Mark Stapleton

Because I think it would be very interesting if this could be pursued.............has anyone ever heard of this "minesport"?

Regarding John Dolva's post where he quotes the statement from Garrison to the effect let justice prevail though the heavens might fall is interesting. It is certainly possible that the assassination was not adequately investigated out of exactly the concern that a complete investigation might cause the heavens to fall. Rightly or wrongly, LBJ convinced Earl Warren that if a full-fledged investigation led to the conclusion there was a foreign-based conspiracy there might be a cataclysmic nuclear exchange. One cannot conceive of anything closer to the falling of the heavens than the raining of nuclear bombs across the United States and the Soviet Union.

Let us assume that LBJ was not a conspirator and that he was face with evidence hinting at a foreign conspiracy. (Whether any of that evidence was genuine or whether it was all planted is immaterial to my argument.) Let us further assume that he was correct that proof of a foreign conspiracy would either likely or possibly trigger a world war. He faced the decision whether to "cover up" and let the conspirators go free (if there was found to be a conspiracy and regardless of who the conspirators were) or to have a full-fledged investigation which might lead to the annihilation of forty million Americans.

Under that scenario, did LBJ act correctly in not "letting justice be done"?

I would offer this methaphor (right word?). Obviously LBJ (if innocent) was unaware of all the possible conspirators. Let us assume that if he opened the door to show the face of the assassin he might find: a) Sam Giancana; E. Howard Hunt; c) a Texas oil baron; or d) Nikita Khruschev. Before he opens the door, he has no idea who he will find behind it. But he is certain if he finds Nikita behind the door, forty million American lives will be lost. He is also certain if he does not open the door, justice will not be done.

If he could consult with the ghost of JFK, what do you think JFK would advise him?

There may or may not have been foreign involvement in the assassination. But surely it was the fear of such involvement that fueled the cover-up. Even if LBJ himself was involved, there is no question that he used the fear of a war to persuade Earl Warren to participate.

Garrison, I submit, got it wrong. That would be clear if his famous quotation were restated thusly: Let justice be done even if should cost the lives of forty million innocent Americans.

Let's take yet another example. Let us assume an evil killer, the most evil one can imagine, has taken hostage an eight year old girl and he is threatening to kill her unless the lawmen surrounding him let him go, at least temporarily. The lawmen know that if they temporarily let him go, he might permanently escape and justice may fail. They also know that if they rush him there is the likelihood an innocent eight year old will be killed. The death of an innocent eight year old, as tragic as it is, must pale in comparison with "the heavens falling". LBJ (if himself innocent) and Earl Warren knew they were playing with the lives of millions of young children when they decided (as I think they did) to "let justice fail".

Note my argument does not depend on whether there was in fact a foreign conspiracy; whether the evidence pointing to a foreign conspiracy was genuine (but misleading); or whether all such evidence was cleverly planted by the true conspirators. All that matters is that LBJ (if innocent) and Earl Warren knew of sufficient evidence to conclude that a full investigation might lead to a nuclear catastrophe.

And if indeed there was a foreign conspiracy, the decision to "cover up" might indeed have saved forty million American lives (let alone the lives of innocent Russians and Cubans).

Tim,

You're asking history to "assume" LBJ was not a conspirator in order to accommodate this theory?

My response is that LBJ wanted history to believe he was willing to forgo bringing his beloved leader's murderers to justice in order to save 40 million lives. What gallantry.

Your argument can also be employed to support the adverse view--that the spectre of 40 million potential casualties was enough to frighten off any serious investigation of the crime. "Assuming" the conspirators were not Soviet bloc countries, then wouldn't this be a most cunningly concieved stratagem?

Finally and most obviously, why would the Soviet bloc conspire to kill a President who obviously wanted peace and take their chances with the man once described as "Senator for the Pentagon"?. No assumptions required there.

The article is a fine critique of Stone's critics. The journalistic paradigm that truth can't exist without revealed evidence is relevant to assassination research. This sham has been used by apologists of the Government coverup to deride researchers for years.

Interesting that Sam also mentions the war on drugs as one of the examples of America's democratic disintegration. The war on drugs is an obscene exercise in global mendacity, IMO.

Hi all,

In the DPD transcripts is a reference to a Johnson Aide named Minesport who was arriving into Dallas around 2:00 P.M. on the 22nd. I have been unable to find a single reference to this person in any of the archives, databases, libraries, etc.

Does anyone know who this person was?

Also, in the transcripts there is mention of a "Mrs. Connally" arriving in Dallas by airplane after the shooting of JBC. Who was this Mrs. Connally?

Finally, in these transcripts, mention is made of a Dr. from Galveston was being flown in to operate upon JBC.

I was under the impression that Parkland Drs. had done the work on JBC?

I realize that these questions have little bearing upon the assassination of JFK. However, not knowing the answers to these questions has been bugging me for some time now.

If anyone has the answers to any of these questions, and would care to enlighten me, I would appreciate it very much.

Thank you,

Chuck

Does anyone know anything about this "minesport"? Anyone?

Tom,

If you only quote from official reports then you won't be able to determine who killed JFK.

Great photo, James.

Yale and the skull and bones society. That's interesting.

My humble contribution to this thread is as follows:

I believe the person most responsible for the assassination was LBJ. While not involved in the hands on planning of Dealey Plaza, there's enough evidence in my mind to label the whole sordid affair an LBJ production. In June 1963, LBJ and Governor Connally met with JFK in El Paso, Texas. From this meeting, a plan for JFK to visit Texas crystallised. (Interestingly, this was mere days after JFK signed Executive Order 11110, the Federal Reserve Bill. I agree with Terry Mauro that this may have been significant, even conclusive, in sealing JFK's fate).

So LBJ got him to visit and continued to stress to JFK the importance of his visit (supposedly to heal the rift between Connally and Yarborough). This done, others stepped in to assist with the plan. LBJ did a few more things to ensure the plan's success, among them arranging a slight change to the motorcade order which included placing the flat bed press truck well behind the presidential limo. Fortunately he knew that JFK usually left details like this to others. However, he had less success convincing JFK to allow Connally and Yarborough to change places on game day. This may account for LBJ's sullen demeanour during the motorcade. His plan might result in getting his friend killed as well.

After the assassination we have the rapid swearing in (arranged by LBJ himself, of course), the ill-feeling between the respective entourages (noted by, and partially excused by Manchester) and the rapid removal of the evidence in the limo (including the windshield). His most elaborate piece of post-production, the Warren Commission, came later.

Why do I think it was LBJ and who helped him carry it out? By 1963, LBJ had established a vast and intricate network of alliances which included Texas oil, arms manufacturers, the aerospace industry, the Israeli Government and many of the major media players in the US. LBJ's primary financial backer throughout his career was the engineering firm Brown and Root (now Halliburton). One of his earliest successes for his benefactors was securing a $10M dam project, the Marshall Ford Dam, from Roosevelt's new deal fund for public works in the 1930's. Along with his early mentor, Senator Alvin Jacob Wirtz, LBJ acquired large defence contracts from Roosevelt in the late 1930's for Brown and Root, enabling them to prosper as the major contractor for building military bases.

I don't want to make this too long so I'll conclude by restating my view that LBJ had, by 1963, acquired such an extensive collection of rich and powerful allies (by virtue of the many favors he had done for them) that this enabled him to call in a favor at a time when his future was looking bleak--to put it mildly. I'll add that I agree with Lee Forman in that the CIA is basically an organisation which by 1963 had strayed far from its original charter and was being used by powerful domestic interests in furtherance of their aims (profit).

LBJ had the persuasive skills, fuelled by desperation, to convince those in the power loop that assassination was the only solution--and one that would result in winners all round.

Finally, my best guess as to who carried out the hits on JFK and Officer Tippett? A joint US/Israeli military intelligence operation.

Mark wrote:

However, I believe [Hoover] had foreknowledge of the hit. This is because as head of America's domestic intelligence agency, the conspirators were obliged to inform him in advance--as a courtesy.

Mark, I am aware of no rule of courtesy that required the plotters to give J. Edgar Hoover advance knowlede of the assassination.

As you know, in 1963 shooting the President was not even a federal crime. 

If anything courtesy would have required the conspirators to notify the AG of the State of Texas, and/or the Dallas Sheriff and Police Chief.

Granted, it might be considered courteous for criminals to give police chiefs advance knowledge of their crimes but I do not think that in practice this happens often.

When it does happen the criminals get a chance to appear on the tv series about the world's stupidest criminals.  They are interviewed in their cells.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Despite the fact that John's already warned you about sidetracking this thread, I'll respond to you once and once only.

I don't really understand why you take issue with the aforementioned terminology, unless you are deliberately nit-picking. In a conspiracy of this magnitude, I assume it would be a prudent move for the conspirators to inform certain like minded parties (who held positions of authority) of the impending action. Do you really think that people like Hoover or Curtis LeMay were stunned, shocked and surprised by the assassination? Hoover's phone call to RFK didn't exhibit much shock and surprise. Hoover was overlord of domestic intelligence. He had his turf--and his ego. He had ruled the FBI for forty years and prided himself on knowing every move people made. For him to be deliberately kept in the dark about something like this would, to an outside observer like myself, seem to be an insult of the most egregious kind. Similarly, had the Joint Chiefs not been told in advance that the President was to be executed it would be seen by them as such a breach of their authority and standing as to almost amount to an act of war. Do you think that Hoover and the JCS believed Oswald did it?

Your silly analogy about criminals giving police chiefs advance knowledge of crimes has no relevence. The parties who had foreknowledge were not police chiefs. They were like minded individuals who were happy to see JFK depart.

This thread is for regular posters to put forward their theory. My post was merely a statement of my agreement with J Raymond Carroll on one of his points. I haven't posted my theory yet. Wait until I post it before you start with the ridicule and silly analogies.

The task, at this late date, is not to speculate or theorize but the contrary, to specify, to test, to clarify, to document and, above all, to eliminate suspects..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with Jefferson Morley on this one point, so instead of revealing (theorizing about) who was involved in the murders of JFK , J.D. Tippit and Lee Oswald, I have made my top ten list of popular suspects who should be eliminated on the basis that, even after 40 years of intense scrutiny, the evidence and arguments against them do not amount to Probable Cause, IMO. I include Probable Cause that any of these parties engaged in a deliberate attempt to conceal or cover up the truth after the fact.

1/ J. Edgar Hoover, James Hosty, the FBI as an organization

2/ Lee Oswald, Marina Oswald.

3/ David Phillips, John McCone, the CIA as an organization.

3/ Mafioso such as Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante, Johnny Roselli or Sam Giancana

4/ Winston Lawson and Clint Hill or the Secret Service as an organization

5 General Maxwell Taylor or the Military Industrial Complex as an institution

6/ The John Birch Society, General Edwin Walker

7/ H.L. Hunt or his sons Bunker & Lamar, Clint Murchison & his family

8/ Dallas police chief Jesse Curry or the Dallas police as an institution.

9/ Most of the members and staff of the Warren Commission and the HSCA.

10/ Fidel Castro, the KGB.

I realize that many forum members may disagree with some/many/most/all of this list, and I hope you will forgive me if other committments prevent me from defending/documenting (at this stage) the views expressed herein.

Ray

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I intend to post my theory shortly but I must say that's a comprehensive list of suspects you've eliminated, Raymond. While I disagree with some, I do agree that Hoover was not a conspirator.

Initially I thought he was involved, given his well known antipathy towards the Kennedys, but now I believe he fails the test as an active plotter. His career reveals few examples of stunning creativity and original ideas, just a litany of subtle threats of blackmail and general paranoia.

However, I believe he had foreknowledge of the hit. This is because as head of America's domestic intelligence agency, the conspirators were obliged to inform him in advance--as a courtesy. Their gripe was with JFK alone. They had no desire to make additional enemies, especially one's who could be so useful in the subsequent coverup.

Naturally they wouldn't have given Hoover the heads up without first being aware of his great antagonism towards Jack and Bobbie. Hoover's intense dislike of the Kennedy's was probably Washington's worst kept secret but just in case the conspirators were unaware, the world's most opportunistic name-dropper would have eagerly stepped in to give them the goss. No prizes for guessing who that would be.

Dawn has sent me details of a speech made by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on 17 September 2005. He seems the sort of person who might be interested in discovering the truth about the assassination of JFK.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091705Z.shtml

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A very eloquent and passionate speech indeed. Looks like RFK Jnr has the smarts of his old man. His argument about corporate interference--indeed capture--of the US Government--to the undeniable detriment of the wider citizenry--has great resonance. I've argued this point on other threads before but RFK Jnr's speech puts it neatly in a nutshell--allowing corporations to run the democratically elected Government can only end in disaster because the aspirations of the corporations differ greatly from the aspirations of the people. That's not to say corporations are bad, they're simply amoral and they shouldn't be running public policy.

His examples corporate sponsored environmental degradation in the US should be extremely worring for all Americans.

FWIW, writer/producer Eric Hamburg has written about his attendance at a 40th anniversary of the Bay of Pigs event held in Cuba.  He mentions that one of those in attendance was the wife of noted historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.  He says she spoke openly of her belief that the CIA killed Kennedy. Her companion on the trip? JFK's sister, Jean Kennedy Smith.  While this by no means indicates that the Kennedys as a family believe the CIA did it, it certainly indicates such theories are not repellent to them.  I think it's clear they keep their mouths shut for political reasons, and not because they endorse the lone nut theory..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat,

Very interesting tidbit. Arthur Schlesinger gave a lengthy interview on our national radio a few years back (not that long before he died) but unfortunately the assassination barely got a mention.

I hope you're right about Bobby's kids embracing the good fight.

Here’s an interesting item from “Library Exercise: Freshman Orientation 101” at McNeese State University:

EVALUATING WEB SITES:

For items 21-30, determine which web site would be more appropriate as an objective information resource on the subject given.  Select only 1 site (A or for each numbered group.  Record your responses on the answer sheet only.

21. JFK Assassination

        Site A

        Site B

Site A is a link to “Ecker’s JFK Webpage.” Site B is a link to John McAdams’s site.

Is this fair to the students or what? My site says right up front that there was a conspiracy, whereas you can read McAdams’s entire index page and get the impression that his site takes no side on the issue. So unless those freshmen spend a lot of valuable time actually browsing McAdams’s site, which site are they naturally going to find more “objective”?

http://library.mcneese.edu/tutorial/freshorientation.htm

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron,

They're trying to portray your site as a conspiracy site, hence not objective. Of course, as everyone who has studied the assassination knows, it was indeed a conspiracy. Objective analysis of the available evidence shows this to be the case. I'm confident the more astute freshmen will see through this exercise in semantics. If they like your site as much as I do maybe we'll recruit some new assassination researchers.

Craig,

A very interesting piece you quoted. Good post.

Tim,

That was the lamest link to the assassination I've ever heard. Trust me Tim, humor isn't your long suit .

Tom,

Thanks for your informative posts. However, I respectfully submit that a distinct vein of "Yankee v. South" runs through many of your posts. I thought the civil war was over.

It appears that the focus of retribution may have been trained too harshly on President Bush. I plead guilty. While President Bush displayed a perplexed helplessness on television, an image at odds with a decisive leader, much of the blame for administrative failure lies with City officials and the Governor. (However, I still believe the President has been a reckless failure on foreign policy.)

It's hard to believe that a nation as technologically advanced as the U.S. can find itself stumbling over bureaucratic red tape caused by competing Federal and State jurisdictions at a time of national emergency. Is this a fair comment? If so, it prevents the executive from exercising national leadership in times of emergency. As a foreigner, it seems that the United States of America is a misnomer. Shouldn't it be called the "Loosely Allied States of America" or maybe just the "States of America"?

I have noted previously how often some left-oriented posters seem to delight in impugning the motives of those who oppose their positions (as if they had the ability to read the opponent's mind to judge his or her sinccerity).

I hope you notice that I have refrained from suggesting that those who have posted criticisms of the federal government's response to Katrina are motivated by their hatred of all things Bush rather than a sincere concern for the victims of this tragedy.  In fact, I go so far as to assume that most of the posters have in fact demonstrated their sincere concern by making the largest contribution they can afford to an appropriate relief organization.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is indeed a problem of ideology. People in Europe believe in a welfare state where no one falls below a certain level. This is a expensive policy and needs high levels of progressive taxation. It is the sort of taxation that you have said several times on the forum that you are very much against. It is this level of taxation and the resulting government protection it provides that makes countries civilized. It is no coincidence that America responds to natural disasters like a third world country. That is why it relies on calls for charity donations in times of crisis. That is what third world countries have to do at times like that. What we know is that charity is not the way to solve these problems. Research shows that rich people and rich countries are always the meanest when it comes to giving charity. I suspect America will get a poor response from its calls for help. People will understandably say, why has the American government been spending billions of dollars in invading other countries when it cannot afford to protect its own citizens.

It is also noted that it was not long ago that only recently the American people elected this moron to remain in office for another four years. I suppose therefore that Bush’s values reflects those of the American people. That means you have a government that refused to help the poor people get out of New Orleans. As they have been telling us on the television and in the newspapers, they did not have the money to get out of New Orleans. As they also pointed out, where would they go when they got out of the city. They don’t have money to stay in motels. They also claimed they would not have been made to feel welcome outside of New Orleans. What does that tell us about American society?

In an European country the government would have paid to evacuate the people of New Orleans. They would have also paid for their accommodation while away from home. That is why we have a welfare state? It is not for the rich. It is for the poor who do not have the money to protect themselves from situations like this.

As you know, I constantly find your moral judgements totally repulsive. Another example of your moral code can be found on the thread on Abortion and Nazi Germany.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3566

I find the moral code of your leader equally repulsive. This is reflected in his decision to redirect funding away from building up the defences of New Orleans. Bush is also an incompetent politician. First he continues his holiday at the beginning of the crisis. Then he appears and with that repulsive smirk of his, makes completely inappropriate comments. Then it takes him five days to get people stranded in places like the New Orleans Convention Centre. Yet, as Tony Allen-Mills, wrote in today’s Sunday Times, he had no difficulty driving to the centre after the disaster had taken place. If he could do it, why couldn’t they have got buses and helicopters into the area?

Soon after the 1927 flood in New Orleans the people voted into power Huey Long whose campaign slogan was “Share the Wealth”. I expect something similar will happen this time. If I was one of the right-wing millionaires concerned with keeping my wealth, I would at this moment be secretly plotting the removal of George Bush from office. He is so incompetent he poses a real threat to the power elite in America.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very good post, John. The slackness of the US Government's response to this crisis does a great disservice to the American people. The reason for the slackness, of course, is because most of those stranded in New Orleans have no money. The damage to President Bush's credibility is terminal, IMO. The entire episode has become an international embarrassment. Ironically, nature itself has revealed George Bush and his support base for what they are.

Yep that sounds about right, see Evan, us JFK types dont think everythings a conspiracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmm. Why did you say that? Did someone tell you to say that? Who told you to say that - the Government?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very witty, Evan. There aren't enough Seinfeld related gags on the Forum. It's a sad state of affairs .

I don't want to sound like a doomsday prophet but there's another one forming southeast of Florida--named Lee.

It's incredible but New Orleans is gone. And this might not be the end of it. From my recent understanding, the water temperature of the Gulf of Mexico is the problem. An ocean temperature of 27.5C is required before sufficient evaporation provides conditions suitable for the creation of a hurricane. A large section of the Gulf is now 30C.

Based upon LBJ's personality, I find it highly unlikely he allowed Bobby to pick anyone for the Commission.  He and Fortas picked the Commission, and then had Fortas or someone run them by Bobby.  When Bobby voiced no objections, LBJ had the go ahead to tell everyone that Bobby picked them.  This was LBJ's MO--he NEVER wanted to take responsibility for anything.  I think it was Dean Acheson who wrote about how LBJ would call him periodically and tell him that he was thinking about escalating the war in Vietnam.  Acheson said that if you disagreed with LBJ when he said this, he'd say "but then the right-wingers will eat me up", and then blubber on about how he "can't win for losing etc woe is me etc etc etc" until Acheson would finally say "well, then, do what you have to do."  Acheson wrote that a week later he'd find out that LBJ immediately called McNamara and demanded that the war be escalated, and insisted that it was ACHESON'S IDEA.  The man was as slippery as they come and nothing he said can be taken at face value.

Based on the way HE ordered Warren and Russell to be on the Commission, it's clear he had a design for the Commission.  No way would he have placed a liberal Northerner on the Commission.  No way would he have placed any close political ally of the Kennedy family on the Commission.  That said, there is reason to believe the Kennedys respected both Dulles and McCloy and were comfortable with their appointment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat,

I agree with your summation of LBJ's MO. That's what I meant in my post, namely it's possible RFK okayed Dulles and McCloy but (in answer to John's original question) it's unlikely that RFK specifically asked for their inclusion. Just one of many examples of LBJ being fast and loose with the truth.

Larry, from memory I think "The Assassination Tapes" states that LBJ solicited RFK's views on possible members of the WC through LBJ's counsel Abe Fortas.

It is possible that from time to time LBJ told the truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only when it suited his purpose.

I agree with what Larry is implying. From what I've read about LBJ, most of his recorded historical legacy was designed to protect his rear end. In another example of duplicity, LBJ told others at Love Field that RFK wanted him sworn in--pronto. This was not entirely true as LBJ, in his telephone conversation with RFK shortly after the assassination, used clever name-dropping to get RFK to agree to a swift swearing-in.

I don't believe Bobby would have asked for McCloy and Dulles to be put on the WC. It's very convenient that LBJ's autobio was written after RFK's death. It makes a subsequent denial by RFK highly unlikely.

Richard,

Thanks for your informative post. I hope Chavez stays in power as long as Castro has.

Televangelist Calls for Chavez' Death

August 22, 2005 10:06 PM EDT

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a "terrific danger" to the United States.

From the AP  August 29, 2005:

Chavez recently suspended cooperation with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, accusing its agents of acting as spies. But after emerging from the talks with [Jesse] Jackson, Chavez said: "We are willing to continue working in the fight against drugs with Mr. Bush's government."

Chavez also offered Venezuelan aid to help in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and he reiterated a recent suggestion that his country would provide oil directly to poor U.S. communities.

Well, either Jackson or Robertson got to Chavez!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong again. It just means Chavez has a genuine concern for the poor and the dispossessed. Global capitalists should hang their heads in shame.

Yes, that's some mighty fine predictin'.

There is indeed a first time for everything.

I leave the country for a month and when I return England can play cricket and the Aussies are in turmoil

What was that little strop from Ponting about when he was run out?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think Ponting was just angry at being run out by a bad call from Damien Martyn. Expect Australia to regain its' mercenary mindset when McGrath returns for the fifth Test. Simon Jones' injury is a concern for England.

I agree. It was an accident, although it's possible Holt was reconsidering the wisdom of committing to Vietnam. James, your father was very perceptive. My father thought LBJ was great. Great photo, btw. Is that a beer or a bourbon and coke HH is holding?

Fascinating stuff, John. I hope there's more to come. I would like to know who those executives mentioned by Garrison were. The theory that it was the work of the Aerospace wing of the MIC may be closer to the mark than we think.

In Robert Dallek's "JFK-an unfinished life", the author points out that JFK appointed LBJ to be Chairman of the National Space Council (being a canny politician, he probably did this so LBJ would take the fall if there was a major mishap in any of the flights). LBJ worked closely with James Webb, the boss of NASA. Complaints from lobbyists and congressmen from Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania that LBJ was awarding all the contracts to his friends in Texas and California soon followed. JFK responded by appointing Richard Callaghan as aide to Webb in order to ascertain LBJ's "influence on the Space Agency". What I'm suggesting is that if those defence contractors had a hand in planning the assassination, then LBJ would be the first to know. And I believe he knew.

Was it ever confirmed that LBJ wanted his nemesis Yarborough in the car with JFK instead of his good buddy Connally?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

William Manchester wrote of a furious argument between JFK and LBJ the night before the assassination. The subject matter of the argument is not revealed but it's also been mentioned by others, including John Simkin, that there was a further disagreement concerning the seating arrangements on the morning of the assassination. LBJ obviously wanted his friend Connally out of the line of fire. Naturally, LBJ wouldn't reveal anything about this dispute, but it's clear to me that he knew very well what was about to occur.