Nelson's LBJ Mastermind book

[James H. Fetzer]

Charles has made a great "to do" about Phil's use of the word, "mastermind".
The meaning of the word is OBVIOUSLY a matter of semantics. That is the
study of the meaning of words! But what I find so offensive and inexcusable
about his diatribes is the abuse of the word "disinformation". Whether or not
you happen to agree with Phil Nelson's thesis about LBJ, this is abusive usage,
where Charles has to know better unless he himself is "cognitively impaired".

Disinformation, like lying, has four elements: (1) making an assertion that is
false (2) that you know to be false but (3) that you deliberately assert anyway
(4) with the intention to mislead. Whatever else may be said about Phil's work
--and my defense of his position, which is quite studied!--it is not disinformation.
He and I (and Robert) OBVIOUSLY believe what we are saying. Since we believe
what we are saying is true, (2), (3) and (4) do not apply. Such claims are baseless.

As it happens, I have published articles on the nature of information and of dis-
information and discuss it on assassinationscience.com. I would have thought we
were long past the time of tossing that word around to describe anyone with whom
we are in disagreement. I can only infer that Charles' invocation of that term when
it so OBVIOUSLY does not apply is a desperate measure to try to salvage a position
that has fallen apart. And for that he OBVIOUSLY owes Phil Nelson a huge apology.

AND
You can run, but you can't hide, Nelson. I reiterate what I posted earlier today on a related thread:

Phillip F. Nelson, author of LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination, unmistakably confirms his acceptance of [the Merriam Webster definition of "mastermind"] as it applies to LBJ when he writes:

"But it was all according to the grand play -- a masterpiece of design and execution -- which had been developed over a period of nearly four years by the most brilliant, and evil, political force the country had ever seen: Lyndon Baines ('Bull') Johnson[.]" [emphasis in original] [p. 576]

Then there's this:

"More than any other person, [LBJ] had the means, motive, and opportunity to have been the singular key conspirator-instigator and the mastermind of the operation." [emphasis added] [p. 668]

These clear, unambiguous, wholly-at-variance-with-the-facts statements by Nelson render inoperative the frantic efforts by his champion, Jim Fetzer, and others to replace "mastermind" with what they beg us to believe is the synonymous "pivotal player."

MW defines "pivotal" as "vitally important."

I submit that anyone who accepts "mastermind" and "pivotal" as being synonymous within the larger context of JFK assassination roles attributed to LBJ is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

Nelson writing above, displays the audacity to try to spin the focus onto a dictionary defintion and away from his own fetid words: "Nothing there about 'controlling every single detail' of the 'project' that I can see."

How dare you?

I reiterate for clarity and emphasis: Nelson today writes, "Why is it so difficult for so many to be unable to comprehend that the term is inherently ambiguous and subject to the interpretation of every individual who considers it.[sic]"

Nelson in his book wrote, ""But it was all according to the grand play -- a masterpiece of design and execution -- which had been developed over a period of nearly four years by the most brilliant, and evil, political force the country had ever seen: Lyndon Baines ('Bull') Johnson[.]" [emphasis in original] [p. 576]

And

"More than any other person, [LBJ] had the means, motive, and opportunity to have been the singular key conspirator-instigator and the mastermind of the operation." [emphasis added] [p. 668]

You will not be allowed to run and hide from your words and your mission, Nelson.

YOU chose the word for your title, Nelson.

YOU unambiguously confirmed your understanding of the unambiguous definition of word in the within-context excerpts quoted above, Nelson.

Now YOU backpeddle, in the company of Jim Fetzer, by claiming that the entire mess is attributable to "semantics."

For the last time: YOU argue, Nelson, that Lyndon Baines Johnson conceived, constructed, instigated, controlled in every significant way, and protected the conspiracy that took the life of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. "Who else" could have done it? you ask in your disingenuous book.

In doing so, you falsely elevate to Sponsor status a man who, at the height of his power and influence, was nothing more than an important but ultimately controlled Facilitator for the true planners and initiators.

That act, of which you are unambiguously guilty, Nelson, by its very nature helps prolong the coverup, invite ridicule to be visited upon the work of those who have labored so gallantly in the quests for truth and justice for JFK, and protect the true Sponsors of the president's murder.

Peddle your disinformation where it's likely to be believed.

Charles R. Drago

[James H. Fetzer]

Just for the record, I have never called Charles Drago "a liar". When I asked him if
he had read the book, he, through Dawn, replied that he had. He subsequently said
so in a post of his own. But he was making no reference to any of the contents of
Phil's book. When I asked him when he obtained and and when he read it, he did
not respond. And it only NOW appears that he has a copy of the book in his hands,

BUT HE HASN'T READ IT. He has skimmed a few pages to find what he wants to use
as his pile driver, namely, what Phil has said about the word "mastermind". That's it!
That's all he has read. And it is OBVIOUS that he didn't have the book before or the
style of this post would not be so very different than everything he has said before.
I have not called him a liar in the past, but I must concede the term now seems to fit.

How can I possibly be wrong about this? Suddenly, we have a compete change in the
style of his posts. NOW we have indications that he has access to a copy of the book.
But why should he claim that HE HAS READ IT? It is a huge and sprawling work that
runs 729 pages. No one who had come into possession of the book so recently could
possibly have read it. And anyone who has a copy of the book will know what I mean.

He is welcome to continue to assert things that he knows to be false with the intention
of misleading members of this forum, but it's a pretty hard sell. I doubt that many are
going to be taken in. What stuns me is that someone whom I have greatly admired in
the past should be so shameless about trying to deceive us all when he was caught in
the act. And now, unsurprisingly, he wants to call it off, shut it down, and claim that I
am the one who is at fault! Forgive me, Charles Drago, but I took you for your better.

And so it ends.

Let this last claim of "conclusive proof" of something that is patently false tell us all we need to know about the tragedy that is Jim Fetzer's fall.

It is of a kind with Jim's conclusive proof that Hunt was telling the truth, that Nelson is guilty at most poor word choice ...

But why go on?

Jim, you've called me a liar on at least three occasions. You were and are wrong, although I believe you suspended all critical judgement in the rush to defend your indefensible positions and thus convinced yourself that your accusations about me were true.

They were not.

I forgive you. I seek no apology. Life goes on.

Time will heal whatever wounds linger.

And the truth will set us free.

In the meantime, I shall consider my capital spent as far as you're concerned. I wish you well with your investments in the disinformationalist Nelson and the idiot son, Morrow.

Charles

[Robert Morrow]

There is a really good book out that I suggest folks READ, and especially READ before they do reviews or commentary on it.

It's called LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination by Phillip Nelson (2010)

1) http://www.lbj-themastermind.com/

2) http://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Ass...1453503013

Also, if anyone wants my "LBJ and CIA killed JFK" files, just send me an email to Morrow321@aol.com . I also accept phone calls at 512-306-1510 here in Austin, TX.

[Charles Drago]

Jim,

In my studied and Constitutionally protected opinion, and based upon the proponderance of the evidence as I interpret it, I have concluded that Nelson consciously spreads disinformation as you accurately describe it.

And by the way, I'm using "semantics" in the sense it is most commony understood by the great unwashed: implicitly as an adjective ("semantical") to describe unnecessary argument over synonyms.

My intellect and instincts tell me that Nelson is up to no good, that Morrow is a naif, and that you are a good and accomplished and, in this case, misguided man of principle.

Relax.

Charles

[Charles Drago]

Just for the record, I have never called Charles Drago "a liar". When I asked him if he had read the book, he, through Dawn, replied that he had. He subsequently said so in a post of his own. But he was making no reference to any of the contents of Phil's book. When I asked him when he obtained and and when he read it, he did not respond. And it only NOW appears that he has a copy of the book in his hands,

BUT HE HASN'T READ IT. He has skimmed a few pages to find what he wants to use
as his pile driver, namely, what Phil has said about the word "mastermind". That's it!
That's all he has read. And it is obvious that he didn't have the book before or the
style of this post would not be so very different than everything he has said before.
I have not called him a liar in the past, but I must concede the term now seems to fit.

You're crossing lines now, Jim. You are making statements allegedly of fact that are false. You are questioning my truthfulness and thus my personal honor and integrity.

I played you like a piano, Jim -- albeit one terribly out of tune. In the vernacular of the streets, I fucked with you. And now I have only myself to blame when the Minnesota chicken comes home to roost.

I'm begging you, stop impugning my dignity.

How can I possibly be wrong about this?

Or about ANYTHING, Jim!

No one who had come into possession of the book so recently could possibly have read it.

You haven't the slightest idea when I received the book. Stop telling untruths about me. Please.

He is welcome to continue to assert things that he knows to be false with the intention of misleading members of this forum, but it's a pretty hard sell. I doubt that many are going to be taken in.

What's the old saying? That which is in your heart you expect to find in the hearts of others.

Forgive me, Charles Drago, but I took you for your better.

Again, I forgive you.

Charles

[Jim DiEugenio]

JIm Fetzer:

"For him to argue at this stage of the debate that there is no evidence that LBJ was handling
Oswald in New Orleans has to establish a new level of absurdity, ..."

Jim Fetzer, a few posts later:

"I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED THAT LBJ WAS CONTROLLING OSWALD ANYWHERE."

Well Jim, which is it? Is there or isn't there?

And by the way, how do you know when CD receives books he ends up reading but does not like? I mean there is more than one person who had that reaction to Nelson. Martin Hay got two chapters into the book and tossed it.

And you never answered my questions did you?

What did LBJ have to do with the murder of Officer Tippit?

Did Mac Wallace kill Kennedy? If he did,who were the other assassins?

How did LBJ get RUby to kill Oswald?

You say Nelson's book is so fine, then go ahead and explain how LBJ masterminded those three events.

Because if he did not, then what is left is the cover up. And as DOn GIbson proved, the Warren COmmission was not even Johnson's idea.

[James H. Fetzer]

You misread the sentence. I was saying that, for you to argue there is no
evidence that LBJ was handling Oswald in New Orleans (which OBVIOUSLY
PRESUPPOSES THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN) has to establish a new level
of absurdity, . . .". It is the presupposition that is absurd. I HAVE NEVER
ARGUED THAT LYNDON WAS HANDLING OSWALD ANYWHERE, ANYTIME.

I am now convinced that the suggestion you are just not that bright is true.
If you are this far out of your depth about a matter as trivial as this (what
I was asserting in a post on this thread), then it is no wonder that Judyth,
the CIA at the Ambassador, and the role of LBJ is far beyond you. There is
an old expression that seems to fit this situation to a "t": DUMB AS A POST!

JIm Fetzer:

"For him to argue at this stage of the debate that there is no evidence that LBJ was handling
Oswald in New Orleans has to establish a new level of absurdity, ..."

Jim Fetzer, a few posts later:

"I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED THAT LBJ WAS CONTROLLING OSWALD ANYWHERE."

Well Jim, which is it? Is there or isn't there?

And by the way, how do you know when CD receives books he ends up reading but does not like? I mean there is more than one person who had that reaction to Nelson. Martin Hay got two chapters into the book and tossed it.

And you never answered my questions did you?

What did LBJ have to do with the murder of Officer Tippit?

Did Mac Wallace kill Kennedy? If he did,who were the other assassins?

How did LBJ get RUby to kill Oswald?

You say Nelson's book is so fine, then go ahead and explain how LBJ masterminded those three events.

Because if he did not, then what is left is the cover up. And as DOn GIbson proved, the Warren COmmission was not even Johnson's idea.

[Jim DiEugenio]

I put your own words up there Fetz.

Now if you are going to say there is no evidence of LBJ participating in the lead up to the assassination, then go ahead and answer my other questions.

BTW, I will ignore you calling me dumb, just as I ignored you calling me a buffoon. Its par for the course for you.

[James H. Fetzer]

I can't believe anyone in the world would ever take you seriously . . . This is simply unreal.

I put your own words up there Fetz.

Now if you are going to say there is no evidence of LBJ participating in the lead up to the assassination, then go ahead and answer my other questions.

BTW, I will ignore you calling me dumb, just as I ignored you calling me a buffoon. Its par for the course for you.

[James H. Fetzer]

Tweedledum and Tweedledee . . .

The very idea that Lyndon had to be controlling Oswald in New Orleans, Mexico
City (if he went there), or even in Dallas to qualify as the "mastermind" boggles
the mind. I have already exposed this shallow form of chicanery. That CHARLES
DRAGO would side with JIM DIEUGENIO in a stunning example of flawed reasoning
is beyond belief. I used to hold at least one of them in high esteem. But persevering
in defense of the indefensible is taking a heavy toll upon my enthusiasm. If there
has ever been a more feeble argument against Lyndon's pivotal role, I can't imagine
what it would be. That Charles aligns himself with such obvious rubbish is pathetic.

I put your own words up there Fetz.

Now if you are going to say there is no evidence of LBJ participating in the lead up to the assassination, then go ahead and answer my other questions.

BTW, I will ignore you calling me dumb, just as I ignored you calling me a buffoon. Its par for the course for you.