Христо Луков
True, but only someone spineless and frightened of death at a very old age would stay quiet about it. If I were him, I'd tell it to as many people as I knew.
The man in the same cell as Oswald was a f***ing coward. For anyone who wants to know what happened with the JFK assassination, I've seen a lot and here's my take (I have a very strong intuition):
As for the assassination, it was ((secret services)). JFK was the last resistance or hope to resist their grip on the US. Lyndon B. Johnson was approached by these ((secret service)) types and promised presidency, which is what he always wanted. All Lyndon wanted was to be known as a great president, and to do anything it took. He wanted glory. He was confident he could achieve this if he assassinated JFK but then had serious regrets and was very troubled about it afterwards.
Lyndon B. Johnson was ashamed that he had agreed in the plot and that nobody knew the real reason. He realized that helping those forces assassinate the president was a great mistake as it cemented their control over the US and really instead of making the US great under his leadership, all he did was destroy it and collaborate with forces that wanted to use him. His entire term was a puppet show where ((they)) took advantage of his weaknesses and his naivete about certain things like emancipation, which he did deeply believe was right. He was a weak person who envied JFK and wanted only to be in his place, making America a great and prosperous country but ultimately achieved more in its destruction which is why he seems so nervous or stressed all the time in interviews.
Here's the thing about emancipation: Morally, it was the right thing to do. Logically, it was the wrong thing to do. How you treat it depends on how you think. I think logically and I see it as a sudden sharp fall downwards for America starting with the 60s. This decade started out very promising and the "glory" of postwar America was looking to continue and improve under Kennedy's policies - something ((they)) didn't want because they wanted to control this great country so they could cement their control over the world. How? America became THE central opposition to postwar USSR and communism. Communism was created by ((them)) and controlled by them. It was all a great facade behind which they made money by repeatedly playing one side against the other and shaping the world the way they wanted to - i.e. removing powerful people from USSR countries because they were "the rich" and communism destroyed the rich and ground countries into a destroyed, zombified state in which no individual questioned, thought, and there was a postnational "culture" - no great concerts, operas, comedy, cinema, only a facade or shadow of before. The US was a country which, under leadership of presidents like Eisenhower, was still "in its own hands" so to speak. There was little to no control by ((foreign people)), yet.
Now, the reason is - many of ((them)) were in countries like the UK, France, Canada, where their task was to destroy and remove the greatness and prosperity of these countries so that they could become weak and fragile shadows of their former past: the UK today is a great example. Something extremely uncomfortable here is that there were Jewish figures in politics like Pierre Mendes France who were responsible for the abandon of colonies and territory for no reason, """emancipation""" of western countries - as a means to weaken them, participation to war (in Vietnam for example) because war=profit. Their task was solely the dismantlement and destruction of Western countries and the removal of "greatness" so that said countries could be eaten away by feminism, immigration, white hatred and racism towards whites in their own countries a century later. This is all a great big plot to subvert and destroy Western nations because it is precisely Western nations that have (or had, actually) the greatest chance to resist Jewish world control. It's hard to swallow this, but it is in fact tied to JFK's assassination.
And so, JFK was a problematic figure for those that wanted, and had interests, in the puppeteering of America under their control. I'd say most of LBJ's actions as president, if not all, were solely to serve their interests. And these interests were to weaken the US. Remove the stability - ""raycis"" or not, it was stability and the country was prosperous - where there was an order in society, and note this, there was no gangster mentality of black people. They were pretty humble or even timid, which ((they)) wanted to change to make aggressive, and the 90s are a symptom of that cultural push. It all makes so much more sense when you see the bigger picture.
I'm very logical, very interested in politics and ethics, and happen to be a scorpio, so I just happen to be really good at investigative analysis like this. Hope some of you read this