JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then

[Charles Drago]

Well, if you aren't going to consider the evidence--and I take NOTHING "at face value"--then of course you are not going to put together the big picture.

Straw man nonsense. You present a conclusion for which there is zero valid evidence. I have given deep consideration to the evidence which you accept as valid -- let's take the Hunt "confession" as a valid exemplar thereof -- and concluded that it is, in essence, disinformation, misinformation, and ultimately propaganda. In short, NOTHING about E. Howard Hunt's life leading up to the moment of his death bed proffer suggests that his last public words were anything other than the culmination of his vile life's work. Yet you accept it all, and when we attempt to understand your motives, we are left with very disturbing choices.

James Douglass explained how JFK had antagonized the most powerful special interests in the country, including the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the Mafia, the Eastern Establishment, and the Texas oil men.

Your never-ending attempts to conflate the towering achievement of intellect and spirit that is James Douglass's JFK and the Unspeakable with the worthless drivel that is Phillip Nelson's LBJ "mastermind" disinformation can be explained only as the product of cognitive impairment and/or a conscious effort to disinform. You are convincing no one of this demonstrable nonsense -- with the exception of certain psychologically disturbed self-described "researchers" the likes of your sex-obsessed Texas acolyte. Again we must ask ourselves why you insist upon this course of action. If I didn't know you better, I'd say that you were targeting future generations so as to create the illusion of equal value for these books based on your argument from (waning) authority. What might be the goal of such action? To maintain the uncertainty upon which control of the many by the few is itself maintained.

Lyndon has aspired to the presidency his whole life and was ruthless in its pursuit. He forced his way on the ticket using information about JFK's health and his dalliances and threatened to block any legislation he sent to Congress if he were not the VP nominee. But he and his allies were intent on making sure that Jack did not live out his term: this was no "gamble", it was a sure thing. Have you thought about what Jack Ruby said about the assassination? You might give it some thought, because there was only one man who was able to induce the Secret Service to set him up for the hit, the CIA to take him out and the military and the FBI to cover it up. I know you are infatuated with your structural analysis of sponsors, facilitators, and executioners, but Lyndon was the one and only person, as the successor to the dead president, who could insure that no one would be prosecuted for the crime.

Within this monstrously argued and constructive paragraph, you present a textbook example of disinformation of the sort that would have made your late champion E. Howard Hunt proud.

The key ingredient in all disinformation is the truth -- offered in harmless amounts so as to establish the bona fides of the disinformation agent who will go on to assault the truth.

To argue that LBJ was the "one man" who could have "induce[d] the Secret Service" to betray JFK, the "CIA to take him out" and the "military and the FBI to cover it up" is to reveal a fatal diminution of your critical faculties. This all rests on your assumption that the only political power structure in place then was the overt political power structure taught in high school civics classes and talk radio. On your world, the power of the presidency alone then (and now, Jim?) controlled the arms of government -- overt and covert.

This pitifully naive view of the world is contradicted by, along with so many distinguished scholars, the very James Douglass you would compare favorably to Nelson.

But you save your worst transgression for the final sentence above. For therein you describe one of the actual roles played by LBJ in the assassination conspiracy -- that of strong-arm man who was charged with intimidating relatively weak bureaucrats into towing the assassination sponsors' and high-level facilitators' cover-up line -- to make the following, central, all-important, all-revealing disinformative claim.

[LBJ was the privotal player and, as Phil has clearly explained, is the only one who deserves the title of "MASTERMIND".

You continue to refuse to accept that the public broadly understands the term "mastermind" to mean the ultimate planner of an event -- the most powerful, influential force in said event's inception, development, execution, and, in terms of its desired results, perpetuation. There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that Lyndon Baines Johnson occupied that position in the JFK assassination conspiracy, and there is a plethora of evidence to demonstrate that, in its complexity, reach, and depth, the JFK assassination conspiracy was beyond LBJ's understanding, let alone control.

What is your game, Jim?