03-12-2011, 12:08 PM
Charles is making some rather serious attacks upon me for a reference to a book that I have read and like but which, so far as I can tell, he has never read but dislikes nonetheless. I leave to the reader to decide which of us is adopting a more rational stance. But even more stunning to me is his complete and utter disregard of the evidence I present that Oswald was on the steps of the TSBD watching the assassination as it took place!
And that makes me incredulous that he would make such an issue out of the "old hat" difference between us about Lyndon when I am presenting an argument that, to the best of my knowledge, is completely new. I even use a photo from McAdams that is meant to focus on Billy Lovelady and to divert our attention from the obscured face to his left/front. And I now have to ask if Charles is not practicing the same technique as McAdams.
Until he began his bizarre assaults on me in relation to Phil's work, I would never have cast the least doubt in his direction. But at this point in time, it is occurring to me that something more may be at work here. Why should he be resurrecting an old and familiar dispute about the word "mastermind" when I am offering new and original proof that Oswald cannot possibly have been the assassin based upon more direct evidence than before?
There are more than twenty (20) important points about the assassination that are being presented in this article, which was meant as a summary of what we know now that we didn't know then on the eve of the 48th observance of the assassination. It would be a good thing if we were to converge in agreement on those twenty points--and celebrate new proof that Lee cannot possibly have been a shooter. So why this massive fit instead?
He writes, "How tragic that Jim Fetzer chose to conclude his otherwise compelling and even heroic presentation of fact with the endorsement of LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination". But the complementary question is, "How stunning that Charles Drago ignores the compelling and even heroic presentation of fact with an attack on my endorsement of LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination," which was incidental to the point of my summation?
Because I am the author of this piece, I included suggestions in which I firmly believe (about two books I regard as masterpieces). But why in a situation like this, where I am laying out so many points on which students of the assassination ought to converge in agreement, would a man in his position instead cite the only apparent point of disagreement between us, which functions as a gratuitous diversion and promotes division instead of unity?
And that makes me incredulous that he would make such an issue out of the "old hat" difference between us about Lyndon when I am presenting an argument that, to the best of my knowledge, is completely new. I even use a photo from McAdams that is meant to focus on Billy Lovelady and to divert our attention from the obscured face to his left/front. And I now have to ask if Charles is not practicing the same technique as McAdams.
Until he began his bizarre assaults on me in relation to Phil's work, I would never have cast the least doubt in his direction. But at this point in time, it is occurring to me that something more may be at work here. Why should he be resurrecting an old and familiar dispute about the word "mastermind" when I am offering new and original proof that Oswald cannot possibly have been the assassin based upon more direct evidence than before?
There are more than twenty (20) important points about the assassination that are being presented in this article, which was meant as a summary of what we know now that we didn't know then on the eve of the 48th observance of the assassination. It would be a good thing if we were to converge in agreement on those twenty points--and celebrate new proof that Lee cannot possibly have been a shooter. So why this massive fit instead?
He writes, "How tragic that Jim Fetzer chose to conclude his otherwise compelling and even heroic presentation of fact with the endorsement of LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination". But the complementary question is, "How stunning that Charles Drago ignores the compelling and even heroic presentation of fact with an attack on my endorsement of LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination," which was incidental to the point of my summation?
Because I am the author of this piece, I included suggestions in which I firmly believe (about two books I regard as masterpieces). But why in a situation like this, where I am laying out so many points on which students of the assassination ought to converge in agreement, would a man in his position instead cite the only apparent point of disagreement between us, which functions as a gratuitous diversion and promotes division instead of unity?
Charles Drago Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:These findings thus indicate that at least some of those involved had to have been among the nation's highest officials, a result that receives further support from James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable (2008) [B]and Phillip Nelson, LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination (2010).
It is long past time that the American people are entitled to know the truth about the death of our 35th president.
How tragic that Jim Fetzer chose to conclude his otherwise compelling and even heroic presentation of fact with the endorsement of LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination, a book that, intentionally or otherwise, supports the cover-up of JFK's murder and the broader agenda of that crime's prime movers, or Sponsors.
And to add insult to injury, Jim would assassinate the good name and grand work of James Douglass by favorably comparing that inspired, inspiring, and spiritually rejuvenating author and book with the assault on truth and justice that is Phillip Nelson's published defiling of the spirit of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
It is long past time that the American people are entitled to know the truth about the de facto aiding and abetting of the cover-up that is contained in the dangerous nonsense that is the central conceit of the Nelson book.
If I did not know Jim Fetzer better than I do, I would accuse him of conducting an operation designed to disparage Douglass' work and minimize its positive impacts on our culture and collective spirit by attempting to create a FALSE sense of level playing field for it and the Nelson garbage.
Phillip Nelson, intentionally or otherwise, is acting to protect the true Sponsors of JFK's assassination by elevating Lyndon Baines Johnson to a sponsorship status which, by definition, it was impossible for him to attain.
Based upon his academic and literary credentials, Jim Fetzer is expected to understand where the power to order the death of JFK truly resided and how far removed from such power alleged "mastermind" LBJ always was. There is only one way to understand Jim's endorsement of Nelson's perfidy:
Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK assassination and with a reasonable understanding of political power in 1963 who does not conclude that Lyndon Baines Johnson had neither the political power nor intellectual capacity to meet any reasonable definition of the term "mastermind" of that crime is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.