Kenneth Drew

Steven, I'm going to accept your answer to 'what comes after final' except I will note that part of it actually came 'before final'. but it's entertaining info. Thanks.

Looks considerably below it to me. Seems to be about 2 inches below the bottom of his shoulder blade. I can't make out any numbers on that ruler, but the hole is about 3/4 of the ruler, near the bottom.

Uhh, sorry, Robert. Dead tissue doesn't bruise or swell, and pathologists do indeed insert metal probes from entrance to exit, and take pictures of the these probes within the body. Here is what the HSCA FPP had to say about Humes' inability to probe the back wound: "The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce false tracks and misinformation." Note that they don't criticize them for trying to probe the wound, or offer up any silliness about the track being closed off. No, they propose that the president's corpse stiffened up in such a way that the path through his body was twisted, and was not easily probed. They make it clear, moreover, that they believe they could have successfully probed the body, if only they'd manipulated his body into the position he was in when shot. Note that they don't criticize them for trying to probe the wound, or offer up any silliness about the track being closed off. I'm not sure what time the probe of the back wound was attempted but Rigor should not have been affecting his back before about midnight that night. I think it's like the other wounds, no matter what was really found, the public would still only be told the 'public' story. There is no way the bullet from the back came out his throat.

This is the Fox 5 "Back of the Head" autopsy photo. The upper artifact is considered the "wound." It aligns with T1. It's a fugazi. There's no evidence that John Kennedy is the subject of this photo. No chain of possession. Not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol. The "wound" has a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below. Fugazi, and I ain't talkin' the band. It's as good as evidence as any other autopsy photos or info. All of it is a sham. But, why pick and choose which part you accept. All or none.

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” - David Rockefeller, Bilderberg, 1991 (emphasis added) ======================================================================================================== SEE PD SCOTT DEEP POLITICS BOOK RE Great Southwest . EMPIRE TRUST information from PD Scott unpublished DALLAS Conspiracy =. THE GREAT SOWTHWEST CORPORATION WAS A ROCKEFELLER and EMPIRE TRUST INVESTMENT.,gaal 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 SUSPECT # 1 Allen Dulles. (Gaal,That's my final word on it.) "That little Kennedy," he spat out. "He thought he was a god." (Quote Suspect #1) =================================== Donald Gibson Shows That JFK Was a Hamiltonian Dirigist Devoted to National Economic Progress, Not a Monetarist or Keynesian; His Enemies Included Allen Dulles and the CIA, the Morgans, Henry Luce and Skull and Bones, David Rockefeller, John J. McCloy and the Council on Foreign Relations Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D. TARPLEY.net – World Crisis Radio November 16, 2013 [download audio] }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} get it , JFK IS devoted to NATIONAL ECONOMIC PROGRESS not world government. SUSPECT # 1 Allen Dulles. (Gaal,That's my final word on it.) What comes after 'final'?

Sometimes it did not--such as when he unnecessarily extended a war so he could get re-elected. I basically don't agree with that statement. While I certainly think the Eisenhower/Nixon government was going to a war in Viet Nam, the fact that JFK got elected changed all that. It was 8 years later when it fell back on Nixon to do something. I think his original plan (after he was elected) was that he could take a few 'big actions' that would show if 'winning the war' was viable or not. I think that he made somewhat of an effort, for a couple years to swing the war direction, all the while drawing down the number of troops. Once it was clear that it wasn't going to be won, the congress had given up to the point that they took control away from him. It was more on their hands from that point on. Nixon, to my mind, was an immoral monster, who saw the world as a chessboard to be played. If that is the case, what would be your opinion of LBJ or Obama? While I'm certainly not a fan of Nixon, I think his biggest fault might be that he was a Republican. his willingness to use power to help his friends and hurt his enemies, his unfounded belief his being president made him some sort of God Is there any president since Herbert Hoover that would not fit that description fairly well? Well, other than RR and Jimmy Carter. Nixon's 1968 and 1972 campaigns were two of the most cynical campaigns in history. He exploited fear like nobody else in my lifetime. He knew the public was afraid of losing a war, so he lied and told them he had a secret plan to end the war. He knew middle-aged white people were scared of the rising consciousness of black people and young people, so he scapegoated those calling for social change and protesting the war, as immoral, and un-American. And then there's the tapes... he was just a nasty nasty person. He hated Jews. He hated blacks. He thought everyone was out to get him, and that this justified his getting them first. Outside of LBJ, I doubt any recent president has been so awful. But even LBJ had a feeling for the little guy, something Nixon sorely lacked. I suppose one would have to read as much about Nixon (and by Nixon) as I before one would come to this realization--that he was an awful little nobody with dreams of being a somebody. But that is what he was--for better and for worse. Only Nixon would roll the dice and have secret talks with China. But only Nixon would bomb civilians on Christmas in hopes of scaring the North Vietnamese into believing he was crazy. And yes, I'm paraphrasing Nixon himself. He liked to talk about himself in the third person. Go figure. Pat, I don't really disagree with what you've written except to say that you give most of our other presidents way too much credit if you think they weren't a lot like Nixon in many ways. Most presidents have not recorded a lot of their conversations so some of their inner thoughts are not on tape to be played, but if you think LBJ was a 'nice' guy toward anyone, then you haven't read the same books about him that i have. LBJ even had his own sister killed for his agenda. Can't credit Nixon at that level. I am not and never have been a fan of Richard Nixon, but I recognize that he did not and has not set the standard for 'lowlife' in the white house. Clinton was accused (seemingly rightly so) of raping several women. JFK was rightfully known as a womanizer. Most presidents have had faults, some very serious. The present occupant certainly has some serious issues. Talking about Nixon exploiting fear about losing the war. don't you think LBJ did that very thing in '64? Wasn't that a big argument on the behalf of FDR in '40 and '44? Doing and saying what a candidate says is necessary to win election or re-election has always been a part of the game. Lying isn't really even considered as 'lying' it's only campaigning. You mention Nixon's racism. Do you think it was worse than the racism we have in the presidency today? that he was an awful little nobody with dreams of being a somebody Would he be a worse case of that than the present occupant? We have had a lot of 'little nobodies' that became president, that doesn't mean they are all bad people. Harry Truman would be considered in that vein. I think he did a terrific job.

Read the article. While it has many good points, it also attempts to make some that don't work. In particular, he attempts to put the blame for Vietnam on Richard Nixon. I think a huge part of that debacle can be placed squarely on LBJ's shoulders. While the US would have gotten involved had Nixon been elected in 1960, it would have or could have been quite a bit different situation. The entire strategy may have been totally different if it had fallen on Nixon rather than LBJ. While Nixon likely would have pursued it in 1961 with some intent to win over time, LBJ never had that objective. His sole objective was to enrich a lot of his friends and the power brokers of the world. But LBJ got everything so screwed up, Nixon had zero chance to win from the day he took office. I don't think the US was going to win there, regardless of who the CinC was. Not quite sure what the objective of throwing in the little bash of Ronald Reagan: All of this history renders absurd the speeches of Ronald Reagan at the time: I think Ronald Reagan was a person that wanted to help the people of this country have a higher opinion of themselves and think that there is some good in the world. I don't think he had an objective of pushing Nixon's agenda. I believe that this same article could have been written about almost all presidents. Certainly if a microscope were placed on LBJ, he would not smell like a rose. In fact, he would likely stink the place up more than most former presidents. I would/could say the same about others, Clinton, Obama, for example, but it would serve no purpose. If someone has an objective to point out all the faults of a person, then almost anyone can be made to look as bad as they want the image to be. It seems as if the intent of this article is to make Nixon look bad on his handling of VietNam. I would point out that when you are handed a pile of excrement, it is hard to change it into the smell of a rose. I did not write this in defense of Nixon, I think he was a total failure as a president, but I will point out that pales in comparison to the failure of the man he succeeded. I'm not too sure that can't be said about the present occupant of the White House as well.

Then again....IF.... yes, a big IF. That's why presidents since Nixon ensure that their confidential conversations in the Oval office are not recorded. If that statement is true about the FBI report, then that's likely a good thing because it spared the country from the disaster of Hubert Humphrey. Yes, I realize we got Nixon, but he was largely as big a failure as he was because he had two parties working to sabotage him.

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. )no, I don't think that, but I can tell from the comments at this time that it is a 'trick' question. It's not just an honest straight forward question. If it were, the answer would be 1. When are we gonna get an interpretation of the answer? Damn, i can see why Robert called you Princess. in fact, it has been answered correctly within the very thread. I have promised to stay out of it for a minute because - and you may not like this idea - I was enjoying learning about the way people think, and i happen to think that SOME people enjoy a challenge for the sake of the challenge, even IF they are not able to solve it themselves, without finding an excuse for their inability to solve it. i missed it. it wasn't because it's a trick question. it's because i didn't try hard enough. once i saw the answer, i saw my mistake, and I LEARNED FROM IT. i was also proud that i did not need an excuse to justify my missing it. it's not a trick question, Ken. You're just wrong. there's nothing wrong with being wrong. I've been wrong before, and I lived through it. The odds are in my favor of being wrong again. I will learn from it. i learned from this exercise. and i learn from you... If I'm wrong, it's not an honest question. I can already see that the answer is going to be that since there is a 4, the other side is a vowel. but that wasn't the question and the condition was 'if it is a vowel' then. 4 is not a vowel , so you don't get to see the other side.

Sometimes it did not--such as when he unnecessarily extended a war so he could get re-elected. I basically don't agree with that statement. While I certainly think the Eisenhower/Nixon government was going to a war in Viet Nam, the fact that JFK got elected changed all that. It was 8 years later when it fell back on Nixon to do something. I think his original plan (after he was elected) was that he could take a few 'big actions' that would show if 'winning the war' was viable or not. I think that he made somewhat of an effort, for a couple years to swing the war direction, all the while drawing down the number of troops. Once it was clear that it wasn't going to be won, the congress had given up to the point that they took control away from him. It was more on their hands from that point on. Nixon, to my mind, was an immoral monster, who saw the world as a chessboard to be played. If that is the case, what would be your opinion of LBJ or Obama? While I'm certainly not a fan of Nixon, I think his biggest fault might be that he was a Republican. his willingness to use power to help his friends and hurt his enemies, his unfounded belief his being president made him some sort of God Is there any president since Herbert Hoover that would not fit that description fairly well? Well, other than RR and Jimmy Carter. edit

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. )no, I don't think that, but I can tell from the comments at this time that it is a 'trick' question. It's not just an honest straight forward question. If it were, the answer would be 1. When are we gonna get an interpretation of the answer? Damn, i can see why Robert called you Princess. in fact, it has been answered correctly within the very thread. I have promised to stay out of it for a minute because - and you may not like this idea - I was enjoying learning about the way people think, and i happen to think that SOME people enjoy a challenge for the sake of the challenge, even IF they are not able to solve it themselves, without finding an excuse for their inability to solve it. i missed it. it wasn't because it's a trick question. it's because i didn't try hard enough. once i saw the answer, i saw my mistake, and I LEARNED FROM IT. i was also proud that i did not need an excuse to justify my missing it. it's not a trick question, Ken. You're just wrong. there's nothing wrong with being wrong. I've been wrong before, and I lived through it. The odds are in my favor of being wrong again. I will learn from it. i learned from this exercise. and i learn from you... ok, well, you're going to have to show me how it's not a trick question. If you have to have the answer to one question before you can even ask the 2nd and then you ask the 2nd without the answer to the first. I'll have to see that. I don't believe that i won't disagree with the answer if the answer is not one. I know you're going to say you have to turn the card with the number 4 on it to see if there is a vowel on the back. but you can't do that until you know that there 'is' a vowel on the front of the card. Anyhow, I can already tell I'm not going to agree with your answer because I can already tell you have the wrong answer.

So now I get it. I don't see any evidence of that at all. It's all a joke, right? Your "work" on the back wound is a bad joke, correct. I mean, you didn't even read the captions to those images. I could care less about Zimmerman and McAdams. They put the back wound at C7/T1 -- you put the wound at T1. All of you are demonstrably wrong. The images I posted demonstrate that McAdams and Zimmerman routinely lie about the back wound location on their exhibits, in which they propose the bullet entered at a level far above the throat wound. But, no, instead of agreeing with me on this obvious point, you choose to pretend there's some sort of optical illusion at work. To make the case that JFK's mastoid aligned with the top of his collars you employ a lateral view optical illusion. I've well demonstrated this already. In other words, you are defending them. In other words, Pat, you can't defend this T1 nonsense to save your life so you want to make this about the SBT. It ain't about the SBT. It's about the historical fact JFK's back wound was at T3. If you claim otherwise -- show us how the jacket collar dropped into an elevated position. So...does that mean you think a bullet entrance at T-1 really IS above the level of the throat wound? If so, please demonstrate. There was NO T1 back wound. T1 ain't 4 inches below the bottom of your clothing collars. You ignore the illogic of your claims about the clothing. You cite lateral views to support your claim that the upper margin of Kennedy's clothing collars aligned with the mastoid process, employing an obvious, demonstrable optical illusion. You are demonstrably wrong. FWIW, I'm not pushing Hunt's "garbage." Hunt used the same lateral view optical illusion. Hunt's study of the bunching of the clothing led him to believe the holes on the clothing were consistent with the single-bullet theory. I do not. Much as yourself, I argue that the holes on the clothing prove the single-bullet theory a fraud. Yeah, we've known that for over 50 years. Who cares about the SBT? What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds? That's what I want to know. Cliff, you asked for a photo, i put one in 233, I notice you are ignoring it.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. I take you are trying to excuse "these US Naval officers" for not knowing what they were doing, or else for having to follow procedures that were a joke. I would ask why the U.S.Navy would assign an autopsy of a president of the United States to people who didn't know what they were doing, or to require them to follow procedures that were a joke, or why the Navy would not know that its procedures were a joke. I happen to think that the Navy knew exactly what it was doing at Bethesda that night. . Sorry Ron. No way. First they did not normally do autopsys. They were 'doctors'. They were not allowed to publish there autopsy report/findings. The notes were burn, remember? Almost nothing they found was accepted. it was a total sham. Why were there so many people there? Why was the autopsy doctor not 'in charge'? They wanted the truth hidden, it was. We still do not have the 'truth'.

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. )no, I don't think that, but I can tell from the comments at this time that it is a 'trick' question. It's not just an honest straight forward question. If it were, the answer would be 1. When are we gonna get an interpretation of the answer?

Ok, then if the answer 1 is not correct, then the hypothesis can not be as stated and there will have to be a twist that changes conditions. If it stays as was originally stated If, then. you can't get to the 'then' until you've satisfied the If. I won't say that you are changing the statement, but your coaching implies that there is a twist to it and in this type problem, a twist is NOT allowed. you can not jump over to then it's an even number so it has to be a vowel on the other side. You can't see what on the other side of an even number, because you can only look on the other side of a vowel. If vowel, then........ not even number so maybe vowel.....no no

I have no idea. Well, I can tell you, the bullet would be moving at little more than a crawl. For comparison, the .38 Special "Colt Cobra" revolver that Jack Ruby used to shoot LHO had a muzzle velocity of between 800 and 900 fps, depending on the weight of the bullets. This bullet entered the left side of LHO's abdomen and almost managed to exit the right side before it came to a halt, passing through several organs and blood vessels on the way through. With this in mind, we know 800 fps would not be the velocity of the bullet that struck JFK's back, as this bullet would likely have been found in the forward part of JFK's chest cavity. Realistically, I believe a bullet would have to be travelling around 300 fps (204 mph) in order to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch. While this might be feasible if the rifle muzzle was a few inches from JFK's back, a whole new set of problems arises when we try to get the bullet from the 6th floor to JFK's back as he is behind the Stemmons sign. 1. Bullet drop. If the rifle is sighted in to hit a target at 100 yards (or whatever range you choose) firing bullets with a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, the shooter will have no idea he has chambered a "bad round" and will aim as if he is shooting a normal cartridge. At such a reduced velocity, the bullet will not have enough energy to reach its target or, for that matter, anywhere close to it. In fact, at such a low velocity, the bullet will have dropped so much, it is more likely to hit the back end of the limo than anything else. 2. Bullet stability. The spiral riflings inside a rifle barrel impart a high speed spin to a bullet that gyroscopically stabilizes the bullet in flight. Without this spin, the bullet will tumble in flight, end over end. Not only will this prevent the bullet from making a neat entrance wound as seen on JFK's back, the tumbling bullet presents an un-aerodynamic surface that will quickly rob the bullet of velocity; making it go even slower and causing it to impact even further back from the limo. 3. Barrel blockage. Will a bullet travelling this slow have enough energy to even make it out of the barrel? In summation, I believe the "shallow" back wound caused by a "bad round" to be a fabrication, and further evidence of a well contrived conspiracy that involved the autopsy doctors at Bethesda. Unfortunately, JFK researchers were taken in by this ruse, for the sole reason it served the purpose of discrediting the Single Bullet Theory. I believe there is ample evidence the bullet that entered JFK's back also entered the top of his right lung and disintegrated there. I believe the reason for the fabrication of the shallow back wound story was the need to conceal the type of bullets that were fired at JFK that day. These were such exotic bullets that, if their existence became known, it would immediately disqualify LHO as the shooter, unless he had close ties to the CIA or other agencies with the technical know how to make these bullets. a whole new set of problems arises when we try to get the bullet from the 6th floor to JFK's back as he is behind the Stemmons sign. When did it get established that the shot was fired from the 6th floor? Excuse me, princess. It should read ".......from the 6th floor, or wherever the h*ll the shot came from, although I'm pretty sure it was from behind the limo, and as no one is visible with a rifle directly behind the limo in the Zapruder film, we can likely assume the rifle was at least 50 yards away or more." Better? Well, Queenie, at least you are acknowledging that you, nor anyone else knows where the bullet was fired from. But since we all know it was NOT fired from the 6th floor, why pick that as the place you say it did come from. Why not just say the bullet that came from behind the limo. better? Not quite sure why you thought 'Princess' was appropriate, but you got rewarded with Queenie.

Geez, Robert. The bullet or fragment creating the back wound did not enter the body. This was not a story made up after the autopsy. This was confirmed by the FBI agents watching the autopsy, and by autopsy assistant James Curtis Jenkins, in numerous interviews. The doctors' failure to find an entrance into the body, moreover, was considered so problematic for the single-assassin conclusion that Arlen Specter chose to lie about it, and made up a story (that the bullet slid between some imaginary strap muscles on the back of the neck) that he told in the Warren Report and continued to tell until his death. So, yes, a story was created to hide what happened. But you're looking in the wrong direction. You are lost, Pat, along with the majority of researchers who also have a complete lack of understanding of ballistics. Ever since Tom Purvis fed you all that whopper about the "short shot", you've all gladly accepted the bullet that only penetrated an inch into JFK's back, only because it negated the Single Bullet Theory. Do you have any concept at all how ridiculous that is? P.S. Confirmation by two FBI agents is hardly what one would call consultation with medical professionals. Bob, Ever since Tom Purvis fed you all that whopper about the "short shot", you've all gladly accepted the bullet that only penetrated an inch into JFK's back, only because it negated the Single Bullet Theory. I believe that what negates the Single Bullet Theory is the Single Bullet Theory. I believe that JFK was shot in the back. I have no clue where the bullet went to. I do not believe it was the 'gurney bullet', that was a plant. I think it likely went into JFK's body, I doubt that it exited under it's own power. It may not ever have left his body. It is not needed to negate the SBT, that does very well by itself. With 7 to 9 shots having been fired, where that one ended up is not significant.

Sounds as if you're now changing the original intent: So let's start again: here is the statement: 'If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.' You can not rearrange the conditions, it clearly says 'if a card has a vowel on one side', then.... So you can only look to see if a card has a vowel on one side,, if you find one that satisfies the if. you find a vowel, then: then you can see if the other condition is met' then it has an even number on the other side. You can't rearrange it to say if there is an even number on one side then it has a vowel on the other side. if there's a vowel, then.......... No vowel, no 'then'.

The puzzle said there was an E a K a 4 and a 7 those are the only sides you can look at and if one of them answers if, then you get to look at the other side.

The reason I would not agree that the answer is two is because of how the question is asked. If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side. The first qualifier is "if a card has a vowel on one side, then" So looking at those 4 cards, the 'only thing' you can look for is, "if it has a vowel on one side'. If it does, then you can look at the other side. If you don't see a vowel on one side, 'then' you don't get to look at the other side. There is an "if" "then" If you can't find the 'first' if, then you don't get to look for the 'then'. It is not worded as " you may also look to see if there is a vowel on the back side of an even number. " You have to satisfy the "if" before you can go further.

Sometimes it did not--such as when he unnecessarily extended a war so he could get re-elected. I basically don't agree with that statement. While I certainly think the Eisenhower/Nixon government was going to a war in Viet Nam, the fact that JFK got elected changed all that. It was 8 years later when it fell back on Nixon to do something. I think his original plan (after he was elected) was that he could take a few 'big actions' that would show if 'winning the war' was viable or not. I think that he made somewhat of an effort, for a couple years to swing the war direction, all the while drawing down the number of troops. Once it was clear that it wasn't going to be won, the congress had given up to the point that they took control away from him. It was more on their hands from that point on. Nixon, to my mind, was an immoral monster, who saw the world as a chessboard to be played. If that is the case, what would be your opinion of LBJ or Obama? While I'm certainly not a fan of Nixon, I think his biggest fault might be that he was a Republican. his willingness to use power to help his friends and hurt his enemies, his unfounded belief his being president made him some sort of God Is there any president since Herbert Hoover that would not fit that description fairly well? Well, other than RR and Jimmy Carter.

so, do these follow? - E HAS an EVEN NUMBER on the flip side - K CAN HAVE an EVEN NUMBER on the flip side - 4 ...? - 7 ...? Turning E proves an EVEN number. Turning K proves... Only 1 of those cards can be used to prove your statement. Turn over the E and if it has an even number, then it's proved. turning over the other 3 prove nothing. You can't assume anything about any of the cards, you can only use what you see. you only see one vowel, that's the only card you can consider a vowel. You can't hunt for a hidden definition to make a vowel. Correct answer is 1. Note: I answered this before I saw your answer. incorrect answer. MY Bad, if it appears that i left an answer. those were prompts to encourage participation. I'll correct the wording. it can't be incorrect. turning one card tells you something, turning all or one of the other three tell you nothing. That's the only possibilities. There is only one of the 4 cards that have a vowel on the side you can see. Your clues..... K can have an even number on the back side means nothing as the K is not a vowel the 4 card or 7 card are not vowels, so it doesn't matter what is on the other side. Remember that no other assumptions bear on this test. Only 4 cards are involved, no more. only one of those have a vowel so that is the only card that can be considered.

so, do these follow? - E HAS an EVEN NUMBER on the flip side - K CAN HAVE an EVEN NUMBER on the flip side - 4 ...? - 7 ...? Turning E proves an EVEN number. Turning K proves... Only 1 of those cards can be used to prove your statement. Turn over the E and if it has an even number, then it's proved. turning over the other 3 prove nothing. You can't assume anything about any of the cards, you can only use what you see. you only see one vowel, that's the only card you can consider a vowel. You can't hunt for a hidden definition to make a vowel. Correct answer is 1. Note: I answered this before I saw your answer.

"Where I believe I part company with many Warren critics is in my belief JFK was killed for a specific reason, not for a cluster of reasons." I certainly have no problem with that thinking. I probably come close to that belief myself. If I had to make a guess, and only a guess, as to which one of the many that might have valid reasons to get rid of him, there seems to be clearly one that had a 'absolute imminent' need for it to happen 'right now' rather than a week or a month in the future. That one would be LBJ. He had a genuine crisis on his hands at that exact moment.

Sounds good to me