Jump to content
The Education Forum
Paul Brancato

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

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Hello - no matter how hard David Lifton has tried to make his points here, Mr. Trejo has somehow become the moderator of this thread, and the rest of you (please don't assume because I don't mention you all by name that I am dissing you) seem fine with arguing the fine points of parts of Trejo's theory. One thing that has been mentioned along the way seems particularly absurd. The sniper's nest was clearly planted to show a gunman firing from this position. The rifle evidence was manipulated. There was no other evidence of any other sniper positions - in fact quite the opposite. Everything, from very soon after the shooting, was geared towards pointing blame at one shooter from one position. But it is equally clear that shots did come from multiple locations. So the plan is clear - make sure JFK is dead, blame it on a lone gunman. As Dulles said when the WC began its investigation, political assassinations are usually carried out by lone nuts.

Things were carefully planned, and yet improvisations had to occur due to unforeseen circumstances. It seems more logical to view things this way rather than view what I'm calling improvisations as proof of a lack of planning. 

Paul (Brancato):

Thanks for keeping the focus.

I realize there are competing hypotheses, but there is only one historical record, and one either follows that evidence or not.

Also, as the late Sylvia Meagher once famously said: "The assassination happened, only one way once". To which I may have added, in Best Evidence: "It did not happen twice, once for the benefit of the Warren Commission, and a second time for the Warren report critics" (today called "JFK researchers").

The Dallas Police Department radio transmissions, plus the AP and UPI wire record, plus the audio record of the real-time broadcasts of all the Dallas (and Ft Worth) radio stations---all of this constitutes a "real time" (historical) record of sorts.

I have spent tens--if not hundreds--of hours going over every one of these data bases.  (And most importantly, the Dallas/FW area radio station transmissions, all part of a major Commission Document ("CD")  stored at NARA, and which I spent about a month going through, laboriously, in the office of the NARA audio archivist, Les Waffen, who--unfortunately, and years later--got into serious trouble selling some important  [archival] items on ebay). When I knew him--circa 1971-ish--he was a kind individual, and very helpful.

With one exception (which I'll write about another time), there was no "gang of assassins".

All the "real-time" evidence (on November 22) --and most notably, the AP and UPI dispatches--clearly indicate that the way the event was communicated (to the public) in the media was that President Kennedy was killed by a sniper in a building ("a man in a building shot a man in a car") and then "the" sniper was identified (and apprehended); and then murdered in the basement of the DPD headquarters two days later.  If it wasn't for the Mexico City trip--and based (instead) purely on the New Orleans (summer) evidence--Oswald would appear to have been a lone nut from the political left (or radical left).  Only because (a) he defected to the USSR in October 1959 (and then lived there for 2-3/4 years) and (b) made that trip to Mexico City (between 9/27 - 10/3, 1963) is it clear that those who designed this event apparently had 'something else' in mind.  In other words, Oswald was, because of the Mexico City  trip, "internationalized" (or, as Peter Dale Scott wrote years ago, "Cubanized").

Possibly: to give the incoming president the political tools necessary to help foster a cover-up.  We can all theorize.

Also, the Warren Commission offers little help because its clear that --as Max Holland wrote years ago--the Warren Commission deliberately "de-politicized" the event, as much as possible.  In writing their report, they did as much as possible to denude the assassination of political meaning.  A lot of good evidence was established by the FBI investigation, and is present in the underlying record, but was not reflected in the Report, itself.  But all of that was "after-the-fact" sanitizing. And I think it would be an error not to distinguish that which was sanitized "after the fact," with what was originally designed (i.e., before the fact)  as the "appearance-to-be-projected."

In Final Charade, I hope to present fairly definitive evidence that it was planned in advance to alter the President's body as part of the crime but that, because of unexpected events and,  in general,  Murphy's Law, the basic plan went haywire.  That's why I have said that the assassination was "elegant in conception, but bungled in execution."

TWO REALITIES (AT DEALEY PLAZA)

Another point: I think its thoroughly incorrect and wrong-headed to believe that Oswald's rifle was one of the murder weapons.  Anyone who believes that really doesn't understand the power of autopsy falsification (and, most importantly, the power of autopsy falsification especially if rooted in body alteration). The entire point of such a plan is to separate  two [plot] functions-- (a) the shooting of the president at Dealey Plaza and (b) the false police investigation which followed, focused (as it was intended to be) on the sniper's nest.  The whole idea of pre-planned body alteration is to permit plotters to lay down a false overlay on the event. In other words, there were two genuine "realities" on Dealey Plaza: the first was the reality of the actual snipers who murdered the president, whoever they were, and however they concealed themselves, and however they managed ti exfiltrate from Dealey Plaza.  The "other" reality was what was tantamount to a "play", akin to a piece of theater that was largely  "acted out" (in real time) via the Dallas Police radio, a record which documents, minute by minute, the focus on the (false) sniper's nest, the finding of certain evidence there, and so forth. 

As I have said: its my belief that if the assassination had gone according to plan, one of the things that would have been found, at the TSBD, was not only the sniper's nest, shells, rifle, etc., but also the dead fall guy (Oswald, in this case).

If I'm correct, then, the assassination was planned, from the outset, to involve the murder of two people--the President to be killed, and the fall-guy to be blamed. (And that means that Oswald's presence at the TSBD was not "coincidence" but part of the original design of the crime).

The president, of course, was the primary (political) target, the 'raison d'etre' for the entire JFK assassination; but the fall guy also had to be killed, and why was that? Because he was privy to the whole story of how he had been manipulated, and set up.  In other words, and as I like to put it, "Oswald knew who he really was," even though he was engaged in a plethora of contrived activities (that concealed who he "really was") as he acted out some role, based on instructions he had been given, or because he thought that was part of some "assignment."   Such a person, if arrested alive, could immediately set the record straight if it was all a misunderstanding.  If a DEA agent--acting undercover--was   (falsely) arrested as part of a mistake made at the time of a drug bust, he could easily set the record straight after his arrest.  But not if his arrest was not a mistake, but deliberate.  Similarly with Oswald.   He could not simply hold a press conference and say, "This is who I really am."  Because any number of "higher authorities" would, in effect, respond: "this guy is nuts. He's a fantast. Never heard of him before. . What did you say his name was?  Lee Harvey Who?"

But, despite these impediments, after the assassination, and during the brief period he was alive, he indicated to one person who knew him fairly well, that there had been a "mistake."  (And I'll get to all of  that in Final Charade).

Anyway, I digress.  IMHO: This was a disgusting plot in which it was planned in advance to murder Kennedy, and to murder Oswald, and to alter Kennedy's body in order to create the false appearance that Kennedy was murdered by Oswald (i.e., by his rifle).

A number of things went wrong, and so the basic elegance (and simplicity) of the design has been buried under a mountain of irrelevant detail.  So it becomes very difficult to "connect the dots" because there are numerous  extraneous dots, and some represent false data.

DSL

4/13/2017 9:20 a.m. PDT (Edited and tweaked, 5:35 p.m. PDT)

Los Angeles, California

 

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my estimation, Oswald's escape from the TSBD was critical to the plan.

Oswald's escape allowed a focus of all resources to look for one person; the identity of, and a description of whom, had immediately been established.

If LHO had been killed immediately, there would be no reason to refrain from setting-up a dragnet to locate and arrest possible conspirators. 

Cheers,

Michael

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael - I don't understand your comment. What I perceive is that after a few months of intensive reading on the subject, at least on this site, you've formulated a theory, and now, as many of us are wont to do, you are viewing everything through the lens of what appears to you to be the most logical way to view the event. However, from my vantage point, on this single issue your position is not logical. If Oswald had been killed on the spot, there would have been no need to set up the dragnet you refer to. It would have been case closed. It was quite a struggle for the government and the WC to arrive at the lone nut explanation, which would not have been the case if Oswald had been killed in the tsbd.

of course, feel free to argue your case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael - I don't understand your comment. What I perceive is that after a few months of intensive reading on the subject, at least on this site, you've formulated a theory, and now, as many of us are wont to do, you are viewing everything through the lens of what appears to you to be the most logical way to view the event. However, from my vantage point, on this single issue your position is not logical. If Oswald had been killed on the spot, there would have been no need to set up the dragnet you refer to. It would have been case closed. It was quite a struggle for the government and the WC to arrive at the lone nut explanation, which would not have been the case if Oswald had been killed in the tsbd.

of course, feel free to argue your case. 

Will do Paul. If LHO had been killed, say, by Baker, at 12:35, then the full-force of the DPD would not have been looking for Oswald for the next hour or so. At 12:35, with Oswald dead, no-one could rationally, or responsibly, assume, and act on the assumption that there were no more shooters. Scores of people and police scrambled up and into the parking lot and reports were made of shots coming from there. At 12:35, with one gunman dead, the case could not be made that It was a lone-nut operation. It would take the full force of the Federal government, and an "esteemed" Presidential Comission to discount the testimony of witnesses and officers, and formulate an absurd lone nut theory. It could not be done at 12:35 on 11-22, with a single dead shooter. A wide-spread dragnet for possible accomplices would have to have been ordered.

But, having a specific suspect, with a name and description, known to have slipped away from the scene, all efforts could be brought to bear on that one man, LHO, for the next hour or so. By the time LHO was finally arrested, the possibility of spreading a net for, and focusing on, unknown conspirators would have been largely lost and a LN scenario could take shape.

To be sure, this isn't even integral to my evolving pet theory. It just seems self evident to me.

A single dead-guy, at 12:35 in Dealy Plaza, on 11-22-63 does not make a case for calling the investigation closed or making any conclusions, at 12:35.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Will do Paul. If LHO had been killed, say, by Baker, at 12:35, then the full-force of the DPD would not have been looking for Oswald for the next hour or so. At 12:35, with Oswald dead, no-one could rationally, or responsibly, assume, and act on the assumption that there were no more shooters. Scores of people and police scrambled up and into the parking lot and reports were made of shots coming from there. At 12:35, with one gunman dead, the case could not be made that It was a lone-nut operation. It would take the full force of the Federal government, and an "esteemed" Presidential Comission to discount the testimony of witnesses and officers, and formulate an absurd lone nut theory. It could not be done at 12:35 on 11-22, with a single dead shooter. A wide-spread dragnet for possible accomplices would have to have been ordered.

But, having a specific suspect, with a name and description, known to have slipped away from the scene, all efforts could be brought to bear on that one man, LHO, for the next hour or so. By the time LHO was finally arrested, the possibility of spreading a net for, and focusing on, unknown conspirators would have been largely lost and a LN scenario could take shape.

To be sure, this isn't even integral to my evolving pet theory. It just seems self evident to me.

A single dead-guy, at 12:35 in Dealy Plaza, on 11-22-63 does not make a case for calling the investigation closed or making any conclusions, at 12:35.

Cheers,

Michael

I question the basic logic, or premise, of your argument.  Your post states: "At 12:35, with Oswald dead, no-one could rationally, or responsibly, assume, and act on the assumption that there were no more shooters."  Oh really?  But just a minute: this ignores a basic fact of the record.  From the moment he was arrested at the Texas Theater, to just minutes before he was murdered two days later, Oswald denied the crime.  Vociferously and repeatedly.  On public media, he can be heard saying, "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir." And: "I'm just a patsy." And, on Saturday, 11/23, quite angry in a hallway scene, and in remarks directed at reporters, "I don't know what dispatches you people have been given, but I emphatically deny these charges; I have committed no act of violence." (per my recollection).  If this took place inside the reality of a normal police investigation (i.e., one with integrity), then I can easily imagine a scene in which the top officials at the DPD say to one another, and to their boss: "This fellow claims he didn't do, Chief.  We'd better keep this investigation open, and in fact double down on just who the heck did murder the President, and do so ASAP!"  But no, noto in this case: even with a live Oswald, repeatedly denying the crime, no such thing occurs.  Yet you seem to be claiming that  a "dead Oswald"  would only serve to "close" the investigation.  Huh?  Among the several questions a "dead Oswald" would raise would be: "Who killed him?" But that's just the beginning.  There's a whole raft of "other" questions; e.g., since so many bystanders thought shots came from the area of the grassy knoll and railroad yards, etc., how come the Police Dispatcher was directing the entire investigation to the TSBD, and nowhere else?  What happened to the accounts of all these other witnesses, who were seen running --en masse--towards the front (e.g., see Willis Slide 7).  Why did none of that filter to the dispatch room of the Dallas Police Department? etc.

No, I'm sorry. But IMHO, the only discernible "intense" effort made in this case was to "find the perp" once Oswald--somehow--slipped out of the building, and got away from Dealey Plaza, and that ended with the absurd situation of a "calling all cars!" type of investigation which ended up at the Texas Theater, and the arrest of the perp, who, once back in the police car, tells the arresting officers that no, he didn't need to hide his face, because "I'm not ashamed of anything" that he had done. (approx, from memory).

DSL

4/13/2017, 5:50 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

I question the basic logic, or premise, of your argument.  Your post states: "At 12:35, with Oswald dead, no-one could rationally, or responsibly, assume, and act on the assumption that there were no more shooters."  Oh really?  But just a minute: this ignores a basic fact of the record.  From the moment he was arrested at the Texas Theater, to just minutes before he was murdered two days later, Oswald denied the crime.  Vociferously and repeatedly.  On public media, he can be heard saying, "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir." And: "I'm just a patsy." And, on Saturday, 11/23, quite angry in a hallway scene, and in remarks directed at reporters, "I don't know what dispatches you people have been given, but I emphatically deny these charges; I have committed no act of violence." (per my recollection).  If this took place inside the reality of a normal police investigation (i.e., one with integrity), then I can easily imagine a scene in which the top officials at the DPD say to one another, and to their boss: "This fellow claims he didn't do, Chief.  We'd better keep this investigation open, and in fact double down on just who the heck did murder the President, and do so ASAP!"  But no, noto in this case: even with a live Oswald, repeatedly denying the crime, no such thing occurs.  Yet you seem to be claiming that  a "dead Oswald"  would only serve to "close" the investigation.  Huh?  Among the several questions a "dead Oswald" would raise would be: "Who killed him?" But that's just the beginning.  There's a whole raft of "other" questions; e.g., since so many bystanders thought shots came from the area of the grassy knoll and railroad yards, etc., how come the Police Dispatcher was directing the entire investigation to the TSBD, and nowhere else?  What happened to the accounts of all these other witnesses, who were seen running --en masse--towards the front (e.g., see Willis Slide 7).  Why did none of that filter to the dispatch room of the Dallas Police Department? etc.

No, I'm sorry. But IMHO, the only discernible "intense" effort made in this case was to "find the perp" once Oswald--somehow--slipped out of the building, and got away from Dealey Plaza, and that ended with the absurd situation of a "calling all cars!" type of investigation which ended up at the Texas Theater, and the arrest of the perp, who, once back in the police car, tells the arresting officers that no, he didn't need to hide his face, because "I'm not ashamed of anything" that he had done. (approx, from memory).

DSL

4/13/2017, 5:50 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Roger that David. Thanks for your explanation.

I made a short statement of what I was thinking, above. Paul took the time to ask some questions and invited me to respond, which I did, expanding on things a bit. Whenever I do that I almost always make things less clear than what I said or intended to say. I see from your reply that I did not do a very good job. So allow me to go to my original statement and actually make an even more breif account of my thoughts.

I think that LHO's flight from the TSBD caused all, on nearly all, resources to be focused on finding him. It was a distraction that let the real perps get away. I think that that is exactly what was meant to happen.

Cheers,

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Paul (Brancato):

Thanks for keeping the focus.

I realize there are competing hypotheses, but there is only one historical record, and one either follows that evidence or not.

Also, as the late Sylvia Meagher once famously said: "The assassination happened, only one way once". To which I may have added, in Best Evidence: "It did not happen twice, once for the benefit of the Warren Commission, and a second time for the Warren report critics" (today called "JFK researchers").

The Dallas Police Department radio transmissions, plus the AP and UPI wire record, plus the audio record of the real-time broadcasts of all the Dallas (and Ft Worth) radio stations---all of this constitutes a "real time" (historical) record of sorts.

I have spent tens--if not hundreds--of hours going over every one of these data bases.  (And most importantly, the Dallas/FW area radio station transmissions, all part of a major Commission Document ("CD")  stored at NARA, and which I spent about a month going through, laboriously, in the office of the NARA audio archivist, Les Waffen, who--unfortunately, and years later--got into serious trouble selling some important  [archival] items on ebay). When I knew him--circa 1971-ish--he was a kind individual, and very helpful.

With one exception (which I'll write about another time), there was no "gang of assassins".

All the "real-time" evidence (on November 22) --and most notably, the AP and UPI dispatches--clearly indicate that the way the event was communicated (to the public) in the media was that President Kennedy was killed by a sniper in a building ("a man in a building shot a man in a car") and then "the" sniper was identified (and apprehended); and then murdered in the basement of the DPD headquarters two days later.  If it wasn't for the Mexico City trip--and based (instead) purely on the New Orleans (summer) evidence--Oswald would appear to have been a lone nut from the political left (or radical left).  Only because (a) he defected to the USSR in October 1959 (and then lived there for 2-3/4 years) and (b) made that trip to Mexico City (between 9/27 - 10/3, 1963) is it clear that those who designed this event apparently had 'something else' in mind.  In other words, Oswald was, because of the Mexico City  trip, "internationalized" (or, as Peter Dale Scott wrote years ago, "Cubanized").

Possibly: to give the incoming president the political tools necessary to help foster a cover-up.  We can all theorize.

Also, the Warren Commission offers little help because its clear that --as Max Holland wrote years ago--the Warren Commission deliberately "de-politicized" the event, as much as possible.  In writing their report, they did as much as possible to denude the assassination of political meaning.  A lot of good evidence was established by the FBI investigation, and is present in the underlying record, but was not reflected in the Report, itself.  But all of that was "after-the-fact" sanitizing. And I think it would be an error not to distinguish that which was sanitized "after the fact," with what was originally designed (i.e., before the fact)  as the "appearance-to-be-projected."

In Final Charade, I hope to present fairly definitive evidence that it was planned in advance to alter the President's body as part of the crime but that, because of unexpected events and,  in general,  Murphy's Law, the basic plan went haywire.  That's why I have said that the assassination was "elegant in conception, but bungled in execution."

TWO REALITIES (AT DEALEY PLAZA)

Another point: I think its thoroughly incorrect and wrong-headed to believe that Oswald's rifle was one of the murder weapons.  Anyone who believes that really doesn't understand the power of autopsy falsification (and, most importantly, the power of autopsy falsification especially if rooted in body alteration). The entire point of such a plan is to separate  two [plot] functions-- (a) the shooting of the president at Dealey Plaza and (b) the false police investigation which followed, focused (as it was intended to be) on the sniper's nest.  The whole idea of pre-planned body alteration is to permit plotters to lay down a false overlay on the event. In other words, there were two genuine "realities" on Dealey Plaza: the first was the reality of the actual snipers who murdered the president, whoever they were, and however they concealed themselves, and however they managed ti exfiltrate from Dealey Plaza.  The "other" reality was what was tantamount to a "play", akin to a piece of theater that was largely  "acted out" (in real time) via the Dallas Police radio, a record which documents, minute by minute, the focus on the (false) sniper's nest, the finding of certain evidence there, and so forth. 

As I have said: its my belief that if the assassination had gone according to plan, one of the things that would have been found, at the TSBD, was not only the sniper's nest, shells, rifle, etc., but also the dead fall guy (Oswald, in this case).

If I'm correct, then, the assassination was planned, from the outset, to involve the murder of two people--the President to be killed, and the fall-guy to be blamed. (And that means that Oswald's presence at the TSBD was not "coincidence" but part of the original design of the crime).

The president, of course, was the primary (political) target, the 'raison d'etre' for the entire JFK assassination; but the fall guy also had to be killed, and why was that? Because he was privy to the whole story of how he had been manipulated, and set up.  In other words, and as I like to put it, "Oswald knew who he really was," even though he was engaged in a plethora of contrived activities (that concealed who he "really was") as he acted out some role, based on instructions he had been given, or because he thought that was part of some "assignment."   Such a person, if arrested alive, could immediately set the record straight if it was all a misunderstanding.  If a DEA agent--acting undercover--was   (falsely) arrested as part of a mistake made at the time of a drug bust, he could easily set the record straight after his arrest.  But not if his arrest was not a mistake, but deliberate.  Similarly with Oswald.   He could not simply hold a press conference and say, "This is who I really am."  Because any number of "higher authorities" would, in effect, respond: "this guy is nuts. He's a fantast. Never heard of him before. . What did you say his name was?  Lee Harvey Who?"

But, despite these impediments, after the assassination, and during the brief period he was alive, he indicated to one person who knew him fairly well, that there had been a "mistake."  (And I'll get to all of  that in Final Charade).

Anyway, I digress.  IMHO: This was a disgusting plot in which it was planned in advance to murder Kennedy, and to murder Oswald, and to alter Kennedy's body in order to create the false appearance that Kennedy was murdered by Oswald (i.e., by his rifle).

A number of things went wrong, and so the basic elegance (and simplicity) of the design has been buried under a mountain of irrelevant detail.  So it becomes very difficult to "connect the dots" because there are numerous  extraneous dots, and some represent false data.

DSL

4/13/2017 9:20 a.m. PDT (Edited and tweaked, 5:35 p.m. PDT)

Los Angeles, California

 

Would that person who he knew well be his brother?  (You don't have to spoil it for us, but I couldn't resist to ask).

(If there's one thing they got right in the film Parkland, it was Oswald telling his brother Robert who visited him in jail, "Don't believe in the so called evidence brother".)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Hello - no matter how hard David Lifton has tried to make his points here, Mr. Trejo has somehow become the moderator of this thread, and the rest of you (please don't assume because I don't mention you all by name that I am dissing you) seem fine with arguing the fine points of parts of Trejo's theory. One thing that has been mentioned along the way seems particularly absurd. The sniper's nest was clearly planted to show a gunman firing from this position. The rifle evidence was manipulated. There was no other evidence of any other sniper positions - in fact quite the opposite. Everything, from very soon after the shooting, was geared towards pointing blame at one shooter from one position. But it is equally clear that shots did come from multiple locations. So the plan is clear - make sure JFK is dead, blame it on a lone gunman. As Dulles said when the WC began its investigation, political assassinations are usually carried out by lone nuts.

Things were carefully planned, and yet improvisations had to occur due to unforeseen circumstances. It seems more logical to view things this way rather than view what I'm calling improvisations as proof of a lack of planning. 

Thank you Paul B. for keeping me on that beaten path, but sometimes eager minds try to think outside the box sometimes.  Your reminder of a very important facet of the assassination cannot be forgotten or ignored.  There certainly was a lot of investment or risks taken in ensuring that even others might catch a glimpse of a shooter at or hear one from (who seemed to have had an accomplice on the 6th floor by other accounts) the TSBD, and that's exactly what happened.  Of course there was another shooter or more, but that evidence was discounted if not ignored or expunged. Mistakes happened in the execution of the murder conspiracy, but were "corrected" after-the-fact, which left a dubious trail that we still are debating more than a half a century later.

Edited by Gerry Simone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, David Lifton said:

I question the basic logic, or premise, of your argument.  Your post states: "At 12:35, with Oswald dead, no-one could rationally, or responsibly, assume, and act on the assumption that there were no more shooters." 

Oh really?  But just a minute: this ignores a basic fact of the record.  From the moment he was arrested at the Texas Theater, to just minutes before he was murdered two days later, Oswald denied the crime.  Vociferously and repeatedly.  On public media, he can be heard saying, "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir." And: "I'm just a patsy." And, on Saturday, 11/23, quite angry in a hallway scene, and in remarks directed at reporters, "I don't know what dispatches you people have been given, but I emphatically deny these charges; I have committed no act of violence." (per my recollection). 

If this took place inside the reality of a normal police investigation (i.e., one with integrity), then I can easily imagine a scene in which the top officials at the DPD say to one another, and to their boss: "This fellow claims he didn't do, Chief.  We'd better keep this investigation open, and in fact double down on just who the heck did murder the President, and do so ASAP!"  But no, not in this case: even with a live Oswald, repeatedly denying the crime, no such thing occurs. 

Yet you seem to be claiming that  a "dead Oswald"  would only serve to "close" the investigation.  Huh?  Among the several questions a "dead Oswald" would raise would be: "Who killed him?" But that's just the beginning.  There's a whole raft of "other" questions; e.g., since so many bystanders thought shots came from the area of the grassy knoll and railroad yards, etc., how come the Police Dispatcher was directing the entire investigation to the TSBD, and nowhere else?  What happened to the accounts of all these other witnesses, who were seen running --en masse--towards the front (e.g., see Willis Slide 7).  Why did none of that filter to the dispatch room of the Dallas Police Department? etc.

No, I'm sorry. But IMHO, the only discernible "intense" effort made in this case was to "find the perp" once Oswald--somehow--slipped out of the building, and got away from Dealey Plaza, and that ended with the absurd situation of a "calling all cars!" type of investigation which ended up at the Texas Theater, and the arrest of the perp, who, once back in the police car, tells the arresting officers that no, he didn't need to hide his face, because "I'm not ashamed of anything" that he had done. (approx, from memory).

DSL

4/13/2017, 5:50 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

David,

I agree with half of your argument -- and I disagree with the other half. .

You and I agree that the DPD was largely corrupt -- not all the cops, of course, but the high officials, whom I regard as among the JFK plotters, along with a few of the DPD cops and Dallas deputies who were part of the Radical Right.  They were indeed corrupt.

Yet you claim that a "dead Oswald" would raise the question, "Who killed him?"  On this point we disagree -- if (and only if) it was the DPD cops who killed Oswald.  The DPD cops would not be questioned. 

This was the role of JD Tippit, IMHO -- to kill Oswald in the streets.  With a "dead Oswald," further "investigation" would reveal that Oswald was a COMMUNIST, a supporter of Fidel Castro in New Orleans -- complete with radio and TV recordings.  There were also the Backyard Photographs -- but most important of all, Oswald's rifle was "found" on the 6th floor of the TSBD, with three bullet shells, and numerous eye-witnesses who saw "somebody" sticking that rifle out of a high TSBD window minutes before the shooting.

If the DPD cops had shot Oswald in the streets, the "dead Oswald" would have been satisfactory for most purposes.   Yes -- there would have been a push for "more shooters," but that push would have been more specifically for "more COMMUNIST shooters." 

If the JFK Killers had obtained the full victory of their plans, they would have started a massive manhunt for the COMMUNIST Plotters, and would have arrested Ruth and Michael Paine on suspicion of Communist plot (with their "six or seven metal file cabinets full of the names of Castro supporters in their garage," and so on).

The COMMUNIST manhunt would have become a new mass hysteria, and the USA would likely have invaded Cuba, killed Fidel Castro, installed a Democratic ruler, and dared the USSR to move one step closer.

Yet the JFK Killers failed to obtain their ultimate, Monroe Doctrine goal -- a Communist Free Hemisphere -- because J. Edgar Hoover proposed the "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK murder, and brilliantly exploited the Patsy for more peaceful political goals..  

The USA would not blame the Communists for the JFK assassination.   It was a crushing defeat for the US Radical Right.  This is the benign theory of the JFK pre-autopsy autopsy.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

In my estimation, Oswald's escape from the TSBD was critical to the plan.

Oswald's escape allowed a focus of all resources to look for one person; the identity of, and a description of whom, had immediately been established.

If LHO had been killed immediately, there would be no reason to refrain from setting-up a dragnet to locate and arrest possible conspirators. 

Cheers,

Michael

Don't forget that that dragnet and super-efficient arrest seemed to have had a helping hand by an unknown tipster.  Surely, they would have tried to alert the cops about a former Soviet residence and communist sympathizer working from the location of suspected gun fire (i.e., the TSBD), or fed some background info into the process about the deceased Oswald had he been shot by police much sooner or before he could speak. 

Edited by Gerry Simone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Roger that David. Thanks for your explanation.

I made a short statement of what I was thinking, above. Paul took the time to ask some questions and invited me to respond, which I did, expanding on things a bit. Whenever I do that I almost always make things less clear than what I said or intended to say. I see from your reply that I did not do a very good job. So allow me to go to my original statement and actually make an even more breif account of my thoughts.

I think that LHO's flight from the TSBD caused all, on nearly all, resources to be focused on finding him. It was a distraction that let the real perps get away. I think that that is exactly what was meant to happen.

Cheers,

Michael

IMHO, a diversion was less important than to silence Oswald soon after the Big Event.  It seems the other shooters were well hidden and/or disguised, had phony SSA diverting cops and spectators, possibly used silencers, and took advantage of the commotion and confusion of the crowds to quietly slip away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

David,

I agree with half of your argument -- and I disagree with the other half. .

You and I agree that the DPD was largely corrupt -- not all the cops, of course, but the high officials, whom I regard as among the JFK plotters, along with a few of the DPD cops and Dallas deputies who were part of the Radical Right.  They were indeed corrupt.

Yet you claim that a "dead Oswald" would raise the question, "Who killed him?"  On this point we disagree -- if (and only if) it was the DPD cops who killed Oswald.  The DPD cops would not be questioned. 

This was the role of JD Tippit, IMHO -- to kill Oswald in the streets.  With a "dead Oswald," further "investigation" would reveal that Oswald was a COMMUNIST, a supporter of Fidel Castro in New Orleans -- complete with radio and TV recordings.  There were also the Backyard Photographs -- but most important of all, Oswald's rifle was "found" on the 6th floor of the TSBD, with three bullet shells, and numerous eye-witnesses who saw "somebody" sticking that rifle out of a high TSBD window minutes before the shooting.

If the DPD cops had shot Oswald in the streets, the "dead Oswald" would have been satisfactory for most purposes.   Yes -- there would have been a push for "more shooters," but that push would have been more specifically for "more COMMUNIST shooters." 

If the JFK Killers had obtained the full victory of their plans, they would have started a massive manhunt for the COMMUNIST Plotters, and would have arrested Ruth and Michael Paine on suspicion of Communist plot (with their "six or seven mental file cabinets full of the names of Castro supporters in their garage," and so on).

The COMMUNIST manhunt would have become a new mass hysteria, and the USA would likely have invaded Cuba, killed Fidel Castro, installed a Democratic ruler, and dared the USSR to move one step closer.

Yet the JFK Killers failed to obtain their ultimate, Monroe Doctrine goal -- a Communist Free Hemisphere -- because J. Edgar Hoover proposed the "Lone Nut" theory of the JFK murder, and brilliantly exploited the Patsy in his own way.  

The USA would not blame the Communists for the JFK assassination.   It was a crushing defeat for the US Radical Right.  This is the benign theory of the JFK pre-autopsy autopsy.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

If the Radical Right were so instrumental in planning the assassination so that it would look like a Communist conspiracy, why would they via The John Birch Society, advertise their deep dislike of JFK with a full page newspaper ad, which would only draw suspicion on themselves?

Share this post


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

Don't forget that that dragnet and super-efficient arrest seemed to have had a helping hand by an unknown tipster.  

Surely, they would have tried to alert the cops about a former Soviet residence and communist sympathizer working from the location of suspected gun fire (i.e., the TSBD), or fed some background info into the process about the deceased Oswald had he been shot by police much sooner or before he could speak. 

Gerry,

What is your specific reference to a "tipster?" There are *so* many stories out there.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


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

If the Radical Right were so instrumental in planning the assassination so that it would look like a Communist conspiracy, why would they via The John Birch Society, advertise their deep dislike of JFK with a full page newspaper ad, which would only draw suspicion on themselves?

Gerry,

Nobody said the JBS were geniuses.   The fact remains that the Radical Right in Dallas was supremely arrogant -- very proud -- they called it patriotism, while others would call it treason.  The JBS were absolutely certain that they were Right. 

Besides -- as Radical Rightist Joseph Milteer later said -- "We got a Jew to sign his name to the black-bordered DMN ad, and we got a Jew to kill the Patsy.  We're covered" (Caufield, 2015, paraphrase).

I thank God that J. Edgar Hoover saw through the Radical Right plot immediately, and covered it up with the Lone Nut theory to prevent the USSR from exploiting the truth. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


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

IMHO, a diversion was less important than to silence Oswald soon after the Big Event.  It seems the other shooters were well hidden and/or disguised, had phony SSA diverting cops and spectators, possibly used silencers, and took advantage of the commotion and confusion of the crowds to quietly slip away.

Gerry,

No need for the assassins to slip away -- they were wearing DPD uniforms -- and so they just began searching the GN parking lot like all the other cops.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

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

×
×
  • Create New...