both Democratic and Republican administrations acting in cooperation with each other have hidden these facts.
By similar logic, there were no stolen FBI files because
there could never be cooperation.
Posted on 06/12/2007 3:40:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
Amen...
7. Some people have brains the size of a pea.
By similar logic, there were no stolen FBI files because
there could never be cooperation.
> but there are no successful hidden conspiracies. I cannot think of one in my lifetime.)
Freemasonry anyone? or The Illuminati? The 5 Jewish Bankers? Pinky & The Brain? The Bonesmen? /s
Maybe..but Oswald was exactly the type to try to assassinate a political leader. Inexplicably grandiose.. fanatical..his whole life seemed to be about getting some recognition using the most pathetic means, probably because he was so mediocre they were the only means he had.
Gaeton Fonzi was an investigator on the Senate Select Committee on Assassinations. His book “The Last Investigation” provides countless examples of why no one has come forth to spill the beans; they were mostly all whacked!
Then there is the fact that certain evidence was put under a seal that is not to be broken until we are all dead.
bttt - Such mentalities are quite accurately psychoanalyzed here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846016/posts?page=77#77
One historian, I wish I could remember who, made the analogy that the Holocaust made sense — it was a great crime, conducted by a mighty gang of criminals.
The JFK assassination, on the other hand, doesn’t have that kind of symmetry; how could a crime that so deeply affected so many be the act of one lone dips-—t?
No one questions that Charles Guiteau acted alone in killing President Garfield, or that Leon Czolgosz acted alone in killing President McKinley, because neither of those men inspired as many people as Kennedy did.
Lincoln’s assassination was indeed the product of a small conspiracy, one that saw Booth shot and six of his confederates (pun intended) hanged. But it was a conspiracy that largely failed — the plan was to decapitate the government by killing the president and cabinet, but most of his comrades flaked out, and at the end of the day only Lincoln was dead and Seward injured.
Conspiracy theories rise from emotional needs more than cold reason. We want to believe in supervillains. Sherlock Holmes needs a Professor Moriarty. Looking at the horror of 9/11, we don’t want to believe that it could be the work of nineteen idiots with box-cutters, no matter how much help they had in funding and planning.
But history is like that. Terror comes from where we don’t expect it, BECAUSE we don’t expect it. They know that.
The acoustic evidence is from a dictabelt tape that was, it was later found, not recorded at Dealy Plaza. Chase the echoes all day long, but they’re irrelevant.
I have no need to fill. I just believe LBJ had a track record in Texas, the most to gain, and the means to put a plan into action. He also would have had the ability to put a considerable number of degrees of separation between he and an actual hit. I also look at what he did between Nov 22, 63 and the election less than 12 months later. He diverted the country’s attention as if he were the man behind the curtain. He pushed civil rights legislation, which he believed in about as much as any dixiecrat. He put pressure on the Warren Commission through J. Edgar so as to have their findings made public before the election. He also found the big diversion - The Gulf of Tonkin incident.
“The Truth?......You can’t handle the truth!”
We haven’t and never will live in a world of FULL DISCLOSURE.
Except for the fact that a fingerprint of Mac Wallace was found on a box in the school book depository after the assasination. Who is Mac Wallace you ask? He was a hit man who did jobs in Texas for Edward Clark who headed a law firm in Texas that handled LBJ's affairs.
Reference: Blood, Money and Power, How LBJ killed JFK by Barr McClellan.
Occams Razor suggests LBJ had the most to benefit from JFK's death. If you don't think LBJ had the mindset to issue the command or the lust for power to be president, take a stroll through the 3 volume set of Robert Caro's magnificant biographies of LBJ: Path to Power, Means of Ascent, and Master of the Senate.
I think LBJ had the means, power, and desire to knock off a sitting president in his own home state. He then got to control the investigation as president. He picked the Warren Commission.
Go ahead and put me down for as one of those looney conspiracy theorist, but this one make the most sense to me as to why, who and how was JFK killed.
Really? How many people did LBJ have murdered in Texas, killings that would have required dozens, scores or hundreds of people to commit or cover up?
The odds of keeping a secret are proportional to the number of people in on the secret, squared. The broader the conspiracy, the less plausible. All the leading JFK conspiracy theories involve hundreds of people, and most of them involve thousands.
also look at what he did between Nov 22, 63 and the election less than 12 months later. He diverted the country’s attention as if he were the man behind the curtain. He pushed civil rights legislation, which he believed in about as much as any dixiecrat.
My nostrils catch a whiff of anti-Southern prejudice there. JBJ was never a "Dixiecrat" in the formal sense, someone who joined Strom Thurmond's campaign in 1948.
LBJ took on the mantle of the martyred Kennedy, and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Johnson had the "just folks" approach to let him in the door, and then he could twist an arm. No one ever manhandled a member of Congress like LBJ did.
Kennedy made speeches. Johnson made laws. To be sure, he f'd up a great many things, from Vietnam to welfare, but in making black folks full citizens, he was the right man in the right place at the right time.
Believe in whatever fantasy that works for you... I’ll settle for reality.
Some are true, some are partly true, and some are not true at all. You can not say all are not true.
Posner makes that analogy in Case Closed. The interesting thing I note is that often great events hinge on miniscule items. When I read histories of the second world war I get that impression a lot. One thing you could specutlate on is say a bug had gotten in Oswalds eye at just the critical moment and Kennedy had lived on. How would history have been different?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.