Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[Phillip F. Nelson]

You got me, Nelson.

I am the illegitimate son of Lyndon Baines Johnson and Priscilla Johnson McMillan, and I commend you on ferreting out our "deeply hidden secrets and ulterior motives."

I just left LBJ's cryogenically preserved head after a lengthy meditation.

(Yes, we've frozen the mastermind's mind in anticipation of the day he can return to consciousness and take his rightful place in atop the pantheon of James Bond villains -- "the most evil and brilliant" of them all!)

It has been decided: Let's come out of the closet and celebrate the truth as you've discovered it.

LYNDON WAS THE MASTERMIND!

The heirs of Richard Nixon and Thomas Jefferson, I understand, are expressing their dismay at your characterization of LBJ as our "most evil and brilliant" president. But I say, Screw 'em! When you're right, you're right!

All of us at the ranch thank you for honoring our fallen -- but not for long -- leader.

But if it's not asking too much, would you do us one more favor?

Please show a cynical world how LBJ was the mastermind of the MLK and RFK hits. I mean, in your own words, "who else" could have done them in?

Thanking you in advance,

Charles "Gentleman Bird" Drago

Thank you Charles. Very profound. Clearly one of your better posts. I'll get to the MLK and RFK hits in my next book; watch for it in 2013.


Jim, he may have cited the reference to the news item in his book, but the actual news article which he wrote that it referred to was dated August 25, 1970. Hersh wrote it, look it up. He "owned" that story throughout that period.

You are (intentionally?) misinterpreting the "long quote" from his book. Again, it says,

"There was no conspiracy to destroy the village of My Lai 4; what took place there had happened before and would hapen again in Quang Ngai province--although with less than drastic results. The desire of Lt. Colonel Barker to mount another successful, high enemy body count operation in the area. The desire of Ramsdell to demonstrate the effectiveness of his operations, the belief shared by all the principals that everyone living in Son My was staying there by choice because of communists....And the basic incompetence of many intelligence personnel in the Army--all those factors combined to enable a group of ambitious men to mount an unnecessary mission against a nonexistent enemy force, and somehow to find the evidence to justify it all."

This is a poignant reflection of the horror that was going on, not a rejection of "Phoenix" involvement. He isn't "trying to have it both ways" -- what he is saying here is that this particular highly violent operation wasn't part of the original campaign, yet it was the inevitable but unplanned result of the campaign; that the "principals" became so caught up in the general ramp up of violence that they took it to still another level of destruction.
.
When I read that line ". . .another successful, high enemy body count operation in the area. . ." it evoked the recollection that this was the ultimate manifestation of (guess whose) repeated instructions to his military leaders: "Kill more Viet Cong, we need bigger body counts". Yes, this operation in March, 1968 (the same month "you know who" announced that he was not going to re-run for the presidency that year) was the extended, ultimate and inevitable result of his pleas for "more dead Viet Cong".

The wrong man was arrested for war crimes.

Have at it. . .I am really going to disappear now for a few weeks. You're Welcome, Charles.

[Charles Drago]

Have at it. . .I am really going to disappear now for a few weeks. You're Welcome, Charles.

Say hi to the Owl for me.

[Robert Morrow]

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.

[quote=Charles Drago]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?

Another great book is Defrauding America by the legendary whistleblower Rodney Stich:

There is a passage in there that fits very nice with the Noel Twymann thesis of multuple groups of LBJ/CIA/FBI military ganging up on Lyndon Johnson. I HIGHLY encourage folks to get this book and read about what former CIA Pegasus agents Trenton Parker and Chip Tatum have to say:

From Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition 1998 p. 638-639]:

"The Role of deep-cover CIA officer, Trenton Parker, has been described in earlier pages, and his function in the CIA's counter-intelligence unit, Pegasus. Parker had stated to me earlier that a CIA faction was responsible for the murder of JFK … During an August 21, 1993, conversation, in response to my questions, Parker said that his Pegasus group had tape recordings of plans to assassinate Kennedy. I asked him, "What group were these tapes identifying?" Parker replied: "Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, Johnson of Texas, George Bush, and J. Edgar Hoover." I asked, "What was the nature of the conversation on these tapes?"

I don't have the tapes now, because all the tape recordings were turned over to [Congressman] Larry McDonald. But I listened to the tape recordings and there were conversations between Rockefeller, [J. Edgar] Hoover, where [Nelson] Rockefeller asks, "Are we going to have any problems?" And he said, "No, we aren't going to have any problems. I checked with Dulles. If they do their job we'll do our job." There are a whole bunch of tapes, because Hoover didn't realize that his phone has been tapped. Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition p. 638-639]:

Other highly revealing information comes from Madeleine Duncan Brown:


Madeleine Duncan Brown was a mistress of Lyndon Johnson for 21 years and had a son with him named Steven Mark Brown in 1950. Madeleine mixed with the Texas elite and had many trysts with Lyndon Johnson over the years, including one at the Driskill Hotel in Austin, TX, on New Year's Eve 12/31/63.
In the early morning of January 1, 1964, just 6 weeks after the JFK assassination, Madeleine asked Lyndon Johnson:
"Lyndon, you know that a lot of people believe you had something to do with President Kennedy's assassination."
He shot up out of bed and began pacing and waving his arms screaming like a madman. I was scared!
"That's bullshit, Madeleine Brown!" he yelled. "Don't tell me you believe that crap!"
"Of course not." I answered meekly, trying to cool his temper.
"It was Texas oil and those fucking renegade intelligence bastards in Washington." [said Lyndon Johnson, the new president.] [Texas in the Morning, p. 189] [LBJ told this to Madeleine in the late night of 12/31/63 in the Driskill Hotel, Austin, TX in room #254. They spent New Year's Eve 64 together here. Room #254 was the room that LBJ used to have rendevous' with his girlfriends today it is known as the LBJ Room, and rents for $600-1,000/night as a Presidential suite at the Driskill; located on the Mezzanine Level.]

[Robert Morrow]

Answer: because they were in on the JFK assassination together.

Why would the psychopathic, serial killer Lyndon Johnson be SO enthusiastic about Nelson Rockefeller for president in spring, 1968? Johnson as president was crumbling under the weight of Vietnam and his fears of exposure for his key role in the JFK assassination. Richard Goodwin and Bill Moyers both had separately gone to psychiatrists and described LBJ's very scary mental behavior and they came back with a "back of the envelop" diagnosis of a "paranoid in disintegration."

So why does the usurper traitor murderer Lyndon Johnson, this "paranoid in disintegration" feel SO comfortable with Nelson Rockefeller as the next president? Two reasons: 1) he knows Rockefeller will continue the cover up of the JFK assassination and 2) LBJ felt that Nelson Rockefeller was the candidate best positioned to beat his hated enemy Bobby Kennedy, whose campaign was surging to the lead of the Demo nomination. (Fast forward to 1975 and the Rockefeller Commission, with David Belin as executive director, and folks like Lyman Lemnitzer of Operation Northwoods fame on yet another JFK cover up committee)

Astoundingly, Republican Nelson Rockefeller was the TOP (behind the scenes) choice of

Democrat Lyndon Johnson in 1968!

From Robert Dallek's book Flawed Giant, pp. 544-545]

Lyndon Johnson's deep alliance with CIA and Eastern Establishment

"Johnson's choice as his successor was New York's Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller. The two men had a high regard for each other. Johnson saw Rockefeller as a sensible moderate who, in Lady Bird's words, "was a good human being, a person who was for the disadvantaged, who was a man of compassion, with a capable and effective mind, and capable of being effective, getting things done." He also believed that Rockefeller was the one man who could beat Bobby Kennedy, no small asset in Johnson's mind.

Rockefeller reciprocated Johnson's feelings. He saw the President as "a great statesman and great American patriot." Rockefeller said later: "He was a tremendous guy." They and their wives enjoyed a warm personal relationship. Nelson recalled how frank his wife Happy could be with Lyndon, telling him at the ranch not to drive so fast or drink too much. "She was successful in getting him to slow down, which I don't think most people were." …Toward the end of April [1968], Johnson invited the Rockefellers to the White House for dinner, where he urged the governor to declare for the Republican nomination. "He was very friendly about '68, and very supportive of me for '68," Rockefeller said. Johnson also told him he would never campaign against him. Happy Rockefeller remembered how during that evening Johnson urged Rockefeller to run. "He did want Nelson to be President," she said. Johnson encouraged others to back Rockefeller as well. On April 7, after Irwin Miller, a prominent member of "Republicans for Johnson" in 1964 had asked whether the president would object to his chairing a Draft Rockefeller Committee, LBJ have Miller "a full speed go-ahead."

Rockefeller did not need much prodding. On April 10, following a brief conversation with Johnson at New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral, where they attended Archbishop Terence Cooke's installation, Rockefeller announced his "availability" for the Republican nomination. On April 30, after the White House evening, Rockefeller declared himself a candidate for the presidency." [p. 545, A Flawed Giant, Robert Dallek]

[Robert Morrow]

Check out this link: http://www.thehiddenevil.com/cfr.asp Then scroll down to the table of "Best and Brightest" Vietnam advisors for the usurper traitor murderer Lyndon Johnson: ALL CFR MEN.

Nine of them all in a row: "Left to right: Andrew Goodpaster, Averell Harriman, Cyrus Vance, Maxwell Taylor, Walt Rostow, Richard Helms, William Bundy, Nicholas Katzenbach, Dean Rusk, President Johnson. Helms was not a CFR member at that time, but joined later."

The CFR, especially back then, was a TOOL of the Rockefeller family. So basically it is Rockefeller man Lyndon Johnson surrounded by all his CFR Rockefeller men. How many of those folks at that table, including LBJ, do you think were involved in the JFK assassination or involved in covering it up?

Almost all the key players under Lyndon Johnson were Council on Foreign Relations, a tool of the Rockefeller family. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34945.html Lyndon Johnson's so-called "wise men" on Vietnam: "Present at the White House meeting were Dean Acheson, George Ball, McGeorge Bundy, Clark Clifford, Arthur Dean, Douglas Dillon, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, Averell Harriman, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Robert Murphy, Cyrus Vance and Gens. Omar Bradley, Matthew Ridgway and Maxwell Taylor"

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34945.html#ixzz0tIjaNCiz

JOHN KENNEDY: NOT A PART OF THE NEW YORK ESTABLISHMENT, NOT PART OF CFR OR ROCKEFELLER TEAM:

NOW LOOK AT WHAT JOHN KENNEDY WAS NOT - tied into the Rockefellers, he was a RIVAL to Nelson Rockefeller ... Very key quote below by Schlesinger. In particular note how much the NY Times and CFR have lied about and covered up the Kennedy assassination for 50 years. Henry Kissinger was Nelson Rockefeller's closest foreign policy aide for many years.
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in his book on the Kennedy presidency, A Thousand Days, wrote that Kennedy was not part of what he called the "New York establishment":
"In particular, he was little acquainted with the New York financial and legal community-- that arsenal of talent which had so long furnished a steady supply of always orthodox and often able people to Democratic as well as Republican administrations. This community was the heart of the American Establishment. Its household deities were Henry Stimson and Elihu Root; its present leaders, Robert Lovett and John J. McCloy; its front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations; its organs, the New York Times and Foreign Affairs."[14]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_..._Relations

Now read this link about Lyndon Johnson, Birch Bayh putting in the 25th Amendment specifically for NELSON ROCKEFELLER! http://www.reformation.org/rockefeller-f...ident.html

[Dawn Meredith]

I am going to say this one time. Charles said he read the book. Period. He does not lie. So let's move on. WHen I see a post begin this way, basically calling CD a liar I stop reading. We all need to get past this argument. If LBJ killed JFK then who killed MKL and RFK? Case closed. CD and others have made their case, re-read their posts if you must and PLEASE people before you defend Sy Hersh, read Jim DiEugeniuo's article "The Posthumous Assassination of John F Kennedy". It's at CTKA online, and also in their- Jim with Lisa Pease- book "The Assassinations" .

This is not to say LBJ did not employ Mac Wallace for many killings. This is also not to say that LBJ was not in it up to his eyeballs- my opinion- but he was not a "power behind the power" . It was one thing to have Walace kill Henry Marshall, then later Tx Ranger Clint Peoples - among others- but JFK "mastermind". In his dreams.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

Why would the psychopathic, serial killer Lyndon Johnson be SO enthusiastic about Nelson Rockefeller for president in spring, 1968?

Morrow, each time you spew your unreasonable, unsupported-by-the-evidence drivel and as a consequence receive a sound intellectual beating, you raise your head and say, in essence, "Thank you, sir. May I have another."

Pucker up, sweetie, here it comes.

Look up the clinical definition of "serial killer" and apply it fairly to LBJ. Wait, don't bother. You can't.

Look up the clinical definition of "psychopath" and apply it fairly to LBJ. Wait, don't bother. You can't.

Johnson as president was crumbling under the weight of Vietnam and his fears of exposure for his key role in the JFK assassination. Richard Goodwin and Bill Moyers both had separately gone to psychiatrists and described LBJ's very scary mental behavior and they came back with a "back of the envelop" diagnosis of a "paranoid in disintegration."

So now it's diagnosis-by-proxy! How ... scientific of you. How ... scholarly of you.

So why does the usurper traitor murderer Lyndon Johnson, this "paranoid in disintegration" feel SO comfortable with Nelson Rockefeller as the next president?[sic]

Methinks the lady doth protest to much. "Usurper traitor murderer paranoid ... " My, those are big words. Are you sure you don't have crush on that Ten Gallon Galoot?

Of all of Jim Fetzer's failings as exhibited on this and the related thread, none is more disconcerting than this: He has characterized a person who, solely on the merits of that person's numerous posts on DPF, reveals himself to be a perilously underinformed, emotionally overwrought juvenile with minimal capacity for critical thinking as a "genius."

That would be you, Morrow.

Why?

Because you agree with Jim's positive assessment of the disinformation operation that is Phillip Nelson's "Mastermind" abomination.

Morrow, you've attempted to reduce this thread to the level of schoolyard rant. You offer nothing original, you make use of terms which, given the context of your usage, clearly are beyond your understanding, you parrot Nelson and Fetzer on cue, and you attempt to flood DPF with post after ludicruous post.

Like all children, you think that screaming your nonsense somehow makes it sensible.

I swear ... If I didn't know better, I'd say you were a trust fund baby with nothing but time on your hands.

Isn't Facebook more your speed? You know, that special place where cleavage trumps clever?

Charles Drago

[Robert Morrow]

Here is another good example of Lyndon Johnson's foreknowledge of the JFK assassination as well as his "hands on" participation in the details of it. Lyndon Johnson, before the Texas trip, was making seeming absurd demands such as (incredibly) having Jackie ride in HIS limo and not with John Kennedy (in the kill zone, which LBJ knew the CIA was organizing). LBJ would much rather have his progressive enemy Sen. Ralph Yarborough in the death limo than Jackie, who he was trying to space out of a misplaced sense of "honor" (which, of course LBJ had none).

Lyndon Johnson wanted JACKIE to ride in his car in Texas!! Source: Sen. George Smathers, a good friend of JFK (11/18/63 talk on Air Force 1)

**Lyndon did not want Jackie's brains to get blown out, too**

Sen. George Smathers, U.S. Congress 1946-1968:

"I came back to Washington with the President. He was lying down. They had a bed in the Air Force One for him to lie on. So he said, "Gee, I really hate to go to Texas. I got to go to Texas next week and it's just a pain in the rear end and I just don't want to go. I wish I could get out of it." And I said, "Well, what's the problem?" He said, "Well, you know how Lyndon is." Lyndon was Vice President. "Lyndon wants to ride with me, but John Connally is the governor and he wants to ride and I think that protocol says that he's supposed to ride and Johnson wants Jackie to ride with him." And Connally was, at that time, a little bit jealous of Lyndon and Lyndon was a little jealous of him, so it's all these fights were going on. He said, "I just don't want to go down in that mess. I hate to go. I wish I could think of a way to get out of it."

Transcript from PBS "American Experience - The Kennedys Part II - The Sons" available on line here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperien...ranscript/

about 1/2 way down the page on the transcript.

You can watch the George Smathers' clip here at PBS. It is at the 1 hour 44 minute 30 second mark:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperien...ys/player/

I asked a fellow JFK researcher: Does it seem funny that Lyndon Johnson would be asking to be in JFK's car if Lyndon knew that JFK was going to be slaughtered in a kill zone during the motorcade? The key point is that nothing that Lyndon Johnson ever did in his life justifies giving him "the benefit of the doubt." Precisely the opposite. And here was his reply:

Re: "But the part that puzzles me is Johnson wanting to ride with Kennedy."

JFK Researcher: I wouldn't worry about this at all, and here's why:

1. The Smather's on-camera statement was made decades later, so there has to be some allowance here for a slight jumbling in recollection and "re-transmission"
   
2. (and more important) :very likely, Lyndonwhen he talked to JFK about this-- dissembled (as he always seemed to do), beat around the bush, and very likely sent a confusing message to JFK, which, in the re-telling to Smathers, may have been jumbled (and/or misunderstood) ; and then we have (as noted in my point 1) the re-telling, by Smathers, to a camera, decades later.
   
   So this is a very interesting problem of separating "the signal from the noise" (as they say in information theory); and I think what is truly important is that Smathers remembers JFK complaining, on 11/18, and on a ride aboard AF-1 from Florida, that (a) he didn't want to go to Texas and (b) among the many problems he had to deal with was this business of LBJ wanting Jackie to ride with him.
   
   This interview by Smathers provides really excellent "first hand" evidence of the extent to which JFK was being personally lobbied, by his own Vice President, on matters pertaining to the Texas tripi.e., on getting him to go there (to Texas, AND to Dallas) in the first place; and then to the extent of the actual configuration of which car she would ride in, in the Dallas motorcade (!). If it weren't for Smathers, all we'd have is the mealy-mouthed cop-out language of Sorensen, and others like him.
   
   3. Also, please do note the logical problem if LBJ really wanted to ride with JFK: IF that little snippet of a quote were to be taken seriously (and I do not take it seriously), then the actual configuration (i.e. Car-seating) would be that Lyndon Johnson would want to be in the same car as JFK, so if that were to be sothen how could it then be that LBJ "wanted Jackie to ride with him"? The phrase "ride with him" implies separate cars. Clearly.
   
   And, finally, for the same reason that the President and the vice President do NOT ever fly on the same aircraft, I am positive thatjust on those grounds aloneit would be a complete violation of security for the President and the Vice Presient to appear in an open car together.
   
   So my appraisal of this "re-transmission" (by Smathers) of what he heard JFK saying, is that: (a) Lyndon was making a bunch of noise, complaining about this and that; and (b) buried in that "noise" was his real message; and that his real message was that he, as a "galaant" Texas, wanted the President's wife to ride with him. I think that the rest of what Smathers heardor thinks he heard, and then re-transmitted, in this interviewis simply false.
   
   And again, let me repeat my reasons for saying so. . .
   
   Because:
   
   (1) Common sense rules out that the Pres and the Vice Pres would ride in the same limo. (Ever).
   
   (2) IF LBJ really wanted "to ride with JFK," then his request that he wanted Jackie "to ride with him" would make no logical sense.
   
   OK. . . Those are my beliefs about this remarkable little piece of information.
   
   First of all; I think its valid; and secondly, it shows what a sneaky bastard LBJ wasto try to actually lobby the President so that he would not have his wife within inches, and it would make him an easier target.
   
   Of coursehad LBJ succeeded in this gambit, he would have to have had a lot of explaining to do afterwards, to credibly explain why Jackie was not seated next to her husband, in Dallas, as she obviously was in other cities.
   

[Charles Drago]

"Thank you, sir. May I have another?"

[David Sellers]

Thank you, Mr. Sellers.

I would submit to you the argument that IS worth making: To elevate falsely LBJ or anyone else to a Sponsor role in the JFK assassination is to protect the true Sponsors, prolong the coverup, open the serious, honorable critical community to ridicule, and further Balkanize that already fractured community.

Best,

Charles

I agree with you 100% Mr. Drago and Mr. Vincent Salandria said the same thing many years ago about the endless disputes over the basic evidence. He said this was a waste of time as we know JFK was killed by conspiracy, but still most people spend all their time on this piece of evidence or that piece of evidence.

Thank you for your reply to my post!