Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Dark Side of Lyndon Baines Johnson


Peter McGuire
 Share

Recommended Posts

A search did not find a review on this book.

I will go right to Chapter 27 - "The Ways of a Usurper," since this represents my opinion on the matter clearly.

"Let us now revert to the darkest stain on Lyndon B. Johnson's sombre record and examine it in some detail; the assassination of his predecessor, President John F. Kennedy.

Even if it should not be possible to prove, to the complete satisfaction of a court of law, that Lyndon B. Johnson instigated* the murder, there cannot be the slightest doubt that he did condone it.

His every action after the deed bespeaks complicity with the assassins.

* For a closer look at this matter, see How Kennedy was Killed, chapters 9 and 10.

Joachim Joesten The Dark Side of Lyndon Baines Johnson 1968

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Robert Morrow

A search did not find a review on this book.

I will go right to Chapter 27 - "The Ways of a Usurper," since this represents my opinion on the matter clearly.

"Let us now revert to the darkest stain on Lyndon B. Johnson's sombre record and examine it in some detail; the assassination of his predecessor, President John F. Kennedy.

Even if it should not be possible to prove, to the complete satisfaction of a court of law, that Lyndon B. Johnson instigated* the murder, there cannot be the slightest doubt that he did condone it.

His every action after the deed bespeaks complicity with the assassins.

* For a closer look at this matter, see How Kennedy was Killed, chapters 9 and 10.

Joachim Joesten The Dark Side of Lyndon Baines Johnson 1968

Correct. Because their was an obvious conspiracy in the JFK assassination, with JFK being hit by bullets from the front and back; and many "earwitnesses" of a grassy knoll shooter AND Lyndon Johnson and his close friend J. Edgar Hoover did everything to NOT investigate an obvious conspiracy, then that is prima facie evidence of Lyndon Johnson's participation in the JFK assassination.

You would think Johnson and Hoover would be desperately looking for a hit team on the loose composed of Castro Cubans, or Russians or US mafia and that Johnson would be worried about being killed next... but there was no search for a phantom Castro Cuban team and conspiracy could NOT be investigated because the "conspirators" were the people in goverment (and shadow government) themselves!! Lyndon Johnson and the CIA/mafia/anti-Castro Cuban conspirators!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. Because their was an obvious conspiracy in the JFK assassination, with JFK being hit by bullets from the front and back; and many "earwitnesses" of a grassy knoll shooter AND Lyndon Johnson and his close friend J. Edgar Hoover did everything to NOT investigate an obvious conspiracy, then that is prima facie evidence of Lyndon Johnson's participation in the JFK assassination.

You would think Johnson and Hoover would be desperately looking for a hit team on the loose composed of Castro Cubans, or Russians or US mafia and that Johnson would be worried about being killed next... but there was no search for a phantom Castro Cuban team and conspiracy could NOT be investigated because the "conspirators" were the people in goverment (and shadow government) themselves!! Lyndon Johnson and the CIA/mafia/anti-Castro Cuban conspirators!

Total nonsense. This crap about LBJ being involved is nothing but delusional claptrap.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read my post and position on the matter.

I said Johnson went along with the idea.

You can read?

Let me give it to you again, Davie:

"Even if it should not be possible to prove, to the complete satisfaction of a court of law, that Lyndon B. Johnson instigated* the murder, there cannot be the slightest doubt that he did condone it."

Do you need help with the words instigated and condone Pein?

There is good online help available if you need it.

And besides, your arguments are based on the invalidated Warren Report.

Look at yourself. You have nothing yet you call years of unbiased research names!

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it should not be possible to prove, to the complete satisfaction of a court of law, that Lyndon B. Johnson instigated the murder, there cannot be the slightest doubt that he did condone it.

The above is merely more reprehensible tripe and garbage coming from someone who obviously wants there to be some kind of a conspiracy and cover-up surrounding the assassination of the 35th U.S. Chief Executive.

Pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LBJ himself agreed with Russell that he did not buy the SBT!

Yes, that's right. Which, of course, proves exactly the OPPOSITE from what the "LBJ Did It" CT mongers want it to prove.

For, why on Earth would LBJ (on tape yet!) want to botch the whole "patsy" conspiracy by ADMITTING (on tape!) that he didn't believe a key part of the WC's findings?

Was LBJ trying to blow the plot wide open?

In actuality, of course, to any reasonable person listening to the 9/18/64 LBJ/Russell phone call [linked HERE], it's quite obvious that LBJ was just as clueless about the workability and feasibility of the SBT as Goofball Richard Russell was. Neither one of them knew what they were talking about.

But to think Johnson would want to undermine ANY part of the WC's work IF HE HIMSELF WERE PART OF THE COVER-UP is just ludicrous to begin with.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In actuality, of course, to any reasonable person listening to the 9/18/64 LBJ/Russell phone call [linked HERE], it's quite obvious that LBJ was just as clueless about the workability and feasibility of the SBT as Goofball Richard Russell was. Neither one of them knew what they were talking about.

Care to demonstrate how a tucked in custom made dress shirt rides up the 2+ inches

required by the SBT?

Care to explain how more than a dozen witnesses put the back wound in the vicinity

of the bullet holes in the clothes?

Did everyone who saw JFK's wounds suffer an identical hallucination, David?

And don't go running for the skirts of Bugliosi, he can't address this subject any more than you can.

As for the cover-up of the JFK assassination, it was formulated in Washington DC the afternoon of the murder and phoned into LBJ while he was still flying in from Dallas.

LBJ was an employee who did the job assigned him.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This VonPain's assignment is to cause researchers to waste as much time as possible.

Mission accomplished.

How much time did members waste on the Judyth Vary Baker thread started by Jim Fetzer?

Jim DiEugenio has elected to spend a considerable amount of his time (as did some others, though not nearly as much)

making David look even sillier and more uninformed with each succeeding post. Was it a waste of time? Not entirely.

At this point in time, rehashing things that happened so long ago on an internet forum is more of a hobby than

anything else. Some researchers are carrying on the fight and making progress, but many of them came here and left.

I suspect that one day Jim will feel like he's done all he can do here and move on, but I've enjoyed

reading his discussions with David Von Pein. I think it has value, as does his other research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This VonPain's assignment is to cause researchers to waste as much time as possible.

That's quite a belly laugh, White. You JFK CT mongers have the patent on "wasting time". You've been doing it for almost 50 years. And you'll keep doing it for another 150, I surmise.

David, as someone who is only a CT'er by one fact (the single bullet theory - which I don't believe), I am still very interested in hearing from people who believe in the Warren Commission version of what happened in the murder of JFK. You are really doing your side a huge diservice by posting what you do. You offer nothing in this thread that makes me interested in your point of view. So I can only assume that you don't care what your point of view is. So it seems that your only motive for coming here is to heckle people. This, in internet parlance, is trolling.

What good can come from a LN'r who represents themselves as a xxxxx?

And I find it ironic that someone who believes that all CT'rs are wasting their time, comes here to waste their time saying so.

Again, one must conclude: xxxxx.

I must ask in all sincerity: did you ever think your life would come to this? Not sarcasm. I can't imagine at my age that I would ever want to make a public spectacle in the manner you have.

Edited by Otto B Cornejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's quite a belly laugh, White. You JFK CT mongers have the patent on "wasting time". You've been doing it for almost 50 years. And you'll keep doing it for another 150, I surmise.

Spoken like a man that has 42 blogs or however many it is on a topic that he claims was settled beyond a shadow of a doubt almost half a century ago.

Spoken like a man that feels the need to "archive" his discussions with certain Forum members in case there is some future use for them.

Spoken like a man who is pushing a fantasy that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the American public and people all over the world.

Spoken like a man that elects to call people delusional that recognize his silliness for what it is.

Spoken like a man that needs to incorporate a wide diversity of people into a single entity like "JFK CT mongers."

Spoken like a man whose references to vomit bags and weak bladders are part and parcel of his repertoire.

Spoken like a man who hasn't managed to convince anyone of anything (other than maybe Francois).

I take that last one back. David has probably managed to convince a few uninitiated web surfers that recognize a lightweight

when they see one that there indeed must have been a conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, as someone who is only a CT'er by one fact (the single bullet theory - which I don't believe), I am still very interested in hearing from people who believe in the Warren Commission version of what happened in the murder of JFK. You are really doing your side a huge diservice by posting what you do. You offer nothing in this thread that makes me interested in your point of view. So I can only assume that you don't care what your point of view is.

My POV is: LBJ had nothing to do with JFK's assassination. Period.

What good can come from a LN'r who represents themselves as a xxxxx?

And I find it ironic that someone who believes that all CT'rs are wasting their time, comes here to waste their time saying so.

Again, one must conclude: xxxxx.

I must ask in all sincerity: did you ever think your life would come to this? Not sarcasm. I can't imagine at my age that I would ever want to make a public spectacle in the manner you have.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I provide tons of facts and evidence and testimony to back up my beliefs. I link to them all the time. And because I didn't do that very thing in a really silly thread like this particular one, I'm getting the on-the-soapbox treatment from Otto?

Curious.

Edited by David Von Pein
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...