Did Johnson Do It?

[Terry Adams]

What is the consensus among the members of this forum?  I think that this theory, as well as others, should be put to rest or taken as fact.  A decision, either way, would help us to have a more united position, rather than be divided by all the different pet theories that are out there.  What proof is there to argue either for or against a "Johnson did it"position?

[Ron Ecker]

I doubt that LBJ was the mastermind. Would he dare propose such an act on his own? Possibly to private concerns (such as Texas oilmen), but not to government (CIA or military). But he would be all for such a plot if approached, for more than one reason. He was ruthless, he wanted to be president, this would be his only chance, he had plenty of Texas connections, he was allegedly going be dropped from the ticket, and he was facing possible charges of corruption. All would be resolved if JKF was dead. Plus the cover-up could then be managed from the very top. In short, the plotters couldn't ask for a more perfect co-conspirator. A fiction writer couldn't have made him up.

 

 

 

 

[Terry Adams]

Thanks Ron, these are all legitimate reasons as to the possibility of his involvement, but, did he make the move, did he do it!

[Ron Ecker]

6 minutes ago, Terry Adams said:

Thanks Ron, these are all legitimate reasons as to the possibility of his involvement, but, did he make the move, did he do it!

I don't think that can be stated categorically, any more than we can say categorically that the CIA did it, the Joint Chiefs of Staff did it, or Texas oilmen did it. For that we would need a Miss Marple or Sherlock Holmes.

 

 

[Jeanie Dean]

Johnson was part of a consortium who agreed to do it. He certainly had a great deal to gain. 

[Andrew Prutsok]

This article by Phillip Nelson was posted yesterday on the Lew Rockwell site. Spoiler alert: He thinks LBJ arranged it.

 

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/04/phillip-f-nelson/why-jfk-went-to-texas/

[Denny Zartman]

6 hours ago, Terry Adams said:

What is the consensus among the members of this forum?  I think that this theory, as well as others, should be put to rest or taken as fact.  A decision, either way, would help us to have a more united position, rather than be divided by all the different pet theories that are out there.  What proof is there to argue either for or against a "Johnson did it"position?

I'm normally adverse to taking a position on many aspects of the case because I'd like my mind to be open to new evidence or a new argument. By taking a position it sometimes makes us close our minds to any new countering evidence. We sometimes feel compelled to defend our previously staked-out position rather than be open to a more accurate appraisal of the facts.

That said, when initially investigating a crime, it appears that we ask who benefits the most from it? I would think that Lyndon Johnson fits that profile as much as any other individual alive at the time. I'd imagine that even those who thought Johnson was not the main plotter would concede that fact.

So, if Johnson wasn't the main plotter, then I would consider one of two things would have to be true: The plotters of the JFK assassination either also plotted to have Johnson as Vice President, or they just got lucky to have a compliant VP waiting in the wings ready to assist in putting a cover up in motion right from the beginning. The latter is possible, but I tend to look suspiciously on any factor of the JFK assassination that relies on luck. I suppose that the opposite argument could be true - that it's equally unlikely that Johnson "got lucky" to be Vice President to a President so hated by multiple diverse factions and so willing and eager to help Johnson ascend to power.

The conspirators have to get into the autopsy room. To me, that's a given. Could the mafia get into the Bethesda autopsy room? Could Texas oilmen? The Vice President couldn't, but the President certainly seems like he or she could. If we believe that there were uniformed military personnel directing the autopsy, we seem to have no one above them but the President. Possibly a rogue Joint Chiefs of Staff, but who else other than the President? A President who was also close, longtime friends and a neighbor with the head of the investigative bureau could accomplish a lot in covering up a crime. Could that have been a factor evaluated by Johnson when planning the crime?

Personally, I don't discount the possibility that LBJ was the main plotter and that it was the other elements of the assassination plot that fell in line behind him rather than the other way around. To me, logic suggests a strong possibility.

[Paul Brancato]

I recall that LBJ was known as the Pentagon’s Senator. 

[Norman T. Field]

IMHO, the idea that LBJ was the mastermind of the assassination is simply a 'limited hangout' to deflect attention from the real guilty parties; who lie within the highest levels of the Military Industrial complex. 

[W. Niederhut]

I'm no expert, by any stretch, but I agree with Ron Ecker on this one.

The Joint Chiefs and NSC people (Bundy, Rostow, et.al.) certainly knew from their staff meetings that LBJ disagreed with JFK's interest in getting out of Vietnam and de-escalating the Cold War.

The fact (?) that LBJ ducked as his limo entered Dealey Plaza implies that he knew JFK was slated for execution, but also indicates that he, himself, didn't necessarily trust the executioners.

[Norman T. Field]

41 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

I'm no expert, by any stretch, but I agree with Ron Ecker on this one.

The Joint Chiefs and NSC people (Bundy, Rostow, et.al.) certainly knew from their staff meetings that LBJ disagreed with JFK's interest in getting out of Vietnam and de-escalating the Cold War.

The fact (?) that LBJ ducked as his limo entered Dealey Plaza implies that he knew JFK was slated for execution, but also indicates that he, himself, didn't necessarily trust the executioners.

+1.

And, according to Madeline Brown, LBJ only found out the previous evening what was coming down in Dallas. 

[Joe Bauer]

Johnson was a totally corrupt man.

He stood to personally gain the most by JFK'S murder in acquiring the highest power position he "maniacally" sought as E. Howard Hunt stated in his end of life "Big Event "confessional.

If Kennedy wasn't totally removed when he was...the opposite would have befallen LBJ.

He would been dropped as JFK's VP.

He would have very likely been tried for corrupt illegal doings with Bobby Baker, Billy Sol Estes, Don Reynolds and others.

Ed Clark ( The Secret Boss Of Texas ) and the richest men on Earth (Texas Oil) would lose their one great highest office front man.

Hoover ( another asset of Texas Oil and some say the Cosa Nostra ) would have been retired. The CIA and Pentagon would have lost their man LBJ as well.

Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot would have laughed out loud at the obviousness of personal gain motive by these groups and individuals.

And I always shake my head when I see the September, 1969 interview of LBJ by Walter Cronkite. 

The "full" interview. Not just the first part.

The later part of the interview that was withheld from public view for another 6 years until 1975.

In which LBJ, asked by Cronkite if he ( Johnson) thought that there might have been an international connection conspiracy regards JFK's assassination, says " I can't honestly say I have been completely relieved that there might have been international connections."

I'm sorry, but this statement by LBJ to Cronkite stating his unsureness of Oswald acting alone invalidates the lone nut finding of LBJ's own Warren Commission!  Whether it's an international or domestic conspiracy it says the same thing.

CBS News

 

1:28NOW PLAYING

 

Lyndon Johnson interview with Walter Cronkite, September 1969

 

LBJ's conspiracy suggestion statement in this interview has always seemed mind blowing to me and I don't know why it wasn't ripped into by every serious JFK assassination truth seeking researcher at the time.

How much more clear and obvious can LBJ be in revealing a conspiracy in the death of JFK?

I assume LBJ was put on highest security isolation watch in his end days on his ranch specifically because it was feared he may reveal even more inconvenient truths in his guilt ridden, life remorse, boozed up confessional state.

Edited April 7, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Pamela Brown]

It's not whether LBJ did this, but how he was involved in this tragedy.  We already know how much he hated the Kennedys.  Of course, he wanted to take JFK's place.  But what part did he play?  Some things seem obvious to me -- such as that he and Lady Bird had a nice clean white outfit already for Jackie when she boarded AF1 in, undoubtedly, a state of shock and covered with gore, so that she could pose with them at LBJ's inauguration.  Jackie even said she refused to change in order to "let people see what they have done."  LBJ traumatized Jackie further, I have no doubt, by threatening her family if she did not stay silent about all that she experienced.

LBJ was the mastermind of the coverup.  I think everyone can see that.  But what happened beforehand?

 

[Douglas Caddy]

19 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

It's not whether LBJ did this, but how he was involved in this tragedy.  We already know how much he hated the Kennedys.  Of course, he wanted to take JFK's place.  But what part did he play?  Some things seem obvious to me -- such as that he and Lady Bird had a nice clean white outfit already for Jackie when she boarded AF1 in, undoubtedly, a state of shock and covered with gore, so that she could pose with them at LBJ's inauguration.  Jackie even said she refused to change in order to "let people see what they have done."  LBJ traumatized Jackie further, I have no doubt, by threatening her family if she did not stay silent about all that she experienced.

LBJ was the mastermind of the coverup.  I think everyone can see that.  But what happened beforehand?

 

I concur in your assessment.

[Pamela Brown]

4 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

I concur in your assessment.

Thank you.