General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: CNN Tonight: The Assassination of JFK [View all]stopbush
(24,396 posts)doesn't make them true, let alone viable explanations. Tossing in words like "nefarious" to characterize LBJ's activities doesn't add a shred of verisimilitude to the claims.
The LBJ CTs are just as bad as the JFK CTs, and they can be dismissed with a simple question: is that what really happened? Just because somebody has malice towards somebody doesn't mean they are the guilty party in a crime.
The JFK CTs accuse everyone for the killing, from the mob to LBJ to the Cubans to the Russians to whoever. Unless you're willing to be an idiot like Oliver Stone and aver that they were ALL involved and conspiring together, then you're left with the stark truth that 98% of JFK CTs are wrong simply because they don't pick THE way it actually happened, if there was a conspiracy. Only one of the CTs could be true IF there was conspiracy, which there wasn't.
LBJ may have aspired to the office of president, he may have personally hated JFK. None of that means he was involved in the killing. He may have personally benefited from the killing, but so what? A politician may benefit when an opponent make some stupid statement in a debate (ie: Todd Aiken). That doesn't mean the politician put the words in Aiken's mouth or plotted to have him say something stupid.
You're old enough to know better. You have a right to your opinion, of course, but one need not respect an opinion once it lurches off into the conspiratorial morass. There's more than enough actual EVIDENCE in the case to believe the Warren Commission verdict. I'll take evidence over hearsay any day of the week.
Bottom line: you're saying that a single smudged fingerprint OUTWEIGHS the mountains of evidence that point to Oswald as the loner killer. Think about it.