Strongest piece of evidence

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Further email from Gary Mack

The rest of the story is that I interviewed Powers around 1980 and he confirmed they both thought one of the shots might have come from the front, but investigators didn’t seem very interested. That’s what bothered them, Dave told me, but he never claimed they tried to change their stories.

[David Josephs]

But I too don't believe that Oswald was a complete innocent bystander,

So you believe he was one of the plotters?

Can you please give us a clue as to his MOTIVE for wanting LBJ as president in preference to JFK?

Sorry Mr. Carroll... not being a "complete innocent bystander" in no way implies he was one of the plotters (I assume you mean of JFK's assassination) Being a "complete GUILTY bystander" implies it - but that's not what I wrote.

If I understand your position, you believe that despite the numerous examples and proofs regarding the people and events surrounding Oswald suggesting anything but Oswald being completely innocent, you still conclude he had no governmental connection and no involvement with the people and events he has been connected to.... Proof that has been provided over and over in thread after thread that I've read and seen you ignore and redirect - like your question to me about plotting... there is more than BLACK and WHITE in this Ray... at least to most everyone who looks at it. Just because he may have had some dubious connections and there were many curiously stange events surrounding his history - there is no leap that places a rifle in his hands or suggesting a triangulation of fire... k?

"COMPLETELY INNOCENT" - really?

Well I simply will not get into that discussion with you other than to say there is no way you, or anyone else for that matter, has the information available to make that determination. What we do have is quite a bit of evidence that Oswald MAY have been more than he seems....

which in my book removes the words "COMPLETE" and "INNOCENT" from any conclusion about Oswald.

BYSTANDER on the other hand is exactly what he was... and then he was killed and framed.

We want the "strongest piece of evidence for conspiracy?".... How about the behavior of a government intent on finding the assasin(s) of its president and the manner in which that occurred.... The impartial, unbiased and grossly influenced investigation of the matter sums it all up.

[David Von Pein]

RE: KENNETH P. O'DONNELL:

When we look at exactly what Kenny O'Donnell told the Warren Commission, we can see that O'Donnell's testimony is not really as cut-and-dry as some people might want to believe, with O'Donnell stating that his determination for thinking all three shots had come from his right rear was "in part" a "reconstruction".

And, yes, he said he heard THREE shots exactly, with a bigger gap between shots 2 and 3, btw:

KENNY O'DONNELL -- "The first two came almost simultaneously, came one right after the other, there was a slight hesitation, then the third one."

O'Donnell seemed to be relying in part on what other people around him were reacting to, such as some of the Secret Service agents turning around to look to their right rear after the shooting started.

Yes, if O'Donnell really did think he heard at least one shot coming from the front, he should have told that to Arlen Specter in the below testimony, but when re-examining his testimony, it isn't quite as clear-cut as one might think:

Mr. SPECTER. And what was your reaction as to the source of the shots, if you had one?

Mr. O'DONNELL. My reaction in part is reconstruction---is that they came from the right rear. That would be my best judgment.

Mr. SPECTER. Was there any reaction by any of the other people around in any specific direction?

Mr. O'DONNELL. The agents all turned to the rear. I would think, watching the reaction of the President when the shot--the first shot hit--that it would be automatic it would have to have come from the rear. I think any experienced agent would make that assumption immediately.

Mr. SPECTER. And was the reaction of the agents which you have referred to as coming from the rear, to the right rear or to the left rear?

Mr. O'DONNELL. The reaction I note would be right rear. And, again, looking at the manner of the President's movement, I would think you would have to feel the thrust of the shot was from the right rear.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/odonnell.htm

Edited December 16, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Greg Parker]

Looking back on the title of David's thread I've been sitting trying to come up with one piece of evidence that may sell the idea of conspiracy to people who know little about the case.

I've been re-reading John Armstrong's Harvey & Lee and the amount of information he has researched, collected, collated and published is just unbelievable. Whether you agree with his central thesis or not, and you can get past the massive amount of spelling errors that are systemic when self-publishing, the book is invaluable as a resource when one considers the sheer amount he has managed to squeeze into it.

With this in mind I've had David's question rolling around my head as I've been working my way through the book.

A massive "smoking gun"for me is when Armstrong gets to the events around the assassination and in particular when he details the telephone call made on the afternoon of 11/22/63 between Ruth and Michael Paine.

From Harvey & Lee by John Armstrong (page 832-833)

1:00-Ruth and Michael Paine

At 1:00pm Harvey Oswald was changing clothes at 1026 N. Beckley and Roy Truly had not yet told DPD Captain Fritz that Oswald was missing from the building. Oswald would not be arrested for nearly an hour and his name was not known to the public.

At 1:00pm, according to telephone company records, Michael Paine placed a collect call to BL 3-1628 (the Paine's phone number at 2515 W. 5th) from his number at work, CR 5-5211. Ruth Paine received the collect call and began talking with her husband while the telephone operator remained on the line. The operator told the FBI the man on the phone said he, "Felt sure Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President but did not feel Oswald was responsible." Michael Paine then told his wife, "We both know who is responsible."

This call took place nearly an hour before Oswald's arrest and long before his name was known to the public – yet Michael Paine said that he "felt sure Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President…but was not responsible."

Commission attorney Wesley Liebeler questioned Michael Paine about the call and had copies of Southwestern States Telephone Company records. But instead of asking Paine about the call on November 22, Liebeler questioned him about a non-existent call that was allegedly placed on November 23rd.

Mr. LIEBELER: "Now, there has been a report that on (Saturday) November 23, 1963 there was a telephone call between a man and a woman, between the numbers of your residence and the number of your office, in which the man was reported to have said in words or substance 'we both know who is responsible for the assassination.' Have you been asked about this before?"

NOTE: Liebeler had phone company records and an FBI report in hand which showed the collect call was placed on November 22nd, and NOT on NOVEMBER 23. By intentionally asking Michael Paine about a non-existent telephone call Liebeler was obstructing justice and colluding with a witness to falsify testimony.

Mr. PAINE: "I have heard that-I didn't know it was associated with our numbers. I had heard a report that some telephone operator had listened in on a conversation somewhere, I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country."

Mr. LIEBELER: "Did you talk to your wife on the telephone at any time during Saturday, November 23, on the telephone?"

Mr. PAINE: "I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there."

Mr. LIEBELER: "Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?"

Mr. PAINE: "And I don't know who the assassin is or was; no, so I did not."

Mr. LIEBELER: "You are positive in your recollection that you made no such remark?"

Mr. PAINE: "Yes."

The telephone call between Michael and Ruth Paine at 1:00pm on November 22nd was brought up on several occasions during the Paine's testimony:

• (Michael Paine) "I called Ruth immediately after getting back (November 22) just to see that she would turn on the radio and be clued in with the news, but this was before the Texas School Depository was mentioned…" (Volume II, p 424)

• (Michael Paine) "I called her immediately getting back to the lab (November 22), so she would be watching and listening and getting clued in to the news, start watching the news." (Vol IX, p 449)

• (Ruth Paine) "He (Michael) called. He knew about the assassination. He had been told by a waitress at lunchtime. I don't know whether he knew any further details, whether he knew from whence the shots had been fired, but he knew immediately that I would want to know, and called simply to find out if I knew, and of course I did, and we didn't converse about it, but I felt the difference between him and my immediate neighbour to whom I have already referred, Michael was as struck and grieved as I was, and we shared this over the telephone." (Vol III, p 110)

• "She (Ruth Paine) did say, however, that her husband phoned from his office at about 1:00pm on November 22." (statement of Ruth Paine – CD385, p 101)

End of Armstrong quote.

I won't comment on Armstrong's work because I think it speaks for itself. I just can't fathom how Michael and Ruth Paine walked away from this (and all the other things they did) scot-free.

Armstrong, in his book, goes on to list the many ways in which Ruth and Michael Paine systematically ensured that key evidence was inserted into the record that helped in nailing Oswald to the wall.

He also brings Roy Frankhauser into the story who claimed the Paine's, like him, were undercover agents "acting as Oswald's intelligence "baby sitters." Frankhauser probably deserves a thread of his own because after what has already been written about him on this forum, and elsewhere, I think there are many unanswered questions about the man, not least whether Armstrong's citation of a HSCA deposition is actually correct.

For me, David, this phone call is a key piece of evidence of conspiracy and a key piece of evidence that proves the on-going cover-up.

Lee

P.S. I find it amazing how a certain member of this forum recently sang the praises of Wesley Liebeler. This is while at the same time he purports to be a "critic" of the Warren Commission. Some people are so very transparent.

Lee, it is a key piece of evidence -- but Armstrong made a complete hash of it.

While it is true there was one (or more?) phone calls made between the Paine's on the afternoon of Nov 22 -- the phone call in question was made on Nov 23 and was known about because post-assasination, the Paine's phone was being tapped - not because an operater was listening in.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10673&relPageId=71

I guess it could always be claimed that the document gives false information, but given a choice between an operater just happening to be listening in out of dumb luck on this particular conversation at 1pm on 11/22 and the Paine's phone being tapped from 11/23 - I think I'd go with the latter.

Incidently, I think Paine's comment, "I have heard that-I didn't know it was associated with our numbers. I had heard a report that some telephone operator had listened in on a conversation somewhere, I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country." was probably a reference to the Oxnard phone call.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh is an excellent book and I highly recommend it. Through Seymour Hersh, you get the voices of the CIA people and perhaps Secret Service people who hated John Kennedy. JFK was not murdered because he was a reckless and prolific womanizer. But it gave JFK's killers one more justification to kill someone they did not respect ... and actually hated for reasons both personal and ideological.

Seymour Hersh really does a fantastic job detailing how the psychopathic serial killer LYNDON JOHNSON BLACKMAILED HIS WAY ONTO THE 1960 ... with last minute threats and blackmails issued by him and Sam Rayburn late in the night of July 13th, 1960 at the Democratic convention in Los Angeles. By the morning of July 14th, Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn (using Hoover's blackmail info on Kennedy) had TWISTED THE ARM of John Kennedy enough to force him to break his deal with Symington and INSTEAD put the homicidal maniac and Kennedy-hater Lyndon Johnson on the 1960 Demo ticket.

That my friends, was a FATAL decision. Because Johnson works like this: blackmail you today, kill you tomorrow.

Like Jack Ruby famously said, if John Kennedy had picked Adlai Stevenson, Kennedy would still be alive... or at least would not have been shot like a dog in the streets of Dallas.

In reality John Kennedy was all set to pick Sen. Stuart Symington of Missouri who was very popular in California, which had a whopping 35 electoral votes at that time. With Johnson on the ticket, Kennedy lost California by a razor thin one-half of 1%. It is very likely Kennedy and Symington would have WON California.

More on how Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn blackmailed and threatened John Kennedy to get Lyndon Johnson on the Democratic ticket in 1960:

Read the Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersh, p.124-129:

Close JFK friend Hy Raskin: Johnson was not being given the slightest bit of consideration by any of the Kennedys… On the stuff I saw it was always Symington who was going to be the vice president. The Kennedy family had approved Symington. [Hersh, p. 124]

John Kennedy to Clark Clifford on July 13, 1960: Weve talked it out me, dad, Bobby and weve selected Symington as the vice president. Kennedy asked Clark Clifford to relay that message to Symington and find out if hed run. …I and Stuart went to bed believing that we had a solid, unequivocal deal with Jack. [Hersh, p.125]

Hy Raskin: It was obvious to them that something extraordinary had taken place, as it was to me, Raskin wrote. During my entire association with the Kennedys, I could not recall any situation where a decision of major significance had been reversed in such a short period of time…. Bob [Kennedy] had always been involved in every major decision; why not this one, I pondered… I slept little that night. [Hersh, p. 125]

John Kennedy to Clark Clifford in the morning of July 14, 1960: I must do something that I have never done before. I made a serious deal and now I have to go back on it. I have no alternative. Symington was out and Johnson was in. Clifford recalled observing that Kennedy looked as if hed been up all night. [Hersh, p. 126]

John Kennedy to Hy Raskin: You know we had never considered Lyndon, but I was left with no choice. He and Sam Rayburn made it damn clear to me that Lyndon had to be the candidate. Those bastards were trying to frame me. They threatened me with problems and I dont need more problems. Im going to have enough problems with Nixon. [Hersh, p. 126]

Raskin The substance of this revelation was so astonishing that if it had been revealed to me by another other than Jack or Bob, I would have had trouble accepting it. Why he decided to tell me was still very mysterious, but flattering nonetheless. [Hersh, p. 126]

Edited December 16, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[Steve Duffy]

Boy, Gary Mack knows who to go to when he needs something posted right?

Gary's been ever so helpful of late to whoever asks. I've seen a lot of "Gary Mack Emailed and said" on a few forums of late.

And Please, for my own sanity, Robert stop, please stop, calling LBJ a psychopathic serial killer. Anything but that.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Boy, Gary Mack knows who to go to when he needs something posted right?

Gary's been ever so helpful of late to whoever asks. I've seen a lot of "Gary Mack Emailed and said" on a few forums of late.

And Please, for my own sanity, Robert stop, please stop, calling LBJ a psychopathic serial killer. Anything but that.

Well, Steve, you have the book LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination by Phillip Nelson (2010), so you know exactly what I am talking about. It is about time folks started being told what Lyndon Johnson was: a psychopathic serial killer who had murdered a lot of people long before he got his knife wet with the blood of John Kennedy.

Your most deadly killers - folks like Lyndon Johnson and George Herbert Walker Bush - have just enough social skills to remain functional, without completely falling apart. LBJ skated very close to that edge of complete disintegration - a very dangerous man.

Also, Johnson's depraved character also is revealed in the deception game he played to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and also in the USS Liberty incident in 1967.

1) http://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1453503013

2) http://www.lbj-themastermind.com/

You ought to hear Ed Tatro talk about Lyndon Johnson. Ed Tatro may be the most knowledgable person in the country on the Lyndon Johnson angle of the JFK assassination. Ed Tatro says that besides Adolf Hitler, Lyndon Johnson was the worst person in history.

Btw, Ed Tatro has done a tremendous amount of primary research into the JFK assassination; he is working on book titled Urgency to Kill. He has over 1,200 pages of this potential book on his computer. There is a urgent need for this extremely valuable book to be published, mainly for the tremendous amounts of in-the-field primary research that Ed Tatro has done. Tatro's information deserves broad distribution.

Tatro says that besides Adolph Hiter, Lyndon Johnson was the worst man he can think of. Jack Ruby called Lyndon Johnson a "Nazi of the worst order." I merely think that the psychopathic serial killer Lyndon Johnson is more in the Ted Bundy, "Son of Sam" David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez, Jeff Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy category.

Billie Sol Estes says people feared Lyndon Johnson so much in Texas, they feared him AFTER he was dead!

So maybe I am a little soft on Lyndon Johnson.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[Guest Robert Morrow]

To know Johnson is to hate Johnson.

The more I learn about John Kennedy, the more I like him. His performance during the Cuban Missile Crisis, resisting the the internal pressure to do things such as bombing Cuba that would bring on a nuclear World War III, should be enough to earn him the undying gratitude of world citizens forever.

Sometimes I think in the JFK research community there are people so in love with John Kennedy that they can't see his flaws. They can't put themselves in the shoes of the LBJ/CIA/military bastards (add in elite sponsor Clint Murchison, too) who shot him down like a dog in the streets of Dallas. And that is too bad, because in order to understand the TRUTH of the 1963 Coup d'Etat, aka the JFK assassination, you have to put yourself in the shoes and more importantly the MINDS of the murderers of JFK, so you can understand how and why they murdered him.

That is why a book like the Dark Side of Camelot is so incredibly important. It is an indirect way of telling some of the reasons why the CIA murdered John Kennedy. Sy Hersh puts in the part about William King Harvey being harshly dressed down by John Kennedy BEFORE the Cuban Missile Crisis... and Harvey directly tells him paraphrasing here -"Well, if you had some balls on at the Bay of Pigs, Castro would have been gone a long time ago." Wow. Tell that to the president... That is a key insight into the minds of JFK's killers.

The view of William King Harvey was widespread among the CIA and US military. And their contempt of JFK was about that high in many quarters.

Likewise, when one examines Lyndon Johnson, you have to be careful not to hate that wretched bastard too much. Because if you do, you lose track of why he murdered John Kennedy. Johnson was killing John Kennedy out of fear and desperation. Fear of being dropped from the 1964 Democratic ticket; fear of being exposed for the charlatan and crook he was; fear of possibly going to jail in the Bobby Baker scandal. Johnson in the fall of 1963 was a desperate, cornered animal. And animals like that fight viciously.

Folks like Ed Tatro and Phillip Nelson (and me) are convinced that Lyndon Johnson had murdered LOTS of people before he got his knife wet with the blood of John Kennedy.

Lyndon Johnson, if he had lived in another country, would have made a good Adolph Hitler or a Stalin or a Mao or a Pol Pott. As it was Lyndon Johnson slaughtered enough Vietnamese (millions), US soldiers in Vietnam (58,000), domestic political threats (10? 15? 20?) and John Kennedy.

So any way you slice it Lyndon Johnson was a mass murderer. May he rot and burn in hell. And he is probably in the company of a bunch of CIA guys, too.

As for Tatro on Lyndon Johnson: “He was one of the most amoral human beings who ever lived,” he said. “I think he's second only to Hitler.”

I think Tatro would admit that he was exaggerating a bit by comparing Lyndon Johnson to Adolf Hitler. But he gets his point across.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9939

But objectively speaking, based on what we know now about Lyndon Johnson and his absolutely murderous ways, Lyndon Johnson committed greater evils than 99% of the folks on death row in Texas in 1963 or 2010 for that matter.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

To know Johnson is to hate Johnson.

The more I learn about John Kennedy, the more I like him.

I think you, me and Jim Di Eugenio are in agreement on this.

[Greg Parker]

Alright Greg,

Hope you're well.

Thanks Lee,

fit as a mallee bull.

I've read most of the stuff on this phone call and I have always had deep reservations about whether Armstrong made a boo-boo.

My first question would be where is the phone record of specific 23rd November call if it was, in fact, tapped. Surely this would be an official tap rather than unofficially recruiting informers into proceedings?

Take away the belief that this was an "official" tap and at least some of this starts to make sense. SOP was to attribute intelligence from illegal taps to (non existent) informants.

There are a few concerns I have as to whether this call between Michael and Ruth Paine took place on the 23rd:

1. The Southwestern States Telephone Co records that specifically details the call between BL 3-1628 and CR 5-5211 on the 22nd

But we only have records of those originating from BL 3-1628, correct?

2. The content of the discussion between the two parties is pretty incriminating regardless of when the call was made

Exactly why I agreed its a key piece of evidence.

3. Michael Paine wasn't at work on the 23rd. The only time he left 2515 West 5th was to go to the police station where he said he called Ruth

The FBI report doesn't say it was Michael Paine and my impression is that CR 5-5211 was just the number for Bell.

4. The FBI didn't feel it necessary to check up on calls made from the police station phones to CR 5-5211 on the 23rd and the times of the calls if this is when the call took place. If they did there is no record.

5. The lengths the FBI went to in trying to brush this under the carpet

Agreed. They should have pressed harder.

6. Captain Paul Barger's hazy recollections as to who furnished him such explosive information

Because it was likely an illegal tap.

and the exact time of the call which is quite important. He also states in the 01/17/64 FBI report that when he was given the information he felt the identity of the person should not be revealed but has changed his mind and once he remembers the name he now has no objection is revealing the source.

http://www.maryferre...30&relPageId=90

Is this another case of us having to choose one version of events over another?

With all respect, I see nothing in the records indicating any version except the one stated in the FBI report I pointed to. If you are talking about the Armstrong version, then please point me to the FBI report he says Leibeler had in his hot little hands showing the call was made on the 22nd. The only thing even approximating that is this: fbi report and what it actually says is that the only call made between those numbers was a collect call made by RP on the 22nd. The same document also has RP saying that the only call between them on the 22nd was actually originated by Michael, and that she "denied having any conversation with her husband at his place of employment on Nov 23, 1963." None of that is proof the call in question was made on the 22nd.

I think the Paine's were accomplished at avoiding telling outright lies without actually being totally truthful. Call it a Quaker/Unitarian loophole to their "total honesty" schtick... If she denied that any conversation took place with her husband at his place of work on the 23rd, then to my evil little mind, that strongly suggests she had a conversation with another male at Bell on that date. Again, I believe the number was not MP's office number, but merely the main office. Furthermore, the only records I can locate are calls originating from the Paine number – I haven't found any showing calls from CR 5-5211, so this thing about no records of calls on the 23rd is not necessarily correct as far as I have been able to ascertain.

It comes down to "belief" rather than us actually "knowing?"

Unfortunately with one of the two accounts we have to put our faith in the FBI. One thing that bothers me about believing that the call was made on the 23rd is that I would have to believe that the Paine's phone was only tapped on the 23rd. I find this difficult to swallow. I think it's evident how important they both were in shepherding Oswald around and I struggle to believe that their calls weren't monitored a long time prior to the 23rd. But that is simply my own "beliefs" kicking in.

I have no strong opinion on it, though I do think it's possible that the tap only commenced as a result of the assassination through their involvement with Oswald.

I'm going to sit with Armstrong on this one because reading through the recollections of Paul Barger just has me shaking my head in utter disbelief.

Okay. If we're lining up behind authors on this, unless someone can come up with more, I stand behind Tony Summers and John Kelin.

And regardless of when it was made, it's apparent that Paine's, the Warren Commission and the FBI tried their best to cover this call up whether it was on the 22nd, 23rd, or the 32nd.

crikey yes.

Surely official telephone tappings would have official records when instead what we are told happened is that a confidential "informer" actually went to the FBI with the revelation. An informer that then "disappears" in the memory banks of the person who was receiving the information from them. I mean, was the attempts at covering this up because of the content of the message, the time and date, the fact it was the Paine's or all three? What happened to the recording if it was recorded? Why only this small piece of information? What about the rest of the call?

A tap could be a recording or someone listening in. I don't want to belabor the point, but I'm just not sure why you believe it was a legal tap.

"Oswald wouldn't have any reason to do it, but when you get right down to it, the only guilty person is that bastard himself." Didn't Michael Paine say that this just about summed his sentiments up although he said he didn't say it? Pretty bizarre statement. Almost an oxymoron. What the hell did this guy know? If you then throw into the mix Ruth Paine's statement to Gus Rose "We've been expecting you" and the wierdness just gets weirder when we are discussing this creepy duo.

Michael Paine's testimony is excruciating reading. Ruth's testimony is... many things....

I ask this question all too often, my wife is always willing to answer it, but am I missing something here?

I hope our wives never get together to compare notes...

I'd be really really interested to hear which side of the fence other "critics" sit on regarding this issue and get a feel on ideas why we "believe" what we "believe."

In sum, going by the FBI reports, and Ruth Paine's statements, I "believe" the 23rd has been ruled out prematurely... I also "believe" there is only one version which can be gleaned from the records and that Armstrong's version is only possible through not taking into account all possibilities while also mischaracterising the FBI report he claims Liebeler was holding.

Lee

P.S. I agree with you that Michael Paine's reference is to the Oxnard call

Yes. He may not have known about the call Liebeler is talking about at all initially, but he was not being totally truthful when he said "I didn't know it was associated with our number" since he had been interviewed by the FBI about a call on the 23rd. But then, the "it" he is referencing is not the call Liebeler is talking about.

To conflate that call with the Oxnard call is either dim-witted, or a masterly means of sounding completely honest and open while separating yourself from any actual knowledge. Paine's testimony is full similar examples of such "dim-wittedness".

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Paine's testimony is full similar examples of such "dim-wittedness".

You want dim - witted?

Dim witted is accusing poor guys like Michael Paine and ignoring the guys who had the motive, means and expertise to murder JFK and then cover it up.

Mr. Parker is in la-la land

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Duplicate post

Edited December 17, 2010 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Steve Duffy]

Boy, Gary Mack knows who to go to when he needs something posted right?

Gary's been ever so helpful of late to whoever asks. I've seen a lot of "Gary Mack Emailed and said" on a few forums of late.

And Please, for my own sanity, Robert stop, please stop, calling LBJ a psychopathic serial killer. Anything but that.

Well, Steve, you have the book LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination by Phillip Nelson (2010), so you know exactly what I am talking about. It is about time folks started being told what Lyndon Johnson was: a psychopathic serial killer who had murdered a lot of people long before he got his knife wet with the blood of John Kennedy.

Your most deadly killers - folks like Lyndon Johnson and George Herbert Walker Bush - have just enough social skills to remain functional, without completely falling apart. LBJ skated very close to that edge of complete disintegration - a very dangerous man.

Also, Johnson's depraved character also is revealed in the deception game he played to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and also in the USS Liberty incident in 1967.

1) http://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1453503013

2) http://www.lbj-themastermind.com/

You ought to hear Ed Tatro talk about Lyndon Johnson. Ed Tatro may be the most knowledgable person in the country on the Lyndon Johnson angle of the JFK assassination. Ed Tatro says that besides Adolf Hitler, Lyndon Johnson was the worst person in history.

Btw, Ed Tatro has done a tremendous amount of primary research into the JFK assassination; he is working on book titled Urgency to Kill. He has over 1,200 pages of this potential book on his computer. There is a urgent need for this extremely valuable book to be published, mainly for the tremendous amounts of in-the-field primary research that Ed Tatro has done. Tatro's information deserves broad distribution.

Tatro says that besides Adolph Hiter, Lyndon Johnson was the worst man he can think of. Jack Ruby called Lyndon Johnson a "Nazi of the worst order." I merely think that the psychopathic serial killer Lyndon Johnson is more in the Ted Bundy, "Son of Sam" David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez, Jeff Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy category.

Billie Sol Estes says people feared Lyndon Johnson so much in Texas, they feared him AFTER he was dead!

So maybe I am a little soft on Lyndon Johnson.

Yes I have Nelson's book. I can even understand your vitriol, being from his hometown.

Not questioning most of the above, really, just the phrase Serial Killer. Doesn't apply to Johnson, never has, never will. Never heard of a case of a serial killer who, didn't actually kill. One on one, as it were. No sexual component, no ritual, phases, in fact, no repetition of modus operandi. That's what I and others have pointed out. Johnson, by the evidence, ordered murders, carried out by others. A Serial Killer that doesn't make. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Serial_killer

There's more important stuff to do and read than this...but phrasing things properly can be the difference between being taken seriously or not.

"I merely think that the psychopathic serial killer Lyndon Johnson is more in the Ted Bundy, "Son of Sam" David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez, Jeff Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy category."

I mean, where's the similarity between Johnson and the above? Seriously?

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Boy, Gary Mack knows who to go to when he needs something posted right?

Gary's been ever so helpful of late to whoever asks. I've seen a lot of "Gary Mack Emailed and said" on a few forums of late.

And Please, for my own sanity, Robert stop, please stop, calling LBJ a psychopathic serial killer. Anything but that.

Well, Steve, you have the book LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination by Phillip Nelson (2010), so you know exactly what I am talking about. It is about time folks started being told what Lyndon Johnson was: a psychopathic serial killer who had murdered a lot of people long before he got his knife wet with the blood of John Kennedy.

Your most deadly killers - folks like Lyndon Johnson and George Herbert Walker Bush - have just enough social skills to remain functional, without completely falling apart. LBJ skated very close to that edge of complete disintegration - a very dangerous man.

Also, Johnson's depraved character also is revealed in the deception game he played to get the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and also in the USS Liberty incident in 1967.

1) http://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1453503013

2) http://www.lbj-themastermind.com/

You ought to hear Ed Tatro talk about Lyndon Johnson. Ed Tatro may be the most knowledgable person in the country on the Lyndon Johnson angle of the JFK assassination. Ed Tatro says that besides Adolf Hitler, Lyndon Johnson was the worst person in history.

Btw, Ed Tatro has done a tremendous amount of primary research into the JFK assassination; he is working on book titled Urgency to Kill. He has over 1,200 pages of this potential book on his computer. There is a urgent need for this extremely valuable book to be published, mainly for the tremendous amounts of in-the-field primary research that Ed Tatro has done. Tatro's information deserves broad distribution.

Tatro says that besides Adolph Hiter, Lyndon Johnson was the worst man he can think of. Jack Ruby called Lyndon Johnson a "Nazi of the worst order." I merely think that the psychopathic serial killer Lyndon Johnson is more in the Ted Bundy, "Son of Sam" David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez, Jeff Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy category.

Billie Sol Estes says people feared Lyndon Johnson so much in Texas, they feared him AFTER he was dead!

So maybe I am a little soft on Lyndon Johnson.

Yes I have Nelson's book. I can even understand your vitriol, being from his hometown.

Not questioning most of the above, really, just the phrase Serial Killer. Doesn't apply to Johnson, never has, never will. Never heard of a case of a serial killer who, didn't actually kill. One on one, as it were. No sexual component, no ritual, phases, in fact, no repetition of modus operandi. That's what I and others have pointed out. Johnson, by the evidence, ordered murders, carried out by others. A Serial Killer that doesn't make. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Serial_killer

There's more important stuff to do and read than this...but phrasing things properly can be the difference between being taken seriously or not.

"I merely think that the psychopathic serial killer Lyndon Johnson is more in the Ted Bundy, "Son of Sam" David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez, Jeff Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy category."

I mean, where's the similarity between Johnson and the above? Seriously?

Johnson murdered out of fear of exposure. He ordered other people to do his killing for him. Malcolm Wallace was his personal hit man. I am sure Malcolm Wallace would recruit other murderers for Johnson as well. Billie Sol Estes (according to Doug Caddy) says that Lyndon Johnson would send Malcolm Wallace down to Texas on military planes. That way there was no record of commercial flight and Wallace could always have an "alibi" by being in another state.

How many people did Lyndon Johnson murder? Plenty.

[Steve Duffy]

That's what I'm saying...ordering others is not what a serial killer does, in it's proper phraseology. That's why dictators aren't classified as Serial Killers. Even Manson isn't a serial killer. To put Johnson with the list above is erroneous in every way.