Last Second in Dallas

[Richard Smith]

No one could’ve predicted in advance of JFK’s murder that Lyndon Johnson, a southerner and rabid anti-communist, would respond to evidence of a potential communist conspiracy by covering it up in order to avoid a war.

Conventional Wisdom at the time was that Johnson was a bigger hawk than JFK.

I responded to this post and Martin has now repeatedly asked "Where do you get from that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war? Another strawman perhaps?"  The rabbit hole beckons us once again. 

[Jon Banks]

I responded to this post and Martin has now repeatedly asked "Where do you get from that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war? Another strawman perhaps?"  The rabbit hole beckons us once again.

There's no rabbit hole or Conspiracy Theory required. These are simple facts.

You can say with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight that it's obvious that Oswald acted alone. Great.


However, in November 1963, due to Oswald's background and connection to the Soviet Union, many Americans initially speculated that it might have been a Communist conspiracy. President Johnson was among those who speculated that it could be a communist conspiracy. They had no way of ruling out that possibility within just 48 hours.

It wasn't until years later that Americans increasingly began to speculate that it was an inside job involving some combination of the Mob and CIA. In 1963, Robert Kennedy is documented to have asked the CIA director if the CIA was involved but that wasn't known until decades later. I doubt that most people who weren't familiar with covert operations in 1963 (RFK knew more about the covert ops of 1963 than most Americans) even considered the possibility.

[Martin Weidmann]

No one could’ve predicted in advance of JFK’s murder that Lyndon Johnson, a southerner and rabid anti-communist, would respond to evidence of a potential communist conspiracy by covering it up in order to avoid a war.

I responded to this post and Martin has now repeatedly asked "Where do you get from that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war? Another strawman perhaps?"  The rabbit hole beckons us once again.

Oh boy...

How in the world does that observation by Jon Banks claim or confirm in any way that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war?

The answer is, of course, that it doesn't.... LBJ was indeed fearfull of a war in case a communist conspiracy came to light, and thus did not want go there, but in no way does that mean that the intention of the assassination was to start such a war. 

So, it was indeed another one of Richard's strawman! 

[Jon Banks]

Oh boy...

How in the world does that observation by Jon Banks claim or confirm in any way that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war?

The answer is, of course, that it doesn't.... LBJ was indeed fearfull of a war in case a communist conspiracy came to light, and thus did not want go there, but in no way does that mean that the intention of the assassination was to start such a war. 

So, it was indeed another one of Richard's strawman! 

The LN crowd wants us to believe that a good faith effort was put into investigating and ruling out a potential conspiracy. Nearly all the documents declassified since 1963 contradict that assumption.

The government's first instinct was to go into cover-up mode due to the national security concerns. Which complicated efforts to prove or disprove a potential conspiracy.

[Richard Smith]

Oh boy...

How in the world does that observation by Jon Banks claim or confirm in any way that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war?

The answer is, of course, that it doesn't.... LBJ was indeed fearfull of a war in case a communist conspiracy came to light, and thus did not want go there, but in no way does that mean that the intention of the assassination was to start such a war. 

So, it was indeed another one of Richard's strawman! 

Unreal.  Take it up with Jon. He made the claim that there was a cover up of "a potential communist conspiracy" to "avoid a war."  Again, "a potential communist conspiracy" covered up to "AVOID A WAR."  That is his premise not mine.  I simply responded to his point.  Obviously, I don't believe there was a coverup of a Communist conspiracy to avoid a war because there was no such conspiracy.  You are bizarrely asking me to prove the intent of a conspiracy that I do not believe happened!  As usual, you have interjected a lot of nonsense to take this discussion down the rabbit hole.

"No one could’ve predicted in advance of JFK’s murder that Lyndon Johnson, a southerner and rabid anti-communist, would respond to evidence of a potential communist conspiracy by covering it up in order to avoid a war."

[Richard Smith]

There's no rabbit hole or Conspiracy Theory required. These are simple facts.

You can say with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight that it's obvious that Oswald acted alone. Great.


However, in November 1963, due to Oswald's background and connection to the Soviet Union, many Americans initially speculated that it might have been a Communist conspiracy. President Johnson was among those who speculated that it could be a communist conspiracy. They had no way of ruling out that possibility within just 48 hours.

It wasn't until years later that Americans increasingly began to speculate that it was an inside job involving some combination of the Mob and CIA. In 1963, Robert Kennedy is documented to have asked the CIA director if the CIA was involved but that wasn't known until decades later. I doubt that most people who weren't familiar with covert operations in 1963 (RFK knew more about the covert ops of 1963 than most Americans) even considered the possibility.

We have beat this one to death.  Bottom line: even if you conclude that it was premature to rule out a Communist conspiracy to assassinate JFK back in the first days after the assassination, we now live nearly six decades after that time.  And there is still no such evidence.  Thus, EVEN if your premise is correct, it makes absolutely no difference as to the relevant fact.  There was no conspiracy involving Russia or Cuba to assassinate JFK.

[Jerry Organ]

This CIA document show how much was known about Oswald's Mexico City sojourn by 0700 on Sunday (the 24th). ( Link )

Doesn't seem to be any sign of conspiracy; just Oswald trying to get to Cuba and photos of a man tentatively "believed to be Oswald" not being Oswald.

Since Friday, American intelligence stations around the world were assessing their files and contacts for anything to do with Lee Harvey Oswald, and not one sign of conspiracy was obtained, just signs of a malcontent who hated his country. Those high up in the government, like Katzenbach, could look at the weak non-existent evidence of "conspiracy" weighed against the growing lone assassin evidence, and make a preliminary evaluation.

[Martin Weidmann]

Unreal.  Take it up with Jon. He made the claim that there was a cover up of "a potential communist conspiracy" to "avoid a war."  Again, "a potential communist conspiracy" covered up to "AVOID A WAR."  That is his premise not mine.  I simply responded to his point.  Obviously, I don't believe there was a coverup of a Communist conspiracy to avoid a war because there was no such conspiracy.  You are bizarrely asking me to prove the intent of a conspiracy that I do not believe happened!  As usual, you have interjected a lot of nonsense to take this discussion down the rabbit hole.

"No one could’ve predicted in advance of JFK’s murder that Lyndon Johnson, a southerner and rabid anti-communist, would respond to evidence of a potential communist conspiracy by covering it up in order to avoid a war."

You are bizarrely asking me to prove the intent of a conspiracy that I do not believe happened! 

No, wrong again. I never asked you to prove anything of the kind.

When you claimed "there was undoubtedly a very real concern that WWIII could be started on a false premise that Cuba or Russia was behind the assassination"

I merely asked you how they knew that the premise was false.

And when you subsequently stated;

"So the fantasy conspirators assassinated the US president, framed Oswald, and covered up the identity of the real assassins as a pretext to start a war with Cuba or Russia but then threw in the towel within 24 hours because LBJ was not on board?"

I asked you where you got the idea from that the intention of the assassination was a pretext to start a war?

You have failed to answer both questions.

Take it up with Jon. He made the claim that there was a cover up of "a potential communist conspiracy" to "avoid a war."

Which is exactly what you said. You only added that it was a false premise, without ever being able to explain how they could have known within 48 hours that such a premise was indeed false.

Now, here's the thing; in order for them to conclude (correctly or not) that the premise was false they must have considered the possibility that the intention of the assassination was in fact a pretext to start a war. The problem with that is of course that Hoover concluded on the 24th that Oswald had been a lone gunman. So, how can you consider the act of a lone gunman was intended to start a war?

You either conclude that there was a lone gunman, in which case there is no fear for a possible war or you believe a possible conspiracy was in play with the intention to start a war, you now want to avoid.

The blocking of any kind of serious investigation into a conspiracy from the beginning, to avoid a possible war, clearly suggests that the possibility of such a conspiracy to start a war was most certainly not ruled out, which in turn means that they must have understood from day one that Oswald was not a lone gunman. Or is that too much logic for you?