Friday, October 13, 2006

Tyler Nixon and conspiracies

I don't know Tyler Nixon and he sure seems a nice enough guy in his comments around the DE blogosphere, but in a conversation in one comment thread (over at Mike Matthews' Down With Absolutes) Nixon made the following claim regarding President John Kennedy:
I have listened the Oval Office conversation between the General and JFK and it is clearly not indicative of a JFK ready to go off the deep end in Southeast Asia. Interesting that MacArthur made veiled warnings to Kennedy about the forces he was taking on, by squelching their plans for war profiteering and military buildup.

Looking at today’s God awful mess it seems that everything old is new again…..a wacko Texas yahoo war President forcing us into a micro-mis-managed ground war against guerilla insurgents, but only in Southwest Asia this time.

Kennedy knew just how to handle the nutsos, (like Curtis Lemay)….until they handled him …right into eternity.

The obvious implication here (as I noted in a comment response) is that General LeMay was complicit in the assassination of President Kennedy on that fateful November day. When I pressed Tyler about this (asking if he was moving into "Oliver Stone territory"), he answered thusly:
No, Hube it’s the territory of roughly 75-80% of the American people, in survey after survey after survey for over 40 years.

Did you think I believed President Kennedy was killed by a lone nut, who was almost immediately killed by another lone nut? Sure, and the DRBA is selling me a piece of the DM bridge every time I pass through the toll booth.

I think we can call this the “lone nut” theory, not so much for its subjects but for the few people left who actually still believe it. No offense to you personally, Hube.

To this I responded thusly:
Yes, but you specifically implicated LeMay. And your evidence is …?

I’ll keep this in mind when people bring up “But the 9/11 Commission said …” as well as others in the past. Maybe the fact that upwards of half the American public believe that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11 isn’t … inaccurate, then? After all, if public opinion polls essentially eradicate the Warren Commission report, then …

And BTW, Tyler — it’s not what I believe — or anyone else — about the Kennedy assassination. It’s what the evidence shows. Until we have anything to the contrary, it’s what we should accept. Otherwise, like I mentioned about the 9/11 Commission, we’ll be making policy based merely on polls, evidence be damned. I’m sure you’re angry at the current admin. for helping to foment an atmosphere where people believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Is this a safe assumption? But the 9/11 Comission says this wasn’t the case. And likewise the Warren Commission said …?

So, who do we believe, hmm?
Tyler's final reply was
My willingness to share my views, controversial or not, may well be a handicap as far as any “poltical” future. So be it.

I have far less interest in my own future than I do in the one we all have to face together and I would rather stand on my beliefs than be silent for a seat.
It's admirable, in my opinion, that Tyler doesn't care overly much about any political future if it has to compromise his beliefs on any particular subject. He's certainly free to believe what he wishes about the JFK assassination -- that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't really the killer and/or was a dupe for other sinister forces and/or didn't really do it at all. However, the evidence investigated by and reported on by the Warren Commission report does not back up these beliefs. This goes directly to my point above which Tyler refused to address: If the Warren Commission report is to be disbelieved (since, according to Tyler, a vast majority of Americans don't believe its conclusions), then what about the 9/11 Commission report? Numerous polls, after all, show a majority of Americans believe Saddam Hussein had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. What would Tyler say to these people? Are they nuts? Overly partisan? There are, after all, some researched offerings that state Saddam Hussein had a connection to al Qaeda. Are these all spurious assertions?

I do not mean to infuse a belief onto Tyler which he may not hold. But based on reading his numerous comments around the local blogosphere, it's conspicuous that he is not a fan of the current executive branch in Washington. Since he (and others) consistently tout his "independent" nature, I am indeed curious as to what ... "validity" Tyler would give the [majority polled] belief that Iraq had some connection with September 11th. And if he believes it foolish, what makes it more foolish than believing that Curtis LeMay had a hand in murdering John F. Kennedy -- especially since the two commissions that were set up to investigate the respective relevant historical occurrences did NOT reach any such conclusions?

17 Comments:

Anonymous Mike M. said...

So are you saying you actually buy it that Kennedy was assassinated by a lone nutso? I think there's simply too much evidence to the contrary to close the case that simply, Hube. The government has been involved in political killings in the past. Our government is the most powerful in the world and wields that power in interesting ways at times.

You don't need to watch Oliver Stone's JFK (a great movie anyhow, politics aside) to hold the belief that there's more there than the government will ever disclose. The government is a very well-oiled machine, Hube...with miles-long corridors to hold the deepest secrets of our history. It's not conspiracy theories. It's common sense and logic to say that there are certainly rogue forces in our government -- in EVERY government -- that exact their own agendas via well-executed acts. I think you're a little bit too willing to believe the things the government tells us. And, this coming from a minimal-government conservative? Shouldn't you be questioning the government's every move?

5:34 PM  
Anonymous Mike M. said...

And, your comment re: we should just "accept" the two commissions' findings. Why should we, Hube. You really seem to be walking the line of some loyalist-type American who doesn't believe his country could POSSIBLY be complicit in the death of Kennedy. Here's some linear thinking for you.

1) Kennedy may have seen a war in Vietnam wasn't a good idea.

2) More hawkish members of his administration were ready to smoke-out the Commies!

3) Kennedy wasn't buying it.

4) A concerted effort by a handful of men decided to KILL Kennedy and put in Johnson who would easily go along with their plans.

Are you THAT trustful of your government, Hube? I'm a big fan of The X-Files and, though that was clearly fiction, some of the conspiracy episodes that clearly called into question the intentions of some of the shadier branches of our government really hit home. Do we have evidence? No...not enough. But, such a concerted effort to HIDE the evidence should be no surprise.

And, comparing polls saying Americans think Saddam was connected to 9/11 and al-Qaeda to polls of those who believe a government conspiracy assassinated him is highly questionable. Saddam's involvement has been pretty much fully disclosed while there are still THOUSANDS of things we don't know about the details surrounding Kennedy's assassination.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is I find it difficult to believe that your not more skeptical about the government's actions following Kennedy's murder. I think you're too quick to accept their account of things.

5:45 PM  
Blogger Tyler Nixon said...

Thanks for the great article! Well-written, Hube.

I truly enjoy it when "conservatives" (so-called) believe they are writing some expose about a candidate or official when they are really just helping share that person's positions, about which many people might be interested or even agree.

I stand by everything I wrote, 100%.

I will not go into any more detail than two points.

First - the misleading allegation that I implicated Curtis Lemay. Did I implicate him directly? No I DID NOT. I said nutsos "like" Curtis Lemay. Lemay was absolutely a nut and it is well documented that he, like many about whom President Eisenhower warned the country in his "military-industrial complex" farewell address, bore extremely ill will for President Kennedy. But I would not go so far as to state he was, in fact, involved in President Kennedy's assassination.

Lemay wanted to escalate the Cuban missile crisis to the nuclear option, or at least into an invasion of Cuba. Thank God Kennedy was President and held Lemay and other dogs of war at bay. Here is why. Sergei Krushchev (son of Soviet Premier Nikita Krushchev) has stated unequivocally that the United States was mistaken in believing the Soviets had not reached launch capability with existing missiles in Cuba.

The truth was that Soviets had short range mobile tactical nuclear missile batteries called "Lunas" already on the beach, fully launch capable, even before the U.S. detected the larger missile sites being constructed. We did not know about these during the crisis. Krushchev (Sergei) stated that General Pliev, in charge of Cuban operations, had autonomy over use of these weapons in the event of any military action by the United States against Cuba. He states that had we invaded "I believe that [he] would have used those weapons". Had Kennedy listened to Lemay's mania about taking on the Soviets in Cuba it would almost surely have led to a nuclear war, and at minimum the loss of the city in which I was stationed on active duty for two years - Berlin.

Second point. When I was in the Army Infantry I was (even in spite of being slightly near-sighted) a sniper-quality marksman, always hitting 38-40 out of 40 pop-up targets as far out as 300 meters at every qualification round. I consistently carried firearms almost every day of the week, 24 hours a day, for over 2 years while on active duty. These included the M16A2, the M249 SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon), and the M60 7.62mm machine gun. I have handled firearms of all varieties since fairly young and have fired at least 100 different types, from the best to the worst, including the 6.5 mm Italian Carcano rifle identical to the one purportedly used to murder President Kennedy. I also know, from experience, what it takes to hit a moving target, even with a superior firearm and under ideal conditions.

Having said that, the Carcano rifle purportedly used is one of the worst, most inaccurate, and shoddy rifles I have ever handled. The one I fired was so shoddy, even as a rather pristine specimen, that we simply couldn't get it properly sighted and zeroed no matter what we tried. This is just one of many reasons (a 'hands-on' reason, versus years of study I have given the subject) that I have long questioned the credibility of the Warren Commission's findings and in particular its sine qua non - the so-caled "single bullet theory".

In any case, thanks for bringing this issue to the fore. I firmly believe that President Kennedy's true assassins were never brought to justice and for this our country will always bear a terrible scar.

Regards to all,

Tyler

www.tylernixon.com

6:52 PM  
Blogger Tyler Nixon said...

Post Script - Excellent points, Mike. I would have made them myself but you did a much better job than I probably would have.

President Kennedy spoke about secrecy and how it is anathema to our way of life and the principles of government we (most of us) hold dear.

http://www.tylernixon.com/NIXONCONTENT/1961-04-27JFKOpenGovernment.mp3

I believe the truth about his death has been permanently squelched by the level of secrecy that surrounded it and the ensuing investigation. The bulk of the information about President Kennedy's murder was originally ordered sealed by President Lyndon Johnson until 2035, until the Assassinations Records Review Board opened much of this in the 1990's. Why?

To this day, there are thousands of documents re: Oswald that the CIA refuses to release to the American people. Why?

Again, great comments Mike.

One last thing. I speculated about the Kennedy assassination, Hube. That is the issue you raised. How about you be intellectually or even just factually honest, for that matter, and accurately re-name your article "Tyler Nixon and A CONSPIRACY". Whose the one truly making false implications here, Hube? General Lemay is dead, but I am still around. So how about you correct your own implication about me?

7:36 PM  
Blogger ColossusHube said...

Tyler. I wasn't trying to "expose" you. I don't do "hit jobs," nor do I attempt to "make" an issue when there isn't one -- like wondering if a yard sign that says "Brian Moore: State Senate" is some sort of "false advertising." I just expounded on a matter that I thought interesting. I was indeed intellectually honest in this post. I didn't twist your words as I quoted them directly from Mike's site and provided a link for all to see. If you wanted to "clear the record," so to speak, then you had your opportunity here. People can judge for themselves.

I named the post as is because I dealt with two conspiracies. You refused to address the overall point I made. Mike did, but you did not. Since I addressed two conspiracies, again, that is why the term is plural in the post title. It's not "intellectually dishonest;" what it is is you simply not liking it. But it's far from "intellectually dishonest."

And Mike: It's not about me "believing" government. Why do you -- like Tyler -- insist on twisting the point? You want your cake and eat it too: It's OK to question the Warren Commission -- but the 9/11 Commission is accurate? Why don't you question the 9/11 Commission as vociferously as the Warren Commission? Why are there "thousands" of questions surrounding JFK's murder but seemingly none left surrounding the 9/11 attacks? The only point you're "making" is that one is OK to question and the other is not -- despite the fact that two commissions dealt with the matter. Whether I believe Oswald acted alone is immaterial. He certainly could have acted on behalf of others, but the Warren Commission said that there wasn't evidence to support that.

Believing or not believing in certain conspiracies is as political as anything else. If you believe JFK was offed by our military, Cuban or Soviet conspirators despite the evidence, then you can't get upset if others believe that Saddam just may have had a hand in assisting al Qaeda with 9/11.

11:09 PM  
Anonymous Dana Garrett said...

" said nutsos "like" Curtis Lemay"

Checkmate.

What's also fascinating about Hube's argument is the implication that if you reject the conclusions of one commission (Warren), you MUST reject the conclusions of another one ON A DIFFERENT MATTER 40 years later (9/11).

11:13 PM  
Anonymous Mike M. said...

Oh, but Hube, I DO question the 9/11 Commission. I've got DOZENS of questions I'd like to ask. Firstly, why wasn't more said about the Commission's BENDING over to accomodate George Bush and Dick Cheney so they could both appear TOGETHER for only an hour?

Yeah, I've got questions about the 9/11 Commission...but that's for another argument.

12:12 AM  
Blogger ColossusHube said...

What's also fascinating about Hube's argument is the implication that if you reject the conclusions of one commission (Warren), you MUST reject the conclusions of another one ON A DIFFERENT MATTER 40 years later (9/11).

Nah, only at least a "check," there. ;-) My "implication" is somehow dishonest, but that above isn't? Riiiight. But no -- actually, that's not my implication at all. What I am wondering is that if it is legitimate to disbelieve what one federal commission concluded, is it then legitimate to disbelieve another ... based on the evidence? Maybe that's not the best choice of words since anyone can believe what they wish, but I think you all get my drift. Hopefully.

Tyler said some 75-80% of the American public don't believe what the Warren Commission concluded; I noted over half of that same public believe Saddam Hussein played a role in 9/11. (Also, over a third believe that 9/11 was an "inside job" according to some polls.) The bottom line is that the evidence shows neither a conspiracy involved in JFK's murder nor the 9/11 attacks. I suppose I am also wondering who gets to claim the label "nut," for lack of a better term, depending on which conspiracy you believe -- JFK? Saddam/9-11? 9/11 inside job? After all, the 9/11 "inside job" folks are not only hired professors but they have a website and all sorts of "evidence" to back up their beliefs.

7:07 AM  
Blogger ColossusHube said...

BTW, in my initial reply I meant "Brian Moore: State Representative." Y'know, late Friday evening, post happy hour .... !

7:10 AM  
Blogger Tyler Nixon said...

Hube,

I didn't twist a thing about what you said. I took the time to respond to your broad-brush piece with some specific views about one historic conspiracy, while you insist on tangling into it other more recent historic events, totally unrelated. You took some very side-bar, shoot-from-the-hip views about 22 November 1963, posted in passing over at Mike Matthews' Down With Absolutes (www.downwithabsolutes.com), and blew it up into a piece about conspiracies.

Your title is "Tyler Nixon AND conspiracies", obviously implying a connection between my thinking or my beliefs and conspiracies generally or at least plurally. I don't believe any person would read that and rationally conclude you intended the two words to be disjunctive, as you now claim. Simply because you say so after being called on it does not change this.

Do you really think it is believable for you to argue that you are, in effect, writing about Tyler Nixon on one hand and about conspiracies on the other, but not that Tyler Nixon has anything to do with a discussion about conspiracies (plural).

Why not have simply written "Tyler Nixon and Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination"? That, in my view, would be honest. What you titled this commentary is not honest and is a "hit title" if not at least an attempted hit piece. It is clearly a shaded manner of creating an inference that expands my views beyond the Kennedy assassination into conspiracies.

The fact, Hube, that you discuss "two conspiracies" in no way justifies the blatant inference you are creating here, connecting my name or views to your discussion of a recent historic event (i.e. 11 September 2001). You have raised issues totally unrelated, even marginally, to my comments re-published and analyzed here, and now you justify this diversionary hit by saying I am somehow obligated to respond to this other topic.

I will answer one aspect of your "analysis". The difference between the Warren Commission's bogus conclusions and the purposefully-created myth that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 is simply this : both are products of distortions, if not blatant lies, perpetrated by some of the highest officials of our government. However the Warren Commission's conclusions have been moldering for 42 years, dissected and discredited every which way but loose, while the Hussein fabrication is barely 3 years fresh and continues to be subtly perpetrated by the present-day criminals inhabiting the veritable stratosphere of American government.

I think you should relax, Hube, and give the Hussein/9-11 fraud some time. I doubt it will require decades, though, for it to meet the same popular discredit as the Warren Commission fraud. The truth is getting its marching boots on, even if the lie has already made it halfway 'round the world and back (as your cited polls clearly indicate).

One thing I am sure we can both agree upon is Abe Lincoln's old adage cautioning those who would seek to fool the people. It will always be true, though, that some people will never learn.

This has all been interesting but probably not the best use of time for any candidate less than four weeks before decision time. So this concludes my responses.

Regards.

9:39 AM  
Anonymous Nancy Willing said...

whew, I haven't wandered over here in a while and lookeee at the show!!

I say lets stone Specter for his contributions to the Warren Comission, oh, Oliver was already on it??

1:04 PM  
Anonymous steamboat willy said...

fresh tinfoil for everybody!

1:11 AM  
Anonymous steamboat willy said...

especially one line morons like me!

11:28 AM  
Anonymous steamboat willy said...

besides everybody knows that JFK was murdered by the mob, from a contract taken out on him by Joe DiMaggio (and Arthur Miller) as revenge for the Kennedys murdering Marilyn Monroe.

5:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm new and don't want to get off on the wrong foot here, but there is an election soon... shouldn't this blog be talking more about that?

3:04 AM  
Blogger The Unabrewer said...

"Tyler Nixon and conspiracies" implies a connection, while "nutsos, (like Curtis Lemay)" doesn't. Got it. Crystal clear.

11:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so implication = connection?

gotcha. real real crystal.

try a few more brews. you might make sense.

5:50 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home