JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn't

[Paul Rigby]

RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador*

Jim Fetzer

Like Jefferson Morley and David Talbot, Shane O’Sullivan did not know any of them. The weight of the evidence from those who weren’t shading their testimony strongly suggests he was being misled. That he fumbled the ball over “Roman” and “Owens”, moreover, is difficult to deny. Recall that Rabern told Shane he had also observed the man others identified as Campbell in and around the LAPD “probably half a dozen times” as Shane reports in WHO KILLED BOBBY? [10] (page 441). But, on page 454, he also observes (in relation to his DVD, “RFK Must Die”) that, “At 12:47, ‘Morales’ emerged from the pantry [where Bobby had been shot at 12:15] and walked into the ballroom among a group of police officers.” At 1:03, ‘Morales’ is observed comparing notes with someone who looks like a plainclothes detective, though, according to the LAPD, no police were present at the time RFK was shot. If Joannides, Campbell and Morales were Bulova executives, they did not act as if they were Bulova executives.

An outstanding piece, for which many thanks.

[Phil Dragoo]

The proofs of O'Sullivan's misidentification are as convincing as the production of Witt as Umbrella Man.

[Charles Drago]

Commenting upon, and at times taking issue with, the noble work of a friend.

In both instances, we are looking at staged events that fit into a recurrent pattern in U.S. and world history where innocent individuals (or “patsies”) are baited and framed for cover-up purposes.

Agreed.

In spite of their history, most Americans continue to believe that their nation is “an exception” and that, while conspiracies occur elsewhere, including Europe and the Middle East, especially, they do not occur at home. The truth, of course, is that conspiracies are as American as apple pie.

American exceptionalism, like Aryan superiority, is a product of a division of I.G. Farben.

The assassinations of RFK and JFK were both conspiracies. Both involved the destruction of evidence. Both involved the fabrication of evidence. Both involved framing their patsies. Both involved complicity by local officials.

Agreed.

Both involved planning by the CIA.

This is dangerously simplistic language, Jim. It supports the demonstrably false conclusion that the Central Intelligence Agency was and is a monolithic entity. It does nothing to situate CIA officers within the Sponsor-False Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic assassination conspiracy structure.

[T]he agencies responsible for these events continue to employ the same techniques, not only of killing their targets but of covering them up.

Define "responsible" within the Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic construct, please. "Agencies" that ordered the assassination? Implemented the assassination conspiracy?

The more we understand how these things are done, the less likely we are to be deceived again.

AGREED!

The conditions required for movements capable of historic changes include intelligent, charismatic, and inspirational leaders, of whom there are very few like these. While the execution of Czar Nicholas II and his family in Russia and of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette in France meant there was “no turning back”, removing liberal leaders cements the status quo with its distribution of wealth and power.

A well reasoned, if not comprehensive, statement of motive for these crimes.

Thane Eugene Cesar, security guard, a prime suspect in the shooting of Robert F. Kennedy.

So far, so good.

Acoustics expert Van Praag tested an H&R 922 of the kind Cesar had and determined that an H&R 922 had been fired at the same time as Sirhan’s [9].

Unless there were two -- and only two -- H&R 22's in the world that night, you don't have enough to implicate Cesar as a shooter.

Further indications of conspiracy extended to a couple, including a woman in a polka dot dress, who rushed away from the scene shouting, “We shot him! We shot him! We shot Kennedy!” [10].

The "We shot him!" exclamations ring hollow. I interpret this incident as a planned diversion designed to confuse contemporary and future perceptions of the event.

[A]t least one witness reported seeing yet a third shooter in the pantry, perhaps as a back-up if Cesar failed.

Jim, you're jumping to a wholly unwarranted conclusion -- and for no constructive reason. Knowing what we know of Cesar, there is NOTHING to suggest that he would have been trusted with the all-important role of prime hitter. As I see it, Cesar's function, as carried out both during and after the assassination, was to serve as yet another layer of cognitive dissonance.

In fact, there are multiple indications that the CIA was involved.

Again I bristle at the self-destructive use of "CIA" as a one-stop solution to a political assassination. The involvement of CIA officers and other assets in the Kennedy murders cannot be questioned at this point in time. But the agency as a whole remains, to my mind, a FALSE Sponsor.

The CIA, to use a comparison I coined some time ago, was neither the architect nor the carpenter, but it surely was a tool.

And even more strikingly, three prominent CIA officials—George Joannides, David Sanchez Morales, and Gordon Campbell—have been identified as present at the Ambassador.

No such identifications are warranted -- at least not yet.

Bradley Ayers, an Army captain assigned to the CIA at JM/Wave in Miami from May 1962 to December 1964, had met all three and identified them in film footage from the Ambassador [15]. Gordon Campbell had even been Ayer’s case officer while he was working for the agency.

Jim, are you prepared to give Bradley Ayers a clean bill of health and state for the record that, in your considered judgment, he is not now nor ever has been an agent of disinformation assigned to support the coverups of the Kennedy murders?

Wayne Smith, who served as an ambassador with the Department of of State from 1957-1982 with JFK’s Latin American Task Force, also knew Morales [16]. When he viewed the same footage as Ayers, he immediately recognized Morales. As he later told Shane O’Sullivan, “Bobby Kennedy is assassinated [and] David Morales is there? The two things have to be related” [17].

Same question about Smith.

And you better than just about anyone can understand the logical failure within Smith's quote as you offer it above.

James Richards, an expert on the CIA, provided me with a photo of Morales, who looks exactly like the Morales-look-alike at the Ambassador. I don’t even think it’s a difficult call.

Are you able to post the photos together for our comparison? "Exactly" is meaningless as a subjective observation. Have the photos been examined using state-of-the-art equipment and techniques?

The George Joannides figure seems to be wearing a wig. Richards also sent me a photo of Joannides, which makes it obvious why he would have been wearing one: the man was virtually bald! While it has been claimed that Cambell died on September 19, 1962, he was Ayers’ case officer from 1963-1964. Faking a death certificate would be far easier for the CIA than having an impostor working with Ayers.

"Seems to be" wearing a wig?

"Faking a death certificate would be far easier"?

Again, can you post the photos?

David Sanchez Morales also appears to have been involved in the assassination of his brother, John, on November 22, 1963[.]

This is a charge I'd be comfortable with in a court of law. Agreed.

His involvement was confirmed by E. Howard Hunt, who told his son, St. John, that those who were responsible for the assassination of the 35th president included LBJ and CIA officials Cord Meyer, David Atlee Philips, William Harvey, and Morales [24]. Others who knew Lyndon well have also implicated him [25] [26]. And high-level involvement by the government has been confirmed by multiple lines of investigation.

Jim, again you eagerly accept the offerings of a master of disinformation when they happen to support one of your positions. The likes of Ayers and the masterful Hunt are simple truth-tellers when it suits us?

I think not.

The Mafia ... no doubt put up some of the shooters[.]

"Put up"???

I have MUCH doubt, Jim. Elements of LCN were involved up to the tomato sauce stains on their chinny-chin-chins. But the shooters had to be the best hunters of humans in all the world. So while Mafiosi no doubt were sent to Dealey Plaza in support of future False Sponsor provocations, I challenge you to name a Mafia-connected (in the "made man" sense of "connected") gunman firing at JFK.

As Martin Shotz has observed, the purpose of the disinformation operation in the death of JFK is not really to convince the public of the official account but to create enough uncertainty that everything is believable and nothing is knowable.

Agreed. A most important point. Although to be fair, Vincent Salandria, George Michael Evica, and even this humble correspondent reached and communicated this conclusion long before the admirable Shotz so opined.

When Bobby allowed that he was going to use the powers of the presidency to uncover the truth about his brother [60], it sealed his fate. And the lies continue.

Indeed.

Best,

Charles

[Phil Dragoo]

May we agree that the three characters were mimicked in the spirit of cognitive dissonance, i.e., here is some chum, Chum, bon appetit.

The odds there being NO correlation between the appearance of not one, not two, but THREE such personae simulated at such a signal event being minute.

Scintillating stuff, gentlemen. I am in the midst of MIDP and will acquire the updated edition of A Certain Arrogance when it is available.

Again, Michael Calder deems the individual below to have been instrumental in directing the candidate to the pantry--yet notes that no surviving principal can or will identify him:



I had deemed Hunt's gambit with son Saint John, Bond of Secrecy, to be a deathbed deflection, citing LBJ and Cord Meyers for the work of others.

Indeed, the very title includes the name of a fictional spy, enabling the author to die with a smile on his face.

Someone put a shot on the EOP and the right temple within a split-second, and a shot in the throat and back earlier.

The walkie talkie is reminiscent of those used by the Dick Tracy's in trenchcoats surrounding the Weathermen at their pyre of police barricades October 1969 Chicago.

Someone waited in the Ambassador pantry behind the partition.

Confident in the power of distraction to cover the act and the escape.

Distraction, action, escape, as a cloud of confusion converges in its wake.

[James H. Fetzer]

For the moment, let me say that Charles caught some differences affected by my further research on Bobby between "JFK and RFK" and "RFK", which are well-taken. What I say in "RFK" takes precedence over what I said about RFK in "JFK and RFK". As for JFK, there are indications of involvement by the Dallas Police Department, the Dallas County Sheriff's Department, anti-Castro Cubans, the CIA, the military, and LBJ's personal hit-man. I have said more about this many places, perhaps most conveniently in "Dealey Plaza Revisied: What Happened to JFK?", which can be download from http://www.und.edu/org/jfkconference/ as its Chapter 30. There are limitations as to the extent of the detail that can be covered in articles for public consumption, where references and later commentaries can bear some of the burden. For example, if you visit my blog and check out the discussion of "JFK and RKF", some points are covered that were not covered or were only incompletely covered in the article: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/06/...-them.html I certainly agree that not all the answers can be found here, but I am doing what I can to advance the cause of truth for them both. I value the kinds of discussion that are taking place here.

[James H. Fetzer]

One of Charles' questions concerns Bradley Ayers, whom I have known now for at least 15 years, probably longer. He is one of the most principled men I have ever known. I have no doubt of his absolute honest and integrity, which has caused him to be extremely stubborn and difficult to work with from time to time -- a complaint that I suspect has been said of me as well. I would be willing to go into any court of law and swear to Brad's character, his truthfulness and his candor. [I wrote the foreword to his book, THE ZENITH SECRET (2006), incidentally.]

As for the identities of the shooters, obviously this is treacherous water. Johnny Roselli, by the way, apparently told Joe Bonanno's son, Bill (in prison) that he had been "left out to dry" in Dealey Plaza and had had to make his way through the sewers back to a dry river bed, where he was picked up and flown out. The host of "Erskine Overnight" has quoted him about this many times and, as I recall, had interviewed him. I'm not sure I buy it but, as Bonanno said on the show, he was a serious man, who was one of the mobsters at the St. Valentine's Day massacre.

James Files, of course, has identified himself as one of the shooters, although I am inclined not to believe him (even if I am intrigued by his suggestion of the use of a Remington "Fireball" as one of the weapons that may have been used). He said that Charles "Chuckie" Nicolleti had invited him to participate the morning of the assassination. And Jack Ruby was a mob man. If either Roselli or Files or Nicoletti was involved, then at least one mobster was a shooter apart from Jack Ruby, about whom there is no doubt. But Ruby was not a shooter in Dealey Plaza.

On page 365 of "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?", http://www.und.edu/instruct/jfkconferenc...pter30.pdf I identify six shooting locations -- where there might have been one more on the grassy knoll, in which case six could turn out to have been seven. As far as I have been able to determine, however, all of the wounds can be accounted for on the basis of shooters at the six locations I identify (by building on the prior -- and quite brilliant -- work of Richard Sprague. Those I believe to have been firing the shots were (my best guesses):

(1) Harry Weatherford, Deputy Sheriff, from the top of the County Records Building (the shot to his back);

(2) Anthony "Tony" Izquierdo, anti-Castro Cuban, from the Dal-Tex (the missed shot that injured James Tague, the shot that hit the chrome strip, and the back-of-the-head shot);

(3) Frank Sturgis, CIA, from the west side of the TSBD (one to three shots at John Connally);

(4) Roscoe White aka "Badgeman", Dallas Police Department/CIA, from the pergola area (a close shot that missed, possibly to avoid harming Jackie);

(5) Jack Lawrence, USAF, from the above-ground sewer opening on the north side of the Triple Overpass (the shot to his right temple that blew his brains out the back of his head); and.

(6) Malcolm "Mac" Wallace, LBJ's personal hit man, from the above-ground sewer opening on the south side of the Triple Overpass (the shot that passed through the windshield and hit JFK in the throat).

The back and throat shots were the first, where the bullet passing through the windshield made the sound of a firecracker. The back-of-the-head shot and the shot to his right temple were probably the next-to-last and last shots, on my scenario, where the miss that hit the chrome strip of the windshield MIGHT have been a later missed shot. But in offering these as my "best guesses", I know that there are as many differing opinions on this as there are students of the assassination. I will not be surprised by those who contest my suggestions.

Because I value criticism as our most important means for improving our research and state of knowledge, I would not only welcome differences of opinion on this matter -- where I also agree with Lois Gibson that Charles Rogers, Charles Harrelson, and Chauncey Holt were "the three tramps", just to hang out there a little bit further -- but would welcome discussion of my chapter. If Harrelson actually was one of the shooters (which I do not happen to believe), then he would have been another mafia hitman who was involved in the assassination,

Which is perhaps a longer answer to his question than Charles had expected to receive.

[James H. Fetzer]

Phil,

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.

I recommend taking a look at my review of Bugliosi's book, which can be found at http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1.html I had more than 100 conversations with Madeleine Duncan Brown, by the way, which I found quite convincing. And of course there is the new book by Phillip Nelson, LBJ: THE MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION (2010), which is quite brilliant.

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. Chauncey Holt, whom I got to know prior to his death, did something very similar by creating a videotape series for his daughter, Karyn, some of which I have viewed myself. So I think you've both missed the boat here.

Jim

May we agree that the three characters were mimicked in the spirit of cognitive dissonance, i.e., here is some chum, Chum, bon appetit.

The odds there being NO correlation between the appearance of not one, not two, but THREE such personae simulated at such a signal event being minute.

Scintillating stuff, gentlemen. I am in the midst of MIDP and will acquire the updated edition of A Certain Arrogance when it is available.

Again, Michael Calder deems the individual below to have been instrumental in directing the candidate to the pantry--yet notes that no surviving principal can or will identify him:



I had deemed Hunt's gambit with son Saint John, Bond of Secrecy, to be a deathbed deflection, citing LBJ and Cord Meyers for the work of others.

Indeed, the very title includes the name of a fictional spy, enabling the author to die with a smile on his face.

Someone put a shot on the EOP and the right temple within a split-second, and a shot in the throat and back earlier.

The walkie talkie is reminiscent of those used by the Dick Tracy's in trenchcoats surrounding the Weathermen at their pyre of police barricades October 1969 Chicago.

Someone waited in the Ambassador pantry behind the partition.

Confident in the power of distraction to cover the act and the escape.

Distraction, action, escape, as a cloud of confusion converges in its wake.

[Charles Drago]

Phil,

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

(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?)

Best,

Charles

[James H. Fetzer]

My replies to Charles' remarks may be found here in bold. Jim

Phil,

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

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.

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

[Charles Drago]

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.

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.

Said argument, by the by, offers nothing we didn't already know. Is it your contention that Hunt shared his JFK knowledge in full?

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?)

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.

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.

Onward!

Best,

Charles