The LBJ-Did-It Operation Continues to Unfold

[Seamus Coogan]

And, considering the wealth and power under the control of the Kennedy family, along with the political power, a very powerful force had to be at play. LBJ, after witnessing the murder of JFK, was aware of that force.

I agree fully.:rocker:

[Lauren Johnson]

:banghead:

Simon keep on the look out for upcoming CTKA articles on this very topic. As far as I can see there are no valid arguments for LBJ's involvement.

Does you exclude the possibility that LBJ knew in advance and that he was on board with a his central role in the coverup? FWIW I personally heard Jim Douglass say that he thought LBJ knew about the assassination.

Fletcher Prouty actually said that 'looking back' every body knew something would happen. That Johnson had an inkling that 'something' was gonna happen at some point is a possibility I don't rule out but he would have been a moron Lauren to allow it too happen in Texas where finger of suspicion would swing back on him. I mean thats just one of the many problems there is with this LBJ palava!

Furthermore be really, really careful of misappropriating Jim Douglas. He doesn't give scant mention too Johnson in his book. Yet a certain well known poster on this forum has grossly misrepresented his works before. It would be interesting to know in what context Douglas said the above statement. Johnson certainly knew of the conspiracy afterwards and he certainly aided in covering it up. If he did say Johnson knew it was likely in the scenario I mentioned above.

Thats my opinion though. I can't speak for JD and I can't speak for yourself as you were there! Excellent you met him though!

Here's Johnson and Hoover discussing the evidence eight minutes and 25 seconds into the conversation LBJ asks Hoover if 'they' shot at him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZWERQevz...re=related

Confirming Prouty's story he told in the original TMWKK.

I recollect that his comment was pretty much without context. It was more of an aside. I was at his talk at Elliot Bay Book Co., but I haven't had time to review it. I thought it was in the Q&A. If it isn't there, chalk it up to mind control or something.

edit: I looked at the video. His comment was edited out. Somebody had asked about Madeline Duncan Brown. That was not included. But once again, his comment was only in passing. My recollection: "I would guess that he at least knew about the plot."

[Simon McConnell]

Thanks so much for all your help.

I think I'll buy the Douglass book and check out some of the old threads here as a starting point.

Thanks again!

[Seamus Coogan]

Thanks so much for all your help.

I think I'll buy the Douglass book and check out some of the old threads here as a starting point.

Thanks again!

Jim Douglas is a great start and if you check the threads be wary of Jim Fetzer when he says Douglas's book backs up the work in below bar efforts like Phil Nelsons book. I also encourage you keep an eye out on CTKA and the articles there and check out a link in which Craig Zirbels new LBJ did it nightmare was discussed. There were some sparks there!

[James Lewis]

Actually, when you look at the totality of things, there is one person who could be said to have connections to the sponsors AND the facilitators of the cover-up, i.e. the Warren Commission. There is only one person who had provable connections to the most crucial people on the Commission (Allen Dulles, Gerald Ford, John J. McCloy, David Belin, and Albert Jenner). There is only one person who had something to personally gain from the assassination, besides LBJ. If LBJ did indeed orchestrate the assassination, why would he put himself very near the middle of the shooting, where a single stray shot could have ended his presidency before it even started? That doesn't show good planning, to say the least. Back to my original point, there is only ONE person who: A - knew about the plans to invade Cuba before Kennedy was even elected...B - intimately knew the people involved in the planning of that invasion...C - actually hired some of these same people to work for him when he later became President. And that person is one Richard M. Nixon, and for me, the Rosetta Stone of both the Nixon presidency and the Kennedy assassination is Watergate. Remember, no less that Gordon Liddy has publicly stated that the "official" version of Watergate is "as wrong as a pamphlet for the Flat Earth Society" - and he was in a position to know. Watergate was a power struggle between the Nixon White House and the CIA, and the CIA won, for reasons not the least of which was knowledge of the Kennedy assassination. H.R. Haldeman said in "The Ends Of Power" that when the term "Bay Of Pigs" was used on the Watergate tapes, it was actually referring to the assassination. And...he (Nixon) used that information to attempt to blackmail the CIA to cooperate in the Watergate cover-up.

This begs two questions: How did Nixon know to use this particular information to attempt to blackmail the CIA, in general; and how did he know to use this information to blackmail Richard Helms in particular, unless he either knew about the conspiracy or actively participated in it?? That's a few too many coincidences for my tastes...and I don't believe in coincidence. Also, is it a coincidence that Nixon tried to hire both David Belin and Albert Jenner to attempt to "defend" Nixon during Watergate? Why not hire registered experts in cover-ups to defend another cover-up? Believe me, I understand the "shadow government", the CIA, and the various and sundry people behind the power in this country. But in my opinion, to pull off something as large as the assassination, you need a point man...someone who both represents the interests of the shadow government, and has both the ambition and venal pride and cockiness to want to be the head of that enterprise. And the only person who fits all of that criteria...is Richard M. Nixon.

LBJ did not control LHO, and did not know who controlled LHO.

The sponsors of the public execution of JFK did.

Good point. If LBJ did....in part [learn who did]...it was way, way after the events. And never did he control him; likely had never heard of him until the day of the murder...only knew [perhaps] a selected patsy was at hand [as standard operational procedure in false flag and deep political/ black op/ black bag ops]....of which he WAS familiar. Those in charge kept LBJ in the dark, as well; and under threat of being falsely exposed as the one responsible. He was NOT fully innocent, IMHO, but also far from fully responsible....very, VERY far from it..... He, like Nixon and many others, were 'later patsies' when their usefulness had run its course for those really in power and really behind Dallas and other such events......

[Magda Hassan]

I don't see that Nixon had access to the confidences of any sponsors. And he and his careeer do not strike me as particularly worthy of any confidences either. Nixon was a man who knew where the action was and who the important players were and he sought their patronage. He was and remained an outsider. Sure, he benefitted personally and he may have had a lot of useful information. But again, he didn't place LHO in the book depository or get him in and out of the USSR. Ultimately he was dispensable. As was LBJ. Just another pawn on the chessboard.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Magda - agreed.

Nixon did as he was told.

[James Lewis]

Well, let me quote from Richard E. Sprague's book, The Taking Of America 1-2-3, and you'll see where I'm coming from.
1. Nixon was White House action officer on Cuban invasion plans in 1960.
2. Nixon was in contact with Hunt and others during the Bay of Pigs planning.
3. Nixon lied to the American people by his own admission about the Bay of Pigs during his TV debates with Kennedy in 1960.
4. Nixon was financially linked to the Mafia and to Cuban casino operations before Castro took over.
5. Nixon was acquainted with Hunt, Baker, Martinez, Sturgis, Carlos Prio Socarras, and other Watergate people and anti-Castro people in Florida, and he was financially linked to Baker, Martinez and Socarras.
6. Hunt, Baker, Sturgis and Socarras were connected with the assassination group in the murder of JFK.
7. Nixon was in Dallas for three days, including the morning of the JFK assassination. He was trying to stir up trouble for Kennedy.
8. Nixon went to Dallas under false pretenses. There was no board meeting of the Pepsi Cola Company as he announced his law firm had had to attend.
9. Nixon did not admit being in Dallas on the day Kennedy was shot and did not reveal the true reason for his trip. He held two press conferences on the two days before the assassination, attacking both Kennedy and Johnson and emphasizing the Democratic political problems in Texas.
10. Research indicates that Nixon either knew in advance about assassination plans, or learned about them soon after the assassination.
11. Nixon proposed to Lyndon Johnson that Gerald Ford serve on the Warren Commission.

That's just a summary of Nixon's connections to the assassination before the fact. When you add in the Watergate tapes, the "Bay Of Pigs", and Ford's pardon of Nixon, what you have is a picture of a man who: Knew many of the people connected to both the Kennedy assassination and Watergate (the parallels between the incidents is chilling), lied about being in Dallas on November 22, 1963, and knew many of the people on the Warren Commission, and tried to hire many of the same people to defend him during Watergate. Maybe I'm wrong, but that and what I talked about in my first post on the subject are just too many coincidences for me. And yes, he may have been a puppet in the end, but I think the evidence clearly shows that Nixon pulled more than a few strings himself.

I don't see that Nixon had access to the confidences of any sponsors. And he and his careeer do not strike me as particularly worthy of any confidences either. Nixon was a man who knew where the action was and who the important players were and he sought their patronage. He was and remained an outsider. Sure, he benefitted personally and he may have had a lot of useful information. But again, he didn't place LHO in the book depository or get him in and out of the USSR. Ultimately he was dispensable. As was LBJ. Just another pawn on the chessboard.

[Charles Drago]

Indeed, you are wrong.

NONE of the factoids you would cite, singularly or collectively, lead to a logical conclusion that Nixon was an assassination Sponsor -- or, as you would have it, a "string-puller."

[Magda Hassan]

Sure. He may have been connected in some way. Perhaps in many ways. But strictly a bit player. Even if he knew some of the other players lines and characters some one else was directing the events.