03-12-2011, 06:15 PM
Adele,
Please know that I am a huge fan and was profoundly impressed with your story as a featured guest on "The Real Deal". I highly recommend anyone who wants to understand the unique perspective that you bring to the study of the death of JFK to track down our interview, which is available and archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. I presume that your observations about the timeline on 21 November 1963 are intended to suggest that LBJ was not at the home of Clint Murchison the evening before the assassination and therefore could not have participated in the social event that was described by Madeleine Brown and confirmed by Nigel Turner in the final installment of his brilliant series, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", in particular, in the final segment, "The Guilty Men", even though Nigel had tracked down the chauffeur who drove J. Edgar to the event and the chef who prepared the hors d'oeuvres and included them in this segment.
Madeleine also identified Richard Nixon as having been driven there by a local Republican leader, who worked in the same bank building where she was a young advertising executive. Others who were there in George Brown of Brown & Root and John J. McCloy, our former High Commissioner to Germany and the past CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank. It was late in the evening when Lyndon showed up and these heavy hitters disappeared into a board room for 15 or 20 minutes, after which he strode over toward her. She expected him to whisper "sweet nothings" in her ear, but instead he told her (in what she has described as "a hateful tone of voice" that after tomorrow those goddamn Kennedy boys were not going to embarrass him any longer--and that that was not a threat but a promise. I have no doubt whatsoever that this story is true. So I am pressed to respond to your research.
The key sentence here, of course, is, It would have been impossible for Lyndon Johnson to have been anywhere else but on Air Force II at 10:30 pm on Thursday, November 21, 1963. There is a missing clause, however, namely: if my research is well-founded and based upon authentic and non-fabricated documents and records and that he could not have been there if that were the case. That, of course, especially the time that Lyndon arrived at the ranch, is something that you could not possibly know and which has probably never even crossed your mind. Lyndon was a duplicitous, calculating, and completely "hands on" kind of guy, who not only sent his chief administrative assistant, Cliff Carter, down to Dallas to make sure the arrangements were in place for the assassination but, if my inferences are correct, had his own personal hit-man, Malcolm "Mac" Wallace, who murdered around a dozen persons for him, including one of his own sisters, participate as one of the shooters in Dealey Plaza, as Billy Sol suspected.
That Lyndon was there, in my opinion, is not in doubt. Connie Kritzberg, a reporter for The Dallas Times Herald, as I recall, confirmed that a notice had originally appeared in the social column of her paper or that of The Dallas Morning News, which, as I also recall, seems to have disappeared. She also has pointed out how the FBI had changed the story she had published about the Parkland press conference with Kemp Clark, M.D., and Malcolm Perry, M.D., where, after describing the wound to the throat and the blow-out at the back of his head, a sentence was added that they doctors were not sure if the wounds had been caused by one bullet or two. When she checked with her editor, he explained that the FBI had called and, to make sure what she reported was accurate, insisted that that sentence be added. You can find a similar qualification in Tom Wicker's piece in The New York Times for 23 November 1963.
My suggestion, therefore, is that a lot of planted history was taking place right from the beginning. This is not the sort of thing that the Mafia or anti-Castro Cubans or the KGB could possibly have arranged, but it was well within the capabilities of a new and powerful president who had thought through every aspect of this event in collusion with his close personal friend, J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI. So we have to acknowledge that the public record is not necessarily either accurate or complete, where much of it may reflect revisions or misinformation about what happened and when it happened. Even the National Archives, I understand, is actually a branch of or under the control of the CIA. So our recorded history is really not something we can take for granted, especially in a case like this, where I would be surprised if you were to disagree with me about this rather important point.
I rather strongly doubt that Lyndon was "calling and writing" from his ranch to get a large crowd for an event that he knew would not occur, but it makes for a great cover story--and parts of it may even be true. Persons like Madeleine, the driver, the cook, and the reporter are persons who had no reason to lie or deceive and have authenticated the social event the evening before the assassination. The right parties were represented to make this (what I am convinced it was) a ratification meeting for the assassination of the 35th president of the United States. Sorting these things out is a complicated matter, where we are of necessity operating on the basis of probabilities and likelihoods. If there is a bona fide conflict between those records and the reported event, I have no doubt that the event took place and the records have been fudged. While Lyndon cannot have been in two places at the same time, his being in one place but being reported to have been in another is something that the CIA does all the time with its operatives, who are required to keep diaries for the purpose of knowing where they actually were should it become important to plant evidence that they were somewhere else. But I am not yet quite convinced there is a genuine conflict in light of the following considerations.
In his book, on pages 382-384, Phil Nelson discusses objections not dissimilar to the one you have raised, the first of which was meant to dispute that Lyndon may have arrived much later than you suggest. He may have arrived "very late, even well after midnight". Others he addresses include that Clint Murchison had suffered a debilitating stroke and that J. Edgar was in his office late the next morning. Since the first is most relevant to your concerns, how confident are you that he has to have been there by 10:30? That has never been my impression, so I am extremely interested in why it should be yours. "This party and meeting", Phil notes, "was first reported by Penn Jones Jr. in his book, Forgive My Grief, and confirmed by Harrison Livingstone in his book, Killing the Truth." He mentions Madeleine's book and that Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman, and I have found her to be a very credible witness despite the complexities of her relationship with Lyndon. As he also observes, "she had no reason to make up such a charge out of thin air, and her description of the event has been affirmed over the years by others who were there", by whom I believe he means those Nigel Turner presented in "The Guilty Men".
My suggestion would be that this range of authorities on the assassination of JFK, which includes Penn Jones Jr., Harrison Livingstone, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman, Nigel Turner and me, representes a formidable convergence of expert opinion about the social event under consideration, which others, who were actually there, including Madeleine, the the chauffeur who drove J. Edgar to the event and the chef who prepared the hors d'oeuvres, have confirmed. While I admire you greatly and appreciate your speaking out about your own research on this matter, what you present does not persuade me that we are wrong about this. Far more likely, I would suggest, is that the conflict in time is more apparent than real and that, had there actually been a need to have records reporting Lyndon's presence at a location other than the party that evening, it would have been easy to arrange. So I want you to know that I am not only not disturbed by what you have had to say but welcome the opportunity to lay out why I believe you are wrong, not necessarily in your "facts of the matter", but with regard to their significance for the role of Lyndon Baines Johnson in the assassination of his predecessor, John F. Kennedy.
Jim
Please know that I am a huge fan and was profoundly impressed with your story as a featured guest on "The Real Deal". I highly recommend anyone who wants to understand the unique perspective that you bring to the study of the death of JFK to track down our interview, which is available and archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com. I presume that your observations about the timeline on 21 November 1963 are intended to suggest that LBJ was not at the home of Clint Murchison the evening before the assassination and therefore could not have participated in the social event that was described by Madeleine Brown and confirmed by Nigel Turner in the final installment of his brilliant series, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", in particular, in the final segment, "The Guilty Men", even though Nigel had tracked down the chauffeur who drove J. Edgar to the event and the chef who prepared the hors d'oeuvres and included them in this segment.
Madeleine also identified Richard Nixon as having been driven there by a local Republican leader, who worked in the same bank building where she was a young advertising executive. Others who were there in George Brown of Brown & Root and John J. McCloy, our former High Commissioner to Germany and the past CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank. It was late in the evening when Lyndon showed up and these heavy hitters disappeared into a board room for 15 or 20 minutes, after which he strode over toward her. She expected him to whisper "sweet nothings" in her ear, but instead he told her (in what she has described as "a hateful tone of voice" that after tomorrow those goddamn Kennedy boys were not going to embarrass him any longer--and that that was not a threat but a promise. I have no doubt whatsoever that this story is true. So I am pressed to respond to your research.
The key sentence here, of course, is, It would have been impossible for Lyndon Johnson to have been anywhere else but on Air Force II at 10:30 pm on Thursday, November 21, 1963. There is a missing clause, however, namely: if my research is well-founded and based upon authentic and non-fabricated documents and records and that he could not have been there if that were the case. That, of course, especially the time that Lyndon arrived at the ranch, is something that you could not possibly know and which has probably never even crossed your mind. Lyndon was a duplicitous, calculating, and completely "hands on" kind of guy, who not only sent his chief administrative assistant, Cliff Carter, down to Dallas to make sure the arrangements were in place for the assassination but, if my inferences are correct, had his own personal hit-man, Malcolm "Mac" Wallace, who murdered around a dozen persons for him, including one of his own sisters, participate as one of the shooters in Dealey Plaza, as Billy Sol suspected.
That Lyndon was there, in my opinion, is not in doubt. Connie Kritzberg, a reporter for The Dallas Times Herald, as I recall, confirmed that a notice had originally appeared in the social column of her paper or that of The Dallas Morning News, which, as I also recall, seems to have disappeared. She also has pointed out how the FBI had changed the story she had published about the Parkland press conference with Kemp Clark, M.D., and Malcolm Perry, M.D., where, after describing the wound to the throat and the blow-out at the back of his head, a sentence was added that they doctors were not sure if the wounds had been caused by one bullet or two. When she checked with her editor, he explained that the FBI had called and, to make sure what she reported was accurate, insisted that that sentence be added. You can find a similar qualification in Tom Wicker's piece in The New York Times for 23 November 1963.
My suggestion, therefore, is that a lot of planted history was taking place right from the beginning. This is not the sort of thing that the Mafia or anti-Castro Cubans or the KGB could possibly have arranged, but it was well within the capabilities of a new and powerful president who had thought through every aspect of this event in collusion with his close personal friend, J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI. So we have to acknowledge that the public record is not necessarily either accurate or complete, where much of it may reflect revisions or misinformation about what happened and when it happened. Even the National Archives, I understand, is actually a branch of or under the control of the CIA. So our recorded history is really not something we can take for granted, especially in a case like this, where I would be surprised if you were to disagree with me about this rather important point.
I rather strongly doubt that Lyndon was "calling and writing" from his ranch to get a large crowd for an event that he knew would not occur, but it makes for a great cover story--and parts of it may even be true. Persons like Madeleine, the driver, the cook, and the reporter are persons who had no reason to lie or deceive and have authenticated the social event the evening before the assassination. The right parties were represented to make this (what I am convinced it was) a ratification meeting for the assassination of the 35th president of the United States. Sorting these things out is a complicated matter, where we are of necessity operating on the basis of probabilities and likelihoods. If there is a bona fide conflict between those records and the reported event, I have no doubt that the event took place and the records have been fudged. While Lyndon cannot have been in two places at the same time, his being in one place but being reported to have been in another is something that the CIA does all the time with its operatives, who are required to keep diaries for the purpose of knowing where they actually were should it become important to plant evidence that they were somewhere else. But I am not yet quite convinced there is a genuine conflict in light of the following considerations.
In his book, on pages 382-384, Phil Nelson discusses objections not dissimilar to the one you have raised, the first of which was meant to dispute that Lyndon may have arrived much later than you suggest. He may have arrived "very late, even well after midnight". Others he addresses include that Clint Murchison had suffered a debilitating stroke and that J. Edgar was in his office late the next morning. Since the first is most relevant to your concerns, how confident are you that he has to have been there by 10:30? That has never been my impression, so I am extremely interested in why it should be yours. "This party and meeting", Phil notes, "was first reported by Penn Jones Jr. in his book, Forgive My Grief, and confirmed by Harrison Livingstone in his book, Killing the Truth." He mentions Madeleine's book and that Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman, and I have found her to be a very credible witness despite the complexities of her relationship with Lyndon. As he also observes, "she had no reason to make up such a charge out of thin air, and her description of the event has been affirmed over the years by others who were there", by whom I believe he means those Nigel Turner presented in "The Guilty Men".
My suggestion would be that this range of authorities on the assassination of JFK, which includes Penn Jones Jr., Harrison Livingstone, Jim Marrs, Noel Twyman, Nigel Turner and me, representes a formidable convergence of expert opinion about the social event under consideration, which others, who were actually there, including Madeleine, the the chauffeur who drove J. Edgar to the event and the chef who prepared the hors d'oeuvres, have confirmed. While I admire you greatly and appreciate your speaking out about your own research on this matter, what you present does not persuade me that we are wrong about this. Far more likely, I would suggest, is that the conflict in time is more apparent than real and that, had there actually been a need to have records reporting Lyndon's presence at a location other than the party that evening, it would have been easy to arrange. So I want you to know that I am not only not disturbed by what you have had to say but welcome the opportunity to lay out why I believe you are wrong, not necessarily in your "facts of the matter", but with regard to their significance for the role of Lyndon Baines Johnson in the assassination of his predecessor, John F. Kennedy.
Jim
Adele Edisen Wrote:I write this at risk of making some people very angry with me. I truly respect Jim Fetzer, and the others here who have ideas similar to his on the question of Lyndon Johnson and his possible role in the assassination of John Kennedy. I am most grateful to Dr. Fetzer for his extensive radio interview of me on February 16, 2011. That gave me more courage to speak out and write, even a letter to President Obama, now posted on Bill Kelly's website, www.jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com, in July of this year.
I have learned much from Jim's books and postings, as I have from so many others on the various forums and at Dallas meetings over the years. I am grateful to everyone for my assassination education, and my gratitude extends as well to those with whom I did not and could not agree, because I did learn something from everyone.
Because of my experiences in April of 1963 when I learned of the impending assassination of President Kennedy from Jose A. Rivera of the National Institutes of Health, I set about to try to understand why and how the assassination happened. I remembered my father telling me of the attempted overthrow of President Roosevelt in 1933-1934 when I was about 11 or 12 years old. I had been reading an article in the Sunday New York Times Magazine section about Benito Mussolini and his takeover of the Italian monarchy in the early 1920s. In my mind's eye I can still see the photograph of Mussolini on a white horse with his blackshirt army standing behind him. King Victor Emmanual had been deposed.
I asked my father if this could ever happen here in America. We had been studying US history and different forms of government in school, so I was very concerned as world news on the radio every day was about events in fascist countries, Spain, Italy, and Germany. He said that it almost had happened some years before. He proceeded to tell me about US Marine General Smedley Butler who literally had saved us from fascism. During my college years, I looked for more information about this event in US history books, but never found any mention of it. Many years later I came across Jules Archer's book, THE PLOT TO SEIZE THE WHITE HOUSE, and I learned more on the Internet and Google. A few years ago, the History Channel made a program on it, and Jules Archer narrates a portion of it. It is on You Tube.com with the title "The Plot to Overthow FDR." I highly recommend it.
I had always been a curious reader and because of discussions with my father, I developed an interest in history, politics, and economics, not unusual because World War II was raging at the time. My father had built his own radios and we listened to short wave broadcasts from London, Moscow, and Berlin, news and propaganda all in English. So it was after I graduated from the College at the University of Chicago I almost decided to obtain a graduate degree in Political Science. But I also had a deep interest in Psychology and Physiology, especially in the brain and the nervous system with a desire to do research, so it was this choice I finally made and became a neurophysiologist. However, I still read books related to political thinking, economics, and history.
Largely due to these interests, I think, my view of the Kennedy assassination (and the assassinations of Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcom X) is a bit different from many other peoples' views and approaches. From my father I learned to analyze political events in terms of their economic underpinnings, as for example, looking at the rise of fascirm in the three European countries I mentioned earlier, as well as the fascist plot by Wall Street bankers, financiers, and industrialists in 1933-1934. This class of people in the United States were the same types of people who placed dictators into power in Italy, Spain, and Germany. Along with Japan these became the Axis Powers of World II. And we also have to remember that through international cartels and other connections, Wall Street of America helped Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco rise to power. The definition of Fascism is the Corporate State.
It made perfectly good sense to me to think of the assassination of John Kennedy as a political-economic crime. For that reason, I would not consider someone like Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy's Vice President, as his murderer. He was an important part of his administration, helpful in getting civil rights and other types of legislation based on the Democratc Party platform through Congress, and in winning votes in the Southern Dixiecrat States. Lyndon Johnson tried to keep Kennedy from being driven through Dallas because he knew of the right-wing crazies there, having been spat upon, booed, and hit in the lobby of the Hotel Adolphus when campaigning in Dallas in 1960 with his wife, Ladybird.
When I was on Rich DellaRosa's forum, I posted a study of Lyndon Johnson's schedule on Thursday, November 21, 1963. He had been at his ranch since November 10, working on preparing for the Texas trip and especially for the final date's fund-raiser in Austin on the evening of November 22. He was calling and writing to as many people he could to get them to the Austin dinner. On Thursday morning, he and Ladybird met the President's plane at the San Antonio International Airport, and traveled with him and his entourage on to the medical facilities at Brooke Army Medical Center, BAMC, and then after lunch both Air Force I and II took off for Houston for a dinner and speeches. According to their planned schedule. both groups would leave Houston at 10:00 pm to fly to Carswell Air Force Base, set to arrive at 10:45 pm, and then drive the five or so miles to Fort Worth and the Hotel Texas in 20 minutes to arrive at the hotel at 11:05 pm. That was the plan, but there must have been a slight delay because the two planes landed at Carswell a few mionutes after !!:00 pm instead of the scheduled 10:45 pm.
It would have been impossible for Lyndon Johnson to have been anywhere else but on Air Force II at 10:30 pm on Thursday, November 21, 1963.
My post on JFKresearch.com is now gone, but the information can be found on Google, if anyone is interested.
Adele Edisen