My new book, "Into the Nightmare"

[Magda Hassan]

Charles:

The intensification of the LBJ-as-mastermind operation has been noted for some months now and is openly scheduled to continue through the fall. The work of one of its prime Facilitators, "author" Phillip Nelson (prime exponent of the "mastermind" characterization), recently was referenced on this forum and prompted a generally admirable JFK assassination author to note that we are obliged by the dictates of professional courtesy not to challenge the motives of our fellow correspondents, but rather to bow from the waist (my description) and politely "agree to disagree" with them when necessary.

Where does such courtesy end?

I presume you are referring to McBride here. I found this call for a polite disengagement to be disappointing on his part. Saying we must 'agree to disagree' should only come after every effort has been expended to be understand the argument of the other. But when the concern is to promote a book, one would never want to engage in a genuine dialogue which would expose its weaknesses. It would hurt business.

Not exactly Lauren. It was more Charles bringing off forum discussions here and due to recent correspondence I take it as a jab at Dawn and putting words in her mouth of which she never said. But you are not to know that. Just because Charles has declared war on Phillip Nelson doesn't mean every one else is required to enlist in that fight any more than Charles is required to give Nelson the time of day just because others might. On the other hand the merits or lack of merits of any book are absolutely fair game. Attacking the forum members is not. The distinction needs to be made and understood. You've been on the receiving end of attacks Lauren and I don't think it was pleasant for you. I and many others certainly were appalled at the way you were abused. Anyway, if Charles or you or any one else feels their questions have not been adequately answered you are free to note that or to reiterate the question/s again in case they have been missed first time around. Others will note the response and draw their conclusions. Or not. But keeping the means of basic civil communication open is important. Personal attacks just shut it all down.

[Charles Drago]

Charles:

The intensification of the LBJ-as-mastermind operation has been noted for some months now and is openly scheduled to continue through the fall. The work of one of its prime Facilitators, "author" Phillip Nelson (prime exponent of the "mastermind" characterization), recently was referenced on this forum and prompted a generally admirable JFK assassination author to note that we are obliged by the dictates of professional courtesy not to challenge the motives of our fellow correspondents, but rather to bow from the waist (my description) and politely "agree to disagree" with them when necessary.

Where does such courtesy end?

I presume you are referring to McBride here. I found this call for a polite disengagement to be disappointing on his part. Saying we must 'agree to disagree' should only come after every effort has been expended to be understand the argument of the other. But when the concern is to promote a book, one would never want to engage in a genuine dialogue which would expose its weaknesses. It would hurt business.

Not exactly Lauren. It was more Charles bringing off forum discussions here and due to recent correspondence I take it as a jab at Dawn and putting words in her mouth of which she never said.

Let me set the record straight insofar as Magda is attempting -- without success -- to divine my intent.

I did NOT "jab at dawn." Not intentionally. Not unintentionally.

I did not "put words in her mouth." Not intentionally. Not unintentionally.

For future reference: I alone speak for myself. Questions about what I write should be addressed to me, and third-party analyses of my work should be avoided like the plague -- and for reasons that are glaringly obvious right here.

Rather, I was commenting sarcastically on what for me is the morally indefensible policy of permitting, in this case, JFK assassination Facilitators access to the safe haven represented by many Internet forums' rules of engagement that prohibit exposure of their underlying agendas simply because they are forum members.

In the case of Nelson, the absurdity of his LBJ-as-mastermind hypothesis has been exposed repeatedly and in scholarly fashions.

But our job does not end with said exposure.

Our job is to attempt to discover the motives for Nelson's madness.

I have no smoking gun, but in my extremely well-informed opinion Nelson is, wittingly or otherwise, aiding and abetting the killers of JFK.

I do NOT "agree to disagree" with him. I do NOT extend respect or collegiality to him.

The stakes are too high.

[T]he merits or lack of merits of any book are absolutely fair game. Attacking the forum members is not.[

To the everlasting credit of DPF's founders, our forum does not accept applications for membership from known agents provocateur and, in the JFK case, proponents of the lone nut lie. However, in my opinion we drop the ball when we insist upon "agreeing to disagree" with more subtly problematic correspondents who are more skillful at masking their likely sinister intentions and thus find refuge in DPF's rules.[/QUOTE]

But keeping the means of basic civil communication open is important. Personal attacks just shut it all down.

When pointing out what for me is the lunacy of Joseph McBride's "agree to disagree" dictum, I am NOT engaging in a "personal attack" -- whatever that means.

Rather, I am attacking the "agree to disagree" argument that this fine and often noble writer is making in this instance.

Does Mr. McBride "agree to disagree" with Bugliosi? Posner? Arlen Specter? Bob Blakey?

Alan Fucking Dulles?

[Charles Drago]

So when I call for civility rather than abuse and for people listening to each other's arguments and then agreeing
to disagree if they can't reach a consensus, I don't think I am trying not to engage in a genuine dialogue. I think
that I am doing exactly the opposite. I am trying to keep the discussion on the facts of the case and what they
mean. The case is too important to descend into name-calling and mudslinging.

Do you "agree to disagree" with Bugliosi? Posner? Ken Rahn? John McAdams?

Where do you draw the line? How do you draw the line?

I find personal abuse directed at me or other researchers, whatever their beliefs and arguments may be, simply tiresome and at worst a calculated distraction from issues. Such abuse has ruined many a forum. I try to avoid engaging with such people in both fields in which I work. Also unhelpful is criticizing a book without reading it. That is simply absurd, as well as unscholarly, and it's hard for an author to respond to someone who is ignorant of the book's contents and in some cases refuses to read what the author has written but prefers to keep a closed mind. I am always happy to entertain reasoned criticism of what I write, or to take into account additional information or new insights, but simple uninformed invective serves no real purpose.

Twice now I have challenged your hypothesis that J. D. Tippit very well may have been the "Badge Man" figure allegedly firing at JFK from behind the picket fence. I have argued that the ability to hit a stationary target at a great distance under relaxed, non-life threatening circumstances does not equate to the ability to hit a moving target under the most pressure-packed, life-threatening circumstances imaginable.

Rather than address this point, you repeatedly choose to accuse me of not having read your book. You do it again above.

You can run, sir, but you can't hide.

I've read your book. Every word. And for your information, I am widely recognized to be one of the most outside-the-box thinkers in JFK research.

My criticism is based on scholarship, informed by decades of research, and utterly reasoned.

My mind is wide open.

Please answer my questions.

[Lauren Johnson]

Magda and Joseph,

I do think Joseph you have dodged CD's pointed questions. And you are correct, they are important. But accusing you of doing it for economic reasons was over the edge on my part as you and Magda have pointed out. I apologize and withdraw my accusation.

[Magda Hassan]

Magda and Joseph,

I do think Joseph you have dodged CD's pointed questions. And you are correct, they are important. But accusing you of doing it for economic reasons was over the edge on my part as you and Magda have pointed out. I apologize and withdraw my accusation.

I am sure Joseph is hoping to sell some books here too. I have ordered one and it looks like other have too including Charles. But it also gives us an opportunity to discuss and further explore the matters brought up by the book in more depth and detail with Joseph, and I hope the Joseph also takes away from us new insights and ideas that might further develop this subject area for another time.

[Joseph McBride]

Magda and Joseph,

I do think Joseph you have dodged CD's pointed questions. And you are correct, they are important. But accusing you of doing it for economic reasons was over the edge on my part as you and Magda have pointed out. I apologize and withdraw my accusation.

I am sure Joseph is hoping to sell some books here too. I have ordered one and it looks like other have too including Charles. But it also gives us an opportunity to discuss and further explore the matters brought up by the book in more depth and detail with Joseph, and I hope the Joseph also takes away from us new insights and ideas that might further develop this subject area for another time.

Thank you, Magda and Lauren. I appreciate your good words and
the spirit behind them.

As I say, I welcome and wish for lively discussions with pointed questions and/or disagreements
about my research and ideas. I am critical of various books and researchers
in INTO THE NIGHTMARE but try to focus on their arguments logically rather
than making ad hominem attacks. An ad hominem attack is usually a sign
the person making it has no genuine argument. We see a lot of that
on other forums. Sometimes I have trouble understanding a question
if it's too vague or unformed. I don't try to dodge questions if
they are serious and focused on issues. So I look forward to clearly pointed ones
here. There are a lot of highly knowledgeable people here, which
is why I came to this site to have good discussions.

[Charles Drago]

Sometimes I have trouble understanding a question
if it's too vague or unformed. I don't try to dodge questions if
they are serious and focused on issues. So I look forward to clearly pointed ones
here. There are a lot of highly knowledgeable people here, which
is why I came to this site to have good discussions.

Please help me to help you understand the following two matters, which I now have raised and directed to your attention publicly at least six times in the aggregate:

1. Regarding your hypothesis that J. D. Tippit very well may have been the "Badge Man" figure allegedly firing at JFK from behind the picket fence, I have argued that the ability to hit a stationary target at a great distance under relaxed, non-life threatening circumstances (a skill which, according to Tippit's father as stated in your interview with him, Tippit possessed) does not equate to the ability to hit a moving target under the most pressure-packed, life-threatening circumstances imaginable. Yet your Tippit-as-Badge-Man argument is predicated in great measure (but not exclusively) on a simple "if you can hit a bird, you can hit a president" conclusion.

I find your argument here to be deeply flawed and otherwise uninformed by refined deep political analysis. As a direct consequence, the often valuable insights you present in the book are opened to ridicule.

Please indicate the flaws in my reasoning.

2. Regarding your "agree to disagree" position vis a vis the demonstrably ludicrous and, in my estimation and that of many others, hostile-to-the-truth conclusions of Phillip Nelson, please enlighten us as to the limits, if any, of your collegiality.

Do you "agree to disagree" with lone nut lie proponents Posner? Bugliosi? Rahn? Cinque? McAdams? Dunkel? Specter? Where, if anywhere, do you draw the line and distinguish between honorable argument and enemy action in JFK scholarship?

Do you agree that the LN/conspiracy faux debate is the critical component in the ongoing JFK conspiracy cover-up?

In closing: Previously you have dismissed these questions as unworthy of response by leveling the charge that I had not read your book and thus was unqualified to pose them.

You now seem to have abandoned that wholly spurious claim and replaced it with new evasions: My questions are too vague ... unformed ... not serious ... unfocused ...

So again: Help me to help you.

[Charles Drago]

It was more Charles bringing off forum discussions here and due to recent correspondence I take it as a jab at Dawn and putting words in her mouth of which she never said.

Since my words are being analyzed here, I think it only fair that I have the opportunity to set the record straight.

When I responded with a sarcastic, "Not to worry, we can agree to disagree" dismissal to Dawn's well-founded concern that spreaders of disinformation will be spewing their garbage with increasing intensity as the 50th anniversary approaches, I was neither "jabbing" at her nor "putting words in her mouth."

Not intentionally. Not subliminally. Not at all.

Period.

Magda is wholly incorrect in her analysis. She has every right to undertake and publicly share it, of course.

Caveat emptor.

I ask all DPF correspondents to take no one's word but my own when it comes to plumbing my posts for subtext and other hidden meanings. If it matters to you, feel free to talk to me about it.

[Tracy Riddle]

1. Regarding your hypothesis that J. D. Tippit very well may have been the "Badge Man" figure allegedly firing at JFK from behind the picket fence...

I remember that Gary Mack's two favorite pieces of conspiracy evidence were "Badge Man" and the dictabelt recording, neither of which I ever felt much confidence about. Staring at that Rorschach test we call the Moorman Polaroid, you can see almost anything if you look hard enough. Raymond Marcus actually identified some more plausible shapes in the photo, but we're still in Wonderland. If only Mary had had a better quality, color camera.

[Albert Rossi]

1. Regarding your hypothesis that J. D. Tippit very well may have been the "Badge Man" figure allegedly firing at JFK from behind the picket fence...

I remember that Gary Mack's two favorite pieces of conspiracy evidence were "Badge Man" and the dictabelt recording, neither of which I ever felt much confidence about. Staring at that Rorschach test we call the Moorman Polaroid, you can see almost anything if you look hard enough. Raymond Marcus actually identified some more plausible shapes in the photo, but we're still in Wonderland. If only Mary had had a better quality, color camera.

Let me state, first, that I have Into the Nightmare in my stack of books, and have not yet gotten to it, but am anxious to read it. So I do not know what the arguments about Tippit are that Joseph musters for his hypothesis. But, FWIW, I do know -- outside of Buchanan -- that this identification has been proposed in at least one other place: Phillips, D.T. A Deeper, Darker Truth: Tom Wilson's Journey into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Illinois: DTP/Companion Books, 2009. The epilogue suggests that Badge Man is Tippit because of the supposed pock mark on his left cheek uncovered by Wilson's digital analysis. In my opinion the book is, to be kind, extremely dubious (I am inclined to say totally bogus junk; there is not enough detail in the presentation to understand exactly what the mathematics of Wilson's technique supposedly consists of), but I thought I'd just add this into the mix here for completeness sake.