• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK

Robert Morrow

Thinker
R
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
168
Hey, folks, here is my current take on the JFK assassination. Feel free to give me any feedback on what you think. This is essay is based on the cream of the cream of JFK research. I have been studying the JFK assassination pretty intensely for 4 years. If you would have asked me what I thought about the JFK assassination 4 years ago, I would have had no opinion. This essay reflects my current views on this topic. Also, you might want to google some of the suggested reading materials at the end of the essay. - Robert Morrow Austin, TX 512-306-1510

The LBJ-CIA Assassination of JFK

Lyndon Johnson made a dirty deal with CIA Republicans to murder John Kennedy in the 1963 Coup d’Etat. (People like Clint Murchison Sr., H.L. Hunt, Ed Clark, D.H. Byrd, Allen Dulles, Nelson Rockefeller, David Rockefeller, top Nelson Rockefeller aide Henry Kissinger, McGeorge Bundy, George Herbert Walker Bush, Gen. Edward Lansdale (CIA), Jack Crichton, Gen. Charles Willoughby, and J. Edgar Hoover all are excellent candidates for elite sponsorship.) Lyndon Johnson and Allen Dulles may very well have been co-CEOs of the JFK assassination; with the CIA in charge of the killing of JFK, and Lyndon Johnson and (his close friend and neighbor of 19 years in Washington, DC) FBI director J. Edgar Hoover in charge of the cover up.

<snip>

http://lyndonjohnsonmurderedjfk.blogspot.com/


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited to remove repost of text. Read the complete text at the above link.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tl;dr

You lost me at 1963 Coup d’Etat

I'm not sure you understand what that phrase means. No government was overthrown. An individual died.

Its your opinion that a secret cabal led by LBJ (a democrat) overthrew JFK (another democrat)?

It's also your opinion that he did this with the aid of Republicans?

Why wouldn't the Republicans ensure that LBJ then left office after that term, and replace him with, oh, I dunno. A Republican?


Woo is so dumb.
 
Last edited:
NotJesus said:
Here is my current take on the JFK assassination:

Guy named Oswald shot him.
Click to expand...
Motive doth not make a crime.

In fact, motive is not even a necessary element of proof of first-degree murder.

And the evidence against Oswald as the trigger man was very strong (and is even stronger today than it was in the 1960s), and there is no physical evidence of another trigger man. Assuming that a high government official ordered the hit, therefore, that official must have ordered, directly or indirectly, that Oswald be dealt with. "Dealt with" could mean paying him, blackmailing him, tricking him, brainwashing him ... anything to get him to be the instrument.

And there are just a few small problems with this notion.
 
ANYthing that claims knowledge of the case, but cites the Oliver Stone film as a source in the bibliography is just plain wrong.
 
That's four years NOT spent looking for the lockness monster, what a shame.
 
Saw a book with this thesis in a dump bin at a Woolworths', thirty years ago. And the book was ten years old at the time.

"Macbird" was kind of funny, in a "freak the straights!" kind of way.
 
Tomtomkent said:
ANYthing that claims knowledge of the case, but cites the Oliver Stone film as a source in the bibliography is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...


The same Oliver Stone who described his own film as a counter-myth to the "myth" of the Warren Commission. In other words, it's an artistically oblique way of implying that his film JFK is a LIE (probably also gives him an out if anyone he implicates tried to sue him for defamation). Of course the naive, the ignorant, the mentally ill, the intellectually lazy and/or the just not terribly bright aren't aware of this sly/CYA disclaimer of Stone's and so take the film as gospel.
 
JohnG said:
The same Oliver Stone who described his own film as a counter-myth to the "myth" of the Warren Commission. In other words, it's an artistically oblique way of implying that his film JFK is a LIE (probably also gives him an out if anyone he implicates tried to sue him for defamation). Of course the naive, the ignorant, the mentally ill, the intellectually lazy and/or the just not terribly bright aren't aware of this sly/CYA disclaimer of Stone's and so take the film as gospel.
Click to expand...

i never understood why Stone got so much flack for JFK. It's based on real stuff that happened! Jim Garrison really did bring charges against all of these people and I'm sure that much of the investigation went tin the manner depicted. was it hyper accurate? (no but what movie is?).

I found it entertaining and really, one of Stone's best films. And one of the few good (non old jock) performances by Kevin Costner.
 
LogicFail said:
i never understood why Stone got so much flack for JFK. It's based on real stuff that happened! Jim Garrison really did bring charges against all of these people and I'm sure that much of the investigation went tin the manner depicted. was it hyper accurate? (no but what movie is?).

I found it entertaining and really, one of Stone's best films. And one of the few good (non old jock) performances by Kevin Costner.
Click to expand...

I agree. The movie is a brilliant historical novel. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not history or a documentary.
 
LogicFail said:
i never understood why Stone got so much flack for JFK. It's based on real stuff that happened! Jim Garrison really did bring charges against all of these people and I'm sure that much of the investigation went tin the manner depicted. was it hyper accurate? (no but what movie is?).

I found it entertaining and really, one of Stone's best films. And one of the few good (non old jock) performances by Kevin Costner.
Click to expand...

When you mix fact with fiction, fact becomes suspect. Also, Kevin Kostner -- one of the worst acting performances ever -- and a pathetic attempt at a southern accent. Also the Viet Nam motive is pure fiction.
 
It's spelled Costner and it wasn't a southern accent it was a New Orleans accent, and not the popular 9th ward one or a deep cajun one like on Swamp people. The accent wasn't great, but his performance was pretty darn effective.

You just don't like it because it goes against your own delusional agenda
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom