Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Ed Tatro on Lyndon Johnson's Murder of John Kennedy and Tatro's encounter with Vincent Bugliosi

  1. #1

    Default Ed Tatro on Lyndon Johnson's Murder of John Kennedy and Tatro's encounter with Vincent Bugliosi

    ED TATRO ON LYNDON JOHNSON’S MURDER OF JOHN KENNEDY AND TATRO’S ENCOUNTER WITH VINCENT BUGLIOSI AT A BOOK SIGNING

    http://www.olneydailymail.com/articles/200...xt#blogcomments


    "Author pokes holes in official Kennedy theory
    By Kevin Ryden
    Published: Monday, May 7, 2007 3:03 PM CDT
    ...
    LBJ

    While the Mafia, CIA, Russians, Cubans and any number of groups could have killed Kennedy, Tatro said, they could not get Kennedy's car to drive only 11 mph without a bubbletop through Dealey Plaza in Dallas.

    That came from within LBJ's powerful inner circle and some of the Secret Service, according to Tatro, who did not have kind words about the 36th president of the United States.

    “He was one of the most amoral human beings who ever lived,” he said. “I think he's second only to Hitler.”
    ...
    Johnson was friends with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and had information about Kennedy's womanizing and other issues and bribed his way into being on the ticket, Tatro said.

    He said notes from Kennedy's former secretary, Eleanor Lincoln, indicated that JFK wanted to drop LBJ from the ticket.

    “So, there's your motive,” he said.

    Trip to Texas

    On April 23, 1963, Johnson went on Texas radio to announce that Kennedy would be coming to the state in the fall. Neither Kennedy or the White House ever announced that, Tatro said.

    The only reason Kennedy decided to go, according to Tatro, was to attend a ceremonial dinner for an ailing Texas congressman.

    Jack Valenti, who died last Thursday, invited Kennedy and was a close and loyal friend to Johnson. “That's how they got him (Kennedy) there,” Tatro said.

    Valenti married Johnson's secretary, with whom Johnson had an affair, Tatro claimed. Valenti's daughter ended up tall “with big ears,” he said, alleging that Valenti's daughter was, in fact, Johnson's.
    ...
    The route the motorcade took in Dealey Plaza was surrounded by buildings and trees, he emphasized, something that bothered Jerry Bruno, who scouted the area for security for Kennedy.

    Texas Gov. John Connally, another close friend to Johnson who was sitting next to Kennedy in the motorcade and was shot, pushed for the route Bruno did not like, according to Tatro. Expressing his displeasure to Bruno's advice, Connally apparently stated, “This is not how we do it in Texas,” Tatro said, later alleging that Connally's job was to “sucker Kennedy to get (him) to Texas.”

    Bruno was asked by the White House to come back to Washington, D.C., and another aide was sent to smooth over relations with Connally.

    That man, Tatro said, was Bill Moyers, who is now a famous journalist and public commentator. “One of the greatest men of all time. Hogwash,” Tatro said sarcastically.

    When Moyers was questioned by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Tatro said he was “less than clear on all the details” and could not recall if he had ever even visited Dallas.
    ...
    Those who believe Oswald was the lone gunman have the funds and technology to make their point, Tatro said, adding that people like him have limited resources.

    Jack Ruby

    After Ruby was convicted of killing Oswald, he wrote a lot of letters from prison.

    In one of those letters, Tatro said Ruby wrote, “If you hear honking of horns, it will be me. They will want my blood.”


    Tatro played an audio recording of the newscast in which Oswald was shot. In the recording, one hard honk can be heard, followed by a soft honk and then the gunshot that killed Oswald.


    Tatro believes Ruby was “trying to squeal.”

    Tatro noted a disparaging quote by Ruby about Johnson: “Compared to Lyndon Johnson, I am a saint.”

    Ruby also made many telephone calls while in prison to powerful individuals within organized crime, but the Warren Commission never investigated, Tatro said.

    In the late 1970s, the Washington Post published an editorial which stated that two shooters who did not know each other could have killed Kennedy.

    Tatro downplayed the editorial and said it showed “how stupid” the Washington Post believed people were.

    The Warren Commission
    ...
    The Canadian government also destroyed documents about Oswald, Tatro said after explaining that he tried to obtain that information in 1990.

    “If the guy did it alone and is a nut, what are you destroying this stuff for?” Tatro asked.

    Former President Gerald Ford was a member of the commission. In 1966, he wrote a book, “Portrait of the Assassin,” which explained that Oswald acted alone.

    Tatro said Ford had the book published regardless of knowing that all Warren Commission members were barred from profiting from their knowledge. The book also contained top-secret information, which Tatro said Ford did not have permission to print.

    “That's treason,” he said.

    Ford was never charged with any wrongdoing.

    Popular but canceled

    In 2003, Tatro was part of a History Channel program called “The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Guilty Men.” Part of the program discussed Johnson's alleged involvement.

    According to Tatro, it was the History Channel's highest-rated show ever and made more than $2 million in DVD sales.

    After the program concluded, Johnson's former advisors, including Valenti and Moyers, demanded the show never be played on the cable network again, Tatro said.

    The show was removed from the History Channel's programming.

    Kevin Ryden can be reached at
    kryden@olneydailymail.com


    ED TATRO ON HIS MEETING WITH VINCENT BUGLIOSI AT A BOOK SIGNING:

    On Tuesday, May 22, 2007 Vincent Bugliosi spoke about his new
    book, Reclaiming History, at the Brattle Theatre in
    Cambridge
    Massachusetts. Approximately 70 patrons were there. A young girl
    representing the Harvard Book Store introduced him in a highly
    complimentary manner and he received a positive reception from the
    crowd. I sensed immediately that I was in the minority. My best friend,
    Rick Russo, a humble, but confident individual, who possesses
    excellent knowledge and insights into the JFK case, filmed Bugliosi's
    presentation.

    Priscilla Johnson MacMillan, the journalist with CIA links,
    who interviewed Oswald in Russia and subsequently pegged him in a
    published article shortly after 11/22/63 as an obvious loser who must
    have killed JFK, sat one row in front of me, but approximately 20
    seats away. She kept turning around to look at me. I expected she
    recognized me from somewhere, but couldn't remember who I was. One row
    behind me, and two rows directly behind MacMillan sat a couple who
    clearly recognized me, but I didn't know who they were at the time.

    Bugliosi began his speech by complaining about the podium
    which possessed wheels. As a result he couldn't lean on it at all. He
    also complained about the instability of his microphone stand. He
    admitted that he complains all the time and employs sarcasm
    incessantly. He interjected an anecdote about a hotel room in which
    the bathroom light didn't work unless he managed to push a switch near
    the front door of his room.

    He made mention about the difficulty in pronouncing his name
    which clearly irritates him since he has brought the issue up at other
    speaking engagements. He cited one person who called him, "Mr. Bella
    Lugosi." The audienced found his schtick amusing.

    The rest of the night was all business, selective preference
    dripping in condescending ire. Bugliosi called Reclaiming History, "A
    book for the ages." He made it clear that "Modesty is not a vitue" in
    his self-absorbed mind. He felt it a necessity to be assertive and
    confident in overdrive in order to assure all conspiracy theorists
    that he is beyond reproach in integrity and fighting spirit, that they
    just can't beat his positions on the JFK matter. He admitted that he
    wanted to make a lot of money, but that marketability was second in
    priority to scholarship. There is no question in my mind that Bugliosi
    absolutely loves himself and intentionally projects that image, one
    that also oozes with controlled disdain while on stage.

    He said that he could have prosecuted Oswald in
    two-three-four days, but after 44 years of conspiracy books, the JFK
    assassination has become "the most complex murder case in history." It
    has become a "bottomless pit" and that admission may have been his one
    assertion that will not be challenged.

    Basically, his speech paraphrased the introduction to his
    book and the half hour filmed interview available on his web site. His
    primary contention is Oswald's sole guilt. He cited that 53 pieces of
    evidence confirm that Oswald alone committed the JFK and Tippit
    murders and he rattled off five points concerning the matter....
    Oswald owned the Carcano; he was the only TSBD employee to flee; he
    killed Tippit; he pulled a gun at the theatre where he was arrested;
    and he lied about owning a rifle. Bugiosi knows Oswald lied because
    the backyard photos show him with the rifle.

    Bugliosi boasts that "no reasonable person" can disagree
    with him. The unyielding arrogance and unmitigated self-assurance of
    his declarations were endless--- No credible evidence of conspiracy
    exists. Bugliosi admits that motive, means and opportunity abounded
    for many organizations to commit the crime, but these basics, espoused
    constantly by conspiracy theorists, are just not enough. Motives prove
    nothing. Besides, the FBI found no Oswald connections to groups like
    the Mafia or the CIA, and no one who is "credible" has ever leaked
    anything substantiating a conspiracy.

    The integrity of the FBI, is obviously unquestioned by
    Bugliosi as he made his assertions, and the definition of "credible"
    certainly is one that might be interesting to determine if a phalanx
    of reseachers were allowed open access to him in a proper forum.
    Bugliosi states as fact that Oswald was such a loser that
    no organization would have trusted him as a hired killer, and that the
    Mob or the CIA would have killed him instantly, if they had employed
    him. He cited that he has amassed 32 concrete proofs that no
    conspiracy existed and those who believe in a conspriacy are either
    silly or ignorant of the evidence. The simmering rage and belittling
    of "conspiracy buffs" was ever-present.

    Bugliosi stated that the parade route was set so late that
    no conspirators could have been ready in time. To think otherwise is
    just "silly." He explained the head snap as a neuro-muscular reaction,
    that the Zapruder frames show a 2.3 inch forward head movement before
    the eventual snap backward. And anyone who alleges that the Zapruder
    film has been altered is a fool. Before answering questions from the
    audience, he made it clear that no other weapons were found and no
    other bullets were discovered either.

    I do not claim that the above synopsis covers everything
    Bugliosi offered, but it covers most of his overview. The questions
    asked by the audience showed little or no knowledge of the inticate
    and complex aspects of the case. Most annoying were those who gushed
    over him like rock and roll groupies as well as the philosophical
    questions as to why the masses would (foolishly) buy into conspiracy
    theories. Such discussion never pressed Bugliosi to defend any of his
    premises and the Q & A was so short-lived, there was little time to
    engage him in any meaningful dialogue.

    One individual named Tony Marsh, called him a liar at
    one point and Bugliosi just carried on with his presentation. Marsh's
    outburst tended to reinforce the idea that some "conspiracy theorists"
    are obsessive and rude in their approach to the case. Audience members
    behind Marsh lashed out at him later as book buyers lined up for
    Bugliosi's autograph and Marsh angrily shouted back at them.

    At this point I walked over to Priscilla Johnson
    MacMillan and asked her if I could get a photograph of the two of us
    together. The gentleman who had sat behind her offered to take the
    picture. I thought I might be able to use it if I ever publish my own
    book about the complicity of LBJ, his handlers and his cronies in the
    Dealey Plaza caper.

    She asked me who I was, and I told her that I had
    testified before President Clinton's Assassination Records Review
    Board (ARRB) in Boston in 1995 right after her testimony. I told her I
    was a member of those who spoke in Nigel Turner's "The Guilty Men,"
    that I had corresponded with Oswald's mother, was friendly with Marina
    Oswald and Judyth Baker. I concluded by saying that I disagreed with
    everything Bugiosi had just said.

    The man who took the photo was named Paul and he told me
    that he had taken my course years ago at Quincy College. His derisive
    tone was such that it was evident to me that he was rejecting
    EVERYTHING I had ever said in twenty-five hours of class (3,000
    slides). I was momentarily stunned and a little hurt. I told him that
    my class was twenty years ago and I added, "Imagine what I know now."

    He replied, "Unless you can link that little weasel, Oswald, to LBJ,
    you don't have a case." His constant smile was hard and unfriendly.

    I tried briefly to cite a few issues, (nine witnesses
    who observed a bullet hole in the windshield), but he had no intention
    of listening. I was just not "there" in his closed mind. As I walked
    away, knowing the futility of pursuing any meaningful interaction, I
    was thinking to myself that I knew Oswald's best friend, George de
    Mohrenschildt, is described in recently declassified military
    documents as a "business associate" of Lyndon Baines Johnson, but
    those Brattle Theatre folks wouldn't have read them if I had those
    documents right in my hands.

    I decided to have Bugliosi sign my book and get a
    photo of him too. When I reached the signing table, I told him, "I've
    known Gary Mack for thrty-five years."

    His eyes lit up and a broad smile beamed. He said,
    "I'll be seeing Gary Thursday."

    Then I told him that I had edited Madeleine Brown's
    memoirs and was a primary recruiter for those who participated in "The
    Guilty Men". The smile faded.

    I told him that I had read some of the book and I
    said, "We will have to agree to disagree." I added that I knew a lot
    of information that he didn't. He advised me to read the rest of the
    book to make sure of that. I told him I would do so. He smiled again.

    He wanted to know my name, and when I said, "Ed Tatro," he admitted
    knowing it in some vague manner from his research.

    I concluded (sarcastically), "I'm one of the kooks."

    In a rather gracious moment, he said, "But you're
    searching for the truth."

    I replied, "Yes." I refrained from saying that I knew
    a lot of it, but I didn't want to act like him, and it was clear
    throughout the night that the book buyers behind me were barely
    tolerating folks like me.

    The line of people behind me was lengthy and I saw no
    real purpose in confronting him on any issues of substance. The time,
    place, and circumstances were just not conducive to anything
    productive.

    While in line, I had briefly offered advice to Tony
    Marsh that this was no place for him to get into a shouting match,
    that he was not appreciated here by this gathering, and it might be
    best to keep his cool.

    I managed to meet Priscilla again and she said, "Paul
    told me you used to teach a course on the assassination. When is your
    book coming out?" I wasn't sure I had mentioned my book previously,
    but it was clear to me that she and Paul were friends. The question
    was---Did they become friends later in life or were they friends when
    he took my course? I don't know that answer. I do know an FBI
    informant named Hollis Mosher, (identified as such in his obituary),
    took my course four or five times so it shouldn't surprise me if a
    friend of a CIA asset had done so also. Am I being wisely cautious or
    am I paranoid? We know that Bugliosi would call the latter notion,
    "just silly."

    I told her that she must be thrilled with this book,
    and she said she had not read it yet, but she admitted that she was
    glad that Bugliosi had confronted the conspiracy theories. I spoke
    candidly by telling her that many researchers had brought forth some
    outrageous concepts, but for Bugliosi to lump all assassination
    critics into one lump was unfair. Having earned three college degrees,
    I certainly do not consider myself insane, irrational or unreasonable.
    She seemed to accept that criticism, but stoically so with an
    accepting shrug.

    Bugliosi headed in Priscilla's direction and thanked
    her profusely for her input. He told her that he could not have
    written the book without her help.

    The gathering was breaking up and Bugliosi's rather
    sizable entourage of disciples followed him out to a waiting auto.
    Rick Russo and Bugliosi began a rather intense debate over the nature
    of JFK's head wounds. Rick cited many witnesses who had observed a
    frontal shot, but Bugliosi rejected anything he pointed out. It's
    difficult to share any meaningful postions on a street corner, one
    inundated by youngsters unwilling to hear any viewpoint contrary to
    Vince Bugliosi's.

    One 20-something said, "No one said any shots came
    from the grassy knoll that day" to another Bugliosi supporter. I
    snapped, "What are you talking about? Sixty-four witnesses said shots
    came from the grassy knoll."

    He said, "Not that day!"

    Of course, as this clown was defending his comment, I
    could still picture the video of Bill Newman telling a Dallas
    television crew (THAT DAY) that the shot had been fired from the
    grassy knoll.

    It was time to leave. I talked to one 28 year old who
    admitted knowing virtually nothing, and I advised him to read as many
    books as he could.

    Twenty years ago I had watched Bugiosi debate
    Mark
    Lane in Boston. After the debate ended, I engaged Bugliosi in
    conversation. A lingering crowd of twenty or so observers gathered
    around us. I told him that there were lots of problems with the
    evidence and I gave him one example. Since I was constantly teaching a
    course at the time, the names were fresh in my mind. I discussed the
    chain of transfer for the "magic bullet," CE 399. The bullet was found
    by hospital employee, Darrell Tomlinson who gave it to O. P. Wright, a
    hospital security guard. Wright gave it to a Secret Service man named
    Richard Johnsen, who brought it back aboard Air Force One. Johnsen
    turned it over to James Rowley, the chief of the Secret Service and he
    gave it to FBI agent Elmer Todd who gave it to Robert Frazier of the
    FBI who conducted the ballistic tests upon the bullet.

    Unlike Todd and Frazier, Johnson and Rowley admitted
    that they never marked their initials into the bullet, a grave error
    in judgment if Oswald had ever been properly brought to trial. Any
    clever defense attorney would have introduced the possibilty of a
    bullet switch to frame his client, particularly in a political murder
    such as this.

    Bugliosi dismissed the issue immediately by claiming
    that errors like that occur all the time. I countered that they
    shouldn't happen, especially in a case concerning the murder of the
    president of the United States. It is evident to me that Bugliosi's
    cavalier approach and powers of denial concerning the BIG DALLAS LIE
    have existed for decades. Thus, I wasn't really surprised when his
    advanced placement version of Posner's Case Closed hit the book
    stores.

    Now we know, thanks to the excellent research by
    Josiah Thompson and Gary Aguilar, (See the History Matters web site),
    that FBI agent Bardwell Odum's name was cited on FBI documents in
    which hospital employees, Tomlinson and Wright stated with confidence
    that the bullet they had handled had not resembled CE 399. Odum insisted to
    Thompson and Aguilar that he never handled the bullet, never showed it
    to the two witnesses and never wrote the FBI documents in evidence.

    Furthermore John Hunt's meticulous research (see his
    essays, particularly, "Frazier Speaks,") confirms that CE 399 does not
    contain the carved initials of FBI agent Elmer Todd. Thus, CE 399 is
    NOT the same bullet which Todd handed to FBI agent Robert Frazier. I
    doubt Bugliosi even knows about Hunt's explosive essays about the
    bullet/ballistic anomalies in this case.

    Twenty years ago, I tried one last time with the
    Manson prosecutor. I told him Emory Brown and I had discovered a
    sidewalk mark consistent with a bullet scar (and a suspicious history
    as well in its background), which coincided with photo blow-ups in my
    possession of a human-like figure holding a rifle-like object on the
    grassy knoll south, the unfamous knoll.

    Bugliosi said he wanted me to send him copies and
    wrote his name and address on a piece of paper. But the next night the
    Boston newspapers quoted Bugliosi as saying, "Kennedy assassination
    buffs are like wolves baying at the moon."

    I never contacted him. I'm glad I didn't...

    Suffice it to say, on May 22, 2007, Rick and I left
    Cambridge with a general sense of cynicism, but with a quiet
    understanding, that even if we can't win this mighty quest, that we
    have much work to do in an effort to fight the good fight for the
    principles of justice and democracy. We must never capitulate despite
    the odds against our success. We must not allow Bugliosi's mastery of
    fallacious arguments to stand unchallenged. He is a worthy adversary,
    but his lone nut theory is more than "silly." It is a classic
    representation of Orwellian propaganda and needs to be addressed
    despite our limited resources and minmal access to the national media.

    SINCERELY,
    EDGAR F.TATRO

  2. Default Vampires Suck: Tatro pins the tail on Bella Lugosi

    The article's author conflates Valenti with Thomas, the infamous “Winker,” whose memorial dinner November 21 was the fatal attraction.


    Tatro is too limiting in crediting Johnson for the whole enchilada, but is to be commended for confronting the insufferable ego of the lying Bugliosi.


    I recommend the nine-part review of the Bugliosi brick by Jim DiEugenio as thorough and devastating:


    http://www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_review.html


    Doug Horne's Inside the ARRB Volumes I-V include much which is destructive of Bugliosi's b.s. Including the Boswell skull drawing of the wound which incorporates (finally) the occipital blowout seen by forty at Parkland and Bethesda, as an adjunct to the Mammoth Suspicious Defect or Humes' Fifteen Minutes of Fame With a Fireax.


    Tatro is to be commended for confronting the Bugliosi bluff.


    And had he but poured some water on Priscilla she might have shriveled before his eyes, hissing, “I'm me-elting!”

  3. #3

    Default

    Ed Tatro is a warrior for the truth, and my respect for him is beyond measure.

    Lyndon Baines Johnson was a mid-level Facilitator in the Kennedy conspiracy.

  4. #4

    Default What other JFK Forums are you on, Phil?

    Phil, I learn more from you and Jim DiEugenio than anyone else on the JFK forums. What other forums are you on? Education Forum, JFK Lancer, JFK murdersolved, JFK history ... any more?

    Yes, it was Albert Thomas with the wink on the plane; he probably was responding to a WINK by Lyndon Johnson himself; I don't think Thomas would be the wink instigator. Btw, the negative of the film for that wink is now GONE ... yet the picture survives.

    William Manchester was forced by the Kennedys to remove perhaps 100-200 pages from his book Death of a President. Much of that would be relating to Lyndon Johnson's atrocious behavior on the day of the assassination, especially on the plane.

    Lyndon Johnson was not just an elite sponsor as well as the Mastermind of the JFK assassination; he was friends with all the insider big dogs behind it... HL Hunt, Clint Murchision, Sr. ... likely plotter Allen Dulles who had been to his ranch in 1960, Nelson Rockefeller (the elite of the insider CIA/CFR Eastern Establishment elite) who LBJ enthusiastically supported for president in 1968 (to continue the cover up!). I don't think that James F. McCloy was involved in the JFK murder, but that elite Rockefeller/CIA/CFR tool was - along with #1 Allen Dulles and CIA/FBI Ford - the top cover up artist on the Dulles Commission, ... I mean the "Warren Commission." Lyndon Johnson was the one who gave the CIA/mafia/anti-Castro Cubans the green light to slaughter JFK. They knew he and Hoover would cover for them after the crime.

    Lyndon Johnson was also MICROMANAGING the JFK assassination, especially the details of the motorcade and making sure the bubble top was off (Bill Moyers) and that the lunch was at the Trade Mart (John Connally)... LBJ even tried to get at the last minute Connally moved to his Lincoln convertible and Ralph Yarborough put in the kill zone.

    But the nugget that really clinches it for me re: LBJ's MICROMANAGING the JFK assassination, was that just before the trip Lyndon Johnson was pleading/asking/demanding that JACKIE KENNEDY RIDE IN HIS CAR, not with JFK!! I think Senator George Smathers told that story on a You Tube video (now removed) titled "Johnson Wants Jackie to Ride With Him."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVdangf91BQ [video now removed for copyright reasons, but still click on it. I watched the brief clip about 15-20 times.]

    Now that is stunning. LBJ was a "gentleman." He did not want Jackie's brains to get blown out, too. I believe that is enough information, forget everything else, to make a citizen's arrest on LBJ. Book 'em, Dano!

  5. #5

    Default

    Saying that LBJ micromanaged the JFK hit is like saying a stage hand wrote Macbeth.

    Calling Rockefeller LBJ's tool is like calling Shakespeare a quill's tool.

    Simplistic appreciations breed simple-minded conclusions.
    Last edited by Charles Drago; 08-29-2010 at 08:41 PM.

  6. Default Lyndon: strutting, fretting, resigning, dying.

    Lyndon Johnson strutted and fretted his hour upon the stage—then the vaudevillian hook whisked him away.


    He served his purpose. His ambition and animus were used in the vortex of the coup; come the ides of March 1968 and he brushed aside the cup.


    Walter Cronkite pronounced the Tet Offensive a victory for Team North; Lyndon whined, “Well, we have lost Walter Cronkite; we have lost the war.”


    Cronkite, too, was useful.


    Lyndon went off to his ranch to die of a heart attack, between Edgar's heart attack, and Richard's “effective noon tomorrow,” leaving Gerry Base-of-the-back-of-the-neck to blunder along, until James, and James' Stansfield's Halloween 1977 Trick-or-treat could earn his master's ouster at the hand of Ronald, who very nearly bought the farm thanks to George's Hinkley-in-the-Rye.


    Nice, nice, very nice.
    So many people in the same device.


    But it was not written by Lyndon. He was cast within it.


    He strutted. He fretted. Clutching his chest, he went down like a pole-axed ox.


    We shall remember him fondly, as an ox. Or, in the alternative, an ass.


    Putting the ass in assassination.


    But the show went on before him, beside him, and after him. The show always goes on.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Dragoo View Post
    Lyndon Johnson strutted and fretted his hour upon the stage—then the vaudevillian hook whisked him away.


    He served his purpose. His ambition and animus were used in the vortex of the coup; come the ides of March 1968 and he brushed aside the cup.


    Walter Cronkite pronounced the Tet Offensive a victory for Team North; Lyndon whined, “Well, we have lost Walter Cronkite; we have lost the war.”


    Cronkite, too, was useful.


    Lyndon went off to his ranch to die of a heart attack, between Edgar's heart attack, and Richard's “effective noon tomorrow,” leaving Gerry Base-of-the-back-of-the-neck to blunder along, until James, and James' Stansfield's Halloween 1977 Trick-or-treat could earn his master's ouster at the hand of Ronald, who very nearly bought the farm thanks to George's Hinkley-in-the-Rye.


    Nice, nice, very nice.
    So many people in the same device.


    But it was not written by Lyndon. He was cast within it.


    He strutted. He fretted. Clutching his chest, he went down like a pole-axed ox.


    We shall remember him fondly, as an ox. Or, in the alternative, an ass.


    Putting the ass in assassination.


    But the show went on before him, beside him, and after him. The show always goes on.
    Perceptive.

  8. #8

    Default

    Whether I agree with him or not, and I usually do, Phil Dragoo writes probably the best analysis of the JFK assassination on the internet.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Drago View Post
    Ed Tatro is a warrior for the truth, and my respect for him is beyond measure.

    Lyndon Baines Johnson was a mid-level Facilitator in the Kennedy conspiracy.
    Precisely my view.

  10. #10
    Mark Stapleton Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawn Meredith View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Drago View Post
    Ed Tatro is a warrior for the truth, and my respect for him is beyond measure.

    Lyndon Baines Johnson was a mid-level Facilitator in the Kennedy conspiracy.
    Precisely my view.
    Mine too.

    LBJ certainly knew about it in advance as, by definition, any facilitator would, and he was praying it would be successful for a multitude of selfish reasons.

    However, the idea that Lyndon Johnson masterminded this operation strains credulity when one considers the sloppiness of the Henry Marshall and John Kinser murders--both infinitely more simple killings than the complex Dealey Plaza operation.

    And how did LBJ persuade Jack Ruby to sacrifice his life for the cause? He couldn't even cajole the Parkland doctors into manufacturing a deathbed confession from LHO and judging by the comments he made after his arrest, I don't think Ruby even liked LBJ.

    Other parties persuaded Ruby, and other parties organised JFK's murder, and they knew future historians would most likely blame LBJ. LBJ probably knew that he would eventually be implicated but he didn't really care. He was desperate to avoid jail and desperate to be Chief Executive. So long as the mainstream media was his staunch ally, he knew he was safe for the rest of his life. There was no internet in 1963.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •