Jump to content
The Education Forum

Phil Nelson

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Phil Nelson

  • Rank
    Experienced Member
  1. I agree, that would have been very nice to see. I asked Christopher about that and he explained that certain documents, such as Bouck's affidavit which he gave to Fulton after their Arlington conversation, not-so-mysteriously disappeared after his arrest on August 9, 1998 (Had be gone to the trouble of taping his conversation with Bouck as they walked around Arlington Cemetery under their umbrellas, those tapes would have also disappeared on that day of course). His description of that scene was very similar to the video a week or two ago of how 29 SWAT team officers (plus 20+ SUVs, helicopter and two boats) stormed Roger Stone's house, caught on tape by the fortunate crew of CNN, thanks to a "tip" to them, and them alone, allegedly because they wanted to make sure that he didn't try to destroy any evidence (the premise being that, after having badgered him for two years during which, if he had anything incriminating, he had not taken the opportunity to trash it?). Both were scenes reminiscent of the storm troopers of the Gestapo, but putting that aside, in Fulton's case it was done for the purpose of ransacking his house looking for whatever property they could find, which they did. So, the fact that that piece was made to "disappear" can now be (and is) thrown at him as "evidence" disproving his story! As many of us suspected --- upon seeing the multiple references to LBJ's work "behind the scenes" and RFK's determination to secure the real evidence away from the FBI, CIA, SS, et. al., so that he could use it to go after the real plotters (i.e. LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, Angleton, and on down the org. chart) when he became president -- the "CIA did it alone crowd" would come out of the woodwork to disparage Fulton's excellent non-fiction book full of truths that just can't stand, at least in their conflicted minds.
  2. JD: "This is why Mr Nelson will never be a valued critic." I agree with this one, at least in JD's opinion (a mutual one, in opposite context, BTW). JD: "I do not dispute the meetings. What I am questioning, quite specifically, is the content of the discussion." Then why did you sarcastically frame it as: "For instance, if one recalls, about 25 years ago there was the famous General Lebed in Russia. Well, guess what? Fulton puts him in this book" Your message portrays it as if Fulton exploited the name of the "famous general" that he had read about somewhere, knowing that he had since died therefore choosing that name so that no one could ever prove or disprove his assertion? (Speaking of devices, as you repeatedly referenced in your first post, then again in the one above, where you are attempting to show that everyone he's cited is now dead, "conveniently" so they can't be questioned. That particular false theme might have worked, but there are too many critical instances where he has proven that his experiences were factual.). JD: "As per Nelson's specialty, the cheap shot on Drain . . ." How is my referencing two specific factual cases where Drain's credibility has been questioned a "cheap shot." And, BTW, I acknowledged this was an error on Bouck's part in not giving "credit" to the FBI for their role in heisting all the evidence out of Dallas, even at a time when the FBI's "authority" to do so was not entirely clear. Had it not been for the ephemeral (a few days at most) "fear" of a conspiracy (which they were concurrently denying) that would have been "NONE" and that evidence should have remained in the custody of the Dallas PD. Why are you continuing to argue about a point that has been "asked and answered" already? JD: "How anyone can write about the Waldron/Hartmann thesis today escapes me." Jim, if you haven't noticed, it was you who introduced that topic. I merely responded to you to demonstrate that it was impossible for Gen. Lebed to have used Waldron's thesis since his book came eleven years after that meeting, and six years after Lebed had died. Fulton merely reported what he had been told, unaware that doing so would cause you so much angst over the fact that the story was so close to Waldron's book. So please do us all a favor and drop it. Again, a point "asked, answered and resolved in the last post." (But since you're still so proud of getting a "thumbs up" from some teacher, please accept my hearty "congratulations" for that magnificent work. I'll make it a point to read it someday). I note that, in not responding to it, you graciously "accepted" the premise of the last paragraph in my previous post, implicitly acknowledging the intrinsic truth of everything there (unlike every other paragraph, where you did find some "nits" to pick). I will take that as the compliment that I'm sure you intended to make, though very subtly as is your usual style.
  3. There is a reason – and it has nothing to do with Christopher Fulton’s choice of literary styles to pen his memoir – why Mr. DiEugenio has been unable to do a review of this book. It should become clear by the end of this post. The way Jim framed Mr. Fulton’s encounter with General Alexander Lebed belies the undercurrent of contempt he evidently felt about the entire book and how it has apparently created conflictions for him personally. But contrived insolence does not disprove the merits of this profoundly important book, it merely reflects DiEugenio’s own frustration as noted in the first few sentences of his “non-review.” As for Fulton’s meeting with General Lebed, if Jim really doubts that it occurred, maybe he should check with the assistant district attorney (in the 1997-99 period) who, rather brutally, interrogated Christopher on multiple occasions, Mr. Stewart Barman. In the first one, March 3, 1999, Barman grilled him on the meeting with Lebed, so he must have had reason to believe the story. Regarding DiEugenio’s astonishment that Fulton had the temerity to use material from Waldron’s book, how could he do that when the conversation with General Lebed took place eleven years before Waldron published his book? And the fact that Fulton is merely reporting the information volunteered by Lebed does not constitute an endorsement on his part of what Lebed told him. There is no denying that what he was told by Lebed is similar to Waldron’s “thesis,” so – instead of using “kneejerk” analysis, if one approaches it more thoughtfully – there is a veritable explanation for that anomaly, though Fulton would have no reason to have determined what it was: Given that his conversation with Lebed occurred in April, 1997 and Waldron’s book was not published for over decade after that (together with the fact that General Lebed’s death in a helicopter crash had also occurred six years before Waldron’s book was published) it appears that the genesis of Waldron’s story might have begun with Lebed (where he got it from is open to conjecture). But the fact is, Waldron had obtained much of his information about the story from Harry Williams (see Legacy of Secrecy, p. 766), who was closely associated not only with Almeida, but Robert F. Kennedy as well. Capisce Jim? Next, Jim’s unsubstantiated doubt about the meeting Robert White had with Ronald Reagan, as retold by Mr. Fulton, was highly substantiated: Hint, look at the top of page 440, where you will find definitive proof – a photo of their meeting – affirming indeed that it occurred. Yes, it is unfortunate that both White and Reagan died and made Jim’s job so difficult, but thankfully the 120+ pages of photographs, in addition to the numerous references (verbatim copies) within the narrative to many affidavits and other correspondence will live on so that future generations will learn essential truths (as much as that seems to bother some folks with restricted agendas). DiEugenio’s next point related to Bill Kelly’s inconsequential “review” has already been addressed in my own book review, so I will leave it at that. But, given the FBI’s and SS’s many well documented manipulations of evidence, witnesses and falsified documents – and their choices of sending only those agents who were well-schooled in compliance to those methods (see James Douglass’ pp. 309-310 for more information on that issue, if anyone is unfamiliar with it) – it is troubling that Jim would reference Vincent Drain as a presumably credible source for anything. In fact, his credibility has been an issue on multiple subjects over the years. One was his failure to initial the bullet shells during the period he had custody of them, which “broke” the chain of custody, thereby devaluing their possible use as evidence. For another instance, see the document “The Paper Bag: An FBI Blueprint for Revised Documents” by Edgar F. Tatro for more on this point: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=520805 Finally, regarding Bouck’s statement that the Secret Service had gathered all the evidence (ignoring the FBI’s key role in that) is, so far, the only substantive “error” that I have seen in this otherwise magnificent and completely new work. Bouck’s oversight might be explained by the fact that he was a ranking official of the Secret Service, probably habitually used to speaking about their role and forgetting momentarily that their sister organization was also involved. But comparing that omission to the numerous misstatements within DiEugenio’s own “non-review,” as noted above, is disturbing, to say the least. The real, and transparently clear, reason that Messrs. DiEugenio, Kelly and Schnapf (among numerous others) are aghast about the publication of this book is that it has turned their long-embraced beliefs – that “The ‘CIA did it’ all on their own with a little help from their friends,” – on its head because of the numerous references to Lyndon B. Johnson’s central role in it (and by logical extension, the other assassinations done during the period of his reign). That Christopher Fulton obtained this information from a high-level Secret Service official, who had been sworn to secrecy about all of it, by Robert F. Kennedy himself, is simply too much for these purported “truth seekers” to swallow. It is as if they are in a room with many doors to open for “real truths” but the one marked “LBJ” must never be opened, only all the others. The massive locks they and their forebears have installed on that door is precisely the reason that the “Crime of the Century” has still never been solved to anyone’s satisfaction.
  4. The "Deep State" exists as a "secret entity" alongside, albeit embedded invisibly into, both/all political parties. The last paragraphs of my review reference LBJ's own party, which at the time also included some of the (real) "best and brightest" senators of all time, IMHO. That comment was made not to indict the party -- then or now -- but to suggest that getting to the "truth of the matters" will inextricably embarrass the party(ies) from which the highest-level plotters came. And further, to insinuate that the potential of that occurring is/will be inherently present in any attempt to conduct an honest and open reinvestigation of the assassinations.
  5. My first post on this forum in about 8 years; no particular reason for that, other than that I had other priorities. My review of Christopher Fulton's book explains why I believe this is one of the most important books ever written about the JFK assassination. It also attempts to explain why the reader must leave their own prejudices about the literary tools used in Fulton's memoir "checked at the door." The two examples I used to do that (Robert Caro's very meticulous use of all the conventional scholarly methods didn't stop him from ignoring important facts, witnesses and events that did not conform to his narrative, and Hunter S. Thompson's "Gonzo Journalism" style -- without using that scholarly approach -- to present the most profound truths of events [including the JFK assassination] were merely to illustrate that one cannot always presume that truth exists only in works that have the appearance of scholasticism. There are numerous other "non-fiction" books written sans end-notes (etc.), some of which contain essential truths (e.g. Peter Maas) and others which should be re-categorized as "fiction" (e.g. Bob Woodward, Hampton Sides). Fulton has produced a factually-based, elegantly-written book designed to reveal his own personal experiences, all because of his interest in acquiring JFK's gold Cartier watch as his personal memento of his hero from the time he was a child. He wrote this book as anyone who simply wanted to describe how that desire eventually practically destroyed his life (and actually did destroy his wife's and mother's in the process). Although he chose instead to substitute 120 pages of photos and documents, plus copies of others within the narrative itself, for the foot-notes should mitigate that issue sufficiently for most objective readers. That he inserted certain dialogue to "round out" the story -- clearly such discussions had taken place -- given what he personally experienced could have only resulted from such actions, it is reasonable to accept them as a "given" predicate.
  6. That statement is not correct, according to the official J.E.H. calendar at Mary Ferrell. Thursday, 11/21/63 was wide open; his first appointment on 11/22 was at 10:00 a.m., more than enough time for him to catch a few Zs on the airplane back to DC and take another 3 or 5 hour nap before getting himself into position for "the news from Dallas."
  7. Shocking indeed. A very dedicated and tenacious researcher, one of the very best. My condolences to his family and and to all who were close to him. Phil Nelson
  8. ----------------------------------------------------- I agree with both Bill and David regarding this travesty. It really does need to be publicized because it proves to the "Doubting Thomas's. . . et. al." out there (if any more evidence was needed) that the cover-up actively continued through the end of the the 19th Century, and, by extension since nothing has really changed, is still on-going nearly one half a century after JFK's murder. That it took two years to even begin responding to the ARRB, and then having the plug pulled for such specious reasons once someone noticed how effectively LCDR Pike was working, should prove to one and all that there are still orders out there to protect certain secrets irrespective of any laws passed by Congress. It evokes the words of James J. Angleton, that "it is inconceivable to me that a secret intelligence arm of the government has to comply with all the overt orders of the government." Which is to say, "some of us really are above the law. . .deal with it". Evidently, that quote still represents the views of many people within the intelligence agencies at least and probably many more than we could even imagine (e.g. the inaptly named "Justice Department" and such agencies as the FBI and Secret Service, as thoroughly documented in many other cases not dissimilar to this one involving LCDR Pike. Have you considered pursuing this with any empathetic congressmen/women or senators (assuming there are any left)? Perhaps if someone consolidated this one with some other "unresolved issues" -- e.g. Jefferson Morley's continuing FOIA request for info on Joannides and the wanton destruction of pertinent Secret Service files described by Doug Horne -- it could force a lot of unwanted attention to the actions of government officials. Maybe even someone in the media who might show some continued interest: Paradoxically, the only one I can think of right off is Bill O'Reilly, who seemed to show a lot of interest in this a decade or two ago. But it might be worth a shot. I'll anxiously await more info from you on this as you get the opportunity. Phil Nelson
  9. I am not sure that was a good idea. John, I concede your point. And I struggled with it awhile but felt ultimately that she made a very persuasive case in "Me and Lee" which made me a believer, irrespective of whatever changes have been made in her story over the years. She had ample reason to fear becoming involved in disclosing her story for at least the first three decades, and I know I would have some difficulty in writing about the details of what I had done that long ago, so I gave her some latitude with respect to previous inconsistencies. I was impressed by all the old photos too I guess, even though it sure would have helped to have one with her beside Lee somewhere there. Regardless, those citations are not really critical to my book and I believe the details she has provided in each case make sense; I have also couched citations to her book thusly: "Judyth Vary Baker, who persuasively claims to have been Oswald's lover during the summer of 1963 in New Orleans, stated . . . " I felt that this avoided a grant of 100% credibility to her story, considering that it is highly controversial, yet allowed me to include some more details of those specific areas, both of which have appeared to be a big void in any other accounts, including the WCR. Again, as I stated in the last edition as well as the new one, as I take away Johnson's cloak of "the benefit of the doubt" that has been liberally given to him for over five decades, I extend to all of the witnesses who have been subjected to ridicule and abuse (you know all the names, like Jean Hill, Roger Craig, et.al. ad infinitum) a bit more credibility just to even the scales. Time will tell whose stories will eventually be vindicated. I believe mine (the overarching one) will eventually be, regardless of these two citations.
  10. Announcing the Second Edition of "LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination" The first edition was withdrawn from the new book market, as of May 15, 2011. The manuscript for the book has been professionally re-edited and substantially revised and updated with new material which makes the case against Johnson even more compelling than was true of the earlier edition. Despite all the new material, some of it noted below, the overall size of the book has been reduced by about 10%; it is a much "easier read" than the first edition, much more focused as a result of the deletion of the extraneous material. The following summary explains some of the more significant revisions: * The Preface and Introduction were combined and reduced in size and the Epilogue cut substantially. The material on Viet Nam, the essays on how Johnson treated his subordinates, the stuff about "gift giving" and Doris Kearns and so forth have been eliminated. * The new material will include a piece on newspaper reporter Connie Kritzberg, whose lead story in the Dallas Herald Tribune the day of the assassination was pre-empted by the FBI within hours and changed without her permission; * A piece was added on the disappearance of Madeleine Brown's son's nanny, Dale Turner, who had the misfortune of witnessing the intimacy of LBJ and Madeleine; * The "shot sequence" has been completely revised and expanded into a more comprehensive description, with the help of Jim Fetzer, and based upon a consensus of several other authors who have studied this very extensively: at least eight shots, possibly ten or more altogether were part of the "flurry" of shots into the limo; * The presence of many CIA operatives in Dallas that day is detailed. * More references to material from Richard Goodwin's book "Remembering America," which helps to document Johnson's mental condition after he became president, were added. * A few citations from Judyth Baker's book were also added, to "fill-in" certain (otherwise mysterious) parts of Oswald's journeys, such as the Clinton LA trip and his journey through Texas and appearances in San Antonio and at Sylvia Odio's home, on his way to Mexico. The new website for the book is here: http://www.lbjmastermind.com/ The new edition of the book will be introduced in November, 2011 by the new publisher, Skyhorse Publications. The book is available for pre-orders at Amazon at this listing: amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1616083778
  11. I couldn't agree with that more, Bill Kelly. I would take it a step further, to say that I predict that one hundred years from now, Abraham Bolden's name will be one of the most prominent heros of this whole sorry episode. I just hope that there is a "life hereafter" that will put him on that pinnacle of courageous (ie. "real") American heroes who were subject to horrors worse than Rosemary Parks and all the others endured, who had to put their lives on the line for a semblance of justice. In Mr. Bolden's case, it caused him to have to serve time in prison for a fabricated "crime" which he had nothing to do with. He had the balls to stay true to his principles and confront those who were charged with "lynching" him, and he did it with panache and dignity. In my book, he is amongst the first tier of patriots. I hope to see that kind of recognition of his legacy within my lifetime; but it will probably occur after that unfortunate moment. Regardless, I commit here and now to see that his name lives on in perpetuity as one of America's greatest citizens.
  12. Peter, I haven't seen that tape, or read his story in a couple of years, but my impression is that the reason Vinson's story is not the "slam dunk" that you believe it should be was due to three questions: 1. That he waited 30 years to tell it (I realize he explained the reason for that that and it makes a certain amount of sense, but nonetheless. . .) 2. That he had no supporting witnesses to the general story about the airplane ride; it would seem that someone back at Andrews could have helped, though it is understandable why no one at Groom Lake (Area 51) would come forward. 3. That a military version of what was a DC-6, four engine turboprop airliner landed somewhere on the shores of the Trinity River south of Dallas, in the mid-afternoon of November 22, 1963 and then took off again, evidently unnoticed by anyone on the ground. And thus, Vinson's story is stuck, probably headed into the bottomless dustbin of JFK lore, never to be proven right or wrong. Unfortunately, it was only one of many such stories, many of them possibly true, but all virtually unprovable.
  13. I do not always agree with Morrow, but I find no fault with his above posting. Jack And I do too, Jack, all of those named individuals and specific organizations were involved, just as Robert laid it out. Jim, I don't think my previous comment is in any way at odds with anything else I've ever said about the assassination, and in many ways, IMHO, it is also consistent with what you have said. For example, when you posted something to the effect that the guilt ultimately goes back to the specific individuals who were party to it, not just the "invisible government" which certainly had a role in the background (I remember you used the term "disembody", as in "you can't disembody the acts from the individuals" (paraphrased). But that "invisible government" was/is itself the creation of a number of specific individuals, first and foremost was Allen Dulles, one and the same actual human who had so much to do with pre and post assassination acts. Did I say anywhere that certain people who were members of any of these groups (e.g. U.S. military, ONI, CIA, or Permindex, etc. were not involved? No. All I'm saying here (and again, I reserve "final thoughts" on this book pending my actually reading it in its entirety) is that Farrell has gone just a tad further than that in blaming capitalism, the Masons, the Occult, UFO watchers et. al. for the murder, and the rest of us for our so called "original sin" for allowing it to happen. Stretching the blame that far is just a bit "over the top" for my tastes, because, Dammit, I had nothing to do with it and I think no one else here (hopefully) did either, yet that seems to be his argument. If I am misinterpreting it due to my "fast read" I will retract any/all of this that I have misstated. My point was that he seems to be wanting to divvy up the blame amongst a lot of other people, organizations and phenomena ("alchemy" and the "Occult"? not to mention "Original Sin" and "capitalism"!) Well, I say "baloney" to all of that, because all it does is ensure that the blame for the crime of the century is never assessed to the specific individuals who had anything to do with executing it. Which, now that I think of it, is exactly what some folks over at DPF seem to prefer. I know you won't mince words with your analysis of my interpretation; that's fine, I'll respect your opinion just the same as before, whether or not we agree on the basics.
  14. First, let me state for the record that I have only made a fast and cursory review of this book; when time permits, I will read it more thoroughly. But my first take on it is as follows: While Mr. Farrell seems to come to a quasi-conclusion that Johnson was behind the assassination, he then waters that down by including him as only one of the many other groups that have been implicated, in ". . .his essential role at the center of it all". (p. 4). Again, at p. 294, he says "Lyndon Johnson is tied to all of them and only Johnson would have had the authority both before and after the assassination to order the Secret Service and other Federal agencies to lift normal security protocols and to tamper with the evidence, as he clearly did." So far, so good. But it might be helpful if you went to the following link, making sure your speakers are on, before going any further. . . In addition to the list of all the "Usual Suspects" we now add such phenomena as alchemy, UFO people, the Occult, Freemasons (Hoover, James Webb and others) and, through that group, many former Nazis some of whom (Werner Von Braun) were now employed by that very suspicious bunch of engineers at NASA. Oh yes, let us not forget capitalism itself, which permitted, according to Mr. Farrell, ". . . one individual, acting in the capacity of the corporate person and at the pinnacles of corporate power, can damn the whole. We know the doctrine well, for it is the doctrine at the core of western Christendom: original sin, and Adam is in that doctrine the original corporate person. . . It is this doctrine that is the basis of all occult and magical working of the ritual sacrifice in general, and in particular the alchemical transformation of the American consciousness that played itself out that day in Dealey Plaza, involving all in American's "original sin" by the act of consent. Such power cannot be had nor exercised without the presupposition of the corporate person who stands, as one, for all." Well, excuse me, Mr. Farrell, but having given your book admittedly only a "quick read" I must admit that it leaves me cold. The conclusion of your book was not Lyndon Baines Johnson, acting as the key provocateur, who caused the assassination of John F. Kennedy to happen, but that all these other "otherworldly" phenomena, based upon "deep parapolitical powers that planned and executed the Kennedy assassination" and the "original sin" of the American people--and using as a springboard the capitalist system of the Western world, were the real cause. I expect that this book will be lauded by the folks at "Deep Politics Forum" (except for the fact that LBJ's name in the title will no doubt be one strike against it). Meanwhile, it is now placed at the bottom of my reading list so I do not expect to comment further on it for awhile.
  15. Because, he said, there is no way that Bobby Kennedy would have not pursued the real killers to "the ends of the earth", The article, in the January 12, 1968 edition of TIME, was entitled: "The Assassination: Inconceivable Connivance" One scholar who has never given much credence to the theory that a conspiracy was behind John F. Kennedy's assassination is John P. Roche, former Brandeis dean, ex-national chairman of the Americans for Democratic Action, and currently Lyndon Johnson's "intellectual-in-residence." For the benefit of those who accept the theory, he cites Roche's law: "Those who can conspire haven't got the time; those who do conspire haven't got the talent." Last week, in a letter to the London Times Literary Supplement congratulating Oxford Don John Sparrow for his incisive, 18,000-word defense of the Warren Commission Report (TIME, Dec. 22), Roche raised a point that has been overlooked—or ignored—by the report's myriad critics. "Every one of the plot theories," wrote Roche, "must necessarily rely on the inconceivable connivance of one key man: Robert F. Kennedy, then Attorney General of the U.S. Any fair analysis of Senator Robert Kennedy's abilities, his character, and of the resources at his disposal, would indicate that if there was a conspiracy, he would have pursued its protagonists to the ends of the earth." Though the conspiracy theory may be gospel to "a priesthood of marginal paranoids," said Roche, it is also "an assault on the sanity of American society, and I believe in its fundamental sanity." He concludes: "I don't mind people being paranoiac, but don't make me carry their luggage." Here we have a great example of how LBJ's house "Intellectual" (he believed in having a specialist who could focus exclusively on one issue or mission assigned to certain things-ref. Mac Wallace and Cliff Carter, for example) rationalized that situation perhaps too early, "jumped the gun, so to speak". And that prognostication was probably something that earned him his entire salary that year. Ironically, this article was published in Time magazine about four months before Bobby attended his victory celebration about having just won the California primary, on his way to (IMHO) a certain victory in his quest to become president. It has been written, by others besides myself, that the only reason that he did not pursue it more vigorously after the assassination (besides the fact that he had been "cut off" in his position of A.G. from above by Johnson and below by Hoover) was that he knew that the only possible way to find out the truth was to become president. Hmmm....Go Figure.
  • Create New...