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

[David Lifton]

14 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

David,

I think we can agree to disagree on this. But I too see two separate functions with the plot. The first, to murder the President, was done with an ambush that was pulled off successfully in a professional manner. Almost. They murdered him and everyone got away, except unfortunately the patsy, who got arrested before they could shoot him or ship him out somewhere for elimination. So the second function, the cover-up, involved blaming the ambush on the patsy, and what I see here is the conspirators acting in a desperate and unprofessional manner. They were winging it with a Plan B that should not have been necessary. To hear some tell it, they almost had to shoot the local coroner to get the body out of Dallas. Then there was the casket foolishness that your book covered so well, with folks like David helping bring in the body through a back door, then watching "the body" arrive out front with Jackie. No wonder all the military folks at Bethesda had to sign a document saying they were going to keep their mouths shut about anything and everything they saw. Oh, and they grabbed some clowns to conduct the "autopsy," who weren't even knowledgeable enough to ask, "Where are the clothes?"

But I think we've both covered our arguments enough to disagree and leave it at that. Your view may very well be the correct one, I am not wedded to the version of events I've proposed, I don't think anyone can be certain without a real investigation that will never take place.

 

E. B. White once wrote an essay which said that "words" are the "tools of thought."

Yes, we can "agree to disagree," but I'd like to focus on an important point, where proper use of vocabulary is critical.

That is the difference between a "cover-up" and "camouflage" (or "strategic deception.")

If my analysis is correct, it was planned in advance to blame a pre-selected patsy; and that's not part of a "cover-up": that's integral to a pre-planned strategic deception. 

It was planned in advance that the pre-selected patsy would die as part of this event.

That was "part and parcel" of the basic architecture of the strategic deception.

A "cover-up" is something different; a cover-up is something instigated after-the-fact.

A strategic deception is something deployed as part of the crime, designed to deceive the public at large, as well as to thwart and mislead any future legal investigation.

What unfolded in Dallas with the pre-selection of Oswald (and yes, with the plan to alter JFK's body so that it would tell a false story of the shooting) was a strategic deception which, ultimately, failed.  It was not an after-the-fact "cover-up."

When that strategic deception failed, then matters got out of control. Suddenly, ad hoc improvisation was called for (a) to conceal what had gone wrong and (b) to quickly develop alternate plans to still achieve the basic goals of the original strategic deception.

That's why the body had to be covertly diverted; and the result was that the First Lady of the United States, a grieving widow, ended up sitting in the rear compartment of Air Force One, surrounded by some of the late President's closest aide, sitting next to a Dallas coffin which--she thought--contained her husband's body, but which was in fact empty. And that's why, after the nationally televised "Andrews Air Force Base offload," she rode in a naval ambulance, with that same empty coffin, now accompanied by her brother-in-law, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, from Andrews AFB to Bethesda Naval Hospital, arriving there at 6:53/6:55 p.m.

And that's why the body--by then having been altered--was already delivered to the Bethesda morgue at about 6:35 p.m. EST, 20 minutes before Jacqueline Kennedy and Robert Kennedy arrived at the front entrance of Bethesda in that naval ambulance, and containing the Dallas coffin which, as already noted, and unknown to Jacqueline Kennedy, was empty.

I know this chronology and the many related facts "inside out" because I've worked with this material for over thirty years, and interviewed some of the most important "bystander witnesses."  I can assure you that what is described in Best Evidence (and set forth, in highly synopsized form, in this post)  was the result of a failed strategic deception, and not the consequence of some misbegotten plan to invade Cuba.  The plan was to remove President Kennedy from office, and falsify the circumstances of his death.

Now: returning to the situation in Dallas earlier that afternoon  

OUT-OF-CONTROL OR FAILED DECEPTION?

When you talk of matters getting so out of control that the Secret Service almost had to shoot the local coroner, I hope you do realize that some GS-15s (Kellerman, et al) were not running the U.S. Government. The Secret Service agents behaved as they did because --aside from the fact that anyone wittingly involved in deception or obstruction of justice could have been prosecuted and gone to jail--they were acting on the orders of higher authority, and that means Vice President (and by then  President) Lyndon Johnson had issued instructions.

So it was he who must have given the order to get the body out of Parkland and over to Love Field, and not to permit an autopsy.

All of this goes to my basic assertion--which I spoke of so strongly in my November 2013 speech at Bismark State College (and which is available on YouTube [just Google "David Lifton Bismarck"]): from the outset, this was a body-centric plot.  That concept is at the heart of this "strategic deception." It is vital to understand what that means in order to properly interpret what was taking place that afternoon.  Not a plan to invade Cuba, but a plan to hide what happened in Dallas and tell the American people, and the entire world, a false story about how President Kennedy died.

That false story --built into the very design of this crime, and an integral part of it--was designed to facilitate the transition from Kennedy to Johnson under conditions that made the assassination appear to have been a quirk of fate,  an accident of history.

Fabricating that false appearance was the result of a clever strategic deception--not the offshoot of some misbegotten plan to invade Cuba.

One other thing: I'm engaged in this debate at somewhat of a disadvantage, because I  have much more data about this strategic deception (i.e.,  what was planned, and what went wrong), but I cannot get into all of that at this time.  It will be fully disclosed in Final Charade, and then it will it be possible to make a more informed judgment of what happened on November 22, 1963 and what hypothesis best explains the known facts.

Stay tuned.

DSL

4/16/2017 - 8:25 p.m. PDT; edited 4/17/17, at 3:55 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by David Lifton

[Ron Ecker]

8 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

One other thing: I'm engaged in this debate at somewhat of a disadvantage, because I  have much more data about this strategic deception (and what was planned, and what went wrong), but I cannot get into all of that at this time.  It will be fully disclosed in Final Charade, and  then will it be possible to make a more informed judgement of what happened on November 22, 1963 and what hypothesis best explains the known facts.

Stay tuned.

 

David,

I very much look forward to your book. Is there a publication date yet?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

If the goal of the plot was to frame some random lone nut why did they frame someone who was anything but?

[Michael Walton]

If the goal of the plot was to frame some random lone nut why did they frame someone who was anything but?

Well said. There are just way too many incidences with  the  lone nut story where his time line is anything  but random. I've  always  thought  that they even piled it on too much that it  makes  it over done. The BYP is one glaring  example.

[Paul Trejo]

15 hours ago, David Lifton said:

...Yes, we can "agree to disagree," but I'd like to focus on an important point, where proper use of vocabulary is critical.

That is the difference between a "cover-up" and "camouflage" (or "strategic deception.")

If my analysis is correct, it was planned in advance to blame a pre-selected patsy; and that's not part of a "cover-up": that's integral to a pre-planned strategic deception. 

It was planned in advance that the pre-selected patsy would die as part of this event.

That was "part and parcel" of the basic architecture of the strategic deception.

A "cover-up" is something different; a cover-up is something instigated after-the-fact.

A strategic deception is something deployed as part of the crime, designed to deceive the public at large, as well as to thwart and mislead any future legal investigation.

What unfolded in Dallas with the pre-selection of Oswald (and yes, with the plan to alter JFK's body so that it would tell a false story of the shooting) was a strategic deception which, ultimately, failed.  It was not an after-the-fact "cover-up."

When that strategic deception failed, then matters got out of control. Suddenly, ad hoc improvisation was called for (a) to conceal what had gone wrong and (b) to quickly develop alternate plans to still achieve the basic goals of the original strategic deception.

That's why the body had to be covertly diverted; and the result was that the First Lady of the United States, a grieving widow, ended up sitting in the rear compartment of Air Force One, surrounded by some of the late President's closest aide, sitting next to a Dallas coffin which--she thought--contained her husband's body, but which was in fact empty. And that's why, after the nationally televised "Andrews Air Force Base offload," she rode in a naval ambulance, with that same empty coffin, now accompanied by her brother-in-law, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, from Andrews AFB to Bethesda Naval Hospital, arriving there at 6:53/6:55 p.m.

And that's why the body--by then having been altered--was already delivered to the Bethesda morgue at about 6:35 p.m. EST, 20 minutes before Jacqueline Kennedy and Robert Kennedy arrived at the front entrance of Bethesda in that naval ambulance, and containing the Dallas coffin which, as already noted, and unknown to Jacqueline Kennedy, was empty.

I know this chronology and the many related facts "inside out" because I've worked with this material for over thirty years, and interviewed some of the most important "bystander witnesses."  I can assure you that what is described in Best Evidence (and set forth, in highly synopsized form, in this post)  was the result of a failed strategic deception, and not the consequence of some misbegotten plan to invade Cuba.  The plan was to remove President Kennedy from office, and falsify the circumstances of his death.

Now: returning to the situation in Dallas earlier that afternoon  

OUT-OF-CONTROL OR FAILED DECEPTION?

When you talk of matters getting so out of control that the Secret Service almost had to shoot the local coroner, I hope you do realize that some GS-15s (Kellerman, et al) were not running the U.S. Government. The Secret Service agents behaved as they did because --aside from the fact that anyone wittingly involved in deception or obstruction of justice could have been prosecuted and gone to jail--they were acting on the orders of higher authority, and that means Vice President (and by then  President) Lyndon Johnson had issued instructions.

So it was he who must have given the order to get the body out of Parkland and over to Love Field, and not to permit an autopsy.

All of this goes to my basic assertion--which I spoke of so strongly in my November 2013 speech at Bismark State College (and which is available on YouTube [just Google "David Lifton Bismarck"]): from the outset, this was a body-centric plot.  That concept is at the heart of this "strategic deception." It is vital to understand what that means in order to properly interpret what was taking place that afternoon.  Not a plan to invade Cuba, but a plan to hide what happened in Dallas and tell the American people, and the entire world, a false story about how President Kennedy died.

That false story --built into the very design of this crime, and an integral part of it--was designed to facilitate the transition from Kennedy to Johnson under conditions that made the assassination appear to have been a quirk of fate,  an accident of history.

Fabricating that false appearance was the result of a clever strategic deception--not the offshoot of some misbegotten plan to invade Cuba.

One other thing: I'm engaged in this debate at somewhat of a disadvantage, because I  have much more data about this strategic deception (i.e.,  what was planned, and what went wrong), but I cannot get into all of that at this time.  It will be fully disclosed in Final Charade, and then it will it be possible to make a more informed judgment of what happened on November 22, 1963 and what hypothesis best explains the known facts.

Stay tuned.

DSL

4/16/2017 - 8:25 p.m. PDT; edited 4/17/17, at 3:55 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

David,

1.  In your analysis, the JFK murder was "planned in advance to blame a pre-selected patsy."

2.  The Walker-did-it CT also agrees with this.  JFK and Oswald were supposed to die the same day.

3.  Yet that did not include any need to blame Oswald-and-Oswald-ALONE.

4.  Nor did it include any plan to abort the mission if Oswald died in a car accident on the way from work.

5.  In your scenario, the death of the pre-selected patsy was "part and parcel of the basic architecture" of the JFK murder.

6.  On that basis, if Oswald would have died in a car accident on the way to work, then the whole plot to assassinate JFK would have to be aborted.

7.  We do agree that a "cover-up" is something started "after-the-fact."

8.  In my Walker-did-it CT -- the "cover-up" of the fact that the US Radical Right killed JFK was necessary "after-the-fact."

9. Oswald was indeed pre-selected as the Patsy.  Yet there was no need to plan to alter JFK's body with this selection.  Oswald was just one more Communist in an alleged plot of Communists.  No problem.

10.  The only glitch in Walker's JFK plot was that Tippit failed to shoot Oswald in the street.

11.  Then, at the Texas Theater, there were so many innocent Dallas Police there as witnesses that the JFK plotters -- again -- could not kill Oswald in cold blood.

12.  So, Will Fritz, Jesse Curry, Bill Decker, James Hosty, Forrest Sorrels and Harry Holmes had to keep Lee Harvey Oswald at the Dallas City Jail for DAYS longer than normal, so that they could complete plans of killing him.

13.  The fact that Oswald was killed while under the protection of Will Fritz is strong evidence against Will Fritz. 

14.  Thus, anything that Fritz testified about Oswald's final interrogation must be marked as suspicious.

15.  I grant that JFK's body was diverted.  I grant that there was a pre-autopsy autopsy.  Yet I maintain that this was all hastily decided after a plan conceived at 4pm EST by J. Edgar Hoover in Washington DC -- who had nothing to do with the plot to murder JFK.

16.  I maintain that my Walker-did-it CT explains the facts more smoothly than the more popular LBJ-did-it CT.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 17, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ron and Sandy - I finally figured out how to respond to your preference for Ron's plan B. It's a simple objection. If a serious investigation had ensued it would have been obvious (like it is now) that Oswald's Communist credentials were fake. As a lone nut  he can be portrayed as complex and mysterious. But as part of a Communist plot looked at closely his false bonafides would have become clear. And in addition, we would have to explain the presence of other possible assassins, none of whom would have supported the plan to blame it on Castro or The Soviet Union. There was only one sniper's nest. It is a critical part of the post mortem. Put it more simply - a serious investigation had to be avoided in all circumstances. I find it hard to believe that anyone would not see that.

 

Paul,

It's irrelevant whether or not it would have been ascertained, after the fact, that Oswald's communist credentials were fake. What is relevant is what the plotters were trying to achieve. Because, after all, the plot is what we are trying to understand.

The attempt at creating a link between Oswald and his "comrade" Kostin/Kostikov was clearly designed to make it look like there was a communist plot. If the attempt failed, that would only indicate that it was poorly planned or executed.

What do you think the Kostikov subplot was all about, if not to paint Oswald as a communist plotter?

As for why there was only one snipers nest, obviously that was to frame Oswald... just as the Plan B Hypothesis states. Why would there have been a sniper's nest for any of the other shooters? Oswald was the only person who needed to be implicated.

You say a serious investigation had to be avoided in all circumstances. Under the Plan B Hypothesis there are only two circumstances. One is where the plan was successful, the other is if something went wrong. If something went wrong, then Plan B goes into affect, which I think is the plan as you see it. If nothing went wrong, then it would have been foolish to snatch and alter the body, as that would have only added to the possibility that the plotters are found out. Better to let there be an investigation. It's hard to investigate the CIA.

 

 

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

(1) The attempt at creating a link between Oswald and his "comrade" Kostin/Kostikov was clearly designed to make it look like there was a communist plot. If the attempt failed, that would only indicate that it was poorly planned or executed.

(2)  As for why there was only one snipers nest, obviously that was to frame Oswald...Why would there have been a sniper's nest for any of the other shooters? Oswald was the only person who needed to be implicated.

(3) You say a serious investigation had to be avoided in all circumstances. Under the Plan B Hypothesis there are only two circumstances. One is where the plan was successful, the other is if something went wrong. If something went wrong, then Plan B goes into affect, which I think is the plan as you see it. If nothing went wrong, then it would have been foolish to snatch and alter the body, as that would have only added to the possibility that the plotters are found out. Better to let there be an investigation. It's hard to investigate the CIA.

Sandy,

(1) Yes -- the only reason for the Kostikov "linkage" with Oswald in Mexico City was to look like a Communist plot.  This was stated even more flatly in the Lopez Report (2003), to the effect that if (and only if) Oswald really had met Kostikov (a KGB assassin) in Mexico City as claimed, then it would have been 100% certain that the KGB had assassinated JFK.

(2) Yes -- many other shooters would be admitted to exist, because this was after all a "Communist plot."  However, Oswald would be shot in cold blood, and his rifle would be used to ensure that the public "knew" he was the JFK killer.  The so-called investigation for "other shooters" would have simply been a new McCarthy persecution of members of various Communist Parties in America.

(3) A serious investigation would have proved that the US Radical Right had killed JFK.  Two groups could never let that truth come forward, namely: (3.1) the US Radical Right; and (3.2) the US Government. 

They had different motives.  The US Radical Right did not want to get caught, and they would kill Dallas witnesses who might speak up.  However, the US Government did not want the USSR to know, because of the Cold War.  There was no Plan B, that I can see.  The US Radical Right gambled that nothing would go wrong -- that's how arrogant they were. 

• Regarding the murder of JFK, the only minor thing that went wrong was that the Patsy lived two more days.
• Regarding the MOTIVE for killing JFK -- invading Cuba and killing Fidel Castro -- everything went wrong.  Hoover's LN theory stopped them cold.

Regards,
 --Paul Trejo

Edited April 17, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Paul,

It's irrelevant whether or not it would have been ascertained, after the fact, that Oswald's communist credentials were fake. What is relevant is what the plotters were trying to achieve. Because, after all, the plot is what we are trying to understand.

The attempt at creating a link between Oswald and his "comrade" Kostin/Kostikov was clearly designed to make it look like there was a communist plot. If the attempt failed, that would only indicate that it was poorly planned or executed.

What do you think the Kostikov subplot was all about, if not to paint Oswald as a communist plotter?

As for why there was only one snipers nest, obviously that was to frame Oswald... just as the Plan B Hypothesis states. Why would there have been a sniper's nest for any of the other shooters? Oswald was the only person who needed to be implicated.

You say a serious investigation had to be avoided in all circumstances. Under the Plan B Hypothesis there are only two circumstances. One is where the plan was successful, the other is if something went wrong. If something went wrong, then Plan B goes into affect, which I think is the plan as you see it. If nothing went wrong, then it would have been foolish to snatch and alter the body, as that would have only added to the possibility that the plotters are found out. Better to let there be an investigation. It's hard to investigate the CIA.

 

 

Sandy - the weakness of your argument as I see it is your last paragraph. I'm not sure - perhaps you could explain - why killing Oswald on the spot or on the street (Tippett) would make body alteration unnecessary. 

It worth repeating that the framing of Oswald after the assassination began immediately, before he was known to have left the building. It's also worth considering that efforts were made immediately (by fake Secret Service) to keep people away from the areas most likely to have been where the fatal shots were fired, and towards the sniper's nest. Tippett, according to the best research, was hunting for Oswald, or someone, within 15 minutes of the assassination. (Btw, I agree with Trejo that Tippett should be considered a prime suspect for presidential assassin, and think moreover that his death may have been to make sure he never talked). 

I know Tommy will chime in here and mention the false description (5'10" 165 lbs) that went out on the DPD wire at about 12:45 pm, approximately the time that Tippet began his erratic post assassination movements. (Another aside - after reading McBride's great book on Tippett, I spent some time looking at Tippett's would be alibi for where he was at 12:30 pm. It is paper thin, and very suspicious). I'd like at this point to address Tommy, and you Sandy, about another possible explanation of the Kostikov episode. So far I have read two theories: the first is as you describe Sandy. The second is that the Oswald/Kostakov connection was a poison pill, created by the planners to force cooler heads to cover up any conspiracy leading to the USSR because of the danger of nuclear conflict. 

Here's a third idea. Some of you think that the coverup was enacted by people not involved in the crime. The point of this thread was to suggest that Lifton's research indicates otherwise. How about a hybrid? I alluded to it on an earlier post, and wish to expand on it now. Clearly the planners were not the shooters. Equally, they had to enlist a kill team. What better way to do so than to indicate that Castro would be implicated, and shortly eliminated? That would have motivated all the exile Cubans, Operation 40, the prominent mafiosi, and even JCS, all of whom would have loved to see Castro dead, to participate. Here I would like to say I strongly agree with Lifton (and many others) that the elimination of JFK was the motive of the planners, and not the elimination of Castro. Douglass, in his fine book JFK and the Unspeakable, Talbot in Brothers, many other fine thinkers, see a much bigger picture. JFK was in the way of many corporate and military agendas (I know I don't have to enumerate them here). As I've pointed out many times, if the planners only had Castro and Cuba in mind, they could have chosen to mount an unsuccessful assassination attempt, so long as it could be blamed on Castro. That is not what happened. JFK was eliminated, and later his brother. That indicates that the aim of the planners was to kill JFK, not to mount a Cuban invasion.

I'd like to focus now on Simpich's interesting work, one which Trejo uses to advance his theory. Simpich postulates that when someone impersonated Oswald, especially on the phone call linking Oswald to Kostikov, it caused Oswald's handlers to begin a search as to who was responsible. This confusion leads to Angleton, who had previously separated Oswald's CIA files into components that only he and his closest aides could decipher. It seems to me that the false description of Oswald began with this deliberate obfuscation by Angleton in 1960, and it was repeated in 1963 when the DPD dispatchers put out the alert that eventually led to Oswald's arrest at the movie theater. But shortly after this impersonation, FBI agent Marvin Gheesling conveniently removed Oswald from the FBI watchlist. Add to this the the attempt by Cuban exiles (DRE), Phillips in MC, and a few CIA connected journalists, to push Oswald's links to Castro and the USSR within hours. Clearly this was not in the interests of the planners (if this theory of the larger aims of the planners is true) but was of primary concern to the operatives who were enlisted to carry out the assassination. The way I read this, the ground crew as it were had ample reason to think that the elimination of Castro was the ultimate goal, and their propagandists and handlers were ready right away to push this story. So - maybe that was the purpose of the impersonation - to motivate the ground crew. So perhaps the reiteration of the false Oswald description was not so much a 'mole hunt' as a recruitment tool. Simpich suggests, with good reason, that David Sánchez Morales was possibly behind the impersonation. Trejo insists he went rogue. I say he was working with Phillips, and JMWave (Shackley). He represented the factions that wanted Castro ( and by extension the USSR) to be blamed. 

Does the coverup that began in MC by October 10th 1963 (destruction and alteration of files, photos, recordings) show confusion, or advance preparation? I think the latter.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

why killing Oswald on the spot or on the street (Tippett) would make body alteration unnecessary.

If the goal was to prove a Castro-inspired conspiracy why conceal evidence of conspiracy?

Wouldn't it be easier to whack a couple of extra patsies?

[Gerry Simone]

On 4/16/2017 at 3:57 PM, Ron Ecker said:

Why do you say that? The Warren Commission conducted what everyone considered to be a "serious investigation," and on Oswald it concluded that "His commitment to Marxism and communism appears to have been another important factor in his motivation." More than 50 years later, that remains the official history of Lee Harvey Oswald. 

It may be obvious to us that his Communist credentials were fake, but so what?

 

If his Communist credentials were fake, the new President wasn't about to order an invasion of Cuba or otherwise retaliate against the Soviets.

[Gerry Simone]

On 4/16/2017 at 2:47 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

I like Ron Ecker's Plan B hypothesis so much that I thought I'd repeat it and expound on it a bit.
 

Ron Ecker's Plan B Hypothesis -- From the point of view of the plotters:

The plan is to create a pretext for war with the Russians. (Or an invasion of Cuba?). We will paint Oswald as a communist plotter and make him the fall guy.. We will do so with the Kostikov / "Comrade Kostin" subplot.

We will have multiple gunmen to ensure that Kennedy is killed.

Plan A is to have Oswald killed shortly after the assassination so he can't talk. The wounds in the body will reveal that there were multiple gunmen, and so the authorities will launch a full-scale investigation searching for these gunmen and any other plotters. But that's okay... due to the evidence that Oswald acted under communist control, the investigation will be nothing but a wild goose chase looking for communist agents and assassins.

The pretext for war is achieved if all goes well.

But if something should go wrong that might reveal the true source of the plot (the CIA et. al.), Plan B will be implemented. Plan B is designed to silence key people and to limit the investigation as much as possible. The best evidence for multiple shooters are the gunshot wounds. Therefore the body must be snatched and altered as best as possible to make it appear that the shots came from behind. That way the blame and the investigation will be limited to Oswald (and his communist conspirators).

End Hypothesis

When Oswald was taken alive, he was sure to spill his guts about his CIA activities. Thus Plan B was triggered. He (and Tippet) were silenced in accordance with the plan. And JFK's body was snatched and altered in accordance with the plan.

 

EDIT: I based the above on Ron's hypothesis. Some of it may not reflect his views.

 

I think the main objective was to kill Kennedy and not make it look like a conspiracy (frankly, I think the public wouldn't believe that a bunch of commie assassins killed JFK in Dallas but more the opposite, as in a domestic conspiracy). 

I think Operation Northwoods lost steam, and the interest in Cuba waned a bit, but the hatred by those who were affected by what had happened in Cuba was still there, and they weren't going to allow further changes in foreign policy, and perhaps also seek revenge.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Gerry Simone

[Gerry Simone]

20 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

If the goal of the plot was to frame some random lone nut why did they frame someone who was anything but?

We have the benefit of hindsight, don't we?  People believed in their institutions and the "fake news" at the time.

Being a communist sympathizer didn't make one a popular or well-liked person.  They demonized Oswald.

[Gerry Simone]

On 4/16/2017 at 11:42 PM, Ron Ecker said:

David,

I very much look forward to your book. Is there a publication date yet?

 

Me too.  

[Sandy Larsen]

36 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I'm not sure why killing Oswald on the spot or on the street (Tippett) would make body alteration unnecessary.

Paul,

The primary goal of the plot is to kill Kennedy. The secondary goal is to blame the Russians.

If Oswald is captured alive, he will sing. He will tell anybody who will listen about his CIA activities and it will become clear to everybody that we was set up by the CIA. Thus implicating the CIA in the assassination. So the plot requires that Oswald be killed on the spot.

If all goes well on assassination day, a government investigation will show that Oswald is a commie sympathizer who has been in communication with his assassin pal, Kostikov. Wounds on Kennedy's body will reveal multiple gunmen. The evidence will therefore indicate that the assassination was a KGB plot.

But if something goes wrong that could reveal who the plotters are -- for example if Oswald is taken alive -- the mission to blame the Russians will be aborted. Instead the blame will be put on Oswald and Oswald alone. The most important thing is for Oswald to be silenced. The body will be snatched and altered to support a lone gunman. The autopsy will be controlled. The CIA will keep the Mexico City incident and Kostikov story to themselves.

Unfortunately for the CIA, the FBI discovers that the CIA is withholding that information. The CIA can't keep it a secret, but does the next best thing.... it produces bogus evidence (the tapes and photographs) that places doubt on the Mexico City incident.

However, a couple weeks later the CIA understands that a real investigation is not going to happen. They change their minds and decide to go ahead and try to blame Russia. They instruct Ruth Paine to hand over a copy of the letter where Oswald confirms that he met with his assassin friend, Kostikov.

But, because of the LBJ-instituted cover-up -- a' la the Katzenbach Memo -- the blaming-the-Russians plan goes nowhere.

 

 

[Ron Ecker]

Sandy,

I can't believe that the conspirators wanted a nuclear war with Russia.They wanted a good war in Vietnam (which would not involve millions of American civilian casualties). The secondary goal IMO was therefore to blame Castro, for an invasion of Cuba. And with the "proof" that the conspirators intended to have against Castro, Russia would not start a nuclear war by going to Castro's defense. (Though if they did, I guess LeMay and Lemnitzer at least would be happy.) But the conspirators could not follow through with the necessary "proof" when Oswald got arrested. So what they had to do was make Oswald go "poof" and blame the murder on him.