28-10-2010, 05:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 28-10-2010, 05:25 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
Charles, thanks for the spirit of collegiality that I find in all of your correspondence just as I also do in my occasional differences with Jack.
Jim,
Here I sit dockside, waiting for my ship to come in. Have I missed it, or am I early?
We'll let others decide. In the meantime, I'll respond to your bold commentary. And rather than take up additional bandwith by reprinting our exchange in its entirety, I'll ask readers to scroll up when memory needs refreshing.
1. Your statement that Hunt's confession "coheres ... with everything else we know about this case" is just plain wrong. We know much more about the JFK hit than the matters of which Hunt speaks. Said coherence is, therefore, highly selective (on Hunt's part) and, in terms of what we have every right to expect Hunt to know, suspiciously simplistic.
Of course. What I meant -- which I doubt anyone else misunderstood -- is that, with respect to the part of the event that he addresses (some of the key players in bringing it about), it coheres with what else we know about it. I am including the work of Noel Twyman, James Douglass, Phillip Nelson, and all our research on the case, including MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA and such.
2. If you say that Hunt argues from the authority of an established speaker of truth with no history of being a disinformationalist par excellence ... well, I know that you would never make such a claim.
Hunt's expertise in the matters under scrutiny cannot be denied. But the authority that comes with such expertise must be considered in full context. Hunt's expertise was that of a master CIA propagandist.
Accordingly, when you write, "Hunt was deeply involved in CIA ops and appealing to his take on the assassination would be a non-fallacious appear [sic?]," you are missing the critical point.
Let me try it this way: Richard Helms brought the deepest imaginable involvement in CIA ops to his perjured testimony before Congress -- a crime for which he was convicted.
Hunt's is, for me and others, clearly a fallacious argument from authority.
This really upsets me, Charles. My point was perfectly clear. Under the circumstances -- on the verge of death and addressing his son -- I believe he was being completely sincere and attempting to clear his conscience. Your position would be reasonable if what he said did NOT cohere with everything else we know about the case. But it clearly and obviously DOES cohere.
Said argument, by the by, offers nothing we didn't already know. Is it your contention that Hunt shared his JFK knowledge in full?
Another straw man. He doesn't have to have "shared his knowledge in full" to have "shared his knowledge in part". The point is that he WAS "sharing his knowledge" and that what he has to say confirms what we know from other sources. Take another look at BLOODY TREASON, for example, which I would cite as a prime example of research with which his confession coheres.
You describe my synopsis of the Nelson book as "a nice example of the straw man fallacy by offering an exaggerated version of a position to make it easier to take down." Two points:
1. I did not offer a synopsis of the book. How could I, given that I haven't read it -- yet? (I might note that, when you wrote, "I like the book, which, unlike you, I have read," you implicitly charged me with making an a priori judgment -- even though I took care to establish just the opposite. Now who's dealing in the creation of straw men?)
Of course. You were offering a speculative conjecture about its content that was highly exaggerated -- in my view, for rhetorical effect -- in a fashion that virtually guarantees that -- if you were right, which you aren't -- it would be very difficult to take it seriously. You can argue your case any way you want, but the use of straw men does not inspire confidence.
I was commenting on Nelson's own choice of title: LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination. It is Nelson and not I who opted for hyperbole. And again, if the title accurately describes Nelson's assessment of Johnson's role, then the author's intellect and motives immediately become suspect -- at least for me.
I ask you: Do you agree that Lyndon Baines Johnson was the "mastermind" of the Kennedy killing? How do you define "mastermind"?
You write, "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." I'd go the extra mile: Without LBJ's active complicity, the coverup would not have been possible.
LBJ was a Facilitator of the assassination. There is no evidence to suggest that he was a Sponsor.
Yes, he was a facilitator. And once you read the book, you will find, as I have found, that the author's case for Lyndon having been at the center of the conspiracy -- the pivotal player, in my judgment -- was crucial. I would certainly agree that, without his active collaboration, the cover up would not have been possible. But the assassination itself also would not have been possible absent his involvement.
There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that LBJ was elevated to False Sponsor status.
LBJ was a brainy thug with a huge ego and grand ambitions -- the Sponsors' perfect tool in the perfect position at the perfect time.
Finally, let's take a step back and smile. I love that you wrote, "This [Drago's] 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'!"
It's a breathtakingly beautiful mid-Autumn day here by the harbor. I can see bright white sails on the horizon ...
Our Mutual Admiration Society exists not in spite of our willingness to disagree on vital matters, but because of such willingness.
Well, I was willing to come back and respond to your earlier remarks for precisely that reason. I like this forum because we can have strenuous and intense but nevertheless intelligent and civil exchanges like this one, which, in the end, advance our understanding of the issues that concern us. And for your contributions toward that end, I salute you -- and Jack, too!
Onward!
Best,
Charles[/QUOTE]
Jim,
Here I sit dockside, waiting for my ship to come in. Have I missed it, or am I early?
We'll let others decide. In the meantime, I'll respond to your bold commentary. And rather than take up additional bandwith by reprinting our exchange in its entirety, I'll ask readers to scroll up when memory needs refreshing.
1. Your statement that Hunt's confession "coheres ... with everything else we know about this case" is just plain wrong. We know much more about the JFK hit than the matters of which Hunt speaks. Said coherence is, therefore, highly selective (on Hunt's part) and, in terms of what we have every right to expect Hunt to know, suspiciously simplistic.
Of course. What I meant -- which I doubt anyone else misunderstood -- is that, with respect to the part of the event that he addresses (some of the key players in bringing it about), it coheres with what else we know about it. I am including the work of Noel Twyman, James Douglass, Phillip Nelson, and all our research on the case, including MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA and such.
2. If you say that Hunt argues from the authority of an established speaker of truth with no history of being a disinformationalist par excellence ... well, I know that you would never make such a claim.
Hunt's expertise in the matters under scrutiny cannot be denied. But the authority that comes with such expertise must be considered in full context. Hunt's expertise was that of a master CIA propagandist.
Accordingly, when you write, "Hunt was deeply involved in CIA ops and appealing to his take on the assassination would be a non-fallacious appear [sic?]," you are missing the critical point.
Let me try it this way: Richard Helms brought the deepest imaginable involvement in CIA ops to his perjured testimony before Congress -- a crime for which he was convicted.
Hunt's is, for me and others, clearly a fallacious argument from authority.
This really upsets me, Charles. My point was perfectly clear. Under the circumstances -- on the verge of death and addressing his son -- I believe he was being completely sincere and attempting to clear his conscience. Your position would be reasonable if what he said did NOT cohere with everything else we know about the case. But it clearly and obviously DOES cohere.
Said argument, by the by, offers nothing we didn't already know. Is it your contention that Hunt shared his JFK knowledge in full?
Another straw man. He doesn't have to have "shared his knowledge in full" to have "shared his knowledge in part". The point is that he WAS "sharing his knowledge" and that what he has to say confirms what we know from other sources. Take another look at BLOODY TREASON, for example, which I would cite as a prime example of research with which his confession coheres.
You describe my synopsis of the Nelson book as "a nice example of the straw man fallacy by offering an exaggerated version of a position to make it easier to take down." Two points:
1. I did not offer a synopsis of the book. How could I, given that I haven't read it -- yet? (I might note that, when you wrote, "I like the book, which, unlike you, I have read," you implicitly charged me with making an a priori judgment -- even though I took care to establish just the opposite. Now who's dealing in the creation of straw men?)
Of course. You were offering a speculative conjecture about its content that was highly exaggerated -- in my view, for rhetorical effect -- in a fashion that virtually guarantees that -- if you were right, which you aren't -- it would be very difficult to take it seriously. You can argue your case any way you want, but the use of straw men does not inspire confidence.
I was commenting on Nelson's own choice of title: LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination. It is Nelson and not I who opted for hyperbole. And again, if the title accurately describes Nelson's assessment of Johnson's role, then the author's intellect and motives immediately become suspect -- at least for me.
I ask you: Do you agree that Lyndon Baines Johnson was the "mastermind" of the Kennedy killing? How do you define "mastermind"?
You write, "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." I'd go the extra mile: Without LBJ's active complicity, the coverup would not have been possible.
LBJ was a Facilitator of the assassination. There is no evidence to suggest that he was a Sponsor.
Yes, he was a facilitator. And once you read the book, you will find, as I have found, that the author's case for Lyndon having been at the center of the conspiracy -- the pivotal player, in my judgment -- was crucial. I would certainly agree that, without his active collaboration, the cover up would not have been possible. But the assassination itself also would not have been possible absent his involvement.
There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that LBJ was elevated to False Sponsor status.
LBJ was a brainy thug with a huge ego and grand ambitions -- the Sponsors' perfect tool in the perfect position at the perfect time.
Finally, let's take a step back and smile. I love that you wrote, "This [Drago's] 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'!"
It's a breathtakingly beautiful mid-Autumn day here by the harbor. I can see bright white sails on the horizon ...
Our Mutual Admiration Society exists not in spite of our willingness to disagree on vital matters, but because of such willingness.
Well, I was willing to come back and respond to your earlier remarks for precisely that reason. I like this forum because we can have strenuous and intense but nevertheless intelligent and civil exchanges like this one, which, in the end, advance our understanding of the issues that concern us. And for your contributions toward that end, I salute you -- and Jack, too!
Onward!
Best,
Charles[/QUOTE]