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

[Jack White]

May I assert that NO ONE PERSON knows for certain the exact solution
to the JFK case. Many brilliant minds (for instance Charles Drago and
Jim Fetzer) have studied all the same facts and often reach differing
conclusions. So it is a mistake for anyone to claim that anyone is
right or wrong.

As much as I admire the grasp of facts and logical assimilation of them
by Jim and Charles, I agree/disagree with them on numerous threads of
the overall assassination fabric. Where Charles is often super-cautious
and conservative even in the face of strong evidence, Jim often rushes
in to embrace weak evidence as being compelling. These traits, however,
do not diminish the overall thrust of either toward reaching a solution.

Not as a criticism of either of these brilliant researchers, let me offer
my thoughts, which may differ from theirs in detail, but are all aimed
at the same target as theirs:

1. Lyndon was a PIVOTAL player in the assassination, but not necessarily
the planner nor prime mover. He was NECESSARY to the plot. It could
not be pulled off without his cooperation and approval. He was necessary
for the coverup. So in name only he was the MAIN player, the most
essential.

2. The plotters were a loose-knit informal CONSORTIUM of many
powerful players which Prouty called THE SECRET TEAM. I will not go
into detail on that here, but it operated through Dulles and was controlled
by those who controlled Dulles. Big Money people.

3. Lee Harvey Oswald was a persona used by the CIA for various
purposes. Two OR MORE persons connected to the CIA and the
assassination used the LHO persona. The invention of the LHO
doppelgangers was initially related to an infiltration of Russia, but
then was morphed into other assignments, including PATSY.

4. Much evidence was fabricated/altered to frame the patsy, the
most important of which was the fabricated Zapruder film.

5. All we know for certain about the case is that JFK was killed
on Elm Street in Dallas at 12:30 on 11-22-63, and that on Sunday,
Jack Ruby killed the accused patsy.

6. Subsequent to 1963, other persons came to our attention with
information, some good, some bad, some disinformation. Here is my
appraisal of the importance of some of them:

Madeleine Brown...yes
Gordon Arnold...yes
Steven Louis Witt...no
Charles Harrelson...yes
E H Hunt...yes
David Atlee Phillips...yes
Gedney, Abrams, Doyle...no
Charles Rodgers...no
Roscoe White...yes
James Files...no
Chauncey Holt...no
Judyth Baker...no
E H Hunt confession...yes

This may not be a complete list. But I have studied the same information
as Jim and Charles, and though my conclusions may differ from theirs,
I feel my conclusions are as valid as theirs, given my study of all the
evidence since 1963. BUT LISTEN, PEOPLE...these are all minor players
in this list, with minor pieces of the puzzle. Agreeing or disagreeing on
these minor details is inconsequential. They are distractions from the
target. The bullseye of the target is who the plotters were...and certainly
nobody on the list was a prime suspect. So let's agree that disagreement
over these minor characters is not significant in pursuing the ones
behind the killing of the president. No disrespect to Jim's beliefs, but
it is totally irrelevant to finding the killers whether or not a woman had
an affair with the patsy; likewise, no disrespect for Charles' belief
that the faking of the Z film is totally irrelevant to identifying the killers.

Jack

[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]

[Albert Doyle]

While blaming "CIA" in general can be too broad an accusation in the case of cells and compartments and a large number of minor divisions of such into rogue groups of members, I defend the use of "CIA" to describe these groups simply because they are so directly related that CIA can't escape association with them. If CIA itself is a once-removed aspect of American government from Constitutional oversight, then these rogue groups are removed even further and represent the ultimate empowered and unaccountable force.

The reason I defend the use of "CIA" to describe these people is because the way our system is structured CIA has to take responsibility for them one way or the other. Our system is based on extreme application of personal responsibility and legal accountability. We have an "ignorance of the law is no excuse" ethic in this country. We also have an equal rule of law for government and citizen standard. So when an individual goes before the law he is held accountable for that which falls under him in terms of this system and order. And so goes it for those government bureaucracies that have taken so much power under their legal, ethical, moral, and structural domain.

The sword cuts both ways and CIA has to be responsible for its own shop. If it insists on creating such a dark woods then it has to be responsible for that which goes on in its shadows. Those woods are still legal, Constitutional territory that someone has to take responsibility for. You can't, in a Constitutional system, create such a murky woods, raise shadowy creatures within it, teach them dark methods, and then deny any responsibility when they create mischief in the village, whether that be rogue strays or not. Government is not as tolerant or forgiving when it comes to individual accountability.

America deals with this by saying on cable TV News or in the Times that Congress is set-up to monitor CIA and its doings. That's what people should be getting their fur rubbed the wrong way over - IMO.

[James H. Fetzer]

I agree with Albert Doyle, who has made some astute comments in the course of this thread. Jack and I only rarely differ, as we do in the case of the identify of the third tramp, whom I believe to have been Chauncey Holt, and of course regarding Judyth Baker, in whom I believe but Jack does not.

His suggestion that I sometimes "leap to conclusions" might be correct but is a more serious matter, since, if he were right, it would count against me with greater force than with others, since I have spent my professional career as a professor of logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years!

So if Jack has drawn that inference, then could there be an explanation that might exonerate me to some degree? I would note that students should converge in their conclusions only when they are considering the same evidence and the same hypotheses using the same rules of reasoning.

The case of Chauncey is a cast in point. Not only did I meet him and study him extensively, I also arranged for a symposium involving members of is family, where his daughter, Karyn, presented photos from their family album and superimposed them over various photos of the third tramp.

Jerry Rose was present for the session, which unfortunately was not filmed, and observed during the question period that, while he had long believed the figure in question was E. Howard Hunt, he now believed that it actually was Chauncey Holt. I only wish that Jack had been there, too.

While the principles of deductive reasoning are generally well-known, those of inductive reasoning, especially those of inference to the best explanation -- which depends upon the use of probabilities and likelihoods -- are not, where every inductively proper argument is deductively invalid.

That, I think, is the rub. Those who have not studied inductive reasoning are likely to suppose inductive arguments are logically fallacious. Plus a distinction must be drawn between conclusions that are "preferable" and "acceptable", like the strongest suspect before an arrest is warranted.

The most difficult part of scientific reasoning, moreover, is to expose the full range of alternative explanations. There are some in the 9/11 truth movement who still think I endorse "space beams" as satellite-mounted directed energy weapons when I instead encourage research on them.

An accessible introduction to scientific reasoning may be found in the initial sections of "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK". While I may have committed mental lapses in the course of my research, I would like to know the particulars before I plead, "Guilty as charged"!

[Charles Drago]

Jack (and by logical extension, Jim),

Imagine this: mutual respect among honorable JFK scholars who yet harbor many significant differences of opinion and conclusions! Next thing you know, we'll be hooking up at the Lancer/Copa Joint Forum!

(And if you believe that, you've had too many joints and attended too few forums!)

I'll take issue with Jack on two points only:

5. All we know for certain about the case is that JFK was killed on Elm Street in Dallas at 12:30 on 11-22-63, and that on Sunday, Jack Ruby killed the accused patsy.

You left out the most important aspect of the case that can be known (forgive me, Dr. Fetzer) to the degree of metaphysical certitude:

John Kennedy was killed by conspirators.

likewise, no disrespect for Charles' belief
that the faking of the Z film is totally irrelevant to identifying the killers.

Jack, I NEVER held such a belief. What I have written and said many, many times is that we do not need proof of Z-film alteration to establish conspiracy beyond all doubt.

This distinction, I submit, is critical to a full understanding of whatever it is I bring to our common table.

Warm regards,

Charles

[Jack White]

Thanks, Charles. I may have misstated your actual belief
about the Zfilm, but I perceived it as a distinction without
a difference. Excuse me if I was wrong. My opinion just
happens not to coincide with yours. The fakery of the film
is extremely important.

Jim, if you will reread what I wrote, I did NOT say you
"jump to conclusions"...which therefore is a misquote.
I was contrasting your FORGE AHEAD style with Charles'
very temperate CONSERVATIVE slow pace.

That's OK, though. We have agreed to disagree on certain
subjects. You still think OJ killed Ron and Nicole. I have
studied that case far more extensively than you, and I
believe that Jason Simpson was the killer and OJ is
covering for his son. I bear no ill feeling because I think
you position is mistaken, I just think you have embraced
a popular position without having all the facts. I think
that had you sat on the jury, your verdict would have
been different.

Warm regards,

Jack

[Charles Drago]

Jack,

I'll assume that you've read Killing Time, Donald Freed's engrossing take on the Simpson affair. If so, I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Charles

[Jack White]

Jack,

I'll assume that you've read Killing Time, Donald Freed's engrossing take on the Simpson affair. If so, I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Charles

Charles...yes, I bought KILLING TIME in 1996 and read it
carefully...but that was 14 years ago, so I do not recall
details. I do recall that the Freed book had all the facts
correct as I remembered them. My memory of the events
and trial, WHICH I WATCHED EVERY DAY ON COURT TV, is
much sharper. Watching the actual events made it clear
to me that OJ was not the killer, but he knew more than
was apparent. The OJ case is one where POPULAR OPINION
prevailed over evidence...much like people who think
LHO killed JFK.

More important than KILLING TIME is the Bill Dear book,
OJ WAS GUILTY, BUT NOT OF MURDER. Dear, a private
investigator, actually solved the crime...coming to the
same conclusion I had. I think his book is now available
online.

Jack

[James H. Fetzer]

Well, here's another issue where Jack and I disagree. I ALSO
watched the case every single day PLUS Gerald's excellent
discussions with experts EVERYDAY. I even taped them and
the house started to fill up with tapes! Sarah and Jan would
threaten to TAPE OVER my O.J. tapes if I didn't behave! The
fact of the matter is that I blew a sabbatical over this case.
I have no doubt that O.J. committed the crime. Nada! None.

There was a mountain of unrefuted blood evidence at the scene
of the crime, in his Bronco, leading up to his house, and even
in his shower. A driver had witnessed a near-collision between
her condo and Rockingham when a white Bronco without lights
on came into an intersection and, because there was a traffic
jam, the driver was yelling and screaming for the other cars
to clear the way. The witness reported that the driver was O.J.

This most important witness was not introduced by Marsha during
the trial because she had been paid $5,000 by a tabloid for her
story. This was an incredible blunder, but she thought she had
a rock-solid case that didn't need her testimony. She was wrong.
Jason would not have had motive, means, or opportunity. Why
would he have killed Ron and Nicole? None of which I am aware.
This was a crime of passion and rage, brutal, savage, and cruel.

The jury, of course, was incompetent. During an interview with
Geraldo, the woman foreman, in response to the question, "How
did you explain away the blood evidence?", replied, "We didn't!"
From what I can discern, they seem to have believed that if any
part of the prosecution's case was questionable, then they had the
right to dismiss it all! This was one of the most unqualified juries
in American history. When it was reheard as a civilian case, the
attorney, Daniel Petrocelli, did a far better job presenting evidence.

Here is a pretty good summary of the case, including evidence not
presented, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case
If Jack wants to make his case for Jason, it would be interesting to
hear it. But unless he was at the intersection where Jill Shively saw
the white Bronco involved in the traffic jam as O.J. was frantically
attempting to get away from the scene of the crime, I doubt that his
case is going to be persuasive. In retrospect, I can hardly believe
the extent to which the country was obsessed with the trial. They
could have knocked off Ft. Knox and no one would have noticed!

Jack,

I'll assume that you've read Killing Time, Donald Freed's engrossing take on the Simpson affair. If so, I'd appreciate your thoughts.

Charles

Charles...yes, I bought KILLING TIME in 1996 and read it
carefully...but that was 14 years ago, so I do not recall
details. I do recall that the Freed book had all the facts
correct as I remembered them. My memory of the events
and trial, WHICH I WATCHED EVERY DAY ON COURT TV, is
much sharper. Watching the actual events made it clear
to me that OJ was not the killer, but he knew more than
was apparent. The OJ case is one where POPULAR OPINION
prevailed over evidence...much like people who think
LHO killed JFK.

More important than KILLING TIME is the Bill Dear book,
OJ WAS GUILTY, BUT NOT OF MURDER. Dear, a private
investigator, actually solved the crime...coming to the
same conclusion I had. I think his book is now available
online.

Jack

[Jack White]

Jim apparently has not read Bill Dear's book, which lays out the
evidence perfectly.

http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/00554.htm

Jack