Paul Jolliffe
-
Posts
760 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Paul Jolliffe
-
-
11 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:
Thanks, spot on, I have a copy next to. me.
Of course the ex-director (fired by JFK) was at The Farm at the very moment of JFK's assassination! Why, don't you know that ex-directors hang out at secure CIA facilities at crucial moments in American history all the time, and it's always a coincidence, unworthy of investigation or even speculation? Only a commie or a mental defective would possibly even wonder about that . . .
Next I suppose you'll tell me that you find it bizarre that Allen Dulles was not only named to but was also the most active member of the Warren Commission. Why, just because JFK refused to take the CIA's bait at the Bay of Pigs doesn't mean Dulles hated Kennedy with a purple passion - nooo, Allen Dulles always had the interests of ordinary Americans in mind, and kept sacred the right of the people to rule themselves through their popularly elected officials. Allen Dulles did not spend his entire professional career beholden to the most powerful members of American society, and nor did he seek to enlarge both his personal power and fortune at the expense of American interests. He did not spend 50 years advancing the interests of the most elite people in the world with every fiber of his being!
Nooo, Allen Dulles was a saint, a saint I tell you!
I suppose you'll be telling me some fantasy about Dulles's belief that CIA officials ought to lie under oath when they believed it necessary! And I bet you'll try to infer something because Dulles said this before an astonished Warren Commission Executive Session on January 27, 1964, and the transcript of which was then marked "Top Secret" and withheld from the American public for over a decade!
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1328#relPageId=29&tab=page
What are you, some kind of conspiracy theorist?
-
On 12/13/2020 at 1:43 AM, Joseph McBride said:
Vince, thank you again for the major work you have done on
the Secret Service aspects of the plot, some of the most
important and illuminating research on the case. BTW,
the RTE did a wonderful documentary on JFK's Irish trip, JOHN F. KENNEDY
IN THE ISLAND OF DREAMS, released in the US on VHS as JFK IN IRELAND.
My Irish wife, Dr. Ruth O'Hara, at age two years and ten months in June 1963, was upset her parents
didn't take her with them to the Dublin motorcade, so she insisted they drive
to Galway so they could see him in Eyre Square on June 29. He gave a memorable
speech there. She thought he was an imposter because she had
only seen him on black-and-white TV, and the man she saw speaking
had auburn hair. It is haunting that he said in his speech, "So I must say that though other days may not be so bright as we look toward the future, that the brightest days will continue to be those in which we visited you here in Ireland." I've visited Eyre Square a couple of times to see the site of the speech. The home of Nora Barnacle (James Joyce's wife) is nearby, as is the Spanish Arch.
I'd never seen that footage before. Very moving.
Thanks, Joseph, for posting it.
-
On 12/11/2020 at 4:24 PM, David Lifton said:
Joe,
You spell out your objections (and in doing so) reveal the way you perceive the problem:
Repeating your objections:
Why would the plotters have wanted a Dallas autopsy,
since it would have been performed by Dr. Earl Rose [?]
who did the exemplary autopsies on Tippit and Oswald?
Dr. Rose could not be controlled. He would have recorded evidence of
wounds caused by shots from different directions.
My response to your assertions:
“Why would the plotters have wanted a Dallas autopsy?”
RESPONSE: Plotters would want a Dallas autopsy —and especially one performed by Dr. Rose, the Dallas Medical Examiner —because anything else would smack of something “unusual” —and perhaps, even, a coverup.
“Dr. Rose could not be controlled.”
DSL comment: Agreed. And Dr. Rose was not in fact “controlled.”
“He (Dr. Rose) would have recorded evidence of wounds caused by shots from different directions.”
DSL Comment: Not necessarily. Only if the body was not medically altered prior to any such Dallas autopsy. (I hope you do realize that a Dallas autopsy would not necessarily have valid conclusions simply because it was performed in the right ZIP code.)
FINAL COMMENT: Your problem. Joe (and IMHO): You have not conceived of a situation in which Rose examined an altered body. But that is your problem — a failure to understand the design of the original Dallas plan. Full details to be spelled out in Final Charade. (12/11/20; 1:20 PM PST)
David,
When I was re-reading the FBI's Sibert/O'Neill Report on the autopsy, I was struck (yet again) about the bizarre language in this particular passage:
"Also during the latter stages of the autopsy, a piece of the skull measuring 10 x 6.5 centimeters was brought to Dr. HUMES who was instructed that this had been removed from the President’s skull. Immediately this section of skull was X-Rayed . . ."
http://22november1963.org.uk/sibert-and-oneill-report#sibert-oneill-report
A piece of the president's skull was "brought to Dr. Humes"? Where had it been if it wasn't already on JFK's head?
A chunk of the president's head measuring 4" by 2.5" just mysteriously "was brought" to the autopsy?
https://www.ginifab.com/feeds/cm_to_inch/actual_size_ruler.html
The passive voice here is telling. The lack of official curiosity is stunning! These two FBI agents were to write down everything that happened and who did what, and yet, a gigantic piece of the president's head just appears in some unnamed person's hands, and they offer exactly no explanation!
Further, this unnamed person then "instructed" Humes that this piece "had been removed from the President's skull."
Who "removed" it?
When was it "removed"?
How was it "removed"?
Why was it "removed"?
Where was this "removal" performed?
It was not present at the beginning of the "official" autopsy in time for the X-rays. No, this mystery piece of skull was yet to be X-rayed!
David, I believe this constitutes your strongest piece of evidence that some sort of medical procedure had taken place before the beginning of the autopsy.
This is not the recollection of eyewitnesses as to the condition of the wounds on the president, strong though those recollections may be. This is not the memory of now-missing photos and X-rays, material at odds with the official version, suspicious as their disappearance may be.
No, this is an official FBI report, a document from the U.S. Government, published and endorsed by the sanctioned authority, the Warren Commission itself.
This is not merely evidence, this is PROOF that some kind of clandestine medical procedure took place somewhere before the official beginning of the autopsy.
We don't know the who, or how, or where, or when, or why (although we can guess!)
But we can say that such a procedure did indeed take place, and about it, the Warren Commission (and all of the official government lickspittle apologists ever since) have had nothing to say.
Their silence is both telling and damning.
-
Well, I just found a pretty helpful article with not one, not two, but three sketches of the Bethesda morgue:
http://dealeyplazauk.com/research/collections/barry-keane/harold-skip-rydberg/
The three artists are Harold Rydberg, Paul K. O'Connor, and Lee Waske.
O'Connor's sketch from 1992, and Waske's sketch from 1968 appear to depict the morgue in a near-similar manner, albeit from two different angles. These two sketches seem to match the general background layout of the autopsy photos.
Rydberg's 2003 sketch may be the same room , but the phone is off, the sink(s) is a little off, and the "coolers" are on the wrong wall. I presume that Rydberg's memory in 2003 had faded somewhat. (He died in 2017 at the age of 77.)
Alan Eaglesham argued back in 2006 that in fact, the autopsy photos were indeed taken at Bethesda. He compared the background of the JFK photos with those of an autopsy from 1966 and found many identical details, including the floor.
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/AutopsyRoom/
For now, it appears Aubrey Rike's suspicion about the floor of the Bethesda morgue was unfounded.
-
1 minute ago, Joe Bauer said:
It would seem quite possible to get more verifiction of the tile floor we see in the photo above being different that the Bethesda concrete floor. Probably hundreds if not over 1,000 people were familiar with the interior having worked and/or come through that area in question. Correct?
Joe,
The Bethesda Navy Hospital in 1963 is now part of the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. This is the complex where the official autopsy was performed.
This gets confusing because in 1963 there was also the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. This facility (below) closed in 2011:
Attached below are photos (including the TILE FLOOR, not concrete) from Walter Reed Army Hospital's morgue. If you blow up the image, the floor is tile, but not the pattern seen on the floor of the room from the official autopsy photos.
While I don't know where the official autopsy photos were taken, a possible clue might be found in an article from 1992: Boswell claimed that he believed the autopsy should have been performed at the AFIP at Walter Reed:
"Boswell had been at the hospital going over autopsy slides with pathology residents. He recalls, ''Early in the afternoon, we received a call from Dr. Bruce Smith from AFIP, saying, `The president`s body is on its way to Bethesda for an autopsy.` I argued, `That`s stupid. The autopsy should be done at AFIP (which was located 5 miles away at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center).`
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-24-9202160436-story.html
I haven't found a picture of a morgue at the AFIP, apparently part of the WRAH. I am not even certain that AFIP itself had a morgue, but since Boswell was specific in his recollection about his conversation in 1992, I bet he believed that AFIP had such a separate facility from the WRAH.
This next link is the morgue (with the wall vaults) at Walter Reed in Washington, D.C. (Not Bethesda, Maryland):
https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-101401318-img
I assume (but don't know) if the autopsy room pictured as an attachment below is the same room as the morgue, perhaps from a different angle. The floor appears to be the same in both images.
So, what we know so far is that the floor at the WRAH does NOT match the floor of the official autopsy photos. Whether the floor in those photos match the floor of the morgue at the Bethesda facility (or the floor of a - presumed - morgue at the AFIP) remains unknown.
Any help here from anyone would be greatly appreciated.
-
20 hours ago, David Lifton said:
David,
Walt Brown's interview with Aubrey Rike about the autopsy photos raises (yet again) the intriguing possibility (probability?) that those photos were NOT taken in the Bethesda morgue:
"Postscript: I recontacted Rike to clear up the last rites question, and he insisted that he was present, along with only one priest, when the sacraments were given, and that the shroud on the President's head was not removed. In our Dallas talk, he had seemed to place a great deal of faith in the theories advanced in 1980 by David Lifton, and I asked him in this postscript if he gave any consideration to the possibility that the photos, not JFK, had been altered. "I sat with the fella that took the photos," he told me. "He said the tiles on the floor don't work, as Bethesda had a concrete floor, and he also had a problem with the metal apparatus that was holding the President's head, as the one at Bethesda was made of rubber."
David, do you have any speculations where the autopsy photos were taken, especially this one?
-
10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
I've never known about JFK's body not leaving Parkland until 2:08, that he was there for 90 minutes. If they quit treatment at 12:50 and declared him dead at 1:00 that means he was there over an hour afterwards. Plenty of time for nurses to clean the body, the ceremonial casket to arrive and his body to be placed in it, with time left over.
Time to switch it to a shipping casket, take it down to the "basement" level on the elevator and out the "tunnel" to the back dock? This is important to me as I've long doubted the switching being done on AF 1 at Love Field or in the air. It would support the shipping casket/two caskets stories, arrival time discrepancies and body alteration at (possibly Walter Reed or) Bethesda, which did happen imho. If so, the body was on the way while the SS argued with Earl Rose over the empty casket? A realistic possibility?
Ron,
While that scenario seems a tempting possibility, it is contradicted by first-day witnesses everyone concedes had no reason to lie: Aubrey Rike and Dennis McGuire from the O'Neal Ambulance Service. These men claimed on Friday afternoon to have physically placed the president's body into the bronze ceremonial casket from the funeral home and then put that casket into the hearse, which they then drove to the airport.
http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/rike.html
Note that in the second interview, Aubrey Rike specifically endorses Lifton's theory of body-alteration.
David Lifton has claimed that Rike told him that he, Rike, stayed with the casket from the moment it was closed until it was placed into the ambulance. Unless Rike was lying, a body-switch/alteration scenario at Parkland would seem to be impossible.
Perhaps David Lifton could post the relevant audio portion of his interview with Rike?
-
16 hours ago, David Lifton said:
Joe, you write, regarding the exit of the Dallas coffin from Parkland: "I suspect the coffin was empty, the reason for the nearly violent confrontation in the [hospital] hallway. . " and your commentary shows that your reconstruction of events is decidedly different from mine.
1. The coffin was not "empty" when it left Parkland. There was no opportunity --at Parkland--to covertly remove the body from the Dallas coffin, after the nurses washed the body, and placed it in the coffin, after which Aubrey Rike --as he told me in a very emotional filmed interview -- "closed the lid." I fail to understand why you would assert that the coffin "was empty" at that point in time, when there is no evidence to indicate that is so; whereas, contrarily, there is much evidence to indicate that the body was removed from the coffin after the coffin was placed aboard Air Force One (and before Jackie et all entered the aircraft).
2. Re the "violent confrontation in the hallway": the reason LBJ et al, and SS Agent Kellerman (who was carrying out his instructions) did not want the coffin opened, is not that the coffin was empty, but because it contained the body of JFK --the unaltered body of JFK--which plainly indicated he was shot from the front. Specifically, JFK's body (as it existed in that coffin) contained the same wounds observed by Dr. Perry, and the other Dallas doctors. The two key observations made at Parkland were: (a) an entry at the front of the throat; and (b) an exit at the right rear of the head. In other words, the Secret service agents forced their way out of Parkland Hospital with the Dallas coffin, not because the coffin was empty; but because it contained the unaltered body -- I repeat, the Unaltered body -- of JFK, with the same wounds observed by the Dalls doctors when they first saw the body, after its arrival at Prlnd Hospital at about 12:35 - 12:38 pm.
3. Why complicate matters by positing a sequence that clearly is not supported by any evidence in the record? (Also: If, as you apparently postulate, the Dallas coffin was empty at the time the coffin left Parkland, then that requires an explanation for how JFK's body got to Air Force One. Have you got any explanation for how the body of JFK got to Air Force One? The record --as we know it--indictes that the body was inside the coffin; and that, once there (i.e.,, once aboard AF-1) it was then removed from the coffin and that it left via the rear starboard (half) door, and was then placed in the forward luggage area). See final two chapters of Best Evidence, plus postings I have made on the London Forum. (DSL, 12/13/20)
David,
You and I agree that Aubrey Rike's statement proves that the casket with the president's unaltered body at Parkland remained sealed until it arrived at Air Force One. No body alterations occurred at Parkland.
However, you seem to be implying that you believe that a number of people, including SS Agent Roy Kellerman, knew of the need to hide evidence of frontal shots in advance of the assassination, and thus the need to remove (forcibly and quickly) the body from Dallas.
Yet Kellerman's own testimony before the Warren Commission belies that (apparent) assumption:
"Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir."Kellerman indicated here his belief that a bullet traveled from front to back through the president's skull. Such a stated belief meant that Kellerman could not have been aware of the plot to hide evidence of frontal shots.
My aim here is not to nitpick, but rather to suggest that the the body alteration may (MAY) have been a hasty improvisation, necessitated by an unforeseen development: "Oswald" was still very much alive on Friday afternoon.
It is unarguable that no belated, frantic, risky body-alteration plan would have been necessary if the plan originally called for the framing of multiple shooters from multiple directions. In that case, of course there were wounds of entry from the front - there was at least one frontal (fall-guy) shooter!
We know from WC Exhibit 3077 that Garland Slack's wife, Lucille, told the FBI agent Alfred Neeley that "Mr SLACK maintained that OSWALD was at the rifle range on November 17, 1963, and that he had been brought there by a man named "FRAZIER" from Irving, Texas".
Our man "Oswald" was never at the Sports Drome Rifle Range, and we have no evidence Buell Wesley Frazier was ever there, either.
It has long been conceded that the rifle range incidents were part of a pre-assassination frame-up of "Oswald." Yet here we have clear evidence - from the WC's own files! - that the pre-assassination frame included Frazier too. And, since Frazier came within an inch on Friday night, 11/22/63 of being charged as an accomplice of "Oswald's".
Two fall guys. Not one.
Two fall guy shooters, from multiple directions.
No need for body-alteration, at least as long as the main scapegoat, "Oswald" was dead and unable to defend himself.
But he wasn't dead as of Friday afternoon, and the plotters were certainly desperate to pin it all on him.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_3077.pdf
-
11 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:
I await your book for what you write about "the original Dallas plan" -- I hope we
see the book soon. Dr. Rose surely would have done the JFK autopsy right away, however.
Dr. Rose did the Tippit autopsy in midafternoon, but Kennedy would have taken precedence. That
would have the conspirators given only a short time to alter the body -- and where in
the hospital? I suspect the coffin was empty, the reason
for the nearly violent confrontation in the hallway; there was a tunnel
exit from Parkland out of sight of the media. I discuss this possibility in INTO THE NIGHTMARE. Have you considered that?
Joseph,
I read your fine book some years ago. Thanks for all the incredible effort and information. Truly, your book is a "must read."
I wonder how much of the wound-alteration procedure was actually planned in advance. Was it, perhaps, a hasty, desperate improvisation by the conspirators, necessitated by the news that a very-much-alive "Oswald" had been arrested in Dallas?
I have long suspected (and argued) that the conspirators intended to frame not only "Oswald" but also, very possibly, Buell Wesley Frazier (and maybe unnamed others!) I've long wondered if the original plan was to frame "Oswald" as the ringleader of a group of disgruntled, unhinged Castro supporters, a couple of whom also fired at the president.
If that was the original plan, then that would have solved (from the conspirators viewpoint) the problem of multiple shooters, as seen and heard by numerous witnesses. There was no need to alter the body if the original plan called for the framing of multiple shooters from different directions.
And, as I and many others have long suspected, if the original plan also called for "Oswald's" murder within minutes of the assassination, the frame would have been much easier. I am certain that the bizarre search by the two unnamed Dallas PD officers of the McWatters bus within a few minutes of the assassination was the first attempt to kill "Oswald" right then. Many, many people have argued that "Oswald" only survived arrest at the Texas Theater because he shouted "I am not resisting arrest" repeatedly, making the second attempt to murder him then impossible.
Enormous pressure was put on Buell Frazier to "confess" late Friday night, and he was in real danger of being charged as an accessory (or maybe as an actual assassin!) until Will Fritz got the mysterious call from Washington around midnight on Friday, and all of the Dallas PD evidence was then turned over to the FBI. Without that call, Fritz might have eventually succeeded in browbeating/intimidating/beating Frazier into some kind of admission of complicity. (Not that I believe that Frazier was a part of anything, merely that the original plan called for his "confession" to support the case against the then dead "Oswald." Except that, of course, "Oswald" was not dead on Friday night.)
So, to sum up, there was no need to alter the body if the original plan called for framing multiple shooters from multiple directions. This would have accorded nicely with the real eye and earwitnesses who did indeed see and hear multiple shooters!
But framing accomplices required a dead ringleader - "Oswald." And he wasn't (yet) dead.
As of late Friday afternoon, there was a very real danger (to the conspirators) that "Oswald" might live to stand trial. So, the need to screw with the medical evidence to make it appear that all the damage was done by only one shooter.
A living, breathing (talking!) "Oswald" was arrested a few minutes before 2 pm, Dallas time. At that moment, I believe President Kennedy's body was still at Parkland.
Do you, Joseph McBride, or you, David Lifton, have any evidence that anyone at Parkland got a phone call saying that the suspect had been arrested while the president's body was still at the hospital?
Was the (shocking!) news that "Oswald" was alive the catalyst for the wound-alteration plan? For the conspirators on Friday afternoon, did a living "Oswald" mean they had to improvise a case that there was only one shooter?
-
On 12/5/2020 at 2:18 PM, Joe Bauer said:
John Jay McCloy:
Following his service in Germany, he served as chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank from 1953 to 1960 (but there was no "Chase Manhattan Bank" before 1955) , and as chairman of the Ford Foundation from 1958–65; he was also a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation from 1946 to 1949, and then again from 1953 to 1958, before he took up the position at Ford.
Following the 1953 death of Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, President Eisenhower considered appointing McCloy in his place, but he was viewed as too favourable to big business.[28]
From 1954 to 1970, he was chairman of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations in New York, to be succeeded by David Rockefeller, who had worked closely with him at the Chase Bank. McCloy had a long association with the Rockefeller family, going back to his early Harvard days when he taught the young Rockefeller brothers how to sail. He was also a member of the Draper Committee, formed in 1958 by Eisenhower.
From 1966 to 1968, he was Honorary Chairman of the Paris-based Atlantic Institute.[29]
In late 1967 McCloy was considered by US President Lyndon Johnson for the position of US Ambassador to the United Nations and was approached by Secretary of State Dean Rusk on this matter, however McCloy turned down the offer.[30]
John McCloy (far left) and the Warren Commission present their report to President Johnson.Warren Commission[edit]
McCloy was selected by President Lyndon Johnson to serve on the Warren Commission in late November 1963. Notably, he was initially skeptical of the lone gunman theory, but a trip to Dallas with CIA veteran Allen Dulles, an old friend also serving on the Commission, convinced him of the case against Oswald. To avoid a minority dissenting report, McCloy brokered the final consensus and the crucial wording of the primary conclusion of the final report. He stated that any possible evidence of a conspiracy was "beyond the reach" of all of America's investigatory agencies, principally the FBI and the CIA as well as the Commission itself.[31] In a 1975 interview with Eric Sevareid of CBS, McCloy stated, "I never saw a case that I thought was more completely proven than... the assassination."[32]
He described writings that propagated assassination conspiracies theories as "just nonsense."[32]
Joe,
It's long been recognized that John J. McCloy was the nsider's insider on the Warren Commission. Donald Gibson, in his outstanding book "The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up" argued that the Warren Commission should more properly have been called the McCloy/Dulles commission because they controlled proceedings.
A great example was Dulles and McCloy's ability to override Earl Warren and his choice for general counsel for the commission. Warren wanted his longtime associate and friend, Warren Olney III from California, but Dulles and McCloy wanted J. Lee Rankin.
Guess who won.
https://www.justice.gov/criminal/history/assistant-attorneys-general/warren-olney
-
All of these points are valid, but really isn't it just a simple matter that studying the JFK assassination is hard, and for most people, it is too intellectually demanding for them?
Most ordinary people trust the mainstream media at least a little on most issues. So when the MSM presents its universal, monolithic "Oswald did it, Oswald did it alone, and Oswald did it because he was a nut" theory, well then most folks assume that must have some veneer of truth to it.
I realize that lots of people still have doubts about the Warren Commission's basic conclusions, but most people just don't understand the basics of the evidence. They have not the time, the self-discipline or the capacity to wade through the evidence. So doubts are all they have, and they don't dare voice those doubts because of potential ridicule, particularly in a public forum.
For those of us on forums such as this one, i think we can take major satisfaction in the vehemence and the rage of the MSM at anyone who dares to dissent from the Lone Nut view. The JFK assassination is clearly a very, very sensitive topic and fifty seven years later, it is still just as taboo as ever.
That tells me just how crucial it remains today to keep the ultimate sponsors of the assassination hidden from public view.
If by some miracle, we could prove precisely to whom Allen Dulles and James Angleton were ultimately responsible, we would shake not merely the historical record, but the very underpinnings of American society today!
That's why the case is still such a no-go for the mainstream media, and why it is so relevant today!
They hate us, and ridicule us and shout us down not because we're wrong, but because we're right!
-
18 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:
It looks like people, generally, are still not taking Prouty seriously as an honest, primary source witness of the history of "the CIA, Vietnam, and the plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy"-- including his involvement in writing portions of the Pentagon Papers and the McNamara/Taylor Report.
My question. Why?
Why, for example, would people consider historians like John Newman, or others, more credible sources about events Prouty was involved in than Prouty himself?
The implication is that Prouty was either dishonest, or lacking in discernment. Both notions seem inaccurate to me.
W. Niederhut,
I can't speak for others on this thread, but my point in citing the extended quote from work of Howard Jones above was to lend support to your claim that Prouty (and Krulak) had a key hand in drafting the Taylor/McNamara Report.
Howard Jones, in his seminal "Death of a Generation: How the Assassinations of Diem and JFK Prolonged the Vietnam War", did not mention either Prouty or Krulak by name in that passage. However, the Michael Forrestal material confirms that the basics of that report - not merely the outline, but the guts of it - was written in advance, in Washington, D. C., just as Prouty has long claimed. And just as surely, that task was done at the behest of President Kennedy himself. We can not prove that the either Krulak or Prouty was a principal author of the draft copy, but both men had the requisite knowledge and experience to do so.
Prouty's claim to have written the Taylor/McNamara Report in advance is certainly plausible, but probably unprovable beyond any doubt.
-
On 11/9/2020 at 10:46 AM, Rob Clark said:
Niederhut....I have a clue, you sir are the one stuck in Prouty's fantasy world. Again, slower this time, just for you...JFK was not sold on the recommendations from the Krulak/Mendenhall Mission so he sent McNamara and Taylor a week later for a second opinion. Krulak was not with them, not on the plane, not in Honolulu, and had absolutely nothing to do with the writing of the McNamara/Taylor report. Lowly Col. Prouty, plane and boat getter for the CIA, had absolutely nothing to do with drafting any NSAM's...PERIOD! The moral of this story to me is never debate someone who hasn't done any research and only read a fibber's book. Prouty was one of the OG's of disinformation, and suckers like you are still taken in 50 years later by his "stories"
"JFK was not sold on the recommendations from the Krulak/Mendenhall Mission so he sent McNamara and Taylor a week later for a second opinion."
Rob, there was no single clear-cut recommendation from Krulak and Mendenhall.
President Kennedy was so taken aback by the completely differing accounts from his two men - men whose mission was to provide support for the president's position that American training of and logistical and technical support for the ARVN could now begin to be scaled back on a major scale - that Kennedy infamously asked of Krulak and Mendenhall "You two did visit the same country, didn't you?"
Krulak's sunny view of the potential for ARVN's success in the field contrasted starkly with Mendenhall's pessimism. Mendenhall focused on the failure of the Diem regime to persuade ordinary South Vietnamese that they were better off with Diem at the helm, instead of the VC.
The U.S. military (for years) had emphasized that with American aid, the ARVN was "winning" the war. The president had planned to use that (false) optimism to justify an American withdrawal. JFK did not believe the cheerful reports, but he saw them as a way to say in effect "OK, our job is done here."
Rob, I am sure you know this, but John Newman demonstrated decades ago that the military reporting on the war began to take on a decidedly dark tone after NSAM 263 was issued. They believed (falsely) that the president's policy of a massive reduction of American involvement was based on Kennedy's misreading of the true situation in Vietnam, so if they now chose to reveal the truth to him, then he would change his mind about withdrawal.
But they were wrong - Kennedy already knew the truth: the war was not going well for South Vietnam or the Diem regime. Ultimately it would be up to the South Vietnamese to fight it, not America. For President Kennedy, these new, accurate military reports were irrelevant to his stated policy - we were getting out, regardless.
As to whether Fletcher Prouty himself had a hand in drafting the Taylor/McNamara Report, I don't know. However, I do know that on page 370 of "Death of a Generation" (which I have beside me at this very moment), Howard Jones claimed that Michael Forrestal himself was quoted by Kai Bird in "The Color of Truth" as saying "During the flight, Bundy and others received binders of materials, including a draft of the report that they were to prepare afterwards. Years after the mission, Forrestal asserted that the observations had already been "carefully spelled out, [with] all the statistics to back them up". He described it as a "dreadful visit" where the members attempt to accumulate "phony statistical" evidence of success."
Rob, this is powerful evidence that the Taylor/McNamara Report report indeed was prepared in Washington in advance. And, such preparation could only have done at the express order of President Kennedy. He wanted this optimistic report for the reasons I outlined earlier.
Maybe Prouty exaggerated his own role in drafting this report, or maybe he didn't. I don't know, but I'm not sure it really matters much - JFK wanted out, and he created the Taylor/McNamara Report to provide the escape route.
-
16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Gene:
in Ellsberg's book, he describes his meeting with Lansdale during the Johnson administration. And he talks about Lansdale and his relationship with Diem. (Secrets, 98-125)
He says that he was aware of the relationship between Diem and Lansdale and says Ed really liked the guy. And he implies that this helped blind him to Diem's serious shortcomings.
Ellsberg then talks about his journey to Vietnam and his meetings with Jean Paul Vann. And it was there, with Vann that he saw that what America had tried to construct there was really camouflage a losing battle.
Remember, Halberstam and and Sheehan later tried to hide their earlier backing of Vann's ideas on direct American intervention in the war. Because once it happened, it was clear that it would lead nowhere. This is one reason why Kennedy wanted Halberstam shipped out of Vietnam.
Prouty always suspected that there was something to the Lansdale/Ellsberg association. I have never been able to support that.
Jim,
James Galbraith asked two decades ago "Was Nhu in discussions with intermediaries for Ho Chi Minh, with the possibility that there might have been a deal between North and South to boot the Americans from Vietnam? It appears that he was. And had he succeeded, it would have saved infinite trouble."
https://bostonreview.net/archives/BR28.5/galbraith.html
Any deal between Diem and Ho which ended America's military involvement in Vietnam meant no later, wider Vietnam War. This, of course, was completely unacceptable to the hawks in both Saigon and Washington. The removal of Diem (coupled with the impossibility of his return, thanks to his assassination), made the larger Vietnam War possible.
Lansdale may have genuinely liked Diem, but ultimately Lansdale was an agent for those forces determined to have the Vietnam War.
-
Fascinating as it is to look at these documents, I still want to know more about the last-minute talks in which Diem was (allegedly) willing to engage with Ho Chi MInh. James Galbraith asked two decades ago "Was Nhu in discussions with intermediaries for Ho Chi Minh, with the possibility that there might have been a deal between North and South to boot the Americans from Vietnam? It appears that he was. And had he succeeded, it would have saved infinite trouble."
https://bostonreview.net/archives/BR28.5/galbraith.html
We need to discover exactly who knew about this approach, both in Vietnam and in Washington.
Any late deals between the Diem regime and Ho would certainly have included the end of any significant American involvement - in other words, no possibility of the Vietnam War.
Was the coup of November 1, 1963 facilitated in part by (American) officials determined to bring about such a war?
-
On 10/31/2020 at 2:59 PM, James DiEugenio said:
Gene, thanks for reading that four part article on Burns/Novick. I actually bought the DVD on that so I could repeat and fast forward at my leisure. If anyone wants it let me know since i think its pretty worthless. Very disappointing and it has impacted my view of Burns. A friend of mine showed it to the narrator Peter Coyote. After a dialogue with him Coyote told him to send his complements on a job well done.
I am not an authority on Lansdale. I did read the Currey bio but I think its a sanitized book. Lansdale did want the ambassadorship to Saigon and he and Rostow did a little trick on JFK about a week into his presidency to try and gain it. Both men were hawks, especially Rostow, who like Nixon was a little nutty about that war seeing it as a Waterloo type situation--which it was not.
Lansdale was interested in the job because his mentor Allen Dulles had sent him there after he and his brother stopped the 1956 elections and created this new country South Vietnam. Lansdale was really CIA. I once accompanied John Newman to the Hoover institute and we discovered a letter by Lansdale in which he admitted this. Dulles got Lansdale appointed to Brigadier General through the CIA director's relationship with Lemay.
Lansdale was very important to the creation of this ersatz country under this ersatz leader Diem. He masterminded the scare campaign to frighten hundreds of thousands of catholics in the north to flee to the south in order to bolster Diem. He also rigged elections in the south to make it look like Diem had a massive constituency. Which he did not. Those elections were farces. Lansdale said, OK we can get you 60 per cent; DIem would say, he wanted 90 and Lansdale would get him ninety--even though more people would vote in a district than actually lived there. When critics would complain about all this not being a democracy, Lansdale would say, that is not what I was assigned to do.
There is no doubt Lansdale was an original and imaginative guy when it came to black ops and psy war. HIs campaign in Manila is legendary. But when it got to Mongoose, he was faced with a situation where he simply could not climb the wall since he had so few assets on the island. The other thing was that Robert Kennedy was a kind of ombudsman, and he had final approval over all operations. And he demanded that these be in writing and they be complete, down to how many men, what they were going in with, the beach they would land at, and what the objective was. After Mongoose was pretty much dissipated, Lansdale was kind of drifting until he retired on November 1, 1963.
Newman was once going to write a book on Lansdale but did not. He told me that Lansdale was in the Dallas/ Fort Worth area at the time of the assassination. I have no opinion whether or not that is him in those photos. I also do not have an opinion as to whether or not he was the master planner of the plot.
Jim,
Is it a coincidence that Ed Lansdale "retired" within hours of the Diem brothers' assassinations?
If, as many believe, there was plenty of CIA foreknowledge/involvement with the fate of the Diem brothers on November 1, 1963, then certainly Lansdale must have known.
James Galbraith wrote two decades ago that there were last minute indications that Ngo Dinh Diem was actually trying to cut a last-second deal with Ho Chi Minh, one that would have led to prompt American Military withdrawal.
If true, then I can easily see why ruthless officers within the CIA, hellbent on an eventual American ground war, would then facilitate the murder of the Diem brothers.
I can think of no other rational reason why Lansdale "retired" at the exact same time the removal of the brothers was made publice. His "work" was done.
-
On 10/27/2020 at 4:55 PM, James DiEugenio said:
Joe,
I cannot say one way or another about John's mother. But I think when Stone checked out the story she did work where he said she did. ANd I agree that if the story is true yes it does indicate a high level plot.
Gregg,
Abbie liked The Best and the Brightest? Wow, that is kind of shocking to me. I did a lot of work on that book and on Halberstam. He deliberately slanted the book in a way to make it seem that somehow JFK was responsible for the war. He later admitted this in a not very often quoted interview. When JFK came out, he said there was no military plot to escalate the war! When in fact he had been a part of that plot with Jean Paul Vann.
https://kennedysandking.com/reviews/ken-burns-lynn-novick-the-vietnam-war-part-two
Very few people were more responsible for misleading Americans about that war and covering up the reversal that happened after Kennedy's death than Halberstam was, along with his buddy Sheehan. And to think that Burns and Novick used Sheehan as a source is kind of sick.
The thing is the Trial of the Chicago Seven took place under Nixon's watch. Nixon continued the war unnecessarily for four years, after he knew it was lost. He ended up dropping more bombs on Indochina than LBJ did. Nixon caused the fall of the Cambodian government, which eventually led to the rise of Khymer Rouge.
Halberstam either ignored or minimized all of this. IMO, that book was really an abomination of history.
PS: Joe, Marcello lived in a different parish than the one Garrison governed. But the taverns he owned or partly owned in New Orleans, Garrison did raid for B girl drinking. And he actually did a cross county raid to try and get the DA there to do something. It did not work, so you can guess what was really happening.
"Nixon continued the war unnecessarily for four years, after he knew it was lost. "
Jim,
I've written before that I never believed that Oliver Stone got Nixon quite right - Stone was sure that Nixon's policy of governance (cards close to the vest, no leaks, don't use the regular government channels, such as the State Department, etc.) was a function of RMN's personality.
Stone even invented dialogue between Pat and Richard Nixon in which she wailed that he wouldn't let anyone in, not even her.
That is the conventional view to explain why Nixon was so secretive and "paranoid."
But that's not right, and Stone himself had some doubts about that explanation. In one of the best scenes in "Nixon", Stone has Nixon confess to a young female anti-war protestor at the Lincoln Memorial that he can't really stop the war, that he can "control it. Maybe not control it totally, but tame it enough to do some good."
I think that's much closer.
Nixon, because of his long experience in government, especially his eight years as Eisenhower's VP, knew the "system" (The Deep State) very well. He knew, for example, the Eisenhower really wanted the May 1960 peace summit with Khrushchev to be a success, yet thanks to the CIA U-2 crash, the summit was wrecked and Ike's final few months were seen as a failure.
Nixon governed the way he did because he knew (and feared) the American Deep State.
I think he was mortally afraid of who he might provoke if he quit Vietnam too quickly.
Unnecessary?
Sure, from our perspective, but Nixon saw the "system" up close. He wasn't stupid - he knew what had happened to President Kennedy.
-
19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
My interpretation of that quote is that Angleton believes the CIA killed Kennedy, but he wasn't involved.
Any other interpretations?
Yes, that's how read it too, Sandy.
It is just barely conceivable to me that Angleton might (might) have been telling the literal truth: he did not KNOW who did it. However, there is no possibility that he could not have strongly SUSPECTED who did it, and with a little digging, he could have found out.
If James Angleton truly did not know "who struck John", well that's because he didn't want to know.
Angleton had to have aware of the "Oswald" file for years before 1963.
The manipulation of the "Oswald" file at CIA HQ and the false cables to and from Mexico City about "Oswald's" supposed visit to the Cuban and Soviet Consulates could only have been part of an operation under Angleton's direction.
But Angleton wasn't nearly as connected to the Power Elite as Dulles. So. if Angleton was the chief architect of the assassination, then he was hired by Dulles on behalf of the Power Elite. (i.e. Did David Rockefeller give Allen Dulles the green light?)
However, could Angleton perhaps have done it on behalf of some other sponsors, outside of the United States?
Well, the Washington Post certainly gave us a hint in 1987:
-
1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:
Yes.
Anywhere between the 1min20sec mark and onward in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGPN1Lm3cnw
And another.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF6oevG06Xo
Thanks, Chris. Since I've never been up there, it was useful for me to see extensive continuous footage. Very helpful in providing perspective.
-
As I look at the close-up photos of the limo's windshield outside Parkland, I am not convinced there was really a through-and-through hole in it. There might have been, but I can't see it.
I know there are witnesses who insist the windshield was a hole and not a spidery crack, and maybe they are correct. But . . .
I guess I am on the fence on this: I can't really believe a high-powered rifle shot through the windshield would leave such (relatively) little damage to the windshield.
Does anyone have any photographic evidence of rifle shots penetrating any other vehicle's windshield and leaving such a small trace of impact?
Can anyone here cite a study of the damage to windshields from rounds of various calibers? (With lots of pictures for me to look at!)
What, exactly, does the damage from a 6.5, a 7.65, a .22, a .223, and so on do to a windshield from 100 yards?
Thanks in advance!
-
12 hours ago, Craig Carvalho said:
Paul,
While I agree that there was damage to the limousine's windshield, I am not convinced that a bullet or bullet fragment(s) actually penetrated it completely.
My theory, based on the available evidence, is that the third shot fired from the TSBD missed. I believe this bullet struck the chrome trim above the windshield just to the right of center. Looking closely at the photo below you can see that there is a smooth, circular hole in the center of the dent created upon impact.
It is my assertion that this third shot missed high as a direct result of the driver, (Greer), applying the brake immediately prior to the third shot being fired. Watching the Zapruder film we can observe Greer as he glances twice over his right shoulder to look into the rear passenger compartment. His first glance is quick lasting just a fraction of a second. But his second turn towards the rear and his gaze backwards continues until after the head shot. The action of applying the brakes as he looks away from the road ahead is instinctive... a reflex action. The timing of the deceleration and the shot together caused the shooter's shot to impact high... above the intended target.
There is another interesting piece of evidence that can be observed when we view the limousine's windshield from the front as it was seen and photographed by the Secret Service prior to it's removal. It reveals evidence that the limo's rear view mirror also exhibited signs of damage. A dent in the mirror's forward facing metal surface directly beneath the support arm can be seen. This would indicate that a bullet / bullet fragment(s) struck the trim, windshield, and deflected backwards striking the rear view mirror before coming to rest inside the passenger compartment.
* Notes:
1.) The two bullet fragments recovered from the front passenger compartment, (1 nose portion - largely copper jacketing, 1 base portion - largely copper jacketing), had a combined weight of approximately 70 grains. The 6.5 mm bullets used each weighed 162 grains.
2.) The FBI removed a portion of curb stone from the location where James Tague stood on the day of the assassination. There was clear evidence of a bullet strike to this piece of concrete. Their laboratory results indicated the presence of lead in this defect, but no copper, thereby rendering the results "inconclusive".
"2.) The FBI removed a portion of curb stone from the location where James Tague stood on the day of the assassination. There was clear evidence of a bullet strike to this piece of concrete. Their laboratory results indicated the presence of lead in this defect, but no copper, thereby rendering the results "inconclusive".
The whole FBI/James Tague curbstone removal thing is fascinating - the FBI did NOT want to have anything to do with a missed shot, and they certainly did not want to deal with Tague. The Warren Commission duly ignored the Tague shot until U.S. Attorney (for Dallas) Barefoot Saunders saw a short local article about Tague and had the integrity to insist to the Warren Commission that they investigate this shot.
So, in the summer of 1964, the FBI dug up the concrete curb approximately where Tague stood. They could not find any area where the bullet had chunked the concrete, but they did find the mysterious dark stain, which they theorized was residue from a glancing piece of a bullet. They had first-day photos in their possession from local news photographers which showed EXACTLY where Tague stood, and which showed EXACTLY a small hole in the concrete curb on 11/22/63!
Even more incredibly, in a desperate effort to explain how a once present hole was now a "smear", the FBI resorted to speculating the somehow street sweepers during the ensuing seven months had somehow filled in the gap!
No FBI explanation could be more absurd, and no acceptance of any such bull@#$ could be more risible!
Yet the Warren Commission accepted that whopper without a question!
When Tague testified to the Warren Commission, he revealed that some unknown parties had apparently tailed him when he himself had gone in the spring to look at the spot. The WC expressed no curiosity.
In the 1980's Harold Weisberg paid an outside analyst to look at the curbstone slab now in the National Archives. They reported the obvious: the lead "smear" was a patch over the hole. This patch had no evidentiary value, but whatever was beneath it would contain traces of residue which, when chemically analyzed, could disprove the entire government "solution" to the assassination. The patch destroyed evidence in a presidential assassination. Whoever did it committed a federal crime.
But of course, the U.S. government to this day has NO interest in learning who patched that hole.
There was a decent thread two years ago about this topic, and several posters were pretty knowledgeable. (I myself had a couple of lengthy conversations with the late Harold Weisberg about this 25 years ago.)
-
On 10/17/2020 at 10:18 AM, Jeff Carter said:
These complaints are much ado about nothing, IMO, and the “debunking” seems more aimed at portrayals within the JFK film rather than Prouty himself. This is obvious reading the ARRB document, which several times refers to “the segment dealing with ‘Mr. X’.”
Re: Antarctica. Rather than some sort of direct allegation of a sinister plotting, Prouty framed his suspicions (such as they were) as a surmise, based in part on the fact that it was Lansdale who recommended him for the Nov ’63 trip. (“I have always wondered…”). Even if the “JFK” screenwriters used self-acknowledged dramatic license in its portrayal or description of Prouty’s surmising, acknowledging such does not amount to a “debunking” of Prouty. Note that absolutely nothing of Garrison’s case -factually in New Orleans or as portrayed in the film - relied or hinged on Prouty’s Antarctica trip.
Christchurch Star - Again, this is more about the “JFK” film’s use of dramatic license than Prouty’s own descriptions of receiving word of the assassination while in New Zealand. Prouty had a unique experience in being so far away and thus hearing about the event in limited fashion rather than the encompassing saturation of developing information received stateside. While the Christchurch Star’s wire service report was not premature, Prouty’s remove enabled him to note - intuitively - that the extent of published information on a man who barely qualified as a suspect suggested what in tradecraft would be considered a cover story. Is his intuition wrong? I don’t think so. Someone had informed the major media outlets that Oswald was primary suspect re: the assassination although no supporting evidence would appear for another 24 hours. It remains one of the key mysteries: why and on what basis was Oswald fingered so early on? Prouty realized something was wrong in that regard only hours after the shooting,
Likewise, his intuition about the quality of motorcade security seems well placed. Was Dealey Plaza not a massive security breakdown? What exactly do you think you are “debunking” here? Prouty is not making absolute statements or claiming expertise or credentials outside of his personal opinion based on his own experiences, as the ARRB interviewers concede. I’m not sure that any serious scholarship on Secret Service/motorcade security relies on Prouty’s opinions, although I do seem to recall Vince Palamara mention on BOR once or twice that Prouty’s basic assumptions were correct. Similarly, his basic assumptions about Texas military intelligence units seem to be correct even if the detail of phone call to which he refers seems confused at the time of the ARRB interview. Even so, stating that “the content of the call and its implications are central to Prouty’s entire argument and allegations”, as the ARRB document does, is an overreach to say the least.
re: Lansdale. Obviously, since the man in the photograph is seen only from the rear, a positive ID will never be possible. However, Krulak did - apparently without prompting - follow Prouty in IDing the man as Lansdale. Prouty never claimed Lansdale to be the “mastermind” of the assassination, but rather pointed out that an important high-level operation would require experts in various capacities including the formation of cover stories and misdirections, and that Lansdale’s presence in Dallas could indicate both a specific task and point to a related operation. Are the debunkers arguing that there was no high-level plot in operation on that day?
Well stated, Jeff.
-
1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:
So I'm guessing that this photo was taken from the south side of the overpass, not the South Knoll, correct?
There is no doubt that this would be (virtually) a straight on shot at the president. And it appears any shot would have to pass through the windshield.
Of course, as I argued months ago, almost the same angle works back the other way too: the Dal-Tex building, especially the south side windows. (No back window to deflect either!) Which I suspect was indeed a firing point, behind not only the president, but also behind the crowds lining Houston Street. Everyone would be looking ahead at the president, and no one looking back at a building behind the motorcade.
(Except Howard Brennan did exactly that, and plainly said so to the Dallas Sheriff's office in his first day affidavit. But that's a different thread.)
-
On 10/10/2020 at 11:50 PM, Ron Bulman said:
My kid's find the subject interesting, daughter went to Dealy Plaza with me the weekend before the 50th. But it's a dad thing, history before their time.
So how to be concise and up front about the details of the big picture. That's a mouth full. (note to self: KISS)
Oswald didn't shoot anybody. He was a patsy. JFK was killed by elements of the CIA and possibly the military on behalf of what is known as the power elite. Wall street, the Council on Foreign Relations, the "East Coast Establishment", including Texas and world wide oil interests.
This get's really deep but the results carry forward to today. Seriously, Truthfully.
Back and to the left. Watch the movie JFK for starters, or again.
The mob hit of Oswald by Ruby in the basement of the Dallas jail, on national Television, is a giveaway to me. They didn't have the power to cover up the assassination. But they were used by the CIA in that cover up.
If your interested, let's talk about it.
Yes, the Ruby hit is a possible pathway to the conspirators, but obviously the WC did not want to go down that path.
I can't believe that was because Jack Ruby was only a function of the mob. I don't believe that's all he was. No, he was U.S. Intelligence - connected for years. We all know about his short-lived 1959 stint as a narc for the FBI, but clearly, anybody running guns to Cuba and high up in the Dallas drug trade for years before the assassination was no mere mob hitman. Jack Ruby was an asset/source for law enforcement at the local, state and federal levels.
Jack Revill all but admitted that Ruby had been a source for years:
"Mr. PURDY. Was Jack Ruby ever used as an informant by the Dallas Police Department?
Captain REVILL. He was not used as an informant by the intelligence unit. Whether or not Jack Ruby was used as a source of information, and there is a difference, this I don't know.
Mr. PURDY. To what extent is it possible that Jack Ruby was the
source of information to units other than yours?
Captain REVILL. Jack Ruby could have provided information to the members of the vice section who called upon his club, who conducted surveillances or visits into his clubs, but I have no knowledge, personal knowledge of this occurring. (!!!)So, I suppose the best way to find the sponsors of the assassination is to examine the pressure placed on those who covered up the crime. On whose behalf was Allen Dulles working? If he was not the chief architect, then it had to be someone close to him: Angleton or Helms.
Through Dulles we can see the path to the "Power Elite." So, maybe somewhere in the Allen Dulles papers there remains a hint or two. I doubt it, but maybe.
On the other hand, this excerpt from David Rockefeller's 2002 memoir is just jaw-dropping: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it” (p. 405).
"Working against the best interests of the United States . . . and I am proud of it."
Well.
I think we have our answer.
Death of Hubert Clark (one of the JFK casket bearers)
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
David,
Respectfully, I'm not so sure about that.
We all agree there were multiple shooters from multiple angles. Further I am certain that the bizarre (and suppressed) boarding of McWatters' bus by two unidentified DPD officers just a couple of minutes after "Oswald" had left the bus was in fact a deliberate attempt to kill "Oswald."
Also, "Oswald" very nearly was killed at the Texas Theater - had he not shouted loudly "I am not resisting arrest" many people believe he would have been shot right there.
No, I am convinced a crucial part of the plot was not merely to frame "Oswald" but to kill him immediately. A dead "Oswald" with all of his (supposed) work as a pro-Castro agent would have led immediately to an invasion of Cuba. The other unidentified shooters could (in the heat of the moment) been named as Castro agents.
Speculative?
Sure.
But the Friday night pressure on Buell Wesley Frazier to "confess" to being "Oswald's" confederate was real and enormous. As late as midnight Friday, the Dallas Police (in the person of Captain Fritz) were desperate to round up multiple shooters. It was only after J. Edgar Hoover called Dallas from Washington early Saturday morning that the DPD backed off Frazier. Not coincidentally, the "official" autopsy was complete by then.
(The plot to frame Frazier even included a pre-assassination frame of him - someone used Frazier's name in front of witnesses at the Sports Drome Rifle Range several weeks before the assassination. Yet the real Buell Wesley Frazier was never there, with or without "Oswald.")
David, I agree that the largest papers in New York and Washington were pushing the "lone nut" line way too early, but I'm not at all convinced that the Dallas Police were certain of that on Friday. Jesse Curry went to his grave in 1980 believing that there probably was a shooter on the grassy knoll.