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

13 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

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

Paul Trejo:

You are engaged in a whole sequence of unwarranted political theorizing, and peddling confusion by advancing an absurd hypothesis.

First of all, you are ignoring the most obvious and pertinent fact: that the President's  body was--predictably--the   most important evidence in the case. That meant that anyone who was planning the president's murder (and also planning, as part of the crime, the frame-up of Oswald) had to know full well that the body of the  deceased represented a problem that would have to be dealt with.  And that leads to the next point.

The Next Point: you are (apparently)  seriously claiming that those involved in designing this crime were so obtuse (and/or just so plain stupid) that they didn't realize the obvious fact stated above (and which is worth repeating):President Kennedy's body was the most important evidence in the case. It contained (possibly) bullet(s) fired by assassins, as well as wounds which provided a "diagram" of the shooting.

Please don't try to hide behind your unjustified "construct" that there's some kind of "low IQ kill team" that can be separated from the architects of this crime. That's the legerdemain in which you're engaged, and there's no justification for it.  You're positing this bizarre and illogical plot structure and then, starting with that, attempting to build a theory in which high level government officials engaged in implementing a sophisticated deception --after the fact--in  order to address the problem that your so-called "kill team" (an artifice of your own mind) "forgot" to address when they planned (and then executed) this shooting, which --you apparently believe--also involved the framing of Oswald.

And what did they apparently forget to address? -- "the problem of the body."

In other words, your so called "kill team" was so dumb that they "forgot about the body"; but, not to worry, other higher-ups, and in the name of "national security," were engaged in "clean-up" afterwards, and for "benign" reasons, of course.

All of this is not just implausible; I think it constitutes an absurd approach to analyzing this crime.

WHAT HAPPENED TO TRIP PLANNING? AND OSWALD PLACEMENT? (Coincidence, perhaps?. . . )

What happened to the "trip planning" function, that brought Kennedy to Texas, and to Dallas, in the first place?

And what happened to the maneuvering of Oswald--one of only about 15 returned defectors from the the USSR or Soviet Bloc countries--so that he would end up located on the presidenti's parade route?

Surely you realize that Oswald could not have been framed for this shooting unless he was at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime.  Surely you do realize that if he had had a toothache, and was in a dentist's chair somewhere across town, he could not have been framed.

So he had to be "on-site" at the time the motorcade passed his general location.

So:  Do you think all of that happened by chance?  By coincidence?  That this low-IQ Kill Team simply showed up with their guns, and killed Kennedy,  (and then hung out in the parking lot, checking cars, according to another of your previous posts); and then certain political  higher-ups, who heard about the shooting (and, noticing the incompetence of this low IQ kill team, and focusing on the forensic problem posed by their lack of foresight [in having made no plans to falsify the autopsy] ), then decided to do a "benign intervention" to make their plot work?

Is that your idea of how all this went down?

MOE AND JOE AND THE BENIGN INTERVENTION TEAM. . .

I can just imagine how your plan worked out in real time. Perhaps a couple of weeks before, Moe and Joe, two  of your Walker-related Kennedy haters,  were having breakfast together and reading  the newspaper and Joe says to Moe, his breakfast companion, "Hey Moe, look here! It says Kennedy is coming to Dallas. I hate that guy. Let's go and shoot him." And Moe replies, "Sure, Joe, sounds like a plan! Let's do it!"  And then Joe says, "You know, come to think about it, this should be easy, because my brother-in-law knows someone who lives in Irving, Texas, and he told me that there's a guy working in a building down at Dealey Plaza, and he once went to Russia, so we can just hide nearby, somewhere on Dealey Plaza, ya know, and shoot Kennedy, and they'll blame him!"  And Moe says: "You know, Joe; you're right! Now why didn't I think about that before?  Yeah, great idea, Joe!  Let's do it!"

Lots of luck, Paul Trejo.  Is this your "plot"? Your low-IQ kill team? Followed by a benign coverup?  A murder where everything depended on coincidence, but  then "they" just happened to "forget" about the small problem known as "the body"?  But then certain unknown higher-ups, conducted a "benign intervention," in the name of "National Security"?

I think you can carry this idea further, and it can be the basis for a movie.  Sort of a film noire comedy version of Seven Days in May. Perhaps you can work with a good screenwriter and the two of you can someday posit a special unit, over at the Pentagon. The Benign Intervention Team (BIT)  - -you know, ex-Navy Seals who simply sit around, like firemen do, playing cards, shopping at Costco, watching porn, and checking cars in the Pentagon parking lot, but always ready to conduct a "benign intervention" should some bad guys suddenly materialize somewhere in America and assassinate the President. 

Good luck, Paul, advancing your theory in which "sane people" intervened to save the stupidity of your so-called "kill team," a group  so incompetent that they planned to murder the president and frame Oswald, but were sufficiently ignorant and obtuse that they ignored the consequences of planning such a serious crime without taking into account the centrality of the President's body as the most important evidence in the case.

DSL

4/14/2017 4 p.m. PDT (edited at 11:40 p.m.)

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


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

Surely you realize that Oswald can't be framed for this shooting unless he's at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime.  Surely you do realize that if he had a toothache, and was in a dentist's chair somewhere across town, he could not have been framed.

Or he got into a car wreck on the way to work.

Or got cold feet and headed for the hills.

They must have game planned for that contingency, as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

If Oswald had died in a car accident on the way to work, the execution of JFK would have proceeded with a different Patsy.  

The FBI got Gerry Patrick Hemming's rifle that same afternoon and dusted it for fingerprints and visited Dick Hathcock immediately about it.

Where did they get that rifle?

Roscoe White, a DPD cop, confessed to his wife and son that he was a shooter that day.

I'm not making this up.  This is old news.

Your mind is made up, obviously, and you won't be objective towards Dr. Caufield's recent book, clearly.

To make your CT work you must assume that LBJ-did-it.  Otherwise you have no  closure.  That is very obvious.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Or he got into a car wreck on the way to work.

Or got cold feet and headed for the hills.

They must have game planned for that contingency, as well.

 

Yes, you're correct.

And if I had a name, or a candidate that I thought was credible, I'd gladly discuss it.

But I don't.

DSL

4/14/2017; 7:20 p.m. PDT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

Yes, you're correct.

And if I had a name, or a candidate that I thought was credible, I'd gladly discuss it.

But I don't.

DSL

4/14/2017; 7:20 p.m. PDT

Why assume it would only be one name?

Charles V. Harrelson, if they decided to pin the blame on right wingers instead of Commies (their best Commie was at the dentist).

Then they wouldn't have to go thru all those moves with the body.

Just say'n...

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


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

 

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.

 

Sandy:

The two points you cite show that Oswald was in touch with Kostikov, who--it was later revealed (i.e., in CIA documents created after JFK's murder, and during the Warren Commission investigation)--was someone in charge of Soviet style "Executive Action."  Obviously, once Kostikov's background became known, it was easy to infer --from that LHO/Kostikov contact--that ("somehow") Oswald was connected with Soviet plotting in JFK's assassination.  But. . . Keep in mind that that was a manufactured appearance that was built into the Oswald profile as a consequence of his Mexico City trip.

I don't know how long you have been involved in JFK research, but we're talking about stuff that goes back to the 1970s, as I recall, when the previoiusly "withheld pages" of the CIA's Mexico City reporting was gradually released.

Obviously, if Oswald was sent to the Soviet Embassy with the intent that he meet Kostikov, then clearly, the purpose was most likely to create the appearance --when all this was viewed "after the fact"--that Oswald was somehow involved in Soviet plotting that preceded JFK's assassination. But its all a manufactured appearance.

The Warren Commission then pruned all of that out of its Report--again, it is to be found in the underlying documents that were originally submitted, by the CIA, to the Warren Commission--and the handling of this material constitutes a perfect example of what I mean when I have written that Warren et al "de-politicized" the assassination; and "denuded it" of political meaning.  Obviously, those who were involved with the "design" of the plot --that is, whoever it was who were involved in the handling of Oswald, in the months leading up to JFK's death--made  an effort to drag the Soviet Union "into" the event; but then Earl Warren et al decided to prune it out.  So the public learned about it years later, as this material was gradually declassified.

But now, let's return to the actual event, itself.  Oswald's contact with Kostikov (which, as I recall, was on Saturday, 9/28/63).

My question to you: Have you read Oleg Nechiporenko's 1993 book, Passport to Assassination?

OSWALD'S MEETING WITH KOSTIKOV, AS DESCRIBED IN NECHIPORENKO'S 1993 BOOK

The meeting with Oswald involved three Soviet officials: Nechiporenko, Yatsov, and Kostikov.

Here's what happened (and this is approximate, and from my present recollection; I really have no time to fetch the book and start rummaging through it):

Oswald started crying.

He said he was being followed.

He said he was scared; that he was afraid of the FBI.
Then, quite dramatically, he took out of pistol, and laid it on the table.

One of the three individuals grabbed the gun, opened it, and emptied it of its bullets.

Bottom line: Oswald projected as an unstable person, a screwball.

Having performed this piece of theater on Saturday, 9/28, Oswald then went to a bullfight the next day (Sunday, 9/29)  and I believe was down there for two or three more days (Monday, 9/30, thru Tuesday 10/1--these dates, not certain), and then left Mexico City by bus on Wed., 10/2; and arrived back in Dallas on Thursday, 10/3.

I bring up these details because, according to the account in Nechiporenko's book, Oswald was not involved in any plotting; nor was he behaving like an "agent." Just a mixed up very emotional and scared American.

Furthermore, and perhaps you're not aware of this, either Nechiporenko or Kostikov (or both) attended the 1993 ASK conference in Dallas, and John Newman and I (and very likely Peter Dale Scott) actually spent time with one or both of these persons.  I'd have to consult my own chronological records for details, but I'm bringing this up because I want you to know that I don't subscribe to the view that Oswald was impersonated, at the Saturday (9/28) meeting; and I don't think that John Newman did either, back then. Furthermore, and this is from recollection, Jefferson Morley omitted the 9/28 meeting (and/or LHO's behavior at that meeting) --as described by Nechiporenko--from his own narrative, in Our Man In Mexico (all of this subject to verification against his book, and I'll gladly correct this if I'm wrong).

The bottom line, for me: I think much to much has been made of the fact that those who sent LHO to Mexico City deployed him there, having in mind a rather sinister agenda, and then the WC "edited all of that out." 

So what?  That's the sort of thing that the Warren Commission did. As I said, they "de-politicized" the event, and "depoliticized" Oswald, where they could.

Do I agree with that sort of behavior?  No, of course not; but that's what they did. And that's probably because of the manner in which LBJ scared the daylights out of Warren with all of his talk about World War III.

One other thing: please keep in mind that this whole pattern of "sanitizing" Oswald (or "de-politicizing" the event) goes back to the November 25, 1963 memo from Deputy AG Katzenbach to LBJ assistant Bill Moyers. Let's not forget the language used in that memo. 

QUOTE:

1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he wold have been convicted at trial.

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists."  UNQUOTE

Good Lord!  This is the Deputy Attorney General of the U.S. speaking, the top assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy (!). Should we really be surprised that, with this attitude being expressed at the top of the US Government, that the Warren Commission would not wish to give "free publicity" to the "nightmare scenario" that had been fabricated by those who were "running" Oswald? 

So this document should be kept in mind when someone calls attention to the fact that  plotters may have planned the crime with one objective in mind, but top USG officials did everything possible to derail that plan; and (as I have stated) to denude the assassination of political meaning; and present it as a quirk of fate.

I hope I've addressed your question(s). Its obvious what plotters were trying to achieve; and its also obvious that Warren and Rankin (and Redlich, etc.) intended to undo all of that, by editing out what they viewed as an absurd provocation. What I want to stress is that because of Nechiporenko's book, we can say, with a fair amount of certainty, just what Lee Oswald was engaged in, when he was alone with these people, and it had nothing to do with plotting or assassination.

DSL

4/14/2017 - 9:20 p.m. PDT; revised, edited, 4/15/17 7:50 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

 

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


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

First of all, you are ignoring the most obvious and pertinent fact: that the President's  body was--predictably--the   most important evidence in the case. That meant that anyone who was planning the president's murder (and also planning, as part of the crime, the frame-up of Oswald) had to know full well that the body of the  deceased represented a problem that would have to be dealt with.  And that leads to the next point.

The Next Point: you are (apparently)  seriously claiming that those involved in designing this crime were so obtuse (and/or just so plain stupid) that they didn't realize the obvious fact stated above (and which is worth repeating):President Kennedy's body was the most important evidence in the case. It contained (possibly) bullet(s) fired by assassins, as well as wounds which provided a "diagram" of the shooting.

David,

I'd like to point out that the body was not a problem that had to be dealt with if the plan was to blame the murder on an ambush, which is what it was. As you state, the body "contained (possibly) bullet(s) fired by assassins." Exactly. The plotters of course knew the body would be a problem if they had to resort to Plan B, which was to blame it all on one shooter, and they did resort to Plan B when Oswald was taken alive. The body was then of course a problem that had to be dealt with, which meant that Plan B was like a worst case scenario.

I say this not in support of Paul's Walker theory, but in support of the theory that the murder was "Operation Northwoods revised," a terrorist act (ambush the president) to blame on Cuba, through the further manipulation of Oswald (had he not been arrested).

I think this is a simpler explanation for what they did to the body than the idea that they pre-planned (Plan A) having to do it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2017 at 8:40 AM, Paul Trejo said:

Gerry,

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

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

I doubt that the APB for Oswald wasn't just the result of a shoe store witness or what someone saw in the Oak Cliff area.  Also, the fact that a duplicate wallet of Oswald's was found at the Tippit murder scene means an unknown person or persons were guiding the police to Oswald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2017 at 8:58 AM, Paul Trejo said:

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

I don't think LBJ or Hoover knew exactly who was behind the plot, whether a foreign or domestic conspiracy, except that they figured it wasn't just a lone gunman but weren't going to look deeper for fear of what they might find, so they went with the flow.  IOW, they also acquiesced to the pre-planned Lone Nut Theory (LNT).

P.S.  Just wanted to add, that LBJ seemed more interested in finding a politically-expedient solution to the assassination, especially before the next election.  He wanted an uncontroversial solution, and not be thought of as a prime suspect.

Edited by Gerry Simone

Share this post


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

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

Mr. Lifton took the words out of my mouth in his reply to you Paul about phony DPD officers.

Not sure about that Roscoe White story (especially if he's supposed to represent Badgeman who's in the wrong position).  Not sure about the Gordon Arnold story either (he said a cop with dirty hands took his movie camera but we don't see Gordon Arnold in any films or photos).

Ed Hoffman says he saw a shooter wearing a coat and fedora, but not dressed like a cop, and who gave his rifle to a railway or construction worker that disassembled it and put it inside his tool box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

David,

I'd like to point out that the body was not a problem that had to be dealt with if the plan was to blame the murder on an ambush, which is what it was. As you state, the body "contained (possibly) bullet(s) fired by assassins." Exactly. The plotters of course knew the body would be a problem if they had to resort to Plan B, which was to blame it all on one shooter, and they did resort to Plan B when Oswald was taken alive. The body was then of course a problem that had to be dealt with, which meant that Plan B was like a worst case scenario.

I say this not in support of Paul's Walker theory, but in support of the theory that the murder was "Operation Northwoods revised," a terrorist act (ambush the president) to blame on Cuba, through the further manipulation of Oswald (had he not been arrested).

I think this is a simpler explanation for what they did to the body than the idea that they pre-planned (Plan A) having to do it.

 

 

Plan B might also be simpler to carry out if the new President is ordering the military to ensure that pre-autopsy is carried out, all under the guise of National Security. 

That wouldn't be incompatible with the prep for the Sniper's Lair as the latter was simply to  ensure pro-Castro Oswald is the only one caught, but that his comrades got away.

However, why would it have been so hard to kill Oswald earlier in the game, if that was the original plan?  Did the/those knucklehead cops who supposedly stopped in front of Oswald's rooming house and honked their car horn, not wait around long enough or try knocking on the house's door?

Edited by Gerry Simone

Share this post


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

David,

If Oswald had died in a car accident on the way to work, the execution of JFK would have proceeded with a different Patsy.  

The FBI got Gerry Patrick Hemming's rifle that same afternoon and dusted it for fingerprints and visited Dick Hathcock immediately about it.

Where did they get that rifle?

Roscoe White, a DPD cop, confessed to his wife and son that he was a shooter that day.

I'm not making this up.  This is old news.

Your mind is made up, obviously, and you won't be objective towards Dr. Caufield's recent book, clearly.

To make your CT work you must assume that LBJ-did-it.  Otherwise you have no  closure.  That is very obvious.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Hi Paul,

You insist that Lifton must presume a LBJ-did-it theory because having a lone gunman means a) WWIII is avoided, otherwise that means that a multi-shooter pro-Castro or Soviet kill team was in Dealey Plaza, and b  ) no evidence of a domestic conspiracy lest LBJ be a suspect which might affect his succession to the Presidency.

However, it can also be true that the motives behind the plotters getting rid of JFK was a) to avoid WWIII [continue black ops against Cuba and/or escalate Viet Nam]  and b ) ensure LBJ is the next President [leave CIA alone, continue black ops in Cuba, escalate the Viet Nam War and the MIC makes money, and the Mob can flourish too].  

The plotters can achieve this by having a lone nut leftist, otherwise, it's suicide for them too.

The lingering problem in all of this is what I was thinking earlier about that pointy* bullet planted instead of the WCC round.  Was that a mix-up by someone involved in the conspiracy? Or were they trying to give the appearance of involvement by multiple shooters?

*You previously mentioned Larry Hancock suggesting that that could've been to give the appearance of multiple shooters.  I wasn't aware that he said that but it's possible since he's a well-respected researcher who I admire, and a very entertaining and engaging speaker at Lancer.

Share this post


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

Sandy:

The two points you cite show that Oswald was in touch with Kostikov, who--it was later revealed (i.e., in CIA documents created after JFK's murder, and during the Warren Commission investigation)--was someone in charge of Soviet style "Executive Action."  Obviously, once Kostikov's background became known, it was easy to infer --from that LHO/Kostikov contact--that ("somehow") Oswald was connected with Soviet plotting in JFK's assassination.  But. . . Keep in mind that that was a manufactured appearance that was built into the Oswald profile as a consequence of his Mexico City trip.

I don't know how long you have been involved in JFK research, but we're talking about stuff that goes back to the 1970s, as I recall, when the previoiusly "withheld pages" of the CIA's Mexico City reporting was gradually released.

Obviously, if Oswald was sent to the Soviet Embassy with the intent that he meet Kostikov, then clearly, the purpose was most likely to create the appearance --when all this was viewed "after the fact"--that Oswald was somehow involved in Soviet plotting that preceded JFK's assassination. But its all a manufactured appearance.

The Warren Commission then pruned all of that out of its Report--again, it is to be found in the underlying documents that were originally submitted, by the CIA, to the Warren Commission--and the handling of this material constitutes a perfect example of what I mean when I have written that Warren et al "de-politicized" the assassination; and "denuded it" of political meaning.  Obviously, those who were involved with the "design" of the plot --that is, whoever it was who were involved in the handling of Oswald, in the months leading up to JFK's death--made  an effort to drag the Soviet Union "into" the event; but then Earl Warren et al decided to prune it out.  So the public learned about it years later, as this material was gradually declassified.

But now, let's return to the actual event, itself.  Oswald's contact with Kostikov (which, as I recall, was on Saturday, 9/28/63).

My question to you: Have you read Oleg Nechiporenko's 1993 book, Passport to Assassination?

OSWALD'S MEETING WITH KOSTIKOV, AS DESCRIBED IN NECHIPORENKO'S 1993 BOOK

The meeting with Oswald involved three Soviet officials: Nechiporenko, Yatsov, and Kostikov.

Here's what happened (and this is approximate, and from my present recollection; I really have no time to fetch the book and start rummaging through it):

Oswald started crying.

He said he was being followed.

He said he was scared; that he was afraid of the FBI.
Then, quite dramatically, he took out of pistol, and laid it on the table.

One of the three individuals grabbed the gun, opened it, and emptied it of its bullets.

Bottom line: Oswald projected as an unstable person, a screwball.

Having performed this piece of theater on Saturday, 9/28, Oswald then went to a bullfight the next day (Sunday, 9/29)  and I believe was down there for two or three more days (Monday, 9/30, thru Tuesday 10/1--these dates, not certain), and then left Mexico City by bus on Wed., 10/2; and arrived back in Dallas on Thursday, 10/3.

I bring up these details because, according to the account in Nechiporenko's book, Oswald was not involved in any plotting; nor was he behaving like an "agent." Just a mixed up very emotional and scared American.

Furthermore, and perhaps you're not aware of this, either Nechiporenko or Kostikov (or both) attended the 1993 ASK conference in Dallas, and John Newman and I (and very likely Peter Dale Scott) actually spent time with one or both of these persons.  I'd have to consult my own chronological records for details, but I'm bringing this up because I want you to know that I don't subscribe to the view that Oswald was impersonated, at the Saturday (9/28) meeting; and I don't think that John Newman did either, back then. Furthermore, and this is from recollection, Jefferson Morley omitted the 9/28 meeting (and/or LHO's behavior at that meeting) --as described by Nechiporenko--from his own narrative, in Our Man In Mexico (all of this subject to verification against his book, and I'll gladly correct this if I'm wrong).

The bottom line, for me: I think much to much has been made of the fact that those who sent LHO to Mexico City deployed him there, having in mind a rather sinister agenda, and then the WC "edited all of that out." 

So what?  That's the sort of thing that the Warren Commission did. As I said, they "de-politicized" the event, and "depoliticized" Oswald, where they could.

Do I agree with that sort of behavior?  No, of course not; but that's what they did. And that's probably because of the manner in which LBJ scared the daylights out of Warren with all of his talk about World War III.

One other thing: please keep in mind that this whole pattern of "sanitizing" Oswald (or "de-politicizing" the event) goes back to the November 25, 1963 memo from Deputy AG Katzenbach to LBJ assistant Bill Moyers. Let's not forget the language used in that memo. 

QUOTE:

1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he wold have been convicted at trial.

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists."  UNQUOTE

Good Lord!  This is the Deputy Attorney General of the U.S. speaking, the top assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy (!). Should we really be surprised that, with this attitude being expressed at the top of the US Government, that the Warren Commission would not wish to give "free publicity" to the "nightmare scenario" that had been fabricated by those who were "running" Oswald? 

So this document should be kept in mind when someone calls attention to the fact that  plotters may have planned the crime with one objective in mind, but top USG officials did everything possible to derail that plan; and (as I have stated) to denude the assassination of political meaning; and present it as a quirk of fate.

I hope I've addressed your question(s). Its obvious what plotters were trying to achieve; and its also obvious that Warren and Rankin (and Redlich, etc.) intended to undo all of that, by editing out what they viewed as an absurd provocation. What I want to stress is that because of Nechiporenko's book, we can say, with a fair amount of certainty, just what Lee Oswald was engaged in, when he was alone with these people, and it had nothing to do with plotting or assassination.

DSL

4/14/2017 - 9:20 p.m. PDT; revised, edited, 4/15/17 7:50 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

 

 

David,

Thanks for writing that detailed analysis. I was already aware of much of what you wrote, but of course you covered all the bases because you aren't aware of what I know. (Actually I wasn't aware of Nechiporenko's account, so now I have learned about that.)

I have a fundamental question about the plot that nobody seems to have an answer for. Maybe you could give it shot.

The question is a simple one. But please bear with me as I lay it out carefully so that there will be no misunderstanding.

The fundamentals behind my question are as follows:

  1. One goal of the plot was to make it look like Oswald was the lone shooter. (We know this because of the preconceived plan to alter JFK's body.)
  2. Another goal of the plot was to make it look like there was KGB involvement. (We know this because of the Kostikov story.)
  3. The Johnson Administration removed signs of KGB involvement. (As per the Katzenbach memo.)

Actually my question involves only numbers 1 and 2 above.

My question:

Given the complexities involved in snatching and altering the body, why even bother doing that? That is, why was it necessary to make it look like Oswald was a lone shooter (goal #1)? When having signs -- in the body -- of multiple shooters is consistent with there being KGB involvement (goal #2).

Is there another plotters' goal I am not considering?

I hope you have an answer for this.


P.S. I do realize that at least one bullet had to have come from behind in order to facilitate the Oswald frame-up. (In thinking of and saying this, I may have come up with a reasonable answer to my own question. But I need to think about it for a moment. And I still would like to hear your thoughts on this.)

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


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

 

David,

Thanks for writing that detailed analysis. I was already aware of much of what you wrote, but of course you covered all the bases because you aren't aware of what I know. (Actually I wasn't aware of Nechiporenko's account, so now I have learned about that.)

I have a fundamental question about the plot that nobody seems to have an answer for. Maybe you could give it shot.

The question is a simple one. But please bear with me as I lay it out carefully so that there will be no misunderstanding.

The fundamentals behind my question are as follows:

  1. One goal of the plot was to make it look like Oswald was the lone shooter. (We know this because of the preconceived plan to alter JFK's body.)
  2. Another goal of the plot was to make it look like there was KGB involvement. (We know this because of the Kostikov story.)
  3. The Johnson Administration removed signs of KGB involvement. (As per the Katzenbach memo.)

Actually my question involves only numbers 1 and 2 above.

My question:

Given the complexities involved in snatching and altering the body, why even bother doing that? That is, why was it necessary to make it look like Oswald was a lone shooter (goal #1)? When having signs -- in the body -- of multiple shooters is consistent with there being KGB involvement (goal #2).

Is there another plotters' goal I am not considering?

I hope you have an answer for this.

 

Sandy,

Just off the top of my head (ewww, pardon the morbid pun), the bad guys had to obfuscate / hide the damage done by the second shooter because they knew if they didn't, that shooter might eventually be caught and forced to "spill the beans".

How's that?

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

David,

I'd like to point out that the body was not a problem that had to be dealt with if the plan was to blame the murder on an ambush, which is what it was. As you state, the body "contained (possibly) bullet(s) fired by assassins." Exactly. The plotters of course knew the body would be a problem if they had to resort to Plan B, which was to blame it all on one shooter, and they did resort to Plan B when Oswald was taken alive. The body was then of course a problem that had to be dealt with, which meant that Plan B was like a worst case scenario.

I say this not in support of Paul's Walker theory, but in support of the theory that the murder was "Operation Northwoods revised," a terrorist act (ambush the president) to blame on Cuba, through the further manipulation of Oswald (had he not been arrested).

I think this is a simpler explanation for what they did to the body than the idea that they pre-planned (Plan A) having to do it.


Ron,

What you suggest -- that the snatching and alteration of the body was Plan B, to be implemented should Oswald be taken alive -- makes sense to me. He no doubt would have spilled his guts about being a CIA asset or agent, etc., etc.

I believe Oswald was instructed to go to the theater to meet another agent. Under your hypothesis, that instruction would also have been a part of Plan B .

 

 

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...