JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn't

[Charles Drago]

Phil,

I have to take exception to your and Charles' skepticism about E. Howard's deathbed confession. If it were all we had to go on for his list of those who were involved -- LBJ, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Philips, William Harvey, and David Sanchez Morales, for example -- then that would be one thing. But we have a lot of corroborating evidence that points in the same direction.

So while I am willing to discuss and debate these things, it is contrary to the available relevant evidence to dismiss E. Howard's final reminiscences ... So I think you've both missed the boat here.

Jim

Jim,

Here are my problems with your counter-arguments as reproduced above:

1. You implicitly draw a wholly unsubstantiated distinction between "those who were involved" in the assassination and Hunt. The only reason you do so, I'm forced to conclude, is that Hunt (at the bitter end) espouses a scenario which you've embraced.

"Ego te absolvo," say you to Hunt.

"Bullshit!" shout I to Hunt.

2. Hunt's "deathbed confession" does nothing more than "confirm" hand-picked aspects of oft-told tales. It is a feint. It breaks no new ground. It is the essence of propaganda: an argument from authority. And that authority, my friend, could not be more tainted.

3. In addition, Hunt's final masterpiece accomplishes the goal of creating additional fracture lines within our community -- which would be fine if there were anything to commend his offering other than its tainted provenance. I don't disagree with you when you name likely JFK co-conspirators above. But what Hunt is doing with that list is very subtle and very smart:

Hunt has used the truth (to the degree that he speaks it) to lure us toward unfounded, cover-up-supporting, ultimately sophistic conclusions regarding the usual suspects' positions within the hierarchy of the assassination conspiracy.

Does the term "limited hang-out" ring a bell? Especially within the Hunt context?

Was Hunt, among other objectives, settling old scores?

And of course there is the new book by Phillip Nelson, LBJ: THE MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION (2010), which is quite brilliant.

4. And speaking of ridiculously unwarranted conclusions, I give you the title of Mr. Nelson's book.

To cut to the chase: Do you agree with the title's conclusion?

I reject it out of hand. It is of a piece with Hunt's final burst of disinformation: an effort to oversimplify highly complex subject matter and divert our attention from the search for the true Sponsors of the Kennedy murders.

I write only of the title; I have not read the book -- yet. But if indeed it turns out that Nelson is describing LBJ as the assassination's Sponsor -- the person with the authority to order the hit in all of its ramifications (especially on the ruling class) and the expertise to design the conspiracy in all of its brilliant complexity, then Nelson is either a fool or an accessory after the fact.

(For what it's worth, earlier this morning I received an e-mail from a very loud supporter of the LBJ-as-sponsor nonsense [He asserts that LBJ was master of the Rockefellers, who simply bowed at the waist and did his bidding!] in which he describes Nelson's book and JFK and the Unspeakable as works of comparable merit. This is an old and transparent game of conflation -- honor by association. Are sinister motives at play, or is this guy just plain stupid?)

Best,

Charles