Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[Jim DiEugenio]

Two points:

1. The generally accepted notion of what the word 'mastermind' means in this context is that LBJ was the originating intelligence behind the plot, that is Johnson thought up the scheme, and he then controlled the apparatus.

Now, between what CD has quoted, and from what Joseph Green wrote in his review, this is what Nelson is saying. I mean, Nelson says that Johnson arranged for the body to be taken abruptly out of Parkland, so that the Lifton body alteration scheme could be done on AF One--or wherever. He then says that LBJ controlled the cover up of both the FBI and WC afterwards.

Now, he does say that LBJ had accessories. But that is just it: they were accessories to him. He was the man in charge.


2. Now, let us go to my point about Reynolds. There are many people in this discussion who have studied this case for many, many years. And we have devoted our time to it and sometimes have originated new ideas or concepts about it. And most of us would say that LBJ was, at the very least, in on the cover up from just about the first moment. In fact, he may have been told by his friend Allen Dulles in advance of what would happen. Dulles may have served as an emissary to be sure LBJ knew what was happening.

But to say that LBJ created and then controlled a plot as byzantine and as devilishly clever as this one; where many people think--including myself--that the cover up was built into the conspiracy, well that is just a tough one to swallow.

I mean where is the precedent for it in LBJ's career? If you follow the phone calls LBJ made in the aftermath, it seems pretty clear that he himself was catching up to what had happened. (Although I am sure that Nelson would argue he was just play acting.)

Further, where does Nelson provide the proof for his thesis? There is a difference between just making associations, and providing evidence or proof for conspiratorial acts. (BTW, this is one of the beefs I have had with Peter Scott's work.)

Example: when David Ferrie, on the night of the 23rd, starts visiting his former CAP colleagues to find that picture of him and Oswald, that is evidence of a conspiratorial nexus.

Example 2: When James Angleton segregates the Oswald file after he leaves New Orleans, so that no one can associate what he allegedly does in Mexico City with what he did as an agent provocateur in the Crescent City, that is evidence of a conspiratorial nexus in advance of the assassination.

Example 3: When David Phillips sends the Mexico City transcripts to Langley to himself under an assumed name, and these transcripts are not recognized by the original transcribers--the Tarasoffs--and some are then missing--that is evidence of a conspiratorial nexus in advance of the murder.

Now, what has Nelson produced in his long book that compares with any of this?

If he has, Fetzer has not mentioned it.

[Morgan Reynolds]

Mr. DiEugenio wants my credentials to dare to engage in an assessment of Nelson's Mastermind book, or offer a defense of his thoroughly stimulating thesis. Credentials are here: http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=bio

The first candidate I ever campaigned for was JFK, the second Eugene McCarthy. And our history from JFK to 9/11 and today is most important to study. And if Nelson has penetrated to the core of JFK's assassination, it may be a model for how to advance our efforts to get to the bottom of 9/11.

But all that is beside the point: What is Mr. DiEugenio's implicit principle? Apparently it is that no one dare work/volunteer on the JFK assassination research project unless s/he has already obtained a JFK assassination union card from her or his "betters," the gatekeepers on the construction project, based on the union hierarchy's opinion of the worthiness of the candidate. Relatives receive special treatment while interlopers like Nelson and Reynolds are unwelcome. Well, howdy doo! The problems with the DiEugenio principle/structure are immediately manifest, are they not? How, for example, would most seminars go? Only full professors would be allowed to make presentations or ask questions, while grad students and assistant professors are to shut up? Manuscripts would only be published for those with the proper credentials and connections as defined by the senior authors. Content? Posh!

The DiEugenio research system would be inevitably intellectually moribund, would it not? Interlopers, outsiders, "newbies" from other fields and walks of life, youngsters, frequently make the most penetrating remarks and analyses. The child who said, "But he isn't wearing anything at all," was right on despite a scandalous lack of credentials. Content trumps credentials, morning, noon and night.

I got in late today but will respond to Mr. Drago's more detailed missive later. Ain't we got fun?

[Jim DiEugenio]

Mr. Reynolds:

Looking at your CV, and Fetzer's referrals to your 9-11 essays, I see I was correct in my assumption. I fail to see anything you have done that is strictly on the JFK case.

We have a problem in this community. Namely that it is 47 years old now, and we still get books like Legacy of Secrecy, Nelson's, Reclaiming History, and DVD's like John Hankey's JFK 2.

Whatever these works have contributed in the way of new evidence is zero to negligible. What they have contributed is nothing but a preconcieved notion, and the creators then went and filled in this notion with everything that existed previously that could fit--whether it was logical or not, or whether it was credible or not, whether it was really evidence or not.

THe sum total of these works has not been to elucidate the crime. It has been to confuse the public. For the simple reason that you cannot say that: 1.) the Mafia did it 2.) LBJ did it 3.) Oswald did it 4.) Bush did it. This is what the other side wants us to do and be: a confused morass of nonsense that makes them throw up their hands in frustration. I cannot blame them. I mean this kind of approach takes us back to the Torbitt Document , that classic 1974 piece of CIA disinfo which so many researchers found so bracing.

So when I read someone like you, who probably does not even know what Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal is or was, or doesn't understand what Farewell America is or was, and who Lulu Holmes is or was (Destiny Betrayed p. 363), and then telling us we should buy into the Nelson book, well excuse me. I also find it bracing that you come from the far side of that 9-11 Truth movement split, which was so acrimonious. You know, Judy Wood and her space beams, no planes hit the WTC, giant holograms and BYU professor Steve Jones and his thermite is up a tree. ANd you and Wood were, to put it kindly, rather unsparing in your personal invective toward Jones. I also note that Fetzer came down on your side, which may be why you are here right now--since Jim is getting trounced here in his defense of Nelson/Hersh, McClellan. After all, he was the commentator who was irresponsible and sloppy enough to compare Nelson's book with JFK and the Unspeakable. Which is ludicrous.

So Morgan, I for one have had enough of amateurs on this case. I respect the tradition that the best of the JFK research community has achieved, going back to Weisberg and up to Douglass. Nelson does not figure into it. ANd neither does Sy Hersh.

[Paul Rigby]

But all that is beside the point: What is Mr. DiEugenio's implicit principle? Apparently it is that no one dare work/volunteer on the JFK assassination research project unless s/he has already obtained a JFK assassination union card from her or his "betters," the gatekeepers on the construction project, based on the union hierarchy's opinion of the worthiness of the candidate. Relatives receive special treatment while interlopers like Nelson and Reynolds are unwelcome. Well, howdy doo! The problems with the DiEugenio principle/structure are immediately manifest, are they not? How, for example, would most seminars go? Only full professors would be allowed to make presentations or ask questions, while grad students and assistant professors are to shut up? Manuscripts would only be published for those with the proper credentials and connections as defined by the senior authors. Content? Posh!

The DiEugenio research system would be inevitably intellectually moribund, would it not? Interlopers, outsiders, "newbies" from other fields and walks of life, youngsters, frequently make the most penetrating remarks and analyses. The child who said, "But he isn't wearing anything at all," was right on despite a scandalous lack of credentials. Content trumps credentials, morning, noon and night.

DisIngenuous's manifest craving for a monopoly of authority and access is eerily reminiscent of the intellectual (and policy) catastrophe that was professional Sovietology:

"Sovietology failed because it operated in an environment that encouraged failure. Sovietologists of all political stripes were given strong incentives to ignore certain facts and focus their interest in other areas. I don't mean to suggest that there was a giant conspiracy at work; there wasn't. It was just that there were no careers to be had in questioning the conventional wisdom..."

Kevin Brennan, as quoted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions...t_collapse

The desire to place beyond the pale certain lines of inquiry and evidence should come as no surprise to any student of the JFK assassination case. After all, it plays to the oldest principle of control in the book:

"Propaganda thrives best if there are no competing expressions of opinion to disturb the audience."*

*Thomas E. Mahl. Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-44 (Brassey's, Inc., 1998), p. 103

[James H. Fetzer]

As a professional philosopher, I certainly have nothing against abstractions as concepts that are removed from specific instances of their embodiment, such as the meanings of probability, truth, justice, and knowledge. When "truth" is defined as correspondence with reality (where a sentence is true when what it asserts to be the case is the case, for example), that does not tell us which sentences are true. In the search for truth, we use correspondence as its definition and coherence as our criterion, where the extent to which the available relevant evidence "hangs together" tends to be the measure of support for alternative hypotheses and theories, which can be made more precise using likelihoods and probabilities. In relation to the events of 22 November 1963, our interest is in power and who was in the position to exercise it with regard to the assassination and the cover-up.

Power (in political context) is a disposition or capacity to be able to control people and their actions, which may include access to resources that are denied to others. When one individual or group has more power than another, that implies they have a greater capacity or ability to control those resources (physical, financial, whatever) than does the other. But power does not exist in a vacuum. Power only exists insofar as some individual or group can control others and their actions and thereby affect the course of events. Corporations are nice examples, insofar as they represent legal powers to control individuals and assets under the authority of their directors and CEOs. In relation to the assassination, the question becomes, Which individual or group have more power to control the course of events?

Lyndon Johnson had spent his entire life controlling other persons and exercising power. He had a political genius for sizing up the strengths and weaknesses of men, especially those who had anything to do with politics in relation to making decisions and allocating resources. By virtue of an intricate network of relationships that LBJ had developed over the course of his career, he had established connections with an enormous range of individuals and groups, including the Directors of the FBI and of the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the Speaker of the House, and virtually every other powerful figure whose resources might make a difference to conducting the removal of his predecessor by the use of violence. He even devoted time to cultivating relations with members of the Secret Service.

Because of his network of associations and collaborations, Lyndon was uniquely placed to encourage resentment of JFK and to promote political opposition to his actions and policies. He had always aspired to be president of all the people and had demonstrated the capacity for overcoming obstacles that stood in his way from the earliest stages of his development. He was perceptive, cunning, relentless, and brutal, but he could also be loving, caring, generous and charitable, which was why his close friend, John Connally, observed, when asked to describe him, that that would take every adjective in the dictionary (because he had so many strengths, both for good and for evil). By virtue of his position as Vice President, he was the one and only person who could control the apparatus of the government in relation to the pursuit of those who were responsible for the death of JFK.

And since they included Lyndon himself, others who wanted JFK out were willing to collaborate with him in the undertaking on the understanding that NO ONE would pay any price for the assassination. That was the key. The CIA, the Chiefs, and the assets and ops they controlled were willing to proceed with that understanding. And local leaders, including the Mayor, whose brother JFK had removed from the CIA, were more than eager to contribute their part. In order to have been the pivotal player, Lyndon did not have to control very detail of a complex operation. He had to be the one who would be in the position to make sure that no one paid any price for taking out JFK. He even sent his chief administrative assistant, Cliff Carter, to Dallas to make sure that all the arrangements were in place for the assassination. A "hands on" kind of guy, LBJ was going to make sure that this event was a success, since nothing would have been worse for the conspirators than a wounded but not mortally wounded target.

And once it had been done, he was very active in covering it up. We know Lyndon was profoundly involved from those who knew him best, including Madeleine, Billy Sol, and others who were not quite as close, such as Barr McClellan and E. Howard Hunt. We know that JFK had antagonized the most politically powerful individuals and groups in the country, from the CIA to the Chiefs to the Mafia, the Texas oil men and the bankers and financiers behind the scene, as James Douglass has explained. Their resentment and distrust led them to support the coup, where Lyndon was the person who played the crucial role that enabled it to proceed by guaranteeing that no one would play a price for their involvement. Phil Nelson has laid it out in such a thorough, meticulous, detailed and coherent fashion that I find it difficult to understand why anyone would contest Lyndon's role as the pivotal player.

After all, ask yourself, who else had the kinds of connections that Lyndon possessed in relation to the CIA, the Chiefs, and the Texas oil men? Who was closer to J. Edgar and could more effortlessly collaborate with him to cover it up? Who else could induce his probable successor in office, Richard Nixon, to become involved, where the culmination of their planning was the ratification meeting at the home of Clint Murchison the night before? Hoover, Nixon, McCloy, Murchison, and others present represented the major interests who were responsible for bringing this about. How can anyone doubt that, when Jack Ruby observed this would not have happened had anyone else been Vice President, he was speaking the truth? Those who want to appreciate the model that was implemented in this historic event should return to Noel Twyman, who sketched the elements of a perfect conspiracy, which is precisely what we had in this case. And the pivotal player--the political mastermind, if you will--was Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The coherence of the evidence that Nelson brings together, when combined with the background that Noel has provided, creates an intricate and interrelated network of individuals and groups who shared a common interest in removing JFK from office. The CIA wanted to retain its power, the Chiefs wanted to aggressively confront the expansion of international, Godless communism, the Mafia wanted Bobby off their backs and to reclaim their resorts and casinos in Havana, the Texas oil men wanted to preserve their oil depletion allowance, the bankers wanted to keep the FED, J. Edgar wanted to remain as Director of the FBI and Lyndon to become President. As Ruby observed, they all had very tangible, material motives for taking the course of action they pursued, where the evidence coheres to make the case for Lyndon as the pivotal player who promoted the assassination, insured its success, and covered it up. No one else was in that position or could have overseen it with greater competence than LBJ.

Well, I have addressed Bobby's death in "RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador",
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/...6464.shtml This appears to have been
a case of "tying up loose ends", where the agency wanted to make sure that he
would not be in the position to reopen the investigation into his brother's death.

As for Martin, that seems to me to have been a more localized matter, where his
location at the Lorraine Motel and even his room number, 306, was broadcast over
local radio and television. His death, I suspect, was largely a result of racism,
though I would not be surprised if J. Edgar, among others, had had a hand in it.

I am not an expert on MLK, but my point is rather simple. When you claim that
"The same powers that killed JFK killed MLK and RFK and are still in power as we
speak", what you are saying cannot be literally true. Most of those who were in
on JFK and RFK, for example, are among the dear departed. They are dead.

If they are dead, then they are not "still in power". My point was not to deny the
continuity of institutional interests, but rather to observe that abstractions do not
have the kind of explanatory power that you, among others, tend to ascribe to
them. It is specific individuals who make specific decisions and take specific actions.

There is no need to feel offended. My concern is that there is a tendency on the
"Deep Politics Forum" to treat entities like "the national security state" as though
appealing to it could explain specific events on specific occasions. It has a place
in inviting our attention to enduring interests but cannot explain specific events.

Well, DiEugenio dropped his little "bomb shell", in case you hadn't noticed. It is
tempting to infer than, if most people think something is false, then it must be
false. This especially affects those who have not studied the evidence. Since
you say that "the same powers" are still in power as we speak, are you talking
about Allen Dulles, J. Edgar, Clint Murchison, and LBJ? Do you think that "the
national security state" or some other abstraction exists apart from real people
who make real decisions and whose identities change across time? I think we
have a problem in sorting things out, where I have argued that the CIA played a
key role in the deaths of JFK and of RFK, but I would not suggest that the same
players, such as David Sanchez Morales, George Joannides, or Gordon Campbell
are "still in power". I think there is some degree of confusion here, where "the
national security state" sounds appealing as an explanation but cannot explain
any specific actions taken by any specific players on any specific occasion. So I
think your objection, which also appears to inspire Charles, is simply misguided.

This post is almost too absurd to even respond to. JIm I did not say PEOPLE I said powers. Power passes from one group of people to a different, but connected group after the former passes on. For example here in Austin the law firm of Ed Clark once held enourmous power. That power still exists. It WAS passed on. But I will not name the people it passed to.
Of course I mean "real people". I cannot believe I am even having to say this. And once again you ignored my question: who killed MLK and RFK?

Dawn

Jim: I am not going to discuss this further as I simply do not have the time to argue with someone who is not geting my point either on purpose or....???

I am not offended. If you do not understand that power passes from one group of people to the next then I cannot make it more plain. It was people who assassinated all three- the most powerful people in the world. That is why they got away with it. They are those who want more war, so anyone who threatens this is elimated. Be it John Kennedy or John Lennon. That is just one example of what the power brokers want. Drug dealing is another. The puppets in office, including LBJ go along or are killed. This is what JFK learned. And gave his life for. I realize your area of expertize is the Z film, which I consider a side issue, but you have read books like JFK and The Unspeakable, or ealier books like The Last Investigation right? Nothing in either of those books suggests LBJ is behind the killing of JKF. And those are just the first two books that came to mind.

All the principlas who assisted in Barr McCLellan's book are/ were good friends of mine, including Barr. However that does not make LBJ THE prime mover. It makes him involved.

MLK's killing is hardly "local". My God. Just read ony book on the subject.

RFK was going to delve into the murder of his bother as well as end the war in Viet Nam- a war JFK had already ended- and was killed by the same forces that killed his brother. I don't know if the same triggermeen were used. Or if the exact same people who masterminded JFK, but if not, the people to whom the power passed. Not necessarily relatives, but politically connected.
Dawn

[James H. Fetzer]

Something is very wrong with Jim DiEugenio (speaking of his views about history and those who are entitled to pursue its study). He loves to return to some very obscure nook or cranny of his work where he can find firm ground as though that supported views of his that are not well-founded. His allusions to the 9/11 community, which are rife with rumor, speculation, and hearsay, offer a nice illustration of his methodology. Use phrases that are likely to draw a negative response from those who have never studied them. Dredge up whatever you can find, scrape the bottom of the barrel, and sling a lot of mud in the hope that some of it might stick. I used to think that he was making valuable contributions at the intermediate level between the most serious players and the actual assassins. I am no longer convinced that he has the balance and judgment to be taken seriously on any of these issues.

After all, this post of his is nothing more than trash attacks on those whose message he does not like. The man is a master of the ad hominem, where his performance here verges on the despicable. He doesn't know the history of the 9/11 movement, but he wants to use his impressions to smear a very good man whose motives and abilities for seeking the truth about matters complex and controversial far exceed his own. And as a perfect example of his willingness to trade in crude distortions, I am supposed to be "irresponsible and sloppy enough to compare this book with JFK and the Unspeakable". Except that I explained that Douglass explains how JFK antagonized the most powerful forces in the country, while Nelson's book explains what they did about it. There is nothing "ludicrous" about that. That is the relationship between them. One of us is being "irresponsible and sloppy" but the last name is "DiEugenio".

Mr. Reynolds:

Looking at your CV, and Fetzer's referrals to you r9-11 essays, I see I was correct in my assumption. I fail to see anything you have done that is strictly on the JFK case.

We have a problem in this community. Namely that it is 47 years old now, and we still get books like Legacy of Secrecy, Nelson's, Reclaiming History, and DVD's like John Hankey's JFK 2.

Whatever these works have contributed in the way of new evidence is zero to negligible. What they have contributed is nothing a but a preconcieved notion, and the creators then went and filled in this notion with everything that existed previously that could fit--whether it was logical or not, or whether it was credible or not, whether it was really evidence or not.

THe sum total of these works has not been to elucidate the crime. It has been to confuse the public. For the simple reason that you cannot say that: 1.) the Mafia did it 2.) LBJ did it 3.) Oswald did it 4.) Bush did it. This is what the other side wants us to do and be: a confused morass of nonsense that makes them throw up their hands in frustration. I cannot blame them. I mean this kind of approach takes us back to the Torbitt Document , that classic 1974 piece of CIA disinfo which so many researchers found so bracing.

So when I read someone like you, who probably does not even know what Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal is or was, or doesn't understand what Farewell America is or was, and who Lulu Holmes is or was (Destiny Betrayed p. 363), and then telling us we should buy into the Nelson book, well excuse me. I also find it bracing that you come from the far side of that 9-11 Truth movement split, which was so acrimonious. You know, Judy Wood and her space beams, no planes hit the WTC, giant holograms and BYU professor Steve Jones and his thermite is up a tree. ANd you and Wood were, to put it kindly, rather unsparing in your personal invective toward Jones. I also note that Fetzer came down on your side, which may be why you are here right now--since Jim is getting trounced here in his defense of Nelson/Hersh, McClellan. After all, he was the commentator who was irresponsible and sloppy enough to compare this book with JFK and the Unspeakable. Which is ludicrous.

So Morgan, I for one have had enough of amateurs on this case. I respect the tradition that the best of the JFK research community has achieved, going back to Weisberg and up to Douglass. Nelson does not figure into it. ANd neither does Sy Hersh.

[Dawn Meredith]

Mr. DiEugenio wants my credentials to dare to engage in an assessment of Nelson's Mastermind book, or offer a defense of his thoroughly stimulating thesis. Credentials are here: http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=bio

The first candidate I ever campaigned for was JFK, the second Eugene McCarthy. And our history from JFK to 9/11 and today is most important to study. And if Nelson has penetrated to the core of JFK's assassination, it may be a model for how to advance our efforts to get to the bottom of 9/11.

But all that is beside the point: What is Mr. DiEugenio's implicit principle? Apparently it is that no one dare work/volunteer on the JFK assassination research project unless s/he has already obtained a JFK assassination union card from her or his "betters," the gatekeepers on the construction project, based on the union hierarchy's opinion of the worthiness of the candidate. Relatives receive special treatment while interlopers like Nelson and Reynolds are unwelcome. Well, howdy doo! The problems with the DiEugenio principle/structure are immediately manifest, are they not? How, for example, would most seminars go? Only full professors would be allowed to make presentations or ask questions, while grad students and assistant professors are to shut up? Manuscripts would only be published for those with the proper credentials and connections as defined by the senior authors. Content? Posh!

The DiEugenio research system would be inevitably intellectually moribund, would it not? Interlopers, outsiders, "newbies" from other fields and walks of life, youngsters, frequently make the most penetrating remarks and analyses. The child who said, "But he isn't wearing anything at all," was right on despite a scandalous lack of credentials. Content trumps credentials, morning, noon and night.

I got in late today but will respond to Mr. Drago's more detailed missive later. Ain't we got fun?

Mr Reynolds,
Welcome to DPF. I look forward to reading what you have to say about the assassination. With regards to how long someone has studied this case, I began day one. But I am a student. I have strong opinions. I daresay that there is no-one in the community with whom I agree on everything. We encourage debate here as it is a way to expand upon our knowledge. Ad homs are not permitted so if you feel attacked by anyone please report the post. But please do not confuse healthy ctiticism with attack.

Like you I believe 9-11 is connected to the assassinations of the 60's. Had the conspirators not gotten away with these murders it is doubtful they would have even attempted 9-11. Our media is 100% complicit in covering up these events.

Charles Drago and Jim DiEugenio are not your enemies. They care passionately about the truth. As do we all at DPF.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

Jim, et al,

In the interests of saving bandwidth and preserving attention spans, I'll begin by eliminating all but the final sentence of Jim's first two paragraphs even as I note my appreciation for said material's properties of cogency and succinctness. Well done.

In relation to the assassination, the question becomes, Which individual or group have more power to control the course of events?

Quite so. In the highly complex structure of this assassination conspiracy, however, there were multiple courses of events pre- and post- shooting.

Lyndon Johnson had spent his entire life controlling other persons and exercising power. He had a political genius for sizing up the strengths and weaknesses of men, especially those who had anything to do with politics in relation to making decisions and allocating resources. By virtue of an intricate network of relationships that LBJ had developed over the course of his career, he had established connections with an enormous range of individuals and groups, including the Directors of the FBI and of the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the Speaker of the House, and virtually every other powerful figure whose resources might make a difference to conducting the removal of his predecessor by the use of violence. He even devoted time to cultivating relations with members of the Secret Service.

Substitute "Richard Nixon" for "LBJ" and this paragraph loses not a scintilla of validity. If you prefer, substitute "James Jesus Angleton" or "J. Edgar Hoover".

Or don't. But do understand that "relationships" and "connections" do not inevitably bestow authority to command. They just as readily present as blackmail vulnerabilities.

Because of his network of associations and collaborations, Lyndon was uniquely placed to encourage resentment of JFK and to promote political opposition to his actions and policies.

"Uniquely"? I think not. Again I'll cite RMN as someone who could give LBJ a run for his money on these counts. And RMN was not under threat of indictment.

He had always aspired to be president of all the people and had demonstrated the capacity for overcoming obstacles that stood in his way from the earliest stages of his development. He was perceptive, cunning, relentless, and brutal[.]

Except, alas, the obstacles preventing him from winning the Democratic presidential nomination in 1960, staying on the 1964 ticket, and avoiding what we agree were the coming criminal prosecutions.

By virtue of his position as Vice President, he was the one and only person who could control the apparatus of the government in relation to the pursuit of those who were responsible for the death of JFK.

The apparatus of the over government, that is. And of course absent any reasonable evidence in support of Nelson's discredited "mastermind" provocation, and in light of his multiple vulnerabilities and high profile cui bono status, this reality strongly argues for LBJ's role as wholly controlled, blackmailed Facilitator.

And since they included Lyndon himself, others who wanted JFK out were willing to collaborate with him in the undertaking on the understanding that NO ONE would pay any price for the assassination.

The single most important function for LBJ the accessory after the fact of regicide was indeed to do all within the limited powers of the presidency to keep the heat focused on the designated patsy. Agreed.

But Jim, you have no evidence to support placing LBJ any higher within the conspiracy than the Facilitator level.

LBJ -- and I cannot stress this strongly enough -- was second only to LHO as this plot's near-perfect patsy.

In order to have been the pivotal player, Lyndon did not have to control very detail of a complex operation.

Then why aren't you joining me in excoriating Nelson for making the claim that LBJ was the goddamn "mastermind" of this plot? Do you agree with Nelson that:

"[The conspiracy] was all according to the grand play -- a masterpiece of design and execution -- which had been developed over a period of nearly four years by the most brilliant, and evil, political force the country had ever seen: Lyndon Baines ('Bull') Johnson[.]" [emphasis in original] [p. 576]

and

"More than any other person, [LBJ] had the means, motive, and opportunity to have been the singular key conspirator-instigator and the mastermind of the operation." [emphasis added] [p. 668]

Or do you repudiate this outburst of comic book-level disinformation?

Don't wait for the translation. I'm prepared to wait until hell freezes over for your answer.

{LBJ} even sent his chief administrative assistant, Cliff Carter, to Dallas to make sure that all the arrangements were in place for the assassination. A "hands on" kind of guy, LBJ was going to make sure that this event was a success, since nothing would have been worse for the conspirators than a wounded but not mortally wounded target.

Some "mastermind," sending his publicly acknowledged "chief administrative assistant" to the city in his home state where his brilliant plan for regicide would unfold.

This is LBJ being patsied to ensure his continued cooperation. "Mastermind" my ass! LBJ was a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of the true Sponsors of the JFK murder. Why can't you see it?

And once it had been done, he was very active in covering it up. We know Lyndon was profoundly involved from those who knew him best, including Madeleine, Billy Sol, and others who were not quite as close, such as Barr McClellan and E. Howard Hunt.

We know NOTHING of value from a mistress, a political fixer with motive to lie, a misguided attorney, and a grand master of disinformation. Keep trotting them out, Jim. No one but you, Nelson, and the genius Morrow are buying it.

We know that JFK had antagonized the most politically powerful individuals and groups in the country, from the CIA to the Chiefs to the Mafia, the Texas oil men and the bankers and financiers behind the scene, as James Douglass has explained. Their resentment and distrust led them to support the coup, where Lyndon was the person who played the crucial role that enabled it to proceed by guaranteeing that no one would play a price for their involvement. Phil Nelson has laid it out in such a thorough, meticulous, detailed and coherent fashion that I find it difficult to understand why anyone would contest Lyndon's role as the pivotal player.

I certainly do not contest LBJ's role as A pivotal player.

Phil Nelson's "mastermind" conceit is his undoing. You cannot avoid this truth. You squirm to get Nelson off the hook, but to no avail. He tells us nothing about LBJ's role in the plot that we did not already suspect. By elevating LBJ to "mastermind" status, Nelson elevates LBJ to FALSE SPONSOR status, and as a consequence he adds yet another layer of protection for the TRUE SPONSORS of JFK's murder.

How can anyone doubt that, when Jack Ruby observed this would not have happened had anyone else been Vice President, he was speaking the truth?

Not only do I doubt it. I thoroughly reject it, as I reject the implied characterization of Ruby as someone with intimate knowledge of the plot in all of its complexity.

The assassination would not have happened AS IT DID had an UNCONTROLLABLE, HONORABLE VICE PRESIDENT been in office. Period.

Those who want to appreciate the model that was implemented in this historic event should return to Noel Twyman, who sketched the elements of a perfect conspiracy, which is precisely what we had in this case. And the pivotal player--the political mastermind, if you will--was Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Shame on you, Jim, for using Nelson's heinous terminology.

Lyndon [w]as the pivotal player who promoted the assassination, insured its success, and covered it up. No one else was in that position or could have overseen it with greater competence than LBJ.

LBJ "insured [the assassination's success]"??? I dare you to expound upon and defend this absurd conclusion.

Which elements of the plot did LBJ "oversee"??? Which is to say, "control"???

[Jack White]

This has become a hangup over semantics.

I agree that words ought to always be used with great precision.

However, an argument over whether LBJ was a "mastermind" or a
"pivotal player" or an "essential part" is significant only in a slight
degree in describing the activity of a vile corrupt villainous criminal.

It is like arguing who was worse...John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy,
the Son of Sam, Charlie Manson, or the guy who shoots a 7-11 clerk
during a robbery.

Truth is, I think we all agree, that the plot was a conspiracy involving
many such people, and each played an important role, but none was
entirely responsible for all actions. A large group killed Caesar, including
Brutus.

Jack

[Charles Drago]

This has become a hangup over semantics.

I agree that words ought to always be used with great precision.

However, an argument over whether LBJ was a "mastermind" or a
"pivotal player" or an "essential part" is significant only in a slight
degree in describing the activity of a vile corrupt villainous criminal.

It is like arguing who was worse...John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy,
the Son of Sam, Charlie Manson, or the guy who shoots a 7-11 clerk
during a robbery.

Truth is, I think we all agree, that the plot was a conspiracy involving
many such people, and each played an important role, but none was
entirely responsible for all actions. A large group killed Caesar, including
Brutus.

Jack

I appreciate your thoughts here, Jack. But please consider the negative impact of Nelson's "mastermind" assertion in terms of its elevation of LBJ to Sponsor status.

Do you agree with Nelson that:

"[The conspiracy] was all according to the grand play -- a masterpiece of design and execution -- which had been developed over a period of nearly four years by the most brilliant, and evil, political force the country had ever seen: Lyndon Baines ('Bull') Johnson[.]" [emphasis in original] [p. 576]

and

"More than any other person, [LBJ] had the means, motive, and opportunity to have been the singular key conspirator-instigator and the mastermind of the operation." [emphasis added] [p. 668]

Or do you repudiate this outburst of comic book-level disinformation?

This goes beyond semantics, I'm afraid.

Nelson, knowingly or otherwise, is giving aid and comfort to the enemy and otherwise reinforcing the coverup when he bestows Sponsorship status on LBJ.

Charles