Paul Brancato

Does Lifton's Best Evidence indicate that the coverup and the crime were committed by the same people?

743 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

This good question gets to the core of it.

The only reason for the pre-autopsy autopsy was to support the LN theory.

There was no other reason.

So the only real question is WHEN the LN theory was first conceived.

The LBJ-did-it CTer has NO CHOICE but to insist that it HAD TO BE conceived WEEKS in advance.

Yet it makes no sense to me -- why would anyone PLAN a Lone Nut scenario?  There was no Necessity for it.

The ONLY reason to push willy-nilly for a Lone Nut theory is when one is FORCED to push for it.

Here's why: the Military brass at Bethesda would easily fall in line for a last minute, National Security issue from LBJ to push a Lone Nut theory.  But they would never approve of assassination of a President weeks in advance, and prepare a pre-autopsy autopsy.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Here's my take:

They tried it before in Chicago but it never got off ground (i.e., there was supposed to be another lone nut as you know).  The lone nut scenario and a pre-planned autopsy ensures that an investigation doesn't get out of hand and is contained or controlled.  I think the latter was very important to the plotters who many believe were not foreigners (I would hazard to say that that's the consensus of the research community).  Without the involvement of the Soviets or Cubans, the plotters' knew that their Communist conspiracy set-up wasn't going to be persuasive, so they needed to control the autopsy, which was done by select, key figures who exploited the chain of command at a military hospital, and nudged the WH in that direction. That was to avoid looking further into Oswald's past and possible connections.  They probably knew that the new and ambitious President from the south, wouldn't want to blame the assassination on a Soviet/Cuban conspiracy and start a WW because of the Oswald impostor shenanigan, for one thing. So LBJ didn't have to have foreknowledge or be a mastermind, but he may have been an unwitting accomplice to a cover-up of a domestic conspiracy.  In a way, the plotters left LBJ with no choice but to go with the flow or facilitate it.

Quote by Jim Garrison seems apropos here: "I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that Fascism will come to America in the name of National Security"

 

Edited by Gerry Simone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

No surprise there.

 

 

It should also come as no surprise, that a course of action didn't turn out as planned.  (see Murphy's law).

It was Johnson and Hoover that decided to pin it on Oswald alone not the treasonous cabal that planned the murder itself (not saying either of these men didn't have foreknowledge).

Would the extreme right, Cuban or Mafia assets have participated in any way shape or form in a conspiracy if it was revealed to them, before the fact, that the reality was that risking nuclear war with the USSR wasn't worth starting a major conflict with Cuba? I know it's shocking to you that people willing to murder a President could also mislead, lie and entice people to do assorted nefarious acts.

Killing Kennedy and the invasion of Cuba was a right wing wet dream. 1 out of 2 ain't bad.

 

We can speculate all day, but I believe that Oswald wasn't meant to survive his capture and that the combination of the "Raleigh Call" and "I'm a patsy" sealed his fate.

 

Recent history should educate you. lock her up. build a wall. drain the swamp. hold China's feet to the fire. NATO should pay. lies.

 

All valid points Chris but it's hard to make money in a world after global thermonuclear war (if there's a world left).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

My guess is that the Kostkov business may be attributable to someone who did want to blame the Russians.The CIA was a criminal organization that was apparently infested with rogue agents. But whoever might have wanted to blame the Russians was not in charge of the plot.

 

Ron,

What you say here is pretty much what I hypothesized earlier. (Not the hypothesis I've written about here, based on your Plan B hypothesis.) I've thought that maybe the Kostikov business was implemented by a rogue element of the main group of CIA conspirators. One who was sympathetic to the views of General LeMay and his ilk.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gerry Simone said:

It's not like there was a letter FROM Kostikov (now THAT would be different).  

Oswald was made to look like an ambitious Commie wannabe and lapdog of Castro (he was made to look like he was trying to impress him but there's no evidence that he got any direction from him).


Gerry,

I cannot agree with you because there would have be no need for the CIA (or a rogue agent)  to have Ruth Paine to hand over that letter to the authorities where Oswald allegedly wrote about "Comrade Kostin." By the time Paine did that, it had long been decided that Oswald was a lone nut and that there would be a coverup of any communist connection.

Somebody in the CIA was still trying to implicate the Russians, it seem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gerry Simone said:

Here's my take:

They tried it before in Chicago but it never got off ground (i.e., there was supposed to be another lone nut as you know).  The lone nut scenario and a pre-planned autopsy ensures that an investigation doesn't get out of hand and is contained or controlled.  I think the latter was very important to the plotters who many believe were not foreigners (I would hazard to say that that's the consensus of the research community).  Without the involvement of the Soviets or Cubans, the plotters' knew that their Communist conspiracy set-up wasn't going to be persuasive, so they needed to control the autopsy, which was done by select, key figures who exploited the chain of command at a military hospital, and nudged the WH in that direction. That was to avoid looking further into Oswald's past and possible connections.  They probably knew that the new and ambitious President from the south, wouldn't want to blame the assassination on a Soviet/Cuban conspiracy and start a WW because of the Oswald impostor shenanigan, for one thing. So LBJ didn't have to have foreknowledge or be a mastermind, but he may have been an unwitting accomplice to a cover-up of a domestic conspiracy.  In a way, the plotters left LBJ with no choice but to go with the flow or facilitate it.

Quote by Jim Garrison seems apropos here: "I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that Fascism will come to America in the name of National Security"

 

The Chicago and Florida plots were distractions, noise, static. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

The Chicago and Florida plots were distractions, noise, static. 

Distractions from what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Distractions from what?

From what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

That's a question for you, "Butterfly" Clark.

You will adrdress me as Michael, and I will address you as Thomas, unless the administrators decide that we can address each other as we see fit to address one another. This post will be reported.

Cheesrs,

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

The Chicago and Florida plots were distractions, noise, static. 

Dear Michael,

Who were those plots intended to distract before 11/22/63?

--  Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas, I will not reply to you until I hear from the admins as to how members should address one-another.

I don't care for you nick-names. I do not want to be bothered trying to one-up you in the nick-name game.

Cheers

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2017 at 11:20 PM, Steve Thomas said:

David,

 

There's just no other way to explain the secrecy going on at Parkland.

The tunnels

Herding everyone into a central area

Taping over the windows so noone could see out

The fight over the coffin in the hallway

 

Steve Thomas

Steve,

Essentially, agreed.

Pardon my brevity, but am under much time pressure.

Re your post: I know about the first and fourth items on your 4-item list above. But. . . :

Could you elaborate on #2 ("herding" etc)?  I think I once saw, or possessed, a document from a Parkland "candystriper" (from the Garrison files, I think, but am not sure). If you could lay your hands on that, could you send it to me (please  use DSL74@cornell.edu), or simply send me a link, if such exists.

Similar request re "taping over the windows" - - I'm assuming that comes from a document about Gov JC's security precautions. If so, please just send me the citation. I know I've seen that somewhere.

Thanks.

DSL

4/19/2017 - 6:55 a.m. PDT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 4/17/2017 at 11:37 PM, Sandy Larsen said:


I see what you're saying Ron, and it is indeed hard to believe that smart people in the CIA would sign on to a plan that could escalate to nuclear war.

But then what are we to make of the Kostikov story? Kostikov was KGB, not a Castro agent. So the blame would go to the Russians, not Castro.

And the CIA was serious about making known the supposed Oswald/Kostikov connection. Otherwise why have Ruth Paine give a copy of that letter -- that connects Oswald to Kostikov -- to the authorities?

Do you believe there was evidence against Castro that was never revealed by the CIA?

 

Sandy:

Yes, Kostikov was a "bad guy," in charge of Soviet "wet" operations for the KGB, etc.

But, and againin the spirit of "IMHO", I think that the architects of this plot--unless this was the result of  some sort of "rogue" planner--were simply supplying the new President with something for his "political toolbox" so he could have something to instigate (and/or justify) a national security cover-up.  FWIW: I think the discussion on this thread is very interesting, but I don't think there's any need to posit a "one-to-one correspondence" between what was planned in Sept/Oct (1963) and the actual "movie as produced" on November 22, 1963.  To import vocabulary from mathematics (or even some area of physics,) I don't think there has to be "homogeneity" between every act of planning in the Sept/Oct time frame (re LHO's behavior, for example) and the "murder-as-produced" on 11/22/63.  Of course, its always possible that there's "a rogue" that accounts for some "discontinuity", but I think a more reasonable and "common-sense" explanation is what I've mentioned above. (And then, of course, there's simply the matter of Murphy's Law).

I offer these observations simply in the spirit of "food for thought."

DSL

4/18/2017 - 7:10 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2017 at 11:42 PM, Thomas Graves said:

So maybe Castro killed JFK and cleverly kinda blamed it on Mosow.

Which ties in with why I was trying to find out from well-read Trejo whether or not the 9/28 phone call had been proved to have come from Duran's phone inside the closed-on-Saturdays Cuban Consulate.

Can we really be certain that the Cuban Consulate was "closed on Saturdays"?

I'm not saying it isn't; but I haven't studied the original source materials on this particular factoid in years.

Does the CIA maintain the Cuban Consulate  was closed?

DSL

4/28/19- 7:18 a.m. PDT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2017 at 5:15 AM, Ron Ecker said:

 

Ron:

Re "Otherwise why have Ruth Paine give a copy of that letter -- that connects Oswald to Kostikov -- to the authorities? "

IMHO: this is a case where (sometimes) --and as the saying goes, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

I don't subscribe to this super-sinister view of Ruth Paine. I think she was genuinely shocked by finding that letter; and that's why she did what she did.

DSL

4/19/2017 7:20 a.m PDT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 4/17/2017 at 11:53 PM, Thomas Graves said:

I know it's a crazy idea, but it might explain why both Duran and Azcue described the blond "Oswald" they'd dealt with in a way that closely resembled Mexico City-based KGB officer Nikolai Leonov.

 

And why the LI-FEAT (spelling?) documents Trejo referred to are still being withheld by CIA and the other CIA-DNS telephone tap documents "went missing." years ago.

And why ..... (lost my train of thought there for a minute)  ..... Nothing was said about Oswald's or "Oswald's" visit(s) to the Cuban Consulate in the Warren Commission's report, but his visit to the Soviet Embassy was spoken about, iirc. 

The actual writing of the Warren Commission Report was one activity; the prior writing of internal memos was another. To understand "what the WC knew, and when they knew it," one must go to the original "investigative" memos; and even the first drafts of the "Foreign conspiracy" chapter of the WCR (WC attorney David Slawson's "office files" at NARA). [FYI: I examined all of this material, in the greatest of detail, back around 1971/72, spending weeks at the National Archives (when all the JFK records were located in Washington, D.C.) and staying overnight at the home of Bernard Fensterwald).   By doing that, one can trace the flow of information and attempt to find out how it came to pass that "nothing was said" about Oswald's "Cuban" activities, but there was information about the Soviet Embassy visit. Unfortunately that information was incomplete.   We did not get the full picture of what happened during LHO's Soviet Embassy visit until the 1993 publication of Nechiporenko's Passport to Assassination.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the Nechiporenko book ("Passport to Assassination") provides a pretty detailed account of LHO's visit to the Soviet Embassy on Saturday morning, 9/28.  Had there been no Cold War (with all its political complications) everything that is laid out in Nechiporenko's book could have been provided to the Warren Commission. 

But it wasn't  Not only is it very important, historically, but its very illuminating re the psychology of Oswald.  LHO was seated in a room with three (3) officials: Nechiporenko, Kostikov, and Yatsov.   LHO then staged this dramatic scene, in which he was crying, said he was being followed, and then--suddenly--took out a pistol and laid it on the table. One of the three Soviets grabbed at the gun, opened it, and immediately "disarmed" Oswald by taking out the bullets. This whole episode,I am sure, was nothing but an act. What my late father would tell me (and/or my sister) if things got too dramatic at home: "Stop playing Sarah Bernhardt!".  That, I believe, is what Oswald was doing on Saturday morning, 9/28/63, at the Soviet Embassy.  It was a staged play, nothing more. And, of course, it left a major impression on these three officials, who immediately recognized Oswald on 11/22/63, when his arrest was announced and his photograph was carried in the U.S. media. (SIDE NOTE: Jefferson Morley does not include any of this in his book, Our Man In Mexico. And I have no idea how to account for that omission).  Anyway, and as I used to  discuss all of this  with John Newman back in 1993, when I was working very closely with him), the LHO/Cuban contacts were seriously "edited out" (of the Warren Report)  and now we know, from the Nechiporenko book, that the most pertinent aspects of Oswald's Soviet visit never were mentioned in any document given by the Soviets to the US Government; and first became known with the 1993 publication of Passport to Assassination.. What I have described above is to some extent, an important part of the backstory of LHO's visit to Mexico City.

DSL, 4/19/2017; 8:20 a.m. PDT

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now