Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 





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.


In fairness, if you can't bring them up as I asked, then I think that does speak volumes. There was no stand down, as I highlighted, and there's nothing to suggest there ever was either.

But, I digress. Whenever a JFK thread is posted it seems as though everything is up for discussion in regards to the case. Happens often in my own threads too. It's a fascinating case for sure, one with many aspects for consideration.

Looking at LBJ, one thing I suggest others look into it this - the Bobby Baker scandal. I think that really does play a crucial role in his involvement in this case. If JFK had lives.. Johnson would've been in jail after all. But, as we know, JFK died and where did LBJ end up? He was made President.




posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rising Against
In fairness, if you can't bring them up as I asked, then I think that does speak volumes.


In fairness, I think that is wilfully misconstruing what I said.


There was no stand down, as I highlighted, and there's nothing to suggest there ever was either.


We will have to disagree on that.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Getting back on topic. Johnson privately never believed the Warren Commission report. Per his recorded discussion with Senator Russell, and many other discussions, including the one with Walter Cronkite which is on youtube. John Connally and his wife both thought shots came from the front. Why would Johnson not believe this too? He may have just been quizzing Hoover. I also think the Bobby Baker scandal is overblown as motive. JFK had worse skeletons in his closet, that J Edgar and Johnson both were very well aware of, and they would have used in retaliation, short of an assassination. Personally I am coming to the conclusion that Johnson would not have had the balls to assassinate JFK, even if he had wanted to. CIA/Mafia looks more likely.
I think Johnson was just trying to find out if Hoover felt Connally was a target, or just got in the way.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Matt1951 because: Added last sentence



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matt1951
Getting back on topic. Johnson privately never believed the Warren Commission report. Per his recorded discussion with Senator Russell, and many other discussions, including the one with Walter Cronkite which is on youtube. John Connally and his wife both thought shots came from the front. Why would Johnson not believe this too?


I don't know if you have seen The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Guilty Men, which was linked to earlier in the thread, but it paints a very dark picture of Lyndon Johnson, Connally and Hoover, who were all very close to powerful political and financial interests in Texas, who were in turn close to organized crime.


He may have just been quizzing Hoover.


Or, as in other discussions on record, he may, knowing that the conversation was being recorded, have been speaking to posterity, somewhat. I doubt that he ever expected the conversation to be scrutinized with a fine tooth comb. The question about Connally blocking shots was a careless one from that point of view.

The conversation with Hoover is very strange.

Johnson, being part of the Texas political establishment would have known about Jack Ruby.

As an aside, I'm always surprised when I read about this topic to find out how many people connected to the story, knew Jack Ruby, had been in the Carousel Club, were familiar with someone like Candy Barr (pronounced locally as one word CandyBarr). Madeline Brown even says that H.L. Hunt, "the richest man in the world" had an interest in Candy Barr at one point. It's almost as if Dallas only had 50 people in it and they all knew one another and all were involved in the assassination either directly or peripherally.

I think both men are "posing" during the taped conversation, but they are also taking care of Warren Commission organization business.

I think that one thing that Johnson is seriously interested in finding out from Hoover is whether any shots had been fired at him personally. Sort of a test of "honor among thieves".

Remember, Connally shouted, "They're going to kill us all." when the shooting started.


I also think the Bobby Baker scandal is overblown as motive. JFK had worse skeletons in his closet, that J Edgar and Johnson both were very well aware of, and they would have used in retaliation, short of an assassination. Personally I am coming to the conclusion that Johnson would not have had the balls to assassinate JFK, even if he had wanted to. CIA/Mafia looks more likely.
I think Johnson was just trying to find out if Hoover felt Connally was a target, or just got in the way.


The shady situations that Johnson was connected to in Texas were manifold and he wasn't the prime mover in all of this, but more of a cog in a bigger machine. When the machine moved, the cog moved, whether it wanted to or not, but, . . . I think in this case it wanted to.

"Those Kennedy's will never embarrass me again. That's not a threat. That's a promise."



Note: I realize that Candy Barr did not dance at the Carousel Club.
edit on 14-1-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-1-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


I have dithered back and forth regarding Johnson's involvement. Madeleine Brown stated Johnson started yelling when she told him people said he was behind the assassination, he told her it was CIA/Texas oil. Ruby was selling drugs he was getting from Carlos Marcello, google Rose Cheramie. People were being killed long after Johnson was dead, John Roselli, Sam Giancana. Garrison seemed to lead to the CIA. I am leaning towards Nixon, LBJ, Hoover not being involved. George HW Bush and CIA and Mafia seem more probable. Of course I can be wrong that is why it is interesting to have these discussions. I also am coming to the conclusion that Sam Giancana, while he hated RFK, he was friends with JFK. Giancana never was prosecuted by RFK. Giancana and JFK shared a girlfriend Judith Exner. JFK was sending cash to Giancana. Giancana may have bumped off Marilyn Monroe for JFK and RFK.
edit on 14-1-2013 by Matt1951 because: spelling



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matt1951
Giancana may have bumped off Marilyn Monroe for JFK and RFK.


I haven't studied this aspect of things much but I have seen a couple of documentaries on YouTube and to be perfectly blunt about it, I can't think of anyone who might have an interest in seeing Marilyn Monroe dead but the Kennedys. A lot of people are very reluctant to see the obvious in this case. I like the Kennedys, particularly JFK, but I think that someone may very well have murdered Marilyn Monroe on their orders or on their behalf.

Alive, she was very useful to the enemies of the Kennedys. Dead, she was useful only to the Kennedys. Peter Lawford's role in all of this is something that might repay research. Lawford lived in a very grey area in that milieu. At the very least he could have been a go-between for the Kennedys and the mob, through Frank Sinatra.

People are very blind about that incident, I think.

Edit: Peter Lawford reminds me a lot of "the monkey on the bus" in a famous joke. The harmless, silly monkey had a ringside seat at all the bizarre happenings on the bus just prior to the accident. He saw everything and told about it, very excitedly, by means of gestures. The police inspector started to become suspicious and asked the monkey what he was doing when all this was happening. The monkey freely admitted his own part in the drama, and that activity (driving the bus while looking over his shoulder) was what actually killed everybody.
edit on 15-1-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Dorothy Kilgallen had just broken the story of JFK/RFK involvement with Marilyn Monroe a few days before Monroe's death. Monroe conveniently died just a few days later, before the scandal could heat up. The timing was very suspicious. Kilgallen herself was suicided after probing the JFK assassination/coverup. Monroe supposedly had a very nasty meeting with Giancana the night before her death at Sinatra's lodge in Nevada.
www.dailymail.co.uk...
Peter Lawford was just plain creepy .



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit

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)


This for me was the best evidence that there was a greater conspiracy afoot. I mean i realize secret service agents are human, but you would think in a place like America, these guys would be super well trained enough not to give a "what the f..." gesture and break formation like that, then return to a different position.

This of course does not answer the why it happened, but it provides us some interesting insight, because it is one of the few really concrete pieces of evidence to show that higher ups were aware of what was happening.
After having watched the entirety of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" where they explore a lot of different theories as to how and why this happened, I have personally concluded that at this point it almost does not matter, but instead what does matter is:

The government lied about something REALLY important. Using the Zapruder film, and the SS stand down as evidence of this we can show that the warren commission was a farce, and a disgrace to John F. Kennedy's name. Apparently so much so that they revisited the whole thing with the united states house select committee on assassinations.

though this is off topic I have to say it because its bothering me. What irks me is that this was all done blatantly, and yet people still choose to blindly follow and believe in their elected officials and MSM etc...
edit on 15-1-2013 by phrookface because: missing words



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 12:20 AM
link   
this is relevant to this topic but deserves it's own thread: i'm a newbie so can't create it.

Obama advisor regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein advises on how to stop conspiracy thinking...
“The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.”

www.wnd.com...

here's Cass' Conclusion:

"Our goal here has been to understand the sources of conspiracy theories and to examine potential government responses. Most people lack direct or personal information about the explanations for terrible events, and they are often tempted to attribute such events to some nefarious actor. The temptation is least likely to be resisted if others are making the same attributions. Conspiracy cascades arise through the same processes that fuel many kinds of social errors. What makes such cascades most distinctive, and relevantly different from other cascades involving beliefs that are both false and harmful, is their self-insulating quality. The very statements and facts that might dissolve conspiracy cascades can be taken as further evidence on their behalf. These points make it especially difficult for outsiders, including governments, to debunk them.
Some conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can dispel such theories, it should do so. One problem is that its efforts might be counterproductive, because efforts to rebut conspiracy theories also legitimate them. We have suggested, however, that government can minimize this effect by rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracy- minded groups and informationally isolated social networks."

Covert government propaganda is exactly what Sunstein craves. His mentality is indistinguishable from the Bush mindset that led to these abuses, and he hardly tries to claim otherwise. Indeed, he favorably cites both the covert Lincoln Park program as well as Paul Bremer’s closing of Iraqi newspapers www.thefileroom.org... which published stories the U.S. Government disliked, and justifies them as arguably necessary to combat “false conspiracy theories” in Iraq — the same goal Sunstein has for the U.S.

Sunstein’s response to these criticisms is easy to find in what he writes, and is as telling as the proposal itself. He acknowledges that some “conspiracy theories” previously dismissed as insane and fringe have turned out to be entirely true (his examples: the CIA really did secretly administer '___' in “mind control” experiments; the DOD really did plot the commission of terrorist acts inside the U.S. with the intent to blame Castro; the Nixon White House really did bug the DNC headquarters). Given that history, how could it possibly be justified for the U.S. Government to institute covert programs designed to undermine anti-government “conspiracy theories,” discredit government critics, and increase faith and trust in government pronouncements? Because, says Sunstein, such powers are warranted only when wielded by truly well-intentioned government officials who want to spread The Truth and Do Good — i.e., when used by people like Cass Sunstein and Barack Obama:

"Throughout, we assume a well-motivated government that aims to eliminate conspiracy theories, or draw their poison, if and only if social welfare is improved by doing so."

more on Cass' lengthy academic paper here:

www.wnd.com...
edit on 16-1-2013 by AlienDeathSpider because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
The Sunstein papers are like what one would expect out of the staff of Josef Goebbels.

Jim Marrs in The Rise of the Fourth Reich quotes some Bush era "spinner" to the effect that the rest of the world is still living in a "reality based" modality, while they, the Neocons have ushered in the new era of a type of fiction based modality.

It's like legitimizing delerium.

This is quite literally, delusional lunatics taking over the asylum and then making their neuroses the law.

The psychopathic side is that they are completely candid and unapologetic about it.
edit on 16-1-2013 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join