Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[James H. Fetzer]

DiEugenio continues to display his mediocrity on this thread. First he exaggerates
what Lyndon has to have controlled in order for him to have properly qualified as
"mastermind". Now he trivializes the evidential support for inferring that LBJ was
the pivotal player, where he suggests that I am deriving my position SOLELY FROM
"The Final Confessions of E. Howard Hunt"! How can he suggest as much on this
very thread? And he expects anyone to take him seriously as a thinker or a scholar?

I have cited the books of Madeleine Duncan Brown, Billy Sol Estes, Barr McClellan,
Noel Twyman, Jim Douglass, Phil Nelson, and of many others, including, of course,
Nigel Turner in the final segment of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Robert Morrow is
doing a brilliant job of explaining some of the evidence that supports this conclusion,
including even a letter from Evelyn Lincoln, where the woman who knew JFK best
and the woman who knew LBJ best both believe that Lyndon was profoundly involved.

Instead of confronting the evidence, he wants to dredge up ancient history about
Gregory Douglas, which I long since addressed on Assassination Research, which
anyone can verify at http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2.html . Since his
gambits are not going anywhere, he wants to return to Judyth and the extended
debate that occurred on the longest thread in the history of the EF, where I had to
fault him for the methodological blunder of placing more weight on a more recent
interview with Mary Morgan than on her consistent and repeated earlier testimony.

Robert Morrow has done a nice job of explaining this to DiEugenio, but, as in the
case of the CIA at the Ambassador, he plays the game of picking and choosing the
evidence he prefers, no matter how much there may exist to the contrary. And he
is reckless in his confidence when he finds what he is looking for. I suppose no one
should be surprised, since he has no grasp of scientific reasoning. He has no way to
know the provenance of the formal photograph on which he relies in his quite feeble
attempts to salvage his position, EVEN AFTER I HAVE EXPLAINED HIS BLUNDERS.

Similarly, he now thinks he can get some mileage out of resurrecting the controversy
over Judyth. We've all "been there, done that", in case he hasn't noticed. And once
again he is wiling to select just the evidence that supports his position and disregard
the rest. That is the tactic of politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen. I
hate to say it again, but if he would only take into account ALL OF THE AVAILABLE
RELEVANT EVIDENCE, even he might have more appreciation for what it has to tell
us. By coincidence, I just received an email about ME & LEE, which I want to share:

Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 10:05:19 -0800 [12:05:19 PM CST]
From: "John ______" <______@yahoo.com>
To: JFetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: RE: Judyth Baker

Hey Dr. Fetzer:

Thank you for promoting the efforts of Ms. Baker to exonerate her former friend and lover, Lee Oswald, in the killing of our beloved president, John Kennedy.

I just read Ms. Baker's book, and I must say, her writing and the supporting evidence have convinced me that, indeed, she knew Lee Oswald well in New Orleans and likely received information from him about the efforts to eliminate the President. She wrote that Lee was a very kind, loving, and considerate person who really cared about others.

During the Holiday break, I did some catching up on what is going on with the JFK case, and I happened to review the last words of Lee Oswald which were compiled and posted on the Net by Mae Brussell. This evidence shows Lee expressed genuine concern for his little daughters, Junie and Rachel, and that he reminded Marina to buy some shoes for Junie, even though he had just been charged with murder and was in grave danger of losing his life. His words and the associated voice analysis while at the police station also demonstrate that Lee did not shoot anybody and that he was just a patsy as he proclaimed. The consideration and kindness he exhibited at the police station is also wholly consistent with how Lee acted towards Judyth and others in New Orleans as recounted in Judyth's book. With Judyth's evidence, the case in general makes so much more sense now. For that, I'm very thankful to you and Judyth, as I've been reading about this case for over 20 years.

Best wishes,

John _____

In my opinion, this fellow displays more sensitivity to significant aspects of the case
as they relate to Judth Vary Baker than does Jim DiEugenio, even though DiEugenio
is suspposed to the the expert here. But regardless of that case, where he hopes that
those who disagree with me about her are going to agree with him now, he continues
to display the inadequacies in research for which I am now forced to repeatedly fault
him. The selective use of evidence (by picking and choosing and ignoring the rest) and
the straw man (by exaggerating what would have to be true for LBJ to properly qualify
as the "mastermind" and by minimizing the evidence that supports it) is irresponsible.

And that is not to mention relying on evidence the worth of which he does not know
(in the case of his attempt to rebut my on outing the CIA at the Ambassador), which
adds new weight to a growing body of proof that this guy really is as incompetent as
I have feared. He not only has no idea whether that photograph looks like the person
he takes it to be but doesn't even seem to appreciate that we all have photographs of
ourselves at different times that don't really look a lot like ourselves. And for him to
shift the discussion to WATERGATE is scrapping the barrel's bottom. He is desperate
to find some sliver by which he might excuse his own incompetence. BUYER BEWARE!

RM: A few quick points - E. Howard Hunt ALSO said that the CIA killed John Kennedy. Is that not true, too? Remember, E. Howard Hunt is confessing all this stuff to his SON St. John Hunt, not the public at large. So I think Hunt is a lot more trustworthy in these conversations. Saint John was the one of helped his dad destroy evidence, as Hunt was covering up for Watergate. I think Hunt was basically being true with St. John, but it seems that he was protecting himself ("backbencher, my butt!), Allen Dulles, Helms and Angleton.

Hunt's semi-confession reminds me of LBJ telling Madeleine Brown that it was Texas oil and the CIA who murdered John Kennedy, but leaving himself out of the mix. Hunt and LBJ were both far more involved than they let on.

Hunt did not say that the CIA killed Kennedy.

And you hint at what he really said later in this post.

What he is really saying is that a rogue operation of mid level and even low level CIA operatives killed Kennedy. How else does one define people like Sturgis and Morales? And then he throws in Cord Meyer?

I mean c'mon Rob. If you don't see the problem with that, then you really don't understand the CIA or Hunt. Cord Meyer was not an operator. He was a specialist in propaganda. In fact, he later became a prime CIA asset when he donned cover as a news reporter. The only reason Hunt includes him in his motley crew is because of the alleged affair JFK had with Mary Meyer, his former wife.

And for you and Fetzer to still rely on Saint John and his story about "destroying evidence" the night of the Watergate break in shows you have not studied Watergate either. As I noted, it was not Hunt but Baldwin who took the surveillance stuff home that night. He took it to McCord's house. Hunt did not go home after the break in. He went to his office at the White House, and then to the Mullen Company.

See, Hunt was not really involved with the electronic surveillance stuff during Watergate. THat was really Baldwin and McCord. So Saint John appears to be fabricating this aspect to give the impression that Dad let him in on some of his black ops prior.

And you guys fell for it.