Tim Gratz

John, I challenge you to set forth a conversation between LBJ and JEH where they discuss blackmailing someone.

Now "blackmail" can be close to coercion. While blackmail normally involves forcing someone to do something, or perhaps not do something, by threatening to publicly reveal derogatory information, coercion means forcing someone to do something or not do something through a threat of physical violence. "Nuclear blackmail" means a threat by one party (presumably a nation-state) to use nuclear weapons (clearly a form of violence). It is probably more proper to call that "nuclear coercion."

I have now read the complete transcript of each telephone conversation John listed in Post #3. There is not a hint of blackmail or a discussion of possible blackmail in a single one of them. JS owes me an apology and the readers a correction.

John posted:

Then there is this passage:

Lyndon B. Johnson: Warren told me he wouldn't do it under any circumstances... I called him and ordered him down here and told me no twice and I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City and I say now, I don't want Mr. Khrushchev to be told tomorrow (censored) and be testifying before a camera that he killed this fellow and that Castro killed him... And he started crying and said, well I won't turn you down... I'll do whatever you say.

Maybe John does not understand the meaning of the term "blackmail". Here are three dictionary definitions of "blackmail":

MERRIAM WEBSTER ON-LINE:

extortion or coercion by threats especially of public exposure or criminal prosecution.

MSN ENCARTA:

Use of secrets to compel: the act of forcing somebody to pay money or do something by threatening to reveal shameful or incriminating facts about him or her.

CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY ONLINE:

When you obtain money from people or force them to do something by threatening to make known a secret of theirs or to harm them.

The common, in fact the only meaning of the term "blackmail" is to force someone either to pay money or to perform an act by a threat to reveal a shameful, embarrassing or criminal act.

The line that LBJ used to persuade Earl Warren to head the investigation, that if a foreign conspiracy is revealed it could lead to a catcylsmic nuclear exchange, is nowhere close to blackmail. For LBJ to imply to Earl Warren that unless he obfuscated facts there could be terrible consequences is not by any stretch of the imagination blackmail

Nor is the Don Reynolds example that John cites blackmail. It is as simple as this: LBJ tried to counter the bad things Reynolds testified against him by leaking derogatory information about Reynolds. That ain't blackmail. Now if there was evidence that LBJ had attempted to prevent Reynolds from testifying by threatening to reveal derogatory information about him, THAT would be blackmail (if it worked) or attempted blackmail (if it did not).

John wrote:

The tapes show that LBJ was constantly working with Hoover in order to blackmail politicians from disclosing important information. Members of the Warren Commission was only a small part of this activity.

Absolute, utter nonsense. I have the book with me. John, cite a single conversation in which LBJ discusses with Hoover the possibility of blackmailing anyone. I am aware of no such passage in the entire book.

To claim that McCloy was "linked" to the assassination because he participated in the Warren Commission is just absurd. So Earl Warren, Arlen Specter and others were also "linked" to the assassination?

Re who made the decision not to bomb the death camps, I thought FDR himself was involved in that decision. I am not sufficiently well read on WWII to know why there was even any question about that but obviously there was. Certainly McCloy was no defender of the Holocaust and certainly his input into that decision has absolutely nothing to do with whether he conspired to kill JFK. So why even bring it up?

What difference does it make that (if) McCloy had links to Gen. Walker unless you can prove Walker was a conspirator? Do you have any proof Walker was a conspirator?

And re the issue of John Hurt and McCloy's association with a man by that name, perhaps you need to explain your theory more. Was LHO a conspirator or not? Was Hurt himself involved in the conspiracy? If so, what evidence do you have to support THAT assertion? If Hurt was innocent, how does it implicate McCloy that McCloy may have worked with or been associated with him?

If you think LHO was innocent, and LHO contacts John Hurt, who is also innocent, I just cannot fathom how it adds anything to your theory to associate McCloy and Hurt.

Phil, I appreciate your input--much.

I note that you are also a Badger alumni! In Key West, I ran into a very nice lady who was the head of the UW foreign students programs in the seventies. her husband was president of Wisconsin Brick and Block. She lived four houses from me. An amazingly small world!

Thanks, Thomas, I have seen all of the articles and was aware of the Special Forces Underwater Operations Committee. Your post shows your knowledge of these matters, but that of course is no surprise.

There are a lot of interesting stories re operations launched from Key West during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And Gerry Hemming tells a very interesting story about documents delivered to No Name Key demonstrating the presence of the missiles in Cuba. If I am recalling correctly, Gerry and/or his associate Howard Davis delivered the documents to a close associate of the president.

Bill, I assure you you cannot find an article this old on the Esquire web-site.

Glad you liked it. You have been at this so long it surprises me that there was something new you discovered. (That is of course a compliment.)

In a case of this significance, any new information could lead to something important.

Obviously Meagher deserves credit for the article but Rahn for posting it. I know you have problems with McAdams, and I certainly disagree with Rahn (hard for me to even envision Rahn and Drago co-existing in such a small state!) but it is true that one can find "good" articles on each of their web-sites so I guess we can give them credit for that even if the credit is "grudging" (is that the correct word?).

Isn't Ian Griggs an expert on the DPD? Perhaps he has heard of Taylor or of the list.

RFK recommended two of the WC members to LBJ. Did he do so because they were "susceptible to blackmail"?

FINAL DRAFT I INTEND TO SUBMIT TO WSJ. MAIN CHANGES ARE TO PAR 3

In "The Culture of Conspiracy" (WSJ, November 24, 1963), James Piereson states that "the evidence against [Oswald as the sole assassin] of JFK was overwhelming." His proof?

1. Oswald's "rifle fired the shots that killed the president." It is probable that one or more of the shots that hit JFK came from a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle sent to Oswald's post office box. (The post office was never able to confirm that Oswald signed for the package.) But recent study of the paraffin tests conducted on Oswald shortly after his arrest offers clear and convincing evidence that Oswald had not shot a rifle on November 22, 1963 (the same test indicated he MAY have fired a handgun).

2. "Spent shells from the rifle were found in the building where [Oswald] worked." Well, so was the rifle itself but as indicated above there is now compelling evidence that Oswald did not fire a rifle that fateful afternoon in Dallas.

3. "He was seen in the area before the shooting." Only one person, Howard Givens, claimed he saw Oswald on the sixth floor--and that was at noon, a half hour before the shooting. Moreover, Givens' testimony was contradicted by two other TSBD employees, one of whom, William Shelley, was Oswald's immediate supervisor, each of whom testified they saw Oswald on a lower floor at around noon. There is no question that Oswald was encountered on the second floor by a policeman and the TSBD building manager only 90 seconds after the shooting, and he was not out of breath. It is barely possible that he could have completed the shooting, hid the rifle, and made it down four flights of stairs within that period. The timing and circumstance of his first sighting after the assassination suggests, however, that he was not the shooter.

4. "Witnesses on the street saw a man firing from a sixth floor window." Mr. Piereson is to be commended for his precision here; there was no credible eyewitness testimony identifying Oswald as the sixth floor shooter.

5. "Based on a description, a policeman stopped Oswald while he was walking in another section of the city." There is no evidence that Tippit stopped Oswald based on a description of the man who shot Kennedy, and logic suggests that if Tippit was stopping a man he suspected of being the presidential assassin he would have been more cautious.. A recent book suggests Tippit stopped Oswald because Oswald turned direction after spotting the police car. Of course why Tippit stopped Oswald has no relevance to whether Oswald shot the president,

6. "Oswald shot the policeman [probably he did, but if in fact he was a framed "patsy" he could have shot Tippit in a desperate attempt to escape the frame he saw closing around him; Oswald's murder of Tippit could as easily be the work of a fleeing patsy as the work of a fleeing assassin] then fled to a movie theatre where he was captured [true].

Piereson concludes: "For those who weigh the evidence, there can be little doubt that Oswald was the assassin." This must rank as one of the most preposterous statements ever published by the Wall Street Journal. There are many brilliant minds who have studied the evidence (probably at far greater length than Mr. Piereson) who doubt that Oswald was the assassin. As noted above, the paraffin test conducted on Oswald the afternoon of the assassination and the neutron activation analysis of Oswald's paraffin casts strongly suggest that Oswald did not fire a rifle on November 22, 1963.

Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry told interviewer Tom Johnson that he was not convinced that Oswald had killed Kennedy, stating: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the riflle [as noted the evidence strongly suggests he had NOT], and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand." Given the statement of the man who sat through the two-day interrogation of Oswald, and who was intimately familiar with the evidence collected by his officers, how can Mr. Piereson state in good faith that no one who has studied the evidence can doubt the guilt of Oswald?

Well, that explains it!

Only a true criminal genius would have thought of a Mugman, a GlovePuppetMan and a Balloonman!

A balloon ready to be launched to celebrate the assassination?

Well, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, when I challenged John's statement that members of the Warren Commission were selected becuae they were susceptible to blackmail, his first response was, well I guess you could call it snide:

Your ignorance about this case never ceases to amaze me. I know you are desperate to put your name at the end of every thread but surely you could have come with a better question.

He then listed five telephone conversations in each of which LBJ was a participant. In two of which LBJ was talking to JEH. I posted links to the substance of one of those conversations and the entire transcript of the other. Nothing at all about blackmailing a member of the WC.

One of the conversations was between LBJ and Richard Russell when he "twisted" Russell's arm to join the WC even though Russell wanted nothing to do with Earl Warren. But no blackmail there either.

That leaves but two conversations between LBJ and a member of Congress, one Dem and one GOP. Do you think there is going to be any discussion or even hint of blackmail there?

I was waiting for John to post a LBJ/JEH conversation in which LBJ asked JEH if he didn't have a file on WC member [select your own member] in which JEH had proof that the WC member had (a) cheated on his wife with a sheep; ( raped a nun; © taken bribes from organized crime; (d) was in the habit of sleepwalking down public streets in the nude; or some other nefarious deed, and LBJ went on to ask JEH to call the WC member and ask him to support the FBI position that LHO was the lone assassin, while subtly reminding the WC member that JEH "had the goods on him". Somehow I don't think John is going to be able to produce any such transcript but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that there is some reference to blackmail on at least one of the two remaining tapes he had mentioned. One out of five is not so good, but I guess it's better than nothing.

Maybe I am not quite as ignorant as John believes. I read "The Assassination Tapes" at length shortly after the book came out. Had there been any hint of blackmail I would have remembered it.

John, you see some reference to blackmail in that conversation? I sure don't.

On the wonderful mary ferrell web-site I located a transcript of the entre November 25, 1963 telephone conference between LBJ and JEH to which you refer, John.

Here is the link:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...amp;relPageId=1

No reference at all that even comes close to blackmail.

What flavor of kool aid are you drinking these days, John? Suggest you stick to that wonderful English tea!

I was able to find on-line portions of LBJ's November 29 1963 telephone call with JEH.

Here is the link:

http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/...estapes/b3.html

I saw nothing that even came clse to hinting at a scheme to blackmail members of the WC.

What am I missing here, John?

They may have shown up in Dallas but they were clearly not the Watergate Cubans. I also believe the implication is that these were pro-Castro Cubans.

It would have been nice if you would have had the courtesy to provide a brief summary of the conversations.

But I will get out my book, read the tapes and see if they came anywhere near to supporting your assertion.

I note that only one conversation was with a member of the WC, Richard Russell, LBJ's friend and mentor. You contend the conversation indicates LBJ was blackmailing Russell? I'll believe it when I read it!

I think this link to "Today in Key West History" will only work until midnight on November 26th.

http://www.keysnews.com/290381185613959.bsp.htm

It was 45 years ago today that JFK paid his second visit as president to Key West. His visit on November 26, 1962 was in fact the last time a sitting president visited Key West.

On his visit, less than a month after the conclusion of the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy was accompanied by every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Atlantic commanders of the Army, Navy and Air Force. It was truly a historic day in Key West history.

He rode down Duval Street in a white Lincoln convertible borrowed from a Miami dealership.

There were no more stringent security measures in force in Key West than there were in Dallas one year later.

A month or so ago Gary Mack told me the Sixth Floor Museum has B & W film footage of the 1962 Kennedy motorcade in Key West.

John you wrote:

I believe that the JFK case can provide clues about the death of Kelly. For example, the selection of Lord Hutton to carry out the investigation of Kelly's death. Like the members of the Warren Commission, Hutton was selected because he could be blackmailed into doing what the government wanted.

Bill Miller wrote, admittedly in a different context:

One cannot help but wonder if some of the more ridiculous claims are being made so to make it appear that CT's are off their rocker.

John, I have no idea if you have a rocker or not and if you do whether you were on it or not when you wrote that.

Surely you do not seriously suggest that any member of the WC was being blackmailed to support the "party line" of LHO as a LN? If you do so assert, perhaps you can offer just a little support for that claim, e.g.:

(!) Which WC members were being blackmailed?

(2) Who was doing the blackmail?

(3) What was the nature of the blackmail?

I suggest, as Bill Miller did in another context, that the offering of bizarre theories only discredits the assassination research community. As you pointed out in another thread, it is critics such as Jeff Morley, whose statements are always capable of substantiation, who can achieve public attention and respect.

When all is said and done, you still have no evidence whatsoever linking JJM to the assassination. None whatsoever.

You have no evidence connecting him to any assassinations in WWII. And as I have said before, that someone (e.g. Dulles) would involve himself in a plot to kill Adolph Hitler makes him a hero, not a villain. One only needs to consider the Holocaust to know that God himself would have approved the shooting, strangling or stabbing death of the evil madman and the people who assisted him in the deeds that a civilized person cannot even bear to contemplate.

Jim, your father was not a murderer in WWII. I am sure that murders can be committed in war time (My Lai comes to mind) but a combat soldier is not a murderer. Unfortunately, war is indeed hell and involves terrible death of both combatants and too often noncombatant civilians. It says a lot about your father that the killing that he did in WWII was on his conscience, however.

Just look at the accomplishments that McCloy made not only for the US but for the world. As you point out he assisted in the reformation of Italy, Germany and Japan. And you sully his reputation based on rank speculation. Have you no shame, sir?

How many would agree with one or more of these propositions?

1. The neck wound was most likely the exit wound of a bone chip or a bullet fragment. It was not the exit wound of a full bullet nor was it an entrance wound of anything.

2. CE399 was most likely a bullet that hit JFK in the back and only went in a few inches or so. Clearly it was not the bullet that wounded John Connally.

3. It is possible that CE399 was indeed recovered from a stretcher that JFK had been on. I believe Pat Speer posits that a DPD or SS man may have taken it from the limousine, realized he goofed, and placed it on a stretcher. I think it may have even come from JFK's stretcher.

Saturday night the History Channel ran a program "The Kennedy Curse". I did not watch all of it so cannot say much about it.

Of course there were LN Op-Ed pieces in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. I am working on a reply to each piece but whether the reply is published remains 2 B seen.

As always, appreciate your expert input, Thomas.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/The_critics/M...estigation.html

You can find interesting pro-conspiracy articles on the web-sites of Rahn and McAdams (as some of you know).

Bill wrote:

One cannot help but wonder if some of the more ridiculous claims are being made so to make it appear that CT's are off their rocker. Just think of it .... what better of a way to counter CT's than by pretending to be one of them and then waste tons of time raising some of the most ridiculous observations possible.

Bill, this thought has crossed my mind as well, particularly because VB in "Reclaiming History" uses that precise tactic of reciting some of the more absurd arguments to ridicule all of us who believe in a conspiracy. Of course I like the Josiah Thompson argument that the best way to deal with such absurdities is to ignore them rather than writing a 1600 page book attempting to debunk every one of them.