Phil Nelson

Damn, those are great quotes from Reedy; sorry I missed them. But, I did manage to include numerous others which said the same thing :-)

The following is a copy of a post I just put on the JFK Lancer forum. I'll add in other excerpts in later weeks. I thought I'd start by offering up a little snippet which illustrates Johnson's cunning and mendacious behavior. This is only one such instance, the book is filled with them, because that was the kind of person he was and it's long past time that people understand that, since most of the early biographies of him were written by people he "commissioned" to put the right spin on them. The result was, that is how he is described, over and over again in those biographies, and even the most current obsequious books (e.g. the Unger's and Randall Woods) on him and his administration. Half of the objective of this book is to dismantle the "conventional wisdom" that he was a man really dedicated to "service" to America. Not true, despite his commendable efforts to push through the very programs that he himself had personally suppressed for three years before (and in some cases, for decades before, including real civil rights initiatives - irrespective of the watered down, toothless carcass of a bill known as the 1957 Civil Rights Act. As the book shows, Johnson suppressed JFK's legislative efforts and his foreign policy initiatives, and repeatedly sabotaged him through his "back channels" to the military and intelligence agencies. He did so in order to put himself into the position of being able to "change the subject" immediately after the assassination; this would help him establish himself as a man worthy of re-election since he was obviously such an effective and brilliant president. This was all part of his original plan (which began in 1958-59) to execute a coup de'etat in order to become president, knowing that that was the only way he could possibly do so because of his "southern" base. From the first sentence of the book, strengthened on practically every other page, it is clear that Johnson considered it his destiny to become president and that nothing could get in his way to achieve his childhood dream. He was nothing if not a very skilled and meticulous planner, and this would be his ultimate project. Read on. . . Johnson’s World War II “Service” After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Lyndon Johnson decided that his political career required that he get himself into the navy. He went to visit Admiral Chester Nimitz, a Hill Country native, who signed the necessary forms installing him as a lieutenant commander, even though he had no training or experience to justify such a position. He originally wanted to be assigned to a job in Washington but went to undersecretary of the navy James V. Forrestal to get orders to conduct an “inspection tour” of West Coast training programs with his administrative assistant, John Connally, who had enlisted in the Naval Reserve. Johnson’s lack of training was the cause of his failure to salute an admiral. His reflection on this was characteristically self-absorbed: “I did not fully appreciate that my uniform completely concealed my status as a congressman” and “the fact that I looked like any other junior officer and . . . was expected to salute my superiors.” Perhaps Johnson felt that maybe the admiral erred in not saluting him, Congressman Lyndon Johnson. While serving his country in California, he spent many weeks in Los Angeles, where one of his financial supporters, who was counsel for Paramount Pictures, “arranged things” for Johnson and John Connally to attend screenings and parties and long sessions with a Hollywood photographer and voice coach who helped him improve his speaking style and photography posing skills as dispatches came in describing the fighting going on in such places as the Bataan Peninsula and the Makassar Straits. Apparently, the contrast between Johnson’s wartime experiences and the battles being waged in faraway places caused his mistress, Alice Glass, to be disillusioned with something in his character. After five months of politicking and partying on the West Coast, he decided that he needed to increase his responsibilities by getting an overseas assignment; his secretaries back in Washington had been telling his constituents that his present location was unknown but that he was en route to the war zone in the Pacific. He was finally dispatched to the Pacific with two other congressmen as “observers,” and General Douglas MacArthur realized that they might be helpful to him in relation to his own political necessities; evidently, Johnson had subjected MacArthur to his famous “treatment” at some point, given the bounty he would bring back to Washington, as we will shortly see. In early June, he arrived in northern Australia, within what was considered a combat zone. Commander Johnson, like the other observers, accompanied a squadron assigned to bomb an enemy airfield. The mission of June 9 was code-named “Tow Nine,” and it involved eleven Martin B-26A Marauders—fast, twin-engine bombers—of the 22nd Bombardment Group from Port Moresby, New Guinea. Their target was Lae airdrome, an important Japanese installation on New Guinea’s northern coast. Up to this point, the stories of Johnson’s short ride in a Marauder are consistent; from here on, however, two completely different versions emerge. The first is his own, which was subsequently reshaped into an account that interestingly appeared in a 1964 book titled The Mission, by Martin Caidin and Edward Hymoff; its appearance, just as Johnson was preparing his run for the presidency, was certainly timely, and made for interesting conjecture as to whose idea it was to write the account at that time. Caidin was an already established aviation writer, best-known for books on space exploration and WWII in the Pacific; Johnson had doubtlessly heard of his books and apparently “commissioned” him to create another one. The second version of Johnson’s ride on a Marauder couldn’t have been more completely different than the one conveniently appearing in the 1964 book. But considering that it was the one told by veterans who were actually there, it seems to be the more believable story. The following excerpts of the story of Johnson’s “mission” were taken from the “B-26 Marauder Historical Society’s” Web site: "The fact is LBJ never got within sight of Japanese forces. His mission, like so much of his life, was a lie . . . The exact origins of the contrived decoration remain unknown. Major General R. K. Sutherland, MacArthur’s chief of staff, made the award in MacArthur’s name on June 18, 1942, just nine days after the alleged episode. The following day Brigadier General W. F. Marquat wrote Johnson, filling LBJ’s request for a signed copy of the citation. In his cover letter, Marquat stated, “Of course, your outstanding bravery in volunteering for a so-called suicide mission in order to get a first-hand view of what our Army fliers go through has been the subject of much favorable comment since your departure. It is indeed a great government we have when members of the Congress take THOSE chances in order to better serve their fellow men in the legislative bodies. You surely earned your decoration and I am so happy about your having received the award.” "Clearly, the perception of Johnson’s valor as characterized in General Marguat’s letter was not shared by aircrews at the sharp end. Far from the "suicide mission" the general alluded to, 22nd Bomb Group airmen had a far calmer attitude toward Lae. As attested by records and combat veterans, the group lost twice as many aircraft over Rabaul, the naval-air bastion on New Britain, as at Lae. Recalled Colonel Leon G. Lewis, USAF (Ret), who flew with Lieutenant Hayes in Shamrock, "The targets, Lae and Salamaua, were milk runs; on the other hand, Rabaul was a tough mission. We were not aware at the time of Lyndon Johnson’s write-up for the Silver Star; they were scarce for aircrews. "The decoration remains a sore point with many 22nd Bomb Group veterans. The Hare’s crew chief, retired Master Sergeant W. H. Harrison, said, "As to the strangeness of LBJ’s Silver Star . . . no other crew member aboard 1488 received one." Equally adamant was the Hare’s regular gunner Robert Marshal, who said, "We didn’t know (LBJ) was awarded the Silver Star until the book came out. We didn’t like it. If he got it, then so should everyone else on the mission." In truth, if any decoration was awarded the various observers on the mission, it should have been the Air Medal. Ordinarily presented for five or more missions, it was regarded by aviators as an "I-was-there" award; a means of setting apart those who have performed a combat function. Award of the Silver Star—even had Johnson’s citations been accurate—was an insult to every man who earned the medal. (emphasis added) The two leading biographers of Johnson commented about his Silver Star, in a report done by CNN titled, The Story of LBJ’s Silver Star, by Jamie McIntyre, CNN military affairs correspondent, and Jim Barnett, CNN Producer: "Robert Caro: “The most you can say about Lyndon Johnson and his Silver Star is that it is surely one of the most undeserved Silver Stars in history," Caro said. "Because if you accept everything that he said, he was still in action for no more than 13 minutes and only as an observer. Men who flew many missions, brave men, never got a Silver Star . . . I would say that it's an issue of exaggerations," Caro said." He said that he flew on many missions, not one mission. He said that the crew members, the other members of the Air Force group, were so admiring of him that they called him Raider Johnson. Neither of these things are true.” "Robert Dallek: “What I concluded, was that there was an agreement, a deal made between LBJ and Gen. MacArthur. And the deal was Johnson would get this medal, which somebody later said was the least deserved and most talked about medal in American military history. And MacArthur, in return, had a pledge from Johnson that he would lobby FDR to provide greater resources for the southwest Pacific theater. . . It matters that the record is accurate because it speaks volumes about the man, about his character, about his place in history, about judgments that historians make on him," Dallek said. "Is he to be trusted?" When Johnson returned from his horrible war experience, he initially told others that he really didn’t deserve the medal, even stating that he wouldn’t wear it. He even wrote a letter of formal refusal, stating that “I cannot in good conscience accept the decoration” and had the letter typed, ready for his signature; but the letter was filed away, unsigned and never to be mailed. He even arranged to have the Silver Star presented to himself: in public, several times. He purchased a jeweler’s quality “battle ribbon” emblematic of the Silver Star at a store in Washington and wore it often in public appearances; once at an American Legion post in Fort Worth, he had the commander pin it on him as “a crowd of Legionnaires cheered and Johnson stood before them, head bowed, face somber, hardly able to blink back the tears.” To make sure people recognized it, he would place his left hand on his lapel and pull it forward and back, waving it, as he extolled his own heroic and patriotic, death-defying actions during his twenty-minute airplane ride. Joe M. Kilgore was a Texan who knew Lyndon Johnson well; during the twenty years he worked for him, he finally realized that Johnson would believe only that which he wanted to believe, often confusing that with what was the truth; in fact he actually believed in many things that were categorically untrue, yet he believed them completely. In some cases—such as his grandfather dying at the Alamo--they were relatively harmless; in others, such as his belief that he, and he alone, knew how to beat back the communists in Vietnam, they were highly destructive. According to Kilgore, after years of patting himself on the back for his gallantry in action, Johnson went from feigning suprise at receiving the Silver Star—and uttered doubts about whether it was deserved—to complaining that it was "only" the Silver Star; he came to believe that he had been short-changed and should have had a higher medal, such as the Medal of Honor . . . “He believed it totally.” This trait of Johnson’s—to become convinced that the lie was the truth, no matter what the facts were—would play itself out over and over throughout his career.

Well then excuse me for not having the right answer to the question. Perhaps you didn't pick up on the fact that there was yet another Stegall around the White House, an LBJ aide and, evidently, Mildred's husband; isn't that pertinent? Maybe with that knowledge, the answer to John's original question can be more readily found? So, no, the answer to your question will not be revealed in this book. If you think that the resolution of the entire assassination puzzle turns on that point, then you will be disappointed. I don't claim that this book answers every conceivable question about who knew whom or who knew what and it certainly won't be the last word on the subject. In fact, it seems that there are plenty of people ready to take pot shots at it even before they've read it, so I'm fully expecting a barrage of criticisms about it as soon as people do. But I expect at least as many will find long hidden answers in it, to the many questions that still remain about what really happened in the years leading up to the assassination as well as the aftermath. Though the initial publicity about it is focused on the research community, the real objective of the book is to reach the mainstream audience, many of whom haven't read a JFK book in over forty years. Many of those folks will have their interest in the subject reawakened by the premise of the book because they have harbored suspicions about Johnson all of this time but have never read a compelling account which places him at the center of the conspiracy.

This is no fairy tale; its the only believable possibility and it is based upon facts all the way through, as demonstrated by the 1,827 citations to other works. If you can't get past your pre-conclusions, formed before you've read it, it might be best if you not read the book because you need to have an open mind as you read it. If you should decide to plow through it anyway, you are welcome to challenge it point by point and I will respond to them. I suggest you might want to consider starting by trying to find Lyndon Johnson in the Altgens photo of the motorcade coming down Elm Street. Only two people have reacted to the first shot(s) in that photo, JFK and LBJ. The former is grasping towards his throat; the latter isn't in the photograph. Go figure.

Terry, insofar as your confusion about why Johnson could have possibly been behind the assassination, the book will explain it all. Regarding his decision not to run for reelection, it was because he realized that he would probably be defeated and his ego could not handle that possibility, just as it caused him to run a passive and perfunctory campaign for the presidential nomination in 1960. He feared losing in the general election to Nixon, but thought that getting on Kennedy's ticket was the only realistic way he could ever make it into the White House. Which is why he ran a brutal campaign for the vice-presidency, even blackmailing JFK to be nominated. By 1968, he had so mishandled Vietnam that he had virtually no chance of being re-elected. You really need to read the book to understand the complexity of the plot.

Bill, I don't know what relationship might have existed with the Stegall's. In Caro's last book, he referred to "Glynn Stegall, whose hands would shake as Lyndon Johnson humiliated him in front of this wife." Glynn was one of his aides (practically all of whom were from Texas), so it is likely that Mildred was his wife(?) Puterbaugh (who I think came from Wisconsin) is probably one of the least researched people around Johnson. I got some info on him from Larry Hancock but I don't know if he had been with Johnson long enough to have been involved in the Henry Marshall investigation. It's unclear how much he might have known in advance, but he was sent to Dallas to help ensure that the Trade Mart would be selected for the luncheon and that the motorcade route was designed to go through downtown on Main Street instead of Elm, and that it would take the fateful zig-zag around Dealey Plaza. He was also on hand at Love Field to do last minute revisions in the vehicle sequence, ensuring that the photographers (and others normally at the head of the motorcade) were repositioned farther back. Strangely, even though he and Cliff Carter were both there operating as a team in preparing for the Dallas visit, they both avoided any reference to the other one in their statements and testimony; it was as if that information was being withheld, something that Johnson's invisible hand would have probably orchestrated. Sorry I can't offer more help on those particular questions. Phil

I can't disagree with that reasoning. . . it's why I'm saying that Estes was credible (one of the reasons): Because Ranger Peoples also agreed with that.

Hi Robert Thanks for buying the book, and for the files you forwarded. I'll give you a call in the next few days, once I've had a chance to peruse them. The problem with going "too deep into the weeds" is that it makes it difficult to write an engaging account, which was my no. 1 priority. But there are many citations to the additional leads which allow the reader to pursue them independently. We'll talk soon. Phil

Ranger Peoples is probably the biggest "hero" in my book, as illustrated in this excerpt: Clearly, Estes’s checkered past causes anyone to be skeptical about his general credibility; therefore the veracity of his statements regarding Johnson’s involvement is open to debate. Yet one man—a man whose impeccable credentials and highly regarded reputation among Texas law enforcement officials, a man who knew Estes for more than two decades and was responsible for his finally being arraigned—Texas Ranger Captain Clint Peoples, felt that Estes’s unique knowledge of Johnson’s history of criminal conduct was the key to solving the “crime of the century.” Captain Peoples made the judgment that Estes was then a convincing witness who should be listened to; clearly, Peoples considered the man’s character at that point in time and felt that it justified giving him an equal measure, at least, of the “benefit of the doubt” so long extended to Lyndon B. Johnson. After working on his own time for many years to break the Wallace murders open, and tie him directly into the Kennedy assassination as well, as he was about to announce his findings, his car was broadsided by a large truck, immediately killing him. According to Madeleine Brown, who had gotten to know him and had furnished information to him regarding Mac Wallace, “His wrists showed marks (that apparently were caused) from handcuffs.” Captain Peoples knew too much and was still a threat to certain people and institutions as late as 1992. The statements made by Billie Sol Estes, therefore, are vindicated not by the author but by the estimable Ranger Captain Clint Peoples, whose intimate knowledge of the people and events related to this sorry chapter of American history more than offset any sway of doubt about the veracity of Estes. Thanks for your support (and purchase). I think you won't be disappointed.

My book is now available for purchase, either hardback, paperback or ebook, at the following site: http://www.lbj-themastermind.com/ The website provides some insight into the construct of the book; suffice it to say that, in its 729 pages (679 of narrative) the context of the background in all its dimensions is well developed. It tells the story of how I believe the assassination plan originated nearly five years before on Johnson's part, before it was joined by others, most importantly James Jesus Angleton by the end of 1962, and Bill Harvey, early in 1963, followed by David Morales, David Ferrie and the other New Orleans gang after that. If five years seems a bit much, you need to read the book to understand why I've staked out such a seemingly impossible claim.

The following notes may explain what was going on with Brennan, from Crossfire, pp. 25-29: Brennan's supervisor, Sandy Speaker told Jim Marrs, in 1979: They took [brennan] off for about three weeks. I don’t know if they were Secret Service or FBI, but they were federal people. He came back a nervous wreck and within a year his hair had turned snow white. He wouldn’t talk about [the assassination] after that. He was scared to death. They made him say what they wanted him to say. Speaker also told Marrs that, “Much later, it was determined that Brennan had poor eyesight and, in fact, a close examination of the Zapruder film shows that Brennan was not looking up at the time of the shooting." He also said that he heard “at least five shots and they came from different locations.” (Which no doubt explains why the WC wasn't interested in talking to him or the others who were with Brennan at the time). Speaker went on to describe how he and the other workers who accompanied Brennan had been threatened (in 1979) to keep quiet or they and their families would be targeted. Shortly after the WCR was issued in September, 1964, Life magazine jumped on board with a story written by Gerald Ford, which described Brennan as the most important witness to appear before the commission. . ."a neat, Bible-reading steam fitter from Dallas." The article then said that the confusion caused by differing descriptions of Oswald was due to two different descriptions (one from Brennan, the other from Oswald's personnel file) but that "Brennan later identified Oswald in a police lineup." It seems that all this confusion began minutes after the assassination and continues to this day.

LBJ was no mastermind at all of the assassination. The only thing he was told at that party was, that something bad would happen to JFK the next day...and that this was a "promise not a threat"...Johnson was out of the loop. You do not give LBJ all the facts of the assassination of his predecessor, if your intention is to control the LBJ-presidency. AND they, the secret team, controlled his presidency. LBJ never knew what really happened in Dealy Plaza that day...to call LBJ the mastermind of the assassination is the same baloney if one calls Castro the mastermind of the assassination, or the mafia...LBJ was just another ball in that game...the players were beyond his reach... regards KK Thanks for your review. . . you might find a more effective way to do so, though, is to first read the book. Then you can explain to me how LBJ was "out of the loop." You'll need to rebut each way that I have identified as him being not only within the loop but the single individual within it that originated it. Have a good day. (The book will be available for ordering in the next few days). Sorry, but that rather a was pre-view not a review...;-) Seriously: the men who killed Kennedy were the global players who won WW 2, with connections all over the world...the very same men who founded the OSS and later the CIA...Johnson was very much a national politician...foreign policy was not one of his professions...Johnson knew nothing about the Intelligence Community which was running the Cold War...he was just another toy in the Withe House...the Kennedy murder was very much an international thing...maybe somehow orchestrated with the murder of the Diems and the impeachment of Chruschtschew... LBJ, of course, was one of the beneficiaries of the murder. But do you really think he selected the crime zone, the patsy Oswald, created the Lone nut cover and selected the members of the WC (which to me is just a public-relation commission to sell the Cover)by himself? (The WC members were recommended to him)...your thesis is similar to the thesis of E.H.Hunts "deathbed-confession", (and the thesis of HISTORY CHANNELS banned documentary)a la: it was "bad boy Johnson"...it's to simple a thesis to understand that typical cold war crime...which such simple "salvations" one rather buries the truth instead of uncover it...Castro, Johnson, the Mafia, the KGB, sorry: but I crossed these bridges long ago... But thats my personal view...may your book sell well... regards KK Thanks for your good wishes. I think I've covered the international aspects pretty well (devoted an entire chapter to it, with more referenced in others) and the other players involved. And, No, I don't think Johnson was the "only" mastermind involved. I believe he was involved as early as 1958-59 as explained in the book, in planning to get himself nominated not as the presidential nominee, but as the vice presidential nominee because he was afraid of losing the election as head of the ticket but confident of winning running under Kennedy. It was the only way he thought he could ever become president, a compulsion he had since he was a child. He regarded it as his destiny; in fact, it was part of his mania, which is described in the book. In early 1963, after RFK fired Bill Harvey, all the elements of a "perfect storm" started coming together, including setting Harvey up as the nucleus - the micro level "mastermind" - working with David Morales and David Ferrie (all of whom themselves were well connected to international figures through men such as Clay Shaw and George DeMohrenschildt, the latter unwittingly). So, I think I can say that the context has been set fairly solidly: No, LBJ wasn't the "only" mastermind, just the original, without whom the plan would have never gotten off the ground.

LBJ was no mastermind at all of the assassination. The only thing he was told at that party was, that something bad would happen to JFK the next day...and that this was a "promise not a threat"...Johnson was out of the loop. You do not give LBJ all the facts of the assassination of his predecessor, if your intention is to control the LBJ-presidency. AND they, the secret team, controlled his presidency. LBJ never knew what really happened in Dealy Plaza that day...to call LBJ the mastermind of the assassination is the same baloney if one calls Castro the mastermind of the assassination, or the mafia...LBJ was just another ball in that game...the players were beyond his reach... regards KK Thanks for your review. . . you might find a more effective way to do so, though, is to first read the book. Then you can explain to me how LBJ was "out of the loop." You'll need to rebut each way that I have identified as him being not only within the loop but the single individual within it that originated it. Have a good day. (The book will be available for ordering in the next few days).

Wow. . . what timing! I believe you will find my new book, available within a few days at the following link, a must read. http://www2.xlibris.com/books/webimages/wd/75798/index.htm The weblink explains everything you need to know but the title says it all: LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination. It probably seems presumptuous of me to say so, but I think I've made a rather strong case that he began planning for the assassination as early as 1958-60 as the only way he--as a Southerner--would ever become president. He found the "perfect storm" gathering in 1963 and pulled it off with the aid of Angleton and Bill Harvey and a dozen or so others recruited by Harvey. Anyway, I think there are a lot of people who have always suspected Johnson (millions, probably) who will find my book very persuasive. Only time will tell of course. BTW, are you the Robert Morrow who wrote First Hand Knowledge . . .?

Sorry it took so long to respond to this, but just now stumbled across it. Admiral Geis had a very good reason to dislike McNamara and Johnson, at least after June 8, 1967, the middle of the Israeli Six Day War. In the middle of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, Secretary McNamara and President Lyndon Johnson called off two separate sorties launched by the Navy to defend the Liberty. When Admiral Lawrence R. Geis, the Sixth Fleet carrier division commander questioned this action the second time, and couldn’t comprehend why such an order would be rescinded, Lyndon Johnson suddenly came on the telephone and said: “I want that Goddamn ship going to the bottom. No help. Recall the wings.” This was merely one of two (arguably many more) treasonous acts carried out by Johnson and somehow neatly tucked away by historians and the government. Lest anyone think I made up that account, please refer to the following websites, one of which is maintained by survivors of that incident in the Mediterranean. See: USS Liberty Veterans Association (http://www.gtr5.com/evidence/warcrimes.pdf)

I never thought that I would use J. Edgar Hoover's quote about anything or anyone, but my feelings about Arlen Specter are not unlike what he said about Jack Anderson: He ". . . is lower than the regurgitated filth of vultures." Hopefully, the fine people of PA will finally figure that out too.

The article is excerpted from the book The Kennedy Assassination—24 Hours After by Gillon. The only thing of consequence in that book is Johnson's hysterical breakdown which was observed by General McHugh. Gillon didn't figure out why Johnson had his breakdown, but managed to use it as the centerpiece of the book. In every other respect, the book is simply another retread of so many other apologetic books about the poor misunderstood president. He seemingly takes Johnson’s side consistently against everyone else with whom he engages in his chronic and legendary fights; in one of the oddest parts, he actually put the blame on RFK for mistreating Johnson at Andrews, this after Johnson forcefully took over Air Force One and lied about RFK's (non) agreement that the oath of office should be done in Dallas. After everything Johnson did in the first few hours, Gillon puts the blame on RFK for treating Johnson shabbily. The word McHugh used to describe Johnson's behavior was "obscene." The book is worthless as an objective source of information on Johnson since it appears to have been written as a paean to a wonderful and magnanimous president, one completely unrecognizable to most rational and objective people as being LBJ. As to the material above, the truth is that Johnson lied about numerous things that day, the timing of his getting the message being only one. There are many other things that need to be investigated about the cache of records which Gillon was given access to by Manchester's children, starting with the many pages he was forced into deleting from his book by RFK and Jackie, for fear of pissing off Johnson and losing his political career. The question must be asked: "What was in those pages?" And further, the 200 additional pages which he voluntarily cut himself "which I felt was personal or which would injure the prestige of people now in public office." Manchester supposedly sealed them away for 100 years (until 2067) yet his children can select willy-nilly someone whose motives they may not understand and allow them the privilege of seeing this material? According to Lawrence Van Gelder's book "The Untold Story: Why the Kennedys Lost the Book Battle," some of this censured information concerning Johnson's behavior and the tenseness on board AF-1 included: "members of the Kennedy party-in effect holding Johnson responsible for the assassination-refused to sit with him on the return flight from Dallas; that he had been brusquely blocked off from the coffin when the plane landed at Andrews AFB; that his general conduct toward Mrs. Kennedy on the plane was heavy-handed; that he had insisted she appear for his oath-taking. and prior to the settlement of the lawsuit, it was leaked that Schlesinger-within hours after the assassination-had inquired about dumping Johnson as a candidate in 1964." I sure hope the Manchester family stood guard as they allowed him to look at this material.

No John , the ones I have checked are all "Pena". There are a couple RIFS that could be the one I'm seeking, but it's hard to tell from the description. I believe it has at least 30 or more pages. -Bill You might want to refer that question to Gerald McKnight, who told me recently he is doing a lot of work down there these days and may be able to look into it.

The photographers were side by side but, more importantly, the photo wasn't taken at the same instant. Note Jackie's slightly different position and that in one photo there is a man standing directly behind her...the same man is several feet to the right in the next photo.

Here's but one example of McAdams' using his "intellectual tools" to "judge the evidence." From patspeer.com, Chapter 19: The respectable face of the LNTs, if not their ringleader and head cheerleader, is John McAdams, professor of Political Science at Marquette University. McAdams has been interviewed on television and NPR numerous times, both about the assassination and other events of the day. His website on the assassination is also number one on google. While much of his website is informative, and while I agree with many, perhaps even a majority of its conclusions, its overall tone is somewhat offensive and insulting to those inclined to suspect a conspiracy. But that's not why McAdams is King of the Nutters. He's King of the Nutters because he sets a horrible example for others on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup he moderates by routinely dismissing EVERYTHING he doesn't want to believe out of hand...and making up transparent and disingenuous excuses to justify his dismissal. I found out about this the hard way in early 2010. While I had been semi-active on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup for years, I had had few run-ins with McAdams prior to late 2009, when in an online debate with researcher Jim DiEugenio he attempted to explain away my photo comparison of the paper bag in its various incarnations as the work of a "crackpot". This, of course, led to much discussion on his newsgroup of this charge, the net result of which was his insisting that my using the same type of camera and same type of lens to demonstrate that the bag in the news photos was much much wider than the bag in the archives was meaningless, and that the ONLY way to compare the Dillard photo (although I corrected him repeatedly, he repeatedly called the news photos of the bag outside the depository, "the Dillard photo") with the archives photos was to create a simulation using the exact same camera and lens as "Dillard's camera" and lens. This, of course, was ludicrous. If we'd been discussing a comparison in which an item appeared to be 3-5% larger than the supposedly exact same item in another picture, that would be one thing. But my photo comparison showed the bag in the news photos to be roughly 25% wider than the supposedly exact same bag in the archives. Nikons equipped with a 50 mm lens don't make middle-distance items look 25% wider than Canons equipped with a 50 mm lens, and McAdams most certainly knows this. This run-in set the stage. On January 9, 2010, McAdams posted his response to a claim by Ben Holmes that the single-bullet theory bullet trajectory runs right through the spine. His response was illuminating. He revealed his woeful understanding of anatomy and the issues at hand by claiming "How in the world did it have to go through the spine if it entered to the right of the midline?" and then asserting that "You can put a dowel right through, between the transverse processes" (of C7 and T1). He then told Ben Holmes that "you are not allowed to just make up your own 'evidence'." This response intrigued me, and on January 11 I asked McAdams if he had any video of him passing a dowel between the transverse processes, and provided links to some of my slides indicating the bullet would not slide right through, as he'd suggested. He responded "Sorry, I'm not going to the trouble just to please you." (This, to me, was as much as an admission that he'd lied, as his doing so would not have been to please me, but to prove Holmes and myself wrong.) He then refused to acknowledge my slides, by claiming that it wasn't possible to see what my point was. To my point that the HSCA portrayal of the back wound was not at C7/T1 as he claimed, but at T1, he responded "Oh, now I know where people get 'C7/T1.' The Dox drawing shows that", thereby ignoring that the Dox drawing in fact shows the wound at T1. He then claimed that the movement of the back wound by the HSCA trajectory panel (see chapter 11) was not in the least bit suspicious. He wrote "You think every discrepancy shows conspiracy. On this planet, it does not." He then defended the Artwohl exhibit on his website, and his belief the entrance wound location on the Artwohl exhibit was consistent with the entrance wound location measured by the HSCA pathology panel. He wrote: "Pat, you seem to think that Artwohl shows the wound at C5. It doesn't. You are just drawing stuff, not to scale and not knowing what the point is, and announcing this or that conclusion. To get the wound up to C5, you have to reproduce the lateral photo at a much smaller scale than the Dox Drawing. This stuff means nothing at all unless you scale it properly. Ignore your mis-scaled middle drawing, and you can see that Artwohl's drawing makes sense." That's right. I had shown him the comparison on the slide above. And he had claimed that the giant head on the left of the slide better matched the skull in the Dox drawing on the right better than the much smaller skull in the middle. I was horrified. This proved to me that McAdams was either a certifiable LuNaTic or the biggest, fattest, xxxx this side of Rush Limbaugh. I decided to see where this might lead. Since he had previously stated that he both thought the back wound was at C7/T1, and that the bullet creating this wound headed 21 degrees downward, as in the Artwohl exhibit, I asked him where this would exit on Kennedy's body. He conceded the obvious--that he did not agree with the HSCA's conclusion that the bullet went slightly upward in the body--but, strangely, refused to concede that he thought the bullet exited at a different location than the HSCA. When I tried to get him to at least concede that a bullet heading downwards from C7/T1 would not exit at C7, the exit level on the Dox drawings created for the HSCA pathology panel, by pointing out that it was impossible for a bullet heading downwards in the body to exit higher on the body, he again blew my mind. He responded: "It makes no sense to use 'C7' or 'T1'" when talking about the throat wound." I tried again, with similar results: "Your problem is that you arrive at an 'opinion' and then start to treat your opinion as fact." When I tried yet again to get him to agree that Artwohl's depiction of a downward trajectory was at odds with the HSCA's depiction of the bullet trajectory and wound locations, he answered "HSCA trajectory: yes. Wound location: no." And from there things only got uglier, and weirder... Like a computer starting to melt down after being asked a trick question in a science-fiction movie, McAdams wrote: "Artwohl is correct" and "You are a Ben Holmes clone!..." and then blamed me for my failure to convince him of anything by claiming my slides are "self-contradictory and confusing..." When I returned to the subject of the slide above, and asked him how he could possibly think the much larger head at left was a much better match for the Dox drawing at right, when the head at left was twice the size of the head in the Dox drawing, he re-confirmed his LuNacy by writing: "You are just making stuff up. Your own composite shows that the 'right photo' (the larger one) corresponds with the Artwohl analysis. Your 'middle photo' shows the head much smaller than in the Artwohl analysis." He then responded to my request that he correct my errors on the slide and create a proper match between the Artwohl analysis and Dox drawing. He wrote "I don't need to. Your own analysis shows Artwohl to be correct." Pat, I nominate you to do the first book review of McAdams' latest work since you have an inside track on his tactics and obviously have already proven you are up to the task....Good Luck!

I'm sure the History Channell or Tom Hanks or somebody like them will make this into a major TV documentary or even a major motion picture. But who will they get to play McAdams? Jerry Lewis, Don Knots and Peter Sellers are all dead? I think W. C. Fields would have been perfect....these skills would require the sleight of hand required in shell games and the ability to doubletalk one's way around real facts and sidestep them with lengthy discourses in why ridiculous theories - e.g. the magic bullet - make sense. The late, great Mr. Fields is the only actor I can visualize in that role.

Here is a little teaser from the Amazon announcement: "John McAdams does not just address conspiracy theories but also how to think, reason, and judge the evidence in these cases. How do we evaluate eyewitness testimony? How can there be “too much evidence” of a conspiracy? How do we determine whether suspicious people are really suspicious? By putting the JFK assassination under the microscope, McAdams provides a blueprint for understanding how conspiracy theories arise and how to judge the evidence. "This book puts the reader into a mass of contradictory evidence and presents an intriguing puzzle to be solved. The solution, in each case, involves using intellectual tools. Eyewitness testimony, the notion of “coincidence,” selectivity in the use of evidence, how to choose between contradictory pieces of evidence, the need for evidence to fit a coherent theory, how government works, and basic principles of social theorizing—all provide the elements of how to judge not only the JFK conspiracy, but all conspiracies." It appears that it may provide interesting insights into how one can go to such great lengths to support the most abstruse and illogical arguments merely because they come from official government sources and ignore the most compelling contradictory evidence. Maybe someone can explain it to me, I doubt I'll have enough patience to endure this particular book. http://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-Lo...164&sr=8-28

This may help explain the "rest of the story." As noted by Noel Twyman (See Appendix F in the ebook), Gus Russo in his book, Live by the Sword, confirmed much of McMahon’s testimony, and went one step further, in his interview of NPIC photo analyst Dino Brugioni on January 27, 1998: “The night after the murder, the Secret Service brought over to the CIA a copy of an 8mm home movie taken of the murder, the “Zapruder film.” Now, in another part of the CIA’s headquarters, the National Photographic Interpretation Center, the Agency’s top photo analyst, Dino Brugioni, watched in horror as the top of the president’s head exploded in a shower of crimson. Brugioni recently recalled: There were six or seven of us at the meeting. We were asked to time it, which was difficult because the camera was spring-loaded. We also developed still frames, which we enlarged and mounted on a large board which [Director] McCone took over to President Johnson…”

Hey Phil, Can you give us some more details about Appendix F: The Z Film at NPIC? Thanks, BK Bill, I would say only that it involves what Noel believes to be the general steps taken, and the people involved with and behind the alterations. I really don't want to get into the details for fear of mis-stating his position in that rather involved and complex scenario. He also touches on the same issue in Appendix G because it is at the nexus of his theory vs. that of Doug Horne. The only other thing I might add is that it seems to come down (IMO) to his belief that Johnson and Hoover were the ones calling the shots that entire weekend, possibly aided by their mutual friend H. L. Hunt, who had been called to Washington to "help Lyndon." I'd offer more, but I'm afraid of injecting my opinions into what I'm sure you understand is a rather complex subject involving what I consider NT's proprietary knowledge base.