Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was the assassination planned in 1960? Johnson as Vice President.


John Simkin

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

John, yes, I read that with amusement. Some of the documents they are reclassifying seem absurd. It is either pathetic or funny. I understand there are still civil war era records that remain classified.

Would those be the ones that explain why Ms. Surratt and her fellow conspirators were hanged, despite the history books teaching that Booth acted alone? Would those be the ones implicating Secretary Stanton in a much wider plot than has heretorfore been acknowledged; the ones suggesting that persons in the US government arranged to have the President killed while his Vice President and entire cabinet were to be set upon or sequestered elsewhere? God knows, they should be kept classified. Were those kind of documents given wider prominence, why, they might actually incline people to wonder aloud if the same thing happened in Dallas, while Kennedy's own cabinet was sequestered elsewhere.

There are many possible reasons why FBI or CIA documents could remain classified. The "operations Northwoods" documents probably should have remained classified, the scenarios seriously discussed therein are scary.

Then, by all means, shut your eyes and click your heels three times, Dorothy, all the while wishing real hard that the scariness goes away. Nothing worse in a democracy than actually knowing what kind of foul and dastardly deeds your own government gets up to. Wouldn't want that "scary" word to spread, would we? Just think what an informed populace might do!

Here is just one scenario: what if there was in fact a plan to "stage" an assassination attempt on JFK and blame it on Castro, a plan hijacked by the conspirators. What would it do to the agency involved should proof of such a scheme be revealed?

Now just how would those "conspirators" be aware that there was such a "staged" assassination attempt planned, in order to "hijack" it? Surely, that would have been a very closely held secret, and very few persons would be aware of it. Are you suggesting that somebody within the US government was loose-lipped in the wrong quarters? Or are you suggesting that somebody within the US government arranged for that "hijacking?" By God, we might actually be making some progess with our recalcitrant "researcher" after all!

Or what if Oswald was in fact a CIA or military intelligence agent? Then documents might need to remain classified lest they prove that, previously, our government lied to us.

Oh, Lord, who is this Key West radical who dares suggest that he and his fellow citizens might actually be lied to by their own government? Does he not realize his government is in the hands of honourable men? Does he dare suggest that somebody within that government would ever stoop to employing, for any purpose, a semi-literate, maladjusted Marxist Marine malcontent? Why, the next thing you know, this Key West firebrand will have the temerity to suggest that somebody within the US government was responsible for killing Kennedy and using this Oswald chap as a scapegoat.

These conspiracy theorists just get nuttier every day, don't they?

****************************************************************

"Here is just one scenario: what if there was in fact a plan to "stage" an assassination attempt on JFK and blame it on Castro, a plan hijacked by the conspirators. What would it do to the agency involved should proof of such a scheme be revealed?"

"Now just how would those "conspirators" be aware that there was such a "staged" assassination attempt planned, in order to "hijack" it? Surely, that would have been a very closely held secret, and very few persons would be aware of it. Are you suggesting that somebody within the US government was loose-lipped in the wrong quarters? Or are you suggesting that somebody within the US government arranged for that "hijacking?" By God, we might actually be making some progess with our recalcitrant "researcher" after all!"

"Or what if Oswald was in fact a CIA or military intelligence agent? Then documents might need to remain classified lest they prove that, previously, our government lied to us."

"Oh, Lord, who is this Key West radical who dares suggest that he and his fellow citizens might actually be lied to by their own government? Does he not realize his government is in the hands of honourable men? Does he dare suggest that somebody within that government would ever stoop to employing, for any purpose, a semi-literate, maladjusted Marxist Marine malcontent? Why, the next thing you know, this Key West firebrand will have the temerity to suggest that somebody within the US government was responsible for killing Kennedy and using this Oswald chap as a scapegoat."

"These conspiracy theorists just get nuttier every day, don't they?"

Yes, R.C.D. Could there be such things as miracles, after all?

Or, could it possibly be that T.G. might be more amenable to the "Left's" side of the spectrum than originally thought? If I happen to treasure the jewels of wisdom I'm able to glean from both of your parleys, who's to say T.G. might not be above gaining insight, as well? Conservative progressivism, per chance?

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, could it possibly be that T.G. might be more amenable to the "Left's" side of the spectrum than originally thought? If I happen to treasure the jewels of wisdom I'm able to glean from both of your parleys, who's to say T.G. might not be above gaining insight, as well? Conservative progressivism, per chance?

Terry, do you think T. G. is showing insights here?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6187

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, could it possibly be that T.G. might be more amenable to the "Left's" side of the spectrum than originally thought? If I happen to treasure the jewels of wisdom I'm able to glean from both of your parleys, who's to say T.G. might not be above gaining insight, as well? Conservative progressivism, per chance?

Terry, do you think T. G. is showing insights here?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6187

*****************************************************

I thought the Arbenz topic had been pretty much answered by R.C.D. Who needed to have it brought up again? If T.G. pisses you off so much, why not throw him off? It's your forum.

And, not to change the subject, but I remember a friend of mine by the name of Don Jeffries, being given the heave-ho from this forum by you, for expressing his views on that incarcerated nazi up in Canada. Don was making a case for freedom of speech for this holocaust denier, and questioning Canadian law makers choice for incarceration as opposed to deportation. A similar case to that of Mark Stapleton's concerning the assertions of Michael Collins Piper's regarding the Israeli Mossad's possible complicity in the assassination. Jeffries was polite, never raised a cuss word, or appeared to become beligerent in the presentation of his premise. What was up with that? There seems to be an awful lot of baiting going on in this forum.

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone! I am a new member of this forum and have read with interest the debate about Lyndon B. Johnson's motives in 1960. I think some caution is needed here.

Lyndon B. Johnson isn't exactly one of my favourite politicians. As a matter of fact i think he was the worst president in the US after the war, he was a xxxx, whealer-dealer, blackmailer, war-monger and i don't know what. He was perhaps a murderer too, the information about him, Billie Sol Estes and Malcolm Wallace doesn't smell good. (The Kennedy assassination isn't the only murder in which he is a suspect). And for him the assassination came at a very convenient time, so it is no coincidence he is a suspect. But i am not at all convinced that he was involved. And if we are to conclude that he planned the assasination already in 1960 i think we need either solid evidence about such planning or we must at least be able to exclude other possible motives for his actions.

Many take it for granted that Johnson had "the means and the motives" to carry out and cover up the assassination. I have no problems with the motives, but i am not sure about the means. Many suspect involvement by rogue elements in the CIA, the military or the secret service. But if that is the case, is it so obious that Johnson could conspire with them? The vice president is not the second most powerfull politician in the US, that is why we are having this discussion. The Vice President is not part of the daily decission-making in most US administrations.

It has also been suggested that Johnson was involved in another way: by conspiring with Texas oil millionaires and criminals like Billie Sol Estes and Malcolm Wallace. This theory can't be dismissed, but there are some problems with it. First of all, if Billie Sol Estes' confession is the whole story about the murder we will have a huge "surplus" of information. What about the mobsters who confessed involment both before and after the assassination, all the smoke comming out of New Orleans, Oswald's mysterious trip to Mexico City and more? I may have missed something, but i find it difficult to link this to Estes' confession about what took place. I also think a very good question was raised in an earlier post: If Johnson was involved, why isn't it possible to find evidence against him in CIA and FBI documents? This is very relevant in the Estes-Wallace theory. If Johnson was behind a conspiracy that did not include the FBI or the CIA, why haven't these agencies tried to uncover it? It could clear them from suspicion. Lyndon B. Johnson's legacy would take a heavy beating, but the power structures in Washington would not suffer from it.

So what were Johnson's motives in 1960? It is not easy to rationalize about his actions, we can only speculate. He might have thought that Kennedy would die, or even believe he would be murdered, and therefore see this as a chance to be president. He was cynical enough to make such calculations, but that does not have to mean he was involved in the murder. Another possible reason is that he miscalculated his position as a Vice Precident. He might have thought that the scandals that threatened his carreer in 1963 would not be known if he was vice president, that the White House would protect his secrets because they could threaten the entire administration. It also possible that he thought his abilities as a blackmailaer would secure him more power than VPs usually have. He perhaps even thought he could blackmail Kennedy out of office or compromize him one way or the other to force him to resign. There are many possible reasons for Johnson's actions in 1960, i think we need more solid evidence if we are to believe he planned the assassination already then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John wrote:

One of the things that has always puzzled me is that if Lyndon Johnson was behind the plot to kill Kennedy, there are probably some FBI or CIA documents around that provides evidence to back this up. Therefore, why have Republican administrations not ordered the release of these documents?

Well, John, that would then lead to the conclusion that LBJ did not do it, wouldn't it?

Of course you all know that I do not believe Johnson, or anyone high in the FBI or CIA did it, but I think it can be safely said that if anyone so situated was smart enough to plan the dastardly deed he was also smart enough to ensure there were no incriminating documents sitting in any government files.

I do not think the successful planner of the "crime of the century" merited mention on the TV show "The World's Stupidest Criminals".

************************************************

"Of course you all know that I do not believe Johnson, or anyone high in the FBI or CIA did it, but I think it can be safely said that if anyone so situated was smart enough to plan the dastardly deed he was also smart enough to ensure there were no incriminating documents sitting in any government files."

For all we know, and for how it appeared to me, Johnson was merely another tool, and possible scapegoat for the people whose interests mattered more than some political stooge's, which is what I believe LBJ was.

Look to Wall Street, if you want the orchestrators of this royal scam. The Granddaddy of the American Oil Industry was/is Rockefeller, coupled with his transportation import/export crony and head of the largest financial house on that same-said Street, Morgan. Wrap it all up with your very own corporate law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, and the well-positioned Allen Dulles, heading up the show to do your bidding and you have the cornerstone from which to launch all of your affairs, be they financial investments, oil leases, interstate/international commerce, and even murderous coup d'etats, domestic and otherwise. Who else would have the resources at their fingertips, the financial means to hire the best and to cover their tracks? Brown/Root/Halliburton were merely Texas-based extentions of this empire. You can hash all the myriad collection of minor and not-so-minor connections involved, as well as the off-shore exploitative holdings of United Fruit and Freeport Sulphur, but where do they all originate from? Where are all the deals formulated and cut? Wall Street. Who has the money to hire the best of the professionals? Wall Street. Trust me when I tell you this, anything originating out of its interstate/international offices be it New York or London, look upon any other points on the globe from which to lay down their drilling, clear-cutting, or mineral and ore stripping, and that includes Chicago, Houston [Dallas is laughable], and L.A., as mere outback or rural backwater extensions from which to exploit resources. Anything or anyone else, is merely chump change.

Get your heads out of the sand, because Wall Street is the real power station behind anything the CIA could ever afford to pull off, or the FBI, for that matter.

"I have believed for years that the U-2 incident was an important event for Kennedy on his road to the White House. Being privy to the type of information that was available to Johnson in his position of power in the Senate, Johnson may have been easily led to "jump on the bandwagon" of the person (Kennedy) who had been "selected" to be the next President by the power elite. Johnson may also have realized that if Kennedy stumbled along the way this group of the "power elite" would have a reliable hand at hand to turn to.

This would be especially true if some of the same caliber of people that were suggesting him for the Vice-Presidendcy were amoung the group that had the ability to stage the U-2 incident."

Follow the yellow-brick [cobblestone] road.

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone! I am a new member of this forum and have read with interest the debate about Lyndon B. Johnson's motives in 1960. I think some caution is needed here.

Welcome to the Forum. A very good first post.

Lyndon B. Johnson isn't exactly one of my favourite politicians. As a matter of fact i think he was the worst president in the US after the war, he was a xxxx, whealer-dealer, blackmailer, war-monger and i don't know what. He was perhaps a murderer too, the information about him, Billie Sol Estes and Malcolm Wallace doesn't smell good. (The Kennedy assassination isn't the only murder in which he is a suspect). And for him the assassination came at a very convenient time, so it is no coincidence he is a suspect. But i am not at all convinced that he was involved. And if we are to conclude that he planned the assasination already in 1960 i think we need either solid evidence about such planning or we must at least be able to exclude other possible motives for his actions.

I agree that it is highly unlikely that Johnson had anything to do with the planning of the assassination. It is even possible that he did not even know that the assassination was going to take place in Dallas. It is important to see Johnson as a representative of a group rather than as a lone individual. The threats that Johnson faced in 1963 (the investigation of people like Bobby Baker, Fred Korth, Billie Sol Estes, Fred Black, etc.) did not only his career. Johnson was just part, although a very important part, of the Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Complex. If Johnson had been fully exposed as a crook and murderer in late 1963, early 1964, he would have brought down a whole network of people. Johnson could not be allowed a fall, in the same way Baker could not be fully exposed for his role in the MICIC. Johnson’s role was not to plan the assassination but to cover it up.

Many take it for granted that Johnson had "the means and the motives" to carry out and cover up the assassination. I have no problems with the motives, but i am not sure about the means. Many suspect involvement by rogue elements in the CIA, the military or the secret service. But if that is the case, is it so obious that Johnson could conspire with them? The vice president is not the second most powerfull politician in the US, that is why we are having this discussion. The Vice President is not part of the daily decission-making in most US administrations.

The evidence does show that Johnson worked closely with the FBI and CIA to cover-up the assassination. They had their own individual motives for that but they could have been involved in the actual planning of the assassination.

It has also been suggested that Johnson was involved in another way: by conspiring with Texas oil millionaires and criminals like Billie Sol Estes and Malcolm Wallace. This theory can't be dismissed, but there are some problems with it. First of all, if Billie Sol Estes' confession is the whole story about the murder we will have a huge "surplus" of information. What about the mobsters who confessed involment both before and after the assassination, all the smoke comming out of New Orleans, Oswald's mysterious trip to Mexico City and more? I may have missed something, but i find it difficult to link this to Estes' confession about what took place. I also think a very good question was raised in an earlier post: If Johnson was involved, why isn't it possible to find evidence against him in CIA and FBI documents? This is very relevant in the Estes-Wallace theory. If Johnson was behind a conspiracy that did not include the FBI or the CIA, why haven't these agencies tried to uncover it? It could clear them from suspicion. Lyndon B. Johnson's legacy would take a heavy beating, but the power structures in Washington would not suffer from it.

The reason that I don’t believe that Johnson was actually involved in the planning of the assassination is because Mac Wallace appears to have been one of the shooters. Wallace had too many known links with Johnson. I therefore think Wallace was used to ensure Johnson covered up the assassination. I am not sure that the American people would have accepted the Henry II defence against being involved in the Thomas Becket murder. That is why I think Lee Harvey Oswald was set up as an assassin. I believe he was involved in a plot to kill Castro and Robert Kennedy knew about this. Therefore, he had no option but to go along with the cover-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that I don’t believe that Johnson was actually involved in the planning of the assassination is because Mac Wallace appears to have been one of the shooters. Wallace had too many known links with Johnson. I therefore think Wallace was used to ensure Johnson covered up the assassination.

I'm coming around to this view as well. The evidence that Wallace was involved (namely the fingerprint) is only strengthened by the FBI's sorry excuse for a response to it.

Johnson would not be foolish enough to send Mad Mac to shoot JFK, but someone who wanted Johnson to cooperate after the murder would have an ideal way to ensure it by involving LBJ's hit man.

There was no need to involve Wallace, for blackmail purposes, if LBJ was on board to begin with.

Also, I would say the same thing about LBJ that I've said about Castro. If LBJ wanted JFK dead, he didn't have to do it himself. And he was in a position and had the connections to acquire some inkling of any plot that was afoot. All he had to do was wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason that I don’t believe that Johnson was actually involved in the planning of the assassination is because Mac Wallace appears to have been one of the shooters. Wallace had too many known links with Johnson. I therefore think Wallace was used to ensure Johnson covered up the assassination.

I'm coming around to this view as well. The evidence that Wallace was involved (namely the fingerprint) is only strengthened by the FBI's sorry excuse for a response to it.

Johnson would not be foolish enough to send Mad Mac to shoot JFK, but someone who wanted Johnson to cooperate after the murder would have an ideal way to ensure it by involving LBJ's hit man.

There was no need to involve Wallace, for blackmail purposes, if LBJ was on board to begin with.

Also, I would say the same thing about LBJ that I've said about Castro. If LBJ wanted JFK dead, he didn't have to do it himself. And he was in a position and had the connections to acquire some inkling of any plot that was afoot. All he had to do was wait.

I'd agree with that as well.

I further theorise that...

LBJ was maneuvering for a place in history with a compromised background. He wanted what his history couldn't justify. Which placed him in a manipulable position. He was sufficiently experienced to know what that meant.

I think craving, guilt, and resentment were three forces that determined his choices. He tried (probably unsuccessfully) to reconcile this, which could account for some of his progressive acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the United States needs the protection of a functioning intelligence agency such as the CIA.

The U.S. has (the last time I counted) 14 other intelligence agencies. If the CIA were abolished (which is of course a ridiculous notion), I would think that 14 other bureaucracies might could take up the slack. (It might be more difficult today, of course, with so many bodies needed to pore through all the documents at the NARA in case there's something laying around there that we shouldn't see.)

I think the CIA has often failed in its mission and sometimes with tragic results for the United States.

Too often to justify its existence. The problem is not that the CIA is needed (it isn't), it's that the CIA has become it's own reason for its existence. It has to be funded, and allowed to do only God knows what, because it's there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone! I am a new member of this forum and have read with interest the debate about Lyndon B. Johnson's motives in 1960. I think some caution is needed here.

Welcome to the Forum. A very good first post.

Lyndon B. Johnson isn't exactly one of my favourite politicians. As a matter of fact i think he was the worst president in the US after the war, he was a xxxx, whealer-dealer, blackmailer, war-monger and i don't know what. He was perhaps a murderer too, the information about him, Billie Sol Estes and Malcolm Wallace doesn't smell good. (The Kennedy assassination isn't the only murder in which he is a suspect). And for him the assassination came at a very convenient time, so it is no coincidence he is a suspect. But i am not at all convinced that he was involved. And if we are to conclude that he planned the assasination already in 1960 i think we need either solid evidence about such planning or we must at least be able to exclude other possible motives for his actions.

I agree that it is highly unlikely that Johnson had anything to do with the planning of the assassination. It is even possible that he did not even know that the assassination was going to take place in Dallas. It is important to see Johnson as a representative of a group rather than as a lone individual. The threats that Johnson faced in 1963 (the investigation of people like Bobby Baker, Fred Korth, Billie Sol Estes, Fred Black, etc.) did not only his career. Johnson was just part, although a very important part, of the Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Complex. If Johnson had been fully exposed as a crook and murderer in late 1963, early 1964, he would have brought down a whole network of people. Johnson could not be allowed a fall, in the same way Baker could not be fully exposed for his role in the MICIC. Johnson’s role was not to plan the assassination but to cover it up.

Many take it for granted that Johnson had "the means and the motives" to carry out and cover up the assassination. I have no problems with the motives, but i am not sure about the means. Many suspect involvement by rogue elements in the CIA, the military or the secret service. But if that is the case, is it so obious that Johnson could conspire with them? The vice president is not the second most powerfull politician in the US, that is why we are having this discussion. The Vice President is not part of the daily decission-making in most US administrations.

The evidence does show that Johnson worked closely with the FBI and CIA to cover-up the assassination. They had their own individual motives for that but they could have been involved in the actual planning of the assassination.

It has also been suggested that Johnson was involved in another way: by conspiring with Texas oil millionaires and criminals like Billie Sol Estes and Malcolm Wallace. This theory can't be dismissed, but there are some problems with it. First of all, if Billie Sol Estes' confession is the whole story about the murder we will have a huge "surplus" of information. What about the mobsters who confessed involment both before and after the assassination, all the smoke comming out of New Orleans, Oswald's mysterious trip to Mexico City and more? I may have missed something, but i find it difficult to link this to Estes' confession about what took place. I also think a very good question was raised in an earlier post: If Johnson was involved, why isn't it possible to find evidence against him in CIA and FBI documents? This is very relevant in the Estes-Wallace theory. If Johnson was behind a conspiracy that did not include the FBI or the CIA, why haven't these agencies tried to uncover it? It could clear them from suspicion. Lyndon B. Johnson's legacy would take a heavy beating, but the power structures in Washington would not suffer from it.

The reason that I don’t believe that Johnson was actually involved in the planning of the assassination is because Mac Wallace appears to have been one of the shooters. Wallace had too many known links with Johnson. I therefore think Wallace was used to ensure Johnson covered up the assassination. I am not sure that the American people would have accepted the Henry II defence against being involved in the Thomas Becket murder. That is why I think Lee Harvey Oswald was set up as an assassin. I believe he was involved in a plot to kill Castro and Robert Kennedy knew about this. Therefore, he had no option but to go along with the cover-up.

*****************************************************

"That is why I think Lee Harvey Oswald was set up as an assassin. I believe he was involved in a plot to kill Castro and Robert Kennedy knew about this. Therefore, he had no option but to go along with the cover-up."

I also believe that to be a very distinct possibility. Although, I am not so sure Wallace made it to Dealey Plaza, simply because I don't think the shooters were home-grown good ol' boys, to begin with. That would be equivalent to "crapping where you eat," and I don't think any of Wall Street's Tejas contingency could afford to leave a toilet paper trail that obvious, back to the killing field. I could be wrong, but then again, maybe not.

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron, the US has its enemies. We need to have human intelligence agencies who have infiltrated such organizations so we can know when they are planning dastardly deeds against us.

One problem in the past is that the "human intelligence" capabilities of the CIA were decimated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone! I am a new member of this forum and have read with interest the debate about Lyndon B. Johnson's motives in 1960. I think some caution is needed here.

Lyndon B. Johnson isn't exactly one of my favourite politicians. As a matter of fact i think he was the worst president in the US after the war, he was a xxxx, whealer-dealer, blackmailer, war-monger and i don't know what. He was perhaps a murderer too, the information about him, Billie Sol Estes and Malcolm Wallace doesn't smell good. (The Kennedy assassination isn't the only murder in which he is a suspect). And for him the assassination came at a very convenient time, so it is no coincidence he is a suspect. But i am not at all convinced that he was involved. And if we are to conclude that he planned the assasination already in 1960 i think we need either solid evidence about such planning or we must at least be able to exclude other possible motives for his actions.

Many take it for granted that Johnson had "the means and the motives" to carry out and cover up the assassination. I have no problems with the motives, but i am not sure about the means. Many suspect involvement by rogue elements in the CIA, the military or the secret service. But if that is the case, is it so obious that Johnson could conspire with them? The vice president is not the second most powerfull politician in the US, that is why we are having this discussion. The Vice President is not part of the daily decission-making in most US administrations.

It has also been suggested that Johnson was involved in another way: by conspiring with Texas oil millionaires and criminals like Billie Sol Estes and Malcolm Wallace. This theory can't be dismissed, but there are some problems with it. First of all, if Billie Sol Estes' confession is the whole story about the murder we will have a huge "surplus" of information. What about the mobsters who confessed involment both before and after the assassination, all the smoke comming out of New Orleans, Oswald's mysterious trip to Mexico City and more? I may have missed something, but i find it difficult to link this to Estes' confession about what took place. I also think a very good question was raised in an earlier post: If Johnson was involved, why isn't it possible to find evidence against him in CIA and FBI documents? This is very relevant in the Estes-Wallace theory. If Johnson was behind a conspiracy that did not include the FBI or the CIA, why haven't these agencies tried to uncover it? It could clear them from suspicion. Lyndon B. Johnson's legacy would take a heavy beating, but the power structures in Washington would not suffer from it.

So what were Johnson's motives in 1960? It is not easy to rationalize about his actions, we can only speculate. He might have thought that Kennedy would die, or even believe he would be murdered, and therefore see this as a chance to be president. He was cynical enough to make such calculations, but that does not have to mean he was involved in the murder. Another possible reason is that he miscalculated his position as a Vice Precident. He might have thought that the scandals that threatened his carreer in 1963 would not be known if he was vice president, that the White House would protect his secrets because they could threaten the entire administration. It also possible that he thought his abilities as a blackmailaer would secure him more power than VPs usually have. He perhaps even thought he could blackmail Kennedy out of office or compromize him one way or the other to force him to resign. There are many possible reasons for Johnson's actions in 1960, i think we need more solid evidence if we are to believe he planned the assassination already then.

Roger,

Welcome to the Forum. Interesting points.

I think I'm starting to come around to the idea that LBJ didn't organise the assassination, although he knew about it in advance. From the time Phil Graham and Joe Alsop first suggested to JFK that LBJ should be his running mate, the powerful interests LBJ represented were looking for an opportunity to install him if JFK became troublesome for them. By 1963 their worst fears about JFK had been realised and they decided he had to go.

Who planned it? Military intelligence, maybe, with help. LBJ's implication in the murder of Henry Marshall, John Kinser etc doesn't necessarily qualify him to plan the JFK assassination, a much more intricate operation. LBJ's possible involvement in those earlier murders, which his powerful backers would have known about, probably just served to reassure them that LBJ was made of the right stuff. He was one of them.

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not so sure Wallace made it to Dealey Plaza

I'm not sure that he had to, as long as his fingerprint did. I don't know much about these things, but I've assumed that a fingerprint can be planted just like other evidence, without the person's finger actually being there. (I've assumed, for example, that the purpose of getting a palm print from Oswald's dead body was to plant it on the rifle.) But I admittedly don't know how it would be done. Am I wrong about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...