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

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy,

I'm going to ask my dentist about the tooth. As for Aspergers, I understand there are the specific symptoms I've listed but that in a given individual one or more of the symptoms may be either pronounced or subdued. BTW I did not intend to dispute Greg Parker on his Aspergers claim: I was just trying to elicit any information he might have that corroborates the claim.

As for Oswald's alleged accent in speaking Russian, haven't you written here Tommy that you lived for a time in what today is called the Czech Republic? If you did, do you believe a person could learn to speak the Czech language with a correct accent without having learned from a native Czech speaker to speak the language?

The tooth was not knocked out. I will have the full story out later this year. FWIW though, even if it had been knocked out, I believe your dentist will confirm it could be reset.

More on Asperger's and foreign languages from the expert I contacted....

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZwQGsuCNMPYC&lpg=PA225&ots=7r3MCezgsf&dq=asperger's%20syndrome%20foreign%20languages&pg=PA225#v=onepage&q=asperger's%20syndrome%20foreign%20languages&f=false

Greg,

Tried to send you a PM here.

Thanks for dropping in.

In my book, you're welcome here any time.

--Tommy

Thank you, Tommy.

BTW, Greg, thank's for setting me straight on the tooth issue. I'm still learning.

--Tommy

[Greg Parker]

Tommy,

I'm going to ask my dentist about the tooth. As for Aspergers, I understand there are the specific symptoms I've listed but that in a given individual one or more of the symptoms may be either pronounced or subdued. BTW I did not intend to dispute Greg Parker on his Aspergers claim: I was just trying to elicit any information he might have that corroborates the claim.

As for Oswald's alleged accent in speaking Russian, haven't you written here Tommy that you lived for a time in what today is called the Czech Republic? If you did, do you believe a person could learn to speak the Czech language with a correct accent without having learned from a native Czech speaker to speak the language?

The tooth was not knocked out. I will have the full story out later this year. FWIW though, even if it had been knocked out, I believe your dentist will confirm it could be reset.

More on Asperger's and foreign languages from the expert I contacted....

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ZwQGsuCNMPYC&lpg=PA225&ots=7r3MCezgsf&dq=asperger's%20syndrome%20foreign%20languages&pg=PA225#v=onepage&q=asperger's%20syndrome%20foreign%20languages&f=false

Greg,

Tried to send you a PM here.

Thanks for dropping in.

In my book, you're welcome here any time.

--Tommy

Thank you, Tommy.

BTW, Greg, thank's for setting me straight on the tooth issue. I'm still learning.

--Tommy

Tommy, there is an unimpeachable witness who puts this issue to bed.

The comparison between the book Harvey & Lee and the WCR should be obvious. Both "authors" went to the nth degree and spent a lot of money to make sure those square pegs went into those round holes in a manner that superficially, is undetectable. Neither work survives any sort of close scrutiny of the source material used. The MO is similar in both.... cherry pick, coach witnesses... disregard anything that disputes the predetermined finding, lie about what documents mean... and rely upon no one bothering to dig into any of it. Blind faith; blind acceptance, and defend it with any army of cheerleaders whose armor is a sound-wall of (often incomprehensible) blather.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Was there a set-up distinct from the cover-up?

That's the title of this diary. I believe the question is important as a way of thinking about both the pre-planning of the assassination and the post-assassination handling of facts pertinent to the assassination.

At this point, I don't see any verifiable facts pertaining to Oswald pre-assassination that implicate him in JFK's murder.

-- He defected to Russia. So what?

-- He apparently used one or more alias. So what?

-- He handed out leaflets purportedly for the FPCC. So what?

-- He's alleged to have gone to Mexico City and been impersonated there. So what?

-- He and his wife argued and fought. So what?

-- He allegedly shot at Edwin Walker. So what? Walker and JFK were opposites.

-- He allegedly went to Clinton, Louisiana to try to get a job. So what?

-- He allegedly hung around with Bannister and Ferrie. So what? Lots of people did.

So at this point, I lean toward believing that although Marina's husband was framed for JFK's murder, he wasn't set up beforehand to take the fall, he was framed ex post facto. The hard material stuff against him all emerged ex post facto: the rifle, the money order for the rifle, the backyard photos, the order pertaining to the pistol. His known, provable actions pre-assassination do not suggest he was aiming to kill JFK.

If one believes Oswald was framed strictly ex post facto, one is left with a host of questions, but at least one doesn't have to waste time on whether the CIA killed JFK and set Oswald up as a patsy. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing the CIA didn't kill JFK. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I'm simply arguing, based on the assumption Oswald was framed strictly ex post facto, that neither the CIA nor any other party set him up pre-assassination.

I'm inclined to believe Marina's husband was a ready-made, self-made patsy. That would have been clear to any intelligence officer observing him.

Important loose ends remain if one takes this view of the case:

-- the role of Harry Holmes and the FBI in tying the rifle to Oswald (Holmes is a suspicious character IMO)

-- whether J.D. Tippit's murder is tied to the assassination (yes, I'm aware of the wallet)

-- Ruth Paine's role in getting Oswald the TSBD job and in supplying items used against Oswald

And of course the biggest loose end of all: not why Oswald was framed for JFK's murder (that's understandable), but why JFK was killed.

[Mark Knight]

Tommy, this one's for you...

So apparently LHO was a defective defector? [Wocka-wocka-wocka...]

Seriously, now...

Here's my take on the Oswald [fake] defection:

Ozzie wanted to play "spy." Some agency [as yet undetermined, in my "theory"] decided to see whether he'd be of any value. So they greased the wheels for his "hardship discharge," and set him up with some information [along with a standard "marked card"] to see whether he'd be taken seriously by the Soviets. He was shown where to enter to get an "instant" visa, and coached on how to "renounce" his citizenship without actually renouncing his citizenship. [The last two items are not things that would be common knowledge; someone had to have "schooled him" about these items on his checklist].

Once he got to Helsinki, Oswald was "on." Once his fake defection was in motion, the ball was in the Russians' court. No doubt they were wary. When it seemed as if he'd failed in his "mission," Oswald went off-script and did the wrist slash. It's my supposition that his purpose was twofold: to show the [TBD] agency the lengths he'd go to ensure the "mission" was successful, and to "convince" the Soviets that he was serious about his defection.

But the Soviets really didn't know what to do with Ozzie. Apparently they didn't value his "information," but they didn't want to look as if they were turning away a "serious" defector, one who had "seen the light" of Communism. So they allowed him to stay, but didn't offer him a route to citizenship.

When Ozzie mailed, and then returned to, the US Embassy, the [TBD] agency knew that Ozzie's mission had failed. They didn't "owe" him a trip back to the US, but since they showed him how to leave his citizenship intact, they were obligated to honor his request to come home...complicated by his Russian bride and child. But they did it, mostly to avoid Ozzie making a scene before the world press and exposing the [TBD] agency as having been behind the false defection...because they had no idea how far Ozzie might be willing to expose them if they failed to help his return. The [TBD] agency knew fully well that, should Oswald make any waves with them, the USSR would capitalize on the propaganda value, here at the height of the Cold War.

That's my "theory," as it regards Oswald's sojourn to the USSR and return to the US.

And NONE of this was related to any JFK assassination plot until AFTER the fact.

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy, this one's for you...

So apparently LHO was a defective defector? [Wocka-wocka-wocka...]

Seriously, now...

Here's my take on the Oswald [fake] defection:

Ozzie wanted to play "spy." Some agency [as yet undetermined, in my "theory"] decided to see whether he'd be of any value. So they greased the wheels for his "hardship discharge," and set him up with some information [along with a standard "marked card"] to see whether he'd be taken seriously by the Soviets. He was shown where to enter to get an "instant" visa, and coached on how to "renounce" his citizenship without actually renouncing his citizenship. [The last two items are not things that would be common knowledge; someone had to have "schooled him" about these items on his checklist].

Once he got to Helsinki, Oswald was "on." Once his fake defection was in motion, the ball was in the Russians' court. No doubt they were wary. When it seemed as if he'd failed in his "mission," Oswald went off-script and did the wrist slash. It's my supposition that his purpose was twofold: to show the [TBD] agency the lengths he'd go to ensure the "mission" was successful, and to "convince" the Soviets that he was serious about his defection.

But the Soviets really didn't know what to do with Ozzie. Apparently they didn't value his "information," but they didn't want to look as if they were turning away a "serious" defector, one who had "seen the light" of Communism. So they allowed him to stay, but didn't offer him a route to citizenship.

When Ozzie mailed, and then returned to, the US Embassy, the [TBD] agency knew that Ozzie's mission had failed. They didn't "owe" him a trip back to the US, but since they showed him how to leave his citizenship intact, they were obligated to honor his request to come home...complicated by his Russian bride and child. But they did it, mostly to avoid Ozzie making a scene before the world press and exposing the [TBD] agency as having been behind the false defection...because they had no idea how far Ozzie might be willing to expose them if they failed to help his return. The [TBD] agency knew fully well that, should Oswald make any waves with them, the USSR would capitalize on the propaganda value, here at the height of the Cold War.

That's my "theory," as it regards Oswald's sojourn to the USSR and return to the US.

And NONE of this was related to any JFK assassination plot until AFTER the fact.

Mark,

No I don't think Oswald was a defective defector. I think he "defected" exactly the way he was told to do it.

What I am beginning to think is that the Mexico City telephone impersonations of Oswald, Duran, and some of the personnel in the Soviet Embassy were fake impersonations -- impersonations within an impersonation -- contrived by some high-level people in the CIA, the highest of whom was probably James Jesus Angleton -- with the ostensible purpose of finding a "mole" but with other less transparent purposes as well, such as embellishing Oswald's pro-Castro legend, and giving Angleton, et al., a plausible reason for effectively facilitating the JFK assassination cover up.

--Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

Was there a set-up distinct from the cover-up?

That's the title of this diary. I believe the question is important as a way of thinking about both the pre-planning of the assassination and the post-assassination handling of facts pertinent to the assassination.

At this point, I don't see any verifiable facts pertaining to Oswald pre-assassination that implicate him in JFK's murder.

-- He defected to Russia. So what?

-- He apparently used one or more alias. So what?

-- He handed out leaflets purportedly for the FPCC. So what?

-- He's alleged to have gone to Mexico City and been impersonated there. So what?

-- He and his wife argued and fought. So what?

-- He allegedly shot at Edwin Walker. So what? Walker and JFK were opposites.

-- He allegedly went to Clinton, Louisiana to try to get a job. So what?

-- He allegedly hung around with Bannister and Ferrie. So what? Lots of people did.

So at this point, I lean toward believing that although Marina's husband was framed for JFK's murder, he wasn't set up beforehand to take the fall, he was framed ex post facto. The hard material stuff against him all emerged ex post facto: the rifle, the money order for the rifle, the backyard photos, the order pertaining to the pistol. His known, provable actions pre-assassination do not suggest he was aiming to kill JFK.

If one believes Oswald was framed strictly ex post facto, one is left with a host of questions, but at least one doesn't have to waste time on whether the CIA killed JFK and set Oswald up as a patsy. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing the CIA didn't kill JFK. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I'm simply arguing, based on the assumption Oswald was framed strictly ex post facto, that neither the CIA nor any other party set him up pre-assassination.

I'm inclined to believe Marina's husband was a ready-made, self-made patsy. That would have been clear to any intelligence officer observing him.

Important loose ends remain if one takes this view of the case:

-- the role of Harry Holmes and the FBI in tying the rifle to Oswald (Holmes is a suspicious character IMO)

-- whether J.D. Tippit's murder is tied to the assassination (yes, I'm aware of the wallet)

-- Ruth Paine's role in getting Oswald the TSBD job and in supplying items used against Oswald

And of course the biggest loose end of all: not why Oswald was framed for JFK's murder (that's understandable), but why JFK was killed.

[inexplicable double post]

Mr. Jon G. Tidd,

I'm surprised that you left off of your list of "loose ends" to ponder the fact that Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer claimed that a strangely nondescript man told him a few minutes after the assassination that the (strangely nondescript clothing-wise) sniper in the window (or perhaps just a man seen running away from the TSBD?) was a Robert Webster-like 5'-10" , 165 pounds, and about 30 years old.

As you probably know, Oswald was twenty-four years old and 5' 9" and only 131 pounds at autopsy.

This "mysto" description of the assassin, which Sawyer broadcast over police radio at 12:45 or so, probably didn't have anything to do with Tippit's alleged stopping of Oswald in Oak Cliff and getting murdered for his trouble, so it probably can't be said that the Webster-like description of the assassin had anything to do with Oswald's being apprehended in the Texas Theater. A thirty-four pound difference on a 5' 9" frame rules that out, IMHO, because Tippit was supposed to be looking for a suspect that much heavier, not to mention six years older, than Oswald.

I think it's possible that Military Intel provided this info to the Dallas Police Department or Sawyer in particular, not realizing that it was from a 1960 Robert Webster-based, inaccurate, FBI and CIA description of "Marina's husband," as you like to say.

Here's a new idea: The person or persons who provided the DPD or Sawyer with this bogus information might even have been the "mole" that the CIA was looking for as far back as 1960, making the bogus Oswald description The Mother of all "marked cards".

--Tommy

Question: Why would any reasonable person assume that Oswald had been set up strictly ex post facto. ?

Question: At what exact point in time did the plotters decide on Oswald as the patsy? Right before the shots rang out? Right after the shots rang out? When he was arrested at the Texas Theater?

Question: Do you know of any candidates for patsy, other than Marina's husband, who were not only an excellent candidate (good with a rifle, "Marxist," temporary worker, etc) but could also be plausibly "placed", ex post facto, in the TSBD or a nearby tall building?

Edited July 13, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Was there a set-up distinct from the cover-up?

That's the title of this diary. I believe the question is important as a way of thinking about both the pre-planning of the assassination and the post-assassination handling of facts pertinent to the assassination.

At this point, I don't see any verifiable facts pertaining to Oswald pre-assassination that implicate him in JFK's murder.

-- He defected to Russia. So what?

-- He apparently used one or more alias. So what?

-- He handed out leaflets purportedly for the FPCC. So what?

-- He's alleged to have gone to Mexico City and been impersonated there. So what?

-- He and his wife argued and fought. So what?

-- He allegedly shot at Edwin Walker. So what? Walker and JFK were opposites.

-- He allegedly went to Clinton, Louisiana to try to get a job. So what?

-- He allegedly hung around with Bannister and Ferrie. So what? Lots of people did.

So at this point, I lean toward believing that although Marina's husband was framed for JFK's murder, he wasn't set up beforehand to take the fall, he was framed ex post facto. The hard material stuff against him all emerged ex post facto: the rifle, the money order for the rifle, the backyard photos, the order pertaining to the pistol. His known, provable actions pre-assassination do not suggest he was aiming to kill JFK.

If one believes Oswald was framed strictly ex post facto, one is left with a host of questions, but at least one doesn't have to waste time on whether the CIA killed JFK and set Oswald up as a patsy. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing the CIA didn't kill JFK. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I'm simply arguing, based on the assumption Oswald was framed strictly ex post facto, that neither the CIA nor any other party set him up pre-assassination.

I'm inclined to believe Marina's husband was a ready-made, self-made patsy. That would have been clear to any intelligence officer observing him.

Important loose ends remain if one takes this view of the case:

-- the role of Harry Holmes and the FBI in tying the rifle to Oswald (Holmes is a suspicious character IMO)

-- whether J.D. Tippit's murder is tied to the assassination (yes, I'm aware of the wallet)

-- Ruth Paine's role in getting Oswald the TSBD job and in supplying items used against Oswald

And of course the biggest loose end of all: not why Oswald was framed for JFK's murder (that's understandable), but why JFK was killed.

[inexplicable double post]

Mr. Jon G. Tidd,

I'm surprised that you left off of your list of "loose ends to ponder" the fact that Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer claimed that a strangely nondescript man told him a few minutes after the assassination that the (strangely nondescript clothing-wise) sniper in the window (or perhaps just a man seen running away from the TSBD?) was a Robert Webster-like 5'-10" , 165 pounds, and about 30 years old.

As you probably know, Oswald was twenty-four years old and 5' 9" and only 131 pounds at autopsy.

This "mysto" description of the assassin, which Sawyer broadcast over police radio at 12:45 or so, probably didn't have anything to do with Tippit's alleged stopping of Oswald in Oak Cliff and getting murdered for his trouble, so it probably can't be said that the Webster-like description of the assassin had anything to do with Oswald's being apprehended in the Texas Theater. A thirty-four pound difference on a 5' 9" frame rules that out, IMHO, because Tippit was supposed to be looking for a suspect that much heavier, not to mention six years older, than Oswald.

I think it's possible that Military Intel provided this info to the Dallas Police Department or Sawyer in particular, not realizing that it was from a 1960 Robert Webster-based, inaccurate, FBI and CIA description of "Marina's husband," as you like to say.

Here's a new idea: The person or persons who provided the DPD or Sawyer with this bogus information might even have been the "mole" that the CIA was looking for as far back as 1960, making the the bogus Oswald description The Mother of all "marked cards".

--Tommy

Question: Why would any reasonable person assume that Oswald had been set up strictly ex post facto. ?

Question: At what exact point in time did the plotters decide on Oswald as the patsy? Right before the shots rang out? Right after the shots rang out? When he was arrested at the Texas Theater?

Question: Do you know of any candidates for patsy, other than Marina's husband, who were not only an excellent candidate (good with a rifle, "Marxist," temporary worker, etc) but could also be plausibly "placed", ex post facto, in the TSBD or a nearby tall building?

Question: Is it your opinion that the plotters were monitoring several candidates for patsy right up until the shots rang out or even later?

and bumped for Mr. Tidd

Edited March 9, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Was there a set-up distinct from the cover-up?

That's the title of this diary. I believe the question is important as a way of thinking about both the pre-planning of the assassination and the post-assassination handling of facts pertinent to the assassination.

At this point, I don't see any verifiable facts pertaining to Oswald pre-assassination that implicate him in JFK's murder.

-- He defected to Russia. So what?

-- He apparently used one or more alias. So what?

-- He handed out leaflets purportedly for the FPCC. So what?

-- He's alleged to have gone to Mexico City and been impersonated there. So what?

-- He and his wife argued and fought. So what?

-- He allegedly shot at Edwin Walker. So what? Walker and JFK were opposites.

-- He allegedly went to Clinton, Louisiana to try to get a job. So what?

-- He allegedly hung around with Bannister and Ferrie. So what? Lots of people did.

So at this point, I lean toward believing that although Marina's husband was framed for JFK's murder, he wasn't set up beforehand to take the fall, he was framed ex post facto. The hard material stuff against him all emerged ex post facto: the rifle, the money order for the rifle, the backyard photos, the order pertaining to the pistol. His known, provable actions pre-assassination do not suggest he was aiming to kill JFK.

If one believes Oswald was framed strictly ex post facto, one is left with a host of questions, but at least one doesn't have to waste time on whether the CIA killed JFK and set Oswald up as a patsy. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing the CIA didn't kill JFK. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. I'm simply arguing, based on the assumption Oswald was framed strictly ex post facto, that neither the CIA nor any other party set him up pre-assassination.

I'm inclined to believe Marina's husband was a ready-made, self-made patsy. That would have been clear to any intelligence officer observing him.

Important loose ends remain if one takes this view of the case:

-- the role of Harry Holmes and the FBI in tying the rifle to Oswald (Holmes is a suspicious character IMO)

-- whether J.D. Tippit's murder is tied to the assassination (yes, I'm aware of the wallet)

-- Ruth Paine's role in getting Oswald the TSBD job and in supplying items used against Oswald

And of course the biggest loose end of all: not why Oswald was framed for JFK's murder (that's understandable), but why JFK was killed.

[inexplicable double post]

Mr. Jon G. Tidd,

I'm surprised that you left off of your list of "loose ends to ponder" the fact that Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer claimed that a strangely nondescript man told him a few minutes after the assassination that the (strangely nondescript clothing-wise) sniper in the window (or perhaps just a man seen running away from the TSBD?) was a Robert Webster-like 5'-10" , 165 pounds, and about 30 years old.

As you probably know, Oswald was twenty-four years old and 5' 9" and only 131 pounds at autopsy.

This "mysto" description of the assassin, which Sawyer broadcast over police radio at 12:45 or so, probably didn't have anything to do with Tippit's alleged stopping of Oswald in Oak Cliff and getting murdered for his trouble, so it probably can't be said that the Webster-like description of the assassin had anything to do with Oswald's being apprehended in the Texas Theater. A thirty-four pound difference on a 5' 9" frame rules that out, IMHO, because Tippit was supposed to be looking for a suspect that much heavier, not to mention six years older, than Oswald.

I think it's possible that Military Intel provided this info to the Dallas Police Department or Sawyer in particular, not realizing that it was from a 1960 Robert Webster-based, inaccurate, FBI and CIA description of "Marina's husband," as you like to say.

Here's a new idea: The person or persons who provided the DPD or Sawyer with this bogus information might even have been the "mole" that the CIA was looking for as far back as 1960, making the the bogus Oswald description The Mother of all "marked cards".

--Tommy

Question: Why would any reasonable person assume that Oswald had been set up strictly ex post facto. ?

Question: At what exact point in time did the plotters decide to make Oswald the patsy? Right before the shots rang out? Right after the shots rang out? When he was arrested at the Texas Theater for the murder of Tippit?

Question: Do you know of any candidates for "patsy," other than Marina's husband, who were not only an excellent candidate (good with a rifle, "Marxist," temporary worker, former "defector," etc) but could also be plausibly "placed", ex post facto, in the TSBD or a nearby tall building?

Question: Is it your opinion that the plotters were monitoring several candidates for "patsy" right up until the shots rang out, or perhaps even later?

and bumped for Mr. Tidd

I noticed that Jon was reading the post while I was editing it LAST TIME. Please reply to it, Jon. Thank you.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tommy,

You write:

"Question: Why would any reasonable person assume that Oswald had been set up strictly ex post facto. ?

Question: At what exact point in time did the plotters decide on Oswald as the patsy? Right before the shots rang out? Right after the shots rang out? When he was arrested at the Texas Theater?

Question: Do you know of any candidates for patsy, other than Marina's husband, who were not only an excellent candidate (good with a rifle, "Marxist," temporary worker, etc) but could also be plausibly "placed", ex post facto, in the TSBD or a nearby tall building?"

It's clear, or pretty clear, to me that Marina's husband was framed for JFK's murder after the murder. What's unclear to me is how much of the frame job was planned or completed before the murder. To the extent the frame job was planned or completed pre-assassination, it's reasonable to assume the frame job was part of the assassination plot. On the other hand, to the extent the frame job was carried out post-assassination, it's possible the frame job was a far less sinister part of a cover-up, the purpose of which may have been CYA to a degree.

Interesting and important question -- when did the plotters settle on Oswald as the patsy? As I look at the landscape, I have no idea. What strikes me is that Oswald serves well as a patsy only because he was killed. If he had lived and been well represented by legal counsel and given a fair trial, history would record him as innocent of JFK's murder IMO.

I don't know of any other candidates for patsy.

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy,

You write:

"Question: Why would any reasonable person assume that Oswald had been set up strictly ex post facto. ?

Question: At what exact point in time did the plotters decide on Oswald as the patsy? Right before the shots rang out? Right after the shots rang out? When he was arrested at the Texas Theater?

Question: Do you know of any candidates for patsy, other than Marina's husband, who were not only an excellent candidate (good with a rifle, "Marxist," temporary worker, etc) but could also be plausibly "placed", ex post facto, in the TSBD or a nearby tall building?"

It's clear, or pretty clear, to me that Marina's husband was framed for JFK's murder after the murder. What's unclear to me is how much of the frame job was planned or completed before the murder. To the extent the frame job was planned or completed pre-assassination, it's reasonable to assume the frame job was part of the assassination plot. On the other hand, to the extent the frame job was carried out post-assassination, it's possible the frame job was a far less sinister part of a cover-up, the purpose of which may have been CYA to a degree.

Interesting and important question -- when did the plotters settle on Oswald as the patsy? As I look at the landscape, I have no idea. What strikes me is that Oswald serves well as a patsy only because he was killed. If he had lived and been well represented by legal counsel and given a fair trial, history would record him as innocent of JFK's murder IMO.

I don't know of any other candidates for patsy.

Jon,

Thank you for replying.

If "Oswald serves well as a patsy only because he was killed," do you think his patsification (is that even a word? lol) was contingent on his being killed?

If he had lived, do you think he would have been made the patsy?

Why do you think Oswald said, "They've brought me in only because I lived in Russia. I'm just a patsy!", or words to that effect? Do you think what Oswald said might have been true?

Do you see anything going on in Washington D.C. or Dallas or elsewhere during the two day period of time between his arrest and his murder that would suggest to you that he had already been chosen to be the "patsy"?

Thanks,

--Tommy

Edited March 9, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Mr. Knight - remind me what the marked card was when Oswald defected. I'm being lazy not looking it up. Was this a dangle for the purpose of mole hunting?

Tommy - interesting idea that the false Oswald description given to Dallas police at 12:45 pm was supplied by the mole himself.

What exactly do we know about the relationship between local military intelligence units and the active military brass, JCS etc? What is the difference between the unit commanded by Jack Crichton, the 488th, about half of whom were also Dallas cops, and other local military intelligence units? I have always been confused about this structure. How many members of local reserve units under the general command of Lieutenant Colonel George Whitmeyer were in the motorcade?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tommy,

You ask critical questions IMO.

I've always thought the plotters had to make it appear, directly or through third parties such as the FBI, that Oswald was the lone killer of JFK. And that the plotters had to ensure Oswald was killed and never went to trial. I know I'm getting some of this wrong.

IMO if Oswald went to trial. he'd be a free man, if alive, today.

I think Oswald told the truth as he saw it when in front of the news camera.

IMO, Hoover, LBJ, the whole Washington, D.C. establishment, needed badly a patsy. Oswald IMO was served up as patsy.

I believe the assassination was carried out by a party deeply knowledgeable of American politicians (e.g., LBJ).

[Greg Parker]

Tommy,

You ask critical questions IMO.

I've always thought the plotters had to make it appear, directly or through third parties such as the FBI, that Oswald was the lone killer of JFK. And that the plotters had to ensure Oswald was killed and never went to trial. I know I'm getting some of this wrong.

IMO if Oswald went to trial. he'd be a free man, if alive, today.

I think Oswald told the truth as he saw it when in front of the news camera.

IMO, Hoover, LBJ, the whole Washington, D.C. establishment, needed badly a patsy. Oswald IMO was served up as patsy.

I believe the assassination was carried out by a party deeply knowledgeable of American politicians (e.g., LBJ).

Not necessarily LBJ... but this IMO is getting very close to the bone... and knowledgeable not just of politicians... but of certain historical events and legal cases - parts of which were plundered with bits of the torso and some of the organs used to create the Frankenstein's Monster we know as the LHO legend. LHO is a historical and legal composite.

[Thomas Graves]

Mr. Knight - remind me what the marked card was when Oswald defected. I'm being lazy not looking it up. Was this a dangle for the purpose of mole hunting?

Tommy - interesting idea that the false Oswald description given to Dallas police at 12:45 pm was supplied by the mole himself.

What exactly do we know about the relationship between local military intelligence units and the active military brass, JCS etc? What is the difference between the unit commanded by Jack Crichton, the 488th, about half of whom were also Dallas cops, and other local military intelligence units? I have always been confused about this structure. How many members of local reserve units under the general command of Lieutenant Colonel George Whitmeyer were in the motorcade?

Paul B.,

A "marked card" was effectively created in a report by FBI agent John Fain on May 12, 1960, and had the effect of giving skinny twenty-year-old Oswald the same physical characteristics as another defector, beefier and slightly taller thirty-year-old former high school basketball player Robert Webster -- 5'10" , 165 pounds, light brown hair, and even blue eyes (Oswald's were hazel-grey). Fain wrote in a report that Marguerite Oswald described her son Lee Harvey Oswald to him like that, but I believe Fain was lying because of the above-mentioned difference in eye color (how can a mother forget her own child's eye color?) and the fact that after the assassination Marguerite stated that Lee never weighed more than 150 lbs in his life. Fain's report was sent to the CIA and was soon incorporated into the CIA's computerized registry at the insistence of (Spanish-speaking) Bill Bright, an officer in SR/6 (Soviet Union biographies) who was monitoring Oswald (and Webster? and Martin and Mitchell?) in Russia and who, ironically, was sent to Mexico City a short time before Oswald is alleged to have gotten there, in order to monitor the Spanish-speaking LIENVOY transcrbers to make sure they were writing down in Spanish (and translating into English?) what they'd actually heard various Spanish speakers say on the tapes.

I believe all of this is covered in Simpich's State Secret which is, as you know, readable for free on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website.

Here's the pertinent page from Fain's report:

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=139532

And here's Fain's WC testimony, in which he talks about the seven-page report:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/fain.htm

My main concern about J. Herbert Sawyer's 12:45 (or so) broadcast is whether he got the description from someone at ground level who told him he had seen the shooter in an upper-floor window, or whether, as claimed by J. Edgar Hoover in a memo / letter, the witness told Sawyer he'd seen someone at street level who was running away from the TSBD. It's an important distinction because, whereas it would have been possible to accurately observe the height and weight of a suspect at ground level, it would have been impossible to do so by standing at ground level and looking up at the suspect in an upper floor window (as Howard Brennan claimed to have done).

Here's a thread from another website which touches on Sawyer's broadcast description of the suspect as well as on Hoover's contention the the suspect was at street level and running away from the TSBD when he was seen by the unknown witness:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=1591.20;wap2

Regarding Texas Mllitary Intel, I'm not an expert on this, so all I can do is "drop some names," from only memory yet, which may be faulty or have no connection with what you're asking about. The names, I mean. lol

Jack Revill

George Stringfellow

A Colonel Jones in a millitary intelligence (Army?) unit in Texas

I will add names to this list if I think of any more.

--Tommy

Sounds like you've got a lot of "research" to do now, Paul.

Please do let us know what you find out. ( LOL )

I think you will agree that it is fascinating that the description of the assassin broadcast by J. Herbert Sawyer (whom I'm starting to believe may have planted some "evidence" on the 5th and / or 6th floor of the TSBD a few minutes after the assassination), as allegedly given to him by a particularly nondescript "witness," matches perfectly the incorrect description of Oswald which Fain put into his May 12, 1960, report.

Any feedback from you on this, Paul B., would be greatly appreciated in order to keep this issue on the "front burners," so to speak, of this forum.

After all this "research," please don't leave me hangin' here, Paul Brancato... LOL

Edited March 10, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[David Josephs]

When Oswald exited the Marines - on Sept 11, 1959 per his USMC records - he was 71" tall (5'11") and weighed 150 lbs and had entered the USMC with a variety of scars noted on his record.

The FBI interviewed Maj GORSKY, https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10434&relPageId=2, who told them on Nov 22 that the LEE HARVEY OSWALD under his command in CA was discharged in MARCH 1959 a full 6 months before our Oswald.

When ROSE does Oswald's autopsy - below - he is measured at 5'9" (69") and an ESTIMATED weight of 150lbs - (by the time he dies, little Ozzie barely weighed 135 soaking wet) and has none of the scars the USMC identified.

Maybe "that condition" is the cause for a normal healthy male shrinking 2 inches between the ages of 21 and 24 ... while also healing and removing scars, regrowing tonsils, make an air traffic controller an Aircraft mechanic, speak Russian with a native accent as well as being determined that English was the man's 2nd language, create the ability to magically be in 2-4 places at once and to telepathically convince others that people using his name is just a coincidence and has no bearing on the case...