I wonder why you insist there are more bullets if these are the only ones for which we (supposedly) have evidence. Oh, but you referred to “definite” evidence. What is the indefinite evidence for other bullets? Do tell.
Being a crossfire situation with at least four shooters there were probably more than four shots. Look up Jim Braden. He was arrested in the Dal-Tex building.
Oh, I see. Confess on their deathbeds, did they?
You don't know of McClellan?
Why do you think LBJ believed in it any more than the hawkish Kenned?
Johnson's first act was to escalate Vietnam. You don't know much about this stuff do you? It amuses me when people criticize others on subjects in which they know next to nothing about.
“Johnson’s first act was to escalate Vietnam. You don’t know much about this stuff do you? It amuses me when people criticize others on subjects in which they know next to nothing about.”
It always amuses me that people think everyone else is stupider and more ignorant than them because they do not share their outlandish views and have not read the same fringe books as them. Especially when we can agree that there’s absolutely no hard evidence for me to have read, only speculation based on Johnson’s possible motivation. For all you’ve told me about his motives, I could have gleaned the same information from a high school history textbook.
First of all, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, after which Johnson firmly escalated the war, wasn’t until August 1964. He took office on November 22, 1963. Hardly his “first act”. He had both Kennedy’s civil rights legacy to consider and, more importantly, his own Great Society-type “progressive” welfare-state programs to get started.
I’ve heard his aides and other people around him say that upon assuming office Vietnam was merely a blip on the screen. But let’s assume it was his top priority. Still, it wasn’t everything. You falsely present him as some sort of monomaniac.
Secondly, even if we assume LBJ always had escalation as a goal in his mind, was it really important enough that he’d be willing to murder the president to achieve it? Is murdering the president such a casual thing? I see no evidence that Vietnam was all that important to him. Any more than I see evidence that invading Iraq was important enough to George Bush for him to attack the twin towers and the pentagon.
Third, there’s the little fact that Johnson wasn’t exactly stepping over Jimmy Carter. Kennedy was no pacifist. And during his tenure he never did anything but escalate America’s involvement in Vietnam. The infamous NSAM 263, which is like the holy grail for Johnson/Military-Industrial-Complex conspiracy theorists (most of whom are liberals, and would like nothing more than to be able to blame the war on anybody but their side), was a withdrawal plan. That much is true. It called for 1,000 troops to be immediately removed, with an eventual final withdrawal by the end of 1965.
However, it was formulated at a time when the conflict was at a low ebb. BEFORE Diem was assassinated in Nov. of ‘63 (that is, before there was an indication that the South Vietnamese government was in serious trouble). There is no evidence that Kennedy wouldn’t have done exactly what Johnson went on to do, had he faced the same conditions Johnson faced.
Kennedy wasn’t hot on the war in Vietnam. In a perfect world, withdrawal was his preference. But how do you explain Obama signing on to a surge in Afghanistan and doing nothing to withdraw from Iraq? Presidents’ private preferences are not their public policies.
Please note, and this is important, NSAM 273, which rescinded 263, was drafted while Kennedy was still president! Johnson enacted 273 shortly after Kennedy’s death, which makes it seem like he reversed Kennedy’s policy. But no, I repeat NO, inference can be drawn from this fact. We’ll never, ever know what Kennedy would have done.
Certainly, there’s not enough evidence of Kennedy’s pacifism to demonstrate that Johnson had a clear motive to kill him, Vietnam-wise. Furthermore, where is all this evidence that Johnson was a all-or-nothing hawk on the issue? This picture of Kennedy as desperately wanting to get out and Johnson desperately wanting to get in is a myth. A false dilemma.
Finally, LBJ had most to gain from Kennedy’s death, so of course he’s a suspect. That old “cui bono” thing. But motive is not an element of crime. The fact that he benefitted is not proof of his complicity. Neither are the uncorroborated claims of supposed accomplices.