Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[David Guyatt]

Blimey Bernice, you've nailed me!

I was the one who"sat" for that picture. And then got up and goed...:wavey:

I very much enjoyed Pete Seeger's ditty. Thank you.

[Jan Klimkowski]

I will add the following.

Where a hypothesis, an interpretation of the evidence, is presented it is surely legitimate to examine the nature and source of the evidence upon which the hypothesis relies.

If it is based on the testimony of an individual who claims to have witnessed, or been privy to a historical incident, then it is necessary to look at the veracity of that person's evidence across time and space. What corroborating material has been found to support their claims? Has that person ever been shown to have lied or fabricated material? Has that person been proven correct in their claims by material which has come to light after they made the original assertion?

Similarly, where a reporter or journalist is the channel through which historical claims enter the public domain, and the articles or books of that reporter then become the "source" of factual claims made in the hypothesis being proposed - in this case by Philip Nelson - then it is entirely legitimate to return to the original source and examine it for its evidential and factual basis.

By analogy, Bob Woodward is still held up in many circles as the doyen of investigative journalism. Examining the evidence, through time and space, it is entirely possible to consider Woodward as an approved mockingbird channel used to mislead or divert investigators from the truth. All the President's Men now, unfortunately, appears to be a grand lie and deception (through no fault of Pakula.)

In short, it is incumbent upon all researchers and authors to examine critically the stuff of their working hypothesis, acknowledge any ambiguities or problems, and - if appropriate - revise their judgements in the light of information they were previously unaware of.

The strength of this thread has been its critical examination of the hypothesis proposed by Mr Nelson, and of the facts, testimony and sources upon which it is built.

Fine points have been made by all sides in this process.

The weakness of this thread has been the personal invective and insults occasionally thrown around, which have detracted from the importance of the examination of the evidence and the hypothesis.

[Kenneth Kapel]

Over at The Educational Forum Mr. Morrow is thrashing JFK & liberals, of course trashing liberals is something that the alleged liberal media does on a daily basis.

[Dawn Meredith]

Over at The Educational Forum Mr. Morrow is thrashing JFK & liberals, of course trashing liberals is something that the alleged liberal media does on a daily basis.

And on one of his facebook pages he has posted an article that refers to JFK as "pond scum". A real charmer. He CLAIMS to have read JFK and the Unspeakable but his behavior belies that.

"Liberal media": an oxymoran.

Dawn

[Jim DiEugenio]

[quote=James H. Fetzer]David,



I could not believe the ferocity of the reception to Phillip Nelson for having published
a book! I found it to be well-research, beautifully written, and ultimately convincing.


Fetzer cannot believe that others could disagree with him and even explain why.

He was the most fascinating individual ever astride the American political stage for
the reason that he had so many powerful tendencies, both for good and for evil. I
have explained all of this before and find it astonishing that anyone, at this stage of
debate, would still fail to appreciate his extraordinary capacity to manipulate events.

Show me one time when LBJ was ever in charge of something as superhumanly complex and multilayered as the murder of President Kennedy. A plot we are still figuring out 47 years later.

Those who have disappointed me the most, no doubt, are Charles and DiEugenio. If
he had only read the book, Charles would have made more rational and less strident
attacks,

What is your evidence for saying CD is a liar? He says he did read the book.

DiEugenio has displayed his penchant for the straw man, the ad hominem, and the
selective use of evidence. His attacks upon Hersh as a "CIA slut" are disgusting in
relation to the man who broke the My Lai massacre, the Phoenix program, and later
Dick Cheney's executive assassination ring. He deserves praise, not condemnation.

One of the truly misleading statements about a CIA asset I have ever seen. Hersh never uncovered Phoenix. He covered it up for three years. It was Calley's lawyers who began to surface Phoenix, undeniably tipped off by Calley who was in danger of a long prison term. Show me the evidence for the Cheney assassination ring. More of Hersh's CIA sources?

DiEugenio likes to find something--it could be anything--that he can convert into a
tool of attack. His latest intellectual atrocity is to alleged that Phil is "a liar" when
he asserts something he obviously believes to be true, again displaying a stunning
incapacity to separate saying something that might be false from real acts of lying.

Talk about sitting with your back to the mirror. Does Fetzer even realize that he is saying anymore? He just accused CD of being a liar with no evidence.

When I accused Nelson of prevarication, it was because he had said the following: "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."

Does Fetzer understand English? Nelson is saying Hersh wrote the NY Times article Valentine references in his book. He then writes that this is a fait accompli, and challenges me to look it up. The clear implication being that he KNOWS Hersh wrote it, since he already saw it.

This was a bluff as I later exposed since I did look up the article which does not have Hersh's name on it but is a UPI release. How else does one interpret this if not a deception? .

I don't think he has bothered to read my posts or his would not still be so highly
repetitive and non-responsive. I doubt that Phil is mistaken in his claims, but even
if he were, unless he was making an assertion he knows to be false with the intent
of misleading his audience, he cannot be lying. DiEugenio is conceptually confused.

No I am not. I did the homework since I knew CIA asset Hersh would never uncover Phoenix on his own. You are indulging in CYA for both yourself and Nelson. Why you never looked up that article yourself should be puzzling to everyone.

[Bernice Moore]

Blimey Bernice, you've nailed me!

I was the one who"sat" for that picture. And then got up and goed...:wavey:

I very much enjoyed Pete Seeger's ditty. Thank you.

your very welcome, his ditty is one of my all time favorites...take care b..

[Morgan Reynolds]

I've read this thread, Philip F. Nelson's book and Barr McClellan's, trying to discover if LBJ is the key to the JFK assassination conspiracy. How good is the case against LBJ? Nelson makes a remarkably compelling case, though he errs badly on Lee Harvey Oswald I believe. But put that aside for now, Nelson makes a far more powerful and systematic case than McClellan made in 2003. McClellan adds to our knowledge about Ed Clark, LBJ's "fixer" power broker, thereby filling in a lot of the Texas picture with his insider knowledge, but it is weak on the national connections that were necessary and proven to have pulled off the assassination and cover it up. In the best tradition of science, Nelson followed the stimulating lead of McClellan and other accusers of LBJ and assembled a strong case with evidence like Connally (almost certainly duped) and LBJ staffers manipulating the motorcade and promoting a Secret Service stand down.

The vice president should always be the highest ranked suspect in a presidential assassination based on motive alone. Remember Shakespeare's favorite material? And LBJ had motive in spades: his lifetime ambition was to become president, last chance, he was about to go down in the Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes scandals, and likely more of his crimes would be "outed," knew he was off the ticket in 1964, hated the Kennedys, etc., etc. None of these facts directly undermine propositions about the shadow government, powers-that-be, etc., but individuals in direct positions of government power matter big-time, not just those with indirect power; inside vs. outside.

How about ruthlessness? No question there, we have overwhelming evidence of insatiable greed for power and money (sex too of course) pursued by any and all means.
Skill in personal manipulation? Unexcelled.
Intensity? Oh yes.
Connections? Unexcelled: Congress, Executive, national security state, Big Oil, even eastern finance and the judiciary. Hard to top LBJ.

What about LBJ's intelligence? That is a key in this whole acrimonious debate. I say, yes, LBJ was intelligent enough to be the mastermind, if we stick with Nelson's strong subtitle. It's a mistake to dismiss someone as "dumb" because he never read a book, cannot debate abstract ideas or solve complex problems. Look at LBJ's body of work: born in humble circumstance, this psychopath rose to the top by cunning, lies and murder. Has anyone ever advanced more rapidly in the U.S. Senate or dominated it like LBJ did? Or accumulated a bigger personal fortune via corruption as an elected federal official? I can't name one. In any event, his "accomplishments" are gargantuan.

The exact meaning of intelligence is still debated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
but LBJ was incredibly "street smart," a kind of perverse genius. He was the kind of guy who could be dropped at the door of the college in San Marcos, as Nelson describes, or Congress or any other organization and quickly figure out right away who to "zoom" or who to steamroll and get to the top in pretty rapid order. No, LBJ wouldn't be the mastermind in the sense of drawing up a complex plan and executing all or most of its details, but he would be smart enough to enlist and persuade the right "experts" in "taking out the trash," as hired killers express it. If it needed proving, LBJ knew people and could go for the jugular, as Nelson proves. And given all we know about the background, e.g., JFK and the Unspeakable, the VP had a nearly perfect recruiting environment to work in (plot). Oh, could someone like Allen Dulles first mention the whole idea in coded language to LBJ, and thereby be the initiator? Possible, but far more likely LBJ, I'd say.

LBJ was intelligent in the sense of this definition of intelligence:
Sternberg & Salter Goal-directed adaptive behavior.[9] Reuven Feuerstein The theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability describes intelligence as "the unique propensity of human beings to change or modify the structure of their cognitive functioning to adapt to the changing demands of a life situation."[10]

LBJ was "goal directed" and "adaptive." But given all the heat over the term "mastermind," I'd say "catalyst" might be easier to defend with the same powerful evidence Nelson assembled and stimulate less heat and obfuscation. Nelson relies on the work by hundreds of research predecessors and with gracious acknowledgement. That is admirable, yet he takes incredible "incoming." How about LBJ as the "sine qua non," or did Jack Ruby use those exact words!? A rose by any other name...won't help at this stage, I guess. Oh my.

[Robert Morrow]

I've read this thread, Philip F. Nelson's book and Barr McClellan's, trying to discover if LBJ is the key to the JFK assassination conspiracy. How good is the case against LBJ? Nelson makes a remarkably compelling case, though he errs badly on Lee Harvey Oswald I believe. But put that aside for now, Nelson makes a far more powerful and systematic case than McClellan made in 2003. McClellan adds to our knowledge about Ed Clark, LBJ's "fixer" power broker, thereby filling in a lot of the Texas picture with his insider knowledge, but it is weak on the national connections that were necessary and proven to have pulled off the assassination and cover it up. In the best tradition of science, Nelson followed the stimulating lead of McClellan and other accusers of LBJ and assembled a strong case with evidence like Connally (almost certainly duped) and LBJ staffers manipulating the motorcade and promoting a Secret Service stand down.

The vice president should always be the highest ranked suspect in a presidential assassination based on motive alone. Remember Shakespeare's favorite material? And LBJ had motive in spades: his lifetime ambition was to become president, last chance, he was about to go down in the Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes scandals, and likely more of his crimes would be "outed," knew he was off the ticket in 1964, hated the Kennedys, etc., etc. None of these facts directly undermine propositions about the shadow government, powers-that-be, etc., but individuals in direct positions of government power matter big-time, not just those with indirect power; inside vs. outside.

How about ruthlessness? No question there, we have overwhelming evidence of insatiable greed for power and money (sex too of course) pursued by any and all means.
Skill in personal manipulation? Unexcelled.
Intensity? Oh yes.
Connections? Unexcelled: Congress, Executive, national security state, Big Oil, even eastern finance and the judiciary. Hard to top LBJ.

What about LBJ's intelligence? That is a key in this whole acrimonious debate. I say, yes, LBJ was intelligent enough to be the mastermind, if we stick with Nelson's strong subtitle. It's a mistake to dismiss someone as "dumb" because he never read a book, cannot debate abstract ideas or solve complex problems. Look at LBJ's body of work: born in humble circumstance, this psychopath rose to the top by cunning, lies and murder. Has anyone ever advanced more rapidly in the U.S. Senate or dominated it like LBJ did? Or accumulated a bigger personal fortune via corruption as an elected federal official? I can't name one. In any event, his "accomplishments" are gargantuan.

The exact meaning of intelligence is still debated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence
but LBJ was incredibly "street smart," a kind of perverse genius. He was the kind of guy who could be dropped at the door of the college in San Marcos, as Nelson describes, or Congress or any other organization and quickly figure out right away who to "zoom" or who to steamroll and get to the top in pretty rapid order. No, LBJ wouldn't be the mastermind in the sense of drawing up a complex plan and executing all or most of its details, but he would be smart enough to enlist and persuade the right "experts" in "taking out the trash," as hired killers express it. If it needed proving, LBJ knew people and could go for the jugular, as Nelson proves. And given all we know about the background, e.g., JFK and the Unspeakable, the VP had a nearly perfect recruiting environment to work in (plot). Oh, could someone like Allen Dulles first mention the whole idea in coded language to LBJ, and thereby be the initiator? Possible, but far more likely LBJ, I'd say.

LBJ was intelligent in the sense of this definition of intelligence:
Sternberg & Salter Goal-directed adaptive behavior.[9] Reuven Feuerstein The theory of Structural Cognitive Modifiability describes intelligence as "the unique propensity of human beings to change or modify the structure of their cognitive functioning to adapt to the changing demands of a life situation."[10]

LBJ was "goal directed" and "adaptive." But given all the heat over the term "mastermind," I'd say "catalyst" might be easier to defend with the same powerful evidence Nelson assembled and stimulate less heat and obfuscation. Nelson relies on the work by hundreds of research predecessors and with gracious acknowledgement. That is admirable, yet he takes incredible "incoming." How about LBJ as the "sine qua non," or did Jack Ruby use those exact words!? A rose by any other name...won't help at this stage, I guess. Oh my.

LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK:

1) http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/morrow-r1.1.1.html
2) http://www.infowars.com/the-lbj-cia-assa...on-of-jfk/

Also, send me an email to Morrow321@aol.com and I will send you my "LBJ and CIA killed JFK" file. LOTS of good info in it.

[James H. Fetzer]

Thanks for authoring this very thoughtful commentary, replete with studies about the nature of intelligence! This, may I say, is one of the most intelligent responses to the complex issue of sorting out responsibility that I have yet read. Very well done!

[Charles Drago]

Thoughtful, polite, yet fatally flawed post, Morgan.

Please state your appreciation for LBJ's position within the larger conspiracy structure.

Is he best thought of as a Facilitator or a Sponsor of the event?

Please define "mastermind" for us.

According to your definition, was LBJ the "mastermind" of the JFK assassination?

Please state your definition of "False Sponsor" in the JFK assassination context and tell us if LBJ is today, as he was from Day One, a False Sponsor?

Thanks.

Charles