Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[James H. Fetzer]

This is so poorly reasoned and factually challenged that I am embarrassed that my good friend, Charles Drago, has posted it here. Most of his claims are so blatantly unjustifiable that I do not believe they require rebuttal. But, as anyone can read for themselves, I have defined LBJ's role as "the pivotal player" with regard to the killing of JFK. And Jack Ruby's observations confirm it. As a professor of logic for 35 years, it causes me mental anguish to see someone I hold in high esteem commit fallacies I taught freshmen and sophomores to avoid. Because it is NEW YEAR'S DAY and Jack and I have bigger fish to fry at the ROSE BOWL, I am going to leave this for now. But I am prepared to return to this post and explain why I regard it as one of Charles' most disgraceful performances. We are not allowed to simply "pick and choose" our evidence, which is known as "special pleading". If Charles does not understand what Madeleine, Billy Sol, Barr and E. Howard Hunt have to tell us, I am prepared to explain it to him in excruciating detail. I am with Charles up to the point where he departs from the standards of reason and rationality. Unfortunately, he did that on this thread from the beginning. I cannot praise hysterical and irrational responses to the mass of evidence we confront, where he has yet to confirm that he has even read Phil's magnificent book.

Agreed -- but I would be more precise in noting that LBJ's pivotal role was as the guarantor of post-plot security (or, if you prefer, the cover-up).

To the vast majority of Facilitators, the power of the presidency was unchallenged. To those who understood deep political realities, the power of the presidency was then, as it is now, a convenient illusion.

Yes, the plot could not have "gone forward" without LBJ. Which means nothing more or less than LBJ was a mega-important tool. Not the carpenter. Not the architect. Only the biggest hammer in the tool belt.




As one who is familiar with Estes and Hunt as prime fonts of disinformation, with McCelland as an unsophisticated source of misconception and exaggeration, and Brown as a lowest level regurgitator of emotion-clouded anecdote, I appreciate what you are asserting as a textbook example of appeal to false authority.




Yes. Which makes him nothing more or less than the biggest hammer in the tool belt.

So far, not a hint of even the flimsiest evidence for LBJ as assassination "mastermind."




Now there's a true "mastermind" at work: sending his publicly acknowledged "chief assistant" to the major city in his home state where his "masterful" plot to assume the presidency would manifest.




Jim, this statement is disingenuous, and you know it. Ruby clearly was indicating NOT that LBJ was any sort of "mastermind," but only that he was sufficiently corrupt and controllable so as to go along with big plan.




And I regard this as one of the most dangerous-to-the cause, book-length presentations of disinformation ever published about the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

So what?




In other words, you are distressed when "worthies" find fault with your positions.

So what?

Robert Morrow, as evidenced by his sophmoric appreciations of all things deeply political, engages not in informed speculation, but only in linguistically challenged shouting matchs. He buys Nelson's indefensible central thesis hook, line, and sinker. I have not the slightest respect for his intellect or for his command of the subject matter.

And if he did not agree with your positions, neither would you.




Don't worry about DPF, Jim. We'll take care of ourselves and maintain our standards. You might be better served by focusing on a very simple question -- one that I've posed over and over again, but which you decline to answer. So let's try one more time:

How do you define "mastermind" as the word is used by Nelson to describe LBJ's role in the assassination?

As I see it, you and I are at loggerheads in two areas: the "mastermind" definition, and the ways in which we view the likes of Estes and Hunt.




Please quantify that statement.




I agree that LBJ had much to gain from JFK's murder -- including a "Get Out of Jail Free" card and all the wealth that the (limited) power of the presidency can generate.

But none of this brings us to a logical conclusion that LBJ was the "mastermind" of the assassination. And not even you have dared define the term, let alone defend the premise.

Jim, I reiterate: Nelson's book, informed by selective research and ultimately invalidated by illogical conclusion, is a disinformation textbook.

Here, in a nutshell (nut case?), is the process which, if we are to conclude that Nelson is an otherwise innocent naif, led to his "mastermind" conclusion:

A scientist trains a flea to fly. "Fly, flea," the scientist would say, and the flea would fly. "Fly, flea," and off it would soar.

Then one day the scientist surgically removed the flea's wings.

"Fly, flea," said the scientist. But the flea would not fly.

And so the scientist concluded, "When one removes the wings from a flea, it becomes deaf."