JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jerry Freeman on July 17, 2022, 11:13:21 PM
-
Released this past month on youtube...2013 lecture by Roger Stone C-SPAN Video----
https://www.c-span.org/video/?316819-1/the-man-killed-kennedy
-
Thanks Jerry. Very interesting.
What do the detractors say?
-
Roger Stone raised his eyebrows approximately 2,850 times during that video. Therefore, I conclude that he thinks he actually has something. I am not sure what he has, but he appears to believe that he does….
-
Well, it seems that Roger Stone is the 'Go To' expert on Large-Secret-Enduring" conspiracies. Like on the:
1. JFK assassination.
and the:
2. The 2020 Election being stolen from Donald Trump.
and the:
3. President Barack Obama fake birth certificate, along with fake newspaper announcements of the birth.
just to name a few.
It really helps the CT case to have such 'high-quality' spokesmen on their side.
Why is it that the prominent spokespersons on the JFK assassination are all CTers, not LNers?
-
Roger Stone raised his eyebrows approximately 2,850 times during that video. Therefore, I conclude that he thinks he actually has something. I am not sure what he has, but he appears to believe that he does….
Great observation. About once per second? That sounds about right. The eyebrow raises occur about the same frequency as some CTers say the shots were fired at.
Other CT spokesmen have usual speaking styles. Dr. Cyril Wecht can sound like he is hyperventilating when he is talking. His passion for the subject really comes through.
A sign of mental illness for Mr. Stone? Maybe. His lawyers should consider using this video the next time he goes on trial.
Can anyone provide a video of a speaker raising his eyebrows more frequently?
-
Great observation. About once per second? That sounds about right. The eyebrow raises occur about the same frequency as some CTers say the shots were fired at.
A sign of mental illness? Maybe. His lawyers should consider using this video the next time he goes on trial.
Can anyone provide a video of a speaker raising his eyebrows more frequently?
Much of what he said is a regurgitation of what I remember reading in Barr McClellan’s book. That is the book that convinced me that I needed to start fresh with an open mind to both sides of the controversy. Here’s an article that should be read and considered by anyone curious about the conjecture and innuendo spouted by McClellan (and Roger Stone).
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/4504 (https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/4504)
-
Is it a coincidence that Roger Stone supports Donald Trump, the greatest white supremacist president since the nineteenth century, while arguing that the greatest pro civil rights president, since Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon Johnson, was the driving force behind the assassination of JFK?
Coincidence or not? Any CTer like to answer?
-
Is it my imagination that while saying Governor Terry Sanford (around the 6:50 time mark) likely would have been the new Vice President in 1965-1969, had Kennedy lived, as he describes Terry Sanford as “a southern racial moderate” (a true statement) a brief look of distain seems to pass over his face, right before 6:52?
Do others see that? Or is that just my imagination.
-
On an unrelated note, I see the one word that Jerry Freeman chooses to describe himself, right under his avatar on each of his posts is “Skeptic”.
Wow. I would never have pegged Jerry Freeman as a fellow skeptic. You sure have me fooled.
-
Is it a coincidence that Roger Stone supports Donald Trump,...
Oh dear.
-
Oh dear.
So, do you or do you not detect a brief look of distain, around 6:52, when he describes Governor Terry Sanford as a "southern racial moderate". Note, Terry Sanford was, indeed, a "southern racial moderate", one who supported civil rights and equal treatment for blacks. And I detect a certain distain that Stone has for Sanford, or any other "southern racial moderate".
-
Oswald was a choir boy... compared to LBJ and Hoover...
-
So, do you or do you not detect a brief look of distain, around 6:52, when he describes Governor Terry Sanford as a "southern racial moderate". Note, Terry Sanford was, indeed, a "southern racial moderate", one who supported civil rights and equal treatment for blacks. And I detect a certain distain that Stone has for Sanford, or any other "southern racial moderate".
Not so sure. He makes that same facial expression many times during the talk.
-
Not so sure. He makes that same facial expression many times during the talk.
Good to know. So, where else does he make a similar facial expression? Like at 10:12? 17:53?
-
A measure of how well a person can reason is the ability to spot flaws, or potential flaws in a theory.
The greatest flaw, or potential flaw, in the Theory of Evolution, is the evolution of eyes. How could a perfect eye suddenly evolve through natural selection? Who first thought of this argument against evolution? None other than Charles Darwin. Of course, this argument against evolution has flaws. In the animal kingdom, there is a very wide range of visual acuity. Ranging from very good, like our own. Very very good, at least under bright lighting, for eagles. Down to a bare ability to detect the direction of the sun, allowing a primitive animal to move upward in the water column during the day. An animal does not need a fully function ‘eye’ to make use of vision, even very poor vision.
Roger Stone seems to have a poor ability to spot flaws in arguments. His support for the ‘Stolen Election in 2020’ narrative shows this. If Dominion Voting Systems software was rigged, one can easily detect this by doing a manual recount of the votes. Which Trump did have done in certain counties. So, why didn’t these recounts show a discrepancy?
Similarly, Roger Stone’s basic theory has a very basic flaw. Which he never addresses. Which I believe he was unaware of. Which I believe that Stone’s supporters are unaware of.
Question:
Can any Roger Stone supporter here say what this fundamental flaw in his argument is?
I will await an answer for a day or two. Here is an opportunity that you can make use of good skeptical reasoning. Skeptics are good at spotting flaws.
-
Roger Stone supporter... I will await an answer for a day or two. Here is an opportunity that you can make use of good skeptical reasoning. Skeptics are good at spotting flaws.
Why wait for only 2 days? There are members...posters and guests that are off and on and don't live here like you apparently do.
I suggest that you read "A Texan Looks at Lyndon". It is available here quite cheaply....
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l2632&_nkw=a+texan+looks+at+lyndon&_sacat=261186
It details how LBJ got his power and climbed through the ranks [by climbing all over other people]
It certainly wasn't his good looks that made him get to be senator from Texas.
You don't have to be a Roger Stone supporter to agree with several of his points.
I mean he isn't running for office.
-
. . .
I suggest that you read "A Texan Looks at Lyndon". It is available here quite cheaply....
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l2632&_nkw=a+texan+looks+at+lyndon&_sacat=261186
It details how LBJ got his power and climbed through the ranks [by climbing all over other people]
It certainly wasn't his good looks that made him get to be senator from Texas.
You don't have to be a Roger Stone supporter to agree with several of his points.
I mean he isn't running for office.
No. I wasted 45 minutes wading through Roger Stone’s talk, to see if he would deal with the big contradiction in his story. And, as I predicted, he didn’t deal with the issue at all. It is possible he is not even aware of it.
Let’s limit our discussion to the talk by Roger Stone that you originally presented. If I dive into this book and find obvious problems, you’ll just point to three other books.
Why wait for only 2 days? There are members...posters and guests that are off and on and don't live here like you apparently do.
. . .
Well, you have time to respond to my post. So, what is the big, obvious contradiction in Roger Stone’s theory? It’s not something obscure. It is an obvious problem, which a true skeptic should have no problem spotting?
Or are you incapable of spotting it, even after I have alerted you to it?
-
OK. It is clear that the supporters of Roger Stone’s JFK conspiracy scenario cannot see the obvious flaw in his thesis. Basically, here is what Roger Stone says:
In 1960:
Kennedy won the democratic nomination for President.
Kennedy was going to pick someone other than Johnson as his Vice President running mate.
However, Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover met with Kennedy in private, where Hoover showed Kennedy a dossier on the numerous affairs he had with other women.
This information would be released if Kennedy did not choose Johnson as his running mate.
With this threat, Kennedy had no choice but to make Johnson his running mate:
Now, in 1963:
Kennedy had decided not to have Johnson as his running mate in 1964.
Kennedy also decided, if he wins reelection, to force J. Edgar Hoover to resign as the head of the FBI.
Once out of office, Johnson would be subject to prosecution and would likely end up in a federal prison.
So, Johnson decided that because of this, he had no choice but to have Kennedy assassinated to avoid this happening.
Naturally, J. Edgar Hoover went along with this plot, so he could maintain his position.
OK. I think that by now, the supporters of Roger Stone’s scenario can now see the problem for the first time.
Why was this dossier so effective in controlling Kennedy in 1960 have seemingly so little effect in 1963?
Why did Kennedy think he could get away with forcing both Johnson and Hoover to retire, when Hoover still had this dossier?
In 1963, why couldn’t Johnson continue to force Kennedy to keep him as his running mate in 1964?
In 1963, why couldn’t J. Edgar Hoover continue to force Kennedy to keep him as head of the FBI?
Roger Stone explicitly states that Kennedy was planning to dump both Johnson and Hoover. So, even if there was a falling out between Johnson and Hoover, which, up until now, I have never heard the CTers claim, Hoover’s position should still have been safe.
This is the greatest, most obvious flaw in Stone’s scenario. He should have dealt with this in his talk. This seems to be a common problem with Stone. He supports the “Stolen Election of 2020” scenario, presumably including the “Dominion Voting Machines” throwing the election to Biden, without ever explaining why the manual recounts of certain counties, which Trump had requested, did not reveal a large difference between the manual recount and the machine recounts.
It appears to me that certain CTers cannot spot obvious flaws in proposed theories. An inability they share with the more rabid Trump supporters. Without this ability, how can they expect to figure out what the truth is?
Now, I expect CTers will try to change the subject. Something along the lines of “Oh yeah, well why can’t you see the obvious flaws in the Single Bullet Theory”. But I want them to concentrate on one question? Why didn’t any of them point out this fundamental flaw in Roger Stone’s argument? Why couldn’t they see this flaw even after I told them it was there?
-
OK. It is clear that the supporters of Roger Stone’s JFK conspiracy scenario cannot see the obvious flaw in his thesis.
Who are you referring to? You would do well to first determine if there are any here before declaring that you stumped them.
Why was this dossier so effective in controlling Kennedy in 1960 have seemingly so little effect in 1963?
Fair enough, but would you agree that a sitting president has far more power in every respect than a person merely running for president?
-
Why was this dossier so effective in controlling Kennedy in 1960 have seemingly so little effect in 1963?
Perhaps Kennedy had something on LBJ by 1964 which annulled the affairs dossier as a threat?
-
Who are you referring to? You would do well to first determine if there are any here before declaring that you stumped them.
Fair enough, but would you agree that a sitting president has far more power in every respect than a person merely running for president?
I believe that Hoover had past retirement age during JFK's first term, so JFK could have forced Hover to retirement by refusing to waive the mandatory retirement for Hoover
-
Who are you referring to? You would do well to first determine if there are any here before declaring that you stumped them.
Obviously, Jerry Freeman, who posted the video of Roger Stone’s talk.
Jim Hawthorn who found the video very interesting. And wanted to know how the detractors could counter this video. I don’t think Jim considered himself as one of the detractors. And who recently suggested, at the time stamp of 1:37:25 PM today, that perhaps Kennedy had something on Johnson which annulled the dossier.
Fair enough, but would you agree that a sitting president has far more power in every respect than a person merely running for president?
More power in what ways? By ordering the FBI to discredit a released dossier? I think even a sitting president would greatly fear what Hoover could do, particularly with an election coming up. And even after the election of 1964, how such a release would affect his legacy.
In any case, Roger Stone should have dealt with this issue. As Jerry Freeman and Jim Hawthorn should have done. I would certainly do so if I supported a theory that seemingly contains a major flaw.
-
Why was this dossier so effective in controlling Kennedy in 1960 have seemingly so little effect in 1963?
Perhaps Kennedy had something on LBJ by 1964 which annulled the affairs dossier as a threat?
No. Remember, Roger Stone said that Johnson was facing federal prison if he didn’t remain in high office. That was why threat of Kennedy removing him from the ticket was very serious. Regardless what Kennedy had on Johnson, Johnson would tell Kennedy it doesn’t matter. If Johnson is going down then they both have to go down. What has he got to lose if he is going to go to prison anyway?
In any case, this is nothing more than speculation on your part, about what Kennedy had on Johnson.
And finally, why didn’t you point out this contradiction in Roger Stone’s talk yourself? I think the answer is, that you were unable to detect this contradiction. Do you deny this?
-
I believe that Hoover had past retirement age during JFK's first term, so JFK could have forced Hover to retirement by refusing to waive the mandatory retirement for Hoover
And if JFK tries to do this, Hoover will threaten to release the dossier.
-
Obviously, Jerry Freeman, who posted the video of Roger Stone’s talk.
He posted a video link. How is that the same as “supporter of Roger Stone’s JFK conspiracy scenario”?
Jim Hawthorn who found the video very interesting.
Or that.
I think I see the problem. In your mind, lack of detraction automatically means support. Just as lack of proof of innocence automatically means guilt.
-
OK. It is clear that the supporters of Roger Stone’s JFK conspiracy scenario cannot see the obvious flaw in his thesis....
Who are you referring to? You would do well to first determine if there are any here before declaring that you stumped them.
Obviously, Jerry Freeman, who posted the video of Roger Stone’s talk.
I didn't realize that I was a one man team of supporters. Viewers of the video might consult the comments and see that virtually hundreds 100% believe that Johnson was a bastard and commanded a cover up.
Apparently Joe Elliott wants to achieve either some exuberance of upmanship we'll say...
Or he genuinely believes that the kindly and honest Lyndon Baines Johnson had no ulterior motive in directing the inquiry into the assassination toward the one and only accused. Johnson told Warren that he absolutely will not hear of any of this conspiracy crap.
You don't have to be a Roger Stone supporter to agree with several of his points.
I didn't say I agreed with all [ie the blackmail stuff]
I agreed based on what I independently know... that LBJ was an evil conniving bully SOB that would stop at nothing to get to the White House but he was up to his elephant size ears with scandals [Billie Sol Estes and Bobby Baker] Those disappeared with an oath of office.
Hoover's FBI was his wet nurse. And LBJ even had his own sister killed...nice guy huh?
-
No. Remember, Roger Stone said that Johnson was facing federal prison if he didn’t remain in high office. That was why threat of Kennedy removing him from the ticket was very serious. Regardless what Kennedy had on Johnson, Johnson would tell Kennedy it doesn’t matter. If Johnson is going down then they both have to go down. What has he got to lose if he is going to go to prison anyway?
In any case, this is nothing more than speculation on your part, about what Kennedy had on Johnson.
And finally, why didn’t you point out this contradiction in Roger Stone’s talk yourself? I think the answer is, that you were unable to detect this contradiction. Do you deny this?
I haven't studied the LBJ angle in depth. There are things are in the video that I wasn't aware of, so I was simply asking for the opinions of the more well-read members here. Obviously I was unable to "detect the contradiction". No big deal, just explain your opinions more clearly.
-
. . .
I didn't say I agreed with all [ie the blackmail stuff]
. . .
It doesn’t matter whether you agreed with it or not. I simply asked what was the biggest contradiction in Roger Stone’s talk. And you were unable to see one. Not even after I told you that there was one. To be a true “Skeptic”, you have to be able to see when people are contradicting themselves.
-
To be a true “Skeptic”, you have to be able to see when people are contradicting themselves.
So therefore... I fail as a skeptic ...according to your evaluation? Not surprising -I got the same vibe from Tommy Graves :D
-
Multiple people have explained why it’s not necessarily a contradiction. Perhaps Joe should apply his skepticism to his own claims.
-
It doesn’t matter whether you agreed with it or not. I simply asked what was the biggest contradiction in Roger Stone’s talk. And you were unable to see one. Not even after I told you that there was one. To be a true “Skeptic”, you have to be able to see when people are contradicting themselves.
Stone talks fast... and so it's hard to distinguish some of his words... but he seems to say that an investigation into LBJ’s right hand man, Bobby Baker, was begun on November 22, 1963... It seems that this investigation was begun in September, 1963... But yes, when JFK was assassinated, LBJ was facing a gathering storm...
Also, Stone says that LBJ and Hoover were neighbors... but Hoover has to fly down to Austin to celebrate LBJ’s victory... that was a little confusing...
But reveal the contradiction you perceive, and let the discussion begin...
-
But reveal the contradiction you perceive, and let the discussion begin...[/size]
He did:
OK. It is clear that the supporters of Roger Stone’s JFK conspiracy scenario cannot see the obvious flaw in his thesis. Basically, here is what Roger Stone says:
In 1960:
Kennedy won the democratic nomination for President.
Kennedy was going to pick someone other than Johnson as his Vice President running mate.
However, Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover met with Kennedy in private, where Hoover showed Kennedy a dossier on the numerous affairs he had with other women.
This information would be released if Kennedy did not choose Johnson as his running mate.
With this threat, Kennedy had no choice but to make Johnson his running mate:
Now, in 1963:
Kennedy had decided not to have Johnson as his running mate in 1964.
Kennedy also decided, if he wins reelection, to force J. Edgar Hoover to resign as the head of the FBI.
Once out of office, Johnson would be subject to prosecution and would likely end up in a federal prison.
So, Johnson decided that because of this, he had no choice but to have Kennedy assassinated to avoid this happening.
Naturally, J. Edgar Hoover went along with this plot, so he could maintain his position.
OK. I think that by now, the supporters of Roger Stone’s scenario can now see the problem for the first time.
Why was this dossier so effective in controlling Kennedy in 1960 have seemingly so little effect in 1963?
Why did Kennedy think he could get away with forcing both Johnson and Hoover to retire, when Hoover still had this dossier?
In 1963, why couldn’t Johnson continue to force Kennedy to keep him as his running mate in 1964?
In 1963, why couldn’t J. Edgar Hoover continue to force Kennedy to keep him as head of the FBI?
Roger Stone explicitly states that Kennedy was planning to dump both Johnson and Hoover. So, even if there was a falling out between Johnson and Hoover, which, up until now, I have never heard the CTers claim, Hoover’s position should still have been safe.
This is the greatest, most obvious flaw in Stone’s scenario. He should have dealt with this in his talk. This seems to be a common problem with Stone. He supports the “Stolen Election of 2020” scenario, presumably including the “Dominion Voting Machines” throwing the election to Biden, without ever explaining why the manual recounts of certain counties, which Trump had requested, did not reveal a large difference between the manual recount and the machine recounts.
It appears to me that certain CTers cannot spot obvious flaws in proposed theories. An inability they share with the more rabid Trump supporters. Without this ability, how can they expect to figure out what the truth is?
Now, I expect CTers will try to change the subject. Something along the lines of “Oh yeah, well why can’t you see the obvious flaws in the Single Bullet Theory”. But I want them to concentrate on one question? Why didn’t any of them point out this fundamental flaw in Roger Stone’s argument? Why couldn’t they see this flaw even after I told them it was there?
-
In fact, the LBJ theory relies on the stray fingerprint found on the 6th floor and that hasn't been unanimously confirmed of that of Expert shooter/hitman Wallace.
-
In fact, the LBJ theory relies on the stray fingerprint found on the 6th floor and that hasn't been unanimously confirmed of that of Expert shooter/hitman Wallace.
LBJ theory relies? This is a fact?
-
LBJ theory relies? This is a fact?
The theory that the TSBD assassin was LBJ's personal hit-man hinges on the principle that the stray fingerprint is that of Wallace.
-
The theory that the TSBD assassin was LBJ's personal hit-man hinges on the principle that the stray fingerprint is that of Wallace.
I'm singing in the same choir with you Mr Hawthorn ..... I'm 100% certain that LBJ was "Mr Big"* in the coup d ' tat.....But I seriously doubt that Wallace was on the 6th floor....
* Mr Big".... LBJ was the King pin.....But he and Hoover were equally responsible.
-
Maybe this is "Mac" Wallace... dressed up like a police officer... sitting at the bridge... with a sniper’s glove... in Cancellare photo... colorized by R. Unger I think...
Perfect location for a sniper/assassin...
(https://i.ibb.co/jvZHWxf/Screen-Shot-2022-07-22-at-9-46-17-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/PZzt9bj)
(https://i.ibb.co/8zBCZ2w/Screen-Shot-2022-07-22-at-9-51-59-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/cbvBnt9)
-
No good LBJ conspiracy theory is complete without mentioning his close ties to Harold D Byrd, owner of the TSBD building.
Byrd also had a close relationship with Sam Rayburn, Lyndon Johnson and John Connally. As Byrd pointed out in his autobiography, I'm an Endangered Species: "Another goal was to reach a rapport with the politicians who ran things, especially at the seat of state government in Austin.... Sam Rayburn, Morrie Sheppard, John Connally, and Lyndon Johnson on the national scene were to become men I could go to any time that I wanted action, and so were a succession of Texas governors."
"Byrd became involved in the Suite 8F Group, a collection of right-wing businessmen. The name comes from the room in the Lamar Hotel in Houston where they held their meetings. Members of the group included George Brown and Herman Brown (Brown & Root), Jesse H. Jones (multi-millionaire investor in a large number of organizations and chairman of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation), Gus Wortham (American General Insurance Company), James Abercrombie (Cameron Iron Works), Hugh R. Cullen (Quintana Petroleum), William Hobby (Governor of Texas and owner of the Houston Post), William Vinson (Great Southern Life Insurance), James Elkins (American General Insurance and Pure Oil Pipe Line), Morgan J. Davis (Humble Oil), Albert Thomas (chairman of the House Appropriations Committee), Lyndon B. Johnson (Majority Leader of the Senate) and John Connally (Texas politician)."
[Spartacus Educational]
-
Is it a coincidence that Roger Stone supports Donald Trump, the greatest white supremacist president since the nineteenth century, while arguing that the greatest pro civil rights president, since Abraham Lincoln, Lyndon Johnson, was the driving force behind the assassination of JFK?
Ah, so you're a leftist wingnut. I should have guessed. If Donald Trump is a white supremacist, it's very odd that he twisted many Republican arms in the Senate to get done what no other president had managed to do: to secure permanent federal funding for several historically black colleges. Strange behavior for a white supremacist.
I see in another reply that you also dismiss the evidence that the 2020 election was stolen. I'm guessing you have not read a single page of any serious article or judicial opinion that discusses the evidence of widespread election fraud in 2020. Here's my website on the subject:
https://sites.google.com/view/electionfraudin2020/home
The subject of Obama's birth certificate is too old to haggle about, but, here too, I'm guessing you've read nothing on the other side of the story. It was well known in the early '60s that it was very easy to get a fake birth certificate in Hawaii. Here are some facts on this issue that warrant consideration:
-- If Obama was born in Hawaii, why is the certificate number of his Certification of Live Birth (COLB) markedly out of sequence with the COLBs before and after his COLB recorded in the official local certificate ledger for that month in 1961? Recall that when Obama first released his COLB, the certificate number was blacked out. Why do you suppose that was? But later, due to a clerical error, his campaign accidentally released an unredacted copy of the COLB that showed the certificate number, and then researchers were able to track down his COLB and the COLBs in the certificate ledger for the day before, day of, and day after his alleged birth there. Lo and behold, they found that his certificate number was clearly out of sequence.
-- When Obama finally released his birth certificate (BC), many people were quick to note that it bore no resemblance to the description of his birth certificate given by Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of Hawaii's Department of Public Health, when she supposedly "verified" Obama's birth certificate in 2008. Dr. Fukino, among other things, said the birth certificate was half "handwritten." However, the birth certificate that Obama released has very little handwriting on it. Was Dr. Fukino drunk when she examined and then "verified" the birth certificate? How could she have been looking at the same BC that Obama later released and described it as half handwritten?
-- Why are there are no records that Ann Dunham (Obama's mother) was ever a patient at Kapi’olani Hospital in 1961? I’m talking about records other than the problematic COLB and BC, such as a patient record, a hospital bill or receipt, admittance form, etc., etc.
-- Are you aware with the problems with the announcement of Obama's birth published in local newspapers at the time? (By the way, people who came to Hawaii to get fake BCs for newborns would often arrange for local newspaper announcements of birth to give the BC credibility.)
-- Finally, can you provide a logical, credible explanation for why the About the Author write-up for Obama's first book said he was born in Kenya? This was way back before anyone imagined he would run for president. Where did the publisher get the information that Obama was born in Kenya? Did they just guess? No, as an author myself, I can assure that you that the About the Author info was provided by Obama, and that the publisher would rely on the author for that kind of information. No publisher or literary agent would just guess about something like that.
I won't reply to your response because I don't care enough about the issue anymore to dialogue on it, so you'll get the last word. I might add that the requirement that a person be a natural-born citizen is outdated, and that's one reason I said little about the birth-certificate issue when the debate was going on about it.
-
It is beginning to look like this thread should be moved to the off-topic section…. :-\
-
The theory that the TSBD assassin was LBJ's personal hit-man hinges on the principle that the stray fingerprint is that of Wallace.
Very aware of the theory. I believe LBJ was involved but not with the alledge Mac Wallace prints on the 6th floor. That however does not make it a fact.
-
I'm singing in the same choir with you Mr Hawthorn ..... I'm 100% certain that LBJ was "Mr Big"* in the coup d ' tat.....But I seriously doubt that Wallace was on the 6th floor....
* Mr Big".... LBJ was the King pin.....But he and Hoover were equally responsible.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pdYjdprv/lbj-hoover.png)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/pdYjdprv/lbj-hoover.png)
:D
-
Michael if you think the 2020 election was “stolen”. Then I’m afraid you are the “wingnut”.
-
It is beginning to look like this thread should be moved to the off-topic section…. :-\
For that matter, nearly all JFK assassination conspiracy claims should be under "Off Topic" because they're irrelevant to what really happened.
-
For that matter, nearly all JFK assassination conspiracy claims should be under "Off Topic" because they're irrelevant to what really happened.
nearly all JFK assassination conspiracy claims should be under "Off Topic"
because they're irrelevant to what really happened.
Really, Mr O ?.... And you KNOW beyond a shadow of doubt "what really happened"
HOW?? Do you know that ?...Mr Organ...
-
In fact, the LBJ theory relies on the stray fingerprint found on the 6th floor and that hasn't been unanimously confirmed of that of Expert shooter/hitman Wallace.
How did a 'stray' fingerprint get on the floor. Was Wallace picking up shells haha.
Or maybe he was disguised as Oswald and his bald patch came off.
;D
-
For that matter, nearly all JFK assassination conspiracy claims should be under "Off Topic" because they're irrelevant to what really happened.
"Nearly all"
Hmmm...which would you allow/disallow?
Perhaps the claim that actually ...It was Ladybird that was the Grassy Knoll sniper [her double riding in the parade]
She wanted to be First Lady that bad.
Anyway, in the meantime, the Stone video has been pulled off of youtube I have noticed.
-
"Nearly all"
Hmmm...which would you allow/disallow?
Perhaps the claim that actually ...It was Ladybird that was the Grassy Knoll sniper [her double riding in the parade]
She wanted to be First Lady that bad.
Anyway, in the meantime, the Stone video has been pulled off of youtube I have noticed.
LNers -- or a good many of them, I figure -- accept such "challenges" to the "official story" as the Hosty note-flushing, the Oswald-Ferrie CAP photo, Ruby at Parkland, the Odios story. A few LNers accept the "low" EOP entry site. As they remain LNers, they don't accept such items as meaning they're proof of conspiracy, per se.
On the flip side, there have been a few CTs who think the Single Bullet Theory should be given more consideration, that there was no shot from the knoll and that Oswald killed Tippit. A few think Oswald was the only or primary shooter in Dealey Plaza.
-
LNers -- or a good many of them, I figure -- accept such "challenges" to the "official story" as the Hosty note-flushing, the Oswald-Ferrie CAP photo, Ruby at Parkland, the Odios story. A few LNers accept the "low" EOP entry site. As they remain LNers, they don't accept such items as meaning they're proof of conspiracy, per se.
On the flip side, there have been a few CTs who think the Single Bullet Theory should be given more consideration, that there was no shot from the knoll and that Oswald killed Tippit. A few think Oswald was the only or primary shooter in Dealey Plaza.
On the flip side, there have been a few irrational CTs who think the Single Bullet Theory should be given more consideration,
-
Stone gets a few things wrong in his presentation, but he also makes many valid points. Stone is a good example of the phenomenon that a person can do good research on some issues but do terrible research on other issues. I don't use Stone's book because I think he has severely discredited himself with his argument that photos of the Biden White House show a "satanic portal."
In his presentation, Stone recounts an incident that I've long found to be revealing and suspicious: LBJ's fierce last-minute attempt to get JFK to let Connally and Yarborough switch cars. LBJ was so adamant that he and JFK got into an angry shouting match about it.
-
A lot of folks these days, when you say J. Edgar Hoover, think of a peculiar chubby guy who was probably a closet gay and a tranny. However, in 1963 Hoover was just about the most respected man in America and JFK in the run up to the 1964 election could not risk the backlash that would come from forcing Hoover into retirement.
-
Stone gets a few things wrong in his presentation, but he also makes many valid points. Stone is a good example of the phenomenon that a person can do good research on some issues but do terrible research on other issues. I don't use Stone's book because I think he has severely discredited himself with his argument that photos of the Biden White House show a "satanic portal."
In his presentation, Stone recounts an incident that I've long found to be revealing and suspicious: LBJ's fierce last-minute attempt to get JFK to let Connally and Yarborough switch cars. LBJ was so adamant that he and JFK got into an angry shouting match about it.
LBJ knew that the coup was just waiting for his "thumbs up" signal ...and he wanted Yarborough in the Lincoln with JFK.....
-
A lot of folks these days, when you say J. Edgar Hoover, think of a peculiar chubby guy who was probably a closet gay and a tranny. However, in 1963 Hoover was just about the most respected man in America and JFK in the run up to the 1964 election could not risk the backlash that would come from forcing Hoover into retirement.
Just to be clear it was Federal Law that would've required Hoover to retire and not JFK. When LBJ took office is when he did away with mandatory retirement on Hoover in 1965? Not sure about year.
-
Retrieved the C-SPAN video presentation here -----
https://www.c-span.org/video/?316819-1/the-man-killed-kennedy