Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[Alan Dale]

Hello Professor Fetzer,

I'll take your admonishment as well intentioned. I'm okay with depending upon people I trust for their expertise and insight. I once hired a mechanic to work on my car. He did better than I would have.

I'm sure you have reasons for disputing the qualifications of David Talbot and Jefferson Morley and their assessment of the Shane O'Sullivan allegations. I believe Mr. Morley is the journalist who broke the story (authenticated), of George Joannides and how Mr. Joannides' past might have been important to know for the HSCA investigators who depended upon him. I'm sure you have examined the photographs (also authenticated), which Mr. Morley uncovered of Mr. Joannides.

I sincerely believe that question has been answered.

I'll accept your gratitude for my candid admission. You're welcome.

I think you can tell a lot about a person by knowing who they trust.



Thanks for commenting on my post.

[The Moderators]

Just a friendly reminder for members to keep it nice and civil. Work with the evidence and try to refrain from the ad homs mallprint: You know who you are :poke:

Now carry on gentlemen.

[Dawn Meredith]

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.

Jim: This post has been reported. Please do not insult our members.
I for one did not think this post reflected a "lack of qualifications".
If you treated your students in this fashion I think you'd soon have no students.
We can disagree on the evidence with out resorting to breaking the rules here.
Thank you for your anticipated understanding,
Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

Just a friendly reminder for members to keep it nice and civil. Work with the evidence and try to refrain from the ad homs mallprint: You know who you are :poke:

Now carry on gentlemen.

Sorry, in the middle of finishing dinner, did not see this.
But please everyone refrain from name calling. We are all students
in the dark world of deep politics.

Dawn

[James H. Fetzer]

Has Josiah Thompson turned you into a brainless buffoon? I say that because the kind of cheap, petty and thoughtless attacks issuing from you now are vintage Tink. Have you given any of this any real thought? For you to become a Thompson clone is sad. Did you miss the memo that, in describing him as "the mastermind", I was not impling that Lyndon was moping the floors or counting the paperclips? Like missing the point that, if they were Bulova officials, they were certainly not acting liking Bulova officials. Perhaps I need to remind you of the nature of complex, compartmentalized covert ops.

I really wonder about your conception of "original research". I went back over Shane's exceptional spade work, reviewed Morley, Talbot, and your earlier work and discovered that the three of you had missed the boat, big time! So I corrected the historical record. Since I was clearly more painstaking and thorough in my assessment of the available evidence than were Morley and Talbot, on the one hand, and you on the other, if I had not taken up the task, other researchers might mistakenly continue to this day to suppose that you and they had done it right.

But you were wrong--all three of you! Since you apparently want to persist in holding beliefs that are false or at least unjustifiable about the CIA at the Ambassador, perhaps my study is even more of a litmus test of our relative research competence than even I had originally surmised. I invite anyone who wants to compare our respective degrees of competence to read "RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador" and to appreciate that, EVEN AFTER I HAVE EXPLAINED HIS MISTAKES IN PRINT, he still persists in clinging to those beliefs.

Another demonstration of his incompetence in research is his wholesale dismissal of what Madeleine, Billy Sol, E. Howard Hunt and even Barr McClellan have to tell us about the character and personality of Lyndon Baines Johnson. They are among those who knew him best. The fact that it may be subtle and complex to fit the pieces together based upon everything else we know about the case, this is a nice example of tossing out the baby with the bathwater, on a par with Chamber's blunder in dismissing the medical evidence because he doesn't understand it.

If anyone thinks the plot could have gone forward without Lyndon's participation, they are kidding themselves. Only he was in the position to guarantee that the government would neither pursue nor punish those who were involved in the assassination. LBJ was much smarter than you, of course, Jim, and even had staged conversations with Edgar, who had trouble following the script. Having Joe Alsop "suggest" a commission was on a par with having one op cite the work of another. It gave him another form of cover.

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.

[James H. Fetzer]

For what reason was it "reported"? That was about as mild a post as this thread
has seen. He said he was deferring to Jefferson Morley. Since my reinvestigation
has shown that Morley--and Talbot and DiEugenio--were wrong, how can it possibly
be right to encourage him to follow an authority whose conclusions were mistaken?

Jim: This post has been reported. Please do not insult our members.
I for one did not think this post reflected a "lack of qualifications".
If you treated your students in this fashion I think you'd soon have no students.
We can disagree on the evidence with out resorting to breaking the rules here.
Thank you for your anticipated understanding,
Dawn

[James H. Fetzer]

Dawn, just for the record, Charles has issued more insults (of me and of Phil Nelson)
than I have ever witnessed on this forum since I joined. A plea for even-handedness!

Sorry, in the middle of finishing dinner, did not see this.
But please everyone refrain from name calling. We are all students
in the dark world of deep politics.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

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.

Not a chance, Jim. Not a chance in hell. I'd sooner reply to "Colby" and Burton and Bronstein.

Your "reassurance" is of no concern to me whatsoever. Clearly you do not take me at my word. You are implicitly calling me a liar.

And in the post directly above, you have the unmitigated gall to take umbrage at the "fact" that I've disparaged you!

I'm sure the unholy alliance of "Colby" and Burton and Bronstein are wetting themselves over this one. Can't you just see their EF posts tomorrow: "Even Fetzer knows Drago is a liar!"

Congratulations, Jim. You're making our enemy very, very happy.

I'm going to try to find a way to salvage our friendship -- one that somehow can get me around the inescapable reality of your inference.

Until then, you get Nelson and Morrow.

Charles

[Robert Morrow]

And Robert Morrow, Gregory Burnham, Gil Jesus, Jack White and a host of other experts as yet unnamed.

I went to a JFK presentation of Jim Marrs last year (2010). He said he would reveal who murdered John Kennedy. At the end of his presentation, he showed 2 pictures of the JFK killers: Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover, both of whom he called "Accessories after the fact" in the murder of John Kennedy.

Granted, Jim Marrs is using the post-assassination behavior (the cover up) of Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover to pin blame on them for the JFK assassination. I think everyone would agree that LBJ's and Hoover's post assassination cover up was highly criminal.

And for people who are covering up that hard, that fast, that enthusiasically, that immediately ... it should really make you think about the likelihood of their PARTICIPATION in the the JFK murder.

Jim Marrs is yet ANOTHER person who thinks that LBJ's fave mistress of 21 years, Madeleine Duncan Brown, is a highly credible person. As for me, I don't believe EVERYTHING Madeleine says, but on the big ticket items of LBJ's foreknowledge and his statements on 12/31/63 that it was Texas oil and the CIA who murdered John Kennedy ... I think that is golden.

Jim Marrs, I think, would agree to. I have found that the folks who had close contact with Madeleine - people like Ed Tatro, Jim Marrs, James Fetzer, Casey Quindlan, Constance Kritzberg - people who have interviewed or talked with her 30+ times, these folks tend to give her credence.

I do as well, though I never met her. Apparently, she was a sweet lady.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Jim:

I don't if you realize the hole you are digging for yourself. Just like with Baker, there are people reading this thread as lurkers. They see that you are using cheap invective towards me, like calling me a buffoon. And for some off the wall reason comparing me with Tink Thompson. What that means, I do not know.

Bottom line on your work on the Ambassador: You did not do any original work on that. All you did was recycle the work of others, and then you put your spin on it. You did not even include any photos. I mean the photo in Shane's book of Johannides is simply devastating to your argument. Since no on can look at that and say the guy in the films is him. Therefore, its Owens. And if its Owens, then its Roman. And that is it for your argument.

Concerning LBJ and the conspiracy, you did not answer any of my points that I listed. Repeat: the plot to manipulate Oswald before the murder did not need LBJ. The cover up afterward did not fully rely upon him. The actual mechanics of the cover up were done by Hoover and the Troika on the WC i.e. Ford, McCloy and Dulles. We have that very clear now. I mean Hoover was at the race track on Saturday. He took calls there on their phone. According to Tony Summers, the case was essentially closed in 24 hours by the FBI. ANd Hoover needed no urging to go along with the cover up. We know that through the phone calls he made to RFK informing him of his brother's death. Which took place before LBJ ever got back to Washington.

Nelson's book was terribly misconcieved. In addition to that he used some very bad sources like McClellan and Hersh.

You made a mistake Jim. Just like you did with Baker.