The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ

[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?

[Jim Hawthorn]

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.

[Paul J Cummings]

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?

[Jim Hawthorn]

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.