Richard Nixon and the Kennedy Assassination.

[Ron Ecker]

Why don't you people mention his evident involvement in the Kennedy assassination

Because Nixon as a suspect has been discussed here many times. Do you think you have something new?

Why don't you mention the apparent plagiarism in that "great read" you found, since I went to the trouble of pointing it out?

[Pat Speer]

Lynne, please stop embarrassing yourself by calling us all Nixon fans. A few months back there were a number of threads about the ties between Watergate and the Kennedy Assassination. Please use the search feature and find these threads and read them. You may learn a thing or two.

[Lynne Foster]

Why don't you people mention his evident involvement in the Kennedy assassination

Because Nixon as a suspect has been discussed here many times. Do you think you have something new?

Why don't you mention the apparent plagiarism in that "great read" you found, since I went to the trouble of pointing it out?

I didn't notice any plagiarism, Nixon is just a suspect?

He sounds more like a serial assassin to me.

If you know everything, why don't you just tell us who murdered President Kennedy and I'll just read and learn?

[Len Colby]

What are you talking about, Ron posted the website with the picture.

Are you just a Nixon fan who is trying to protect the image of a known criminal?

Your right Ron did post the link to an article with the photo in a post in which he trashed your source. But as I said neither you nor Wilson did. That your guy mixes plagiarism with unsupported speculation puts him an even worse light.

What this photo proves is beyond me, it's possible that the photo editor added the part about Nixon having heard about the assassination during the flight. Also in neither of the quotes from the site Ron gave the link to does Nixon say he FIRST heard about the assassination from these people when he was in the cab.

"In a 1964 Reader's Digest article, Nixon recalled hailing a cab after his Dallas-New York flight: 'We were waiting for a light to change when a man ran over from the street corner and said that the President had just been shot in Dallas.' In November of 1973, however, Nixon said in Esquire that his cabbie 'missed a turn somewhere and we were off the highway...a woman came out of her house screaming and crying. I rolled down the cab window to ask what the matter was and when she saw my face she turned even paler. She told me that John Kennedy had just been shot in Dallas."

Did Nixon lie about when he first heard about it? Could be, but that has yet to be proven. If he did does it prove anything? No just that he was a lying SOB, they didn't call him Tricky Dick for nothing. Was he a crimminal, of course. Did he have anything to do with the assassination? Could be but is unlikely that your hero will prove anything.

You also failed to reply to the rest of my thread, why do you constantly plug that dope Wilson?

You probably missed this from my last reply because I added it in an edit.

Just because someone doesn't take Wilson or you seriously it does not mean that he or she wants to protect Nixon or is a Warrenist. It just means they don't like hokum.

I noticed that you think Ron is a Nixon fan too. LOL Take a look at our other posts to see if you really think that's true.

You seem to have alienated just about everyone on this forum. You should ask yourself is the problem with ALL of us or is it with you? Where did you post before you showed up here? Did you get booted from there? That might soon be your fate here.

[Lynne Foster]

Lynne, please stop embarrassing yourself by calling us all Nixon fans. A few months back there were a number of threads about the ties between Watergate and the Kennedy Assassination. Please use the search feature and find these threads and read them. You may learn a thing or two.

I did that search and I found this article, the very same one I posted today. and it is listed under my thread, Watergate and the kennedy assassination.

But when I initially posted that, the material on the website was very, very different, it has evidently been updated.

Websites are evidently updated all the time, and the material that you will find there today, may not be the same tomorrow.

At any rate, I did not find anything that anybody else has posted, can you post a link I can look into?

[Ron Ecker]

Websites are evidently updated all the time, and the material that you will find there today, may not be the same tomorrow.

I find this hard to believe. Where did you get that idea?

The next thing you know you'll be telling us about "dead links" out there. But we already know about them: They're the roadkill of the information superhighway.

[Len Colby]

Read this again, I think his wife is in a better position to judge than you are:

"Chuck Cook, a reporter for the Dallas morning news... showed the photos of the three tramps to Harrison’s wife Jo Ann Harrelson who was 'amazed at the similarities.' Indeed, even aging has not affected the resemblance. "

She said she was 'amazed at the similarities' that doesn't mean she thought it was him. It could even be understood to mean the opposite. If you showed my wife pictures of me taken years before she would probably say 'That's him' if you showed her pictures of someone else who looked a lot like me she would probably say something like "I'm amazed at the similarities."

It would also be valuable to know if she knew him in 1963. If you, I'm assuming you really are Wilson or his partner, show the photo to a recognized and trained forensic photographic analysis and he or she says they're the same person I might agree you are on to something rather than that you are on something.

[Len Colby]

Why don't you people mention his evident involvement in the Kennedy assassination

Because Nixon as a suspect has been discussed here many times. Do you think you have something new?

Why don't you mention the apparent plagiarism in that "great read" you found, since I went to the trouble of pointing it out?

I didn't notice any plagiarism,

I guess I over estimated your intellectual abilities he/you copped the part about Nixon lying and the Halderman/Erlichman quote from the other article. Quoted the exact same passage from the book, was that just a coincidence?

Nixon is just a suspect?

He sounds more like a serial assassin to me.

More damning evidence of that has been posted on this Forum than you have come up with but I still haven't seen anything conclusive.

If you know everything, why don't you just tell us who murdered President Kennedy and I'll just read and learn?

You're the one who seems to think they are all knowing

[Pat Speer]

Lynne, please stop embarrassing yourself by calling us all Nixon fans. A few months back there were a number of threads about the ties between Watergate and the Kennedy Assassination. Please use the search feature and find these threads and read them. You may learn a thing or two.

I did that search and I found this article, the very same one I posted today. and it is listed under my thread, Watergate and the kennedy assassination.

But when I initially posted that, the material on the website was very, very different, it has evidently been updated.

Websites are evidently updated all the time, and the material that you will find there today, may not be the same tomorrow.

At any rate, I did not find anything that anybody else has posted, can you post a link I can look into?

I suspect you searched the web at the top of this screen. If you scroll down to the bottom of this screen, you should see a search topic section. This applies to the Education Forum only. Once you search a topic, you'll be able to search by any keywords you like. You're even able to search by the person posting. So, if, for instance, you want to search what everyone is saying about you, you can type in your name and see what comes up.

[Len Colby]

Unfortunately for the President however, Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson were reading from the same page, regarding the obsession to prosecute the Vietnam war, and that became absolutely clear when Richard Nixon did not challenge Johnson's political candidacy in 1964. In other words, while Lyndon Johnson publicly promised to maintain the Kennedy agenda, he had privately reached a secret deal which Nixon, and that was the real, credibility gap of the Johnson White House. Needless to say, Nixon did not oppose Lyndon Johnson in 1964 because his choices were determined by the "politics" of the Kennedy assassination. Everybody who had a hand in the plot to assassinate Kennedy had his role defined for him, Richard Nixon did not have unilateral authority over a diverse, group efort. If that were the case, he would have opposed Lyndon Johnson's political candidacy in 1964, but he did not."

Nixon didn't run in '64 because he knew he would loose. The loss of the California governor's race was especially embarassing for him and he swore to never run for office again. He hadn't won and election onhis own since 1950 and lost two in a row, people considered him sore looser and LBJ was very popular. I don't even know if he could have gotten the nomination.

Was Nixon "in on it"? Was LBJ? Did they make a deal? Again could be but you haven't come up with anything new or compelling.

I think you really are Wilson your brain operates on the same faulty logic.

The next thing you know you'll be telling us about "dead links" out there. But we already know about them: They're the roadkill of the information superhighway.

Try right clicking the link and chose the "cached snapshot of page" option, if you're lucky you'll get a copy of the page "captured" by Google. You might need the Google toolbar for this to work.

[Lynne Foster]

Unfortunately for the President however, Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson were reading from the same page, regarding the obsession to prosecute the Vietnam war, and that became absolutely clear when Richard Nixon did not challenge Johnson's political candidacy in 1964. In other words, while Lyndon Johnson publicly promised to maintain the Kennedy agenda, he had privately reached a secret deal which Nixon, and that was the real, credibility gap of the Johnson White House. Needless to say, Nixon did not oppose Lyndon Johnson in 1964 because his choices were determined by the "politics" of the Kennedy assassination. Everybody who had a hand in the plot to assassinate Kennedy had his role defined for him, Richard Nixon did not have unilateral authority over a diverse, group efort. If that were the case, he would have opposed Lyndon Johnson's political candidacy in 1964, but he did not."

Nixon didn't run in '64 because he knew he would loose. The loss of the California governor's race was especially embarassing for him and he swore to never run for office again. He hadn't won and election onhis own since 1950 and lost two in a row, people considered him sore looser and LBJ was very popular. I don't even know if he could have gotten the nomination.

Was Nixon "in on it"? Was LBJ? Did they make a deal? Again could be but you haven't come up with anything new or compelling.

I think you really are Wilson your brain operates on the same faulty logic.

The next thing you know you'll be telling us about "dead links" out there. But we already know about them: They're the roadkill of the information superhighway.

Try right clicking the link and chose the "cached snapshot of page" option, if you're lucky you'll get a copy of the page "captured" by Google. You might need the Google toolbar for this to work.

I guess you think I am Wilson because I haven't learned to discuss the Kennedy assassination without discussing the killers. It's great to know that you know why Nixon didn't run in 1964, I guess you are a Nixon insider.

Next time I have a question about Nixon, I'll just as you.

Is he responsible for the murder of John Lennon?

[Mark Knight]

I'm not an apologist for Nixon by ANY means. I think Nixon was guilty as hell of MANY things. I think Nixon MAY have been involved in the JFK assassination. But Lynne...do you have any clue as to WHY I'm not out proclaiming Nixon did it?

Because there is NO PROOF.

Now, whether that's because Nixon is innocent, or whether it's because he covered his tracks well, I can't say. I've look at the evidence that's available, and all that's out there are bits and pieces of circumstantial evidence, and a lot of speculation an innuendo.

Speculation and innuendo do NOT constitute proof. And while I believe that, of all the politicians in 1963 who had a motive Nixon heads the list of suspects, what I believe doesn't prove diddly squat.

Lynne, I think you really need to spend a couple of days reading the archived threads on the forum, so you might better understand what has already been discussed, and what evidence there is, and who here falls on what side of the discussion. I think you've misjudged Ron Ecker quite badly...and while Ron and I seemingly disagree about as often as we agree, I respect Ron because he DOES HIS RESEARCH. And it's quite apparent by the tone and the content of your posts, Lynne, that they lack both respect and research.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark wrote:

And while I believe that, of all the politicians in 1963 who had a motive Nixon heads the list of suspects, what I believe doesn't prove diddly squat.

I agree with most of what Mark posted except the sentence above.

The primary American political beneficiary of the assassination was, of course, LBJ. But like Mark wrote about Nixon, the fact that LBJ had a motive is insufficient evidence to indict him. Moreover, what motive did Nixon have?

As we have covered before, the Republicans had no political reason to want JFK dead in 1964. In 1963, JFK was far from a "shoo-in". Any political analyst worth his salt would have been able to precict that LBJ would receive a "sympathy vote" from the murder of his predecessor. LBJ then could have run as an incumbent in 1968 and it would not have been until 1972 that the Republicans could have run a candidate against a non-incumbent. On the other hand, if JFK had lived and had he won re-election in 1964, the Republicans would have been able to run against a non-incumbent in 1968. Had LBJ turned out to be a popular president, it would have been very difficult for the GOP to oust him in 1968.

P.S. I am neither a JFK nor a Nixon apologist. I think both were guilty of "many things", as Mark puts it, and both made political mistakes, some egregious. On the other hand, both did accomplish things that are worthy of respect. The same thing can be said of LBJ. Although Ford and Carter were very probably cleaner than JFK, RNM and LBJ, I have difficulty remembering anything significant accomplished by Ford or Carter.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Ron Ecker]

I have difficulty remembering anything significant accomplished by Ford or Carter.

WIN buttons. (For those not old enough to remember them, don't ask. It's not worth it.)

[Pat Speer]

I have difficulty remembering anything significant accomplished by Ford or Carter.

WIN buttons. (For those not old enough to remember them, don't ask. It's not worth it.)

Whip

Inflation

Now

Do I win a prize?