Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[Jan Klimkowski]

I will add the following.

Where a hypothesis, an interpretation of the evidence, is presented it is surely legitimate to examine the nature and source of the evidence upon which the hypothesis relies.

If it is based on the testimony of an individual who claims to have witnessed, or been privy to a historical incident, then it is necessary to look at the veracity of that person's evidence across time and space. What corroborating material has been found to support their claims? Has that person ever been shown to have lied or fabricated material? Has that person been proven correct in their claims by material which has come to light after they made the original assertion?

Similarly, where a reporter or journalist is the channel through which historical claims enter the public domain, and the articles or books of that reporter then become the "source" of factual claims made in the hypothesis being proposed - in this case by Philip Nelson - then it is entirely legitimate to return to the original source and examine it for its evidential and factual basis.

By analogy, Bob Woodward is still held up in many circles as the doyen of investigative journalism. Examining the evidence, through time and space, it is entirely possible to consider Woodward as an approved mockingbird channel used to mislead or divert investigators from the truth. All the President's Men now, unfortunately, appears to be a grand lie and deception (through no fault of Pakula.)

In short, it is incumbent upon all researchers and authors to examine critically the stuff of their working hypothesis, acknowledge any ambiguities or problems, and - if appropriate - revise their judgements in the light of information they were previously unaware of.

The strength of this thread has been its critical examination of the hypothesis proposed by Mr Nelson, and of the facts, testimony and sources upon which it is built.

Fine points have been made by all sides in this process.

The weakness of this thread has been the personal invective and insults occasionally thrown around, which have detracted from the importance of the examination of the evidence and the hypothesis.