JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Where's her evidence?
Moderated JFK conspiracy theories: it never ends III
- Thread starter HSienzant
- Start date
- Status
Where's her evidence?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I think it's fair to say LBJ wasn't an entirely honest businessman. However, there is a huge difference between throwing that sort of mud against the wall to see if any of it sticks, and allegations that Johnson had some sort of hand in Kennedy's assassination. Exactly what point, if any, are you trying to make here?
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Has this been covered?:
On the eve of the assassination J. Edger Hoover flew in from Washington to a gathering at the Dallas home of Clint Murtchison. When LBJ arrived, they and others went into a private meeting. Afterwards Hoover flew back to a Washington (without tipping Murtchison's driver either time), and LBJ said "Those *&%# Kennedys will never embarrass me again", and that after the assassination, the mood in the Murtchison home was festive, with champagne and caviar flowing for days, according to an eyewitness.
On the eve of the assassination J. Edger Hoover flew in from Washington to a gathering at the Dallas home of Clint Murtchison. When LBJ arrived, they and others went into a private meeting. Afterwards Hoover flew back to a Washington (without tipping Murtchison's driver either time), and LBJ said "Those *&%# Kennedys will never embarrass me again", and that after the assassination, the mood in the Murtchison home was festive, with champagne and caviar flowing for days, according to an eyewitness.
Last edited:
A phone call from LBJ interrupted surgeon Dr Charles Crenshaw attending to Oswald's wound, to order Crenshaw to get a deathbed confession from Oswald. Crenshaw told Dr. Shires and they agreed it was impossible. Switchboard operator Phyllis Bartlett confirmed the call came in from LBJ.
LBJ associate Malcolm Wallace, was the convicted murderer of Douglas Kinser (Kinser was lover of LBJ's sister Josefa). Wallace apparently left a fingerprint on a cardboard box in the sniper's nest. Certified print man Nathan Darby (35yrs Austin police) said no question, it was a 34 point match to Murchison's print on a print card from the 1951 Douglas Kinser case. Darby reconfirmed it 3 yrs later. Darby said without doubt it was Wallace's left pinky. Expert Darby is clearly emotional when he says he knows it was a match, when the FBI disagreed after holding the file for 18 months.
There were no witnesses to Wallace's 1971 death in a single car accident on a lonely stretch of Texas highway 271. Another of LBJ inner circle, Cliff Carter died unexpectedly 8 mos later, two days after meeting with Billy Sol Estes.
LBJ's atty Edward Clark felt shortchanged for his role, according to his legal partner Barr McClellan who says Clark expected $8 Million, which was cut short so Clark went to Murchison who told him to buy a certain oil well which earned Clark 2 million. McClellan also says his law firm paid LBJ's shrink to hide any thing LBJ disclosed about JFK's death.
CBS/60 minutes' Don Hewitt said Nixon said 'you dont want to know about what happened' and that Earl Warren said 'we may not know the truth in our lifetime' after his report was complete.
One last bit is the footage of Jack Ruby with pen and paper in the Dallas police building crowd of reporters, before he shot Oswald, and the police chief saying he really did not know Ruby, where others are seen saying Ruby was regular there, and police were regulars in his nightclub?
Not that any of this proves anything, of course.
LBJ associate Malcolm Wallace, was the convicted murderer of Douglas Kinser (Kinser was lover of LBJ's sister Josefa). Wallace apparently left a fingerprint on a cardboard box in the sniper's nest. Certified print man Nathan Darby (35yrs Austin police) said no question, it was a 34 point match to Murchison's print on a print card from the 1951 Douglas Kinser case. Darby reconfirmed it 3 yrs later. Darby said without doubt it was Wallace's left pinky. Expert Darby is clearly emotional when he says he knows it was a match, when the FBI disagreed after holding the file for 18 months.
There were no witnesses to Wallace's 1971 death in a single car accident on a lonely stretch of Texas highway 271. Another of LBJ inner circle, Cliff Carter died unexpectedly 8 mos later, two days after meeting with Billy Sol Estes.
LBJ's atty Edward Clark felt shortchanged for his role, according to his legal partner Barr McClellan who says Clark expected $8 Million, which was cut short so Clark went to Murchison who told him to buy a certain oil well which earned Clark 2 million. McClellan also says his law firm paid LBJ's shrink to hide any thing LBJ disclosed about JFK's death.
CBS/60 minutes' Don Hewitt said Nixon said 'you dont want to know about what happened' and that Earl Warren said 'we may not know the truth in our lifetime' after his report was complete.
One last bit is the footage of Jack Ruby with pen and paper in the Dallas police building crowd of reporters, before he shot Oswald, and the police chief saying he really did not know Ruby, where others are seen saying Ruby was regular there, and police were regulars in his nightclub?
Not that any of this proves anything, of course.
Last edited:
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
I think this has already been covered. The only evidence is annectdotal, and can be traced back to a single memoir that was popular at the time. All he claims that build on it, accusing Mac Wallace, via Lloyd factor et al, produce no real details they could not have found in the memoir.
Now even if LBJ was callous enough to celebrate becoming president in a no specific "days after" time frame, even if the memoir were correct, that is not evidence of foul play. It is evidence of the sort of thing a wheeler dealer vice president might say if he knew he was back on the vice presidential ticket for the next election, or if he thought he was gazumping the president in the primary, or any of a hundred reasons on a hundred other deals JFK might have blocked.
It is the kind of statement nobody would question or care about, were it not for a lone nut.
The burden of proof is on those wishing to turn the speculation and gossip into an accusation, to show they have a solid foundation for the horrendous allegation being implied.
Infornone would not want to be accussed of a conspiracy to murder on such a thin and flimsy basis.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Well, as there is no record of the LBJ phone call, at best evidence of a prankster, and the Mac Wallace print does not hold any weight, I for one can't be bothered to go check the rest of the claims.
When the print was first identified (in a blind comparrison with no blinding, huh?) the CT crowd jumped on it. When somebody tried to verify it and basically said at first glance it looked plausible, they were lathered into a frenzy. When the expert admitted it was not a match after proper examination beyond first glance? We got a whole lot excuses for why he would lie.
When you have to invent excuses for your evidence not passing scrutiny and claim your expert was part of the conspiracy, it is not good evidence. The claim the print was Wallace's is dubious. The identification flawed and the information given for the process tries to suggest more detail than it gives.
Nowhere can I find details of the blinding for the comparrison, beyond not telling a guy the names of the prints. There is no evidence for example Mac Wallace was the closest match in a pool of any size. Nowhere is there evidence of how they chose a Mac Wallace print for the comparisson. Saying 'is this one print our guy' is not a blinded comparrison, it is just a comparisson.
That the results of the match can't be repeated, along with other criticisms, does not make it look likely at all.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
I don't know why I'm bothering, since, if you won't take a few minutes to do the search, you almost certainly won't take the time to read the results, but:
Crenshaw phone call discussed here (among other places).
Begin here for an extended discussion of Wallace fingerprint.
"Mysterious deaths" nonsense begins here. Please note the circularity in the argument- the "mysterious deaths" are supposed to be evidence for a conspiracy; but the only reason to see mystery in deaths by ordinary things like traffic accidents and heart attacks is to first assume the conspiracy they're supposed to prove.
Your Clark-Murchison stuff is simply irrelevant; as for what Chief Curry said- "CYA" is a pretty well established principle that covers that, even if what he said contradicts what others said (and it doesn't).
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Contact Robert Morrow, he's looking for fellow travelers and includes his phone number in the linked article:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/12/my-files-on-lbj-and-cia-assassination.html
He also didn't last long here.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Nope, covered at length already. Honestly, you're dabbling in a three-year-old thread that most of us have participated in for the whole three years. It's okay that you're the newcomer, but please do us the courtesy of searching the thread -- or gasp! reading it -- before you reopen topics.
Yes, the forum's search function is unreliable. But Google's is not. JREF was crawled several times a day by Google's search robot, and I believe ISF is too. Just include "JREF" or the thread title(s) in your Google search along with relevant terms and you'll find the previous discussions with little difficulty.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
So your point in bringing it up (again) is ...?
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Hence the title of this thread and its predecessors -- it never ends. Most of the conspiracy proponents in this thread prolonged it by means of a number of fringe resets. They covered the same territory as their predecessors using the same long-discredited and long-debunked sources.
Part of this is simply the cyclical nature of any debate as it progresses through human history. New generations of readers and commentators arise. They first discover the arguments that appeal to their preconceptions or mindsets, and they then generally have to be guided to the long-extant rebuttals. Neither the arguments nor the rebuttals are new, but they are newly discovered -- from my experience, in 10-year cycles.
The other part is the inherent epistemological and rhetorical framework of debate over conspiracy theories and other fringe topics. As you quote me above, the aim of a conspiracy debate is to attract and maintain attention to the proponent(s). That's best accomplished by bogging down a debate such that it attracts attention by its sheer size. And that in turn is accomplished by the fringe reset, the shifting of burdens of proof, and other debate techniques designed to distract from any legitimate process of intellectual discovery.
And that's because a conspiracy debate -- stripped of its bunting -- is a non-starter. The paradox of fringe debate is that if you accept it on the fringe proponent's terms, it's this neverending tapestry of distraction and misdirection. But if you accept it on real-world terms, it's over before it begins because fringe claims are largely just insubstantial belief. Which leads many to conclude that even accepting debate on fringe topics already lends it too much credibility.
Part of this is simply the cyclical nature of any debate as it progresses through human history. New generations of readers and commentators arise. They first discover the arguments that appeal to their preconceptions or mindsets, and they then generally have to be guided to the long-extant rebuttals. Neither the arguments nor the rebuttals are new, but they are newly discovered -- from my experience, in 10-year cycles.
The other part is the inherent epistemological and rhetorical framework of debate over conspiracy theories and other fringe topics. As you quote me above, the aim of a conspiracy debate is to attract and maintain attention to the proponent(s). That's best accomplished by bogging down a debate such that it attracts attention by its sheer size. And that in turn is accomplished by the fringe reset, the shifting of burdens of proof, and other debate techniques designed to distract from any legitimate process of intellectual discovery.
And that's because a conspiracy debate -- stripped of its bunting -- is a non-starter. The paradox of fringe debate is that if you accept it on the fringe proponent's terms, it's this neverending tapestry of distraction and misdirection. But if you accept it on real-world terms, it's over before it begins because fringe claims are largely just insubstantial belief. Which leads many to conclude that even accepting debate on fringe topics already lends it too much credibility.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Again, as a reformed JFK Conspiracy loon/nut-job I need to point a few things out.
1. Read the threads on this topic before wandering in an introducing crap you think is new, because there's a 98% chance it isn't.
2. It was an EASY SHOT. From Oswald's spot on the 6th floor it was no great feet of marksmanship. When I went to Dallas this was the first big slap in my fat, stupid conspiracy-loving face. It's less than 300 feet to where the fatal head-shot made contact. My mother could have made that shot (she qualified Marksman on the M-1 when she was in the WACs).
This was my first awakening to the FACT that few people who have written about the JFK assassination know what they're talking about.
3. LBJ was a scumbag, which is what made him a successful politician. Murdering JFK would have been out of the question when he was so much more useful alive...and then there is this fact...
4. JFK was in deep political trouble in 1963. The week of the assassination the House began hearings looking into the allegations (which were true) that JFK had an affair with a woman who was a Stasi agent. Had the hearings proceeded JFK would have been forced out of office, and at the very least he would have been unelectable for a second term.
Those last two facts make any US government complicity in a conspiracy to kill JFK ridiculous, and underline the amateurish nature of the argument. Washington D.C. would have rather watched JFK turn apart by the press than see him dead. Plus you must factor in the fact that JFK accomplished NOTHING in the 3 years of his term. Not a single piece of legislation came out of his White House. The truth is that while JFK looked good on TV, he was a non-factor.
The JFK Assassination began in a time before the internet. Books were written, and books hold power because people believe things written in them usually without question. In the years that followed we went big in Vietnam, and then we had Watergate, and these fueled mistrust in the government and added fuel to the JFK Woo-Factory. In the years since many documents have been declassified, and every once in a while a new photograph or Super-8 movie surfaces, but not one has changed the big picture.
In fact, one of those discovered items was the negatives of Oswald with his rifle discovered in the garage of a retired Dallas policeman. These negatives showed a sequence of 3 pictures, and undermine the claim that the photo had been doctored.
Anyway, before you can rule in a conspiracy you MUST rule Oswald out, and you can't. He had motive, opportunity, and capability. Plus it was his rifle.
1. Read the threads on this topic before wandering in an introducing crap you think is new, because there's a 98% chance it isn't.
2. It was an EASY SHOT. From Oswald's spot on the 6th floor it was no great feet of marksmanship. When I went to Dallas this was the first big slap in my fat, stupid conspiracy-loving face. It's less than 300 feet to where the fatal head-shot made contact. My mother could have made that shot (she qualified Marksman on the M-1 when she was in the WACs).
This was my first awakening to the FACT that few people who have written about the JFK assassination know what they're talking about.
3. LBJ was a scumbag, which is what made him a successful politician. Murdering JFK would have been out of the question when he was so much more useful alive...and then there is this fact...
4. JFK was in deep political trouble in 1963. The week of the assassination the House began hearings looking into the allegations (which were true) that JFK had an affair with a woman who was a Stasi agent. Had the hearings proceeded JFK would have been forced out of office, and at the very least he would have been unelectable for a second term.
Those last two facts make any US government complicity in a conspiracy to kill JFK ridiculous, and underline the amateurish nature of the argument. Washington D.C. would have rather watched JFK turn apart by the press than see him dead. Plus you must factor in the fact that JFK accomplished NOTHING in the 3 years of his term. Not a single piece of legislation came out of his White House. The truth is that while JFK looked good on TV, he was a non-factor.
The JFK Assassination began in a time before the internet. Books were written, and books hold power because people believe things written in them usually without question. In the years that followed we went big in Vietnam, and then we had Watergate, and these fueled mistrust in the government and added fuel to the JFK Woo-Factory. In the years since many documents have been declassified, and every once in a while a new photograph or Super-8 movie surfaces, but not one has changed the big picture.
In fact, one of those discovered items was the negatives of Oswald with his rifle discovered in the garage of a retired Dallas policeman. These negatives showed a sequence of 3 pictures, and undermine the claim that the photo had been doctored.
Anyway, before you can rule in a conspiracy you MUST rule Oswald out, and you can't. He had motive, opportunity, and capability. Plus it was his rifle.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Your face is hardly unique in that respect. That's everyone's first impression upon finally seeing Dealey Plaza -- "It's so small!"
You can stand where Zapruder stood. You can stand were all the principal witnesses stood. You can stand were Oswald stood. And you can stand where the alleged Grassy Knoll shooter stood and draw your own conclusions.
Vice President is the office you want to hold if you're a scumbag who wants a lot of power and no attention on you so that you can continue to be a powerful scumbag.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Exactly! I'm from California, I read every book written on the assassination written up to 1996 when I went to Dallas to visit my brother. The books make it sound like it was some kind of circus-shot to be able to nail Kennedy, when the truth is that through the scope his head would have looked like pumpkin.
I stood on curb where the headshot landed, and up where Zapruder filmed the event. There is NO WAY ANYONE COULD BE BEHIND THE FENCE AND NOT BE VISIBLE. Even in the famous photos, you would have seen them. There was a conspiracy loon who'd set up shop in front of the museum, and I just wanted to punch him, drag him down to the curb, and ask him how he had lived so long without a brain.
While I was there that day they were filming the X-Files movie a few blocks away, and they were using helicopters. I grew up next to an Army base (Fort Ord) and I am familiar with how to spot an incoming chopper. The echo in Dealey Plaza was awful, and it wasn't until the bird was directly overhead that I could tell that there was only one. When Stone made his movie there the sound guys complained of the same thing. So where someone thought the shots came from depended on where they were standing and what they could see.
When I went home I reviewed my small library with fresh eyes and threw out all but 2 books (these had good pictures and have become examples of how people will matrix images into pictures where there's nothing to see).
It is nice to be on the right side of things now. Less fake drama.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
It worked for Spiro Agnew...for awhile.
In my little corner of expertise in the discussion, It's always amazed me that in RW I'll get into discussions with individuals that know what I've done for a living and know I'll take them out to a live fire range and demonstrate what I'm trying to convey and they'll still come down on the side of a CT talking point that has no relationship to the truth wrt simple mechanical function and demonstrable terminal ballistics.
If someone is interested in the subject matter but refuses an opportunity to get hands-on experience w/ the subject at hand, how can they really believe their opinion is informed?
- Status