JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then

[James H. Fetzer]

Adele,

That's because she was paraphrasing in some of those explanations. The "Irish Mafia" was a term used by
Lyndon and his cronies to talk about JFK and his associates. Who he was talking about in using the phrase,
"those S.O.B.s" was the same. And I take it was he actually said was "those goddamned Kennedy boys".
They are syntactically different but they are semantic equivalents and refer to the same group of persons.
You are grasping after straws. There is nothing here that discredits Madeleine in any way, shape, or form.

Jim

For everyone:

Lengthy interview of Madeleine Duncan Brown by Robert Gaylon Ross, Sr., released by Prison Planet, Inc.

It is one hour, 21 minutes, and 25 seconds long. An 80-minute version was played on the JFKresearch Forum several years ago, and in that video the
interviewer asks for a verbatim account of the words used by LBJ. I took notes for myself

Pay close attention to her versions of what Lyndon was supposed to have said when the interviewer asks for an account, and as in the 80-minute video,
then in another instance, for "his exact words". How many versions would LBJ have given to her of "After tomorrow,________ will never embarrass me again.
That's not a threat, that's a promise." In the 80-minute video I counted three different versions to fill in the blank space:

1. that Irish Mafia
2. those S.O.B.s
3. the Kennedys


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POmdd6HQsus

Adele Edisen

[Charles Drago]

Many here seem to want to adopt a structural analysis of the crime, but abstractions do not actually commit them. People do. That's all. I was not putting words in anyone's mouth--but you, like your mentor, seem disposed to use the word "lie", where there is no foundation, warrant, or justification for doing so.

Self-correcting and regenerating systems endure -- as do human families. Players come and go. And while the search for truth and the application of justice demand that guilty individual criminals be identified and punished, tragic history surely will repeat itself unless we identify the systems (and families, I would argue) that empower and draw power from corruption and at all costs eradicate them.

Fetzer ridicules the Evica/Drago conspiracy model. Why? Especially when he works from no such reasonable construction of his own?

Because only absent such a reasonable working model can the likes of LBJ be elevated to False Sponsor status -- an act that preserves the cover-up and protects its True Sponsors.

Anyone with a reasonable understanding of deep politics who concludes that LBJ was the "mastermind" of the JFK assassination is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

The LBJ-as-mastermind LIE indeed.

I came here expecting a higher level of intellectual engagement than at The Education Forum. That, I am learning, however, was too much to ask. The shallow treatment of the LBJ thesis displayed here reveals that that expectation was far too much to ask. I really think we need to ask, "Why was 'The Deep Politics' forum created?" One of the reasons I have been told is to avoid the petty badgering and ad hominem attacks that occur there[.]

Now come the long-anticipated attacks on this forum and on individuals identified with it which, for Jim Fetzer, collectively represent the last refuge for a scoundrel. The LBJ "thesis" is itself shallow and immediately identifiable to experienced deep political analysts as a massive False Sponsor gambit. To treat it with anything but the contempt it deserves is to play into its authors' hands. LBJ-as-mastermind of the JFK assassination is as transparently indefensible and hostile a "thesis" as anything that has emerged from Posner or Bugliosi. Mark my words: As the 50th anniversary of the coup d'etat approaches, Nelson will be ridiculed by the MSM as being emblematic of the twisted conspiracy mindset that threatens the American dream. And since Fetzer does not seem to blink without favorably comparing the Nelson book with the masterpiece that is JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglass' work will be similarly tainted and marginalized.

In the process, the true Sponsors and their highest-level Facilitators are protected, the uncertainty is preserved, and history repeats itself in all its savagery.

But take a look at recent posts here. Charles uses sarcasm and ridicule more than logic and evidence ... Why is this being allowed? This is very, very sad.

Ahh, and now comes the call for what? ... censorship? banishment? The "argument" that, if one disagrees with Jim Fetzer, one is what? unworthy?

The LBJ-as-mastermind "thesis" is ridiculous on its face. It thus invites, and even DEMANDS, ridicule from those of us who understand the dangers it poses to truth and justice. It is devoid of logic and supporting evidence, entirely risible, and transparently false.

I shall not stand silent or otherwise play into the disinformation game of its authors by engaging in polite argument with its prophets. There is too much at stake.

[Ed Jewett]

Self-correcting and regenerating systems endure -- as do human families. Players come and go. And while the search for truth and the application of justice demand that guilty individual criminals be identified and punished, tragic history surely will repeat itself unless we identify the systems (and families, I would argue) that empower and draw power from corruption and at all costs eradicate them.

I don't wish to be the meat or spread between two slices of well-baked multi-grain bread, but the above paragraph, IMHO, and after having read extensively in the Trine-Day collection of publications [more specifically, "Sinister Forces", "Fleshing Out Skull & Bones" and the expose of the Jackson/Luce shenanigans in "A Certain Arrogance", as well as "The Perfectibilists" and related publications] seems to be broadly "on the money". [It might be useful to have permission to post key powerful parts of the sixth and seventh essays of ACA.] There are annotations of text in my copy of "The Perfectibilists" yet to be dictated which read like planning documents that remain active and functional today, centuries later. Similarly with "Fleshing", whose well-articulated explanation of what it means "to be there at the beginning" explains CD's paragraph perfectly.

At the very least, Kris Millegan should be invited to participate here, or in podcasts or perhaps even a video conference. But I fear the creation of yet another round table full of people shouting at each other a la McLaughlin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSqsBfBCW7k ...

Pulling apart the hidden treasures of history long purposefully buried and whose location is secretively and protectively guarded by powerful and rabid dogs requires a high degree of personal awareness, stability and groundedness.

[Vasilios Vazakas]

Professor Fetzer said:
I know you are infatuated with your structural analysis of sponsors, facilitators, and executioners, but Lyndon was the one and only person, as the successor to the dead president, who could insure that no one would be prosecuted for the crime. He was the privotal player and, as Phil has clearly explained, is the only one who deserves the title of "MASTERMIND".
(from another post):..Many here seem to want to adopt a structural analysis of the crime, but abstractions do not actually commit them. People do. That's all. I was not putting words in anyone's mouth--but you, like your mentor, seem disposed to use the word "lie", where there is no foundation, warrant, or justification for doing so.

Vasilis says:
I will have to disagree with you once more. The Evica/Drago model of Mechanics/Facilitators/False Sponsors/Sponsors is of paramount importance, i would say the sine qua non to solve the assassination. I am a devoted follower of this model.
Regardless of the model who do you think were those who ultimately decided, authorized and ordered the execution of President Kennedy?

[Phil Dragoo]

I suggest the perpetrator of the assassination is alive.

The waypoints are in the discussion the past half-century.

What did the acts of 1947 and 1949 do but to legitimize what existed.

Presidents are used and abused, and should they exceed certain bounds in their objections, they are removed with plausible denial.

Eisenhower sensed a danger and warned in a grim speech of a military-industrial complex. Not a person.

Kennedy, in rage, swore to smash and scatter an organization. Dulles would scoff, "That little Kennedy. . .he thought he was a god."

The psywar czar used by Ike, C.D. Jackson would be useful in controlling the public perception. Serving an organization, not a man.

When the Bay of Pigs bag of excrement hit the beach, Dulles was given notice.

He resigned the month the organization, or, in the alternative, its sword and shield, concocted Operation Mongoose, ostensibly to kill Castro.

That Helms to Harvey to the outfit communicated this is speculative. Such instructions are not to be found in any files.

The following year when Lemnitzer signed the submission of Operation Northwoods, a false-flag proposal, Kennedy, in rage, sidelined Lemnitzer.

Yet when Dulles resigned he pulled Hunt close, plausible denial in memoirs.

Lemnitzer and Lansdale, stifled in Northwoods, may have found another false-flag, one they would not submit for approval.

CIA, having been spanked for BOP, pulls Mongoose out, which is approved, but was Castro ever the target.

Truman lamented CIA assuming the SkyNet self-awareness. Kennedy raged. Johnson appointed Helms in 66 and in 68 the floor opened up.

Nixon sent Helms to Iran but would resign the following year. Ford would name Bush--but this couldn't possibly be the George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency noted in Hoover's November 29, 1963 memo. Or, it could. And was.

But is it Bush ex Machina. Why then did he fall to the Arkansas enabler of Mena. Who would name Deutch.

When Goss' COS Millis criticized Deutch, he sucked a shotgun in the Breezeway Motel, in the manner of George DeMohrenschildt, who'd pled with that Bush to call off the vigilantes.

When another Bush was replaced by Obama, what common thread connected the alleged diametric opposites. The Gates whom that Bush had named DCI, now SecDef for this so-vital war against those Northwoods jihadists.

Not any given person, but the dance continues. Long after the dancers have fallen, spent.

[Charles Drago]

And the eminence grise behind it all ... plus the anti-Roosevelt coup, the Lincoln plot, the murders of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi and Julius Caesar ... Mastermind Lyndon Baines Johnson.

[Seamus Coogan]

I dont know what's worse. Fetzer, Ron or now Adele. Adele seeing as you are such a fan could you please try and clear allegations regarding
your hero JF appearing as Ron on the Ventura show. I believe it is not JF but some confirmation would be most appreiciated.

[Peter Lemkin]

And the eminence grise behind it all ... plus the anti-Roosevelt coup, the Lincoln plot, the murders of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi and Julius Caesar ... Mastermind Lyndon Baines Johnson.

:lol: There is no doubt that LBJ played a vital role in the cover up, as he knew or was told he had to [they had him by the proverbial gonads on several scandals!]; however, I see little evidence he played any role in setting the plot rolling or in setting it up. He might have had some foreknowledge from the real planners just some days or weeks before the events. His job, as I see it, was AFTER - starting immediately after - with his being sworn in when he didn't even have to be; reversing the Kennedy NSAM on Vietnam indecently and immediately after the murder - and setting much of the above ground cover-up in progress. But even in that role, he was the front man for those who had planned the murder and the cover up in the shadows. When LBJ chose not to run again, it was made to seem as if the anti-Vietnam protests had brought him down. I think not. He felt he had failed to contain the protesters and protests and those that had most to benefit from that [and all] war might well take him out, as they had JFK.....so he got the hell out of the firing range. He was just a pawn and player.....not the mastermind.

[LR Trotter]

I know I'm in deep water here and probably should not have left the boat, but looking from my point of view as a student, not a researcher, I have trouble with the presumption of the possibility of LBJ as the mastermind of the JFK assassination. I just can't see that kind of power under his total control, and would think RFK would have known and would have somehow exposed the truth if in fact it was a small power source in control of the crime. The EHH confession regarding LBJ, to me, seems a little unlikely as well. Just a comment from a non researcher, but one that truly appreciates being a student of the researchers, and being able to view and post on this forum.

[Charles Drago]

Peter and LR,

A masterful "old" hand at the game and a "new" player demonstrate the value of the powers of insight and instinct as applied to the conjoined searches for truth and justice.

Thank you.

Charles