03-12-2011, 10:57 AM
Charles,
I know where you are coming from, given our past exchanges, but what in the world do you mean by "arguments from authority" as you use it here?
The best Jim Fetzer can do in defense of the indefensible Nelson is to make arguments from authority. It saddens me beyond measure to note that, because of the myriad frailties he exhibits throughout this sordid Nelson affair, it is now clear that Jim Fetzer's authority has been consumed by the fires of his own ego and enfeeblement.
You know I HAVE read the books that you take glee in acknowledging you have NOT read. Which means that the evidence I have available to assess the situation is far more extensive than yours. In that sense, yes, I have greater epistemic authority than do you, where I find it embarrassing that you go on and on about all this WITHOUT BOTHERING TO READ THEIR BOOKS.
I have asked you before and I must ask again: Have you actually read Phil Nelson's book? Because if you had, then I could not imagine that you would be making such sophomoric attacks upon him. He has done overwhelmingly more thorough and painstaking research on LBJ than have you. It appears to me you don't even understand the meaning of appeals to authority.
There are fallacious and non-fallacious appeals to authority. A fallacious appeal occurs when an expert in one area is cited as if he were an expert in another. A non-fallacious appeal occurs when an expert on one subject is cited on that subject. Citing David W. Mantik for his work on the autopsy X-rays is non-fallacious. Citing him on Shakespeare, however, might well not be.
Certainly, Phil Nelson is an expert on LBJ and others I have cited, including Madeleine, Billy Sol and E. Howard Hunt knew the man far better than you or I. The only person who fits the role of having been the pivotal player without whose complicity the assassination could not have taken place and who was in contact with the principal players was Lyndon Baines Johnson alone.
I spoke with Madelenine on more than 100 occasions. I have read her book and discussed her experiences with LBJ with her in person. I interviewed her at the Lancer conference in Dallas in 1998, which can be obtained on a DVD from that source. She was "the real deal" and her testimony about Lyndon has been corroborated by others who knew him "up close and personal".
Your attacks are far beneath your stature, at least, so I would have thought. You offer no evidence, only belittlement. You admit you have not studied the evidence or read their books, yet you offer yourself as not merely an expert but as possessed of definitive opinions about these matter where you acknowledge your own ignorance. This is a quite stunning performance.
Indeed, since you know not whereof you speak, it is simply absurd to charge others with appeals to authority--except, of course, you do not appear to know the difference between fallacious and non-fallacious appeals. Given your admitted failure to have studied their work, Charles, let me assure you that your appeals here to your own vast authority are blatantly fallacious.
I know where you are coming from, given our past exchanges, but what in the world do you mean by "arguments from authority" as you use it here?
The best Jim Fetzer can do in defense of the indefensible Nelson is to make arguments from authority. It saddens me beyond measure to note that, because of the myriad frailties he exhibits throughout this sordid Nelson affair, it is now clear that Jim Fetzer's authority has been consumed by the fires of his own ego and enfeeblement.
You know I HAVE read the books that you take glee in acknowledging you have NOT read. Which means that the evidence I have available to assess the situation is far more extensive than yours. In that sense, yes, I have greater epistemic authority than do you, where I find it embarrassing that you go on and on about all this WITHOUT BOTHERING TO READ THEIR BOOKS.
I have asked you before and I must ask again: Have you actually read Phil Nelson's book? Because if you had, then I could not imagine that you would be making such sophomoric attacks upon him. He has done overwhelmingly more thorough and painstaking research on LBJ than have you. It appears to me you don't even understand the meaning of appeals to authority.
There are fallacious and non-fallacious appeals to authority. A fallacious appeal occurs when an expert in one area is cited as if he were an expert in another. A non-fallacious appeal occurs when an expert on one subject is cited on that subject. Citing David W. Mantik for his work on the autopsy X-rays is non-fallacious. Citing him on Shakespeare, however, might well not be.
Certainly, Phil Nelson is an expert on LBJ and others I have cited, including Madeleine, Billy Sol and E. Howard Hunt knew the man far better than you or I. The only person who fits the role of having been the pivotal player without whose complicity the assassination could not have taken place and who was in contact with the principal players was Lyndon Baines Johnson alone.
I spoke with Madelenine on more than 100 occasions. I have read her book and discussed her experiences with LBJ with her in person. I interviewed her at the Lancer conference in Dallas in 1998, which can be obtained on a DVD from that source. She was "the real deal" and her testimony about Lyndon has been corroborated by others who knew him "up close and personal".
Your attacks are far beneath your stature, at least, so I would have thought. You offer no evidence, only belittlement. You admit you have not studied the evidence or read their books, yet you offer yourself as not merely an expert but as possessed of definitive opinions about these matter where you acknowledge your own ignorance. This is a quite stunning performance.
Indeed, since you know not whereof you speak, it is simply absurd to charge others with appeals to authority--except, of course, you do not appear to know the difference between fallacious and non-fallacious appeals. Given your admitted failure to have studied their work, Charles, let me assure you that your appeals here to your own vast authority are blatantly fallacious.
Charles Drago Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:Phil,
Lyndon was not photogenic and, in the age of television, would have had a hard time reaching the top. He forced his way onto the ticket, later explaining that he was "a gambling man" and had discovered one in four occupants of the office did not live to the end of their terms. LBJ was ANYTHING BUT a "gambling man" who only acted on certainties. Have you read Phil's book? I have nothing but scorn for those who denigrate his research, which is thorough, meticulous, and compelling. During our two hour interview, by the way, I specifically invited him to explain his use of the term, "mastermind". In my opinion, he has it exactly right--and we have abundant corroborating evidence from Madeleine, Billy Sol, Barr and E. Howard Hunt. How anyone can casually dismiss the incriminating testimony of those who knew him best--"up close and personal"--is simply beyond me. Check out two interviews.
An Open Letter to All For Whom the Truth Matters
In accepting at face value JFK "evidence" proffered by E. Howard Hunt, professional intelligence operative, master propagandist, known liar, and accessory to the murder of JFK, convicted criminal and LBJ associate Billy Sol Estes, and Madeline Brown, queen of the unsubstantiated, the esteemed Jim Fetzer presents us with a terrible choice: Is he cognitively impaired, complicit in the cover-up of JFK's murder, or both?
Further, Jim Fetzer equates proximity to a subject with ... what? ... insight? Truthfulness?
Utter balderdash!
Nelson's "research" is nothing more than the rehashing, regurgitation, and/or disfigurement of previously presented material. His conclusions reveal not a scintilla of deep political insight.
Other than simplemindedness, there is no innocent explanation for Nelson's witting use of the term "mastermind" to describe LBJ's role in the JFK assassination. He's either an idiot or an enemy agent. And no one -- not Jim Fetzer or any other alleged JFK assassination "authority" -- can defend said usage other than by the application of cheap rhetorical tricks, ad hominems, and/or logical fallacies. More on the latter in a moment.
But Nelson's worst offense -- by far -- is the manner in which, wittingly or otherwise, he aids and abets the cover-up of the truth in the JFK assassination by reinforcing the position of LBJ as a Sponsor of the crime.
The creation of False Sponsors -- as opposed to the proper identification of true Facilitators, a category into which LBJ surely falls -- remains one of the most effective, difficult to counter tactics in the overall cover-up strategy. An individual of Jim Fetzer's qualifications and accomplishments should be expected to A) understand this long-established truth, and B) fight tooth and nail against the agent provocateurs who engage in the False Sponsor gambit.
Yet Jim Fetzer embraces Nelson's depraved fantasies as holy writ. And again, we are forced to make a choice between equally distressing explanations of this behavior.
The best Jim Fetzer can do in defense of the indefensible Nelson is to make arguments from authority. It saddens me beyond measure to note that, because of the myriad frailties he exhibits throughout this sordid Nelson affair, it is now clear that Jim Fetzer's authority has been consumed by the fires of his own ego and enfeeblement.
Phillip Nelson adds his intellectual pop-gun to the weaponry being employed in the post mortem assassination of JFK. Jim Fetzer stands by his side, delivering escape-and-evade services.
Another shooting team has been identified.