It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Lyndon Johnson admits to Cronkite he was an accomplice to the murder of jfk

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 04:49 PM

Excellent compilation of videos.
I noticed you saved the best for last.
Reading Baker's Family of Secrets removed any shred of doubt I may have had previously of Poppy's connection to the JFK assassination.

A very important book indeed. Superbly sourced, excellently written, with many secrets laid bare.

Don't miss this one y'all:

Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America

It pretty much covers what went wrong with our country.

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 04:54 PM

jimmyx some research on the Dulles brothers, john foster and allen, both rabid anti-communists, they ran foreign policy in this country for years, and were the chief instigators for going into vietnam. we today, are still paying the price for their right-wing belief that every democratically elected government in the third world had to be communist.

Yep, what a traitorous set of sociopaths those boys were. They did more damage to the U.S. than just about anyone. I hope they are held accountable to history some day.

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 05:48 PM


Call me a cynic, but I do believe I smell a carefully crafted post designed to push buttons & to lure people into endless debate defending/condemning Boomers, thereby derailing this thread. This obvious forum tactic is, to me, the mark of a JFK assassination thread that has offered up something worth consideration. S&F to the OP.
edit on Tue Nov 26 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 05:53 PM
Awesome thread, OP. Some very interesting videos, though I had previously seen them all, except for the last.

And I agree that LBJ likely had something to do with it. I've always believed this was a conspiracy from the top.

I think you got it wrong , these are not the people we elect, if anything the were all decided to become POTUS because of their involvement in the assassination. I mean take a look at the order!!

Excellent point. Funny little "coincidence" ain't it? I have long wondered if JFK was the last properly elected president we ever had. Or maybe that's not even true. Maybe they were always puppets, or at least further back than kennedy... but once he got into office, he didn't do everything he was told, and made too many waves. Who knows.

What I do believe, is that the presidential elections, and therefore the office, have been a complete sham, all for show, going at least back to JFK.

Hard to explain why the Cronkite would leave such major news on the cutting room floor, except it was a different era, or he, "the most trusted man in America", in the long run shouldn't be completely trusted.

If I recall correctly, at the end of that video it was stated that the president asked them not to air it in the name of national security. Which is really completely unsurprising. While I'm sure there are mountains of legitimate data that do actually relate to, and should be kept secret for, reasons of national security, "they" have also been using that line as a catch-all excuse for decades now, at least. It's like governmental white-out. Need something covered up real quick? Just declare "national security" and threaten everyone involved with jail.

A really big deal about this thread is its informing me about Russ Baker's investigative journalism website: Seriously disturbing stuff!!

Agreed. I was really impressed with what he had to say even in the short video in OP. I really have to check out more of his work now.

No instead he clearly looks like he would like to name a name, that he knows something he is holding back, I bet the interview never aired because he was afraid of what he said, someone would not like his hints.

Actually, I think it was introducing doubt to the Warren report at all, and even speculating that there might have been other factors than just Oswald, and what we can see, that made him want to 86 that part of the interview. The government wanted people to buy into the Warren report. And what this guy basically said, paraphrased, was:

"The men on the Warren Commission were all really competent, and did a great job.... but they're only human, and maybe we don't know everything...."

And I think it was the idea of the president himself implying "maybe we don't know everything" that was perceived as dangerous. That was the very notion they wanted to erase from the mind of the public.

Anyone who finds this interesting should go watch the insanely long documentary called "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." Especially the last few parts, which basically arrive at the conclusion that LBJ was in on it. Another I would recommend is called "JFK II: The Bush Connection." Really interesting stuff. Both can be found easily online.

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 06:27 PM
reply to post by iwilliam

I agree with that too.

Elections have been rigged pretty much since andrew jackson and lincoln where presidents. They both crossed the banks and TPTSee will not have a puppet cross them like they did.

Hell they may have poisoned a few also.Namely FDR,wilson and harrison.

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 06:28 PM
Oh, one more........

Many people who like to discount the idea that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK (and thus buy into the official story) will often point to occam's razor: The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Without getting into a debate about just how often ("usually?" "most often?" can I get that in a percentage?) occam's razor is true, let's assume for a moment that it does apply here. Let's present two brief scenarios, and see which one might require more maneuvering or speculating to obtain a ring of truth:

A- A lone man with a bit of a strange past decides to murder the president of the united states.... maybe for political reasons.... maybe for fame..... maybe some combination thereof. He succeeds in this murder. Of the president. Getting supremely lucky in multiple regards: The motorcade "coincidentally" passing a building where he works. The secret service detail messing up in numerous regards, from not securing those open windows, to pulling extra guards off the car just before the shooting, to slowing down the vehicle after the first shot rings out. Not to mention making the shot itself. All skill, luck, and astonishing coincidence. Mostly the latter two. ....right...?

He then proceeds to deny that he committed this act ( if he was out for fame, or to make a political statement, isn't this the part where he would start talking about why he did it....?)

And then rather inconveniently for history, truth, justice, etc, he is killed by some "random" guy before he can be interrogated or go to trial. Hey, look, more coincidence. .

B- An unpopular (with "the establishment") wave-making president is killed in a coup by some of the people surrounding him, who would directly benefit from his death in some way, and the event covered up.

Gee... that second point was really short, simple, and straightforward.

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 06:40 PM
reply to post by iwilliam

Everyone knows MIC,pentagon war addicts,Big Oil had the former president bumped off.

There is just too much hard evidence(ballistic audio forensics evidence triangulates back to the grassy knoll).

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 11:28 PM
S & F great OP!

Also agree findng out about Russ Baker's website from this thread is great-thanks!

The smirks on Bush/Nixon's faces as the speak about the assassination are surreal.

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 11:30 PM
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

I'm not arguing with you. This is a serious question: Who is MIC?

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 11:31 PM
reply to post by eggman90

Surreal is a polite way to put it.

I love the avatar! Egghead was my favorite villain from the old tv series!

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 11:32 PM
reply to post by iwilliam

You could add to B that they also had the means to achieve it in a much more plausible manner than A did.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 12:37 AM

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

I'm not arguing with you. This is a serious question: Who is MIC?

M = Military
I = Industrial
C = Complex

It is generally used as a derogatory euphemism to describe the hyper-imperialistic actions of the United States Government since the end of WWII.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:00 AM
reply to post by Aleister

No, but the problem was that he was trying to say Oswald or if there were others, but he left out the ambiguity and said it in a way that let's the viewer absolutely KNOW that he knows more about it and he let on.

You gotta admit.. he was stumbling through and hitting barriers of what he could and couldn't say.

I fully believe it was LBJ and a group of CIA agents. I believe there were two shooter teams. One from the depository and one from the knoll and Oswald was a part of neither, but he did think he had a reason for being in Dallas. He probably thought it would be another operation like they one they had him running in Louisiana. He thought he was figuring out how to get Castro and outing extremist pro Castro students, in reality he was setting himself up to be the perfect patsy.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:11 AM
reply to post by iwilliam

Oh you didn't do it Justice.

Occams Razor:
A marine radar man who taught himself Russian, yet is said to speak it remarkably well, who tried to defect, but then was repatriated and paid to re enter the US at the HEIGHT of the cold war. Who went to work at a coffee shop in louisiana (that is run by an anti Castro owner who runs an anti Castro group), goes out during the day to hand out pro Castro fliers (what part of that makes sense?) Moves to Dallas where he happens to get a job at a place that puts him in the direct route of the presidents motorcade just a few weeks before the president comes through. Makes near impossible shots. Claims he is a patsy (not a bragger i guess). Is killed before he can say anything more. Disregard all the people that heard and ran towards shooters at the grassy knoll. Disregard the fact people knew this was a conspiracy at the time. Disregard the HSCA that pretty much means the government accepted it was a conspiracy. Disregard the insane amount of evidence that suggests Oswald was a low level cia asset. Disregard LBJ saying Oswald or others back in the 60's on television.

Yeah Occam's Razor definitely doesn't apply here.. or actually it does if you understand how cia ops, and coups work during the cold war era.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 01:37 AM
Looking at LBJ's body language seems he was trying to impart something to the public.The movements of a guilty man perhaps? I think JFK was our last properly elected president as well but, I feel we got into the era of MIC controlled spokesmen when LBJ became president.As for Nixon he clearly was in the know how blatant can you get with that joke?

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:07 AM
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Thank you!


posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:14 AM
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

I fully believe it was LBJ and a group of CIA agents. I believe there were two shooter teams. One from the depository and one from the knoll and Oswald was a part of neither, but he did think he had a reason for being in Dallas. He probably thought it would be another operation like they one they had him running in Louisiana. He thought he was figuring out how to get Castro and outing extremist pro Castro students, in reality he was setting himself up to be the perfect patsy.

I tend to mostly agree. Oswald is being "handled" by various intelligence agencies since before his induction into the US Marines. Oswald is a very solid example of MK-Ultra-style mind control and Manchurian Candidate style brainwashing.

In fact, the script of the film "Executive Action" (1973) was co-written by famous JFK researcher Mark Lane and Dalton Trumbo, one of the many blacklisted writers in Hollywood during the Red Scare hysteria of the 1950's. "Executive Action" (1973) did not last more than 1 month in the theaters and it was not seen again publicly for a very long time.

Lane & Trumbo's script of the film is quite clear - Oswald was a Manchurian Candidate. The Same Thing happened to "Manchurian Candidate" (1962) starring Frank Sinatra... another movie that was removed from circulation for years and years.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 05:11 AM
reply to post by Horus12

They really like pie.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 05:28 AM
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

You mention that the movies were removed from circulation for years, in the case of Executive Action after only a month in theaters. Well, in those dark age years there was no VHS, no DVD, no cable television, no Netflix, get the picture - or in other words, nobody got the picture. Movies were stored in huge tins, shipped to the theaters in those tins, were shown to the public, then shipped back to the studio or distributor. Movies then only existed in those tin cans, and nowhere else. When a movie was shown on one of the three stations on television in the U.S. it was usually a movie which would attract a large audience - scheduling was made for profits, not for education.

That said, in twenty years people will wonder at this bygone age when we couldn't click a few things and get every movie and tv show ever made complete with commentary and surround-touch and ultra-taste, and you'll have to have an umbrella handy when you watch Singing In The Rain.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 07:27 AM
I would also recommend Dick Russell's "The Man Who Knew Too Much" Link for an 'on-the-ground' treatment of the days leading up too Dallas. It's the only thing to make sense to me.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in