Mr. Bugliosi, please....
aeffects
before he died. In a article that appeared in the Atlantic Monthly,
July 1973, Jano wrote that LBJ told him:
a. "that the assassination in Dallas had been part of a conspiracy;
b. "I have never believed Oswald acted alone...;
c. "we've been operating a Murder Inc. in the Caribbean
(Fletcher Prouty's Introduction, Plausible Denial-Mark Lane copyright
Mark Lane 1991: Intro section)
Quotes from the President of the United States? The very person who
created the Warren Commission? Fascinating.
Comments, sir? In the depths of your JFK assassination research did
you explore the possibility there was more than one shooter in Dealey
Plaza... Help us out here David Von Pein...
David Von Pein
should be proof enough RIGHT THERE to show that Lyndon Johnson didn't
have any knowledge of any "plot" to kill JFK in Dallas 10 years prior
to those comments.
For, why on Earth would Johnson be saying those things to Janos (a
writer!) if he was giving anything other than just his LAYPERSON'S
OPINION re. the assassination?
And LBJ said similar things on NATIONAL TELEVISION to Walter Cronkite
in 1969 as well, i.e., telling Cronkite he had not "completely
discounted" the idea that other people might have been involved in
JFK's murder.
Some "cover-up" if he, himself, had been involved. That's
just....loony.
LBJ, like millions of other people around the world, was merely giving
his own personal opinion about the murder of JFK. Nothing more.
Nothing less.
With respect to Mr. Bugliosi's thoughts on any kind of "LBJ
involvement" in the assassination, Vince offers up this.....
"The notion that LBJ would actually decide to have Kennedy murdered
(or be a party to such a plot by others) is not one that, to my
knowledge, any rational and sensible student of the assassination has
ever entertained for a moment. But conspiracy theorists are not
rational and sensible when it comes to the Kennedy assassination." --
VB; Pages 1274-1275 of "RH" (in the 8-page "LBJ" chapter)
aeffects
> LBJ's utter candor with respect to comments like the ones shown above
> should be proof enough RIGHT THERE to show that Lyndon Johnson didn't
> have any knowledge of any "plot" to kill JFK in Dallas 10 years prior
> to those comments.
>
rotflmfao -- your a scream not to mention a fool! Why are you making
this so damn easy?
<snip the daBugliosi nonsense>
aeffects
oh, and who said LBJ was involved, you dolt?
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185948911....@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Oh Healey. You are soooo transparent. No rebuttal so you resort to
ad-hominem and snippage. Hang your head in shame young man. LOL
>
aeffects
> "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
sitdown, wanker no one squeezed that pimple on your shoulder -- Von
Pein is at work
Sam Brown
And again he proves me correct. LOL. You're on a roll Healey, keep it up.
>
David Von Pein
Ollie Stone and Jim Garrison (to name two). And we all know that a
huge % of idiots believe everything Oliver says. Dolt.
YoMama
Did you expect Johnson to say, "Yeah, I knew about a conspiracy but I
didn't do anything about it, cuz hell, they put me in office!"
idiot.
Gil Jesus
that prevents people from being charged with crimes after a certain
amount of time. The length of that time varies from crime to crime. In
the more serious crimes, such as murder, there is no statute of
limitations.
That means that as long as a suspect is alive, if new evidence
surfaces that points to that suspect, he or she can be charged with
the crime.
Which is why I've always been suspect of those who have come forth to
"confess" to killing JFK. In Texas, the penalty for murder is death
and it seems foolish in my mind that anyone would come forward to
claim that.
So you can see why it would be beneficial to the REAL killer or
killers to deflect attention away from themselves. Pretending that
they didn't know, naming different suspects and "staging" recorded
messages would all serve to "prove" that they had no foreknowledge and
did not support, through their action or inaction, the crime.
But it is true that actions speak louder than words. In searching for
the truth, one needs to look at what these people DID and DIDN'T do
and compare it with what they SAID.
Johnson was guilty of some serious crimes here. Obstruction of Justice
is an impeachable offense. Ask Richard Nixon's family. Johnson also
was guilty of the destruction of evidence and of interfering with a
homicide investigation. There is little doubt that Johnson and Hoover
CONSPIRED (oh my there's that word again) to cover up the crime and to
deceive the American people.
I agree with YoMama that at the very least, Johnson was not about to
bite the hand that fed him the Presidency he so badly wanted. But I
think his involvement went deeper than that.
MSwanberg
>
> - Show quoted text -
Agreed. Just because he's saying, "hey, I think someone else did it"
doesn't make it any different than the official "Oswald did it" line.
They're both deflections that are saying, "look over there... don't
look at me or what I've done..."
-Mike
aeffects
> should be proof enough RIGHT THERE to show that Lyndon Johnson didn't
> have any knowledge of any "plot" to kill JFK in Dallas 10 years prior
> to those comments.
want to run that by us again? A quote is a quote, David
LBJ quote on
b. "I have never believed Oswald acted alone...;
LBJ quote off
then we can get back to the question, eh? Or is this more dodge and
weave?
> For, why on Earth would Johnson be saying those things to Janos (a
> writer!) if he was giving anything other than just his LAYPERSON'S
> OPINION re. the assassination?
well to a certain degree, LBJ was in a better position to have access
to pertinent assassination info than anyone in the United States.
After all, his neighbor was J. Edna Hoover....
> And LBJ said similar things on NATIONAL TELEVISION to Walter Cronkite
> in 1969 as well, i.e., telling Cronkite he had not "completely
> discounted" the idea that other people might have been involved in
> JFK's murder.
of course, how could he not completely discount it when he:
quote on
"I have never believed Oswald acted alone...;
quote off ? ? ?
> Some "cover-up" if he, himself, had been involved. That's
> just....loony.
>
> LBJ, like millions of other people around the world, was merely giving
> his own personal opinion about the murder of JFK. Nothing more.
well who better? After all we have all sorts of folks chasing that
Lone Nut wetdream LHO did all by his lonesome, Bugliosi the latest
> Nothing less.
I certainly don't think you need more, do you? If so, why?
> With respect to Mr. Bugliosi's thoughts on any kind of "LBJ
> involvement" in the assassination, Vince offers up this.....
>
> "The notion that LBJ would actually decide to have Kennedy murdered
> (or be a party to such a plot by others) is not one that, to my
> knowledge, any rational and sensible student of the assassination has
> ever entertained for a moment. But conspiracy theorists are not
> rational and sensible when it comes to the Kennedy assassination." --
you're wasting bandwidth my man, no one said LBJ was (wittingly or
otherwise) involved...
re-read the thread and it's title, David. You're Bug's fallguy here,
does he have an answer to the simple question: "In the depths of your
JFK assassination research did
you (Bugliosi) explore the possibility there was more than one shooter
in Dealey Plaza...
> VB; Pages 1274-1275 of "RH" (in the 8-page "LBJ" chapter)
what? 8 pages out of 1600+? oh-my-lord.... that's probably half of
what he dedicated to Jack Ruby's mother's dental records...... the
President of the United States no less -- what-a-farce RC is!
David Von Pein
If LBJ had been "involved" in ANY way in ANY type of "cover-up" after
the fact (as a whole boatload of you CT-Kooks firmly believe was the
case), then I certainly wouldn't expect Johnson to come out and say
that he had ANY suspicions of any conspiracy surrounding his
predecessor's murder.
Idiot.
David Von Pein
And it's eight pages more than is necessary to rebut such silly
nonsense about LBJ's supposed complicity in JFK's death, or his
"covering it up" afterward.
Kook.
aeffects
David you're responding to a post YOU wrote.....
aeffects
that about 20 pages less than Jack Ruby's mothers dental records,
right? 1600+ pages - what-a-waste of trees. Talk about conservation
abuse! LMAO!
David Von Pein
Makes more sense than responding to your non-stop dreck. True?
Gil Jesus
doesn't fool anybody.
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:45:36 -0700, aeffects <aeff...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Ben Holmes
says...
He has to... he certainly can't respond to those who point out the *FACTS* in
this case. (at least, honestly...)
Ben Holmes
He may be responding to a post he wrote, but at least he's honest in his
characterization....
YoMama
you think he said it ? Why do you think he recorded phone
conversations implying his innocence ? He didn't know those tape
recorders were on ? To falsify the record of history and fool gullible
morons such as yourself. In his public suspicions of a "conspiracy"
did he ever list himself as a suspect ?
He didn't have suspicions, he knew. And you're the fucking gullible
idiot.
The government feeds you shit and you just sit there with your mouth
wide open.
Now tell everyone how good it tastes.
>>
>>>On Aug 1, 4:46 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> If LBJ had been "involved" in ANY way in ANY type of "cover-up" after
>>>> the fact), then I certainly wouldn't expect Johnson to come out and say
David Von Pein
Yeah, it's always a good idea to engage in some type of covert act and/
or cover-up of a Presidential assassination and then GO ON NETWORK
TELEVISION AND TALK ABOUT HOW YOU THINK A CONSPIRACY MIGHT HAVE
EXISTED.
That's the same brilliant mentality that is possessed by morons who
enjoy videotaping their own crimes. Just for the kicks, I guess.