jean Hill as well (to leave the more controversial case of Judyth to one side, even though I am among those who believe what she has to tell us), it raises serious questions in my mind as to where you are coming from. Have you ever met or spoken with any of them or done any serious research about them? Have you watched any of their interviews on, for example, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"? What do you know about them?

Let's just focus on Madeleine for the time being. You heard that she mentioned the name of Sam Rayburn during a presentation as one of "LBJ's co-conspirators", which you think is "absurd" and on that basis discount her. So what precisely did she say? And what do you know abut the relationship between LBJ and Sam Rayburn? Do you also discount the possibility that the Joint Chiefs (Allan Dulles, J. Edgar Hoover, and others) were involved because that, too, would be "absurd"?

I am inclined to speculate that you may belong to the DiEugenio School of Intuitive Research, where if Jim doesn't think something sounds right (such as the presence of CIA officials at the Ambassador the evening that Bobby was assassinated, which I have reviewed in "RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador"), then it isn't right. The problem, however, is that we all have different backgrounds and abilities and tend to take different claims as "reasonable" or not, which doesn't resolve these issues.

But if different people at the same time or the same person at different times can view the same claim as "reasonable" or as "unreasonable", we have to ask whether or not those who arrive at those opinions have any good reasons to support them in the form of evidence. I therefore ask you, granting that you are inclined to discount anything Madeleine has to tell us, even though she was LBJ's mistress and bore him a son, who was not his only offspring out of wedlock but the only male, what is you evidence?

Hello Magda,

First allow me to say how much I appreciate the quotations you chose as your signature.

With regard to Madeleine Brown's story, I believe that if I knew nothing beyond her public identification of Sam Rayburn as one of LBJ's co-conspirators, I would conclude that she was probably not being truthful and that she was definitely not very well informed about contemporary history.

No one in a position of influence or authority who may have whispered something to her as a taste of what was to come could have made such an error.

Rayburn was certainly old and probably fuzzy during President Kennedy's first year in office. I don't think it's plausible that anyone would concoct such an absurd revelation as that which she promoted (briefly), unless they simply didn't know what they were talking about.

I'm new here and still enjoying and reviewing the mountains of interesting material.

Thank you for allowing me to participate.

[James H. Fetzer]

Charles,

I am delighted that you have read LBJ: MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION. Nothing could please me more. It is a huge and sprawling book--rather like its subject--weighing in a 729 pages! Since every book has its strengths and weaknesses, please tell me which parts you found the most interesting and why as well as the parts you found the least persuasive and why. That would be most helpful. Thank you.

And since I have explained many times now why I regard LBJ as the "mastermind", when that term is used to refer to "the pivotal player", where his crucial role has not only been endorsed by Madeleine, Billy Sol, Barr McClellan, and E. Howard Hunt, but by JFK experts such as Nigel Turner, Jack White, and others I have named, I would also be curious as to where we agree and disagree about my take oln the case.

We have more than fifteen indications of Secret Service complicity in setting up JFK for the hit. The CIA/military/Mafia/anti-Castro Cubans took him out (with a little help from their friends in Dallas City and County law enforcement) and the FBI was used to cover it up, where Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover were the principals (as the crucial players) with financing from Texas oil men.

I lay out my take, for example, in my review of RECLAIMING HISTORY, http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1.html , which, in my opinion, warrants some of those caustic descriptions you reserve for Phil Nelson's extremely important, well-research and documented volume--which, however, I hasten to add to forestall some of DiEugeio's patented "straw men", I do not claim to be flawless--but where your characterizations strike me as completely unwarranted.

Even in relation to your SPONSOR/FACILITATOR/MECHANICS model, which has many virtues, LBJ is still the one indispensable player without whom the assassination could not have gone forward. Please be so kind as to reread my quotes from Jack Ruby, who, like Madeleine, Billy Sol, and others, knew something about the man at the center of all this and tell me who, among all your candidates, played a more pivotal role?

I know you favor the Rockefeller banksters as prime movers, even though the Dallas roots of the assassination appear to be clear. ("The CIA and the oil boys decided he had to be taken out", as Lyndon explained to Madeleine.) DiEugenio has faulted the use of the term "mastermind" to describe LBJ because--and this is his reasoning--he (LBJ) wasn't in charge of the events in Mexico City or of CE-399.

I think that claim, like so many others from DiEugenio, is ridiculous, but how can you offer Rockefeller and the banksters as an alternative? They may have had motive, since JFK was threatening to reform or abolish the FED, but are you suggesting that Nelson sent HIS chief administrative assistant to Dallas to make sure all the plans were in place for the assassination? or helped to cover it up?

Yet you continue to offer such responses

Hunt did not provide us anything of value other than evidence of his mastery of the art of disinformation. His confession tells us nothing that hasn't been put forward previously. It is indeed his masterpiece -- a hand-chosen amalgam of the sexiest suspects and motives as previously and repeatedly discussed here and elsewhere. Hunt mocks us from the grave as you accept his deception as holy writ and I dignify it by responding to you.

Don't bother regurgitating Hunt's disinformation -- unless, of course, you can mine and present a single nugget of Aurum from that dull pile of Iron pyrite you breathlessly carry to the assay office, visions of untold wealth dancing in your head.

But we can agree on this much: the herein under discussion, JFK-related toxic spills of Hunt and Nelson are of a pair. And no, I'm not ready to accuse the latter of being a willful agent of disinformation. Rather, I'm noting their similar methodologies, if not motives, and the identical values of their vile products.

Not to mention the damnably similar, sinister impacts of their work on our community.




I can confirm that I have NOT read Nelson's "magnificent" book. Please tell us its title and subject matter, and I'll get right on it.

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