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

Just now, Sandy Larsen said:


That is what Ron Ecker's Plan B hypothesis states, if I understand it correctly. So I guess that's what he believes. It makes a lot of sense to me, so I'm inclined to believe it.

Were JFK's wounds altered in order to prevent WW III?

Share this post


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

Tommy said:

Quote

How would the 11/22/63 death-by-police of JFK's Commie-but-solo-assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, "for resisting arrest and attempting to kill a policeman or two" have necessarily obviated said pretext for war, especially since Oswald was a known Communist and Castro sympathizer who had not only lived in the Soviet Union for 2.5 years and married the niece (or something) of a Belorussian MVD officer, but had recently visited the Mexico City Soviet Embassy (if not the Cuban Consulate, as well), under very mysterious circumstances. indeed?

--  Tommy :sun


Tommy,

When I asked, "Wouldn't that preclude one of the plotters' goals, that being to create a pretext for war?," I wasn't responding to your question above. I was responding to what you said earlier:
 

4 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

"To blame it on Oswald and Oswald alone" would be a more honest way of putting it.


Tommy,

Wouldn't that preclude one of the plotters' goals, that being to create a pretext for war?

You need to put what you said in context for me to understand your objection

 


From that one sentence, I got the impression that you were saying or implying that the reason for the body alteration was "to blame it on Oswald and Oswald alone." In other words, to make it look like nobody but Oswald was involved. If only Oswald was involved, there would be no context for war.

Realizing that I may have misunderstood what you wrote, I then said, "You need to put what you said in context for me to understand your objection."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Were JFK's wounds altered in order to prevent WW III?

bumped

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Were JFK's wounds altered in order to prevent WW III?


It depends in which Kostikov camp you belong.

One camp says that the Kostikov thing was designed to create a pretext for war. To these people, altering the wounds would merely make it look like Oswald was the sole gunman in a communist plot. That would not prevent a war.

The other camp believes that the Kostikov thing was designed to spook LBJ into covering-up the assassination plot for fear that it might spark a war. To these people, altering the wounds would help in the government's endeavor to make Oswald a lone nut. That would prevent a war.
 

Share this post


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

You guys are confusing me. I think it's much simpler. The sniper's nest proves to me that the plan was to blame the patsy. However, multiple shooters were necessary, especially from places other than the TSBD, for obvious reasons. It's not clear to me that any shots that hit their target were fired from the sniper's nest. It was a poor choice for anything other than a patsy plan. It was a military style ambush in fact, but the plan had to have been to hide that fact. That's the only explanation for the sniper's nest, unless you accept the WC conclusion. I find it hard to believe that Oswald was let out of the building on purpose. Way too messy. 

Paul:

You seem to grasp the basic way I would describe the problem. Permit me to add a few other details: 1. For Oswald to have been framed, then he must have been “on site”; and by that I mean: he must have been “at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime.”  That’s just geometry and logic. He cannot be framed if he is across town, sitting in a dentist chair, or if he left the night before on a Greyhound bus to visit Aunt Tillie in Cleveland.  I have said it many times before, and its worth repeating if now:   “For Oswald to have been framed, then he must have been “on site”; and by that I mean: he must have been “at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime.” 2. Skipping an assortment of details that would have to be attended to, I’d like to focus here, in this writing, on just one concept: the concept of the creation of this fatal intersection.  Its creation must have preceded the murder; otherwise, the assassination (within the context of a plan to blame a pre-selected fall-guy)  could not have occurred. To repeat:  Oswald and Kennedy must “cross paths,” seemingly by accident, or Oswald cannot be blamed for Kennedy’s death.

3. Again, skipping over many details, let’s just focus on certain known facts of chronology, based on the historical record:

            a. Kennedy agreed to make the multi-city Texas trip on 9/25/63 (and the pubic announcement was the next day; and. .            

           b. Oswald began work at the TSBD on Wed., October 16th, 1963

            c.  Regarding parade route selection: The actual parade route was driven –and in effect—“finalized”, on Thursday, November 14th.

4.  I’m not writing this to invite a debate about details; I’m writing this to point out the basic logic: if the purpose of all this was to create the appearance that the assassination was a quirk of fate, a historical accident, and the work of a pre-selected patsy, then the planning for all of this—what I call “route planning and patsy location” (or “RPPL” in my filing system) -- had to go back quite a ways, in time.  Secondly, it should be noted that the planned “fatal intersection” wasn’t in place until November 14th (at the earliest).

Remember: the crime could not have occurred—if the basic plan was to have a pre-selected fall-guy—unless there was a pre-planned “fatal intersection” between the President to be killed, and the patsy to be blamed.

So where I am heading?

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE CREATION OF THE "CROSSED PATHS" SITUATION

If you looked at this like a chess board, the basic elements of this geometry were in place only after these two events were (to to speak) "on the calendar":

(a) Oswald’s employment at the TSBD

(b) Kennedy’s trip decision (to visit Texas, and Dallas)  followed by the Dallas motorcade details.

Again, here are the dates:

9/26/63        Trip decision publicly announced

10/16/63      Oswald begins work at TSBD

11/14/63      Kennedy motorcade route selected and, as a matter of fact, finalized.

This provides some sense of the time element that must have been operative in the planning of this crime (unless one wishes to indulge in some facet of cosmic “coincidence theory.”)

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF  (SOME OF) THE TOP DALLAS POLICE OFFICIALS

Finally, and in the spirit of offering a still another observation, I’d like to toss into the mix the following factoid  especially to please those who like to talk about the assassination as a military ambush.  As the motorcade proceeded towards its destination, and if you study the Dallas Police Radio, channel 2, very carefully—and as I’ve mentioned, my first in-depth stuff study took place back around 1974-1975  (wearing a good headset, and studying the transmissions from a tape that was provided by the late Mary Ferrell), you will hear an assortment of communications, and one (or two) of them occur in the 10 or 15 minutes prior to the motorcade arriving at Dealey Plaza.  In the pilot car—which preceded the motorcade by about a quarter mile---was Deputy Chief George Lumkpin,  His picks up his radiophone and inquires: “Can you give us the location of the convoy, now.” (approx)

Yes, you read that correctly.  “Can you give us the location of the convoy, now.”

So that’s the mentality of the Dallas police higher-ups. They don’t request the location of “the motorcade” or “the cavalcade.” The request is made for the location of “the convoy.”

You know, to those guys—I think—this is like another episode of the WW II TV miniseries, “Rat Patrol,” the TV miniseries which dramatize the exploits of a group of four allied soldiers who roamed the North African desert in machine-gun-equipped Jeeps during World War II, harrying Rommell’s famed Afrika Korps.

They wear cowboy hats, have goggles, and, as they lay in wait, peering at the approaching target, would no doubt be asking the question: “Can you give us the location of the convoy, now?”

DSL

4/16/2017 - 5:15 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

For information on "Rat Patrol," use Gogle and go to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rat_Patrol

To see how the episodes of "Rat Patrol" began, click on the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZcbifYqpGc

 

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


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

Remember: the crime could not have occurred—if the basic plan was to have a pre-selected fall-guy—unless there was a pre-planned “fatal intersection” between the President to be killed, and the patsy to be blamed.

So where I am heading?

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE CREATION OF THE "CROSSED PATHS" SITUATION

If you looked at this like a chess board, the basic elements of this geometry were in place only after these two events were (to to speak) "on the calendar":

(a) Oswald’s employment at the TSBD

(b) Kennedy’s trip decision (to visit Texas, and Dallas)  followed by the Dallas motorcade details.

Again, here are the dates:

9/26/63        Trip decision publicly announced

10/16/63      Oswald begins work at TSBD

11/14/63      Kennedy motorcade route selected and, as a matter of fact, finalized.

 

David,

And for the creation of this "crossed paths" situation, I would say that the following three things must have occurred (unless one wishes to indulge in what you refer to as coincidence theory):

1. Someone must have told Ruth Paine (was it really just "a neighbor"?) to suggest that Oswald apply for a job at the TSBD. (This would make it look like coincidence.)

2. Someone must have told Oswald to apply (not to just consider Paine's suggestion), because according to plan he had to be there (or at least at a similar location).

3. Someone told Truly to hire him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

David,

And for the creation of this "crossed paths" situation, I would say that the following three things must have occurred (unless one wishes to indulge in what you refer to as coincidence theory):

1. Someone must have told Ruth Paine (was it really just "a neighbor"?) to suggest that Oswald apply for a job at the TSBD. (This would make it look like coincidence.)

2. Someone must have told Oswald to apply (not to just consider Paine's suggestion), because according to plan he had to be there (or at least at a similar location).

3. Someone told Truly to hire him.

 


Of course. This is all obvious IMO.

And it's likely they all kept their covers during the process. Though perhaps with a wink and a smile.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Paul Brancato said:

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

Dear Paul,

So what are you really saying, here?

(lol)

--  Tommy :sun

Question:  How good of a job did the bad guys / good guys do in making it look like the bullet, or two, or three, or fifteen (lol) that hit JFK all came from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest?

Or was that was they were trying to do?

I get so confused ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2017 at 7:06 PM, Ron Ecker said:

And it doesn't make much sense to me that conspirators would plan a multi-shooter ambush with the express intent of blaming it on one person. 

Seems to me that whoever would suggest such a plan would get some blank stares from his co-conspirators.

 

Ron:

I think you're entirely incorrect.

And what you're suggesting is unworkable, and implausible.

Here's why:

If my analysis is correct, there were--broadly speaking--two separate functions in connection with the plot (in general) and the goings on at Dealey Plaza, in particular.

#1: An engineering function; objective: to murder the President

#2: A "theatrical" function; objective: to create the appearance of an "investigation" that focused in upon the sniper's nest, in general; and then, moving in even closer, focused on the (pre-selected) "lone assassin," the sniper who--supposedly--had been responsible for President Kennedy's murder.  That person  was identified as Lee Oswald, an ex-Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union in October 1959, and returned in mid-June 1962, with his Soviet wife and four month old baby.

The objective of #1 was to kill the President, without being seen, and then exit the area.

The objective of #2  was --in effect--to "stage" a false investigation.

These are two entirely separate areas of activity, and the only reason the public would accept Oswald as the assassin, was if the autopsy was falsified.  The President's body was --predictably--the most important evidence in the case.  In a trial of Oswald--which was never going to occur, of course--the body (and the autopsy report)--would lay out the basic architecture of the shooting.

As to #2, the person who  was--in effect--sitting in "the Director's chair" in implementing this "investigation" was the Dallas Police Department radio dispatcher (and/or his associates).

BLANK STARES FOR A PLAN THAT IS UNWORKABLE - - WHICH PLAN IS THAT?

As to your last sentence, I thoroughly disagree. To the contrary: the person who would get "blank stares" from those in charge would be any deputy who said "Hey chief, I've solved the problem of the medical evidence!" 

"Oh yeah?  What's your solution?"

"I've arranged to falsify the photos and the X-rays. . . now why are you looking so unhappy, Chief. Haven't I solved the problem?"

The Deputy: "What the heck is wrong with you?  Don't you realize there's goiing to be an autopsy?"

"Don't you realize the autopsy is conducted on a body--and not on a picture of a body?"

"Have you lost your mind?"

"OK Chief; well then, I've got another plan!"

"What's that?"

"We just won't both to falsify the autopsy! At all.  Our guys will simply shoot the president, and vamoose. ., ya know. And everyone will be so pissed off, that we'll invade Cuba!"

Seargent: "Get that man out of here!  I never want to see him again!"

Now let me get serious. . .

You keep bringing up this matter of an "ambush"--not well concealed---as if that solves a problem.

That's simply not the case. At all.  That would simply breed hysteria and political instability.

Also, and I find this quite peculiar: you attempt to give your idea legitimacy by going to the Northwoods papers, and apparently thinking that you can import what's there over to the Dallas situation, and use it as some sort of template (for the Dallas murder).

IMPORTING NORTHWOODS AS A "TEMPLATE" FOR DALLAS

But you can't do that. There's no connection.

Why? Because the political leadership had no interest in invading Cuba. Maybe there's some generals who wanted to do that, but the civilian leadership certainly did not--certainly not after the close call with nuclear was from the year before, when the US and USSR almost came to blows.

Furthermore, I don't agree with this whole business of  "re-christaining"--"re-naming"--that   seems to be going on.  You can't create such a legitimate nexus by saying, "Well, I'll just re-name it. I'll call it "Northwoods (Revised)."

That's just playing word games, and it doesn't solve the problem.

NORTHWOODS--WHAT IT WAS

The goal of Northwoods was to fabricate an incident in order to generate public outrage and spark an invasion of Cuba.

That was not the goal of the Kennedy assassination. The goal of the Kennedy assassination--or at least the predictable (and very legal) consequence of that murder--was that (a) Kennedy would be gone, and (b) that the Vice President would become president.

There is no evidence, anywhere in the record, that Lyndon Johnson was in collusion with anyone to execute a covert agenda and invade Cuba. Its just not there.

WHAT WAS "THERE" - Southeast Asia.

However, there is plenty of reasonable evidence that Johnson did reverse Kennedy's policy of Vietnam withdrawal (practically within 48 hours) and  then went forward--months later, to get legal authority to go to war in SE Asai (the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, August 1964 [?]) and then, a month or so after his own inauguration (around Feb 1965)  and a good 15 months after JFK's murder, implemented a gradual policy of escalation, which then led to the fourth largest war in American history.

THE SNIPER'S NEST AND THE AUTOPSY REPORT

Now going back to those two functions that I listed at the outset: the sniper's nest has no legal validity--it is of no "relevance," as  lawyers might say--unless there's legal connection between the rifle on the sixth floor and the crime that took place in the street below.

That's what autopsy falsification is all about.  To provide that nexus.

And anyone who argued, "Well, we don't need to falsify the autopsy. We'll just say multiple assassins were involved, and a few of them got away! What's the big deal?"

Sorry, but I don't agree. Indeed, and quite to the contrary: That's one very big deal.

IMHO: what you're proposing is a completely unworkable plan, and would lead to public hysteria and political instability, and the country would be swamped with rumors that since a conspiracy took JFK's life, and since it took place in Texas, and since Johnson benefited, then he must have been involved. That's the way the public would have reacted, so I don't think such a plan is workable.  It would only breed major trouble, and serious chaos in the body politik.

DSL

4/16/2017 - 12;40 p.m. PDT; edited 8 p.m.

Los Angeles, California

 

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


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

If a serious investigation had ensued it would have been obvious (like it is now) that Oswald's Communist credentials were fake.

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

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

 

Share this post


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

Ron:

I think you're entirely incorrect.

And what you're suggesting is unworkable, and implausible.

Here's why:

If my analysis is correct, there were--broadly speaking--two separate functions in connection with the plot (in general) and the goings on at Dealey Plaza, in particular.

#1: An engineering function; objective: to murder the President

#2: A "theatrical" function; objective: to create the appearance of an "investigation" that focused in upon the sniper's nest, in general; and then, moving in even closer, focused on the "lone assassin" who had been "the sniper," this person who was identified as Lee Oswald, an ex-Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union in October 1959, and returned in mid-June 1962, with his Soviet wife and four month old baby.

 

David,

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

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

 

Edited by Ron Ecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2017 at 9:06 PM, Ron Ecker said:

And it doesn't make much sense to me that conspirators would plan a multi-shooter ambush with the express intent of blaming it on one person.  

Once again, I agree with Ron Ecker.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Were JFK's wounds altered in order to prevent WW III?

Yes, according to a Walker-did-it CT, whose shooters were among the Dallas Police.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


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

  If a serious investigation had ensued it would have been obvious (like it is now) that Oswald's Communist credentials were fake.  

Paul B.,

Actually, Hoover saw instantly that Oswald was connected with 544 Camp Street and Guy Banister -- so it was absolutely guaranteed that no serious investigation would ever ensue.

Besides, among the majority -- and especially among the Mass Media -- Oswald's Communist credentials are still regarded as real

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...