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

20 hours ago, David Lifton said:

...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... 

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)....

DSL

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

Los Angeles, California

David,

I agree with you emphatically on these two points:

1. The Warren Commission (led by Hoover and the FBI) made every effort to "de-politicize" the JFK assassination.  It was not a Communist event.  It was not a Radical Right event.  It was a Lone Nut event.  The very definition of Lone Nut could be, "de-politicize."

2.  The JFK Kill Team had clearly planned -- months in advance -- to kill not only JFK but also Lee Harvey Oswald.  This was reported as early as January 1965 by Harry Dean on the Joe Pyne Show, when he named General Walker as the leader of the plot revealed to select JBS members in Southern California in September, 1963. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2017 at 8:24 AM, Paul Trejo said:

Paul B.,

I assure you that I have no intention of being the moderator of this thread.   It's your thread.   If you'll kindly notice, most of my posts here are in response to questions by others directed to me.

IMHO, everybody here can see the crux of the issue -- David Lifton will argue in his forthcoming book that the JFK Cover-up was pre-planned down to the pre-autopsy autopsy and the Lone Nut theory.

Many readers doubt this scenario -- others rightly regard David Lifton as a world-renowned expert, and so are willing to follow his argument.

I also want to hear David's argument -- yet my questions are still open; e.g. in what possible scenario would a Lone Nut scenario be pre-planned, even without a pre-autopsy autopsy?

Further -- why would plotters spend six solid months framing Lee Harvey Oswald to look like a Communist plotter -- and then at the last moment switch to a Lone Nut?  Was all that pre-planned, also?   This is the question I posed to David Lifton.  Sure, there are fine points -- but this seems to me to be the main point.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

The answer to your question is really quite simple, so I don't understand what the problem is.

Here's the short version.  You ask: "Was all that pre-planned, also? And answer: Yes, it was. It was planned in advance to falsify the autopsy.  What hasn't been published--yet--are the exact details of how that was supposed to be accomplished, and yet remain undetected.

Here's the longer version--i.e., the longer version,  along with the answer to your question.

THE QUESTION: "In what possible scenario would a Lone Nut scenario be pre-planned, even without a pre-autopsy autopsy?"

The answer (Part 1): The rationale for a "lone nut" scenario

The “lone nut scenario” would be most “PR friendly” to a plot whose major purpose was to operate the U.S. line of succession so as to elevate the Vice President to the presidency, and not for the purpose of starting a war, but simply for the purpose of engineering a transfer of presidential authority, under the least suspicious of circumstances, politically.  The transfer of power, if effected in that manner, would not appear to have a political motive (at least not when measured against—or based upon—the ideological portrait of the supposed assassin.)  In fact, it would appear to be relativeless “motiveless,” i.e., to have no discernible political motive, especially as information emerged that the supposed assassin, Lee Oswald, was in fact an admirer of President Kennedy.

Again,.the motive of such a assassination—based on the lack of any discernible ideology ascribed to the assassin—would not be to start a war or anything like that. It would simply be to make the assassination appear to have been a quirk of fate, a historical accident.  That. in turn, would set the stage for the presidential transfer of power to take under circumstances that would be least likely to provoke suspicions about anyone’s motives. Whether that actually explains what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963 can be debated, but this kind of analysis might certainly apply. TAKING A CLOSER LOOK

Let’s take a closer look at what happened in Dallas that day, based on the way the event of the president’s murder was reported on the Dallas Police Radio, as well as the two major wire services –AP and UPI—which reports were also carried by all major radio and TV radio networks.

When those reports—all focusing on a lone assassin—are juxtaposed with the evidence, published in Best Evidence, that –behind the scenes—considerable covert activity was taking place, inasmuch as the Dallas coffin was empty (at the time AF-1 landed at Andrews Air Force Base); and that President’s body had been removed from the coffin, and the body was covertly altered to support the “lone assassin” or “Oswald-did-it” scenario, the most reasonable purpose behind all this covert activity seems obvious. The answer (Part 2): The purpose of the plot was (primarily) to disguise an "inside job" as an "outside job" in order elevate the vice president to the presidency, in accordance with the presidential succession provisions that are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. If the president dies in office, then the Vice President becomes president. But the point is: that mechanism cannot operate smoothly if there exists evidence that the Vice President (in this case, Lyndon Johnson) somehow colluded with those involved in the murder of the President. Ergo: the safest way to proceed would be to denude the assassination of political meaning.  In such a scenario, framing the pre-selected patsy as a lone nutter--someone who acted on his own, because he was (perhaps) mentally disturbed; or on his own because he was some sort of political fanatic-- makes perfect sense.  By denuding the assassination of political meaning, the operation of the legal mechanism of presidential succession would appear relatively innocent.  If my analysis is correct, Oswald could be cast as mentally disturbed, or a political zealot (of the left or the right) and whether it was "left" or "right"  wouldn't matter. The key to the legality of the Johnson succession would be that Oswald "acted alone." (And if there was a conspiracy, it could be--and would be--labeled as "politically insignificant".)   As for Oswald: whatever the particulars of his motivation, his crime was essentially apolitical; a quirk of fate, an accident of history.

Now go back to your question, and ask another question: why is any of this bothering you?

Again, here's your question: "Why would plotters spend six solid months framing Lee Harvey Oswald to look like a Communist plotter -- and then at the last moment switch to a Lone Nut?"  By way of further response, let me say this:  you seem to be looking for some level of "consistency" that is completely unrealistic, and  in fact unnecessary. 

Consider this additional information; but also keep in mind that those involved in assembling the details of this plot, possibly had different political motives than the person who most benefited  from JFK's murder, the former Vice President, who now was elevated to the presidency. People who were involved in the pre-Dallas "handling" of Oswald may well have had the motive of using the event to roil the American public so as to start a war (e.g., with Cuba) whereas the person who directly benefited from JFK's murder (Lyndon Johnson) may have been quite content to simply assume the presidency, and had no interest in starting any such war. Elements of this conflict may be at play if we take a closer look at how the Oswald portrait "was painted" in the months leading up to Dallas, and contrast that with how Oswald was "presented" to the American people on November 22, 1963.

Is there a divergence?  And if so, then what does it mean?

Your Assertion Of What Oswald Was Made "to look like"

Oswald was not made "to look like a Communist plotter." Those are your words, and they are incorrect.  First of all, Oswald repeatedly said he was not a communist, but a Marxist.  Second: even if you wish to falsely infer that. just because he said he was a Marxist, that therefore he must (in fact) be a communist, that does not make him a plotter.  As my own  filmed interview with Marina Oswald (summer of 1990) made clear --and as broadcast on HARDCOPY (and viewable on YouTube), Marina said that Lee was a great admirer of President Kennedy.  Her exact quote: "Lee adored President Kennedy."  (Some plotter, eh?)  And his best friend, DeMohrenshieldt, also was an admirer of JFK.  So on a number of counts, you are positing false facts in framing your question.  To repeat:  He wasn't a Communist (he was a Marxist); he liked President Kennedy ("adored" him) and he wasn't a plotter, even though he said some provocative things, probably as a consequence of his being an undercover agent.  In  fact, IMHO, Lee Oswald was a pretend Marxist, but that's another whole story, and I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole right here.  But I believe that I have debunked your unwarranted assertion that "plotters spen[t] six solid months framing Lee Harvey Oswald to look like a Communist plotter. . ."

There is one exception to this statement, and that is Oswald's trip to Mexico City, but think I am justified in putting that statement in a separate compartment (so to speak) because the full truth of what happened in Mexico City was concealed (at the time) and didn't become apparent until decades later.  Of course, you're writing in the year 2017, and so you have the benefit of knowing what happened in Mexico City, and how Oswald had a brief meeting with at least one Soviet officials involved in assassination plotting, but that wasn't known at the time).

So let's return to what was known publicly.  And what was known publicly was that Oswald had made a trip to Mexico City, and met with officials at both the Cuban Consulate and Soviet Embassy, because he wanted to get documentation that would permit him to visit Havana.

Then you claim that "at the last moment" there was a "switch to a Lone Nut" and you ask: How can that be?  Why did that happen?  I don't see the problem.  Let's start with the basics.  Oswald was pre-selected and framed as a left wing sociopath.  The rest of the record speaks for itself.  I happen not to agree with the David Ferrie "add -on" or the Bannister "add-on".  But all of that is really beside the point.  Oswald was supposed to die, anyway, so it would have been--and was--very easy to take his appearance and mold it into the politically convenient picture of a left-wing radical, acting alone. Bottom line: a sociopath.  I have no idea if there were senior people connected with the implementation of this plot who had a much darker motive; and who believed that Oswald's Mexico City trip would serve as the fuse to ignite a public  firestorm that would lead to an invasion of Cuba, but its pretty clear, from the known record, that Lyndon Johnson was having none of that (even if that was a possibility).  He simply wanted the presidency. Period. 

So what's the problem?  It seems to me that you're hung up because you believe you have spotted a "mismatch" between the "political prep" of Oswald (presumably by unknown plotters)  in the months prior to Dallas (and particular his trip to the Soviet Embassy and Cuban Consulate, when he went to Mexico City, seven weeks weeks prior to Dallas)) and then how his portrait was  actually "made to appear" or was "sold" to the American people on November 22, 1963.  I don't see that much of a mismatch, at all, and the extent to which it can be argued to exist is a mere perturbation on the overall situation.

As Oswald was actually presented to the American public on November 22, 1963, the dominant theme was that here was an ex-Marine sharpshooter had defected to the Soviet Union back in October 1959, and then lived there for about two and three quarter years, returning in June 1962. Then he ended up *by happenstance)  taking a job a location in Dallas that (by coincidence) ended up being located on the presidential parade route; and then, on the day of Kennedy's visit, took advantage of a target of opportunity.  In short the entire event was  treated, in the Warren Report, as a historical accident, a quirk of fate. As Kennedy's close friend and speechwriter, Theodore Sorensen, said, however detestable, it was simply a case of "a Marxist who got lucky with a gun."

WHAT SHADE OF "RED" - - DOES IT MATTER?

To the American people, Oswald was a "Red"; period. Do you think they really cared what hue of red or pink he was?  Do you think 90% of the American people even knew, when the backyard photos were first published (in Feb 1964) ,the difference (in the world of communism) between The Militant and the Worker. the two newspapers he was holding in the backyard photographs taken in late March, 1963?   Do you think they had the slightest awareness that it would appear inconsistent for someone who was posing with the paper published by the followers of Leon Trotsky (the Militant), representing the Socialist Workers Party, represented something completely different than the paper published by the followers of Josef Stalin and the American Communist Party?  How many people do you think were even aware that Stalin arranged for the murder of Trotsky?  Or even cared?  For all practical purposes, Oswald could have been posing with two comic books-one showing Batman, and the other, Superman.  It was that inconsequential.  So., . .I think you are really laboring hard to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Oswald was a Communist, period.  That was good enough. But what was important was that, according to official pronouncements, the evidence clearly indicated that he was the assassin of President Kennedy. And that he "acted alone." That's what made it "apolitical."

The reason the evidence "looked" that way was that the autopsy results had been falsified.  And the reason all of that was so convincing was that, by the time of autopsy, the body had been altered. It was tantamount to a medical forgery.  It told a false story of the shooting.

THE TERM "BENIGN"

As for your use of the word "benign": I don't see any "benign" explanation for body alteration, any more than I see a "benign" explanation for the framing of Oswald or a "benign" explanation for firing shots at Kennedy from the grassy knoll (or anywhere else, for that matter).  None of it is benign, and none of it is justifiable.  For any reason.

If you want to postulate that the President was shot by professional snipers and that  a group of doctors was standing by --pick your location--to receive the body, do an autopsy, and completely lie about the medical facts, then be my guest.  I can give you a dozen reason why that "model of conspiracy" won't work.  You cannot escape the fact that, as stated in the Journal of Forensic Science about fifty years ago: "The most important single piece of evidence was the body of the late President, itself. The Government's entire case against Lee Harvey Oswald rests upon the body."  None of this is particularly "political."  Its just logical. The body tells the story of the shooting; so if it was planned in advance to blame a pre-selected scapegoat, then plotters had to be prepared  to get the bullets out, and---depending on the geometry of the shooting--also prepared to alter the wound geometry.  So all this talk about a "benign" pre-autopsy is completely irrelevant; as irrelevant as talking about a "benign" (but fake) snipers nest.

The alteration of the body--call it "pre-planned autopsy falsification," if you will--permitted a complete separation between two distinct plot functions: (A) The planning a shooting, with one or more professional snipers, on Dealey Plaza, and (B) the plannig of the "Oswald did it" story, which was acted out at the TSBD, and then in the minutes following, when the "sniper's nest" was discovered.

It seems to me unreasonable to allege that (at least) six months of planning went into the "political prep" for the pre-selected patsy; but that no comparable planning went into the recognition of "the body problem".  Its not just unlikely--but frankly impossible for me to believe--that all of this planning went into the shooting, and the "blaming" of Oswald and yet no one thought of the problem posed by the Presidents body , which would contain "other bullets"; i.e., the bullets of "other assassins." If the assassination was presented to the American people, on November 22, 1963, as an "apolitical" event, then that represents a  deliberate "policy decision" (of sorts) by top officials of the U.S. Government.

The bottom line is that President Kennedy, according to the first group of doctors who saw the President (in Dallas) was shot from the front--having sustained an entry wound in the front of the throat, and an exit at the back of his head.  But Oswald --on whom the assassination was blamed--was located "above and behind" the motorcade.  So the autopsy had to be falsified for the assasination to be credibly blamed on him.

So that, among other reasons, is why "body alteration" had to be pre-planned, and an integral part of the planning of this crime.

DSL

4/14/2017 - 6:10 a.m. PDT; modified and edited, 4/15/17, 6 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

 

 

 

 

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 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

Michael:

Here are some of the basic facts of the chronology of the investigation.

1.Based on the DPD radio logs, pinpointing the occurred between 12:30 and 12:37 pm CST

 

2. The description of “the assassin” was put out at 12:42 pm (or 12:48)

 

3. The Tippit murder didn’t occur until 1:16- 1:18 pm

            (i.e., it wasn’t reported on the DPD radio, until that time)

 

So—for abut 45 minutes, there was no huge distraction.  Oswald had somehow disappeared.   (He just isn’t to be found, in terms of the Dallas Police investigation, and his existence –as “the sniper”—was not known to the DPD, nor was his presence responsible for any massive build-up of a police presence other than at Dealey Plaza). 

 

To repeat: The sniper had no description till 12:45 p.m., and he didn’t show up on the DPD radar until 1:16-1:18.

 

So. . returning now to Dealey Plaza . . . where there was indeed quite a bit of “buzz” around the TSBD.

 

For 45 minutes—at least—there was no distraction.  No massive deployment of police forces.

 

So. . what happened to the “gang” of assassins?

 

Where are they?

 

How did they exfiltrate?

 

Of course, a defender of the official version might respond: “There never was any such  “gang”.  Its all a figment of your imagination.

 

I am not saying I agree with that.  I’m pointing to the deficiencies in the very glib conjecturing that goes on, and simply pointing out that that is no substitute for serious analysis.

 

Any such analysis has to be anchored in the known record; or, if that leads to a false answer, then to a valid theory as to how that known record was—somehow—falsified.

The notion—in your post(s)—that Oswald’s supposed “escape” resulted in the deployment of forces away from Dealey Plaza is not supported by the known historical record.

 

I realize you put in some time, and came up with a hypothesis. I’m simply pointing out the very serious deficiencies of that hypothesis, and why I think it is incorrect.

DSL

4/14/2017 - 6:25 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

David Lifton,

1.  IMHO the DPD *was* the ambush team.

2.  IMHO the DPD did not need an exit strategy -- since simply being Police was the exit strategy.

3.  That is, nobody in Dallas would question the boys in blue.

4.  I am not portraying all Dallas Police with this corruption -- but only a small number.  However, the Team Comradery of the DPD was a big help.

5.  On this point I defer to Professor Walt Brown (Treachery in Dallas, 1995) and Will Turner (Power on the Right, 1978)

6.  I maintain shots from the Grassy Knoll.  When the crowds rushed to the Grassy Knoll they saw nobody EXCEPT DALLAS POLICE.

7.  Since nobody in Dallas would suspect the Dallas Police, that has translated (even after a half-century) to "they saw nobody."

8.  That answers your pressing questions:  "Where are they located?  How did they exit?"

9.  As for your question: "How come nobody saw them shooting," that has been answered by Badgeman theories.

10.  I maintain that Badgeman was real -- and also that JD Tippit was a likely candidate for Badgeman.

11.  JD Tippit worked at Austin's BBQ in Dallas on weekends -- where and when General Walker held his Radical Right meetings.

12.  Oswald was not a shooter in this affair.  However, Oswald was tricked by trusted friends in Interpen into handing over his rifle that morning.

13.  IMHO, there was never any reason to cover up the fact that it was an ambush -- not as far as the JFK Killers were concerned. 

14.  The JFK Killers wanted to promote a Communist, Castro ambush.

15.  Even the arrest of Oswald would not cause them to change their minds -- they knew Oswald would be dead very soon.

16.  The only reason for the JFK Cover-up of a military-style ambush was so that the US Government could prevent the USSR from a propaganda victory when the Truth came out.

17.  That is the only reason that Oswald was blamed.  As Marguerite Oswald said (roughly) "No military man has ever done more for his country."

18.  There was no Cover-up until the arrest of Oswald -- because the identity of Oswald told J. Edgar Hoover that Guy Banister was behind the JFK murder.

19.  Again -- as Larry Hancock suggested -- the Parkland stretcher bullet was a "pointy" bullet -- possibly to reinforce a multi-shooter scenario.

20.  By 3pm CST, the FBI had been told to manipulate all evidence -- ballistics, crime scene, medical, film, photo, witnesses, suspects and their families -- to conform to the Lone Nut scenario.  That explains all evidence tampering 100%.

21.  You are correct that within 5 minutes of the JFK shooting, some Dallas Police were acting in concert with a Conspiracy.  That was planned -- but that was not a Lone Nut plan -- not yet.  That would not come until 3pm CST from J. Edgar Hoover.

22.  As for the sniper's nest -- it was Keystone Kops -- because eye-witnesses told the Dallas Police that they saw a rifle extend from the TSBD 6th floor window -- YET IT TOOK FORTY MINUTES FOR THE DALLAS POLICE TO SEARCH THE SIXTH FLOOR. 

23.  More likely they were building a fake sniper's nest. 

24.  Again -- a few DPD cops were in on the plot, but most DPD cops were ignorant of it, and only responded to the chaos.

25.  Ron's “Castro-ambushed” Dealey Plaza CT is very nearly correct -- that is -- that is exactly what the JFK Killers tried to portray to the world.

26.  Your new book, David, will in my opinion need to address in some detail the claims made by Jeff Caufield in his recent book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

27.  I don't think it will do to simply dismiss it because the theory is so new, and has hardly been hinted in the past half-century.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Re youe poINT 25 AND 26 (above):

Yes, I will take a look at his book, but many of the reviews are pretty awful.

I know you gave it a high rating, but many readers have a different view.

One star:

Ponderous, Pathetic

Bywicklow7on November 25, 2016

One of the worst pieces of junk ever written about the Kennedy assassination. I read about 600 pages and gave up. People like General Walker and General Pedro del Valle deserve a close examination by anyone interested in the history and evolution of the American far right and I bought the book figuring that even if I didn't buy the "conspiracy theory" angle, it would be worth it for the background information. Instead I was buried in a tsunami of speculation, bold claims, more speculation, more bold claims, rinse and repeat. There is maybe about 200 pages worth of useful information scattered in a 1,000 pages of blather.

ANOTHER:

It took a long while to finish this huge tome on someones's hunch. Sorry, it didn't convince me. Page upon page of hundreds of visits, meetings speeches, with the same right wing nuts involved and no real evidence? I stopped reading about chapter6 and skimmed the rest.. . .  Garrison's lopsided,investigation had more,substance than this book. Sure, lots of great research on every right wing meeting and all the participants but if so detailed where is the smoking gun aimed at the truth vs guess work?

DiEugenio:

A overlong, pretentious and overblown book that does not prove any of its key theses.

ANOTHER:

This book is pure crap. Never have I read such distortions. If this man practices medicine as badly as his "research" his license would have been rescinded. This clown has distorted facts, confused the various individuals and simply manufactured his own theories and presented them as fact.

ANOTHER:

Hogwash as my Grandmother would have said. If this is a well researched and documented book, I am a nuclear scientist.

  . . . But thanks for letting me know.

 

DSL

4/15/17 -6:35 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California


 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Michael:

Here are some of the basic facts of the chronology of the investigation......

----------------------------

I realize you put in some time, and came up with a hypothesis. I’m simply pointing out the very serious deficiencies of that hypothesis, and why I think it is incorrect.

 

DSL

4/14/2017 - 6:25 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Thanks David. Like photo-analysis, I admittedly shy away from getting into the nitty-gritty task of accounting for minutes and seconds. This is not due to laziness. It is simply because I doubt my own accounting, accuracy and ultimately the ability to creating a meaningful scenario or argument based on such minutia.

I appreciate your taking the time to provide the above data and will juxtapose it with my beliefs, understandings and suppositions and re-evaluate my fluid theory.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


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

The answer to your question is really quite simple, so I don't understand what the problem is.

The short version. . . .  You ask: "Was all that pre-planned, also? And answer: Yes, it was. It was planned in advance to falsify the autopsy.

What hasn't been published--yet--are the exact details of how that was supposed to be accomplished, and yet remain undetected.

Here's the longer version--i.e., the longer version, with the answer to your queston.

THE QUESTION: "In what possible scenario would a Lone Nut scenario be pre-planned, even without a pre-autopsy autopsy?"

The answer: The purpose of the plot was to disguise an "inside job" as an "outside job" in order elevate the vice president to the presidency, in accordance with the presidential succession provisions that are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. If the president dies in office, then the Vice President becomes president. But the point is: that mechanism cannot operate smoothly if there exists evidence that the Vice President (in this case, Lyndon Johnson) somehow colluded with those involved in the murder of the President. Ergo: the safest way to proceed is to denude the assassination of political meaning.  In such a scenario, framing the pre-selected patsy as a lone nutter--someone who acted on his own, because he was (perhaps) mentally disturbed; or on his own because he was some sort of political fanatic-- makes perfect sense.  By denuding the assassination of political meaning, the operation of the legal mechanism of presidential succession would appear relatively innocent.  If my analysis is correct, Oswald could be cast as mentally disturbed, or a political zealot (of the left or the right) and it wouldn't matter. The key to the legality of the Johnson succession would be that Oswald "acted alone." (And if there was a conspiracy, it could be--and would be--labeled as "politically insignificant." As for Oswald: hatever the particulars of his motivation, his crime was essentially apolitical; a quirk of fate, an accident of history.

Now go back to your question, and ask another question: why is any of this bothering you? :

Again, here's your question: "Why would plotters spend six solid months framing Lee Harvey Oswald to look like a Communist plotter -- and then at the last moment switch to a Lone Nut?"  By way of further response: you seem to be looking for some level of "consistency" that is completely unrealistic, and  in fact unnecessary. 

Consider this additional information.

Your Assertion Of What Oswald Was Made "to look like"

Oswald was not made "to look like a Communist plotter." Those are your words, and they are incorrect.  First of all, Oswald repeatedly said he was not a communist, but a Marxist.  Second: even if you wish to falsely infer that. just because he said he was a Marxist, that therefore he must (in fact) be a communist, that does not make him a plotter.  As my own  filmed interview with Marina Oswald (summer of 1990) made clear --and as broadcast on HARDCOPY (and viewable on YouTUbe), Marina said that Lee was a great admirer of President Kennedy.  Her exact quote: "Lee adored President Kennedy."  (Some plotter, eh?)  And his best friend, DeMohrenshieldt, also was an admirer of JFK.  So on a number of counts, you are positing false facts in framing your question.  To repeat:  He wasn't a Communist (he was a Marxist); he liked President Kennedy ("adored" him) and he wasn't a plotter, even though he said some provocative things, probably as a consequence of his being an undercover agent.  In  fact, IMHO, Lee Oswald was a pretend Marxist, but that's another whole story, and I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole right here.  But I believe that I have debunked your unwarranted assertion that "plotters spen[t] six solid months framing Lee Harvey Oswald to look like a Communist plotter. . ."

Then you claim that "at the last moment" there was a "switch to a Lone Nut"? I don't see the problem.  Oswald was pre-selected and framed as a left wing sociopath. The rest of the record speaks for itself.  I happen not to agree with the David Ferrie "add -on" or the Bannister "add-on".  But all of that is really beside the point.  Oswald was supposed to die, anyway, so it would have been--and was--very easy to take his appearance and mold it into the politically convenient picture of a left wing radical, acting alone. I have no idea if there were senior people connected with the implementation of this plot who believed that it would serve as the fuse to ignite a public  firestorm that would lead to an invasion of Cuba, but its pretty clear, from the known record, that Lyndon Johnson was having none of that (even if that was a possibility).  He simply wanted the presidency. Period. 

So what's the problem?  It seems to me that you're hung up because you believe you have spotted a "mismatch" between the "political prep" of Oswald (presumably by unknown plotters)  in the months prior to Dallas, and then how his portrait was  actually "made to appear" or was "sold" to the American people on November 22, 1963.  I don't see that much of a mismatch, at all, and the extent to which it can be argued to exist is a mere perturbation on the overall situation.

WHAT SHADE OF "RED" - - DOES IT MATTER?

To the American people, Oswald was a "Red"; period. Do you think they really cared what hue of red or pink he was?  Do you think 90% of the American people even knew, when the backyard photos were first published (in Feb 1964) ,the difference (in the world of communism) between The Militant and the Worker. the two newspapers he was holding in the backyard photographs taken in late March, 1963?   Do you think they had the slightest awareness that it would appear inconsistent for someone who was posing with the paper published by the followers of Leon Trotsky (the Militant), representing the Socialist Workers Party, represented something completely different than the paper published by the followers of Josef Stalin and the American Communist Party?  How many people do you think were even aware that Stalin arranged for the murder of Trotsky?  Or even cared?  For all practical purposes, Oswald could have been posing with two comic books-one showing Batman, and the other, Superman.  It was that inconsequential.  So., . .I think you are really laboring hard to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Oswald was a Communist, period.  That was good enough. But what was important was that, according to official pronouncements, the evidence clearly indicated that he was the assassin of President Kennedy. And that he "acted alone." That's what made it "apolitical."

The reason the evidence "looked" that way was that the autopsy results had been falsified.  And the reason all of that was so convincing was that, by the time of autopsy, the body had been altered.

THE TERM "BENIGN"

As for your use of the word "benign": I don't see any "benign" explanation for body alteration, any more than I see a "benign" explanation for the framing of Oswald or a "benign" explanation for firing shots at Kennedy from the grassy knoll (or anywhere else, for that matter).  None of it is benign, and none of it is justifiable.  For any reason.

If you want to postulate that the President was shot by professional snipers and that  a group of doctors was standing by --pick your location--to receive the body, do an autopsy, and completely lie about the medical facts, then be my guest.  I can give you a dozen reason why that "model of conspiracy" won't work.  You cannot escape the fact that, as stated in the Journal of Forensic Science about fifty years ago: "The most important single piece of evidence was the body of the late President, itself. The Government's entire case against Lee Harvey Oswald rests upon the body."  None of this is particularly "political."  Its just logical. The body tells the story of the shooting; so if it was planned in advance to blame a pre-selected scapegoat, then plotters had to be prepared  to get the bullets out, and---depending on the geometry of the shooting--also prepared to alter the wound geometry.  So all this talk about a "benign" pre-autopsy is completely irrelevant; as irrelevant as talking about a "benign" (but fake) snipers nest.

The alteration of the body--call it "pre-planned autopsy falsification," if you will--permitted a complete separation between two distinct plot functions: (A) The planning a shooting, with one or more professional snipers, on Dealey Plaza, and (B) the plannig of the "Oswald did it" story, which was acted out at the TSBD, and then in the minutes following, when the "sniper's nest" was discovered.

It seems to me unreasonable to allege that (at least) six months of planning went into the "political prep" for the pre-selected patsy; but that no comparable planning went into the recognition of "the body problem".  Its not just unlikely--but frankly mpossible for me to believe--that all of this planning went into the shooting, and the "blaming" of Oswald and yet no one thought of the problem posed by the Presidents body , which would contain "other bullets"; i.e., the bullets of "other assassins."

So that, among other reasons, is why "body alteration" had to be pre-planned, and an integral part of the planning of this crime.

DSL

4/14/2017 - 6:10 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

 

David,

First, I want to say that I agree with you that the body alteration had to have been preplanned. That conclusion seems inescapable to me.

That said, you tried to make a point in your post that doesn't ring true to me. You said:

"Oswald was not made "to look like a Communist plotter." Those are [Paul Trejo's] words, and they are incorrect."

I don't know how you can say that Oswald wasn't made to look like a communist plotter. What about the Oswald impersonator in Mexico City who was alleged to have talked to Valeriy Kostikov, the Soviet agent who was linked to "executive action" -- sabotage and assassinations -- according to the CIA? And what about that friendly letter allegedly sent by Oswald's to his pals at the Russian Embassy, which mentioned his conversation with Kostin (Kostikov)?

It sure sounds to me like Oswald was made to look like a communist plotter.

After the assassination Oswald was made out to be a lone nut. So there was a switch from "communist plotter" to "lone nut" at that point, it seems to me.

Please comment. Thanks.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


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

The answer to your question is really quite simple, so I don't understand what the problem is.

The short version. . . .  You ask: "Was all that pre-planned, also? And answer: Yes, it was. It was planned in advance to falsify the autopsy.

What hasn't been published--yet--are the exact details of how that was supposed to be accomplished, and yet remain undetected.

Here's the longer version--i.e., the longer version, with the answer to your queston.

THE QUESTION: "In what possible scenario would a Lone Nut scenario be pre-planned, even without a pre-autopsy autopsy?"

The answer: The purpose of the plot was to disguise an "inside job" as an "outside job" in order elevate the vice president to the presidency, in accordance with the presidential succession provisions that are set forth in the U.S. Constitution. If the president dies in office, then the Vice President becomes president. But the point is: that mechanism cannot operate smoothly if there exists evidence that the Vice President (in this case, Lyndon Johnson) somehow colluded with those involved in the murder of the President. Ergo: the safest way to proceed is to denude the assassination of political meaning.  In such a scenario, framing the pre-selected patsy as a lone nutter--someone who acted on his own, because he was (perhaps) mentally disturbed; or on his own because he was some sort of political fanatic-- makes perfect sense.  By denuding the assassination of political meaning, the operation of the legal mechanism of presidential succession would appear relatively innocent.  If my analysis is correct, Oswald could be cast as mentally disturbed, or a political zealot (of the left or the right) and it wouldn't matter. The key to the legality of the Johnson succession would be that Oswald "acted alone." (And if there was a conspiracy, it could be--and would be--labeled as "politically insignificant." As for Oswald: hatever the particulars of his motivation, his crime was essentially apolitical; a quirk of fate, an accident of history.

 <snip>

DSL

4/14/2017 - 6:10 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

David,

Thanks for your extended answer to my questions.  I will answer in four posts, for ease of reading. 

QUESTION #1: "In what possible scenario would a Lone Nut scenario be pre-planned, even without a pre-autopsy autopsy?"

YOUR ANSWER #1:  To elevate LBJ to the Presidency, and to hide the collusion of LBJ in the JFK murder.

In your view, the "safest way to proceed is to denude the assassination of political meaning," so that the Lone Nut scenario would take all light off of LBJ.

The Lone Nut only had to be a Nut (so it didn't matter if it was left or right, in your opinion), only that he "acted alone," that is, "apolitical" that is, "a quirk." 

On this logic, it was merely chance that LHO was branded a Nut of the "Left," even though JFK called Dallas the "nut country" of the Right, after seeing the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill.

OK, that's your answer: the old LBJ-did-it CT.  It has a long history, starting with Craig Zirbel's book, The Texas Connection (1991), which may still be the best of that genre, since it's short and to the point.

At least now that perfectly clear.  The LBJ-did-it CT will be the thesis of your new book.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


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

....Again, here's your question: "Why would plotters spend six solid months framing Lee Harvey Oswald to look like a Communist plotter -- and then at the last moment switch to a Lone Nut?"  By way of further response: you seem to be looking for some level of "consistency" that is completely unrealistic, and  in fact unnecessary. 

Consider this additional information.

Your Assertion Of What Oswald Was Made "to look like"

Oswald was not made "to look like a Communist plotter." Those are your words, and they are incorrect.  First of all, Oswald repeatedly said he was not a communist, but a Marxist.  Second: even if you wish to falsely infer that. just because he said he was a Marxist, that therefore he must (in fact) be a communist, that does not make him a plotter.  As my own  filmed interview with Marina Oswald (summer of 1990) made clear --and as broadcast on HARDCOPY (and viewable on YouTUbe), Marina said that Lee was a great admirer of President Kennedy.  Her exact quote: "Lee adored President Kennedy."  (Some plotter, eh?)  And his best friend, DeMohrenshieldt, also was an admirer of JFK.  So on a number of counts, you are positing false facts in framing your question.  To repeat:  He wasn't a Communist (he was a Marxist); he liked President Kennedy ("adored" him) and he wasn't a plotter, even though he said some provocative things, probably as a consequence of his being an undercover agent.  In  fact, IMHO, Lee Oswald was a pretend Marxist, but that's another whole story, and I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole right here.  But I believe that I have debunked your unwarranted assertion that "plotters spen[t] six solid months framing Lee Harvey Oswald to look like a Communist plotter. . ."

Then you claim that "at the last moment" there was a "switch to a Lone Nut"? I don't see the problem.  Oswald was pre-selected and framed as a left wing sociopath. The rest of the record speaks for itself.  I happen not to agree with the David Ferrie "add -on" or the Bannister "add-on".  But all of that is really beside the point.  Oswald was supposed to die, anyway, so it would have been--and was--very easy to take his appearance and mold it into the politically convenient picture of a left wing radical, acting alone. I have no idea if there were senior people connected with the implementation of this plot who believed that it would serve as the fuse to ignite a public  firestorm that would lead to an invasion of Cuba, but its pretty clear, from the known record, that Lyndon Johnson was having none of that (even if that was a possibility).  He simply wanted the presidency. Period. 

So what's the problem?  It seems to me that you're hung up because you believe you have spotted a "mismatch" between the "political prep" of Oswald (presumably by unknown plotters)  in the months prior to Dallas, and then how his portrait was  actually "made to appear" or was "sold" to the American people on November 22, 1963.  I don't see that much of a mismatch, at all, and the extent to which it can be argued to exist is a mere perturbation on the overall situation.

 <snip>

DSL

4/14/2017 - 6:10 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

David,

MY QUESTION #2: "Why would plotters spend six solid months framing Lee Harvey Oswald to look like a Communist plotter -- and then at the last moment switch to a Lone Nut?" 

YOUR ANSWER #2:  Oswald was *not* made "to look like a Communist plotter," as claimed. 

2.1. You cite the fact that Oswald said he was a Marxist not a Communist, and that even his Marxism was a phony fake.   Yet I have always agreed with that fact.

2.2. You cite the fact that Marina said that Oswald liked JFK, and so did George DM.  Yet I have always agreed with those facts.

2.3. I never said that Oswald was a Communist, a Marxist, that he hated JFK, or that he was a plotter.  I only said Oswald was made to "LOOK" like one.  And I was right.  In fact, you later agreed with me.

2.4.  So, my phrase still stands: "plotters spent six solid months framing Lee Harvey Oswald to look like a Communist plotter."

2.5.  Obviously, then, this work was wasted -- simply wasted -- when LHO was switched to a Lone Nut on the afternoon of 11/22/1963.

2.6.  You really don't see the problem?  You really think the record "speaks for itself," after a half-century of diverse CT's? 

2.7.  I also agree that Oswald was supposed to die on 11/22/1963.

2.8.  Yet IMHO you are presuming that the Lone Nut was pre-planned, David, instead of actually demonstrating it.  It's your assumption at the start, as well as your conclusion at the end.

2.9. It's like your LBJ-did-it conclusion -- you simply assume it at the start.

2.10.  The fact remains that the Radical Right in New Orleans and in Dallas *did* want to invade Cuba.  And they almost got their way by blaming a COMMUNIST for the JFK murder.

2.11.  I still see a "mismatch" between the "political prep" of Oswald in the months prior to Dallas, and then how his portrait was "sold" to the USA on 11/22/1963.

2.12.  You said "(presumably by unknown plotters)" but I thought I've been clear for many weeks that the plotters were the Radical Right in New Orleans and Dallas.

2.13.  I have said for years that Jim Garrison was right to name Guy Banister and 544 Camp Street as the heart of Oswald's Rightist activity -- and that the gang at 544 Camp Street actively "sheep-dipped" Oswald during the summer of 1963.

2.14. These plotters are KNOWN.  Many of them already confessed, including Frank Sturgis, Loran Hall, Gerry Patrick Hemming, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, David Morales, E. Howard Hunt, Thomas Beckham, and others already well-known.

2.15.  Jeff Caufield also names Joseph Milteer, Guy Banister, and many other members of the Radical Right in 1963.

2.16.  So, no, I never presumed that the plotters were unknown.  They are KNOWN, and they clearly and deliberately framed Oswald to look like a COMMUNIST during the summer of 1963.

2.17.  Why would they do that -- for months -- and then give up to a Lone Nut theory on 11/22/1963?  I cite Jim Garrison on my side in this argument.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


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

...WHAT SHADE OF "RED" - - DOES IT MATTER?

To the American people, Oswald was a "Red"; period. Do you think they really cared what hue of red or pink he was?  Do you think 90% of the American people even knew, when the backyard photos were first published (in Feb 1964) ,the difference (in the world of communism) between The Militant and the Worker. the two newspapers he was holding in the backyard photographs taken in late March, 1963?   Do you think they had the slightest awareness that it would appear inconsistent for someone who was posing with the paper published by the followers of Leon Trotsky (the Militant), representing the Socialist Workers Party, represented something completely different than the paper published by the followers of Josef Stalin and the American Communist Party?  How many people do you think were even aware that Stalin arranged for the murder of Trotsky?  Or even cared?  For all practical purposes, Oswald could have been posing with two comic books-one showing Batman, and the other, Superman.  It was that inconsequential.  So., . .I think you are really laboring hard to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Oswald was a Communist, period.  That was good enough. But what was important was that, according to official pronouncements, the evidence clearly indicated that he was the assassin of President Kennedy. And that he "acted alone." That's what made it "apolitical."

The reason the evidence "looked" that way was that the autopsy results had been falsified.  And the reason all of that was so convincing was that, by the time of autopsy, the body had been altered.

<snip>

DSL

4/14/2017 - 6:10 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

David,

As for the Shade of Red -- of course most Americans have no clue about the shades of Marxism, nor do they care.  But in this argument, David, you have agreed with me, that is, that Oswald was made to "LOOK" like a Communist to the American people.

My question remains open -- how does a COMMUNIST come to be regarded as a Lone Nut?  The only possible explanation is that Americans never knew (and still don't know) what Communist Marxism is -- or how it operates in cells.  In reality, there never was such a thing as a "Lone" Marxist.

Yet again, David, you are presuming the Lone Nut scenario here -- rushing through the data to get to your LBJ-did-it scenario.  You are presuming exactly what needs to be demonstrated.

Obviously a Lone Nut is "apolitical."  The real question is how this would be pre-planned in the context of the New Orleans sheep-dip.

In your scenario, LBJ and his conspirators pre-planned LHO as a Lone Nut.  But you have no evidence for this -- how could there be?  There is nothing anywhere to suggest that LBJ ever heard of Lee Harvey Oswald before 11/22/1963.

To claim that the pre-autopsy autopsy was planned before 11/22/1963, you must first presume the LBJ-did-it CT.  Then everything follows.  But if you had to prove it with actual data -- it doesn't follow.  That's my point.

Yes, there was a pre-autopsy autopsy.  No, that doesn't prove that LBJ killed JFK.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


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

 ...THE TERM "BENIGN"

As for your use of the word "benign": I don't see any "benign" explanation for body alteration, any more than I see a "benign" explanation for the framing of Oswald or a "benign" explanation for firing shots at Kennedy from the grassy knoll (or anywhere else, for that matter).  None of it is benign, and none of it is justifiable.  For any reason.

If you want to postulate that the President was shot by professional snipers and that  a group of doctors was standing by --pick your location--to receive the body, do an autopsy, and completely lie about the medical facts, then be my guest.  I can give you a dozen reason why that "model of conspiracy" won't work.  You cannot escape the fact that, as stated in the Journal of Forensic Science about fifty years ago: "The most important single piece of evidence was the body of the late President, itself. The Government's entire case against Lee Harvey Oswald rests upon the body."  None of this is particularly "political."  Its just logical. The body tells the story of the shooting; so if it was planned in advance to blame a pre-selected scapegoat, then plotters had to be prepared  to get the bullets out, and---depending on the geometry of the shooting--also prepared to alter the wound geometry.  So all this talk about a "benign" pre-autopsy is completely irrelevant; as irrelevant as talking about a "benign" (but fake) snipers nest.

The alteration of the body--call it "pre-planned autopsy falsification," if you will--permitted a complete separation between two distinct plot functions: (A) The planning a shooting, with one or more professional snipers, on Dealey Plaza, and (B) the plannig of the "Oswald did it" story, which was acted out at the TSBD, and then in the minutes following, when the "sniper's nest" was discovered.

It seems to me unreasonable to allege that (at least) six months of planning went into the "political prep" for the pre-selected patsy; but that no comparable planning went into the recognition of "the body problem".  Its not just unlikely--but frankly mpossible for me to believe--that all of this planning went into the shooting, and the "blaming" of Oswald and yet no one thought of the problem posed by the Presidents body , which would contain "other bullets"; i.e., the bullets of "other assassins."

So that, among other reasons, is why "body alteration" had to be pre-planned, and an integral part of the planning of this crime.

DSL

4/14/2017 - 6:10 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

David,

MY QUESTION #4.  "Can there be a benign theory of the pre-autopsy autopsy?"

YOUR ANSWER #4.  No, because it is impossible for murder or framing anybody to be benign, so no faked autopsy in this service can be benign.

4.1.  Yet this simply presumes that the faked autopsy was in the service of the JFK murder and the framing of LHO.

4.2.  You presume it by presuming the LBJ-did-it CT.

4.3.  My question was very different -- it was asked in the context that the JFK Cover-up Team was different from the JFK Kill Team. 

4.4.  So, again: if (and only if) the JFK Cover-up Team was different from the JFK Kill Team, can it be that the pre-autopsy autopsy was conceived on 11/22/1963 in order to preserve the National Security of the USA in the Cold War, to hide the fact from the world that the US Radical Right killed JFK in cold blood?

4.5.  As for the Bethesda doctors lying about it ON SHORT NOTICE, that is very easily explained -- no problem -- by National Security. 

4.6.  LBJ, Hoover, Warren and Dulles all agreed that the Lone Nut theory was necessary for National Security. 

4.7.  The doctors at Bethesda were also military men, and would follow reasonable orders.  Of course they would promote the Lone Shooter myth -- in the interest of the National Security of the USA.

4.8.  Of course the Journal of Forensic Science was correct.  Of course the whole case of the JFK assassination rests in the body.

4.9.  Yet if the US Government had been willing to say (as Guy Banister and General Walker wanted to say) that Oswald was a COMMUNIST, then there would have been no need to get any extra bullets out.  

4.10.  We seem to agree, David, that the JFK murder involved multiple shooters, and a faked snipers nest.

4.11.  Yet I still see no body problem until the afternoon of 11/22/1963, when the problem of National Security became clear -- because if Oswald really *was* a Communist, then WAR WITH THE COMMUNISTS was absolutely guaranteed.  Guaranteed.

4.12.  So, because the US Government figured out quickly that Oswald had been framed as a Communist, it became a matter of National Security.  The body had to be falsified.
 
Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


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

Re youe poINT 25 AND 26 (above):

Yes, I will take a look at his book, but many of the reviews are pretty awful.

I know you gave it a high rating, but many readers have a different view.

One star:

Ponderous, Pathetic

Bywicklow7on November 25, 2016

One of the worst pieces of junk ever written about the Kennedy assassination. I read about 600 pages and gave up. People like General Walker and General Pedro del Valle deserve a close examination by anyone interested in the history and evolution of the American far right and I bought the book figuring that even if I didn't buy the "conspiracy theory" angle, it would be worth it for the background information. Instead I was buried in a tsunami of speculation, bold claims, more speculation, more bold claims, rinse and repeat. There is maybe about 200 pages worth of useful information scattered in a 1,000 pages of blather.

ANOTHER:

It took a long while to finish this huge tome on someones's hunch. Sorry, it didn't convince me. Page upon page of hundreds of visits, meetings speeches, with the same right wing nuts involved and no real evidence? I stopped reading about chapter6 and skimmed the rest.. . .  Garrison's lopsided,investigation had more,substance than this book. Sure, lots of great research on every right wing meeting and all the participants but if so detailed where is the smoking gun aimed at the truth vs guess work?

DiEugenio:

A overlong, pretentious and overblown book that does not prove any of its key theses.

ANOTHER:

This book is pure crap. Never have I read such distortions. If this man practices medicine as badly as his "research" his license would have been rescinded. This clown has distorted facts, confused the various individuals and simply manufactured his own theories and presented them as fact.

ANOTHER:

Hogwash as my Grandmother would have said. If this is a well researched and documented book, I am a nuclear scientist.

  . . . But thanks for letting me know.

DSL

4/15/17 -6:35 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

David,

It's good to know that you'll be objective about it. .

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

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

Please show me photos of police searching the cars. Or produce some police reports which support this claim.

How many Dallas Police officers--innocent or criminal-- do you think were engaged in this "parking lot search"?

Have you examined the DPD file for information as to how many uniformed patrolman, if any, were searching cars in the parking lot?

Is this your belief as to how Kennedy's assassins "got away"?  How they escaped? That there was no planned "exfiltration". Rather, Kennedy's assassins posed as members of the Dallas Police Department, dressed in full uniform, who after Kennedy's murder simply holstered their guns, and ended up in the parking lot behind the grassy knoll, engaged in searching automobiles?

But what about the genuine members of the Dallas Police Department who, you allege, were involved in "searching the grassy knoll parking lot"?

Might they not notice these false police officers? 

"Hey Joe, have you searched that Pontiac over there?  Wait a minute. . you're not Joe.  Have I met you before? Who are you?" etc

Don't you think this co-mingling of genuine DPD officers (who, you claim, were searching cars) with false police officers, who were actually assassins, have posed a real risk?

Does this represent your belief about how the Kennedy plot worked?

Sorry to pose my question this way, but I'm just reading what you wrote above, and wondering if you really believe what you said:

"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."

Really?

DSL

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


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

Please show me photos of police searching the cars. Or produce some police reports which support this claim.

How many Dallas Police officers--innocent or criminal-- do you think were engaged in this "parking lot search"?

Have you examined the DPD file for information as to how many uniformed patrolman, if any, were searching cars in the parking lot?

Is this your belief as to how Kennedy's assassins "got away"?  How they escaped? That there was no planned "exfiltration". Rather, Kennedy's assassins were members of the Dallas Police Department, dressed in full uniform, who after Kennedy's murder simply holstered their guns, and ended up in the parking lot behind grassy knoll, searching automobiles?

And then,  having killed Kennedy and searched some cars in the parking lot, they perhaps went home that night and had dinner with their family?

Does this represent your belief about how the Kennedy plot worked?

Sorry to pose my question this way, but I'm just reading what you wrote above, and wondering if you really believe what you said:

"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."

Really?

DSL

David,

More to come, but for now I'll raise the claims of Ricky White about his DPD officer father, Roscoe White.

Yes, they went home and had dinner with their families.

The culture in 1963 Dallas was far different than you seem to imagine.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

David,

First, I want to say that I agree with you that the body alteration had to have been preplanned. That conclusion seems inescapable to me.

That said, you tried to make a point in your post that doesn't ring true to me. You said:

"Oswald was not made "to look like a Communist plotter." Those are [Paul Trejo's] words, and they are incorrect."

I don't know how you can say that Oswald wasn't made to look like a communist plotter. What about the Oswald impersonator in Mexico City who was alleged to have talked to Valeriy Kostikov, the Soviet agent who was linked to "executive action" -- sabotage and assassinations -- according to the CIA? And what about that friendly letter allegedly sent by Oswald's to his pals at the Russian Embassy, which mentioned his conversation with Kostin (Kostikov)?

It sure sounds to me like Oswald was made to look like a communist plotter.

After the assassination Oswald was made out to be a lone nut. So there was a switch from "communist plotter" to "lone nut" at that point, it seems to me.

Please comment. Thanks.

 

Sandy,

What I think I had in mind, when I wrote that, was Oswald's five months in New Orleans (from 4/25 - 9/25, 1963).  During that general period--and particularly in August--he was promoting himself as pro-Castro, and as "Secretary" of a local branch of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.   That was an appearance Oswald assiduously promoted.

My point: That wouldn't make him a Communist, nor would it make him a plotter.

I assume you do realize that there were lots of folks who were FPCC members who were neither.

Now switch to LHO's Mexico City trip (9/27 - 10/3).

Oswald was certainly posing--on that occasion--as pro-Castro.

Taken at face value, he was attempting to obtain (from the Cuban Consulate) a transit visa to go to Havana. He claimed he needed such a document because going to Havana was the first leg of a projected journey from Mexico City (via Havana) to Moscow. Again: obtaining a transit visa to Havana does not make Oswald a Communist; nor does it make him a plotter.  I suppose you could argue that he was posing as a Communist, but that is beside the point.

Obviously, Oswald was in the business of creating different appearances  (politically) on different occasions.  (Two days before, on 9/25, at Odio's place, he was --supposedly--anti-Castro.  But now, on 9/27, in Mexico City, he was "pro-Castro").  Since he's not around, we can't ask him:"Now, who told you to do all of that?"

If you're Paul Trejo, you're likely to make incorrect inferences; and in any event, you'll always come up with a "worst case scenario".  But remember what George DeMohrenshildt said: "Oswald was "an actor in real life."

If I were a lawyer defending Oswald, I would probably say: "The fact that my client tried to get a transit visa to go to Havana doesn't make him a 'Communist plotter'."

And yes, I probably should have thrown in additional words to clarify what I was attempting to convey, but that's the situation, as i see it.

Of course, if you're Paul Trejo, the numbered statements he makes--as if he was setting forth a very logical, almost geometric theorem--are in fact  filled with dubious "facts" and unwarranted inferences, and he's always jumping to unjustified conclusions.

Its  almost impossible to discuss anything with him, because he recycles everything through this own peculiar "Walker-did-it" lens. Further, its now become evident that, in discussing matters with me,  he's playing a game of "Gotcha!".  As in: "Oh, I see what you're saying. Your going to say LBJ did it!. And that's what Zirbel said X number of years ago!" (or perhaps: "That's hat Bobby Kennedy thought 50 years ago!")

I have no time for repeated oversimplified statements filled with unwarranted inferences, either about this case, in general, or what he theorizes I'm going to say in a future writing.

If Trejo had a witness who saw Oswald at the market buying a box of K cereal, he'd exclaim, "See, I told  you so!  He's a Communist!  See that box of cereal?  See that big Red K on the box?  I told you so!  He's a communist! And it all goes back to Walker!"

But sometimes, people buy K because they simply want to eat breakfast.

Sorry, Paul, but I've had enough; and I'm not going to play this game with you anymore.

DSL

4/14/2017 - 3:05 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, David Lifton said:
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

David,

First, I want to say that I agree with you that the body alteration had to have been preplanned. That conclusion seems inescapable to me.

That said, you tried to make a point in your post that doesn't ring true to me. You said:

"Oswald was not made "to look like a Communist plotter." Those are [Paul Trejo's] words, and they are incorrect."

I don't know how you can say that Oswald wasn't made to look like a communist plotter. What about the Oswald impersonator in Mexico City who was alleged to have talked to Valeriy Kostikov, the Soviet agent who was linked to "executive action" -- sabotage and assassinations -- according to the CIA? And what about that friendly letter allegedly sent by Oswald's to his pals at the Russian Embassy, which mentioned his conversation with Kostin (Kostikov)?

It sure sounds to me like Oswald was made to look like a communist plotter.

After the assassination Oswald was made out to be a lone nut. So there was a switch from "communist plotter" to "lone nut" at that point, it seems to me.

Please comment. Thanks.

 

Sandy,

What I think I had in mind, when I wrote that, was Oswald's five months in New Orleans (from 4/25 - 9/25, 1963).  During that general period--and particularly in August--he was promoting himself as pro-Castro, and as "Secretary" of a local branch of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.   That was an appearance Oswald assiduously promoted.

My point: That wouldn't make him a Communist, nor would it make him a plotter.

I assume you do realize that there were lots of folks who were FPCC members who were neither.

Now switch to LHO's Mexico City trip (9/27 - 10/3).

Oswald was certainly posing--on that occasion--as pro-Castro.

Taken at face value, he was attempting to obtain (from the Cuban Consulate) a transit visa to go to Havana. He claimed he needed such a document because going to Havana was the first leg of a projected journey from Mexico City (via Havana) to Moscow. Again: obtaining a transit visa to Havana does not make Oswald a Communist; nor does it make him a plotter.  I suppose you could argue that he was posing as a Communist, but that is beside the point.

Obviously, Oswald was in the business of creating different appearances  (politically) on different occasions.  (Two days before, on 9/25, at Odio's place, he was --supposedly--anti-Castro.  But now, on 9/27, in Mexico City, he was "pro-Castro")/.  Since he's not around, we can't ask him:"Now, who told you to do all of that?"

If you're Paul Trejo, you'll always come up with a "worst case scenario".  But remember what George DeMohrenshildt said: "Oswald was "an actor in real life."

If I were a lawyer defending Oswald, I would probably say: the fact that my client tried to get a transit visa to go to Havana doesn't make him a "Communist plotter."

And yes, I probably should have thrown in additional words to clarify what I was attempting to convey, but that's the situation, as i see it.

Of course, if you're Paul Trejo, the numbered statements he makes are filled with dubious "facts" and unwarranted inferences, and he's always jumping to conclusions.

Its  almost impossible to discuss anything with him, because he recycles everything through this own peculiar "Walker-did-it" lens. Further, its now become evident that, in discussing things with me,  he's playing a game of "Gotcha!".  As in: "Oh, I see what you're saying. Your going to say LBJ did it!. And that's what Zirbel said X number of years ago; (or perhaps: "That's hat Bobby Kennedy thought 50 years ago!")

I have no time for repeated oversimplified statements filled with unwarranted inferences, either about this case, in general, of what he theorizes I'm going to say in a future writing.

If Trejo had a witness who saw Oswald at the market buying a box of K cereal, he's exclaim, "See, I told  you so!  He's a Communist!  See that box of cereal?  See that big Red K on the box?  I told you so!  He's a communist! And it all goes back to Walker!"

But sometimes, people buy K because they simply want to eat breakfast.

Sorry, Paul, but I've had enough; and I'm not going to play this game with you anymore.

DSL

4/14/2017 - 3:05 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

 

David,

Your response didn't address my questions regarding Oswald's alleged conversation with Valeriy Kostikov and the alleged Oswald letter to the Russian Embassy that mentions "Kostin" (Kostikov).

Here's my question again:

What about the Oswald impersonator in Mexico City who was alleged to have talked to Valeriy Kostikov, the Soviet agent who was linked to "executive action" -- sabotage and assassinations -- according to the CIA? And what about that friendly letter allegedly sent by Oswald to his pals at the Russian Embassy, which mentioned his conversation with Kostin (Kostikov)?

Don't you think that those two things, in conjunction with the JFK assassination, were designed to make Oswald look like a communist assassination plotter?

After the assassination Oswald was made out to be a lone nut. So there was a switch from "communist plotter" to "lone nut" at that point, it seems to me.

Please comment. Thanks.

 

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...