28-10-2010, 03:55 PM
(This post was last modified: 28-10-2010, 04:07 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
My replies to Charles' remarks may be found here in bold. Jim
Here are my problems with your counter-arguments as reproduced above:
1. You implicitly draw a wholly unsubstantiated distinction between "those who were involved" in the assassination and Hunt. The only reason you do so, I'm forced to conclude, is that Hunt (at the bitter end) espouses a scenario which you've embraced.
"Ego te absolvo," say you to Hunt.
"Bullshit!" shout I to Hunt.
Hunt identified himself as a "back bencher" in Dallas, meaning he was there (as the Liberty Lobby case established) but did not participate as a shooter or in another capacity. I do not look for arguments to support a predetermined conclusion, which would be indefensible from one who spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. What is most important about his "confession" is that it fits -- it coheres -- with everything else we know about this case.
2. Hunt's "deathbed confession" does nothing more than "confirm" hand-picked aspects of oft-told tales. It is a feint. It breaks no new ground. It is the essence of propaganda: an argument from authority. And that authority, my friend, could not be more tainted.
There are two kinds of arguments from authority, fallacious and non-fallacious. Appealing to Einstein on physics, for example, is not-fallacious, even if appealing to him on bird watching -- assuming that was not his thing -- would be. Hunt was deeply involved in CIA ops and appealing to his take on the assassination would be a non-fallacious appear. Moreover, there is a wide public who is unaware of crucial points you may take to be elementary. I admire him for doing it.
3. In addition, Hunt's final masterpiece accomplishes the goal of creating additional fracture lines within our community -- which would be fine if there were anything to commend his offering other than its tainted provenance. I don't disagree with you when you name likely JFK co-conspirators above. But what Hunt is doing with that list is very subtle and very smart:
Hunt has used the truth (to the degree that he speaks it) to lure us toward unfounded, cover-up-supporting, ultimately sophistic conclusions regarding the usual suspects' positions within the hierarchy of the assassination conspiracy.
Does the term "limited hang-out" ring a bell? Especially within the Hunt context?
Was Hunt, among other objectives, settling old scores?
Well, you are not offering any good reasons for thinking so. Insofar as he was addressing his son, St. John, and on the verge of death, I am inclined to believe that he was clearing his conscience and doing a more successful job of it than Admiral Burkley, who wanted to come clean but whose offer was not accepted by the HSCA. See, for example, a nice summary about him at http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.ph..._Physician
That was a travesty, since he would have had much to tell us about the cover-up and was willing to speak out. It may also be related to why Sprague was ousted as counsel. I think that Hunt was doing what he could to reveal the truth, for which we have a great deal of additional corroborating evidence. They were not the only players, of course, but they were (with high probability) some of the key players. Of that, I have no doubt.
4. And speaking of ridiculously unwarranted conclusions, I give you the title of Mr. Nelson's book.
To cut to the chase: Do you agree with the title's conclusion?
I reject it out of hand. It is of a piece with Hunt's final burst of disinformation: an effort to oversimplify highly complex subject matter and divert our attention from the search for the true Sponsors of the Kennedy murders.
I write only of the title; I have not read the book -- yet. But if indeed it turns out that Nelson is describing LBJ as the assassination's Sponsor -- the person with the authority to order the hit in all of its ramifications (especially on the ruling class) and the expertise to design the conspiracy in all of its brilliant complexity, then Nelson is either a fool or an accessory after the fact.
I like the book, which, unlike you, I have read. I have also interviewed the author, Phillip F. Nelson, on "The Real Deal", http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com, if you want to listen. Your synopsis is a nice example of the straw man fallacy by offering an exaggerated version of a position to make it easier to take down. Lyndon was a genius at using others to get things done. Here is my review of the book as it is posted on amazon.com:
14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Brilliant and pivotal, bringing coherence to our understanding,
October 5, 2010
By James H. Fetzer (Duluth, MN USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: LBJ: The Mastermind of JFKs Assassination (Kindle Edition)
From first chapter to last, this is a beautifully written, intellectually captivating, and ultimately persuasive account of the role of LBJ in the assassination of JFK. I had more than 100 conversations with Madeleine Duncan Brown, one of his many mistresses but the only one who bore him a son. She, too, became convinced that Lyndon was profoundly involved in the death of his predecessor. On New Year's Eve, six weeks after the assassination, they had a rendezvous at the Driskill Hotel in Austin, where she confronted him with rumors, rampant in Dallas at the time, that he had been involved, since no one stood more to gain. He blew up at her and told her that the CIA and the oil boys had decided that JFK had to be taken out. She wrote about it in her book, TEXAS IN THE MORNING. Her account has been reinforced by Billy Sol Estes, the Texas wheeler-dealer who made mountains of money for Lyndon, Connally, and their buddies, who explains in his book, A TEXAS LEGEND, how he became convinced that Cliff Carter, LBJ's chief administrative assistant, and Malcolm "Mac" Wallace, his personal assassin (by whom Lyndon had a dozen or more persons terminated, including one of his sisters), had been personally involved. E. Howard Hunt, in his "Last Confessions" in ROLLING STONE, explained to his son, St. John, that LBJ, Cord Meyer, William Harvey, David Sanchez Morales, and others in the CIA had been involved in the assassination. For an overview, enter "John F. Kennedy: History, Memory, Legacy", and download Chapter 30. Or visit [...], "Reclaiming History: A Closed Mind Perpetrating a Fraud on the Public", and you will understand the context within which it took place. For a short course, try "Reasoning about Assassinations" via google. I also recommend James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE. Both make profound contributions to the case.
(For what it's worth, earlier this morning I received an e-mail from a very loud supporter of the LBJ-as-sponsor nonsense [He asserts that LBJ was master of the Rockefellers, who simply bowed at the waist and did his bidding!] in which he describes Nelson's book and JFK and the Unspeakable as works of comparable merit. This is an old and transparent game of conflation -- honor by association. Are sinister motives at play, or is this guy just plain stupid?)
Lyndon, in my view, was "pivotal" in covertly responding to the disparate forces opposed to JFK and inducing the cooperation of elements of the Secret Service. This post, I think, demonstrates -- conclusively! -- that even some of the most insightful and serious students of the assassination of JFK can -- on rare occasion! -- get it wrong, not just in part but in whole. I am a huge fan, Charles, but this time you have missed the boat again, "big time"!
Best,
Charles
Quote:Phil,Jim,
I have to take exception to your and Charles' skepticism about E. Howard's deathbed confession. If it were all we had to go on for his list of those who were involved -- LBJ, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Philips, William Harvey, and David Sanchez Morales, for example -- then that would be one thing. But we have a lot of corroborating evidence that points in the same direction.
So while I am willing to discuss and debate these things, it is contrary to the available relevant evidence to dismiss E. Howard's final reminiscences ... So I think you've both missed the boat here.
Jim
Here are my problems with your counter-arguments as reproduced above:
1. You implicitly draw a wholly unsubstantiated distinction between "those who were involved" in the assassination and Hunt. The only reason you do so, I'm forced to conclude, is that Hunt (at the bitter end) espouses a scenario which you've embraced.
"Ego te absolvo," say you to Hunt.
"Bullshit!" shout I to Hunt.
Hunt identified himself as a "back bencher" in Dallas, meaning he was there (as the Liberty Lobby case established) but did not participate as a shooter or in another capacity. I do not look for arguments to support a predetermined conclusion, which would be indefensible from one who spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. What is most important about his "confession" is that it fits -- it coheres -- with everything else we know about this case.
2. Hunt's "deathbed confession" does nothing more than "confirm" hand-picked aspects of oft-told tales. It is a feint. It breaks no new ground. It is the essence of propaganda: an argument from authority. And that authority, my friend, could not be more tainted.
There are two kinds of arguments from authority, fallacious and non-fallacious. Appealing to Einstein on physics, for example, is not-fallacious, even if appealing to him on bird watching -- assuming that was not his thing -- would be. Hunt was deeply involved in CIA ops and appealing to his take on the assassination would be a non-fallacious appear. Moreover, there is a wide public who is unaware of crucial points you may take to be elementary. I admire him for doing it.
3. In addition, Hunt's final masterpiece accomplishes the goal of creating additional fracture lines within our community -- which would be fine if there were anything to commend his offering other than its tainted provenance. I don't disagree with you when you name likely JFK co-conspirators above. But what Hunt is doing with that list is very subtle and very smart:
Hunt has used the truth (to the degree that he speaks it) to lure us toward unfounded, cover-up-supporting, ultimately sophistic conclusions regarding the usual suspects' positions within the hierarchy of the assassination conspiracy.
Does the term "limited hang-out" ring a bell? Especially within the Hunt context?
Was Hunt, among other objectives, settling old scores?
Well, you are not offering any good reasons for thinking so. Insofar as he was addressing his son, St. John, and on the verge of death, I am inclined to believe that he was clearing his conscience and doing a more successful job of it than Admiral Burkley, who wanted to come clean but whose offer was not accepted by the HSCA. See, for example, a nice summary about him at http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.ph..._Physician
That was a travesty, since he would have had much to tell us about the cover-up and was willing to speak out. It may also be related to why Sprague was ousted as counsel. I think that Hunt was doing what he could to reveal the truth, for which we have a great deal of additional corroborating evidence. They were not the only players, of course, but they were (with high probability) some of the key players. Of that, I have no doubt.
James H. Fetzer Wrote:And of course there is the new book by Phillip Nelson, LBJ: THE MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION (2010), which is quite brilliant.
4. And speaking of ridiculously unwarranted conclusions, I give you the title of Mr. Nelson's book.
To cut to the chase: Do you agree with the title's conclusion?
I reject it out of hand. It is of a piece with Hunt's final burst of disinformation: an effort to oversimplify highly complex subject matter and divert our attention from the search for the true Sponsors of the Kennedy murders.
I write only of the title; I have not read the book -- yet. But if indeed it turns out that Nelson is describing LBJ as the assassination's Sponsor -- the person with the authority to order the hit in all of its ramifications (especially on the ruling class) and the expertise to design the conspiracy in all of its brilliant complexity, then Nelson is either a fool or an accessory after the fact.
I like the book, which, unlike you, I have read. I have also interviewed the author, Phillip F. Nelson, on "The Real Deal", http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com, if you want to listen. Your synopsis is a nice example of the straw man fallacy by offering an exaggerated version of a position to make it easier to take down. Lyndon was a genius at using others to get things done. Here is my review of the book as it is posted on amazon.com:
14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Brilliant and pivotal, bringing coherence to our understanding,
October 5, 2010
By James H. Fetzer (Duluth, MN USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: LBJ: The Mastermind of JFKs Assassination (Kindle Edition)
From first chapter to last, this is a beautifully written, intellectually captivating, and ultimately persuasive account of the role of LBJ in the assassination of JFK. I had more than 100 conversations with Madeleine Duncan Brown, one of his many mistresses but the only one who bore him a son. She, too, became convinced that Lyndon was profoundly involved in the death of his predecessor. On New Year's Eve, six weeks after the assassination, they had a rendezvous at the Driskill Hotel in Austin, where she confronted him with rumors, rampant in Dallas at the time, that he had been involved, since no one stood more to gain. He blew up at her and told her that the CIA and the oil boys had decided that JFK had to be taken out. She wrote about it in her book, TEXAS IN THE MORNING. Her account has been reinforced by Billy Sol Estes, the Texas wheeler-dealer who made mountains of money for Lyndon, Connally, and their buddies, who explains in his book, A TEXAS LEGEND, how he became convinced that Cliff Carter, LBJ's chief administrative assistant, and Malcolm "Mac" Wallace, his personal assassin (by whom Lyndon had a dozen or more persons terminated, including one of his sisters), had been personally involved. E. Howard Hunt, in his "Last Confessions" in ROLLING STONE, explained to his son, St. John, that LBJ, Cord Meyer, William Harvey, David Sanchez Morales, and others in the CIA had been involved in the assassination. For an overview, enter "John F. Kennedy: History, Memory, Legacy", and download Chapter 30. Or visit [...], "Reclaiming History: A Closed Mind Perpetrating a Fraud on the Public", and you will understand the context within which it took place. For a short course, try "Reasoning about Assassinations" via google. I also recommend James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE. Both make profound contributions to the case.
(For what it's worth, earlier this morning I received an e-mail from a very loud supporter of the LBJ-as-sponsor nonsense [He asserts that LBJ was master of the Rockefellers, who simply bowed at the waist and did his bidding!] in which he describes Nelson's book and JFK and the Unspeakable as works of comparable merit. This is an old and transparent game of conflation -- honor by association. Are sinister motives at play, or is this guy just plain stupid?)
Lyndon, in my view, was "pivotal" in covertly responding to the disparate forces opposed to JFK and inducing the cooperation of elements of the Secret Service. This post, I think, demonstrates -- conclusively! -- that even some of the most insightful and serious students of the assassination of JFK can -- on rare occasion! -- get it wrong, not just in part but in whole. I am a huge fan, Charles, but this time you have missed the boat again, "big time"!
Best,
Charles