The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ

[John Iacoletti]

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.

[Jerry Freeman]

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? 

[Jim Hawthorn]

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.

[Joe Elliott]

. . .
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.

[Jerry Freeman]

  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

[John Iacoletti]

Multiple people have explained why it’s not necessarily a contradiction. Perhaps Joe should apply his skepticism to his own claims.

[Jake Maxwell]

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...

[Jim Hawthorn]

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?