Was There a Set-up Distinct from the Cover-up?

[Terry Martin]

Perhaps the title of this diary should be, "Untangling Conspiracy to Murder JFK from the Cover-up".

Personally, I believe the two were separate actions.

How I came to this determination was through a study of the Lincoln assassination. Otto Eisenschiml publish a theory that Edwin Stanton was the "mastermind" behind Booth's act. It seemed to me that Stanton was intelligent enough to have had a better cover story in place and yet he seemed unbalanced, confused, grasping at straws attempting to cobble together a case. Had he been behind it, it should have been more seamless.

In the Kennedy assassination we see the same thing. If Hoover or Dulles had masterminded the killing, I would think there would not have been so many dangling threads to try and tie together. Back yard photos would have been impeccable, only one trip to the Paine's garage should have been needed, and all the physical evidence concerning the weapons, bullets, and so forth would have been seamless as well.

It is almost as if Oswald's presence is an annoyance to someone in Dallas and when the assassination comes along it is decided to hang it on him. They first arrest him for the Tippit killing but require several hours before they can also hang him with JFK's killing as well.

This seems to have been almost an afterthought after arresting him for the Tippit shooting.

Do I have evidence for this? No, it is just a hunch.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Was There a Set-up Distinct from the Cover-up?

That's the title of this diary. I asked the question in order to sharpen my thinking on the assassination. I don't give a rip here whether John Armstrong is right or wrong. The question goes to facts, not the interpretation of facts.

I'm of a mind that Oswald was being closely watched (notice the vague passive voice) in 1963. And that he was so good at playing a role that could be labeled "lone nut" or "commie", take your choice, no one had to set him up.

Many here believe [a] Oswald was an intelligence agent, and Oswald was set up to take the fall. This is conventional wisdom.

The truth about the JFK assassination is not to be found in conventional wisdom. The hit on JFK was planned very carefully. Those who offed JFK were sure of the cover-up. Only by accepting these premises, in my opinion, can one find the one path to truth.

[Terry Martin]

Was There a Set-up Distinct from the Cover-up?

That's the title of this diary. I asked the question in order to sharpen my thinking on the assassination. I don't give a rip here whether John Armstrong is right or wrong. The question goes to facts, not the interpretation of facts.

I'm of a mind that Oswald was being closely watched (notice the vague passive voice) in 1963. And that he was so good at playing a role that could be labeled "lone nut" or "commie", take your choice, no one had to set him up.

Many here believe [a] Oswald was an intelligence agent, and Oswald was set up to take the fall. This is conventional wisdom.

The truth about the JFK assassination is not to be found in conventional wisdom. The hit on JFK was planned very carefully. Those who offed JFK were sure of the cover-up. Only by accepting these premises, in my opinion, can one find the one path to truth.

I can agree with your [a] but the I have difficulty with. As most people conflate the cover-up with the crime, it stands to reason that Oswald was set up to take the fall.

What is the "highly planned" assassination (so rendered as I have difficulty seeing much evidence of any rigorous deep planning) except a common murder? Certainly more than one person was involved but how many does a theory require? Two? Eight? Fifty-seven? Six rogue teams of killers working through the combined efforts of rogue agents from six different agencies?

If Oswald was an intelligence agent and was making the people he was "spying on" a bit nervous, and these people had some pull in the rather "dirty" little town of Dallas, when the assassination occurred could they not simply plant evidence - however poorly or shoddily done - to frame the guy and get him off their backs?

This may sound really far-out to many people but I think the out tried-and-true ways of looking at the case have to be changed.

If we keep looking at a square from the same angle it will always look like a square. Stepping a few degrees to the side one might realize it is really a parallelogram.

My proposition above may be completely invalid. But at least it is thinking out of the same old box. I encourage everyone else to stretch their minds a little.

The answer is out there, somewhere. I can smell it.

[David Josephs]

Was There a Set-up Distinct from the Cover-up?

That's the title of this diary. I asked the question in order to sharpen my thinking on the assassination. I don't give a rip here whether John Armstrong is right or wrong. The question goes to facts, not the interpretation of facts.

I'm of a mind that Oswald was being closely watched (notice the vague passive voice) in 1963. And that he was so good at playing a role that could be labeled "lone nut" or "commie", take your choice, no one had to set him up.

Many here believe [a] Oswald was an intelligence agent, and Oswald was set up to take the fall. This is conventional wisdom.

The truth about the JFK assassination is not to be found in conventional wisdom. The hit on JFK was planned very carefully. Those who offed JFK were sure of the cover-up. Only by accepting these premises, in my opinion, can one find the one path to truth.

Jon,

John doesn't care what you think of his conclusions either - he only cares that you look closely at the Evidence and see what it tells you - as a whole.

Oswald does not hand out FPCC flyers on his own. He is used by Bannister and associates along with friends at Reily Coffee around the corner.

You make a most important point: "those who offed JFK were sure of the cover-up"

Being "sure" requires some very key people to be in on it or being so strong that it simply didn't matter.

If JFK dies in Chicago and Vallee is the Patsy - how does that affect the "set-up" of Oswald and what it meant?

The got rid of Bolden, Yates, Craig, and a slew of others who somehow had touched upon the conspiracy.

Why Oswald as opposed to any number of people working at the TSBD?

In the face of these obvious lies, Oswald was guilty, then killed so all we'd ever get is one side of the story.

He was positioned to be acceptable as a patsy should the occassion arise while insuring a level of cooperation via the leverage of knowledge.

One of the real questions to ponder is why Cuba as a target was dropped so quickly in the Johnson administration if one of the main points of using Oswald was to facilitate invasion - IMO that was NEVER part of the equation unless they were lucky enough for it to have gone that way - yet he was switched to LONE NUT so fast and Cuba was dropped for Vietnam so fast that it seems to me the one and only reason for all of this was to remove JFK from office.

Those in charge would never be caught, and they never were.

[Mark Knight]

Was There a Set-up Distinct from the Cover-up?

That's the title of this diary. I asked the question in order to sharpen my thinking on the assassination. I don't give a rip here whether John Armstrong is right or wrong. The question goes to facts, not the interpretation of facts.

I'm of a mind that Oswald was being closely watched (notice the vague passive voice) in 1963. And that he was so good at playing a role that could be labeled "lone nut" or "commie", take your choice, no one had to set him up.

Many here believe [a] Oswald was an intelligence agent, and Oswald was set up to take the fall. This is conventional wisdom.

The truth about the JFK assassination is not to be found in conventional wisdom. The hit on JFK was planned very carefully. Those who offed JFK were sure of the cover-up. Only by accepting these premises, in my opinion, can one find the one path to truth.

Jon, I think that perhaps Oswald wasn't being "directed"...but that he was hearing "suggestions," and acting on them. Maybe he wasn't taking orders, but was getting generalized "suggestions," and fleshing out the details himself. I don't beieve he was actually an "agent" taking orders. I believe maybe he WANTED to be an agent.

I also think that there's value to Terry's suggestion that perhaps Oswald was sent to the TSBD to observe...to be a "rat." And because of his personality, he wasn't as secretive perhaps as an informant should've been. Now, once a "rat" is uncovered, the standard is to find a way to throw them "under the bus," and neutralize the "rat." If the "rat" is busy defending himself for a capital crime, it's pretty hard for him to be effective in spilling the beans on lesser offenses. I'm starting to believe more and more that Oswald was Hosty's informant, and when the assassination went down, he was neutralized...in a BIG way. And I don't think it mattered whether he was a commie or a lone nut, his life was essentially over when he was taken out of the Texas Theater.

[David Josephs]

How can you expect people to buy into your theory if you can't answer such a basic question?

--Tommy

First off there were others even before John who considered the idea of two Oswalds.

Secondly - it's not "my theory" - it's the result of looking at the evidence, 10 years of independent research and correlating the two.

Finally - the entire CT community cannot answer the question - WHO SHOT JFK yet you want chapter and verse on how a potential CIA/Angleton-based long term plan was initiated and carried out.

Maybe they knew these two boys would look alike for some other reason... after 1957 the only photo of LEE is the 1959 passport photo... the 1962 Thanksgiving photo among a host of others did not convince his brother that he was visiting with his brother LEE.

The truly do not look that much alike Tommy - they look more like their younger selves than each other.

The shoulders give it away... Lee's were much more sloped than Harvey's.

Again Tommy - I have yet to see you post anything that resembles work related to your conclusion that they looked so much alike - and how did they do it...

When I do work on it I repeatedly find that basic bone structure does not match

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Josephs,

The two guys on the right are different from the guy on the far left.

Different facial structure. Different head shapes.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Was there a set-up distinct from the cover-up? That's the subject of this diary.

The issue isn't whether Greg is right or wrong. Or what I think.

The issue is whether the cover-up had a "life" continuing until today that was independent from any acts taken by any party to set up Marina's husband as JFK's killer.

I doubt "Oswald" was set up by a third party. I believe he was framed.

The real issue here, I believe, is whether the frame is the same thread as the cover-up.

[Greg Parker]

Was there a set-up distinct from the cover-up? That's the subject of this diary.

The issue isn't whether Greg is right or wrong. Or what I think.

The issue is whether the cover-up had a "life" continuing until today that was independent from any acts taken by any party to set up Marina's husband as JFK's killer.

I doubt "Oswald" was set up by a third party. I believe he was framed.

The real issue here, I believe, is whether the frame is the same thread as the cover-up.

I feel your pain, Jon. After watching thread after thread I started on Oswald being hijacked here a few years back, I was told by one of the main hijackers that no one has proprietary ownership of threads. This was not disputed by the forum owners or moderators at the time. Maybe that policy has changed?

Edited March 26, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Thomas Graves]

Was there a set-up distinct from the cover-up? That's the subject of this diary.

The issue isn't whether Greg is right or wrong. Or what I think.

The issue is whether the cover-up had a "life" continuing until today that was independent from any acts taken by any party to set up Marina's husband as JFK's killer.

I doubt "Oswald" was set up by a third party. I believe he was framed.

The real issue here, I believe, is whether the frame is the same thread as the cover-up.

I feel your pain, Jon. After watching thread after thread I started on Oswald being hijacked here a few years back, I was told by one of the main hijackers that no one has proprietary ownership of threads. This was not disputed by the owners or moderators at the time. Maybe that policy has changed?

Dear Mr. Jon G. Tidd,

Just curious -- what's the difference between being set up as a patsy and being framed?

BTW, have you decided yet when it was that the bad guys decided to "set up as the patsy" or "frame" "Marina's husband" for the murder of JFK -- five minutes before the assassination or five minutes after?

Thank you,

--Tommy

Edited March 26, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tommy,

Excellent question.

Let's say you live in L.A. Let's say you deal with a variety of sketchy individuals and deal drugs. You're cool.

Let's say you also have certain strong political convictions. You believe in communism.

Someone wants to frame you for the murder of the L.A. mayor. This person uses your work history. It's a frame, not a set-up.

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy,

Excellent question.

Let's say you live in L.A. Let's say you deal with a variety of sketchy individuals and deal drugs. You're cool.

Let's say you also have certain strong political convictions. You believe in communism.

Someone wants to frame you for the murder of the L.A. mayor. This person uses your work history. It's a frame, not a set-up.

Only if the Chargers move there. Just kidding.

"Just stay, baby."

--Tommy

Edited March 26, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy,

Excellent question.

Let's say you live in L.A. Let's say you deal with a variety of sketchy individuals and deal drugs. You're cool.

Let's say you also have certain strong political convictions. You believe in communism.

Someone wants to frame you for the murder of the L.A. mayor. This person uses your work history. It's a frame, not a set-up.

Only if the Chargers move there. Just kidding.

"Just stay, baby."

--Tommy

Fine.

Thanks.

Now how about my second question in that post. To wit, when did the bad guys decide to (not set up, but) frame "Marina's husband" -- five minutes before the assassination, or five minutes after?

--Tommy

Edited March 26, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy,

Excellent question.

Let's say you live in L.A. Let's say you deal with a variety of sketchy individuals and deal drugs. You're cool.

Let's say you also have certain strong political convictions. You believe in communism.

Someone wants to frame you for the murder of the L.A. mayor. This person uses your work history. It's a frame, not a set-up.

Only if the Chargers move there. Just kidding.

"Just stay, baby."

--Tommy

Fine.

Thanks.

Now how about my second question in that post. To wit, when did the bad guys decide to (not set up, but) frame "Marina's husband" -- five minutes before the assassination, or five minutes after?

--Tommy

bumped

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tommy,

Imagine you are a plotter. You want to keep yourself and your employer hidden. Forever.

You want to kill JFK.

You want to keep yourself and the reason why you want to keep JFK's murder secret.

Please tell all here how you think.