Why Roger Stone’s JFK book has to be taken seriously

Let’s talk about power: Richard Nixon and Roger Stone.

Roger Stone is the first JFK assassination author to have worked in the White House and among the few who have personal acquaintances with JFK’s sucessors.

As a former aide to President Reagan and confidante of RIchard Nixon, Stone brings unique practical experience and personal contacts at the highest levels of American politics to a subject that has often been written about by people with neither.

Stone’s background doesn’t mean that his interpretation of November 22, 1963, is necessarily correct, but he cannot be dismissed as “conspiracy theorist” who is deluded about the realities of American politics and power.

To the contrary, he has far more first-hand experience with those Washington realities than an academic like John McAdams or a prosecutor like VIncent Bugliosi. I think Stone’s indictment of Lyndon Johnson deserves to be taken more seriously than anyone else’s precisely because of his White House experience.

In an email interview with JFK Facts, Stone opened up about his sources, why he wrote the book, and what he really thinks of Chris Matthews.

Q. To some liberal pundits, anyone who shows an abiding interest in the JFK assassination is seriously lacking in understanding of the realities of American politics, if not clinically mentally ill. I’m thinking of Cass Sunstein, Vince Bugiiosi, and Chris Matthews, for example. What’s your reaction to such pronouncements?

RS: I have been in the mainstream of American politics and have been a senior campaign staffer to three Presidents, having worked on eight national Republican Presidential campaigns. Long before I began my book, the House Select Committee on Assassinations essentially debunked the Warren Commission Report. The Assassination Records Review Board declassified enough documents to bolster the conclusions of the House Committee; there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. Oswald did not act alone — in fact I don’t think he acted at all.

My book is not disparate from many other groundbreaking works like James Douglass’, The Unspeakable; Phillip Nelson’s LBJ: the Mastermind of the JFK Assassination; Barr McClellan’s Blood Money & Power; Craig Zirbel’s Texas Connection; and Glen Sample and Mark Collom’s The Men on the Sixth Floor. I seek to build on these seminal works.

Yes, I believe that LBJ spearheaded a conspiracy funded by Texas Oil and assisted by elements of the CIA and the Mob. Yes, I think LBJ’s unique relationships with J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, defense contractors, Texas Oil, and organized crime allowed him to spearhead a conspiracy. All had a stake in Kennedy’s death.

Candidly, I have know Chris Matthews for 30 years and have been on his TV show, Hardball. He is an egomaniac and pompous asshole who isn’t nearly as smart as he thinks he is. Liberals like Daniel Patrick Moynihan have done a disservice to the public by pigeonholing anyone who questions the Warren Commission conclusion as a “nut.” If this is true two-thirds of the people in America are “nuts.”

Stone’s book will be published in November 2013

Q. Where were you on the day it happened? Some people on the political right were known to have cheered the news? Did you hear any of that?

RS: I was 11 years old. I was in the Lewisboro (NY) Elementary School. Lots of my young classmates were crying. When the teacher asked why I wasn’t crying I said, “I’m a Republican.” Yet when I saw the photo in the New York Daily News of young John-John Kennedy saluting his father’s casket a few days later, I too wept.

Q. Your book reports on your conversations about JFK with Richard Nixon and John Mitchell about the assassination. How did you get these men to open up about such a sensitive topic?

I worked as a political advisor to President Nixon in his post-presidential years and spent many hours with him talking politics. Nixon liked a dry martini and he liked to talk politics. He was circumspect and never overtly said “LBJ did it” but he did say a number of things that more than indicate he believed this. My book details this. Nixon recognized Jack Ruby and knew him since 1947 as a “Johnson Man.” Upon seeing Ruby kill Oswald on national TV Nixon recognized him — and understood what had really happened in Dallas.

I first met John Mitchell at the Republican National Convention in 1968 when I was  a volunteer assigned to the messenger pool. He wrote me a letter of recommendation to Mort Allyn to secure me a post in the Nixon White House Press operation. I had little contact with him during Nixon’s re-election because I was the youngest staff member at CREEP (Committee to Re-Elect the President) and my boss, Herbert L. “Bart” Porter, and his boss Jeb Magruder, both warned me that “direct contact with Mr. Mitchell was out of the chain of command.”

By 1976, Mitchell was out of prison and quietly helping me line up Republicans for Ronald Reagan, convincing former Kentucky Governor Louie Nunn, to serve on the “Citizens For Reagan” being chaired by Senator Paul Laxalt. Mitchell had a small office in Georgetown. We used to drink at a bar in Georgetown called the Guards. Mitchell confirmed that many of the same things Nixon said to me he had also said to Mitchell. Mitchell shared his own conversations with Nixon.

Also beneficial were my interviews of Ambassador John Davis Lodge who confirmed that his brother Henry Cabot Lodge, JFK’s Ambassador to Vietnam, had knowledge of the involvement of the CIA and Lyndon Johnson in JFK’s murder.  I also interviewed long time Nixon aide Nick Ruwe who probably spent more waking hours with “RN” than any other individual, as well as John P. Sears, whose insights into Nixon and his thinking were invaluable.

I also had the opportunity to talk to Governor Jesse Ventura who’s research confirmed the link between the Bay of Pigs, JFK’s assassination and the downfall of Nixon in Watergate.

Q: In his memoir Bob Haldeman speculated that when Nixon spoke of “the whole Bay of Pigs thing” he was actually referring to JFK’s assassination. Did Nixon ever use that phrase in your conversations?

RS: Nixon ran a covert CIA operation to assassinate Fidel Castro when he was Vice President. Some of the CIA operatives and assassins involved in these plans, altered but not canceled after JFK’s surprise election, ended up working for the CIA in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. These same men, E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis were involved in the JFK assassination. They would surface again in Watergate.

It is important to recognize that in 1963 Nixon was completely out of power and considered politically washed up. Like LBJ, Nixon still burned to be President but he was considered finished. Nixon understood the connection between the Bay of Pigs and the Kennedy assassination and came to understand Johnson’s role in Kennedy’s murder. After his comeback election in 1968, Nixon demanded all CIA records on the JFK assassination seeking them for leverage and insurance.

In my book I make the case that Watergate, like the JFK assassination, was a coup d’etat a in which the CIA participated. Once CIA veteran James McCord was brought in on the Watergate burglary plan, the CIA knew what Nixon’s minions were up to. The Bay of Pigs, the JFK assassination and Watergate are thus inextriplicably linked.

Nixon’s effort to get the CIA to instruct the FBI to back off the Watergate investigation was a threat to expose the CIA involvement in the murder of JFK, which he knew grew out of the Bay of Pigs Invasion failure.

Q. When did you decide to write this book? And why?

RS: I have worked on this book for at least 10 years and have worked on it intensely for the last two years. I am greatly indebted to my researcher and co-writer, Mike Colapietro. Some will say that I have some partisan angle as my motive for writing this book. In fact, Republicans Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Earl Warren, Arlen Specter and John McCloy don’t come off well in the book. All play some role in the events of November 22, 1963.

Many people have asked me why I waited until now to write my book. When I told Mitchell I would write a book about the JFK assassination “someday,” he said, “on the 50th anniversary” and I agreed. I have honored that commitment.

Q. For some conservative commentators (I’m thinking Thom Mallon, James Swanson, and Gerald Ford), JFK conspiracy theories are a hobbyhorse that deluded leftists use to denigrate America and American power? Does your book denigrate America? 

The evidence of a conspiracy is so overwhelming now that the vast majority of Americans believe they have not been told the truth by the government about the JFK assassination. It is important to note that John F. Kennedy was murdered not just because of his plans to wind down the Vietnam War, his entreaties for better relations with the Soviets and his efforts to repeal the oil depletion allowance but also because of his double cross of the mob after their support in the 1960 election and concern by many at the Pentagon about JFK’s drug use. Kennedy was in fact hopped up on intravenously injected meth during the 1960 debates as well as the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK was no saint.

Q. I have always been personally skeptical about the “LBJ did it” theory because I don’t see much evidence that Johnson or his cronies knew about the existence of Lee Oswald, much less had contact with him or the ability to manipulate him. If LBJ organized the death of JFK what is your theory/evidence about who organized the patsy role for Oswald?

While Johnson was the primary mover of the assassination there is no doubt that the conspirators including the Dallas Police Department, the Dallas County Sheriff’s Office, both perhaps unwittingly as well as  the Secret Service and the FBI, as well as rogue elements of the CIA. The agency set Oswald up as a patsy when fingerprint evidence demonstrates conclusively that the shooter from the sixth story window of the Texas Schoolbook Depository building was in fact Malcolm “Mac” Wallace, a longtime LBJ henchman whose ties to Johnson are thoroughly established and documented in my book.

Interestingly, LBJ acknowledged to both his mistress, Madeline Brown and his Chief of Staff, Marvin Watson, that the CIA was involved in Kennedy’s murder — not exactly his Warren Commission’s conclusion. LBJ was facing political ruin and prosecution and jail for corruption when he insisted on JFK’s visiting Texas and when Gov. John Connally insisted on visiting the Trade Mart and on the motorcade through Dealy Plaza.

I also delve in the LBJ the man. He was a monster. Power hungry, crude, vulgar, abusive, sadistic,vicious and often drunk, this is a man who reveled in his aides’ discomfort by conducting meetings while sitting on the toilet defecating. He had at least three illegitimate dhildren, two of whom are still living. I tie LBJ to at least eight political murders in his ascent to political power and his quest for money. Johnson’s capacity for lying, cheating and crime knew no bounds, which is why Jacqueline Kennedy said, “I never liked Lyndon Johnson and I never trusted him” and why Robert Kennedy described him as “an animal.” LBJ was a murderer, and perhaps even a functional lunatic.

“The difference between me and LBJ  was, we both wanted to be President but I wouldn’t kill for it” Nixon told me in 1989.

Q. Correct me if I am wrong but I think you are the only White House employee since JFK’s death who has ever written a book about JFK’s death. Why do you think that is?

RS: I have been a participant in mainstream American politics for 40 years. I had unique access to a number of individuals who played pivotal roles in the entire drama. While I understand that many JFK assassination researchers believe the President was killed by “the establishment” or the “military – industrial complex,” which would include munitions manufacturers, defense contractors, Texas oil, the CIA, the FBI and numerous ambitious politicians. What these researchers don’t understand is that “the establishment” is not monolithic. Members of the establishment don’t necessarily move in concert. The establishment is racked with its own intramural contests, rivalries and struggles for political power. While it may be true that many establishment figures either knew about Kennedy’s murder in advance or at least acquiesced in it, they were not conspirators themselves. Because I have seen these struggles firsthand I believe I am uniquely qualified to write this book.

Q. When will your book reach stores and Amazon? 

My book will be in stores November 6, 2013. Amazon will ship pre-orders at that time. I will do a book signing at the Barnes and Noble in Dallas on November 22, 2013, as well as book signings in DC, Santa Monica and Ridgewood, New Jersey outside of New York City.


  1. Jeff Pascal says:

    Excellent interview.Stone is very clear in what he says, and I’m sure he has better things to do than write a book on the Assassination, unless he has some very important things to convey. He answered the partisan angle very well and that charge can’t be lobbed at him. One of the big problems is many big name conspiracists,, as well as lone nutters have their mind made up about LBJ, and aspects of the case that aren’t certain by any means.

  2. Bill Pierce says:

    This isn’t exactly ground-breaking research. Here’s Mr. Stone:

    “Interestingly, LBJ acknowledged to both his mistress, Madeline Brown and his Chief of Staff, Marvin Watson, that the CIA was involved in Kennedy’s murder — not exactly his Warren Commission’s conclusion. LBJ was facing political ruin and prosecution and jail for corruption when he insisted on JFK’s visiting Texas and when Gov. John Connally insisted on visiting the Trade Mart and on the motorcade through Dealy Plaza.”

    -CIA involved? Who would have guessed?
    -Yes, LBJ was facing political ruin, but I’m not sure how it proves that he initiated the hit.
    -Insisting that JFK visit Texas? There’s evidence that a team of assassins was awaiting JFK earlier in Chicago and Tampa. Did LBJ insist on those visits as well?
    -Visiting the Trade Mart? The Trade Mart was a much better location. It was a big, new building that highlighted Dallas’ activist business climate. Every Dallas businessman (especially the developers) would have favored the Trade Mart over the Women’s Building in seedy Fair Park. Furthermore the Trade Mart was in the loop back to Love Field.

    Let’s hope Mr. Stone’s book is better than this Q&A performance.

    • Ron Lasko says:

      “-Yes, LBJ was facing political ruin, but I’m not sure how it proves that he initiated the hit.”
      Stone does not claim that this proves LBJ initiated the hit.

      “-Insisting that JFK visit Texas? There’s evidence that a team of assassins was awaiting JFK earlier in Chicago and Tampa. Did LBJ insist on those visits as well?”
      Interesting question, but what is your point? And what does it have to do with Stone’s arguments?

      “-Visiting the Trade Mart? The Trade Mart was a much better location. It was a big, new building that highlighted Dallas’ activist business climate. Every Dallas businessman (especially the developers) would have favored the Trade Mart over the Women’s Building in seedy Fair Park. Furthermore the Trade Mart was in the loop back to Love Field.” What is your point?

  3. Hans Trayne says:

    A heads up from Mr. Morley is enough for me to take this seriously & I am anxious for the book to come out & read it. It’s understandable now why Nixon did what he did back in ‘the Watergate thing’ to protect himself from being accused of murdering JFK by creating (with others)the Castro kill team.

    I am most interested in ‘tricky Dick’s’ relationship with Allen Dulles; it seems like the two respected & liked each other. There are those who believe Dulles orchestrated the assassination as a first step to get Nixon in the White House.

    I will probably always be perplexed as to why LBJ didn’t have one or more of the shooters put a couple bullet holes in his car as he followed JFK down Elm Street just to make it “look good”. LBJ was no dummy. Slipping though the ambush unscathed brought immediate suspicion to him. Maybe he didn’t care?

    • DavidL Carnes says:

      I believe LBJ liked dancing with the flame.Why did he sell his Halliburton stock the next day. He enjoyed knowing that people were sure he did it but his power kept him untouched.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      [Hans Trayne:]

      “why LBJ didn’t have one or more of the shooters put a couple bullet holes in his car ?”


      A couple !? Why such a miser? Why not splurge and fire half a dozen rounds to LBJ’s car?

      Hans, you answered your own question, with one letter: The ending “s” in “shooters”. Or, equivalently, the “L” in “LN”.

      The 2 riflemen had seconds to escape and the frontal one was not even supposed to fire at all.

  4. Jonathan says:

    RS is great on insider information. He is short on facts. So is photon.

    Photon says the rusty Carcano worked well. Photon ignores that 1964 FBI sharpshooters missed a stationery target from 45 feet with Oswald’s alleged rifle. Photon also carefully ignores Robert Frazier’s W.C. statement that the rust in the barrel would have been blown clean with one shot.

    RS is capitalizing on his insider status, this 50th JFK anniversary.

    I’d say to RS, give me a fact, not some BS.

    • Don Turner says:

      I wouldn’t expect Roger Stone to disclose all the “facts” found in his book in a single interview. Would you? Nevertheless, plenty of them have leaked out in the many national publications where the book has been discussed. There are plenty theorists who comment on the assassination but only one who has Stone’s insider history. I am eager to read the book.

    • Mark Wright says:

      Jonathan I agree seems he is just quoting eceryone else,my concern is that the evidence or people he quotes have already been disproved.

      Sighting Jessie Ventura gee that is hitting the bottom of the barrel.

      • Dave says:

        That should be “citing” Jesse Ventura. FYI.

        • j says:

          That should be “ignoring” Jesse Ventura. Everything he has ever done in his life has been related to self-promotion. I can’t believe that an author hoping for legitimate recognition would quote Jesse. That is a no-brainer.

    • Lee Abbott says:

      Jonathan – I wish Robert Frazier actually said that to the WC regarding the rust in the M-C’s barrel. It would have resolved this once and for all. Unfortunately, he never said it. If he did it would have contradicted everything the FBI was doing to frame LHO. And having some experience with rifles it’s not that easy removing rust. If just firing the weapon once or twice did the trick you wouldn’t see people vigorously cleaning their gun’s barrel.

  5. Mike Rush says:

    There must be employee records of the House of Representatives stored in Washington. Current members should demand an investigation to see if Ruby did work there in the late 40’s. If he was indeed Johnson’s man, as Nixon is quoted as saying, his appearance with a gun in the Dallas Police Dept. on November 24, 1963 would lead to some grave questions about Lyndon Johnson’s role in the Kennedy assassination. And John F. Kennedy, of course, was a member of the House at the very time Nixon is talking about–did any Kennedy people from those years recall Ruby after his 1963 murder of the suspect Oswald made him famous? Did they say anything to anyone? To Bobby Kennedy perhaps?

    • Jean Davison says:

      A letter from Nixon mentioning a “Jack Rubenstein” has been around for a long time:


      Some have argued that the letter is a forgery, but even if it’s real, the Jack Rubenstein mentioned is almost certainly a different person, a prominent member of the Young Communist League in the 1920s whose death was reported in the NYT, 7/8/1989, p. 29 (“Jack Rubenstein, 81, Labor-union Official.”)

      This Jack Rubenstein helped organize a textile workers’ strike in New Jersey in 1926, when “our” Jack Ruby would’ve been 15. He later broke with the CP — which would explain why the Nixon letter says he was “a potential witness” for the HUAC.

      Google also turned up a silent movie documentary called “Passaic Textile Strike” in which Jack Rubenstein played himself:


      • Clark Wilkins says:

        Jean, you always do such good work. I did not know that. Thank you. I knew about the letter and assumed it came from Ruby (though I attached nothing to it). Although I disagree with your book conclusions I do not disagree with your facts. You are are a very trustworthy source and when a CTer like myself says that, it is the highest compliment possible. I can say that no one has ever caught you in a mistake. I’m sorry that Jeff wasted his time on this author. It’s sad to see Jeff so close and yet so far away. What happened? Did James Olmstead die? Does Jeff not know about him?

        • Jean Davison says:

          Thanks very much, Clark. It’s kind of you to say that. I *have* made mistakes, though, of course.
          When you mention James Olmstead, do you mean “JKO” of the alt. forums? He was gone for a long time but I believe he posted there recently.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I thought that the Jack Rubenstein of Chicago, referred to in that letter, is not the gent who was a member of the CP because he wasn’t from Chicago?

      • H.P. Albarelli Jr. says:

        Ms. Davison is absolutely correct about labor official Rubenstein, who traveled to Israel with a U.S. labor delegation at least once to meet with officials there, but Oswald assassin, Jack Ruby, did serve during the
        1940s in Chicago as a confidential informer to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics at which time he interacted with FBN supervisor Charles Siragusa. Siragusa was later recruited as a candidate for ‘wet work’ [assassinations] by CIA official Vincent Thill. Siragusa reported that he turned Thill down, but there are reasons to doubt this.

      • david thurman says:

        Ruby was called as a witness to testify before some commission nixon was involved with in 1947, as i recall it nixon did him a favor, possibly obtained immunity for him, in exchange for his testimony. I was surprised to see him described as, ‘a johnson man,’ as i’ve always seen him portrayed as being a nixon confidante. This Jack Rubenstein was from Chicago not New Jersey-nice try!

      • david thurman says:

        A 1947 FBI memo says: “Nixon intervened on behalf of a Chicago gangster who was about to be called as a witness before a congressional committee . . . It is my sworn statement that one Jack Rubenstein of Chicago, noted as a potential witness for hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, is performing information functions for the staff of Congressman Richard Nixon, Republican of California. It is requested Rubenstein not be called for open testimony in the aforementioned hearings . . . That same year, Rubenstein moved to Dallas, Texas, and changed his name to Jack Ruby (cited in Called to Serve, p.534).”

        • david thurman says:

          So if Ruby was working for Nixon HOW is it he’s a “Johnson man.”

        • H.P. Albarelli Jr. says:

          The document cited is reported by the FBI to be “less than genuine.” There is also the issue of a zip code! A zip code in 1947! Not to mention that the stationary is not standard MOR letterhead used by the FBI at the time. Lastly, ‘Called to Serve’: is this the Bo Gritz book your citing?

          • jeffmorley says:

            The zip code issue is not dispositive. This could be a post-64 cover document folded back to reveal a 1947 document below. The question is where did this document come from? I’m investigating.

          • H.P. Albarelli Jr. says:

            What’s ‘dispositive’ is that the MOR stationary was not used by Hoover post-1964. Where did it come from?: a forger. It also helps to look at Ruby’s pre-Dallas years in Chicago, as well as who he worked for and with, and with whom he maintained his political connections in 1946-1947.

    • Lee says:

      Surely you aren’t implying LBJ was a hands-on conspirator, are you? Had he been involved it would have been in the capacity of merely giving “the word” and sat back while watching everything transpire. By all accounts Ruby was extremely unstable, so the concept of LBJ personally speaking with him in relation to LHO or any other aspect of the Big Event is a bit farfetched, no offense.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        LBJ wouldn’t have called Ruby to silence Oswald. That would’ve been his Mob superiors (unless it was a CIA operative that liaised with the mob).

  6. Roger Stone worked “in the” White House [meaning WHO staffer or employee] or for people who happened to occupy the White House????? There’s a big difference. Facts are important here and elsewhere.

    • Don Turner says:

      If you had occasion to read a newspaper or two in 1974 you would know that Stone was “more” in the White House than Al Haig was in 1980.

      • Hawaiian Shirt Paul says:

        Are you kidding? This Stone guy is so connected to all these players that he’s GOT to know something we don’t know. You don’t work with the sleaziest political players in modern history – and graduate to be a leading sleazeball – without getting a handle on the dirt around you. I wouldn’t trust this guy with my company or my sister, but I’ll read his book. If you’re interested in JFK, how can you not?

        • Paul Turner says:

          I’d say the same about two other authors of pro-conspiracy books….Jim Tague(LBJ And The Kennedy Killing), and Barr McCLellan(Blood Money and Power, in the sense that they were “in the know” about various aspects of the assassination. As for Stone, I had problems with his style in his book, but at least I felt he and I shared the belief that it was a conspiracy.

      • Quite doubtful. Forget newspapers, there are WH logs listing visitors. Yet that was not the question and it still does not answer or address the issue at hand.

    • david thurman says:

      I like Roger Stone to, we’re facebook friends & I commend him 4sharing his unique observations; however, that said, we must never 4get Roger is first & foremost a very partisan political operator. I almost hate to say that, but thats the way it is in our political reality…4instance I’ve never heard him opine on how the fact that progressives/liberals had 4 leaders in their 30’s & 40’s murdered within a 5 yr. period has necessarily directly effected our current political reality, how it has caused many others on the left to 4go political careers, how their is nothing of equal or similar consequences on the right!

      I don’t know if anyone else caught a recent c-span (book tv from austin), where John Dean was debuting his latest book, Roger appeared as the first questioner during the Q & A, inquiring as to whether Dean wasn’t in fact the central figure in planning Nixon’s watergate demise. Unable to hide his contempt 4the insinuation, Dean snidely replied, “Sure Roger, just like everyone knows LBJ was responsible 4 JFK’s assassination.” After an initial uneasy silence, the crowd roared to laughter.

  7. Whether they like it or not, the Warrenistas cannot deny that the pieces of this puzzle, like the clues in any good murder investigation, begin to fall together, begin to fit, and begin to show a picture that cannot be ignored. If nothing else, this nation deserves, and should demand, a full-scale, no-holds-barred, no-records-withheld investigation of what many thoughtful observers believe to have been a coup d’etat by the political enemies of John Kennedy. Barack Obama could do much for restoring his tainted transparency promise to demand that investigation and order the release of ALL records that still reside in the deep repositories of our secret government. Thanks for this excellent interview, Jeff.

    • Lee says:

      Robert – Aside from the fact that President O. can’t get a law passed to make dogs wear collars, I used to believe the data locked away in the National Archives would solve this mystery, too. Once we subtract all that was destroyed, hidden, invented, incomplete, in error, vanished or was never there to begin with, other than JFK had Corn Flakes and eggs over easy for breakfast on 11/22/63, I’m not overly optimistic there will be much that’s truthful remaining.

  8. Roger Stone says:

    I only ask that people read my book before you decide whether you learn anything from it- You can order it here


    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      [Book Author Stone:]

      “I only ask that people read my book before you decide […]”


      Mr. Stone:

      I have several JFK books in my queue, ahead of yours (currently reading “The Last Investigation”) but I did watch your video, in full:


      I am willing to consider -even buy- every detail, except one: Mac Wallace as a shooter. As a political operative you know better than attempting to reuse a spent cartridge. Had you been an LBJ adviser who suggested to re-employ Mr. Wallace, you would have been dismissed on the spot.

      See previous post of mine in the uncensored Usenet newsgroup:


      [about Mac as trigger-puller, or present in Dealey Plaza]

      That is completely absurd.

      I have worked in private companies and government in situations where the Big Kahuna has SEVERAL layers of deniability. If that is silly old me, just extrapolate and imagine the number of layers that the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES has.

      Wallace was already being investigated. He was spent. People are disposable. Of all the persons on the planet who would have been chosen, Mac was dead last.

      Well, next to last, before Lady Byrd and Madeleine Brown.

      • Paul Turner says:

        Ramon, I read where Mac Wallace helped get Loy Factor on board for the “job”. And, Oswald, as well. Mac was a major player on 11-22-63, and I do feel he was a shooter on that day.

        • Ramon F Herrera says:

          So you have the best agency on the planet at your disposal (so good, they read your mind and decided to go ahead with the murder before you asked), the only one specialized on dispatching heads of state and you say:

          “No, thanks, Allen! I have my own people”.

          On that order of ideas, I gather that LBJ performed his own appendectomy — with the assistance of nurse Mac, of course. :-)

          • James says:

            Ramon, I’m sorry to disagree with you on this point but I wouldn’t be so convinced Mac was not involved. You seem convinced based on a notion that you assume governments don’t make mistakes or get caught out or even make silly decisions. The governments are made up of people…people make errors. LBJ was twisted and why not bring in his star player on his biggest game yet stealing the presidency? After all he used him all the way up to that point killing off his competition.r

            How do you explain the fingerprint hit? You can’t deny the hit ratio on that. The link between LBJ and Wallace is solid, undeniable in fact. It is true that LBJ was around the corner held up in a hotel whilst Mac was facing trial for 1st degree murder and it evidences to me the very real close relationship between the two and begs the question: why did LBJ put himself in that position? Already a compromising position given his positioning at the time and a dumb idea. He did it because he wanted to. It wasn’t his best idea but he did it anyway.

            You talk about buffers, that is ultimately what you are talking about. The conspirators needed reliable killers. Mac was one of those. If anything it suggests to me just how much influence LBJ had on the op. He bought his boy in on it….ASSUMING Mac Wallace was not already CIA or used as they used the Mafia.

            As for Mac not being taken out until much later, 71 I recall. ..so? What’s your point? Maybe he was too busy killing off the others thinking he’d never be removed. As I recall approximately 5-6 witnesses gave his description as the shooter in tsbd.

            So in essence, to say Mac wasn’t a shooter because the gvnt has layers- that’s nonsense. You need to grasp how big this is and was at the time. A bunch of powerful Americans were plotting with every intention to kill the president of the United States… Not all the CIA were complicit I don’t believe. A lot but not all. The CIA wasn’t and still isn’t this super amazing agency with secret gadgets and ultimate professionals. They had a plan sure but I do not believe they pulled out their manual on how to kill their own domestic president with do’s and don’t.

            Numerous people, hundreds and thousands suspected the CIA within months of 22/11/63….they have kept many of their intimate secrets a secret but they couldn’t stop the mass and the stink it created….regardless of “layers”.

  9. William Windorf says:

    Roger Stone was no flunky in the White House, neither Nixon’s or Reagan’s. He reported directly to Nixon and there is umpteen evidence of his activities. The depth of information in this book cannot be discounted by speculators that have not yet read it. One of the most compelling articles that reveals much of Gerald Ford’s “adjustments” to the Warren Commission report are extolled in the lasted East Orlando Post: http://eastorlandopost.com/new-book-reveals-ford-jfk-cover

  10. Juan Alcalde says:

    Another great article from JFK facts! Stone appears to have all the goods in this book and I’ll bet come November 22nd it will be sitting on the coffee tables of millions of Americans who know they got cheated out of the facts by the government.

    • david thurman says:

      What about the years of progressive government people got cheated out of, people who had voted for it? Seems to me conservatives have become more determined, if anything, in the last 50 years to make certain things go their way regardless of what people want, via any means necessary, e.g. easily hackable electronic voting, voter i.d. laws, severe gerrymandering of districts, to the point that in the past election more than 1.5M voted democratic than republican for house of representatives yet repubs remain in control. David Koch purchased Jackie’s 5th Avenue apartment, will be interesting to see what he says about daddy Fred Koch.

  11. Kathleen says:

    Excellent interview. There are numerous conspiracy theories that have come out but none written by someone who actually worked at the WH and had firsthand experience with Presidential candidates. Stone’s credentials, backed by his research, are enough for me to purchase this book. It looks like an excellent read!

  12. EconWatcher says:

    I don’t think Mr. Stone did such a great job in the interview of addressing concerns about his bias–that he is a self-described Republican hitman and might have an agenda to take down a liberal icon like LBJ. He defends by saying “Republicans Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, Earl Warren, Arlen Specter and John McCloy don’t come off well in the book.”

    Come on, now–really? Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower (which Ike later described as the biggest damn mistake he ever made), but does anyone on the planet now think of Warren as a Republican or conservative figure? And in Mr. Stone’s circles, Ford, Specter, and H.W. are all RINOs (heck, Specter even switched parties at the end of his life).

    Still, the question is how well Stone corroborates and documents his claims. I will read the book. But it seems to me that a lot of skepticism is warranted. Maybe a political operative can offer tidbits from his access that other writers could not, but the concerns about reliability are starker.

  13. Randolph McCurdy says:

    I totally agree with Mr. Stone when he says he is “ uniquely qualified to write this book.” I have read some other accounts of the JFK assassination which entertained theories from documentary evidence but not from the up-close-and -personal experience Roger Stone has. I can’t wait to read his book. Just placed my order with amazon.com. .

  14. PKM says:

    Two comments: First, Stone’s views and the views he reports about on the part on powerful political figures in Washington are relevant to the JFK Facts June 14, 2013 entry about “Washington insiders’ views.” It appears that many intelligent, sophisticated insiders with considerable political power harbored suspicions about JFK’s death that contradicted the official story of the Warren Commission Report. Second, these questions involve the very relationship of US government elected officials to events that put LBJ in power. Peter Dale Scott has dubbed this “Deep Politics.” It appears reasonably possible that even important historical figures like LBJ and Nixon may not have known exactly what occurred. What are the implications of this? It is not inconceivable that LBJ was not the “mastermind,” but that others knew well enough how LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover would react once LBJ was in the White House and Robert Kennedy was “just another lawyer,” as Jimmy Hoffa put it.

  15. Darrell Keith says:

    This is a great interview! Of all the convincing statements Stone is quoted in this interview, his comment about Johnson sitting on the toilet while talking to his aides brought home what my dad used to say about LBJ: he was a dirty SOB. I remember hearing that when I was a kid but found it hard to believe. Since then it comes as no news to me now that LBJ was behind Kennedy’s killing; I’m just happy that Roger Stone has written the book that –given what Stone says — proves LBJ did it. Thank you, Mr. Stone.

    • photon says:

      So talking to others while on the toilet makes LBJ a murderer?
      Please, someone give me a reason to believe that this guy has any real knowledge about this case. So he knew Nixon and Reagan. I mean, really-Watergate was a coup d’etat? I thought that it was the cover-up that brought Nixon down-totally self-inflicted. Had he fired H&E when he first learned about it and given a “Checkers” speech admitting that he made a mistake he never would have left office, let alone faced impeachment. So what if Nixon thought LBJ was involved? He also apparently believed that had he won in 1960 Oswald would have shot him-and that has been published.

      • Jonathan says:


        You know all. What is your theory?

        • Photon says:

          Facts. And more ” inside baseball” info than anybody on this blog.

          • JSA says:

            Oh please, Photon. I looked at your Facebook post, it’s not that impressive. So you’re connected on it to John McAdams. Woo hoo.
            That guy’s a global warming denier. He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed, even though he went to Harvard. He’s a good old boy basking in the Marquette backwaters. Unless you’re connected to Fort Bragg down in GA, I don’t see you having any “inside ball” playing connections that would impress me.

          • Clark Wilkins says:

            Yes. The “facts” will not support Stone but they don’t support people like John McAdams or Vincent Bugliosi either. McAdams got his A$$ handed to him on his own website. He didn’t even whimper. He just ran.

            And then he published his book knowing it was wrong. At least Stone doesn’t know he’s wrong.

          • Don Gul says:

            That’s what they always say: “those who know the most, always brag about it.”

            Oh, no they don’t say that at all, do they.

  16. Shane McBryde says:

    So, here’s what bothers me about the idea that LBJ masterminded the assassination. Why do so many crediblel accounts portray Johnson as being in a genuine state of shock and bewilderment following the assassination?

    To wit: ambulance drivers Aubrey Rike and Dennis McGuire who were at Parkland Hospital and placed Kennedy’s body in it’s casket. Robert Caro in his 4th edition biography of LBJ, and several other accounts which have been reported on over the years.

    Furthermore, why would LBJ have compromised the life of himself, his wife and that of his longtime best friend, Governor John Connaly?

    • photon says:

      If you believe Godfrey McHugh (frankly I don’t) Johnson was so upset McHugh had to slap him into reality.

    • Jason L. says:

      Also, he would have knowingly put himself and his wife in the line of fire. They could have easily been hit (though they did have better secret service protection than JFK, clearly). I don’t find it as crazy that he’s be willing to sacrifice Connally, though Jackie seems like just an insane risk to take.

      I’ve also always been a little puzzled why he didn’t immediately invade Cuba, if he thought Castro was involved. We know during the Cuban Missile Crisis that he was bellicose and favored war. I guess there is a difference between advising something and being the one that actually presses the red button, but it’s puzzling as he is on record as saying he thought Castro was behind the assassination at one point.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Jason, you don’t make money if you nuke the whole planet, therefore, invading Cuba was not the answer.

        A war in Viet Nam was more palatable.

        (Also, LBJ saying that Castro was behind the assassination was the impetus to installing the fear of WWIII when recruiting WC members).

    • JSA says:

      Here’s why I think LBJ had to have been in on the assassination planning: Governor Connally was not supposed to be in Kennedy’s car. He wanted Senator Ralph Yarborough to ride with JFK, but Kennedy insisted he have the Governor ride with him, and Lyndon couldn’t change that. He blew a gasket the night before over this. Also, Lyndon ducked down in the car several times enroute before he was forcibly slammed down hard by a secret service agent when the shots rang out. Finally, Lyndon Johnson was so insistent on planning the Dallas motorcade down to the tiniest detail, and then worked hard to push for a quick resolution by personally phoning and pressuring Warren Commission members, some of whom were reluctant to find Oswald guilty (Russell of GA and Boggs of LA). To not look at Lyndon seems to run counter to the evidence and strange behavior of the Vice President. I think he’s worth looking more closely into by more honest historians than Caro and others, who seem to have given him an easy pass.

      • Inez Obregon says:

        You make good points — logical observations that support the argument that LBJ had Kennedy killed. I will be interested to see how Stone puts logic, documentary proof and first-hand accounts together in his case against LBJ. I believe the book is going to be a best-seller.

      • Photon says:

        But Johnson had nothing to do with the planning of the motorcade route. The Secret Service did – in conjunction with the Governor. Did LBJ run the SS? Any proof besides a little bird telling you?
        Since when does the Office of the Vice President run security for the President?

        • JSA says:

          Governor Connally and LBJ go way back as operatives working together, back to Lyndon’s early days in Texas politics. Connally was LBJ’s bag man carrying cash to buy votes in the 1948 Senate race. The Secret Service was TECHNICALLY under the command of the President, but they were not all fans of Kennedy, and there was resentment on the part of many of the agents, good old boys, who didn’t like having to continually cover up for JFK’s sexual escapades. Clint Hill was very good friends particularly with Jackie, and he did make an effort to protect the President and First Lady. But other agents who were originally supposed to ride standing on the back of the presidential limo were called off at the start of the motorcade, on the airport tarmac, by the head of the SS detail, Emory Roberts. One of the agents who was called off thought it was so unusual that he shrugged his shoulders and gestured in a show of disbelief, which you can see here:

          In a coup, various groups that on PAPER are supposed to be protecting the leader (like you point out) are turned to go against the leader, in a secret turn about. This happened to Caesar, and it has happened to other leaders, striking them down by surprise when they don’t suspect it to happen.

          Don’t you find it odd that building windows in downtown Dallas in the motorcade route weren’t sealed? Don’t you find it odd that the motorcade took a dangerous very slow turn onto Elm Street, into an area lacking in proper security, at the overpass, at the fence, on the DalTex and TSBD buildings? Don’t you find it odd that secret service agents were called off the rear of the President’s car just after the motorcade began?
          Don’t you find it odd that

          • JSA says:

            Oops. I meant to cut off one of the “don’t you find it odd” lines.

            To correct, I want to ask anyone if they can find ANY photo of a Kennedy motorcade in which there is not at least one SS agent perched at the rear bumper stand or standing or walking right behind the rear bumper of the presidential car. I looked at many photos and couldn’t find any — except for the Dallas motorcade. I’ll wait to see if anyone can find one, as I am interested to see if this was an anomaly or not to have no SS at the rear of JFK’s car.

          • Kevin John Simon says:

            It is more than odd, it’s was a systematic and planned “Ambush” as JFK’s Sec of State Dean Rusk called it when he described it to Lamar Waldron. Several of JFK’s staff heard in the motorcade saw evidence of gunfire to their immediate front and right. They kept quit about it for decades in FEAR of their own lives. In other words, if the killers can get the Big Fish JFK, they can easily kill the minnows.

          • j says:

            I thought I had heard that at that time, security along a route would not be anything like it is today. And even today, would they seal an entire multi-mile parade route? Seems difficult to do that.

            My parents went to college with Mr. Hill.

          • BD1958 says:

            and don’t you find it odd that the car wasn’t fired upon until it had made the turn onto, what is it, Elm? IF there was only 1 shooter and he was positioned on the sixth floor, the chance of a success would be dramatically higher when the motorcade was coming directly towards your position. No one ever seems to mentions this fact or try and explain it. To me, that has always screamed a setup, a turkey shoot was planned and carried out. As to who did all the planning, we may never know. Too bad.

      • Ed Norton says:

        Don’t be too quick to judge Caro. His final LBJ volume has yet to be released. It may have a surprise ending!
        He has already laid the ground work regarding Johnson’s overwhelming ambition to be President, his mean and socio-pathic personality, his crooked dealings, his connections to the military-industrial complex, his demeaning treatment as Vice-President at the hand of the Kennedys, the imminent publication of the Life magazine articles about his personal wealth, his links to the the Bobby Baker scandal, etc. If he broke the real story on the assassination now, the final volume would be quashed by the publishers, or he might have an accident.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      I haven’t fully read Phillip Nelson’s book but he claims Altgen’s famous uncropped pic shows that LBJ is MIA at the moment around the first shot (he ducked before others visibly react) in his car behind the SS car following JFK.

      I’ve looked at it and can’t see LBJ’s head, although it could be an optical illusion if his head blends into the background (you clearly see LadyBird and Sen. Yarborough).

      He also says that LBJ was tuning into a hand held radio to listen to reports about the motorcade, and may have used this as an excuse to bow his head every so often.

      Has anyone analyzed that photo to see if there’s a way to discern LBJ’s absence?

    • david thurman says:

      As I recall, Godfrey McHugh (JFK’s military aide) who found LBJ sitting on the toilet in the presidential suite of AF1, opined after reflection, he didn’t believe LBJ’s sincerity, he thought he was acting. I’ve heard Jim D numerous times site the phone call between LBJ & Hoover, where LBJ asks if any shots were aimed at him, as confirmation of his innocence. But we must remember LBJ was by all accounts a crafty fox, and the telephonic taping system employed by JFK & LBJ (unlike the automatic system Nixon had) required a switch to be engaged manually, so LBJ knew exactly which calls were and were not recorded. I’ll just say, if I was LBJ & I was guilty, that would be a logical call/facts I’d want the record to reflect!

    • Paul Turner says:

      As to your last question, I think LBJ was trying to get Connally to ride in the Veep limo so he wouldn’t be in the line of fire.

    • Paul Turner says:

      Shane, remember the famous “wink” by Rep. Albert Thomas, directed at LBJ on Air Force One? It certainly appeared to me that LBJ met that wink with a smile. I guess he was kinda excited and happy that he finally was President. Then at Andrews Air Force Base, he called the assasination of JFK a “deep, personal tragedy”. It was that for most of the country, but not for LBJ.
      As for compromising Connally-he badly wanted his Texas buddy to sit in the Veep limo, not with JFK. I wonder why he wanted it that way?????

      • Fearfaxer says:

        “[A]t Andrews Air Force Base, [LBJ] called the assasination of JFK a ‘deep, personal tragedy’. It was that for most of the country, but not for LBJ.”

        Well, it certainly turned out to be. His administration demonstrates the lesson of “Be Careful What You Wish For, You Just Might Get It” better than anything else I can think of.

        As for the limo seating arrangements, Johnson and Ralph Yarborough despised each other so much that neither wanted to be in the same car. Kennedy literally ordered them to ride together. Protocol would dictate the Governor should ride with the President, and besides, this trip was supposed to show that the huge feud in the TX Democratic Party had been healed as they prepared to do battle with the Republicans. Nothing sinister about this at all. If LBJ actually knew what was going to happen in Dealey Plaza that day, he’d have swallowed a carton of laxatives, claimed he had the runs, and spent all day sitting on the toilet in his hotel room.

        I’m definitely of the belief that there were multiple shooters that day, but I also do not believe that LBJ had anything to do with it.

  17. Avinash says:

    I don’t think Madeline Brown is a credible source. Her story of the party at Murchison’s house has been pretty much debunked.

    • Jeff Pascal says:

      I wonder if Stone will get into D.H. Byrd much. LBJ was a friend of his, there are photos of them together in 1972,I don’t know how close they were in the sixties, and seems like a pretty big coincidence that he owned the Texas Schoolbook Depository at the time and that Mac Wallace worked for a subsidiary of the Dallas-Ft.Worth based Ling-Temco-Vaught plant( Byrd was on the Board Of Directors) in Anaheim at the time of the Assassination.According to the book Men On The Sixth Floor, Wallace’s supervisor did not remember him being at work 11-22-63. Byrd’s companies supposedly received huge defense contracts in Vietnam after the Assassination as well.

      • Glen Sample says:

        Hopefully Stone will have commented on this very strange ‘coincidence’. I’m flattered that he refers to our work “The Men on the Sixth Floor” as groundbreaking and seminal.
        I’ve ordered the book and am looking forward to reading it!
        Glen Sample

        • Paul Turner says:

          Glen, the book you co-wrote is next on my JFK Asassination list.

          • max says:

            Just finished reading, “The Men On The Sixth Floor” and noted on pages 57 & 58 a problem with the rifles being used. On page 57 Oswald is checking out the rifle with the scope, the carcano with the scope. He then hands this rifle to Wallace, saying it’s ready to go. The second rifle being used had no scope and was a bolt action. Here is Wallace with the rifle in his hands with the scope ready to go yet it specifically says Wallace used the rifle without the scope. Of course he could have switched rifles but it doesn’t indicate that at all.
            And how were all of these people, only one an employee, able to roam around the book depository without being noticed? There were supposedly three men and a girl. Surely they would have been noticed. Employees working on replacing a floor on the sixth floor testified that they saw no strangers that day. Harold Norman, along with two co workers on the fifth floor, would surely have heard the group action taking place on the floor above. Ruth Ann, the girl, was even talking on a walkie talkie. I think that employees would surely have noticed these people walking around……and with a couple of rifles.
            If Lyndon Johnson was using Wallace and Wallace was so careless, the assassination would point directly to Johnson. Not very wise under the circumstances. After all who would walk around among the employees with rifles, talking on walkie talkies with Wallace perhaps leaving a fingerprint? I think Mac Wallace for one would be more professional.

    • lysias says:

      I used to assume that LBJ couldn’t have attended that party at Murchison’s house because there is photographic evidence that he was at a hotel in Fort Worth that night. Then I read in Philip Nelson’s book that LBJ had a lookalike cousin that he used as a double.

  18. Janice Martin says:

    This is one book I’m definitely looking forward to. I have a question, though- if there’s anyone here who read “Oswald Talked” (by Ray & Mary LaFontaine), is there any way the conclusions of these two books would be compatible?
    With their research, the LaFontaines presented some very convincing arguments, so I’m wondering if LBJ had any connections to the groups and/or individuals they felt were responsible?

    On a side note, while I was only a child when JFK was assassinated, some of the older members of my family said back then that they believed LBJ was responsible.

    • Jeff Pascal says:

      Hello Janice- I’ve read Oswald Talked and I agree it’s an interesting work. Like Road To Dallas, there’s a lot of intruiging material on events through the Assassination. No, it’s not compatible with what Roger Stone has said.Oswald Talked- is weakest on who is behind the Assassination, Dallas underground/right wing, Cuban Exiles, and is left vague and unproven. I thought some of the most interesting parts of the book are Oswald as alleged FBI Informant,the strange backyard photo in silhouette, about 10 really interesting pages on Roscoe White, as well as Ruby & gun running.

      • 7karen7 says:

        Remember, the CIA was setting Oswald up to be the “patsy” as Oswald had come to realize. He wouldn’t have all the inside info of who and why….but he did have some. I believe Oswald was indeed, the patsy and the quick arrest and his being held w/out council and supposedly “no notes” taken on what he said….the eventual murder of Oswald before being taken away, by Ruby, who he knew….it’s easy to see the role he was set up to play. Don’t forget, what is what puzzles me most, that the doctors at Parkland said the head wound was from a the front, the temple. They all confirmed the large exit wound in the right back of his head. They were pressured to say differently later. But the first reports on the news had the doctors claiming the bullet entered the right temple area. That is a fact. That shows a conspiracy. There were more than 3 shots….it isn’t an “Oswald acted alone” lone gunman murder. It just isn’t. Too many things were going on in Dallas….lots of players there…it was a coup d’ etat. Evil happened that day.

        • 7karen7 says:

          “what has puzzled me most” meant to say.

          Also Parkland doctors now say that the autopsy pictures were manipulated….and people who had negatives, film taken, if they got them back, they were damaged to some degree. The quick bringing together (w/such ones like Dulles on it, who hated JFK) of the Warren Commission was to put to rest any conspiracy, it wasn’t about getting to the truth. The later commission on the assassination said it was a conspiracy. The true facts support that.

          • Photon says:

            Which Parkland doctors say that the autopsy photos were manipulated? Time to post facts, not speculation, not misinterpretation 7karen7, I challenge you to back up your claim with names,quotes,specific dates that confirm your allegation. If you can’t your statement is false. Period.

  19. Ray says:

    Sounds like a good read. There are so many questions yet to be answered…and seems like Stone had access to those who knew the truth.

  20. Clark Wilkins says:

    First, much thanks to Jeff Morely for keeping the debate alive even if it means falsely scapegoating LBJ. I have no criticisms of Roger Stone as I’m sure he heard what he wrote but E. Howard Hunt, Malcolm Wallace, and Frank Sturgis are not new to assassination researchers.

    But, by all means, buy the book and enjoy the debate because, whether you believe the book or not, you still won’t be any more wrong than the Warren Commission.

    This case was actually solved ten years ago. We know that Oswald was approved for early discharge from the USMC without the proper paperwork and that his enlistment papers are not even for the USMC. We know he didn’t have enough money to reach the USSR. We know how Oswald communicated that he was being sent to Minsk to the CIA. We know the name of the CIA officer who met with Lee in Minsk, as confirmed not just by himself but by his commanding officer. We know why Oswald married Marina. We even know why he got her pregnant on roughly his wedding night. We know why he falsified his diary while in the USSR. We have the report he wrote on the Soviet economy upon his return. We know why Oswald was returned his passport without State Department approval. We know why Oswald moved from Fort Worth to Dallas and why CUSA showed up at the same time. We know why he ordered his pistol by mail and then his rifle and we know Senator Dodd was investigating such sales at the time. We know why he ordered the rifle under an alias. We know why he added a sling to his rifle and why it’s on upside down. We know why he targeted Walker. We know the problem not only with the camera that took the Walker home picture but also who punched out the license number of the car in the photo and why the picture wasn’t destroyed entirely. We know why he cut out a second order form for the same identical rifle in New Orleans when he already owned one. We know why he moved to New Orleans and why he started a phoney FPCC chapter there. We even know why he used an airmail stamp (5 cents) versus a penney postage stamp that he always used in writing to the FPCC. We know why the FBI burglarized the FPCC for his letter. We know why Oswald street demonstrated in New Orleans and why WDSU covered it. We know why a CIA officer sent Oswald to Bringuier. We know why Oswald went to Mexico City, even the route he picked to get there, and why he took his pistol when he did not have the money to reach Cuba even if granted a visa. We know why Oswald changed the picture on his DD1173 card. We know why he created an “Hiddel” picture ID when no such ID existed. We know why the paperbag was found in the TSBD and that it never contained a “disassembled” rifle. We know why the bag was designed to contained a 36 inch long rifle instead of a 40. We even know why, when Oswald showed up at work on 11/22/63 wearing a gray jacket, a blue jacket was found instead. We know such small details as to why his Marine raincoat is missing from his list of belongings. We know the proble with the fingerprint evidence on the trigger guard. We know why he took a taxi past the bus station to Mexico and even past his boarding house and why he changed his clothes there. We know the reason for every single answer he gave under interrogation including why he asked John Abt and we know that he had read the August, 1963 ACLU cases prior to his arrest. We know Oswald opposed Castro and why he pretended to support him. We know the Defense Department denied the WC Oswald’s military file and then the HSCA.

    But you know none of this. And you probably won’t ever. You are allowed to see only what the disclosers want you to see. It’s like Congressman Issa. He lets you see the evidence implicating the WH but not the evidence exonnerating it. Everybody has a political axe to grind including yourself. You look for evidence that supports your preconceived beliefs. Find it and you build your case. Find contrary evidence and you claim it’s part of the conspiracy.

    Yes. JFK died by conspiracy. But he also died by a cheap rifle with a misaligned scope and the get-away-man had less than $ 20. What does that tell you about the conspiracy?

    You are not told the truth because neither side benefits from telling it. I expect the fewest book copies ever sold were by Jean Davison, probably the most honest person here. I expect the number of honest researchers is less than ten. I can ony count six and that includes Jeff and Jean.

    But carry on. I chanced upon this site by accident and no longer actively research the case. Reach your own conclusions but don’t be spoon fed them or prepare to join the rest of the misinformed masses.

    • Photon says:

      How do you know any of what you posted. For instance, you claim that he (or somebody) used a bag designed ” to contained a 36 inch long rifle instead of a 40.”
      Exactly how would you know what length rifle the bag was designed for?
      For all of your “active” research you never found out that there was no paper bag as you claim. Oswald carried his disassembled rifle in WRAPPING paper, taped at one end.

      • Clark Wilkins says:

        The bag, which you more or less correctly described as “wrapping paper taped at one end” was designed to accomodate the rifle Oswald ordered and not the one he received. The taped section along the long side of the bag tells you how long an object it was intended to conceal. The math is actually pretty simple.

      • Paul Turner says:

        Prove that please, Photon.

  21. Someone says:

    IMHO, this smells like another case of modified limited hang-out. You are told enough of what you already know to convince you that the writer is sincere, informed etc. but at some point told “that’s all, no reason to look further”. The CIA are absolute masters of the technique. Even in this interview, while painting his picture of what a beast LBJ was, he’s painting a picture of a man who can be blackmailed and controlled by any agency that had damaging “intelligence”. Nice try, but the hit had to be ordered at a higher level than anything in the Federal Government.

  22. Dennis says:

    So difficult to put the pieces back together after all these years, but I appreciate the great effort by RS. I myself do not believe LBJ was at the top of the chain. Nixon paid hush money to Hunt to keep quiet about the Bay of Pigs Thing. Would he do that to save a Democratic rival? I think the source was someone above GHW Bush. Nixon owed allegiance to Bush as Prescott had brought him into politics & launched his career. GHW Bush visited the White House many times after Watergate broke, wrote the memo about James Parrot, was addressed in a memo by Hoover, Bay of Pigs was staged from his oil wells in Guantanamo, with the ships themselves named after him & his wife. But at 39 years old, he must have had someone in great power above him. LBJ did help them with the dirty work in Texas, that’s for sure.

  23. photon says:

    ” Staged from his oil wells in Guantanamo.”
    What oil wells? Is this what passes for serious research?

    • david thurman says:

      He would logically be referring to the platform drilling rigs owned by Bush’s, Zapata Offshore corporation, positioned throughout the Caribbean basin; obviously he was mistaken by offering “Guantanamo” as one of the locations, simply a fact-less factoid.

  24. jfkannie says:

    My opinion as to LBJ being the mastermind has long been posted and that opinion is NO He was not. Was he aware, there is evidence to show this. His first question was were any of the shots fired at me. That is not a question a mastermind needs to ask.
    I read every book that mentions eh assassination and I will get around to Mr Stones book. My issue with Mr Stone is his lack of professional behavior.
    I am to believe that he worked with all these big wigs in the White House and has all this inside information that he wishes to share conveniently coinciding with the 50th anniversary yet in an online forum he is incapable of reading a simple request not to post links to any personal website or book for sale.
    When requested to stop posting these links and they are removed he then REPOSTED them.
    When asked again to stop posting them he called the monitors that requested he stop fools.
    The posting requirements are clearly stated in the opening section of the forum as well as the intent and goals of the page being the collection and release of records only.
    It is stated clearly and openly that NO Discussion of theory is permitted and NO self promotion will be tolerated.
    It appears like Nixon, Mr Stone feels his opinion and his book are special and normal rules and courtesy do not apply to him.
    I do not care who anyone in this research has rubbed elbows with at any time in their lives or why they all of a sudden decide to come clean and divulge what they know and strange bedfellows in and of themselves do not add any more weight to the evidence that may be in his book.
    The evidence will show when the material he proffers is compared to known facts.
    That his book deals with once again blaming LBJ and wandering away from CIA involvement is suspicious enough for me to question its intent.

  25. H.P. Albarelli Jr. says:

    Well said, Annie. Very well said. Hopefully this will be the last word on Stone’s book.[Fat chance, I know.] Sorry to see Stone get a free ride here; makes a mockery of any truth claims on this site.

  26. Anonymous says:

    I am anxious to read this book. I can hardly wait until its published.

  27. Jonathan says:

    Stone was not just some staffer. No doubt in my mind that he had access to information that others did not. Like all of you, I am waiting to read this book to find out what he really knows.

  28. Patrick L says:

    This is all great stuff but let’s not forget that JFK ‘s assassination was the first in a series of closely linked killings with, no doubt, a related cast of assassins. RFK, MLK, Malcolm X and Fred Hampton (Black Panther Party) were all gunned down within 6 years of each other. They all died because they represented the threat of a blossoming, progressive democracy. (Read up on Fred Hampton. His death was proven, in court, as a conspiracy between the FBI and Chicago police.) The likelihood of theses all being isolated, “lone nut” killings is vanishingly small.

    I will definitely read Stone’s book but suggest that you guys read the recently published, and excellent book, Conspiracy Theory in America by Lance deHaven-Smith, professor of Public Policy at FSU, as background. You’ll thank me!

  29. Michael Appleton says:

    I have spent the last 40 years studying every aspect of the Kennedy assassination. I came to the same conclusion as Roger Stone years ago. LBJ killed JFK. No doubt about it.

    • Paul Turner says:

      Michael, the reasoning behind LBJ being the organizer of the assassination makes good sense. We begin with the fact that he knew he was in serious trouble, maybe going to jail, but certainly politically.

  30. david weissman says:

    I believe and trust the conclusions of Stone. I will be first in line to get a signed copy of his book when he hits the West Coast

  31. Greg says:

    After years of being in favor of segregation, LBJ suddenly did an about-face and supported the Civil Rights Movement. Why did he suddenly have so much concern for blacks? It wasn’t about their well-being. It was about gaining and keeping political power. LBJ was quoted as saying, “I’ll have those niggers voting Democrat for 200 years.” He was not a nice man. What is sad is how the Democratic Party has deliberately misled the black community, keeping them in poverty, but creating a huge Democratic voting block. The next time a Democrat calls you a racist or tries to show his concern for the black community, tell them about LBJ and the Civil Rights Movement, which is being manipulated to this day by the Democratic Party to the detriment of blacks.

    • DavidL Carnes says:

      not to get off topic but as an upfront conservative slash Libertarian I am always taken aback at the language democrats will use around me regarding race.They assume because I am conservative I am a fellow racist.

  32. Kaiser says:

    Killing JFK: 50 Years, 50 Lies
    –From the Warren Commission to Bill O’Reilly,
    A History of Deceit in the Kennedy Assassination
    by Dr. Lance Moore
    The unbiased facts, concisely-presented by a skilled, highly-credible author. Over 200 source-notes support a compelling case that the death of President Kennedy involved more than a “lone nut” assassin. Rebuts the 50 biggest lies told by government and media.


  33. Darwin says:

    Liberal pundits? Ridiculous. I’m sure far more liberals disbelieve the JFK assassination story than conservatives.

    • j says:

      Exactly correct. Those numbers have been proven in surveys. By far, more Republicans believe in the WC conclusions. I’m not insinuating any particular side of the argument, just stating the facts of the surveys.

  34. Riviera says:

    Close, but not quite.
    JFK was assassinated by the American Chiefs of Staff. All others may have been implicated, like the CIA and the Mafia, but the final decision came from the Generals. That’s why it will never be reavealed: it was a true coup d’etat which would destroy the American Dream and notions of Democracy. It was a one-time thing, but the generals were getting ever antsier about the Russians and Cuba and the Kennedy ‘back-door’ negotiations between Bobby and the Russian Ambassador. As well, they didn’t trust JFK not to severely reduce the CIA after reelection. Many reasons. All such fall guys as “CIA, NSA, Cuba, Mafia” are serial fronts used to confuse. They provide only a facade of the true conspirators.

    • david thurman says:

      Sorry, but I find fault with your thesis that, “It was a one-time thing”; yet in the previous sentence you opine, “That’s why it will never be revealed: it … would destroy the American Dream and notions of Democracy.” I don’t see how one wouldn’t understand that something so incongruous to our nations founding beliefs wouldn’t reverberate in our political reality for, well at least 50+ years.

    • lysias says:

      Why would the Joint Chiefs of Staff be bothered by a severe reduction of the CIA? Wouldn’t that mean more jobs and bigger budgets for the armed forces?

  35. Sharon says:

    My father worked at Andrews AFB and my father was from Texas. The only person from Texas he ever disparaged was LBJ. Said he was a ‘son of a gun’ and definitely had ‘something to do with the assassination’.

  36. Jerry says:

    Assuming LHO was a patsy, how could he have been counted on to bring “curtain rods” wraped up in a cloth to the Texas School Book Depository on 11/22/63?

    • George says:

      Jerry…regarding the curtain rod, go to the video at:


      This video provides a lengthy and enlightening interview with Frazier, an Oswald friend, coworker, and car-pooler at the Book Depository. In the interview, he thoroughly debunks the curtain rod theory, arguing that the package that day brought in by Oswald to work was simply far too small to have held the alleged rifle, even if dismantled.

      Regards, George, Canada

      • Cap Nemo says:

        I agree with you but if more than one shooter or shooters what if Oswald brought a dismantled Remington James Files claims to have used behind the picket fence. That weapon is very small compared to the Carcano. Switching weapons with each other might confuse people with the fingerprints on them.

  37. moonwatcher says:

    It is my firm conviction too that LBJ wanted to have JFK killed for the reasons mentioned by Roger Stone and other observers.
    And that Nixon and Bush were informed on what was going to happen in Dallas that fateful day. Also that several oil tycoons agreed to finance the hitmen. That Oswald did not fire any shot, but that Malcolm Wallace was placed at the Book Depository and fired a shot that wounded Governor John Connally. That a group of Cubans traveled to a Dallas Motel with CIA agent Frank Sturgis and Marita Lorenz, who testified about her love affair with Fidel Castro, and was recruited and trained in Florida with the Cuban terrorist squad. That Jack Ruby visited this motel to hand out the money for the Cubans, with Miss Lorenz leaving the motel since she did not like to see a mobster like Ruby involved with her secret mission. She also said Oswald was there, but she did not know him before.
    I cannot figure out what Oswald was doing that afternoon, and how his rifle was used to catch him as the only hitman. He was certainly in on the conspiracy, had worked for the FBI office in New Orleans as false flag operator in favor of Castro, visited the nightclub of Jack Ruby and was acquainted with Dave Ferrie.
    But he was no sharpshooter and professional killer like the mobsters sent in by Sam Giancana behind the grassy knoll.
    I believe the testimony by Giancana in “Double Cross” and “Marita’s Story” (1993) were very convincing, both explaining the motives for the CIA and the Mob why JFK must die. The conspiracy was a product of anti-communist ideology. Oil tycoon Nelson Bunker Hunt was once the chairman of the Council on National Policy, a very powerful political lobby group.
    I remember Reverend Moon telling his audience why JFK and Dag Hammarskjold had to die. They did not follow God’s Plan to battle with Communism ! This year I am busy writing a book about Cults and Political Alliances.

  38. No Elitist says:

    In checking your website and reading many comments posted on this blog, I find it interesting that I find no mention of a 150-minute 2003 video produced by the History Channel entitled, “The Men Who Killed Kennedy”. The video clearly makes the case that Kennedy had multiple enemies, but none as crafty or as close as LBJ. The video ends with interviews of individuals who have spoken with LBJ prior to his death who tell about LBJ’s lament for the crimes that he had committed including JFK’s.

    Having watched with fascination the History Channel’s presentatation, I ordered the DVD and have it today in my library. A few weeks later after telling a few friends about this History Channel program, I tried ordering a few more copise, but couldn’t – the website no longer offered the DVD.

    • Paul Turner says:

      I think the fact that Gerald Ford publicly criticized The History Channel for its production of The Men Who Killed Kennedy should tell us one thing-Ford was afraid The History Channel was right.

  39. Chris Hurley says:

    There is a heap of evidence that implicates LBJ in the planning of the assassination and that he knew a lot more about its execution than he ever let on. However, it is always important to remember that LBJ was never entirely his “own man”. Unlike JFK he was in hock for all kinds of political and other favours; his closeness to Mac Wallace and other hitmen always exposed him as vulnerable. When he called in Warren and pushed for the Oswald did it alone line he was serving others’ interests as much as his own. One of the more intriguing aspects of the words of persuasion that LBJ used to convince Warren to take on the job of running the Commission was his reference to “40 million deaths”. A reluctant Warren, one must suppose, would reposte with something like “If you don’t want 40 million deaths, don’t start a nuclear war, you are, after all, the President.” It could be read, therefore, that LBJ was really saying he did not have that ultimate control, that unless someone like Warren took on this role and gave an acceptable answer, his hand would be forced. Following this line of logic the lead takes you straight back to the usual suspects, the FBI, the Military and the CIA. It is easy to discount the FBI because J Edgar, like LBJ, was also an indebted man with limited freedom to operate. His showdown with Prescott Bush in 1942 would not have endeared him to the Bush’s one bit and one wonders why he felt the need to put GHWB’s name into a memorandum on 29th November 1963; could he have been muscled? The FBI quickly came up with the Oswald alone conclusion. I find it hard to believe that the Military could have directed LBJ either because it did not move as single unit. Le May, probably the most marked of JFK’s enemies in the Military, was something of a spent force and, anyway, the President could always call upon his sole power in law to declare war to keep the brass hats in line. More suspicion falls upon the CIA and its interests in the industrial / military complex. There are good reasons to suppose that the CIA’s prints are all over the assassination and there must have been other good reasons why they did not come clean with the Warren Commission (and subsequently the HSCA). Johnson owed them bigtime and he came through with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. It is little wonder that he died a broken man, stricken by conscience.

  40. MJM says:

    Just finished the book. Most fascinating work indeed. Soooo many questions seemingly answered. Am very interested to read others’ comments about this book. Have for more than 30 years believed that there was a conspiracy and often used the term coup d’état – tho never heard it used till now. It’s difficult to believe that some can be so adamant in their belief of LHO’s role as the lone assassin.
    I have not read any of the other works mentioned in his bibliography, but am now interested in doing so, spurred on by Stone’s book.
    Do have 1 question based on the theory that LHO was not a participant at all, based on the absence of nitrate evidence – who then shot officer Tippett? Was LHO followed by someone after he left the TSBD? Was Tippett “sacrificed” to further incriminate LHO?
    Finally, Thanks RJS for your effort to further shed important light on obviously one of the darkest days in American history – regardless of whatever opinions some Americans have regarding JFK … Or the Kennedy’s for that matter. Darker yet considering who was behind it and darkest yet…the reasons behind it.

  41. George says:

    Stone’s arguments as an insider have to be taken seriously. The more I read about Lyndon Johnson, the more I realize how obsessed this man was about becoming President.

    Consider that when Kennedy first approached Johnson about being on his presidential ticket, Johnson at first said that he would consider it, and then promptly set his staff members off on a mini research project.

    He asked his staff to determine what the odds were of becoming president if you had first served as a Vice President, as opposed to never having been a VP. His staff informed Johnson that based on history, his odds were better of attaining the White House if he were to first serve as Vice-President. With this information, Johnson then promptly accepted Kennedy’s invitation to run with him. Clearly such an individual would view JFK as an obstacle to his own presidential ambitions.

    There’s also clear photographic & eyewitness evidence that in Dealy Plaza that day, Johnson was the first person to begin to duck and take cover in response to the shooting. In fact, LBJ begins to take cover before the first shot is even fired! Also, I believe that it’s no coincidence that that the shooting takes place in Texas where Johnson has connections and can influence matters.

    Regards, George, Canada

  42. Lee Shepherd says:

    I think what we really want to know is the names of these people who killed our president. We need more than the CIA, or the DIA or the powers that be. H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, David Byrd, LBJ, Hoover, is a good start. R.S. says there was more shooters than Mac Wallace, but he doesn’t know who they were or who hired them. Finally, who masterminded the plot? It’s hard to believe Bush is smart enough to do it alone and LBJ doesn’t complete the puzzle.

  43. Starling says:

    If Nixon was involved in the killing of JFK, is it possible that he was not involved in the killing of RFK, which act virtually gave him (Nixon) the White House.

    • Paul Turner says:

      Well, it didn’t give him the White House by much, as we recall the 1968 election results. But-interesting issue, there. I’m not ready to say Nixon was involved in the JFK Asassination, but I can go either way on it. But as for the RFK Assassination-since Humphrey wasn’t yet a serious factor at the time, I’m sure Nixon was afraid he’d lose to RFK, so it’s worth wondering about Tricky Dick’s involvement(if indeed he was).

      • Fearfaxer says:

        Actually, that’s not true. Humphrey was piling up lots of delegates and even with RFK’s win in California, HHH was ahead in the delegate race. Only a small percentage of convention delegates were chosen by primaries at that time, most were selected either at state conventions, caucuses, etc., and these were controlled by elected and appointed officials who ran the various state parties. This is not to say Humphrey had the nomination locked up. The Kennedys still had powerful ties to some influential party bosses like Chicago Mayor Daley. In fact, Daley was so distressed by the prospect of defeat that year that at the convention he attempted to put together a block of delegates that would give the nomination to Ted Kennedy, who declined because he and his family were still too shaken up by his brothers murder a couple of months before.

    • lysias says:

      It was LBJ who hated RFK. And if RFK had become president, the people involved in the assassination of his brother would have suffered. (I’m not convinced that that second sentence necessarily applies to LBJ, but I’m also not convinced that it doesn’t.)

    • Justin Hall says:

      There’s not a shred of evidence that Nixon was involved.

  44. Bill says:

    I’m OK that Oswald didn’t fire the gun and Mac Wallace killed JFK. But why did Oswald kill Officer Tippet? What was the motive there?

    • A.Z. Hays says:

      This is a very good question: Why did Oswald kill Dallas PD officer J.D. Tippett? If Oswald did not fire the first shot(s), hitting both JFK and Governor Connelly, he had no need to fear being tried and convicted of capital murder in the Tippet murder. In Texas, where I grew up and worked for 15 years in local and county law enforcement, murdering a cop is tantamount to a death sentence for the perpetrator. Had Oswald been somehow just on the periphery of the assassination conspiracy he would, in all likelihood, have received a relatively light prison sentence.

      I’m reading the Roger Stone book at present and find it fascinating as well as factually valid. I do however feel that Mr. Stone left out one extremely important angle, and that will be detailed in my book on the matter which is due due out next year. In short, there is abundant evidence that another nation-state, which I shall accuse in writing (neither Cuba nor the USSR), played an important hand in the conspiracy to kill the President.

    • Paul Turner says:

      There’s no real evidence it was LHO who killed Tippit.

  45. Jordan says:

    The picture is particularly apt.

    Much like LBJ, Tricky Dick was another cog in the machine who got what he wanted and what others wanted for him.

  46. Vanessa Loney says:

    LBJ is just the new patsy.

    After all the freight train that is the debunking of the Zapruder film (as Mr Horne has advised us his Hollywood friends are about to do) is coming down the track so best to invent a new patsy to deflect attention away from the real perpetrators (as per “JFK and the Unspeakable”).

    And who better than another Democrat President? That way you get a twofer.

  47. Grigsby says:

    If a perpetrator’s behavior after the crime is significant, Oswald makes a poor showing. How was a completely innocent man able to stay so calm and cool after being accused of the most heinous crime possible? He acted like a prisoner of war who was prepared to give only his name, rank, and serial number. He was only 24 years old but seemed hardened enough to remain totally dispassionate. And his employment at the book depository was supposedly arranged by his wife’s friend, Ruth Paine, who knew how desperately he needed a job, and that’s the only reason he was where he was on Nov. 22, not that he’d been installed there by the CIA or some other organization. And why did he leave the book depository as soon as the shooting took place and go home, pick up a pistol and go walking in a residential section of Dallas only to encounter Patrolman Tippett. And why did the Dallas deputy, who supposedly knew a lot about firearms incorrectly identify the gun found on the sixth floor as a Mouser, only to change his story the next day and report that it was a Manlicher-Carcano? I would think a firearms expert wouldn’t make that mistake. Some of my questions lead me to think Oswald was guilty; other questions lead me to think he was not. I was hoping that, 50 years later, there’d be enough facts brought out to solve this mystery. I guess another 50 years will be necessary.

  48. bobby says:

    Really. The masterminds were the poppy Bush using Nixon and his son as well as his buddies in the cia. No doubt johnson and Hoover were a part of it but not major players. It was the start of controlling america and the media. Oil and Banking. Now who was in the best position to implament such a huge plan. The men fired by JFK and poppy. The rest are players all very much needed and all had much to gain personally. Now we need to arrest Bush before he dies get the ball rolling for justice

  49. I find this conversation fascinating, and Mr Stone’s contribution exceedingly valuable.

    I also find it buttresses my contention that Nixon meant that the Warren Report was the biggest hoax ever perpetrated, when he made that “mysterious” statement recorded on the White House taping system.

  50. Justin Hall says:

    I’m doing a piece on the assassination for my blog. Concerning Henry Cabot Lodge, I would really REALLY appreciate it if someone would supply me with the name of the lawyer who Lodge spoke with about Kennedy’s intention to normalize relations with Cuba, who in turn told militant Felipe V. Santiago. I thought I once came across the name, and I should have included it in my notes. My only suspect of who the lawyer was is Ernest Cuneo, but I really don’t know. Please help. Thank you.

  51. Justin Hall says:

    If anyone can tell me what book the following story comes from, I’d deeply appreciate it:

    “In Hawaii on Nov. 21/63……shortly after lunch Honolulu time, U.S.Ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge made a long distance call from the lobby of the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. Now this distinguished diplomat had acces to phones in privacy from his room or the military circuits at no cost….Yet he was seen, according to the Honolulu Star Bulletin, with a stack of quarters in his hand pitting coin after coin into a pay phone??
    Lodge was the only person of the seven member policy-making body to stay at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel…..the others stayed in the military quarters.”

  52. Justin Hall says:

    Regarding the assassination I have just written a piece about how Henry Cabot Lodge is a more important character in the conspiracy than has generally been considered.


    • Roy W Kornbluth says:

      Great article, Justin, the details and the big picture.
      Do you know that the driver of the fatal limo, Bill Greer, in his younger days, was a driver, gopher, in the retinue of the H C Lodge family? Greer was a native of Ireland, but an Orangeman.

      JFK’s most fatal flaw was he was too kind to his enemies. HCL as Ambassador, even dog catcher, in a forward-looking administration? No way.

  53. Scott Kaiser says:

    Ed Kaiser, Eugenio Saldivar Xiques, Tony Cuesta, David Morales, Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Frank Sturgis and William Pawley. Money, guns and assassins. LBJ covered it up, Sturgis and company blamed KGB, when that didn’t work they blamed Castro. Still do.

  54. Clark Wilkins says:

    Exactly. LBJ conspiracists have to always ignore this. One will note Jeff Morely had the common sense to ask Stone how LBJ had any connection to Oswald. Morely’s own research shows no such connection.

    I think he plugged a bad book to keep up interest in a topic he’s invested his life in. Jeff has most of the pieces of the puzzle himself already. He’s just two interviews away from breaking the case.

  55. JSA says:

    I don’t know how credible Roger Stone is or isn’t, but as to LBJ telling Cronkite and others about a conspiracy, that doesn’t necessarily rule out his (LBJ’s) possible involvement. First of all, if you’ve read and studied Lyndon Johnson as well as I have, you would know that he was a crafty SOB, perhaps one of THE craftiest. He wasn’t stupid, at least where grabbing power was concerned. He knew that others suspected his involvement in JFK’s assassination from the beginning, people like Robert Kennedy, and others in the Kennedy Cabinet whom LBJ needed to work with if he was to take the reins of power effectively and then run for election himself in 1964. One of the ways to DEFLECT suspicion is to actively “help” in pointing fingers at someone else or at another group. To just remain silent leaves you looking vulnerable. Think about it. If you KNEW that you were innocent, you would work hard to try to find the culprit. LBJ was no fool, he knew that he had to act as if he were innocent and to play the part well he had to ACT as if he cared that the “true culprit” be found and brought to justice. He of course pinned it on Oswald, but he also had the communist tag as a back up, and the most clever part of this plan was, because of the communist ties (following his cover story) of Oswald, digging up too much information could directly antagonize the opponent, the USSR (or via Cuba as proxy), and lead to World War 3. One year after we almost exchanged nuclear missiles with the USSR, people were extremely sensitive about stirring up THAT hornet’s nest again. It truly scared people (well most sane people, not Curtiss LeMay of course). So not only would LBJ pin the possible blame on the Soviets (whom he knew back then because we were in a Cold War with them we could never PROVE they were not involved, Bill Walton’s trip sponsored in secret by RFK and Jackie notwithstanding). This ruse, of possible communist links, also was perfect in closing the case, in shutting down further discussion among elites who weren’t privy to all of the details but raised serious questions about the validity of the Warren Commission’s report and of the events in Dallas. LBJ worked aggressively to shape discussion of conspiracy in the JFK assassination AWAY from HIM and TOWARDS the USSR and/or CUBA. It was a brilliant strategy.

    LBJ used to say that it was better to have a camel in your tent, pissing outside of it, than to have the camel outside, pissing into your tent. What he meant by this was to keep your enemies close, don’t distance yourself, and actively direct opinion, don’t passively sit by and let opinion get shaped by others. He did this with the JFK assassination in a very Machiavellian way. I have a friend of our family who told me once that Johnson kept a copy of Machiavelli’s “The Prince” by his bedside at one point while in the White House.

  56. Gerry Simone says:

    Further to what JSA said, LBJ suspected that others may have been involved, including America’s enemies, which could provoke a 3rd World War. He raised this possibility or threat to help him recruit members to the Warren Commission.

  57. 7karen7 says:

    If LBJ wanted to “look” like he wasn’t involved and put on a front, to look concerned, as to who was involved w/the assassination of JFK, he would have done just what he did in the interview w/Walter Cronkite. He would question if others were involved. Notice how he looks down as he says it, what one does subconsciously when one was involved and knew the answer before asking the question! Of course he would think that his asking would have some believe he couldn’t be involved! Don’t forget that one who lies, cheats, murders (as has been said by numerous people of LBJ and his early political career in Texas), that he would and did lie and act like he was truly concerned…and question that maybe Oswald did not act alone. Of course liars/manipulators do that! Also, LBJ had Nixon give Ruby a job when Nixon was vice-president…which he did, look it up. Nixon knew when he saw that Ruby murdered Oswald, that LBJ was involved. Oswald and Ruby knew one another too, and had CIA connections. There is enough evidence for that. Oswald was what he said he was, “a patsy.” He didn’t get the chance to talk….the goal was to murder him before he could. Ruby said to take him to Washington and he would talk, but they didn’t want the truth, they already knew it. Ruby did say to a reporter in the Dallas police station hallway, as he was being escorted away to “look at the top, the guy who is in there now.” I’ve seen the video of that myself, heard w/my own ears….of course he was speaking of LBJ. And last, but not least, E. Howard Hunt implicates LBJ….who has his (E. Howard Hunt’s) fingerprints on numerous political shenanigans. LBJ’s blackmailing JFK w/pictures that was given him by J. Edgar Hoover was his attempt to be in line for the presidency when JFK was murdered, which he knew was a good possibility at the time. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect the dots….they are definitely there. Especially noting what he did and what he was capable of when he was in Texas politics. And there is the book from his own lawyer, McClellan, who states all the same things.

  58. Lee says:

    I wouldn’t ignore the fact LBJ was half insane for many years and most likely getting worse at the end.

  59. Juan Viche says:

    LBJ even called up the hospital where Kennedy was being operated on and talked to one of the doctors/surgeons and told him to relay to the main surgeon to get Oswald’s deathbed confession. Who would do that unless they were in some way involved with the assassination plot. Needless to say he was one sick puppy. This is in a documentary I saw of recent and when people were saying the guy was not telling the truth about this the operator who took the call from LBJ confirmed the phone call.

  60. Ramon F Herrera says:


    “LBJ was no fool, he knew that he had to act as if he were innocent and to play the part well he had to ACT as if he cared that the “true culprit” be found and brought to justice.”


    Rumor has it that OJ Simpson was looking to hire the same investigators as LBJ did.

  61. Juan Viche says:

    correction.. where Oswald was being operated on.

  62. Gerry Simone says:

    I believe that documentary was about Dr. Crenshaw. Unless my memory has failed me, I think it was Crenshaw who said that he spoke to LBJ on the phone.

    I also think that David Wrone in another documentary makes reference to that telecon.

  63. 7karen7 says:

    True, it was Dr. Crenshaw that spoke to LBJ on the phone, that he wanted to get a deathbed confession from Oswald before he died. The phone operator backs that up, the call was made.

  64. Ramon F Herrera says:


    I am not going to argue with the rest of your points, but this one is absurd:

    “If LBJ wanted to “look” like he wasn’t involved and put on a front, to look concerned, as to who was involved w/the assassination of JFK, he would have done just what he did in the interview w/Walter Cronkite. He would question if others were involved.”

    Notice that the official name of the WC group was:

    “The PRESIDENT’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy”

    Each member was appointed by LBJ. They were supposed to represent the very best for the job, be beyond reproach. The work done by your appointees reflects on you.

    DC insiders always knew that the LN tale was hard to swallow, and that is why there were alternate culprits, only mentioned in *private*;

    – Angleton: “It was the Russians”
    – LBJ: “It was Fidel”

    Contrary to your proposal, the best way to mislead the still-innocent, virgin American public would be this:

    Far Right: “Okay, Lyndon: You may have your Great Society communist crap, go ahead and out-Kennedy JFK… but we are getting our Vietnam”.

  65. Paul Turner says:

    Yes, Jim Tague in his book, writes that LBJ was “completely nuts” by the time he returned to Texas for his post-Presidency life.

  66. David Regan says:

    The LBJ episode is posted online for anyone interested. The Men Who Killed Kennedy – Part 9 – The Guilty Men (2003) https://youtu.be/jgNfQYpS1gQ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more