Phil Nelson

Noel Twyman's magnificent 1997 book Bloody Treason is now available from Mobipocket.com for $9.95. The software to use to read it on a PC is available for free from this site, and this format can also be used to read from various mobile devices. Noel advises that it will shortly (within a few days) be available on Kindle and at a later date it should also be available for other readers, including Sony and Nook. Even those who are fortunate enough to own one of the relatively rare (and expensive) hardback books may want to consider buying the Ebook version for the updates, including the following: Appendix C: The Empty Shell Casings (A response to critics regarding his failure to address evidence of a 3rd shell casing on the 6th floor. Appendix D: Meeting with Roy Hargraves (An interview he conducted 2/10/01) Appendix E: Rival Authors (Comments regarding some other JFK assassination researchers/authors) Appendix F: The Z Film at NPIC (New evidence regarding the "how and who" of the film alteration) Appendix G: Review of Doug Horne's book (This includes a reconciliation between his own work with that of Doug Horne's, as well as comments on Barr McClellan's 2004 book)

And here is another one, I believe it was also from 1966, though that isn't real clear. This time, Sam Houston Johnson was briefly jailed until it was realized what an important person he was

Regarding Linda Minor's statement that "Very little is know about LBJ's younger brother Sam Houston, though it has been reported that he was in O.S.S. during WWII" a few weeks ago, I stumbled across a couple of newspaper clippings while browsing in the LBJ Mausoleum (Library) last year. Here's the first, having to do with passing bad checks in Myrtle Beach, I think it was in Oct. 1966

It sounds as though he has a few doubts in his "non-conspiracy" beliefs. I would bet that the reason for issues "worthy of further exploration" had to do with these subjects chiefly, among others: 1.The story of Col. Bishop, who stated that he had met Lee Harvey Oswald, Richard Case Nagell and Rolando Masferrer in the exile training camp north of Lake Pontchartrain. He claimed that Oswald was in the camp, trying to get involved with the Cuban exiles, sent there by Clay Shaw. Basic conspiracy stuff. 2. His similar reports tying Shaw to Ferrie, et. al., the totality of which may be the clearest description of the linkage of Oswald to the conspiracy brewing all summer in New Orleans, a subject perfunctorily treated by the Warren Commission Report, before it cut off all leads in this direction. 3. The book's reports (pg. 523) dealing with LBJ's nefarious activities with Bobby Baker and a string of hoodlums connected to Johnson through Jack Halfen, Carlos Marcello's man in Dallas, to many others, and his help in the Senate in blocking anti-racketeering legislation in exchange for payoffs. That must have, incidentally, put him in direct conflict with RFK and JFK and makes Kennedy's decision to offer him the VP-ship. all the more bizarre (except as a means of getting him out of congress and possibly more under his own control)

Some excerpts from Manchester's book: P. 263: The Presidential party's rear echelon at the airport didn't know what had happened at the hospital, and the best informed among them had only the haziest notion of the motorcade's movements after 12:30 P.M. The last transmissions the aircraft had received from downtown Dallas had been Kellerman's alarm and Robert's 'Have Dagger cover Volunteer". Then the plane's Charlie set had gone dead. Swindal had gathered that there was an emergency of some sort, but he could only speculate.......Because of theCharlie blackout, and because the Signalmen who could operate the more complex equipment were all in the terminal restaurant (no one aboard remembered the UPI and AP teletype machines) Swindal had turned to the stateroom television set..... P. 266: In 26000's communications hack Johns made a discovery which was to grow in importance over the next hour. Jerry Behn, thanks to Colonel McNally's electronic sorcery, was now in direct telephone communication with the plane through the Signal Corps switchboards in the Sheraton-Dallas and Hotel Texas. The link meant that the government in the capital needn't be a slave to television. Furthermore, the splice between the White House and the plane made two-way conversations possible. P. 267: ...Learning from the agents of the Vice Presidential detail that the communications shack was in contact with Washington, he eagerly looked around for telephones. The closest one hung from a hook on the other side of the aisle. He ignored it. Possbily he could not yet bring himself to sit at Kennedy's stateroom desk, though the more plausible explanation is that he wanted solitude. In any event,... P. 268: ..the instrument he did use was on another, smaller Presidential desk,in Kennedy's quarters. It goes on to explain that though communications were restored, none of the conversations while the plane was still on the tarmac were recorded because that gear didn't work unless the engines were running. They were not recorded until 2:47 pm. Hope this helps.

Thanks Bernice... I've been staring at that for some time but, while I see Lady Bird and Sen. Yarborough, where LBJ should be I can't make out anything but a big blur. Anything you can do to help me see this would be appreciated...i.e. is there a particular way to look at it using one spot for context (his ear, nose, etc.?)

Thanks for those two photos, not so suspicious looking ones after all. I'm interested in finding out whether there is any truth to either of these assertions: 1. That LBJ ducked down on his own before Youngblood allegedly shoved him down after the shots started; (according to Murder in Dealey Plaza, Sen. Yarborough disputed this account); 2. Again, per Murder in Dealey Plaza, Sen. Yarborough said they LBJ had a small walkie-talkie he was listening to during the whole episode. Does anyone know if Yarborough actually wrote of these incidents or are these just anecdotes passed around without hard sources?

Does anyone have pictures of LBJ ducking down in his limo as he reached Dealey Plaza? The assertion by Jean Hill, as noted in this video, that he was practically on the floor before he reached Elm Street is interesting and I would like to know if it can be verified. Thanks all.

The august senior senator from Pennsylvania is beside himself about the wanton destruction of football "spying" tapes! Obviously this heinous incident was considerably more important than his previous involvement in the wholesale destruction of actual evidence, the fabrication of phony evidence and his own collusion with other government officials in obfuscating and obstructing the investigation of the "Crime of the Century". The transparency of his outrage is astounding, albeit not particularly unexpected for this particular politician. Specter: "I think the integrity of football is very important"...."there's a credibility issue here", blah, blah, blah. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327528,00.html

That not only sounds like a great project for some volunteers here to conduct, along with your suggested star players, but the pièce de résistance would be to have a debate as to the merits of the production with notable LNT and CT representatives . Maybe it could be sold to, or be a joint venture, with a TV network??

It seems to be a "given" that McCone was "out of the loop" on many/most/all of the extra-legal things going on in the CIA, evidently becasue there was a fear that, as a JFK appointee, he would put a stop to anything outside the legal mandates of their existence. Even though he was the designated chief, most of those under him, including Angleton and Helms specifically, did not reveal their black bag operations and mafia connections, and therefore the various Castro elimination plots. So, by your hypothesis above, that eliminates the possibility of his involvement and with it any per se "institutional" involvement. Which, I contend for the purpose of this discussion, allows for the possibility - rather, the likelihood - of the individual involvement of those you mentioned, plus a few others like Angleton, Phillips and Cord Meyers, as conspirators acting not in the technical construct of the official institution, but in concert as individuals - albeit using official resources. When you put together all the things that are now 'missing', from CIA reports and FBI records, to evidence ranging from JFK's brain and tissue samples and further to such things as statements of original witnesses who were never deposed because their story was not congruent with the Johnson-Hoover orders to concoct the Lone Nut Theory (etc. ad infinitum) it should be clear to anyone that there was direct "institutional" involvement in the cover-up from day #1. Once that is (has been) established, it isn't a great leap of logic to connect post-assassination conspiracy to pre-assassination knowledge and/or execution, is it? If so, isn't the question of "institutional" involvement, or not, a "distinction without a difference?"

Are you saying that the CIA's only "institutional" involvement was in the secondary (mid-1970's) cover-up, and they had no such role in the assassination or the initial cover-up and neither did any of their agents or operatives, whether acting 'institutionally' or individually. Or, do you agree that the last part of that statement, in italics, does not apply and should be deleted in the interest of advancing the truth?

In Hillary's case, I don't think that was the only time she experienced that ;-) Sorry I didn't check back earlier, I did remember about Fred Thompson's involvement too.

Might it have anything to do with Watergate, she was on the congressional staff that investigated I believe, and might have bumped up against E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, et. al. who were, incidentally, ex-CIA, maybe even still on a secret payroll. But then, that would be contrary to your thesis, wouldn't it? ;-)

Tim, I applaud your initiative in responding to this rather perfunctory review of the events "implicating" Oswald, even though a persuasive rebuttal would take more than a simple letter. Anyway, the biggest "issues" I see are with respect to paragraphs #4 and #6. Regarding #4, did any witnesses actually see a man firing a rifle? If so, who? My understanding that all those who claimed to having seen a man with a rifle were referring to the period just before the assassination, and attributed it to police or secret service men and no one actually saw the gun being fired. As to #6, I have difficulty in even allowing for your caveat, "probably". Maybe "possibly", but, there is so much contradictory evidence, including by the more credible witnesses (ignored by the WC, of course) that it's arguable that he wasn't even there, or if he was, he was only one of two or three involved in killing Tippit. But, it's your letter, so it should reflect your views naturally.

I think the "Harper fragment" can be seen in this version of the Zapruder film, replayed several times about 1:00 to 1:15 on the Youtube stopwatch. It may be the missile going upwards and slightly to the right. All of this can be explained under the GK theory: The fragile, brittle skull was exploded upward as the bullet hit, while the blood and brain debris (more liquidity) being carried backwards, out of the fist-sized hole in the back of his head, in the same direction his head had jerked from the GK bullet, almost simultaneously. Or, a case could be made for simultaneous shots from the front and back. But NOT, from a single shot from the back.

Not if the "someone" was a local DA that looked like, or was simultaneously being portrayed to look like, a crackpot loose cannon in charge of a runaway train. I would be shocked, however, if it seemed to be a credible U.S. congressman who also happened to have been a member of the famed WC.

How do you explain Ramsey Clark's reaction, which pretty clearly indicates he was shocked?

Tim, I understand how you're reading that. It is a bit circular, but I don't see any indication that Boggs was doubting the essence of Garrison's reasoning either. In fact, the way the clip is worded, "As fantastic as this rumor sounds, its source is credible. It comes via Representative Hale Boggs", and "Boggs' story", etc. seems to suggest that Boggs not only doesn't disagree but perhaps even endorses Garrison's theory despite the fact he doesn't like Garrison. Apparently, Ramsey Clark had the same opinion on that since he was clearly bothered by the implication, more so than LBJ even. Peter, I think that over the years, Cokie Roberts, like so many others in DC, has accepted the conventional wisdom that the Warren Commission was right despite all the questions that surrounded it and that to question its basic premise is tantamount to instantly losing one's professional credibility as a journalist. Which is to say, unfortunately, that, according to the CW, it is more important to adopt the LN theory and not to be perceived as a CT at any cost, even finding out the truth of your own father's demise.

It is interesting that something I came across in the book "The Kennedy Assassination Tapes" pp389-394 (Max Holland, 2004) has not been mentioned in this thread. Here are the key parts: In a conversation between (acting) Attorney General Ramsey Clark and LBJ on Feb 20, 1967, regarding the investigation that New Orleans DA Jim Garrison had launched, the following appears: "Still, Clark is already discomfited by one 'nutty' aspect of the story, namely the rumor that Garrison is allegedly linking Johnson with the conspiracy. As fantastic as this rumor sounds, its source is credible. It comes via Representative Hale Boggs, whose district encompasses much of New Orleans, putting him in a position to know whereof he speaks. Boggs, of course, was also on the Warren Commission, which puts him in a bit of a dilemma. Whereas he might be inclined to speak out against Garrison (whom he apparently dislikes) and denounce the DA's probe, it is risky to attack a prosecutor who shares the same jurisdiction. To Clark, any allegation about Johnson's involvement is an early indicator that Garrison might be deranged. "It perhaps comes as a surprise to Clark that Johnson treats the whole matter with considerable equanimity, not even swearing or muttering to himself when Clark brings up Bogg's story. The president's reaction is in marked contrast to his response last October when the insinuation first surfaced. As it turns out, the news from New Orleans is far from the wildest story making the rounds. Johnson asks Clark if he has heard about an even more fantastic rumor in Washington, one that was conveyed personally to the president by syndicated columnist Drew Pearson, considered something of a renegade by his Washington peers. The story, which Johnson heard a month earlier, is that after the 1961 Bay of Pigs debacle the CIA sent men into Cuba to assassinate Fidel Castro, who then retaliated. And as if the implications of that weren't staggering enough, Pearson also says that Robert Kennedy concocted the plots against Castro, as they occurred in the days when he was 'riding herd' on the agency for his brother. ...... Clark: ....I had heard that Hale Boggs was sayin' that he - Garrison - was sayin' that...or privately around town [was saying] that it [the assassination] could be traced back [to you]...or that you could be found in it some place, which...I can't believe he's been sayin' that. the bureau says they haven't heard any such thing, and they['ve] got lots of eyes and ears. 'Course, that was a [credible] fella like Hale Boggs. But Hale gets pretty emotional about people that he really doesn't like, and people who have fought him and been against him, and I would be more inclined to attritube it to that. Either that, or this guy Garrison [is] just completely off his rocker. Johnson: "Who did Hale tell this to? Clark: [somewhat in disbelief] Apparently Marvin [Watson] Johnson: [aside to Watson] [Did] Hale tell you that - Hale Boggs - that this fella [Garrison, this] district attorney down there, said that this is traced to me or somethin'? Watson: Privately he [Garrison] was usin' your name as having known about it [the assassination]. I said [to Boggs], Will you give this information to Barefoot Sanders? Ramsey was out of town, this was Saturday night. He [boggs] said, I sure will. So I asked the operator to get Barefoot and Ramsey together, and they did. After that exchange, the course of the conversation turned to the even more 'fantastic rumor' about the assassination attempts on Castro. I think that Johnson's reaction to this news speaks volumes. And the fact that these comments were coming from one of the members of the WC, a highly respected congressman, is particularly insightful. His death by plane crash in a desolate part of Alaska a few years later, and one year after his lambasting of Hoover, and the disappearance of many of his records from Tulane after that, only adds to the mystery of what he really knew.

Hi Tim, I'll chime in here to say, YES, you have identified 14 individual items that would all point to a conspiracy. Unfortunately, there are probably several hundreds / thousands of others, mostly on an "IF true" basis, would do the same, so I (and most likely others are similarly lamenting): "I Wouldn't Know Where to Start"! Think how the WC ignored many witness/evidence that didn't fit their scheme; even how Warren himself wouldn't let Dr. Humes, who had done the autopsy, review his own records and photos before preparing his testimony, and the anomalies in those photos and records. Consider Odio, Martino, (and about a hundred other Cuban exiles); Trafficante, Giancana, (and how many other mafia types); Billy Sol Estes, Factor, Files, statements; And Ferrie, De Mohrenscheildt, Kilgallen, Nagel, Mary Meyers involvements and their own demise, Magic Bullet, numerous Oswald impersonations and on and on ad nauseum. Some of these are more tangential than your list might allow, but the point is there are so many individual pieces that point to CT that is seems to me one would have to be a LN to even believe the LN Theory. In any event, if this thread makes it through the test of time, I suspect it will collect enough notes to be the mother lode for researchers looking for a list of "bullets" (no pun intended :-)

Pardon my interjection on your argument, but I beg to disagree..........the FACT is/was, the worldwide "intelligence community" had agreed that there were WMDs, even France and Germany, despite the fact that they didn't want U.N. involvement because their under the table "food for oil" (read: illegal furnishing of weapons, ammo, etc.) might be discovered. How do you explain 17 resolutions (which of course were never intended to be enforced) passed the U.N.? You may even remember that Colin Powell agreed they were there and made his very forceful (albeit unfortunately erroneous) presentation to the U.N. Further, many Senate Dems agreed, and voted for invasion, who had access to the same intelligence that Bush et. al. had. Of course it was easy for them to change their minds after the fact, not so easy for the CIC. Its also easy for armchair pontificators to make unsubstantiated comments as you have made, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

Given that there were other shooters in Dealey Plaza, my guess is that someone on the GK or in the western end of the TSBD might have misshot and hit Connally, as he turned around after looking backwards. Jack Ruby probably figured he could sneak through practically any time he wanted to given his police connections so he wasn't initially in a hurry to hit LHO, the first incident was simply to prove that to himself and give LHO a clear visual warning to keep it zipped. He had a few things to deal with before returning with a gun, knowing he would be captured and jailed.

I have an idea which I believe could add a little more "spark" to the initiative: Instead of simply calling for the opening of a new investigation, how about calling on Congress to "Posthumously Censure LBJ". You have to admit that would get a little more attention than the mundane "reopen the investigation" request. People often ask us (at least they do me, including my own wife), "why do you care now, its been over 40 years, its history now, get over it". They have a point, you know, as the debate is currently framed: "JFK died on 11/22/63, one way or the other, what happened since, HAPPENED. Com'on....let's move on." (Or, something along those lines). But if we re-framed the debate, to call instead for an immediate reinvestigation for the purpose of determining whether LBJ should be "indicted" for his actions in participating in - at the very least, and possibly more - a criminal cover-up that has shaken the foundations of the American culture. It did change the course of our history so fundamentally that we really still are trying to recover. People have a much more jaded opinion of our government as a result of his orchestration of lies, distortion, destruction of evidence, fabrication of evidence and "stacking the deck" (his unilateral appointments of the WC) that it is likely there will never be a complete recovery of "our innocence". You talk about the creation of a "Movement", I guarantee you that could mount such pressure on Congress that they could not, politically, resist taking such historic action. But one ad, or one symposium, wouldn't do it. I'd say 5-10 years before it becomes reality, but I think it could be done. JMHO Phil

Although I am admittedly a neophyte at this, I agree with Tim's and John's posts above. If the charges made are too provocative, and cannot be reasonably substantiated, such an ad - or book, or whatever - loses credibility and becomes fodder for the lone nutters. We can all agree that the assassination changed the course of history, in a big way. Clearly the 58K deaths in Viet Nam would not have occurred for instance because there never would have been an LBJ presidency, nor the reactions to it, such as Nixon winning in '68, therefore no Watergate. But "fascism in '07"??? Count me out of that one. And this defines the problem.....what is said in such an ad must be palatable to everyone asked to contribute towards it. It must be attention getting without being susceptible to charges of reactionary or hollow assertions. I like John's idea of a symposium, where each presenter "makes a case", which would "compartmentalize" their assertions into their own levels of credibility so if anyone goes too far into unproven grounds it doesn't necessarily reflect adversely on the others. There is certainly a rationale for an ad in this scenario, but it would be used primarily to promote the symposium. JMHO Phil