JFK Conspiracy Theorists Who Earn Their Reputation as Crackpots

[Tom Graves]

I was referring to the professed fear of a nuclear Armageddon with the Soviet Union. Thanks to records released in 1993, we know that LBJ pressured Richard Russell and Earl Warren into serving on the WC by telling them that if the government didn't squash rumors that the Soviets and/or the Cubans were behind the JFK assassination, this could push the U.S. into a war that could “kill 40 million Americans in an hour.”

Dear Comrade Griffith,

Why did the world-class humanitarian organization known as the KGB force the evil, evil CIA to do that?

-- Tom

PS "Professed fear"?

[Lance Payette]

But, yes, I was referring to the professed fear of a nuclear Armageddon with the Soviet Union. Thanks to records released in 1993, we know that LBJ pressured Richard Russell and Earl Warren into serving on the WC by telling them that if the government didn't squash rumors that the Soviets and/or the Cubans were behind the JFK assassination, this could push the U.S. into a war that could “kill 40 million Americans in an hour.”

As we used to say about the General Counsel of the Mega Corp at which I worked, "Often wrong but never in doubt." Good thing you have a professional fact-checker like me to keep on your toes.

If not before, Earl Warren revealed what LBJ had said to him in the Memoirs of Chief Justice Earl Warren, published in 1977. You can read the relevant excerpt from his Memoirs here at page 7: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol11/pdf/HSCA_Vol11_WC_1_Operations.pdf. That's HSCA Volume 11, "Creation of the Warren Commission."

The similar argument made to Russell did indeed come to light (as far as I can tell) when the fabled "LBJ tapes" were released by the National Archives in response to ARRB requests in 1993. If the theory is that LBJ made this argument to stack the deck at the WC and ensure a LN outcome, then he miscalculated rather badly in the case of Russell - eh? Russell was not only a naysayer at the WC but was practically a full-tilt CTer after LBJ's death. LBJ's pressure was apparently too subtle for Russell to get the message - eh?

When I'm not wearing my CT propellor beanie, I see no reason to think LBJ was not sincere in his concerns. Your "belief" that LBJ pressured "several senior military officers" with this argument to ensure a LN result at the autopsy has no foundation whatsoever as far as I can discern. We know that the Joint Chiefs had suggested to JFK that the loss of tens of millions of American lives in a nuclear war would be an acceptable price to pay, whereupon a dismayed JFK had said "And we call ourselves the human race." Why would we think your unnamed "senior military officers" would not have responded "Nuclear war? Cool!" to LBJ's argument?

[Benjamin Cole]

LP:

"Years ago, one of the current moderators at the Ed Forum launched into a blatantly anti-Semitic narrative of 9/11. It was the Jews, the Jews, the Jews. I called him on it and even CTers who were no fans of mine joined in the outcry. I have had to laugh in more recent years at his efforts to tone it down and try to appear more reasonable, but as Kirk Galloway said back then: "You've shown us who you are."---Likely that was William N.

It is a large dollop of excrement on the JFKA research community escutcheon that W is a moderator of the EF-JFKA.

Yes, W quotes the anti-Semitic lunatics at Ron Unz, and promotes the theory that the Jews and Mossad perped the 9/11 event, by placing many hundreds of timed explosives in the WTC towers and setting them off after the jets struck. You can't make this stuff up.

Sadly, the JFKA research community has certain less pleasant characters, and also those with agendas.

I agree with you that Pat Speer, Tink Thompson, Larry Hancock, David Boylan, and a few others just want to know what happened. Me too.

I don't care if the truth is a LN, or a CT, or a big CT, or a KGB CT or a CIA CT. I would just like to know what happened.

Just don't dog-whistle "Mossad" to make some money.

[Benjamin Cole]

MTG--

Thanks for your collegial comments. It is possible to have disagreements about the JFKA without rancor and churlish sniping!

My best guess---and it is a guess---is that the JFKA CT was possibly just two guys, from Alpha 66 (or something called Command-L) and LHO.

If a couple guys in Alpha 66, for deep nationalistic, ideological and personal revenge reasons (see BoP) decided to perp the JFKA...why would they tell anybody? 

One was a shooter behind JFK, and the other was the GK smoke-and-bang show. If they were Herminio Diaz and Eladio Del Valle, they were both dead by 1967, and LHO in 1963. Dead men tell no tales. They kept no paperwork, and acted on no one's instructions.

We see from the Trump and Kirk shootings that anyone reasonably skilled with a rifle could have perped the JFKA. The JFKA "trained assassins" mumbo-jumbo is for the pulp novels.

I have no compelling answer of how the Alpha-66 pair gained LHO's witting or unwitting cooperation. Del Valle had been a pol in Cuba, and can be presumed to have some brains and social skills. They may have learned about LHO through the Cuban grapevine, and told him of passage to Cuba if he cooperated in a pro-Castro protest.

Marchetti's explanation of the JFKA cover-up may ring true. It was figured out or suspected that that CIA assets were involved in the JFKA...and so the investigation thus became a LN prosecution. That was Dulles at work. The nuclear-war concern, and LHO visit to Kostikov, may have been factors too.

The media and investigation? See coverage of the Kirk and Trump shootings. The media follows a narrative, and agenda. Maybe investigators do too.

In general, I lose faith in large many-headed CTs...on any topic.

For example, I do not believe that the three autopsists in Bethesda actually saw an obvious large avulsive or exit wound in the rear of JFK's head, and then never spoke a word about for the rest or their lives, or even left behind a letter to be opened after death, or anything in that regard. Yet they resected JFK's scalp (peeled it away from the skull). They would have seen such a wound.

I concede this is baffling, given the comments of those in Parkland. Well, so I am baffled.

Well, as I always say, just IMHO, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.