Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

JFK Assassination: LBJ knew there were shooter(s) in front

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
In a round about way, the following clip is very revelatory of the machinations behind Kennedy's assassination and of an awareness by Lyndon Johnson of the detail that there was a shooter or shooters in front of JFK.

I've never seen a reference to this line of thought before.

I believe that Johnson gives himself away as a coup plotter in a taped telephone conversation with J. Edgar Hoover.

Johnson is way, way ahead of Hoover in this conversation.

There is a large segment of the conversation where Hoover is explaining to Johnson, just exactly who Jack Rubenstein (Jack Ruby) was and what sort of involvement Rubenstein had with the police force in Dallas. To think that Johnson was not aware of that sort of thing, and needed Hoover to tell him about it, is absurd.

But the part of the clip which is most interesting to me starts around 8:25.

Johnson is talking about the shots fired.

Keep in mind that Governor John Connolly was sitting in front of Kennedy in one of the "jump seats" in the president's limosine.

Any movement by Connolly would have no effect whatsoever on whether Kennedy was hit by a bullet, unless that bullet were coming from in front of Kennedy.

But that is precisely what Johnson is inquiring about, whether a movement by Connolly might have blocked a shot aimed at Kennedy.

Keep in mind that Johnson would have been very well aware of the seating arrangements in the President's limo.

Bottom line. Johnson revealed that he knew details of the shooting arrangements that day, very early in the investigative process, prior to Oswald's death unless I am mistaken about when this conversation was recorded.

He had to have been kept apprised of important details of the ambush and must have been right in the middle of the coup plotting that ultimately put him in the Oval Office.

Madeline Brown would be very disappointed.



I went back to the YouTube video and in looking at the comments, became aware of the fact that others have commented on the importance of Johnson's question to Hoover in this conversation. I first speculated on this months ago and was always looking for an opportunity to do a thread on it. No disrespect to others who have wondered about this topic, but at the time I stumbled on the idea, I had never heard/read anyone mention it.
edit on 11-1-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


WOW, I have only heard the first part about halting other investigations and putting someone on the team that will sell the American people the lone conspirator version of events. I cant believe I missed the rest of this conversation. I will have to look in to this.

LBJ implicates himself in the assassination in so many little ways its hard to imagine him not being a piece of the larger picture in all this.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Nice find. Star & Flag

It got interesting at the end. He was talking pretty fast. Several things caught my attention.
Obviously, this came before any revisions to the story.

They recovered all 3 bullets?
He said, two were splintered but ballistics experts tied them to the weapon.
Another was removed from the Presidents head wound.

I thought that the third one was the “magic bullet”.
What about James Tague? He was wounded by a ricochet close to the triple underpass. Doesn't this make 4 bullets?

They were fired within 3 seconds?
There was a scope on Oswald's rifle?
edit on 11-1-2013 by LazyGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Nice find.F&S!
LBJ and Hoover were apart of the plot.In latter years they tried to shift the blame to everyone.Johnson and Hoover and the MIC masterminded this coup.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
I think you'll want to look at this video:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...
edit on 12-1-2013 by dreammerchant because: another link to add



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dreammerchant
I think you'll want to look at this video:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...
edit on 12-1-2013 by dreammerchant because: another link to add



Yep, "the guilty men" was really good. Its unfortunate that some of the first few vids in the series had a lot of misinformation in it. The whole series gives a fantastic overall view of all the major conspiracy info that has been around since Kennedy was shot, so it has its worth.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazyGuy


They were fired within 3 seconds?
There was a scope on Oswald's rifle?
edit on 11-1-2013 by LazyGuy because: (no reason given)


I believe the warren commission originally said around 5.6 sec for three shots or at least just below 6 seconds.
I have seen the number 8.5 seconds floating around mostly by the lone gunman believers, but haven't really looked into it.

There was a scope on the rifle but it was allegedly not sighted in when found in the depository. If i remember correctly the scope was affixed to the gun in a bolted on fashion and wasn't able to be adjusted correctly.

This is just from my memory. If your really concerned I'm sure i can find some links for you.
edit on 1/12/13 by 404ed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted buy ipsedixit

There is a large segment of the conversation where Hoover is explaining to Johnson, just exactly who Jack Rubenstein (Jack Ruby) was and what sort of involvement Rubenstein had with the police force in Dallas. To think that Johnson was not aware of that sort of thing, and needed Hoover to tell him about it, is absurd.



I thought the very same thing. It contradicts a lot of what we know about him.



originally posted buy ipsedixit

But that is precisely what Johnson is inquiring about, whether a movement by Connolly might have blocked a shot aimed at Kennedy.



As much as there is a possibility of a grassy knoll shot, I am not very convinced of one.
I'm not really sure what area a bullet would originate from if fired from the front. The only place I can think of a shot coming from would be the overpass, and it had people on it.
A shot from the front would obviously explain the windshield bullet hole/crack. Not sure if i have come across a witness that saw something that would corroborate this idea tho.



originally posted buy ipsedixit

Keep in mind that Johnson would have been very well aware of the seating arrangements in the President's limo.



Wasn't he also extremely upset when JFK insisted on having Connolly in the car?

All this turns some things on its head for me.
edit on 1/12/13 by 404ed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 07:05 AM
link   
If only JFK had casually turned around to see the Secret Service men executing their "stand down".

And then brought the whole parade to a complete full stop right then and there. What a dark day for America.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Wow, very interesting. I re enacted how hover explains how it all goes down with my wife. And there's no way on earth, you can say that they weren't talking about bullets coming from the front. Which Diane make any sense vacate didn't we confirm at least *some* of the bullets came from the depository?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
JFK killed JFK.

Follow the money!

Look what happened to QFK when he tried to investigate JFK's Lincoln!


edit on 13-1-2013 by Mully because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
If only JFK had casually turned around to see the Secret Service men executing their "stand down".

And then brought the whole parade to a complete full stop right then and there. What a dark day for America.


What "stand down"?

I don't remember seeing one, when did it happen exactly? I'm yet to see any solid proof of such a thing.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


I like to wait for RA to chime in upon any Kennedy thread. Guys phenomenal for his age.

Just listening to the level of the intelligence these people share in a conversation is intimidating to say the least.

You can tell that the term, " Good man " carries a totally different meaning for them. An inept and useless observation I know but, save that fact that it raises suspicion. Absolutely fascinating. Lot of interesting facts coming out lately all of which as usual point to the same lifetimes worth of suspicions. SnF



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
What "stand down"?

I don't remember seeing one, when did it happen exactly? I'm yet to see any solid proof of such a thing.


Many people are not aware of this. Sometimes even people who have spent time looking into the assassination of JFK are not aware that the agents who would be running beside his car normally or be perched on the rear bumper of the car, were ordered out of position that day.

It would have been even harder to make the shots from the back if the secret service agents were in position on the rear bumper of the president's limo.

edit on 13-1-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 



Many people are not aware of this. Sometimes even people who have spent time looking into the assassination of JFK are not aware that the agents who would be running beside his car normally or be perched on the rear bumper of the car, were ordered out of position that day.

It would have been even harder to make the shots from the back if the secret service agents were in position on the rear bumper of the president's limo.


I'm more than aware of it. I guess you didn't understand my sarcasm.


Anyway, my point was, in all the time I've spent researching this, never have I come across any reason to believe there was a secret service stand down that day. It just doesn't exist.

Take the video you have just posted for example. First of that alleged "incident" didn't at all take place seconds prior to the assassination like most have been fooled into believing, it's quite a while before. Here's some of my old screenshots for analysis here:



Notice the lack of people? That's because the limousine is not traveling down Maine street and is nowhere near Houston or Elm street either. It's leaving the airport and there's no threat of anyone at that time. There is no "stand down" as It's been hailed, It's not happening.

Here's an image of Maine street for comparison:



Here's as the limousine is turning onto Houston street just prior to Elm:



It's also worth pointing out that the reason the secret service agents were where they were as the assassination took place was most probably down to 2 reasons.

1.) The amount of people had massively decreased on Elm street compared to Main street, and...

2.) The limousine was seconds away from heading onto the freeway.. now with the lack of people and also being seconds away from finding themselves on a freeway.. do we really expect the SS agents to continuously be running alongside? No, of course not.

There was no stand down.
edit on 13-1-2013 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
. . . . didn't we confirm at least *some* of the bullets came from the depository?


The business of where the bullets came from is very murky mainly because a proper autopsy was not done on the body. I believe it is certain that one shot that hit him in the back came from the rear. It was well below collar level. There was a wound from the front, in his neck, which was surgically altered, we are told, to make it look like an exit wound. Finally there was the massive head wound which it is believed was caused by a frangible bullet fired from the front and right.

That's my understanding. Some more knowledgeable people might correct me.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
There was no stand down.


The secret service agent in the clip seems to be registering puzzlement at a deviation from normal procedure. Most people who have seen this clip believe that it shows a secret service standown. There are numerous other examples in the assassination scenario of deviations from normal procedure in the security arrangements.

You haven't convinced me that this is not a Secret Service standown.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


The secret service agent in the clip seems to be registering puzzlement at a deviation from normal procedure. Most people who have seen this clip believe that it shows a secret service standown. There are numerous other examples in the assassination scenario of deviations from normal procedure in the security arrangements.

You haven't convinced me that this is not a Secret Service standown.


Well it doesn't really matter how many other people believe it happened, that doesn't make it so. And fair enough, if you believe there was a stand down then let's have a genuine, mature discussion on it. We're all here to learn and better our understanding here after all.

So, what "numerous other examples" are you talking about?

Edit: Or, if you'd like to discuss this elsewhere, I understand. I certainly don't want to take this thread down a route you never intended it to go.
edit on 13-1-2013 by Rising Against because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
I dont think the limos route was the freeway was it? And why did it screech to an almost stop during the kill zone? It cant be confusion, aren't those drivers trained to speed up?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
So, what "numerous other examples" are you talking about?


There is quite a list of deviations from normal security procedures that have been brought up over the years. In fact the whole story of the assassination and its investigation abounds with deviations from normal procedures. I think you know this very well.


Edit: Or, if you'd like to discuss this elsewhere, I understand. I certainly don't want to take this thread down a route you never intended it to go.


To be perfectly frank I'm not interested in getting into this stuff at this time, or probably ever. It has been argued up, down and sideways for decades and there is a mountain of material on virtually every aspect of JFK's assassination, including the security arrangements.

It is off topic for the thread, as you point out. I'm not saying that one couldn't make a cogent argument opposing my view on this matter, but I'm not really interested in getting into it now.
edit on 13-1-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-1-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join