Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

kennedy assassination

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by HollyDolly View Post
    My dad worked at Security Service at KellyAFB,in military intelligence.He was at IBM at computer school when it happend.I recall him saying that one gentleman said Johnson did it.
    I guess that was the belief of many locals at the time, that LBJ had some hand in it.Why I have no idea,but they felt he was behind it.
    Hi HollyDolly,

    It is not unusual in American Presidential assassinations to look at the successors as potential key figures in the predecessor's assassination.
    Andrew Johnson was "implicated" by John Wilkes Booth purposely on April 14, 1865, when Booth (guessing that the weak and drunken George Atzerodt would not carry through the killing of Johnson) left his calling card with a message about a meeting in Johnson's hotel mail box. Later, during his impeachment trial, one of the Congressman on the prosecution team tried to make this the basis of a claim hat Booth worked with Johnson, but the evidence did not exist.

    Chester Arthur had a similar hard time to overcome, because that nut Charles Guiteau identified himself with the Stalwart wing of the Republican Party of 1880-81 that was led by Senator Roscoe Conkling of New York, and that Arthur was a member of (in fact, when arrested, Guiteau shouted, "I am a Stalwart of the Stalwarts, and Arthur is now President!"). Arthur's sterling performance as a reform minded President freed him of any suspicions that he had a hand in the death of Garfield.

    Theodore Roosevelt was not immediately suspected of being involved with Czolgosz's killing of McKinley. The worst comment was that of Senator MarK Hanna of Ohio who said, "Now that damned cowboy is President!" But Hanna was McKinley's friend and booster, and he was upset (later he and Roosevelt worked better together than he thought). Oddly enough, Alice Roosevelt (the President's oldest daughter) later admitted that she had wished McKinley would die so that her Dad could get a chance.

    But subsequently one person did suspect T.R. John Schrank, a bartender from New York City, would tell of dreams he had where President McKinley would rise from his coffin and accuse a Monk (with Roosevelt's face) of being his murderer. These dreams egged on Schrank to kill Roosevelt as a usurper and would - be dictator. In 1912 T.R. ran for President against the incumbent Republican Taft and the Democrat Wilson (and the Socialist Debs) as the Progressive "Bull Moose" Candidate. Although T.R. had been only elected President once, he had two administrations (1901-1905; 1905 - 1909), and was now seeking a third term. Schrank felt this was a threat to our democracy, and he shot Roosevelt in October 1912 in Milwaukee. The bullet was deflected by a speech and eyeglass case, and T.R. was able to give a brief speech before he was rushed to the hospital. He survived, and Schrank was sent to an insane asylum where he died in 1943 (he was saddened when FDR won a third term in 1940). The two term amendment (which I keep referring to as the "Schrank" amendment) came out in 1951.

    So Lyndon Johnson was not the first Vice President who succeeded accused of involvement. However sometimes a bad reputaion hurts one. Chester Arthur had been Roscoe Conkling's right hand man in his political machine, and therefore he was fully involved in the corruption of that group. It did not take much of a stretch to link Arthur with Guiteau after the latter's insistance of being a Stalwart. With Johnson, his reputation for corruption went back to that Senatorial Victory he had in the late 1940s over a popular opponent by questionable tallies of votes in a close election. Furthermore, there were some rumors (since insisted upon by Billy Sol Estes) of Johnson's involvement with Estes' swindles and the mysterious killing of a government employee who was investigating the swindles. So yeah, I can see Johnson's enemies believing his involvement in killing Kennedy in his own state of Texas.

    By the way, before I leave this area, as far back as 1835 suspicions regarding political backers of assassins were always pushed by the targets.
    When a nut named Richard Lawrence tried to shoot Andrew Jackson in 1835,
    Jackson found out that Lawrence (a house painter) had done work for Senator George Poindexter of Mississippi. Poindexter had once been a Jackson supporter, but had become disenchanted and was in opposition now.
    He denied that he plotted the assassination with Lawrence, but the smear stuck and his political career collapsed. Similarly, former Vice President (now Senator) John C. Calhoun was also targetted, but got up on the Senate floor and declared he never knew Lawrence and had nothing to do with the attack.
    Calhoun's carreer, unlike Poindexter's did not suffer in the long run.

    Best wishes,

    Jeff

    Comment


    • Oswald was a patsy

      Dear hollydolly(and others), If you want to know personally why LBJ did it,read the recent(last few years) book called Blood, Money and Power by Barr Mclellan. He was an attorney who worked for Ed Clark who was Johnson's attorney/fixer. They had tried to influence a federal investigator called Henry Marshall but he was killed and Bobby Kennedy was on the trail
      The only way out was for Johnson to become President. They controlled Dallas/Texas along with Big Oil. They could do anything there. Remember how Jack Ruby said in his televised interview that he would talk if Earl Warren would take him to Washington. He also said the conspiracy was all the way to the top. He was telling the truth. Read also "Oswald Talked", a book that shows that Jack Ruby and Oswald were involved in gun running and that the FBI was surveilling them. Jim Garrison's book shows how the cover-up was done from the Intelligence agencies and the bit that hurts was that Johnson sent Ed Clark to Australia as Ambassador to get him out of the way. Also in Garrisons book is the info that another bullet was pulled out of JFK in the autopsy and concealed for years. Dulles ran the Warren commission, and the House Investigation into assassinations (1976) was kept away from the evidence - Garrison explains how. The evidence is overwhelming.

      Comment


      • Hello all

        I've been hanging around here for a few weeks, and find the whole board fascinating, and rather daunting; you all seem to know so much about JtR and the other topics on here, and I've nothing but a mild interest and scant knowledge.

        For some reason this JFK assassination topic has really got me hooked. I couldn't tell you where I was or what I was doing when I heard (if I even did) about JFK's assassination, and can't say I've thought much about it since (I was 8 then) but have spent most of me precious weekend reading up about it after coming across this thread.

        I'm not a great believer in CTs, but there are two indisputable facts about the Kennedy assassination that make me think this one could, possibly, be a goer:

        1) Jack Ruby shot L H Oswald
        2) The FBI took JFK's body away from the Dallas Police

        In amongst the welter of information/misinformation out there, these two things really stood out to me as completely inexplicable if there was no conspiracy.

        The other thing I noticed, after reading Gov. Connally's evidence to the Warren Commision here: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jf...Vol4_0070a.htm
        and watching the Zapruder Film here: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/index1.htm far too many times

        is that Connally appears, in that footage, to be hit a split second after JFK's hit by the fatal headshot, not by the so-called 'magic bullet'. Connally's still up and looking about after JFK clutches his throat (the moment that Connally, and others, have attributed to the non-fatal shot that passes through both of them); but immediately after Kennedy's head explodes a second later, Connally crumples forward.

        I know this would stuff up the grassy knoll (or anywhere in front) theory, and doesn't help me at all as a born-again conspiracist , but if anyone can bear to look at that footage again, I'd love to hear your opinions on this.
        Chief Superintendent Brownlow: "Are there any Tension Indicators? Over!"

        DI Galloway: "Tension indicators?! They're throwing bloody petrol bombs. Sir."

        Comment


        • Phryne Fisher

          The FBI taking JFK's body away is explicable. JFK was President of the United States. This was a huge case for many government agencies. Not for the first time did the FBI get its way in a turf war against competing organizations.

          We also have to bear in mind the Kennedy family's role in this. Jacqueline and Bobby quite possibly wanted JFK's body taken to DC with them. There are indications at least the RFK did try to hurry up the autopsy on his brother. He wished Kennedy's former health problems kept quiet.

          Comment


          • Cheers, Jason. I didn't know that. (like I said, I'm a beginner!)

            What do you think to that footage then?
            Chief Superintendent Brownlow: "Are there any Tension Indicators? Over!"

            DI Galloway: "Tension indicators?! They're throwing bloody petrol bombs. Sir."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ron Beckett View Post
              Dear hollydolly(and others), If you want to know personally why LBJ did it,read the recent(last few years) book called Blood, Money and Power by Barr Mclellan. He was an attorney who worked for Ed Clark who was Johnson's attorney/fixer. They had tried to influence a federal investigator called Henry Marshall but he was killed and Bobby Kennedy was on the trail
              The only way out was for Johnson to become President. They controlled Dallas/Texas along with Big Oil. They could do anything there. Remember how Jack Ruby said in his televised interview that he would talk if Earl Warren would take him to Washington. He also said the conspiracy was all the way to the top. He was telling the truth. Read also "Oswald Talked", a book that shows that Jack Ruby and Oswald were involved in gun running and that the FBI was surveilling them. Jim Garrison's book shows how the cover-up was done from the Intelligence agencies and the bit that hurts was that Johnson sent Ed Clark to Australia as Ambassador to get him out of the way. Also in Garrisons book is the info that another bullet was pulled out of JFK in the autopsy and concealed for years. Dulles ran the Warren commission, and the House Investigation into assassinations (1976) was kept away from the evidence - Garrison explains how. The evidence is overwhelming.
              Ron Beckett,
              The vast majority of these conspiracy books are replete with innacuracies,distortions and yes lies.Anonymous conversations are the main statements of proof in these publications.Its easy to be beguiled and led astray by such works and of course by the many random internet sites that put forward these nonsensical theories.There is NO evidence that oswald and ruby even knew each other..much less ran a gun running operation .Garrisons works are as much fiction as fact...probabley more so.The arguments against oswald being a patsy are many,the evidence pointing to him being a patsy doesnt exist.
              regards

              Comment


              • I personally don't believe in a conspiracy, but I can understand the reasons many do. I think if one really researches Oswald and his life, it is fairly easy to follow his digression as a human being to the point where he could do this alone.
                Remember that this was a man who felt betrayed by the U.S., betrayed by Russia, and saw some salvation in Castro and his brand of communism. It's not difficult to follow his skewed logic.

                This doesn't mean that he acted alone, though I believe he did as his ego seemed to be such that he couldn't have had a partner or boss in such an enterprise. I understand the various arguments for and against the lone assassin, especially the mechanical reasoning re: the bullets, the rifle(s), the sounds, etc..., yet the psyche alone of Oswald indicates a man that would have acted alone, and one who would have been unwilling to share the glory had he gotten away to Cuba.

                Cheers,

                Mike
                huh?

                Comment


                • OSwald actually was refused a visa and obviously entry into cuba shortly before the assassination,weeks or months I cant recall offhand.And the cuban officials who spoke to oswald formed the opinion he was a highly emotional and disturbing individual.Oswald apparently was extremely agitated during his interview and at one stage burst into tears.Maybe in some odd way ,this was the catalyst for his actions....to prove to the cuban authorities he was a follower of castro, and worthy of a visa? who knows?

                  Comment


                  • That Zapruder Film...

                    ...I was wondering if anyone had ever had a closer look at it with the benefit of modern technology; thinking maybe it would reveal more if some clever computery type could slow it down, sharpen it up and generally enhance it. Might even spot a bullet coming from one direction or the other...

                    Of course, I've been well beaten to it

                    http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


                    More reading to do, damn it
                    Chief Superintendent Brownlow: "Are there any Tension Indicators? Over!"

                    DI Galloway: "Tension indicators?! They're throwing bloody petrol bombs. Sir."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Phryne Fisher View Post
                      ...I was wondering if anyone had ever had a closer look at it with the benefit of modern technology; thinking maybe it would reveal more if some clever computery type could slow it down, sharpen it up and generally enhance it. Might even spot a bullet coming from one direction or the other...

                      Of course, I've been well beaten to it

                      http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


                      More reading to do, damn it
                      Heres a link that shows Connallys jackets up close. It shows the lapel of his jacket moving as if been shot through.


                      The link you showed of Connallys reacton on being hit was interesting. Im unsure on it being the instant he was hit. Kennedy never made such a violent move forward when he was hit. The link above tries to suggest Connally was hit earlier.

                      Comment


                      • There is only one thing that gives me pause for thought regarding any kind of conspiracy,and that is the Sylvia Odio testimony.Its never been completely refuted.Of course its only one womans testimony,but the circumstances surrounding it and her character seems to suggest that she was telling the truth as she saw it..The dates she gives would need to be a day or two out but several things regarding her testimony and oswalds known movements ring true.Its a strange episode.Try looking it up,its hard to discard out of hand.
                        regards

                        Comment


                        • Oops, i forgot to post the link in my above post.

                          JFK, ASSASSINATION, JOHN, KENNEDY, KENNEDY ASSASSINATION, JFK ASSASSINATION, CONSPIRACY, THEORY, ASSASINATION, JFK ASSASINATION, MEDICAL, Judyth Baker, Judyth Vary Baker, evidence, Jim Garrison, Lee, Oswald, James, Files, Dealey Plaza, Single, Magic, Bullet, Jack, Ruby, CIA, FBI, NEWSGROUP, ARRB, Assassination Records, Board, MARK LANE, SINGLE BULLET THEORY

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by jason_c View Post
                            Phryne Fisher

                            The FBI taking JFK's body away is explicable. JFK was President of the United States. This was a huge case for many government agencies. Not for the first time did the FBI get its way in a turf war against competing organizations.

                            We also have to bear in mind the Kennedy family's role in this. Jacqueline and Bobby quite possibly wanted JFK's body taken to DC with them. There are indications at least the RFK did try to hurry up the autopsy on his brother. He wished Kennedy's former health problems kept quiet.
                            A week on (damn having to go to work ) and having done more reading today; you're right, jason_c, and I was wrong. It was Kennedy's family who insisted on his body being removed from Dallas and taken to Washington. Bobby Kennedy flew down there and brought 'em back.

                            My god! There's so much information out there; so many theories and counter-theories; so many incidents and witnesses endorsed by one 'side' while being scornfully dismissed by the other...and all using the same facts in different ways to support their own point-of-view. I think MY head's going to explode
                            Chief Superintendent Brownlow: "Are there any Tension Indicators? Over!"

                            DI Galloway: "Tension indicators?! They're throwing bloody petrol bombs. Sir."

                            Comment


                            • The trouble is there are so many "facts" out there that arent facts at all.Its a case of seperating the wheat from the chaff,its a long process,and a difficult one.Some authors should be ashamed of themselves propogating the seemingly endless amount of nonsense that has been written about the case.

                              Comment


                              • After yet another weekend spent reading about this, I still haven't made up my mind. I'm less conspiracy-inclined than when I first posted here, but by no means completely convinced by The Lone Gunman conclusion.

                                I think some of the pro-conspiracy sites 'shoot themselves in the foot' (not sure from which direction though ) with the welter of stuff (won't say 'facts' or 'information', although some of it might be) they post. For god's sake, listing dozens of conflicting alternative theories doesn't help in dis-crediting the Warren Commission findings. It just makes you look like confused idiots clutching wildly at straws!

                                The site I'm most impressed by so far is this one: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/inde..._Assassination . I'd say it's pro-conspiracy overall, but it seems to take a more rational approach than many others, and presents information from all sources, leaving the reader to make up their own mind. It also has loads of links and resources.

                                I'm not ignoring the official documents of the Warren Commission, HSCA, ARRB etc; I'm ploughing through them, but there are so many it'll take me years to read them all
                                Chief Superintendent Brownlow: "Are there any Tension Indicators? Over!"

                                DI Galloway: "Tension indicators?! They're throwing bloody petrol bombs. Sir."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X