03-01-2011, 09:58 PM
JF: This is a stunningly inadequate response. Having had his bluff called about his
exaggeration of what Lyndon had to control to qualify as the "mastermind", he
sails blithely ahead as though there were no dangers lurking there. For him to
argue at this stage of the debate that there is no evidence that LBJ was handling
Oswald in New Orleans has to establish a new level of absurdity, even for Jimmy
D. If he still has any fans, they might want to reconsider their support for a guy
who doesn't even reply to devastating critiques of his positions across the board.
I will leave Seymour Hersh to Phil, if he chooses to respond. As for myself, I find
these continued displays of incompetence compelling. I am completely convinced!
Jim, your endless displays of empty bombast are getting up there with the likes of Von Pein. He is a main reason why I am here today and not at Spartacus. I got tired of replying to his nuttiness.
But you try and assume his mantle by ridiculing evidence and then assuming by naked presumption that you proved your argument.
I was very clear in the above as to why Nelson is wrong about Hersh. I provided titles, dates of the books, straightened out his mis citations, and actually quoted from the second book. I have done my homework on this since I wrote about CIA slut Hersh in The Assassinations. On pages 366-69. Evidently, Nelson did not read that book.
Now, I know something about Oswald in New Orleans. I actually wrote a book about it. I then visited the city twice to do on the ground research--the kind you don't do on this case. So please, tell us all: What is the direct evidence for LBJ handling Oswald in New Orleans? And please do not give us something like LBJ knew this guy and this guy knew this guy and this guy knew Banister. That is not evidence. It is an admission you have no evidence with which to make your case.
exaggeration of what Lyndon had to control to qualify as the "mastermind", he
sails blithely ahead as though there were no dangers lurking there. For him to
argue at this stage of the debate that there is no evidence that LBJ was handling
Oswald in New Orleans has to establish a new level of absurdity, even for Jimmy
D. If he still has any fans, they might want to reconsider their support for a guy
who doesn't even reply to devastating critiques of his positions across the board.
I will leave Seymour Hersh to Phil, if he chooses to respond. As for myself, I find
these continued displays of incompetence compelling. I am completely convinced!
Jim, your endless displays of empty bombast are getting up there with the likes of Von Pein. He is a main reason why I am here today and not at Spartacus. I got tired of replying to his nuttiness.
But you try and assume his mantle by ridiculing evidence and then assuming by naked presumption that you proved your argument.
I was very clear in the above as to why Nelson is wrong about Hersh. I provided titles, dates of the books, straightened out his mis citations, and actually quoted from the second book. I have done my homework on this since I wrote about CIA slut Hersh in The Assassinations. On pages 366-69. Evidently, Nelson did not read that book.
Now, I know something about Oswald in New Orleans. I actually wrote a book about it. I then visited the city twice to do on the ground research--the kind you don't do on this case. So please, tell us all: What is the direct evidence for LBJ handling Oswald in New Orleans? And please do not give us something like LBJ knew this guy and this guy knew this guy and this guy knew Banister. That is not evidence. It is an admission you have no evidence with which to make your case.