A common government CYA technique...

"A common government CYA technique... assert the outcome, then you have your team of investigators and experts fill in the details that eventually arrive at your desired outcome - no matter how ridiculous the details are."

Heard this recently on a video about another historical and highly controvertial event, but boy does it nail it. 

The cherry on top is that you then appoint a blue-ribbon commission to giver your investigators and experts the seal of approval for their work.

Almost all the actual “investigation” is done by staffers. So those in immediate supervision of the investigative staff have the real power. The commissioners are there to give a seal of respectability.

The commissioners are not totally passive. Sometimes even they have limits. The 9/11 Commission was considering legal action against the Pentagon regarding what they considered to be less than truthful information and the destruction of evidence.

Geeh Greg, next thing you are going to say is that ze Fuhrer was involved as well. 🥸

Mind telling what video/historical event?

Yes, Greg, which is why (to beat a dead horse)LBJ was involved in the plan from early on.  What later became the Warren Commission was central, along control of the media, to convincing the public of their Oswald story.  Consummate Washington insider and arm twister who would have the authority of the presidency, Johnson was the guy, the only guy, for the job that gave them confidence to proceed.

barto wrote:Geeh Greg, next thing you are going to say is that ze Fuhrer was involved as well. 🥸

Mind telling what video/historical event?

This guy debunks a lot of what floats around the web, If he can't, he says so, and on occasions, also says when the evidence clearly shows the "theory" being looked at is correct. 

This is about Roswell. The evidence doesn't prove aliens are UFOs, but he does debunk the official version and makes the above statement at the 41 minute mark.

He is definitely not a nutcase and like I said, debunks far more than he agrees with. A "wherever the evidence goes" type. One of us really, but with a Heckle Fish. 

The government finally claimed the wreckage and bodies were from a project using test crash dummies. Trouble was that this project happened years after the Roswell incident. 

Roger Odisio wrote:Yes, Greg, which is why (to beat a dead horse)LBJ was involved in the plan from early on.  What later became the Warren Commission was central, along control of the media, to convincing the public of their Oswald story.  Consummate Washington insider and arm twister who would have the authority of the presidency, Johnson was the guy, the only guy, for the job that gave them confidence to proceed.

...yes.... OR....

he truly believed blaming the Soviets and/or Cubans would lead to a conflagration killing millions.

LBJ was not a nice person. No doubt. But I do doubt he was running his own Murder Inc. - a story which has echoes of modern false political narritives.

The worst I can say about him is that his war medal was bullshit (fancy that, a politician organizing a stunt to get a medal for future political advantage), as was his escalation of the VN war.

That said, at least one or more involved were LBJ insiders who wanted him in power so that an emerging political idealogy could be insinuated into the halls of power.

LBJ's behavior after the assassination gives the impression that he was very confused as to what is happening. He also expressed doubts about the Warren Report. He even had his acting attorney general conduct a secret investigation to find out what had actually happened. Does not seem like he was involved in any way.

Vinny, what is the source you are citing?

Castro felt as betrayed by Khrushchev after the Cuban Missile Crisis as the anti-Castro Cubans felt after the Bay of Pigs. Castro had agreed to the deployment of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba and had believed that it put him at risk of a US invasion within 24-72 hours during the crisis only to have Khrushchev pull the rug out from under him by making an agreement with the US. The Soviets got the Jupiter missiles removed from Turkey and Italy and did not lose ground in Berlin. The Cubans only got a private verbal pledge by the US not to invade Cuba. Plus, there were the assassination attempts against him that were ongoing.

The Cronkite interview with LBJ in which Johnson said he couldn't rule out international conspiracy in the JFKA was actually in Sept, 1969.  He had left office.

It was Johnson working on his legacy.

Cronkite says, well does mean you don't have full confidence in the Warren Report?  No, he says and goes into his usual litany about the WC--7 great Americans of utmost integrity simply seeking the truth. They did the best they could.  But sometimes they, or anyone, cannot be sure of every detail.

It's 6 years after the murder. They have gotten away with it and taken out MLK and RFK too. Johnson knows Oswald didn't do it and the WR is crap. Others are already poking holes in it. There is no reason for him to claim it's the bible on the JFKA.

So he gives his cutesy, enigmatic interview with uncle Walter and has CBS withhold the JFK part for 6 more years until he's gone.  He's covered no matter which way the story breaks.

Johnson knew the Soviets weren't involved. He used that fear in others to whip up support for the WC whose goal was not the truth but to reassure the public that Oswald was alone assassin.

Roger Odisio wrote:The Cronkite interview with LBJ in which Johnson said he couldn't rule out international conspiracy in the JFKA was actually in Sept, 1969.  He had left office.

It was Johnson working on his legacy.

Cronkite says, well does mean you don't have full confidence in the Warren Report?  No, he says and goes into his usual litany about the WC--7 great Americans of utmost integrity simply seeking the truth. They did the best they could.  But sometimes they, or anyone, cannot be sure of every detail.

It's 6 years after the murder. They have gotten away with it and taken out MLK and RFK too. Johnson knows Oswald didn't do it and the WR is crap. Others are already poking holes in it. There is no reason for him to claim it's the bible on the JFKA.

So he gives his cutesy, enigmatic interview with uncle Walter and has CBS withhold the JFK part for 6 more years until he's gone.  He's covered no matter which way the story breaks.

Johnson knew the Soviets weren't involved. He used that fear in others to whip up support for the WC whose goal was not the truth but to reassure the public that Oswald was alone assassin.

Won't argue too much with any of that, but it is not evidence of involvement. It is evidence of being a politician.

Lanceman, it is from the book "He Was Expendable"

You're right, Greg.  This post was about how LBJ the politician worked, to dispel any fears that he was confused about the murder.  My reasons for thinking LBJ was up to his neck in planning the murder and coverup are scattered thru other posts.  Those reasons do provide a basis for assertions in this post about what Johnson knew, and they underlie what I think he did.
 
Johnson knew what Dulles thought of Kennedy.  He was at the missile crisis meetings when LeMay called Kennedy a coward to his face.  He later told McNamara that he never agreed with Kennedy's decision to pull out of Vietnam but kept his mouth shut.  Johnson wanted to be President.  He knew who his allies were if he were ever to get there.
 
Johnson had people scattered throughout the government.  He knew what the planners were up to.  But it's also plausible he wasn't explicitly a planner, but kept himself at arms length from them for deniability.  He knew they would have to come to him as President to protect them and run the essential parts of the coverup. They were the experts at assassinations. That was a safer way to get what he wanted.
 
Ultimately I don't think it matters which story is true if one of them is.
 

Btw, I've again run across the assertion, this time by Mark Groubert, that LBJ spent a month before the murder at his ranch in Texas. I've also seen the claim that Dulles visited him there at that time. The perfect time and place to put the finishing touches on the murder plan.  Has anyone seen either of these things substantiated with, say, records?

There is a photo of Dulles at the LBJ ranch. But it was taken in July or August 1960 during the presidential campaign when LBJ was briefed that the missile gap was bullshit. JFK was briefed separately.

That photo came up for discussion on the Ed Forum about a year back when the usual suspects jumped on it as proof of their version of the conspiracy.

With congress in session and the Bobby Baker scandal heating up, I doubt LBJ spent a month during the autumn of 1963 at his Texas ranch. Should be able to prove his whereabouts by his travel log which may be online at the LBJ Library website.

http://lbjlibrary.net/collections/daily-diary.html

Yes same kettle but different fish. 
Interesting.
Sadly no Fuhrer involvement…..

greg_parker wrote:

barto wrote:Geeh Greg, next thing you are going to say is that ze Fuhrer was involved as well. 🥸

Mind telling what video/historical event?

This guy debunks a lot of what floats around the web, If he can't, he says so, and on occasions, also says when the evidence clearly shows the "theory" being looked at is correct. 

This is about Roswell. The evidence doesn't prove aliens are UFOs, but he does debunk the official version and makes the above statement at the 41 minute mark.

He is definitely not a nutcase and like I said, debunks far more than he agrees with. A "wherever the evidence goes" type. One of us really, but with a Heckle Fish. 

The government finally claimed the wreckage and bodies were from a project using test crash dummies. Trouble was that this project happened years after the Roswell incident. 

I am not entirely convinced that Dulles was involved either. It seems a bit too pat.

Vinny wrote:I am not entirely convinced that Dulles was involved either. It seems a bit too pat.

I doubt the CIA “did it”. But there could have been insiders that provided information or other assistance. And the CIA certainly covered it up to hide any links with Oswald, their Cuba activities as well as general CYA. That’s probably why Oswald was selected by the perpetrators as the patsy. Pretty clever of the perpetrators, staging the assassination so the US government will cover it up for them.

From what I’ve seen, Dulles got along well with JFK even before he became president. I’ve heard the phone call between LBJ, RFK and Dulles where Dulles is asked to go to Mississippi during the search for the missing civil rights workers in June, 1964. I don’t sense any hostility or reservations on RFK’s part.

I agree Lanceman. Elements from the CIA would likely have been involved even though the CIA as an institution would not have been. RFK did remain friends with Dulles until his death. That indicates that even RFK did not suspect Dulles as being involved in his brothers death.

L:  I doubt the CIA “did it”. But there could have been insiders that provided information or other assistance. And the CIA certainly covered it up to hide any links with Oswald, their Cuba activities as well as general CYA. That’s probably why Oswald was selected by the perpetrators as the patsy. Pretty clever of the perpetrators, staging the assassination so the US government will cover it up for them.

From what I’ve seen, Dulles got along well with JFK even before he became president. I’ve heard the phone call between LBJ, RFK and Dulles where Dulles is asked to go to Mississippi during the search for the missing civil rights workers in June, 1964. I don’t sense any hostility or reservations on RFK’s part.
 
 V:   I agree Lanceman. Elements from the CIA would likely have been involved even though the CIA as an institution would not have been. RFK did remain friends with Dulles until his death. That indicates that even RFK did not suspect Dulles as being involved in his brothers death.
 
L &V: This isn't about a personal friendship between Dulles and either Kennedy. If it was, though, you'd be wrong.  They were not friends.  If you haven't already, read Talbott's The Devil's Chessboard about who Dulles was and his relationship to JFK and the murder for a fuller picture than I can relate here..
 
Of course Bobby suspected the CIA in his brother's murder.  His first call when he heard about it was to the CIA and ask did your people do this? Bizarre, yes, since he wasn't going to get an answer that way, but he was distraught. He then spent 2 hours that afternoon talking with the puppet (John McCone) JFK had appointed to replace Dulles at the CIA to try to find out anything he could. But McCone was out of the loop. I'm pretty sure RFK knew Dulles was still running the important policy aspects of the agency at that time, after he had been fired by JFK 3 years earlier. Bobby Jr, who was there that afternoon, has recently been talking about this in some detail.
 
RFK kept his mouth shut in public about what he thought about the murder until that day near the end of his campaign in California in 1968, when, in response to a question, he said yes, he was going to reopen the murder case.  If they needed another reason to kill him (they didn't) that was it.
 
Point is, the contention about CIA involvement is about the incompatible policy views of the Kennedys and Dulles about what to do with US power in the rest of the world.  Dulles was not on the side of forces trying to throw off colonialists in their country, and in fact could not accept even a country being neutral in his war with the Soviets. You're either with us or the commies, and if you're not with us, expect consequences.  He could see JFK disagreed and wanted to take the country in a different direction.  We now know more about the fundamental disagreements about this within the JFK administration.
 
When, I, or anyone, say the CIA did it, we mean the leadership of the agency. Of course institutions don't kill people; people do.  Dulles's control of CIA policy was still ironclad at the time of the murder.  If you want to explain how anyone below him would kill JFK without Dulles either knowing about it or approving it, give it a try. 
 

With the JFKA the CIA/war machine became the policy arm of the federal government, not some separate entity. They and their allies are even in more control than back then, which is why the JFKA matters. It's not just some interesting puzzle to be solved.

RFK kept his mouth shut in public about what he thought about the murder until that day near the end of his campaign in California in 1968, when, in response to a question, he said yes, he was going to reopen the murder case.  If they needed another reason to kill him (they didn't) that was it.
 
To whom did he say that? Never been able to find any such statement by him. There is also another statement attributed to him. Only the powers of the presidency will reveal the secrets of my brother’s death. But there seems to be no corroboration.

Vinny wrote:RFK kept his mouth shut in public about what he thought about the murder until that day near the end of his campaign in California in 1968, when, in response to a question, he said yes, he was going to reopen the murder case.  If they needed another reason to kill him (they didn't) that was it.
 
To whom did he say that? Never been able to find any such statement by him. There is also another statement attributed to him. Only the powers of the presidency will reveal the secrets of my brother’s death. But there seems to be no corroboration.

I’m not aware of RFK or the Kennedy family in general offering any encouragement or assistance to those who disputed the Warren Commission. They certainly had the influence to do so.

If they believed that the assassinations were done at the behest of a cabal of plotters still entrenched in the US government, it sure didn’t discourage them from running for political office.

Did Ted Kennedy take any interest in the House Select Committee on Assassinations activities or conclusions (as he was a senator at the time)?

Maybe the Kennedy family benefitted as much from the coverup as the US government.

The statement was made during a campaign stop at a college in California near the end of the '68 primary in that state, when a female student asked him if he would reopen the case of JFK's murder. He had avoided the topic in public, but this time he said yes.    
 
I'm pretty sure Junior had told the story during one of his many interviews of late.  But I had read about it long before that.  I haven't been able to find that source, but I'll keep looking.
 
In 2007, David Talbott, in Brothers, had told how RFK had conducted a secret investigation into  his brother's murder until he himself was killed.  He never believed the WC. Talbot said he had told aides he couldn't do anything about the murder, however, until he had the power of the White House behind him.
 

When he made the statement to the student, he was on the cusp of winning the California primary on his way to getting the '68 Democratic nomination (though Humphrey at the convention and Nixon in the election still stood in his way). He must have been a bit euphoric.  He let his guard down when the student asked him about the JFKA.   

Again, Vinny, this was RFK's public position on the JFKA, while privately he never believed the WR and sought answers to what really happened.  Ask Junior, read Talbott, etc.

It was his public position for several reasons, but one which is very clear.  He rightly realized he could do nothing about finding the truth, as a private citizen or even a senator, without the power of the presidency behind him.  It had been almost 5 years since the murder, he had been around Washington and seen the power of the killers first hand.

One example.  Harry Truman, who signed the CIA into existence in 1947, wrote an oped piece in the Wash Post one month after the murder advocating the elimination of the "policy" branch of the CIA and returning it to an intelligence gathering agency only. Harry Truman, former president. Everyone in Washington who saw the article knew what he was saying and why he said it.

Dulles thought it threatening enough to travel to Independence Mo to try to convince Truman to somehow disavow the article.  Truman in effect through him out of the house.

The article was deleted from the later editions of the Post that same day.  Truman was ignored. 

My only question in all of this is why RFK broke from his public approach that day when the student asked him about the JFKA.  I don't know.  But I think it had something to do with RFK realizing that if he won the California primary, as he thought he was going to do, the White House was within his grasp.

Sure, many of the party bosses still wanted Humphrey but he had not run in any of the primaries, had not faced the voters. McCarthy was out; RFK would have been very difficult to deny at that point. With the nomination, as he says in the clip, all he had to do was beat Nixon again.

So I think euphoria played a role in his response to the student.

But let's retain some perspective.  His killers didn't need his acknowledgement of his intent to reopen the JFKA. They knew that was a real possibility.  In fact RFK's secret was likely not a secret to them.  They couldn't let him become president.