Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion

  • I listened to the show yesterday and I found it intriguing how he tied Lyndon Johnson in as the lynchpin for the conspiracy to murder President Kennedy. I think it makes sense but was wondering what everyone else thought about it.
  • MinMMinM
    Posts: 445 Accepted Answer
  • Thanks MinM :)
    I took a break from the research and focused on work. However with the 50th Anniversary coming up my interest has come back full force but to be honest it never really went away. Anyway when doing some reading I came back to this site and discovered there was an app now so I could not be happier about that.

    Anyway my thinking is that LBJ was involved because he was one of the ones who benefitted the most from JFKs death. I don't know if I believe he was the mastermind or not.
  • LordBaltoLordBalto
    Posts: 219 Accepted Answer
  • heinrichheinrich
    Posts: 208 Accepted Answer
  • Wait I never even thought to suspect him since he signed NSAM 263.
  • LordBaltoLordBalto
    Posts: 219 Accepted Answer
  • So the question then becomes why would Bundy want JFK dead? I can see why LBJ would want JFK out if the way but what would Bundy gain from it?
  • heinrichheinrich
    Posts: 208 Accepted Answer
  • heinrichheinrich
    Posts: 208 Accepted Answer
    I should add that McGeorge Bundy was just one of the many 'wise men' who decided that Kennedy was endangering the country and had to be removed in the national interest.
  • It blows my mind that these so called wise men were so eager to go to war. And not just any war, nuclear war at that. They are nuts.
  • MinMMinM
    Posts: 445
  • heinrichheinrich
    Posts: 208
    That's a good video. I'll put the link in a new thread.
  • heinrichheinrich
    Posts: 208
  • heinrichheinrich
    Posts: 208
    That, of course, is my point. If one wanted to, one could hold Armstrong up as a prima facie case of disinfo for advancing a premise that sounds so outlandish and absurd it simply *must* be an attempt to distract/divert legitimate research. Of course, this isn't necessarily my point of view. But I mention Armstrong to point out that something may be false without being an effort to deceive. A theory, after all, only has value in relation to the evidence it attempts to organize and explain. So theories do it more or less well, i.e. with varying degrees of success. Stone might be mistaken in the emphasis he gives to LBJ -- or he may not. But though I recoiled at the photos of him, with his disingenuous suntan and car-salesman smile, ass-kissing Republican presidents, I found nothing necessarily objectionable with his performance on the roundtable with DiEugenio. A relief.
  • heinrichheinrich
    Posts: 208 Accepted Answer
  • By their fruits ye shall know them.
  • heinrichheinrich
    Posts: 208 Accepted Answer
    Not sure how that's different than the logic of the lynch mob.
  • MinMMinM
    Posts: 445
  • heinrichheinrich
    Posts: 208
    The latest BlackOp interview with Joan Mellen has a good discussion of the LBJ-Did-It theory.
  • Pin the tail on the donkey.
  • MinMMinM
    Posts: 445
  • heinrichheinrich
    Posts: 208
    You guys and your Roger Stone hate!