Skip to comments.What actually happened to Camelot
Posted on 02/04/2013 6:52:17 AM PST by varmintman
There are a couple of dozen competing conspiracy theories as to what happened to JFK and until recently I'd assumed they were all more or less equally plausible; that no longer appear to be the case, this one is a whole lot more plausible than any of the others.
That fingerprint of Mac Wallaces at the shooting scene IS a match:
and the story about the 5-year suspended sentence for killing the golf course owner does check out:
There is no way any of us could just kill somebody with a pistol, turn himself/herself in, and walk off with a suspended sentence a couple of weeks later. That was an experiment: LBJ and Ed Clark had created the machinery to treat the law as if it were a joke both at state and national levels, and were testing it out, worst possible case somebody they didn't really care that much about went to prison or was executed. As things turned out, the whole system worked, and was in place in 63 when they needed to get rid of John Kennedy.
This book also indicates that a large number of the demoKKKrats whose names were familiar in the 1950s including Truman, Abe Fortas, Hugo Black, Earl Warren, and everybody involved in that "Warren Commission(TM)" were heavily complicit in LBJ's affairs.
McClellan of course is not just some other clown with another theory, he was a member of the A Team.
Soooooooooo, it was LBJ who dropped the “magic bullet” onto Governor Connally’s gurney?
My part of the plan always work!!
As a teenager in 1963, many of us thought that LBJ might have had a hand in it. This is nothing new, but if it could be proved it would put a cap on that corrupt piece of steaming mythology known as the kennedys.
That was then, in the now and present — FUBO & FAD
Three shooters including Oswald (who was basically a designated fall-guy/patsy), the other two equipped with then state-of-art collapsible sniper rifles with real scopes.
By A team, I mean Ed Clark’s legal firm.
>>By A team, I mean Ed Clarks legal firm<<
Well, Mr. T is just a good a suspect as anyone.
About 15 years ago, after looking at all the conspiracy theories, the backgrounds of the individuals within each one, and how the whole thing played out over the following years, I came away with the assumption that the most plausible explanation is that it was LBJ.
But by then it was distant history.
Kennedy had been having an affair with a communist spy and the story was about to get out. Think about what that would have done to the Democrat party at that time. Add in all the other Kennedy debacles, and the Democrat party would have been in the can. It wasn’t just Johnson, though he had the most to gain from it. It was the Democrat party.
I haven’t read the book but I have seen the video of LBJ on Air Force One being told Kennedy has died in the hospital. His first reaction is a huge exuberant grin then he sees the reporter filming in the back of the compartment and immediately puts on his grief face. That video, shot on film originally, was kept secret for years. It surfaced on the internet a number of years ago and was gone inside 6 mo. to a year. You can’t find it now but it exists.
We know it wasn’t the Soviets, who regarded Kennedy as a patsy when it came to arms treaties & therefore valuable to them, & they would have kept Castro on a short leash for the same reason.
Hope Robert A. Caro lives long enough to finish his multivolume opus on Lyndon Johnson. Just how evil LBJ really was is only now being realized.
With JFK, it was more like “Came-a-lot.”
The dem party in general does not appear to have been in on the assasination and when you think about it, if any more than a half dozen or so people had ever known anything about it, the whole thing wouldn’t have worked.
The really good ending here would be for Tarantino to make a film based on this book.....
There were more than a half dozen people who knew about Kennedy’s communist mistress. Ask your family and friends if JFK had a communist spy girlfriend. Yes, big secrets can be kept for a long time.
That isn’t what I meant. What I said was that no more than a half dozen or so could have known about the assassination plot.
You could very well be correct. I don’t know for sure one way or the other. I have been trying to make the point for the past year that the majority of people in the Democrat party (including many wealthy, powerful and smart people) tend to ignore any wrongdoing by their party because they feel that the Democrats are working towards a higher goal. Would some powerful and influential Democrats have looked the other way as LBJ had Kennedy removed? I think so.
And yes, I've read the books/seen the films/attended the lectures/been to the site, so don't tell me to go study up and then get back to you.
Oswald acted alone. The more that investigative technology improves, the more that this stark fact is confirmed.
I turned fifteen the day JFK was assassinated. The next month my Dad gave me a shotgun for Christmas, so I became aware at an early age that the cries for gun control had already begun. That Oswald used a rifle bought through the mail fueled the solidifying liberal view that private gun ownership was dangerously unregulated and something had to be done.
The gun control debate merely simmered the next few years as the nation focused on Vietnam & domestic racial strife. The riots in Watts & later in Newark & Detroit actually strengthened the idea that having guns for personal defense was a good thing. Everything changed with the King & RFK assassinations in 1968; LBJ dropped out of running again & had nothing to lose by ramming through GCA-68 before he left office. “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”
From then until the Reagan era the war on gun ownership concentrated exclusively on handguns with an emphasis on marginalizing handgun owners as dangerous & antisocial - all the cop shows of the time carried this theme & do to this day.
The cry to ban “assault weapons” is a red herring IMO. Handguns are still the main object of the gungrabbers. And here’s a thought: Liberals like to deride AR-15 owners with “what are you going to do with that, hold off an army?” I think actually they fear handgun ownership more based on that famous article “What can a handgun do against an army?” Do you get my drift?
Sorry to wander off topic but it might not be inaccurate to say that the modern drive for confiscatory gun control all started with Lyndon Johnson.
Can’t disagree with anything you wrote.
Thanks. Here’s something else I observed over the years & expect to see again given the current climate: government snitch hotlines & a campaign to rat out gun owners in the name of public safety. This was done in Washington D.C. in 1976 the year they outlawed handgun ownership & was not overturned until Heller. Posters went up soliciting tips from citizens: “Report an illegal gun, and you don’t have to give your name! Call 1-800-BAN-GUNS now!” (OK, I made that number up)
The poster depicted a giant revolver aimed directly at the reader, with a pair of malevolent eyes blazing behind it.
New York could be the first venue. Ever notice how Cuomo & Obama like to insist that “the vast majority of gun owners agrees with me that assault weapons should be banned!”? You’re thinking “Say what!?” but what happens when the dictatorially minded start believing their own propaganda? The opposite tactic is to declare gun owners a shrinking minority that is mostly white, male, middle aged, soon to die off and vanish like the dodo.
So calling the police hotline & turning in your neighbor for having what you suspect is an illegal gun is being a public-spirited citizen, not an evil little snitch bent on revenge for an old grudge. Of course, the potential for abuse is endless, yet look at the practice of siccing the police on your political opponent, called `SWATing’. A text message from a spoofed address is all it takes.
True genius is sometimes difficult to recognize; true ignorance (like yours) on the other hand is always obvious...
There is no way that a single shooter with a leftover WW-II bolt-action rifle with iron sights or a DIY scope conversion from K-Mart could have done as much damage as was done in the five seconds that shooting lasted. There were three shooters, two with modern weapons, and it was well planned and organized.
Unlike stupidity, ignorance is curable. The book is a ten dollar item from Amazon.
With a name like “varmint man” I assume you shoot? I’ve been shooting for years and when I was very young and I first saw details of Kennedys assasination I though there was no way one person did it. Based on, what I consider the fact that no person could possibly be that good with that particular rifle. Or, any bolt action rifle for that matter.
Never been there. Friends have, all former military, all inform me there’s no way a single shooter with a bolt-action rifle did the shooting. That’s before you get to the thing about finding Mac Wallaces fingerprints at the scene of course...
Interpretation of the Zapruder film produce various estimates of the final two shots from between 5.6 and 8.4 seconds. The performance of Oswald's 6.5 mm Carcano Model 91/38 rifle firing the shots in the allotted time has been duplicated by a team hired by Discovery TV Channel, among others.
Now explain to me exactly how these three shooters all fired bullets matching the same gun, and created exit wounds in the front of both Connally and JFK while firing from different directions?
Oh, and by the way, ignorance may be curable but I am less optimistic about bad manners.
Sure you, or I can fire the shots in the allotted time. Hitting anything is another matter. I’ve shot a lot over the years and I’m pretty dang good. Not the best, but better than most. I’m saying, and I’m not the only one, that the shooting, and hitting under the circumstances, is not possible. And, if it is impossible for Oswald to have done as has been alleged then the whole Warren commission was flawed in the least or corrupt or couldn’t handle the truth.
I don’t have an opinion one way or another who or why Kennedy was killed. But I do have an opinion that Oswald didn’t do it by himself. Did anyone ever figure out exactly why Jack Ruby killed Oswald?
Another patsy/fall-guy entangled in Ed Clark's schemes and used as part of the coverup, the book describes it.
If others have done it, and they have, then why is it impossible?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.