Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[Charles Drago]

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.

I'll consider your request -- even as I let pass the nagging feeling that you're still in the posture of a grade school teacher who doesn't quite buy his student's "I did SO read the book" stipulation.

But don't get your hopes up. I'm auditing your courses.

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" [...]

BINGO!!!

Nelson clearly is NOT using the terms "mastermind" and "pivotal player" synonymously. He is attempting to ascribe to LBJ the Sponsorship role -- which means Nelson is either an ignoramus or an accessory after the fact.

Why on earth can't you come to grips with the greater implications of this transparent reality?

(And by the by, Johnson was not "the" pivotal player, but rather "a" pivotal player -- nor more or less so than, in my educated opinion, Alan Dulles.)

Back to the all-important point -- one that transcends mere semantics. When Nelson -- either out of ignorance or malignant intent (for me, the jury remains out) -- ascribes to Johnson powers and authority well beyond any he or any other post-JFK president ever came close to possessing, he gives aid and comfort to our shared enemy.

In other words: NELSON REINFORCES THE FALSE SPONSORSHIP OF LBJ -- AN ACT WHICH, BY DEFINITION, PRESERVES AND PROTECTS THE TRUE SPONSORS OF THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY!

Further, in doing so an innocent Nelson would demonstrate a naif's pathetically and fatally underinformed appreciation of deep political reality.

[...] where [LBJ's] 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 categorically reject as credible witnesses and/or credible deep political analysts "Madeline, Billy Sol, Barr McClellan, E. Howard Hunt, Nigel Turner." Need I take you to task once more for your ... what's the word that won't offend you ... unimaginable endorsement of E. Howard Hunt, a man who saw you and me and so many of our colleagues as his blood enemies and as targets of opportunity for his disiniformation and propaganda?

As for our dear friend Jack White: Why not let him weigh in on the "mastermind" crux of our argument?

I would also be curious as to where we agree and disagree about my take oln the case.

We are in -- conservatively -- 95% agreement."

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.

ABSOLUTELY NONE OF WHICH QUALIFIES LBJ AS THE "MASTERMIND" OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION -- AS ANY SENSIBLE SPEAKER/READER OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WOULD UNDERSTAND THE WORD "MASTERMIND."

EDIT ADDENDUM: Nor, for the record, do I accept as holy writ the notion that "financing" of the assassination came exclusively -- as your construction would have us infer -- from "Texas oil men."

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.

Make that "one of the indispensable players" and "the assassination as it was planned and executed" and we're on the same page again.

The assassination could have been accomplished in many ways. Absent LBJ as a co-conspirator, it could not have been done with the long-term, multi-faceted impacts which resulted from the actual event. But make no mistake: JFK was a goner -- one way or the other.

BESIDES, NONE OF THE ACCURATE POINTS YOU OFFER QUALIFIES LBJ AS THE "MASTERMIND" OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION AS ANY SENSIBLE SPEAKER/READER OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WOULD UNDERSTAND THE WORD "MASTERMIND."

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?

Jack Ruby is WORTHLESS as an analyst of deep political structure and motive.

Who played a more pivotal role than that played by LBJ? All of the TRUE sponsors, for starters. And, to my mind, Alan Dulles. In terms of creating the dramatic structure of the plot, I'd offer James Angleton and, to a slightly lesser degree, David Phillips.

We can play with this if you'd like.

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.)

Second-hand testimony from a dubious source. You can't argue with the former, we can debate the latter.

What appears to be "clear" to you is, to me, murky (Murkyson?). Define "roots," please.

[H]ow 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?

If Nelson Rockefeller was a True Sponsor of the assassination, the LAST thing he would have done would be to send "HIS chief administrative assistant to Dallas."

You make my case for LBJ as Facilitator/False Sponsor quite efficiently, Jim.

LBJ -- Facilitator or Patsy?

It's the Third Alternative, Jim.

The answer to the question is YES!

[Alan Dale]

Hello Professor Fetzer,

Thank you for all you've contributed to our search for deeper understanding of President Kennedy's assassination. I respect your devotion to illuminating the many related mysteries of what I consider to be the most consequential crime of our time.
I'm especially grateful to you for helping to introduce the important work of Dr. David Mantik, whose innovative analysis of President Kennedy's skull x-rays I find particularly compelling.

Because I'm new to this community, and because you express some curiosity about whether an affiliation may exist between my thought processes and Jim DiEugenio, (whom I do not know), I'll offer a brief synopsis of my current thinking on the big question and allow you judge if there are similarities in methodology.

I was born in December of 1959. My parents were great admirers of the Kennedy brothers. At different times during my early childhood they participated as volunteers for the democratic party and, in 1968, as campaign workers for Robert F. Kennedy. At an event in New Albany, Indiana I was introduced to Senator Kennedy. I was six years old. I don't believe anything I've experienced has meant more to me than that.

It took several years for me to understand why my parents and so many others were so devastated by those assassinations. I've learned that the answer to that question may be found in how those men lived, and in what they inspired in the hearts of young parents who cherished their children's futures.

So, with hat in hand...slightly, I will offer you the following:

My slightly less vague than it used to be belief, (similar, but not identical, to what I imagine religious Faith to be like), is that two Cold Warriors at the heart of CIA, employing resources and operations which were already at hand in paramilitary and counterintelligence programs ostensibly directed against Castro, orchestrated several compartmentalized conspiracies from which a coordinated physical attack upon President Kennedy, (arranged by William King Harvey), and a diabolically clever incrimination of the sadly disposable low-level asset, Lee Harvey Oswald, (arranged by James J. Angleton), made news that altered History.

For me, personally, it's taken literally decades of awareness and suspicions about the two men I've named, James J. Angleton and William K. Harvey, to have evolved into an hypothesis that they alone in their respective areas of expertise, action and influence, at both the absolute most compartmentalized center and the ultimate peak of clandestine authority over our nation's mechanisms of counterintelligence, collaborated with each other on the two vital areas of the crime: Killing President Kennedy and setting up Oswald in such a way that his incrimination caused alarm bells to go off throughout the entire infrastructure of our Defense/Intelligence establishment.

Some of the black and white is hidden inside the dense materials released through the ARRB. Like everything associated with this event, those materials are subject to interpretation. Fortunately, there are a few military intelligence scholars who are qualified to interpret those documents. There will never be proof that Angleton conceived the plan and Harvey managed its execution. But we do have enough, for the first time in the history of these investigations, to follow a paper trail and read between the lines, just exactly as any serious criminologist would intend. That paper trail raises what I believe is the most elegant lead we've ever had in these investigations: Who had the authority to alter how information about Oswald was kept at CIA HQS prior to the assassination?

Much of the rest depends upon sifting through the literally thousands of figures associated not merely with the crime of the century, but with the context of the history which was being made during that time. The person who personally managed the CIA's executive action program, who hated the Kennedy's "...with a purple passion", who developed a close professional and personal relationship with infamous Mafia executives, who controlled and dispensed unauthorized anti-Castro guerrilla teams at a time when any such provocations were dangerous and destabilizing to the the authority of our government's executive branch, and whose career was effectively ended by the stroke of a pen set in the hand of the 37 year old Attorney General of the United States is, in my opinion, not a completely unjustifiable suspect in the assassination of President Kennedy.

And, I can't prove it at all. But, since I'm new here, this is as good a time as any to express what I believe.

That's what I believe.

With regard to your questions about the witnesses I doubt, I don't believe them.

Christopher Hitchens has stated, "I try to sharpen my practice of Reason, Doubt, Skepticism, the weighing of argument against evidence and of evidence against interest. In other words, I'm more inclined to doubt something if its truth would be something that would suit me".

I would be open to any testimony of any eye witness whose story was told on the day of the event, and which was not embellished over a period of decades to become something much more sensational than it was originally.

Very simply, I don't believe any person whose story of what they saw emerged at some point after their initial interviews on the subject.

I believe witnesses like Charles Brehm and Mary Moorman, who described what they saw...and what they didn't see. I do not believe either witnesses whose presence is documented but who later embellished their original descriptions of what they saw, or self-proclaimed and self-promoted witnesses who "went public" with dramatic and sensational claims.

The people who were near the president's limousine at the time of the shooting were eye-witnesses to the biggest and most consequential event of their lives. Some people can't handle that. In a way, I feel it's like winning the lottery; Whatever weaknesses, vulnerabilities, character flaws that a person might have become magnified.

That's part of what I think I know.

I'm happy to make your acquaintance.

[Phil Dragoo]

The year Hunt wrote Give Us This Day, Vidal wrote The Art and Arts of E. Howard Hunt.


One of which was to forge cables blaming Kennedy for the murder of the Diem brothers.


Tainting Hunt's credibility in blaming Johnson for murdering Kennedy.


Miriam Fricken described her career in Foreign Service as reaching its acme in her lunch with the king of Nepal and his brother.


“They tell you a beautiful story,” she explained, her eyes twinkling. “A beautiful story, but it isn't the truth.”


My two volume Oxford doesn't list mastermind; Merriam-Webster reports its first use as 1720 in my hard copy, 1872 online.


a person who supplies the directing or creative intelligence for a project







The apparatus was in place before Johnson's tenure in the executive branch, and survived beyond his 1968 “no mas” and 1973 death.


The CIA wasn't about to be smashed into a thousand pieces.


“That little Kennedy. . .he thought he was a god.”


Along with friend and neighbor Hoover, Johnson had blood on his hands.


Thug, yes; director, no.”


His skill was as a ruthless opportunist.




http://oi39.tinypic.com/51brqo.jpg


Angleton wasn't privy to who shot John.


But there's that CIA lying thing again, e.g. Helms, The Man Who Kept The Secrets.

[Charles Drago]

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]My two volume Oxford doesn't list mastermind; Merriam-Webster reports its first use as 1720 in my hard copy, 1872 online.


a person who supplies the directing or creative intelligence for a project

Thank you, Phil.

So Jim -- Since you steadfastly refuse to offer your definition of "mastermind" in this context, please tell us if you accept the M-W definition as proffered by Phil.

It works for me.

And I submit that it's PRECISELY how Nelson uses the word -- out of ignorance, arrogance, or something more sinister TBD.

So, pray tell: Based on all that you know, was Lyndon Baines Johnson the "directing or creative intelligence" of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

If you think not, then why oh why can't you see the hostile intent ... the threat ... the disinformation ... the vaulting arrogance and/or ignorance inherent in Nelson's use of the word?

Charles

[Jim DiEugenio]

Alan:

Nice reply to Fetzer. And BTW, his analysis of the Ambassador photos was completely unfounded and off the wall. Still, for whatever reason, he tries to revive it WITHOUT EVER DOING ONE IOTA OF ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

Madeleine Brown's story has so many problems to it, that again, I find it hard to believe he takes it seriously. I mean, really, when did LBJ arrive at the Assassination Ball. This incredible, ever evolving, ever growing, ever entangling, social function that never ever seems to end. If you look at Manchester's book, just when did LBj leave the hotel and sneak away?

Howard Hunt's story and Saint John's follow up, further betrays Fetzer's faults--he never went to the primary sources for this whole mess.

And how Nelson's book can carry any weight when os much of it recycles anti JFK trashings.

What Fetzer does not realize is that with long drawn out arguments like this e.g. Judy Baker also, he is a lot of credibility with the younger researchers coming up. In fact, one has even composed a parody letter:

This is Jim Fetzer here. You unintelligent simpletons. Surely you haven't read my books. Obviously you are unworthy. Perhaps you haven't yet mastered the art of critical reasoning, and intelligent thought.


I think the best books are:

-Assassination Science

-Murder in Dealey Plaza

-The Great Zapruder Film Hoax

Best Wishes, Jim Fetzer

[Alan Dale]

Hello Jim,

Good to hear from you.

I'm aware that news of Shane O'Sullivan's announcement of three high-ranking CIA officers from the jm/wave station being photographed at the Ambassador Hotel on the night of Robert Kennedy's shooting was electrifying to some of the most serious researchers throughout the country. If true, it would have been the kind of bombshell break-through for which many of us have rather desperately yearned.

Based upon the analysis of people I trust, Jefferson Morley in particular, I accept that those initial identifications were mistaken.

I believe it was an honest mistake.

Thanks for commenting on my post.

[James H. Fetzer]

Something about these exchanges is bothering me, Charles. Which is that none of
them displays any real knowledge or familiarity with LBJ: MASTERMIND OF JFK'S
ASSASSINATION. You love to talk about the word, where I have noticed that you
employ two rhetorical tactics. One is that you exaggerate what it would take for
LBJ to have been "the mastermind". The other is that you minimize the powers
and opportunities that were available to Lyndon Baines Johnson. I cannot accept
either maneuver as sincere until I am at least reassured on these basic questions:
When did you obtain the book and when did you read it? Be so kind as to tell me.

You are doing everything but address the key issues here. When I offer the names
of some of those who knew Lyndon the best "up close and personal", you dismiss
them because they are not "deep politics analysts"? I am sure this is not supposed
to be a joke, but it is certainly unresponsive to the points I have been making. Now
I have to ask, have you read TEXAS IN THE MORNING, Madeleine's book (actually,
one of two, the other being DALLAS DID IT)? or A TEXAS LEGEND by Billy Sol Estes?
Or even my review of RECLAIMING HISTORY, for which I even provided you a link?
I laid out my take on the assassination and asked for a critique, but I didn't get one.

I ask because convergence of opinions (or of findings) in general requires different
persons to be considering the same evidence and the same range of hypotheses on
the basis of the same rules of reasoning. If I am right--that we are not basing our
reasoning on the same evidence, at the least--then that goes a long way toward an
explanation for our divergence of opinion. What you claim about this book, "Nelson
clearly is NOT using the terms 'mastermind' and 'pivotal player' synonymously. He is
attempting to ascribe to LBJ the Sponsorship role--which means Nelson is either an
ignoramus or an accessory after the fact", is either incredibly ill-informed (as would
be the case if you actually haven't read it) or else serious warped and irresponsible.

THE MAN WROTE A BOOK about the pivotal player in the assassination of JFK. And
he is hardly the first serious student of the case. While Phil's book weighs in at 729
pages, BLOODY TREASON runs 909. I worry that you have never studied it, either,
because I cannot imagine anyone of your character and intellect being so dismissive
of such substantial studies, where both assign a pivotal role to Lyndon. Noel Twyman
suggests "the most perfect combination, with the greatest probability of success" was

CIA/Military -- Secret Service -- Mafia -- LBJ -- Hoover

As he proposes on page 48,

* All the Mafia had to do was get the CIA involved and have the CIA recruit the Secret
Service and LBJ, and it would have had a perfect conspiracy.

* All LBJ had to do was recruit the CIA (who would use the Mafia as needed) and the
Secret Service, and he had a perfect conspiracy.

* Hoover would fall in line, after the fact, when confronted by LBJ and the Mafia with
the blackmail material they had on him.

* In this scenario, the right-wing extremists, if involved at all, would provide money.

Noel acknowledged that his hypotheses might have to be modified, or fail, or other
combinations emerge, including an "induced cover-up" by the CIA or the FBI, which
might fear the consequence of having its deepest secret exposed if the crime were
to be solved. Interestingly, in the context of this debate, Noel himself uses the term,
"mastermind", to characterize the person who had the central role in planning out the
assassination itself as a military exercise, which neither I nor Phil, to the best of my
knowledge, believe was done by Lyndon himself. The CIA, after all, had professionals
in the business, where a prime candidate for that role would be Edward Landsdale,
assisted by men like William Harvey and David Sanchez Morales, where others such
as Allen Dulles and David Atlee Phillips were certainly on the periphery. But surely it
cannot be for this reason that you have launched a one-sided vendetta against Phil.

LBJ was the pivotal member of the plot, since it could not have gone forward without
him. Those who are familiar with the reports of Madeleine Duncan Brown, Billy Sol
Estes, Barr McClelland, and E. Howard Hunt should appreciate what I am asserting.
The plan was to take out JFK and that no one would pay a penalty for participating in
the assassination. ONLY LBJ COULD CONTROL THAT. Plus Lyndon was a very "hands
on" guy, who even sent his chief assistant, Cliff Carter, to Dallas to make sure all of
the arrangements were in place. With Edgar at his side and the Secret Service and
the Joint Chiefs allied with him, he could steal the body from Dallas and get it under
military control, while destroying the most important evidence, the Lincoln limousine.

I respect those who hold different views about this, but were it not for LBJ, as Jack
Ruby observed, JFK would not have been taken out. I regard this as one of the best
books ever published about "The Big Event" As Lyndon told Madeleine, the CIA and the
oil boys decided that JFK had to be taken out. But the person who benefited the most
from that was LBJ himself. And he took steps to insure that it would be successfully
executed and successfully covered up. He was the pivot. As Jack Ruby observed, after
having been granted a new criminal trial, http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/ruby.htm

Jack: Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The
world will never know the true facts, of what occurred, my motives. The people had,
that had so much to gain and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the
position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world.

Reporter : Are these people in very high positions Jack?!

Jack : Yes. . . .

Jack: When I mentioned about Adlai Stevenson--"if he was vice president there would
never have been an assassination of our beloved President Kennedy"--[and was] asked
if he would explain it again, Ruby continued, Well, the answer is the man in office now.

It was true then and it remains true today. The pivotal player in the death of JFK was LBJ.

I'll consider your request -- even as I let pass the nagging feeling that you're still in the posture of a grade school teacher who doesn't quite buy his student's "I did SO read the book" stipulation.

But don't get your hopes up. I'm auditing your courses.

BINGO!!!

Nelson clearly is NOT using the terms "mastermind" and "pivotal player" synonymously. He is attempting to ascribe to LBJ the Sponsorship role -- which means Nelson is either an ignoramus or an accessory after the fact.

Why on earth can't you come to grips with the greater implications of this transparent reality?

(And by the by, Johnson was not "the" pivotal player, but rather "a" pivotal player -- nor more or less so than, in my educated opinion, Alan Dulles.)

Back to the all-important point -- one that transcends mere semantics. When Nelson -- either out of ignorance or malignant intent (for me, the jury remains out) -- ascribes to Johnson powers and authority well beyond any he or any other post-JFK president ever came close to possessing, he gives aid and comfort to our shared enemy.

In other words: NELSON REINFORCES THE FALSE SPONSORSHIP OF LBJ -- AN ACT WHICH, BY DEFINITION, PRESERVES AND PROTECTS THE TRUE SPONSORS OF THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY!

Further, in doing so an innocent Nelson would demonstrate a naif's pathetically and fatally underinformed appreciation of deep political reality.

I categorically reject as credible witnesses and/or credible deep political analysts "Madeline, Billy Sol, Barr McClellan, E. Howard Hunt, Nigel Turner." Need I take you to task once more for your ... what's the word that won't offend you ... unimaginable endorsement of E. Howard Hunt, a man who saw you and me and so many of our colleagues as his blood enemies and as targets of opportunity for his disiniformation and propaganda?

As for our dear friend Jack White: Why not let him weigh in on the "mastermind" crux of our argument?


[quote=James H. Fetzer]I would also be curious as to where we agree and disagree about my take oln the case.[.QUOTE]

We are in -- conservatively -- 95% agreement."




ABSOLUTELY NONE OF WHICH QUALIFIES LBJ AS THE "MASTERMIND" OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION -- AS ANY SENSIBLE SPEAKER/READER OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WOULD UNDERSTAND THE WORD "MASTERMIND."



Make that "one of the indispensable players" and "the assassination as it was planned and executed" and we're on the same page again.

The assassination could have been accomplished in many ways. Absent LBJ as a co-conspirator, it could not have been done with the long-term, multi-faceted impacts which resulted from the actual event. But make no mistake: JFK was a goner -- one way or the other.

BESIDES, NONE OF THE ACCURATE POINTS YOU OFFER QUALIFIES LBJ AS THE "MASTERMIND" OF THE JFK ASSASSINATION AS ANY SENSIBLE SPEAKER/READER OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WOULD UNDERSTAND THE WORD "MASTERMIND."



Jack Ruby is WORTHLESS as an analyst of deep political structure and motive.

Who played a more pivotal role than that played by LBJ? All of the TRUE sponsors, for starters. And, to my mind, Alan Dulles. In terms of creating the dramatic structure of the plot, I'd offer James Angleton and, to a slightly lesser degree, David Phillips.

We can play with this if you'd like.



Second-hand testimony from a dubious source. You can't argue with the former, we can debate the latter.

What appears to be "clear" to you is, to me, murky (Murkyson?). Define "roots," please.




If Nelson Rockefeller was a True Sponsor of the assassination, the LAST thing he would have done would be to send "HIS chief administrative assistant to Dallas."

You make my case for LBJ as Facilitator/False Sponsor quite efficiently, Jim.

LBJ -- Facilitator or Patsy?

It's the Third Alternative, Jim.

The answer to the question is YES!

[James H. Fetzer]

Well, if you had read my books--which are really the books of the contributors, where there were eleven (11) to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, nine (9) to MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, and six (6) to THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX--you would know a lot more about the assassination than you do. I am glad you have the sense to realized that you need remedial education, because your knowledge of the medical, ballistic, photo and film evidence is inexcusably inadequate. Your lapses, alas, are far beyond embarrassing and discredit all you do.

To your list I would add BEST EVIDENCE, BLOODY TREASON, INSIDE THE ARRB, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE, and LBJ: MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION. And if anyone had any doubts about your research ability, it is dramatically confirmed by your failure to understand why reviewing the evidence about the Ambassador was crucial to exposing not only your incapacity for serious thought but the shoddy work of Morley and Talbot. This isn't a popularity contest, Jim. When you don't know how to reason, you aren't going to find the truth.

Alan:

Nice reply to Fetzer. And BTW, his analysis of the Ambassador photos was completely unfounded and off the wall. Still, for whatever reason, he tries to revive it WITHOUT EVER DOING ONE IOTA OF ORIGINAL RESEARCH.

Madeleine Brown's story has so many problems to it, that again, I find it hard to believe he takes it seriously. I mean, really, when did LBJ arrive at the Assassination Ball. This incredible, ever evolving, ever growing, ever entangling, social function that never ever seems to end. If you look at Manchester's book, just when did LBj leave the hotel and sneak away?

Howard Hunt's story and Saint John's follow up, further betrays Fetzer's faults--he never went to the primary sources for this whole mess.

And how Nelson's book can carry any weight when os much of it recycles anti JFK trashings.

What Fetzer does not realize is that with long drawn out arguments like this e.g. Judy Baker also, he is a lot of credibility with the younger researchers coming up. In fact, one has even composed a parody letter:

This is Jim Fetzer here. You unintelligent simpletons. Surely you haven't read my books. Obviously you are unworthy. Perhaps you haven't yet mastered the art of critical reasoning, and intelligent thought.


I think the best books are:

-Assassination Science

-Murder in Dealey Plaza

-The Great Zapruder Film Hoax

Best Wishes, Jim Fetzer

[James H. Fetzer]

It's interesting that you have to depend upon "people you trust"
to know what to think about one assassination or another. That
is very telling, so I want to thank you for that candid admission.
When you are unqualified to offer an opinion, there is no point in
offering an opinion. It will only reflect your lack of qualifications.

Hello Jim,

Good to hear from you.

I'm aware that news of Shane O'Sullivan's announcement of three high-ranking CIA officers from the jm/wave station being photographed at the Ambassador Hotel on the night of Robert Kennedy's shooting was electrifying to some of the most serious researchers throughout the country. If true, it would have been the kind of bombshell break-through for which many of us have rather desperately yearned.

Based upon the analysis of people I trust, Jefferson Morley in particular, I accept that those initial identifications were mistaken.

I believe it was an honest mistake.

Thanks for commenting on my post.

[Jim DiEugenio]

JIm:

You keep on harping on these hollow shibboleths.

"The plot could not have gone forward without Johnson."

What does this mean?

Precisely what did LBJ have to do with the following:

1.) Oswald being introduced to the Paines by the Baron.
2.) Oswald being manipulated in the New Orleans area by Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister.
3.) Ruth Paine picking up Marina and separating her from Lee and Lee from his possessions at the time of the murder.
4.) The Oswald charade in Mexico City which is crucial to the plot.
5.) Oswald getting his job at the TSBD.
6.) Ruth Paine producing all that phony evidence after the murder
7.) The military curtailing the autopsy

As Don Gibson has proven, it was not even LBJ who thought up the Warren Commission.

ANd BTW, as Joseph Green proved, Nelson does not spell out anything which shows Johnson directly connecting to these groups manipulating Oswald in advance.

Further, what was LBJ's connection to the Chicago Plot? Did you ever think of that one?

Jim, you made a mistake. Man up and admit it.

P. S. And you should not be telling anyone about "trusting people'. Because the people you trusted in that AMbassador episode, and the Regicide farce, ended up blowing up on you.