Jump to content
The Education Forum

Am I Detecting A Pattern Here?


Mark Knight
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm beginning to think I'm seeing a pattern in some of the posts here. Maybe I'm just imagining it, maybe I'm not. But it seems that whenever an interesting thread begins to develop some momentum, certain other posters will come along with their pet theory [they apparently only have one, it seems] and tell us why none of this newly-discovered evidence would EVER matter.

One who does this quite often is the biggest fan of the Warren Emission [er, COmission] to ever come down the pike. The other is convinced that LBJ was the mastermind of the assassination. But it seems that sometimes these types will grasp at the most tenuous connection to their pet theory--except, in their minds, they have the facts, NOT a theory, and anything else is fantasy--and turn a thread upside down and backwards to "tie" the information in the thread to their pet theory.

Sometimes. it would be refreshing if these folks would just let the threads and RELATED discussions develop, and let the rest of us determine whether we believe the piece of evidence that precipitated the thread in the first place fits with the information we already know.

I'm not particularly hung up on ANY single theory; I consider myself a student of the assassination, not an expert. But I already know of many obfuscations and outright lies involved in the WC report, so I don't believe their conclusions. As for the LBJ stuff...a lot of the accusers were/are as shady as LBJ, so how much of the uncorroborated portion of their stories are we to believe?

It just seems that some folks, both on the LN side AND on the CT side, are working hard to brush any newly-discovered facts aside..."Move along, folks; nothing to see here." Kinda sounds like the initial cover-up to me. If the new discoveries are significant, it will eventually become obvious...and if they're not, that will also eventually become obvious. I believe that, if your particular theory is right, any new factual discoveries will only strengthen it; and if your theory is wrong, new discoveries may poke holes in your boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly makes one miss reading the early threads, when high jacking threads seldom happened. When there was civil discourse and threads stayed on topic. It was nice to read every post and not skip over so many as today. The forum surely misses the steady influence of James Richards. Still, it's all worth it when Bill Kelly, Larry Hancock and a few others honor us with their posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

I do detect a pattern here. A lot of people whine whenever someone (often me) states that there is more evidence indicting Lyndon Johnson in the JFK assassination than any other single person.

I do not subscribe to the theory that the JFK assassination is not solved. Like Vincent Salandria I think it was solved 4 plus decades ago. Unlike Salandria, I do not ignore the mountain of evidence indicting Lyndon Johnson personally for the JFK assassination.

In the early years it was pretty obvious that the CIA or military was behind the JFK assassination. Garrison was explicitly saying this on national TV in 1967 based on the evidence that he had seen. But it took until Madeleine Brown and numerous others came public in the 1980's an onward for the hammer to fall down completely on LBJ. Much of this blockbuster evidence indicting LBJ came public post HSCA; I wonder how an HSCA in 1998 would have looked for example as testimony from Brown, Estes, McClellan, Crenshaw would be delved into. In regards to LBJ, it is over in my mind, with an airtight case against LBJ for his culpability.

If anyone else wants to believe something else - go ahead. Just lower the whining levels is all I ask.

I think that we will be learning new things about the JFK assassination hundreds of years from now; so it is worthy of study.

But I do not subscribe to the view that it is not "solved" or that we need to have some "documents released" to know what happened or who did it or why.

LYNDON JOHNSON HAD A MURDEROUS ATTITUDE TOWARDS ROBERT KENNEDY -

"I'll cut his throat if it's the last thing I do."

Robert Caro describes the LBJ-RFK relationship post 1960 Democratic convention, where RFK had moved heaven and earth attempting to keep LBJ off the 1960 Democratic ticket. Caro:

John Connally, who during long days of conversation with this author was willing to answer almost any question put to him, no matter how delicate the topic, wouldn't answer when asked what Johnson said about Robert Kennedy. When the author pressed him, he finally said flatly: "I am not going to tell you what he said about him." During the months after the convention, when Johnson was closeted alone back in Texas with an old ally he would sometimes be asked about Robert Kennedy. He would reply with a gesture. Raising his big right hand, he would draw the side of it across the neck in a slowing, slitting movement. Sometimes that gesture would be his only reply; sometimes, as during a meeting with Ed Clark in Austin, he would say, as his hand moved across his neck, "I'll cut his throat if it's the last thing I do." [Robert Caro, "The Passage of Power," p. 140]

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I simply don't believe that the evidence against LBJ would result in a conviction, had the case ever been brought to trial in ANY jurisdiction. Most of the evidence is circumstantial, and a lot of it also has a MUCH more innocent--and plausible--explanation available.

So I would hope that you would PLEASE refrain from attempting to cut off discussion of new evidence that points at someone other than Johnson. Remember, some of the "evidence" YOU cite was new at one time, too. Statements like "no DNA test is necessary" is speculation, NOT evidence. A DNA test WOULD be evidence. Innuendo and association with other individuals is not hard evidence, either. I worked with the son of a man who was convicted of being an accessory to a murder, and I was never involved in the killing of anyone. And don't forget, it's not uncommon for some people who seek their own 15 seconds of fame to incriminate folks who are long dead; that's almost become a separate "cottage industry" these days. Madeline Brown, Judith Baker, and several others I've heard have NOT convinced me that their evidence is credible. Admitting to having been LBJ's mistress is one thing; proving that he murdered the President is another thing entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I would hope that you would PLEASE refrain from attempting to cut off discussion of new evidence that points at someone other than Johnson.

In fairness to Mr. Morrow, I don't think he ever suggested that Johnson acted alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness to Mr. Morrow, I don't think he ever suggested that Johnson acted alone.

That'd be a cool new theory, wouldn't it?....

LBJ, riding two cars behind the President, whips out a rifle and murders JFK. Details at 11!

Only problem is--the bullet fired by Vice President Johnson missed Kennedy and Hickey's accidental shot killed the President. (What a tangled web, huh?)

Oswald, of course, to whom all the evidence leads, is the only person in Dealey Plaza who isn't considered a suspect.

Go figure the irony.

And it looks like there's no end to the string of garbage-filled books coming out pointing an accusing finger at LBJ. Here's yet another new one, written by some Colonel....

JFK-An-American-Coup.jpg

http://kennedy-books-videos.blogspot.com/2011/03/kennedy-catalog.html

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

Sorry David, somebody already beat you to that scenario. I have seen a letter and very large map sent to the WC in which the scenario was that LBJ actually did jump out of his

car on Houston, and machine gun JFK on Elm. And the rest of the motorcade turned left on Houston and went out that way...

It was extremely detailed, showing Johnson's actual path and the other shooters etc. I think Anna Marie had recovered a copy of it all from the Archives...

I've been holding my breath that it would not show up as a 50th anniversary book... so far its pretty much the only thing that hasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Re: Mark Knight. Ken Holmes, a deceased JFK researcher, gave me an others a tour around Dallas of the historical sights relating to the JFK assassination. I asked him about Madeleine Brown. He said he knew her and her son Steven well. Then Holmes said (this is Nov. 2011) "You would not need a DNA test to know it was LBJ's son."

Then I asked Ken, "Well who do you think killed JFK." Answer: "Lyndon Johnson."

And that is how critical Madeleine Brown is. The vast majority of JFK researchers who have spent some time with her consider Madeleine Brown was extremely credible. I have no doubt - none - that she was LBJ's mistress, because she was and so many of the JFK researchers around her discovered that she knew a lot of LBJ insider baseball. Madeleine's closest friends are not on the internet defending her and several of them are alive today.

Because Madeleine was so credible, you have a heavy contingent of Texas-based JFK researchers who believe fervently that Lyndon Johnson was behind the JFK assassination. They spent a lot of time with her. I believe that what LBJ told Madeleine Brown is the most important break ever in JFK assassination research and I think he summed it up nicely: it was Dallas, TX oil barons - LBJ's inner political circle and the CIA (and military intelligence) and LBJ himself (which he of course pathologically could never admit) who were behind the JFK assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's deliberate or, but I notice a lot moe ego than intellect. Do I have pet theory? You betcha but I'm looking for the truth, but if the truth me wrong, I wouldn't take marbles and go home.

A little moe civility and the placing our egos in lock box we might actually solve puppy. At Homicide I solved a 60yr old cold case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to think I'm seeing a pattern in some of the posts here. Maybe I'm just imagining it, maybe I'm not. But it seems that whenever an interesting thread begins to develop some momentum, certain other posters will come along with their pet theory [they apparently only have one, it seems] and tell us why none of this newly-discovered evidence would EVER matter.

One who does this quite often is the biggest fan of the Warren Emission [er, COmission] to ever come down the pike. The other is convinced that LBJ was the mastermind of the assassination. But it seems that sometimes these types will grasp at the most tenuous connection to their pet theory--except, in their minds, they have the facts, NOT a theory, and anything else is fantasy--and turn a thread upside down and backwards to "tie" the information in the thread to their pet theory.

Sometimes. it would be refreshing if these folks would just let the threads and RELATED discussions develop, and let the rest of us determine whether we believe the piece of evidence that precipitated the thread in the first place fits with the information we already know.

I'm not particularly hung up on ANY single theory; I consider myself a student of the assassination, not an expert. But I already know of many obfuscations and outright lies involved in the WC report, so I don't believe their conclusions. As for the LBJ stuff...a lot of the accusers were/are as shady as LBJ, so how much of the uncorroborated portion of their stories are we to believe?

It just seems that some folks, both on the LN side AND on the CT side, are working hard to brush any newly-discovered facts aside..."Move along, folks; nothing to see here." Kinda sounds like the initial cover-up to me. If the new discoveries are significant, it will eventually become obvious...and if they're not, that will also eventually become obvious. I believe that, if your particular theory is right, any new factual discoveries will only strengthen it; and if your theory is wrong, new discoveries may poke holes in your boat.

Mark,

You are quite incorrect!

By most standards, and especially these "talk show" standards, you are in fact an "EXPERT" on the simple facts of the assassination.

Tom

P.S. Might I recommend the Professor McAdams & Josiah Thompson work on the upcoming NOVA TV specials.

Considering that John McAdams is now also a member of the "EXPERT" community and "Tink" Thompson is a partial Expert (CE399 only), the combination of the two just may provide something worthwhile.

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...