'Explosive' Jackie Onassis Tapes To Be Released (VIDEO)

There are reports that secret recordings offer stunning revelations into Jackie Kennedy, in particular who she thought was involved in her husband's assassination.

Never-before-released audio recordings allegedly indicate that Jackie O believed then-Vice President Lyndon Johnson and a group of Texas businessmen were behind the Dallas shooting that left John F. Kennedy dead on Nov. 22, 1963, The Daily Mail reports.

The tapes -- which feature conversations between the first lady and historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. shortly after Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald -- also address extramarital affairs, including allegations of the president's involvement with a 19-year-old White House intern, and Jackie O's relations with actor William Holden and Fiat mogul Gianni Agnelli, according to the British tabloid.

ABC, which plans to air the tapes next month, has described the recordings as "explosive." But network officials deny that there's evidence of an LBJ-orchestrated hit on Kennedy.

"The tabloid reports about content of the tapes are total nonsense," a network spokesman told The New York Post. "ABC isn't releasing any content from those tapes until mid-September, at which time it will be clear how off base these reports are."

The recordings were supposed to remain in a vault at the Kennedy Library until 50 years after Jackie's death. But according to The Daily Mail, Caroline Kennedy gave the tapes to ABC just 17 years after her mother's death in a swap that would keep the network from airing its recent miniseries, "The Kennedys."

Comments

[Bill Duckworth]

08:27 PM on 09/19/2011

Interesting from ABC to BBC all I can find is speculation that Jackie O had Affairs and same with Jack

I am sick and tired of the Reporters and Journalist Telling their OPINION rather than providing the Information for ME to digest.

Release to the Public. Let us see and hear them Please.

[manumoka]

02:00 PM on 08/13/2011

well, her opinion is worth more than most.

i wonder if lbj's mistress will be talking about what she saw (that's some explosive info).

[Bill Duckworth]

08:29 PM on 09/19/2011

Belive 1/2 of what you see and NOTHING of what you hear.

Let's hear her first, not journalist and repoprters. Almost as bad as the CIA WMD and 911 involvement. Or for that matter no body or body of evidence

[riverhouse]

01:57 PM on 08/10/2011

I hadn't a clue so many conspiracy nutters were out there on HP. Robert Kennedy believed it was the mob who had President Kennedy killed because of his (RFK's) vigorous prosecution focus on the Mafia, most especially Trafficante of FL and Carlos Marcello of New Orleans.

[MindyM]

05:22 AM on 08/10/2011

This was all we needed to get the conspiracy theorists out in full force. Just reading some of the comments is mindblowing. All this because some tabloids supposedly leaked information from these tapes made by Jackie Onassis. ABC has issued a strong statement that this speculation and rumor is baseless.

I have an idea - why don't we wait until ABC actually releases all of this information in September and then make our own judgements! If, and I emphasize the word IF, Jackie Onassis does say anything about a conspiracy to kill her husband, then I can see people crawling out of the woodwork once more with their pet theories.

For now, I am going to wait until I actually know what Jackie Onassis really said.

[stfranklin]

03:02 PM on 08/12/2011

That's right. Don't offer any evidence, which you don't have. Just call people names. That'll get at the truth.

[lilysgirl1]

11:21 PM on 08/12/2011

I agree with you Mindy. I have been waiting all these years to hear the truth about JFK. I remember when the news came out about a book/tapes whatever would be put into a vault and not to be released until after her death. To be honest, I didn't think I would still be around for this event so yes, I am curious. For so many years since JFK was shot, there have been so many theories. It will be nice to hear the truth and I don't think it is going to be as mysterious as some may think. If there was any indication of a conspiracy I am sure Caroline would already have had that taken care of. I too am anxious to hear what she says and since it will be coming directly from her, it will mean so much more than any movie that ABC could make.

[SLEdwin]

04:44 PM on 08/09/2011

I watched the mini-series about the Kennedys and I didn't really find out anything I didn't already know about them. I don't see why the family was so bent on keeping the series under wraps. I certainly don't see how it was worth trading an actual recording of Jackie Kennedy talking about her or her husband's affairs to keep it from being shown.

[Ihaveadream]

03:48 PM on 08/09/2011

She was right. LBJ Killed JFK

Who had the power as Vice President, to order the Secret Service to waive precautions?
Who then had the power, as President, to create the Warren Commission to hide his crime?

Dan Eden for Viewzone connects the dots between who was involved, why and presents documents. http://cipshare.com/jfktruth_com/LBJ/index.htm

And commenter R. Gates adds: Your summary of the events behind the American coup d'Ètat of 1963 is nearly perfect. And of course, the American people were none the wiser for it, though many suspected that more than just a lone gunman could have done the job. Many people do not know of the secret letter that was sent from Robert and Jacqueline to the Kremlin stating quite clearly that acoup d'état had actually happened in the U.S. This letter was sent through private and secret back channels as the Kennedy family (specifically Robert) did not know who they could trust in the U.S. Government. All they knew was that powerful forces, most likely involving the CIA, the Mafia, the FBI, and yes...LBJ, had taken over the reigns of power through JFK's assassination. The coup d'état was perfectly planned, and the investigation into JFK's death would of course be carefully controlled by LBJ's hand selected Warren Commission.

Read the rest of his comment here: http://cipshare.com/jfktruth_com/LBJ/index7.htm

[riverhouse]

01:43 PM on 08/10/2011

Well, you start off your nutty conspiracy theory with a mistruth. The VP does not have the power or authority to order the Secret Service about anything and most certainly not to "waive precautions" of their duty to protect the President. Your post goes downhill from there.

[Telebob98]

01:57 AM on 09/10/2011

I wonder why J. Edgar Hoover was quoted as saying, "If I told you what I really know, it would be very dangerous for the country. Our whole political system could be disrupted." Interview with Billy Byars, Jr.

Actually, the VP had full access to all Secret Service procedural manuals. Could one of them been given to the assassination team...by Rufus Youngblood... or someone close to LBJ...?

[George Van Setters]

12:45 PM on 08/09/2011

I love how they say Onasis says she thinks there is a conspiracy, THEN THE WRITER SAY OSWALD PULLED THE TRIGGER. Sorry Americans just don't beleive Kennedy was killed with one gun that was IMPOSIBLE TO SHOOT THAT FAST AND ACCURATE. For god sake even he said he was a patsy, right before he was shot. Plus the fact HUNDREDS of people ran to the grassy knoll, I can see a few making the mistake but HUNDREDS, and then their is the zupruter film, how many people see the president head going back and to the left???? Plus Jackie O jumping on the BACK of the car to grab a peice of her husbands head. THE SHOT WAS FROM THE FRONT, not oswald, plus look how the goverment controled Oswald, former CIA he worked with them till he realized he was set up then shot. FUNNY how all the witnesses and all the evidence were DISTROYED. I beleive this country was taken that day, Kennedy didnt want FEMA camps ready to load up with his PEOPLE. He didnt want Veitnam, he didnt want to invade Cuba, he knew the gov. was lieing about UFOs, things would have been a lot more open and with less lies if he would have lived.

[kanga573]

12:14 PM on 08/09/2011

I guess the new Huff Post hands garbage like this to FoxNews so long as it bashes progressives. Pretty said, folks.

[chucknchar]

11:10 AM on 08/09/2011

After the joke of the Warren Commission, appointed by Johnson, you know that the government was involved prrobably appeasing big money profiteers in Vietnam

[ArtsyJane]

08:52 AM on 08/09/2011

The Kennedy assassination was too profitable to a number of people with obvious potential motives, for the consipracy viewpoint to not be considered. There's a lot more logic in the conspiracy plot than there is in the lonely madman plot. In fact, the burden of proof should lie with the madman plot. In other words, consipracy should be assumed until disproven.

Of course, this is all in the past and will probably never be brought back.

The same goes for Bobby Kennedy as well, by the way.

[Ailidh]

12:21 PM on 08/09/2011

Who profited most from the Kennedy assassination and Johnson's subsequent accession to the White House? Let me see, long before the Vietnam War (which JFK supported and which RFK only stopped supporting when he needed an issue to differentiate himself from LBJ to oppose him for the Democratic nomination), LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed, the Voting Rights Act passed, Medicare, Medicaid... All those disenfranchised groups got a voice that would have been stilled if JFK had remained in office. Don't kid yourselves. JFK would not have been re-elected, Nixon would have got in. Not that - in these days - Nixon looks that bad: he's well to the left of Barack Obama.

[SLEdwin]

04:37 PM on 08/09/2011

Nixon is well to the left of Obama??? Are you kidding me? Prove it. Convince me.

[pleasantlyny]

05:29 PM on 08/10/2011

Who profitted from 9/11?

[Ihaveadream]

04:05 PM on 08/09/2011

Several politicians who later became president, the mob (got the FBI and Robt Kennedy's Justice Depts off their backs), the CIA, big oil and the TX war profiteers who wanted Vietnam to become a full blown war. I posted this link above, but all the names and connections are here:

http://cipshare.com/jfktruth_com/LBJ/index.htm

[Jos Fas]

04:35 AM on 08/09/2011

Here we go again. Under the heading of "Freedom of the Press" we get all kinds of stuff, sometimes lies and sometimes truth. The only thing is, how can you tell which is which? I wish there was a law that said: If someone is responsible for writing a lie it would be a CRIME! Until then who cares what someone writes it means absolutely nothing.

[loco48]

06:02 AM on 08/09/2011

You don't beleive in the first amendment? And why do you even read? "how can you tell which is which"? Use critical thinking, reason and logic. If the article is important to you, spend some time researching the facts.

[Jos Fas]

07:04 AM on 08/11/2011

Dear loco48,
I do believe in the first amendment, that's for sure! But in my case "I TRY NOT TO USE CRITICAL THINKING" I try to use more objective thinking,that seems to work better for me. Now that you mention it, I should spend a little more time than I do researching for more facts, but sometimes there is not enough time in the day to read all the facts that are available. Oh well, I guess I'll just choose the facts I want to believe and be happy with that. Thanks for the advice. I know it will make me a better person. You have a great day loco48 :-)

[ArtsyJane]

08:42 AM on 08/09/2011

Would you rather the press not be free?

[henriette and hube]

03:17 AM on 08/09/2011

If fox has anything to do with this then I don't need to see, hear or read it. That's enough for me.
fox is just not credible.

[DMDAY44]

07:41 AM on 08/09/2011

Fox merely reported it, ABC is the network that claims to have the tapes. Try looking outside of your insulated liberal world.

[henriette and hube]

03:43 PM on 08/09/2011

I don't like the world outside my liberal country. Pass on your suggestion.

Feel better now with your snarky remark? I hope so. Enjoy your day.

[henriette and hube]

10:54 PM on 08/09/2011

Sorry to burst your pleasure bubble but no satisfaction available. Tough world.

[UpBone]

02:33 AM on 08/09/2011

She could have asked Lyndon about it, while he was being sworn in on the plane. In front of everyone.

[Ailidh]

12:14 PM on 08/09/2011

Or she could have asked Johnson in the surprisingly flirty telephone conversations Jackie had with him and which were among all the LBJ phone calls taped while he was in the White House.

[SLEdwin]

04:39 PM on 08/09/2011

And Johnson would have said, "Yes, Jackie, of course I was behind it. Now hold that bible steady. And try not to get any of your husband's blood on my suit, please."

[marrig]

12:20 AM on 08/09/2011

This story doesn't pass the smell test. Why would a recently widowed woman with two toddlers confess her sexual escapes into a recorder? especially just a few months after the president's death when the nation was still in mourning? What conceivable benefit would this be for her or for posterity?

[loco48]

06:06 AM on 08/09/2011

Since the tapes were givien to ABC by Jackie's daughter, I see no reason to think they are not authentic.

Schlessinger and kennedy did this for historical records since his presidency and assasination are a big part of our american history.

[IllinoisResident]

08:36 AM on 08/09/2011

She was obsessed with preserving her husband's legacy for history. Read up about how she planned his funeral. He was only president for three years and had many enemies. So she was very concerned about how history would treat her husband. She had plenty of help with the toddlers and keeping busy can help in times of grief. She was probably doing alot of thinking about their lives together so why not save it on tape.

I think this is really cool and is like a time capsule. Anybody that would be shocked is long gone. (including my parents)

[marrig]

03:58 PM on 08/09/2011

How would telling about her affairs help posterity???? I don't understand the contradiction between what the media says was contained in these tapes and ABC's denial of those reports.

[Al Schrader]

08:15 PM on 08/08/2011

The Kennedy years were incredible. Gas was 22 cents a gallon. Everybody drove a V-8.
There were more jobs than people to fill them. The US credit rating was AAA.
John Kennedy was a red headed Scotts decended man (I'm not) but this is what it takes to lead America to prosperity - I'm not a racist or a biggot - all men are created equal. I'm simply being honest....Alfred-

[agness nutter]

12:14 AM on 08/09/2011

Sorry Alfred. Making a bigoted statement, then claiming you're not a bigot isn't going to wash. And you're also wrong about him being "Scotts decended" - he was of Irish descent. There was a time when bigots though Irish Americans couldn't lead Americans to prosperity, either.

[IllinoisResident]

08:44 AM on 08/09/2011

It was a success story for all the many Irish Americans who were previously low on the social status. Every new wave of immigrant to this country goes through this phase. I remember growing up when Irish and Italians didn't marry each other. For the next generation it seemed silly. Young people don't remember Irish americans being dirt poor and living in ghettos but it did happen that way.

[Cynth]

10:54 PM on 08/09/2011

Consider all the white guys after Kennedy who brought us into our decline. Just being honest...

(And get your facts straight before you post. Your bigotry makes you look foolish -- and your misformation magnifies your foolishness.)

[Al Schrader]

05:35 AM on 08/10/2011

Not white guys, Scotts-Irish guys. When you are living under a bridge, you can call me anything you want. Does what you think of me matter when you are homeless and the US is ruined ? Africa is not a model of economic prosperity, most of them are starving to death as you read this. Just sayin...Al-