In general I support what Jim Fetzer says, though he says is more strongly
than I might. I wrote this on the same thread on the Simkin forum:
All of this is deplorable.
Part of the reason is the forum advertises itself as a DEBATE FORUM. That is at the root of the problem.
I want no part of "debating" anyone about my opinions, beliefs, research, or facts....or his.
Everyone should be able to do this, including Mr. Morrow and those who attack him.
It happens that I agree with many of his assertions about LBJ, whose evil may have been the greatest of any American.
Enough cannot be said about what a horrible criminal he was.
But I also disagree with many of Morrow's assertions, particularly that LBJ was the MASTERMIND of the assassination.
I have read all his postings. I have no desire to debate Morrow's opinions or judge his personalities. I find some of
what he says, useful, and some not. LBJ was ESSENTIAL to the assassination...but that is all. He was evil enough that
he embraced it to advance personally. He cooperated and facilitated it to the utmost. He may have even been the
guiding hand behind "assigned parts" of it...but look elsewhere for the mastermind. Start looking by examining
Allen Dulles and his handlers and work your way UPWARD to the real masterminds behind the puppet show.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:You are welcome Charles. Over at Spartacus I just kind of felt that MB was distorting things knowing that people like Colby would eat it up.
Pertaining to the Nelson book, Green pointed out over there that Nelson has LBJ in just about complete charge of everything. This includes a Liftonesque version of the autopsy--hijacking and alteration--and complete control of the cover up after.
To me, this is about as bad a solipsistic view of things as John Hankey in JFK 2.
The idea that someone like LBJ, who had no training in intelligence work, could control something like the JFK plot which, as Jim Garrison once said, "Makes Dr. No and Goldfinger look like auditor's reports", is just unfounded. It simply could not happen.
Barr McCllelan's book, which is another source that Nelson uses, is so simple minded in this regard, that its almost risible.
Agreed that LBJ was hardly intelligent enough to have been a mastermind of anything. However, he was strategically placed, so at his word things were done or not done that have affected everything.
When it came to the limo, LBJ actually gave an order to Vaughn Ferguson of the Ford Motor Co, who was responsible for the limo, to clean it up and have it ready for him to use at the funeral on Monday. So Ferguson dutifully did his best to try to wash it out. The carpeting in the rear area was a disaster, so there was no possibility that the limo could have been used until that was replaced. But the effect was to make sure that the limo was stripped clean of evidence as soon as the FBI/SS released it late Saturday afternoon.
I remain unconvinced that Lyndon Baines Johnson warrants the epithet mastermind vis-a-vis the public assassination of John F. Kennedy November 22, 1963.
Which is not to say the former did not have guilty knowledge, participate in the process ante and post, relish the outcome, et cetera.
It is Arlen Specter's Scottish verdict "not proved." Specter has a reserved seat on the karmic plane flight into Kilamanjaro, too.
Bugliosi may produce a five-reamer, which stacked on Posner's ream-and-a-half, which stacked on the 26 volumes of Dulles, McCloy & Ford, Charlatans-at-Law produced at our expense, in the section of the Rogue's Library with the Hooverian Spackle-Patch, the Blakey-Flakey Band-Aid, and the Sixth Floor of the Ein Gun, Ein Shooter, Ein Nest Hypestag--
--and yet, we are not convinced.
A friend recommended the Waldron-Hartmann leaf press, and somehow I garnered the stoicism to endure seven hundred pages of reptition of a nursery dream after colic and fever, wherein the most powerful men of government were simultaneously aware though unaware of the coup which was clear but unspoken, secret and common knowledge, and caused the death of the 35th president through osmosis of lead.
Oswald was complicated per John Armstrong and John Newman. Tracked and manipulated by Angleton and others in no fewer than three intelligence agencies over the course of years, years predating Johnson's presence at the executive level.
The Cuban exile invasion was under Eisenhower who allowed Nixon oversight, insofar as a temporary political operative can oversee the OSS hands, Dulles, Angleton, Helms et al.
There were many rooms to the mansion, and Werbell and Harvey were in corridors with their silencers and poison pens, while Hunt and Phillips and their colleagues were running strings of people, and operations of black, or gray, or white.
David Sanchez Morales and Felix Rodriguez and a number of other fellows of interest to Gaeton Fonzi and Jim Garrison were active.
Jack Ruby was running gunsoh dear.
Lodge and Helms and Lansdale had more to do with the coup-slash-assassinations of the Diem brothers than Hunt claimed Kennedy didwe know through Douglass that Kennedy did not want them killed.
And Hunt died not wanting the JFK killers indicated, hence he joins Craig I.Zirbel, Barr McClellan, and others who place Johnson atop Olympus with the thunderbolts.
We are disappointed as there's no one left to run the assassinations of King and Robert Kennedy, the various coverups of all three assassinations, conduct the regime changes and other covert politico-military operations before and since.
We do have a willing handmaiden to treason resigning in March 1968 and dying of heart attack in 1973, between Hoover dying in 1972 and Nixon the Eeevil resigning August 8, 1974.
A clown car can spit out clowns beyond anyone's imagining, and indeed we had Ford and Rockefeller and Bush and Reagan and so on and so forth and scooby dooby doo.
But.
We do not so much have a single villaina Lyndon ex machina descending from a wire in the third act at Langleyas we do a determination that having opened China we will allow it to provide Mexico with thousands of tons of precursor so cartels may send lady mules over the nonexistent border, establish bases in U.S. apartments and recruit U.S. citizens and subvert U.S. officials.
We remain in Junkistan.
I posit the agency intent upon defaming the murdered 35th president persists in elevating false sponsors via an endless series of provably false allegations.
I think you may have missed my point. I could care less whether anyone agrees or
disagrees with my conclusions. I only care about adhering to reason and rationality
in arrive at those conclusions based upon the relevant principles of logic (deductive
or inductive) based upon evidence and generally free from appeals based on fallacies.
I could not believe the ferocity of the reception to Phillip Nelson for having published
a book! I found it to be well-research, beautifully written, and ultimately convincing.
I am astonished by the quality of the remarks of those who underestimate Lyndon's
political genius who (I infer) would not hold thiose opinions had they read the book.
He was the most fascinating individual ever astride the American political stage for
the reason that he had so many powerful tendencies, both for good and for evil. I
have explained all of this before and find it astonishing that anyone, at this stage of
debate, would still fail to appreciate his extraordinary capacity to manipulate events.
Those who have disappointed me the most, no doubt, are Charles and DiEugenio. If
he had only read the book, Charles would have made more rational and less strident
attacks, initially upon Phil, then upon Robert, and eventually upon me--although the
order really doesn't matter, since he was rather equitable in his allocation of venom.
DiEugenio has displayed his penchant for the straw man, the ad hominem, and the
selective use of evidence. His attacks upon Hersh as a "CIA slut" are disgusting in
relation to the man who broke the My Lai massacre, the Phoenix program, and later
Dick Cheney's executive assassination ring. He deserves praise, not condemnation.
DiEugenio likes to find something--it could be anything--that he can convert into a
tool of attack. His latest intellectual atrocity is to alleged that Phil is "a liar" when
he asserts something he obviously believes to be true, again displaying a stunning
incapacity to separate saying something that might be false from real acts of lying.
I don't think he has bothered to read my posts or his would not still be so highly
repetitive and non-responsive. I doubt that Phil is mistaken in his claims, but even
if he were, unless he was making an assertion he knows to be false with the intent
of misleading his audience, he cannot be lying. DiEugenio is conceptually confused.
And you are even tolerating posts like those from Keith Millea! Let me emphasize
that I admire many on this forum, including you, Jan, Magda and others. I was not
seeking sympathy but mourning the loss of a forum I had thought was a refuge for
reason and rationality. For one who believes as I do, that is a very considerable loss.
Jim
David Guyatt Wrote:Jim, I don't usually enter the JFK folder because it is a subject I freely admit having no real knowledge of, or interest in.
But I came and watched. And saw.
And you must certainly know that much goes on behind the scenes that does not, and should not appear on the surface.
In the light of this I think it is wrong of you to make these judgements. Especially after these last past few very trying weeks, where an 18-hour day was not unusual for all of us founders and owners. And when other people were enjoying their deserved Christmas rest with their families, we were saving this forum from complete and utter destruction, so that you and other members could continue to post and yes, disagree with us -- over 5000 threads, tens of thousands of hours of effort, over 300 members posts (yours included) and God knows how many hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of words etched here. Some highly original and irreplaceable.
And the bottom line is that we are only humans too. We make mistakes and errors of judgement, and later live to regret them.
It's just that I disagree with your judgement in this case. But then we are both big enough, old enough and ugly enough to agree to disagree. We've earned that right.
But I do understand why you make your judgement and the fact that you were hurt. It is often the case in discussion forums that people's feelings are not properly catered for - simply because the thrust is usually on rational, factual arguments. Plus the obvious fact that we men usually are so shit poor at our feelings, that it's embarrassing. Or rather "they" embarrass us.
We all tend to want to replicate "Macho man", as per the Steve Miller Band track.
You'll never get everyone to agree with your perspective, and I'll never get anyone to agree with mine either.
I think you may have missed my point. I could care less whether anyone agrees or
disagrees with my conclusions. I only care about adhering to reason and rationality
in arrive at those conclusions based upon the relevant principles of logic (deductive
or inductive) based upon evidence and generally free from appeals based on fallacies.
I could not believe the ferocity of the reception to Phillip Nelson for having published
a book! I found it to be well-research, beautifully written, and ultimately convincing.
I am astonished by the quality of the remarks of those who underestimate Lyndon's
political genius who (I infer) would not hold thiose opinions had they read the book.
He was the most fascinating individual ever astride the American political stage for
the reason that he had so many powerful tendencies, both for good and for evil. I
have explained all of this before and find it astonishing that anyone, at this stage of
debate, would still fail to appreciate his extraordinary capacity to manipulate events.
Those who have disappointed me the most, no doubt, are Charles and DiEugenio. If
he had only read the book, Charles would have made more rational and less strident
attacks, initially upon Phil, then upon Robert, and eventually upon me--although the
order really doesn't matter, since he was rather equitable in his allocation of venom.
DiEugenio has displayed his penchant for the straw man, the ad hominem, and the
selective use of evidence. His attacks upon Hersh as a "CIA slut" are disgusting in
relation to the man who broke the My Lai massacre, the Phoenix program, and later
Dick Cheney's executive assassination ring. He deserves praise, not condemnation.
DiEugenio likes to find something--it could be anything--that he can convert into a
tool of attack. His latest intellectual atrocity is to alleged that Phil is "a liar" when
he asserts something he obviously believes to be true, again displaying a stunning
incapacity to separate saying something that might be false from real acts of lying.
I don't think he has bothered to read my posts or his would not still be so highly
repetitive and non-responsive. I doubt that Phil is mistaken in his claims, but even
if he were, unless he was making an assertion he knows to be false with the intent
of misleading his audience, he cannot be lying. DiEugenio is conceptually confused.
And you are even tolerating posts like those from Keith Millea! Let me emphasize
that I admire many on this forum, including you, Jan, Magda and others. I was not
seeking sympathy but mourning the loss of a forum I had thought was a refuge for
reason and rationality. For one who believes as I do, that is a very considerable loss.
Jim
David Guyatt Wrote:Jim, I don't usually enter the JFK folder because it is a subject I freely admit having no real knowledge of, or interest in.
But I came and watched. And saw.
And you must certainly know that much goes on behind the scenes that does not, and should not appear on the surface.
In the light of this I think it is wrong of you to make these judgements. Especially after these last past few very trying weeks, where an 18-hour day was not unusual for all of us founders and owners. And when other people were enjoying their deserved Christmas rest with their families, we were saving this forum from complete and utter destruction, so that you and other members could continue to post and yes, disagree with us -- over 5000 threads, tens of thousands of hours of effort, over 300 members posts (yours included) and God knows how many hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of words etched here. Some highly original and irreplaceable.
And the bottom line is that we are only humans too. We make mistakes and errors of judgement, and later live to regret them.
It's just that I disagree with your judgement in this case. But then we are both big enough, old enough and ugly enough to agree to disagree. We've earned that right.
But I do understand why you make your judgement and the fact that you were hurt. It is often the case in discussion forums that people's feelings are not properly catered for - simply because the thrust is usually on rational, factual arguments. Plus the obvious fact that we men usually are so shit poor at our feelings, that it's embarrassing. Or rather "they" embarrass us.
We all tend to want to replicate "Macho man", as per the Steve Miller Band track.
You'll never get everyone to agree with your perspective, and I'll never get anyone to agree with mine either.
Let's just accept that fact and move on, okay?
In friendship Jim.
David
As I say Jim, I understand where you're coming from and why, but I fundamentally disagree with your conclusions, which I don't believe are warranted.
It seems to me that personal animosity has replaced common sense - and division is now in the driving seat, rather than debate. That's not what we're about.
I'll be happy to discuss this with you more extensively off forum, so please feel free to PM me if you wish. It will receive my best attention. But there can be no benefit from further public airing of these grievances.
As I said earlier, it's time to move on.
And we shall.
David
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Jack White Wrote:Part of the reason is the forum advertises itself as a DEBATE FORUM. That is at the root of the problem.
I want no part of "debating" anyone about my opinions, beliefs, research, or facts....or his.
No one has to debate any thing Jack. It is not compulsory.
Magda...that was the point. My message was written for the SIMKIN FORUM,
and I reposted it here. I guess you missed my point.
Jack
Thank you Jack. It's very much valued.
Please appreciate that we're all a little bushed and busted about at the moment. It has been a harrowing 3 weeks for us.
David
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Jack White Wrote:Part of the reason is the forum advertises itself as a DEBATE FORUM. That is at the root of the problem.
I want no part of "debating" anyone about my opinions, beliefs, research, or facts....or his.
No one has to debate any thing Jack. It is not compulsory.
Magda...that was the point. My message was written for the SIMKIN FORUM,
and I reposted it here. I guess you missed my point.
Jack
Thank you Jack. It's very much valued.
Please appreciate that we're all a little bushed and busted about at the moment. It has been a harrowing 3 weeks for us.
David
david do you actually mean, your got up and go, got up and went..??
:cheer: Get Up and Go
by Pete Seeger How do I know my youth has been spent:
Because my get-up-and-go, got up and went
But in spite of all that, I'm able to grin
When I think where my get-up-and-go has been
Old age is golden, I've heard it said,
But sometimes I wonder as I go to bed
My ears are in a drawer, my teeth in a cup,
My eyes on a table until I wake up
When I was young my slippers were red
I could kick my heels right over my head
When I grew older my slippers were blue
But I could still dance the whole night thru
Now that I am old my slippers are black
I walk to the corner and puff my way back
The reason I know my youth is spent
My get-up-and-go got up and went
I get up each morning dust off my wits
Pick up the paper and read the "orbits"
If my name is missing, I know I'm not dead
So I eat a good breakfast and go back to bed
