First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Jackie Onassis Kennedy Fingers Lindon B. Johnson As Killer of John F. Kennedy!!!
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 12/14/16

Abyssinian1 wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


Abyssinian1 wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


Abyssinian1 wrote:

I believe his name was Lyndon B. Johnson, NOT Lindon. Second, that is probably one of the most poorly-worded headlines I've seen this year, headlines so surreal that, upon reading a few of them, I suspected someone of spiking my coffee with LSD. Third, conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination will forever remain just that... theories and nothing more. Until and unless someone coughs up some hard, irrefutable evidence that squarely puts the blame for the shooting on someone other than Oswald, it's pointless to speculate. Over fifty years have passed and most of those who might have possessed such evidence are long gone. Better pay attention to the present, because things stateside are about to get really ugly.


So I spelled his name wrong. You don't have to write a whole paragraph about it!

Jeesh!



Well, if you're going to posit that someone who can't defend themselves masterminded the assassination of a U.S. President, do the departed the courtesy of getting their name right. For all we know, there might be someone named Lindon B. Johnson out there and we wouldn't want to tarnish the reputation of an innocent person, eh?



To be fair, I'm not the one who accused Lindo... Lyndon B. Johnson. It was Jackie O. who 'fingered' L.B. Johnson in her secret writings, which her daughter decided to publish for the first time.


Duly noted. I saw the IrishCentral article in my FB feed earlier in the week, which is why I'm commenting. With all due respect to the former First Lady, 'believing' isn't the same as having irrefutable proof in one's possession o an intent to commit a crime on Johnson's part. The article itself is little more than an advertisement for ABC's upcoming broadcast. Aside from the more salacious stuff (the affairs, the marital strife, Kennedy's illness), there won't be anything really substantive regarding the assassination.


Then you've already read her secret writings? You've already seen the broadcast, or read the transcripts for it? Please, post the links. Your complete confidence that there will be nothing substantive points to inside knowledge that you have gleaned about this matter. Share it with us.
84862 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M
Offline
Posted 12/14/16
I remember my high school history teacher really playing up the conspiracy theory. He kept playing the video over and over, "back and to the left" he kept saying.
Posted 12/14/16
I like the theory that Texas Governor John Connally was Oswald's real target.
Posted 12/14/16
The best theory I've seen puts Oswald as a patsy, with several teams of two set up, one shooter, one observer, and Jack Ruby was in this mix of people. Ruby was cia after all, so that puts his credibility as suspect automatically in my view because of that. Still another theory puts LHO as a secret operative directly employed by RFK that was himself mole'd and ratted out after having tipped off Kennedy to a previous attempt that was set up a few months prior in I believe Chicago (JFK didnt make the trip.)

But at any rate, the unedited zapruder film shows plenty - it shows that the car does come to a stop, which destroys the credibility of the Warren Commission right there.

Ah, what does one do when the official story's credibility gets shot....hah, I kid, I kid, it is a rhetorical question...
68287 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / F / 5280 feet above s...
Offline
Posted 12/14/16 , edited 12/14/16

DeadlyOats wrote:


Abyssinian1 wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


Abyssinian1 wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:


Abyssinian1 wrote:

I believe his name was Lyndon B. Johnson, NOT Lindon. Second, that is probably one of the most poorly-worded headlines I've seen this year, headlines so surreal that, upon reading a few of them, I suspected someone of spiking my coffee with LSD. Third, conspiracy theories about the Kennedy assassination will forever remain just that... theories and nothing more. Until and unless someone coughs up some hard, irrefutable evidence that squarely puts the blame for the shooting on someone other than Oswald, it's pointless to speculate. Over fifty years have passed and most of those who might have possessed such evidence are long gone. Better pay attention to the present, because things stateside are about to get really ugly.


So I spelled his name wrong. You don't have to write a whole paragraph about it!

Jeesh!



Well, if you're going to posit that someone who can't defend themselves masterminded the assassination of a U.S. President, do the departed the courtesy of getting their name right. For all we know, there might be someone named Lindon B. Johnson out there and we wouldn't want to tarnish the reputation of an innocent person, eh?



To be fair, I'm not the one who accused Lindo... Lyndon B. Johnson. It was Jackie O. who 'fingered' L.B. Johnson in her secret writings, which her daughter decided to publish for the first time.


Duly noted. I saw the IrishCentral article in my FB feed earlier in the week, which is why I'm commenting. With all due respect to the former First Lady, 'believing' isn't the same as having irrefutable proof in one's possession o an intent to commit a crime on Johnson's part. The article itself is little more than an advertisement for ABC's upcoming broadcast. Aside from the more salacious stuff (the affairs, the marital strife, Kennedy's illness), there won't be anything really substantive regarding the assassination.


Then you've already read her secret writings? You've already seen the broadcast, or read the transcripts for it? Please, post the links. Your complete confidence that there will be nothing substantive points to inside knowledge that you have gleaned about this matter. Share it with us.


Nice attempt to deflect, but no dice. I don't have any insider knowledge and neither does anyone else, save for the executives at ABC and Carolyn Kennedy. If there were anything like a smoking gun in those tapes, other than Jackie O's private opinion, they would have made it public by now, in the interest of pursuing justice. By the way, this isn't the first article in IrishCentral about the tapes (and no, there are no secret writings, unless you're referring to her private correspondence with Irish priest, Father Joseph Leonard, and which predate the assassination by decades, and are therefore irrelevant). The current article is something of a rehash of an earlier article from 2011:

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/controversial-jackie-o-tapes-first-lady-talks-openly-about-her-adultery-and-jfks-assassination-129183258-237409811

The Kennedys and ABC have been going back and forth for a while with the tapes, the former using them as leverage to get the Cruise-Holmes TV series about the Kennedy family canceled, which they managed to do. That means there is substantial monetary value, in the eyes of the ABC executives. That doesn't mean that the tapes have anything more in them than what's already been listed, in both articles. Again, there is a big difference between what Jackie O believed, and her presenting the sort of damning proof that would lead to an arrest and the conviction of LBJ and his supposed conspirators. She could plainly list her reasons for believing these things, but without the kind of evidence admissible in a court of law, or a Congressional hearing, they remain that: her private beliefs, not proven fact.
119188 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 12/23/17
Year-end cleanup. Closing threads with no new posts since 12/31/2016.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.