Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[Jim DiEugenio]

SO much for Worthington:

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/s...6f&k=78369

After this story came out, there was a clamp down on the denials. In fact the mother was placed under wraps.

Morrow still does not understand in the least the uses of psych warfare.

Recall the so called photo of JFK at a yacht party with scantily clad girls in Huffpo?

THat hoax lasted about seven hours.

This one lasted about seven days.

[David Sellers]

One thing that should not be forgotten is George H. W. Bush had extensive ties to the anti-Castro community. These would go through to the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals. I think many feel anti-Castro people were involved in the JFK assassination in some way.

"Bush was working with the now-famous CIA agent, Felix Rodriguez, recruiting right-wing Cuban exiles for the invasion of Cuba. It was Bush's CIA job to organize the Cuban community in Miami for the invasion.... A newly discovered FBI document reveals that George Bush was directly involved in the 1963 murder of President John Kennedy. The document places marksmen by the CIA. Bush at that time lived in Texas. Hopping from Houston to Miami weekly, Bush spent 1960 and '61 recruiting Cubans in Miami for the invasion....

"George Bush claims he never worked for the CIA until he was appointed Director by former Warren Commission director and then president Jerry Ford in 1976. Logic suggests that is highly unlikely. Of course, Bush has a company duty to deny being in the CIA. The CIA is a secret organization. No one ever admits to being a member. The truth is that Bush has been a top CIA official since before the 1961 invasion of Cuba, working with Felix Rodriguez. Bush may deny his actual role in the CIA in 1959, but there are records in the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba that expose Bush's role..." -- The Realist (Summer, 1991)

[Robert Morrow]

SO much for Worthington:

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/s...6f&k=78369

After this story came out, there was a clamp down on the denials. In fact the mother was placed under wraps.

Morrow still does not understand in the least the uses of psych warfare.

Recall the so called photo of JFK at a yacht party with scantily clad girls in Huffpo?

THat hoax lasted about seven hours.

This one lasted about seven days.

Jim, you are wrong. I just got off the phone with DOUG CADDY, who was the lawyer for Jack Worthington. You ought to give him a PM on this issue over at Education Forum.

In my opinion that odds are 99% that Jack Worthington IS the son of John Kennedy. Do you believe everything you read in the paper? That "denial" is really just an embarassed mother denying it in her old age.

Worthington's mother is old Southern lady and does not want to deal with the embarassment of 1) having an affair with John Kennedy and 2) being the MOTHER of another one of his sons.

So that "family denial" does not mean squat. Worthington's mother was approached by Vanity Fair before the article ran to comment. She refused to speak to the reporter when she could have easily issued a denial then. It was only AFTER the Vanity Fair article on Worthington ran, that she issued this statement in an attempt to salvage her reputation.

Worthington is the SPITTING IMAGE of John Kennedy and he was TOLD by his now embarassed and now publicly lying mother that he was JFK's son back in the 1980's. (Reminds me of Jackie and Robert Kennedy pretending to support the Warren Commission farce for public consumption.)

#2 As for Bill Clinton's extremely well documented and completely out of control sex life... you may be the ONLY person in the country (in 2010) defending him and denying the reality of Bill Clinton's sexual addiction. I can understand being fooled in 1992 like I personally was, but in 2010 you would have to be deaf and blind to not know of Bill Clinton's gargantuan sexual appetite and addiction. You could fill a high school gym will all the women Bill Clinton has screwed. Larry Nichols "list" should have been about a 100, not five women.

#3 Two words for you: EVELYN LINCOLN, JFK's personal secretary for 11+ years. Is she some sort of CIA slut, too? Evelyn Lincoln explicitly says that Lyndon Johnson and Hoover were using sexual blackmail to get LBJ on the 1960 Democratic ticket. Obviously, John Kennedy had a gargantuan and out of control sexual appetite. Way too many sources on this topic to be denied.

When it comes to JFK's and Bill Clinton's sex lives, it is not a "smear" if its the ugly truth. The CIA and the Kennedy haters revel in exposing Kennedy's sexual escapades. Why is that? Because they can't tell you that they murdered him for 1) Cuba 2) Vietnam 3) detente with Russia 4) personal/political immolation of Lyndon Johnson.

So they talk about the sex lives as diversionary tactics.

I prefer to deal with reality, even if it is the ugly reality.

[David Guyatt]

Robert, I believe the other post you made at the EF stated this:

Again, don't worry about me. I specialize in vicious, nasty - but fact based - personal attacks and vituperation. So if you catch me on an unmoderated board, that is a very dangerous place to engage me. Because that is when the brass knuckles, nunchucks, and baseball bats come out.

When it comes to nasty, below the belt, vicious, relentless and no-holds-barred internet warfare, there is NO ONE better than me. You have no idea how many internet bullies and punks I have laid to waste. I don't start the fight and personal attacks, but I damn sure finish them.

That obnoxious (and very undisciplined) guy over at DPF? Nothing. I could eat him for breakfast and burp him out as a fart bubble.

Obnoxious and undisciplined guy at the DPF and fart bubbles?

A self appraisal perhaps?

Anyway, joshing aside, I believe you'll enjoy your time at the Swamp. There will be some genuine friendships made there.

Shared values and all that.

Have fun.

And as an old martial artist instructor myself, it is always wise to remember that nunchaku's often behave badly in the hands of the poorly instructed. They have a way of hitting the one wielding them. It's to do with a lack of control, overuse of energy, and an improper balance -physical and mental.

Bruisers become the bruised.

But then I suspect you already know that.

[James H. Fetzer]

David,

I just don't get it. When I read these posts--and I haven't read a lot lately, having
lulled into the belief that this exchange had largely run its course--I find Robert to
be far more professional and appropriate than most of his critics. He is advancing
lots of arguments and evidence and not trading in ad hominems and insults, which
cannot be said of many of his critics, some of whom have disappointed me greatly.

And for someone like DiEugeino, who understands neither the medical evidence nor
the photographic and film, to strut around as though he is the "vet" and Morrow is
the "newbie" just doesn't cut it for me. Robert Morrow and Phillip Nelson have been
exemplary, in my opinion, while those attacking them have not. No doubt, I've made
my own contributions toward incivility here, but this has not been a positive exchange.

If your reference to "The Swamp" is meant to denigrate the EF, I must say that the
experience I have had here on this thread has caused me more anguish and concern
than any I have endured on any thread in my life of exchange as a member of any
forum. The veneer that DPF used to possess as a venue for the civilized exchange of
diverse opinions has been permanently tarnished. It was only a veneer, sad to say.

There are many good people here and some of you have been thoughtful in response
to what Phil and Robert and I have had to say. I don't think any of the three of us or
others who may have initially spoken in support of Lyndon's pivotal role in the killing
of JFK were over the edge, although I tend to respond in kind when I am attacked. I
stand with Robert and with Phil, just in case there is any doubt. I admire them both.

Jim

Robert, I believe the other post you made at the EF stated this:

Again, don't worry about me. I specialize in vicious, nasty - but fact based - personal attacks and vituperation. So if you catch me on an unmoderated board, that is a very dangerous place to engage me. Because that is when the brass knuckles, nunchucks, and baseball bats come out.

When it comes to nasty, below the belt, vicious, relentless and no-holds-barred internet warfare, there is NO ONE better than me. You have no idea how many internet bullies and punks I have laid to waste. I don't start the fight and personal attacks, but I damn sure finish them.

That obnoxious (and very undisciplined) guy over at DPF? Nothing. I could eat him for breakfast and burp him out as a fart bubble.

Obnoxious and undisciplined guy at the DPF and fart bubbles?

A self appraisal perhaps?

Anyway, joshing aside, I believe you'll enjoy your time at the Swamp. There will be some genuine friendships made there.

Shared values and all that.

Have fun.

And as an old martial artist instructor myself, it is always wise to remember that nunchaku's often behave badly in the hands of the poorly instructed. They have a way of hitting the one wielding them. It's to do with a lack of control, overuse of energy, and an improper balance -physical and mental.

Bruisers become the bruised.

But then I suspect you already know that.

[David Guyatt]

Jim, with great respect I disagree about your conclusions and judgement in this particular matter.

I speak for no one apart from myself in this regard, but I do not find Robert to be either professional or enlightening, nor particularly knowledgeable.

Not least, a complaint has been received about him and has been considered and a judgement made. It is the lot of those who run forums to everlastingly try to balance the diversity of opinion. It's not always easy, or comfortable a role. And inevitably there are those who will be upset and those who will not be upset, with any judgement reached. A fine line has to be trod. We take that role and our custodianship of this forum seriously. That is one reason we will never allow advertising here. That is why we dig into our own pockets each year to ensure the forum remains uncontaminated by any form of commercialism.

Do we get it right every time? No. But I think we get it right more often than not.

I'm genuinely sorry for any poor experiences you've had here Jim. The passion of dearly held beliefs often colour our judgements, I think. This is simply a fact of human nature.

It will not, therefore, surprise you at all to hear that I fundamentally and utterly disagree about your view about veneer. Judgements made in the bloody heat of battle are often the poorest judgements a man ever makes.

I admire you, Jim, especially for all the good work you did on 911.

David

[James H. Fetzer]

David,

I'm not going to archive the arguments presented on this forum, but were i to
make a guess, I would suggest that you would find that those from Phil Nelson,
Robert Morrow, and me were 90% logic and evidence, while the reverse would
be the approximate standard for those who have been so critical of our position.

That such a to-do would be made over the use of the term "mastermind" and
that it would be rebutted by exaggerating the scope and detail of control that
someone would have to have to qualify while concurrently minimizing Lyndon's
astounding capacity for manipulating others for his own benefit dumbfounds me.

The DiEguenio list of activities by Oswald he would have had to have controlled
to qualify as the "mastermind" is quite simply absurd. He had the CIA and Joint
Chiefs on his side. They did their part and he did his. And to suggest anything I
argue "must be true because i say it is true" is grossly untrue and quite insulting.

My life has been dedicated to logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning. When
I observe one fallacious argument compounded with another--one straw man with
another ad hominem and special pleading ad nauseam--I am forced to conclude an
agenda other than truth is dominating the discussion. It most assuredly has been.

I am sorry. I really did not expect this. I thought this forum would be a good place
to discuss Phil's book, which I greatly admire. I believe it is one of the best books
on the assassination and the perfect complement to JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE.
I am not going to continue to argue the case, but I am quite disillusioned with DPF.

Thanks for even bothering to care. Concern of that caliber seems rather rare here.

Jim

Jim, with great respect I disagree about your conclusions and judgement in this particular matter.

I speak for no one apart from myself in this regard, but I do not find Robert to be either professional or enlightening, nor particularly knowledgeable.

Not least, a complaint has been received about him and has been considered and a judgement made. It is the lot of those who run forums to everlastingly try to balance the diversity of opinion. It's not always easy, or comfortable a role. And inevitably there are those who will be upset and those who will not be upset, with any judgement reached. A fine line has to be trod. We take that role and our custodianship of this forum seriously. That is one reason we will never allow advertising here. That is why we dig into our own pockets each year to ensure the forum remains uncontaminated by any form of commercialism.

Do we get it right every time? No. But I think we get it right more often than not.

I'm genuinely sorry for any poor experiences you've had here Jim. The passion of dearly held beliefs often colour our judgements, I think. This is simply a fact of human nature.

It will not, therefore, surprise you at all to hear that I fundamentally and utterly disagree about your view about veneer. Judgements made in the bloody heat of battle are often the poorest judgements a man ever makes.

I admire you, Jim, especially for all the good work you did on 911.

David

[David Guyatt]

Jim, I don't usually enter the JFK folder because it is a subject I freely admit having no real knowledge of, or interest in.

But I came and watched. And saw.

And you must certainly know that much goes on behind the scenes that does not, and should not appear on the surface.

In the light of this I think it is wrong of you to make these judgements. Especially after these last past few very trying weeks, where an 18-hour day was not unusual for all of us founders and owners. And when other people were enjoying their deserved Christmas rest with their families, we were saving this forum from complete and utter destruction, so that you and other members could continue to post and yes, disagree with us -- over 5000 threads, tens of thousands of hours of effort, over 300 members posts (yours included) and God knows how many hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of words etched here. Some highly original and irreplaceable.

And the bottom line is that we are only humans too. We make mistakes and errors of judgement, and later live to regret them.

It's just that I disagree with your judgement in this case. But then we are both big enough, old enough and ugly enough to agree to disagree. We've earned that right.

But I do understand why you make your judgement and the fact that you were hurt. It is often the case in discussion forums that people's feelings are not properly catered for - simply because the thrust is usually on rational, factual arguments. Plus the obvious fact that we men usually are so shit poor at our feelings, that it's embarrassing. Or rather "they" embarrass us.

We all tend to want to replicate "Macho man", as per the Steve Miller Band track.

You'll never get everyone to agree with your perspective, and I'll never get anyone to agree with mine either.

Let's just accept that fact and move on, okay?

In friendship Jim.

David

[Magda Hassan]

Jack Worthington is the SON of John Kennedy and his mother was one of the girls that Lyndon Johnson provided for John Kennedy. I am sure there are clueless people on this board who will deny that: http://www.google.com/search?q=Jack+wort...Box&ie=&oe=

The science does not support this. There is no DNA support for this statement. His mother may or may not have had an affair with JFK but he is not JFK's son.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Very simple question for the former professor:

Is it good scholarhsip for an author to lie about who wrote an article in the Times to disguise the CIA allegainces of a reporter?

That is what Nelson did.

IF Fetzer will condone that, he will condone anything.