Jon G. Tidd Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) Was there a set-up distinct from the cover-up? By "cover-up" I mean acts intended to blur or conceal or falsify the facts of the assassination. Acts performed post-assassination. By "set-up" I mean acts intended to implicate falsely Marina's husband ("Oswald", or if you prefer, "Harvey") as the killer of JFK. Acts performed pre-assassination. I define the terms "cover-up" and "set-up" in order to facilitate an exchange of ideas. If you don't like my definitions and want to use "cover-up" or "set-up" to mean other than the meaning I've given, please provide your own definition, so that back-and-forth may remain rational and focused. I do not know the answer to the question I pose. I do know this, however: [1] If there was a set-up distinct from the cover-up, not all those involved in the cover-up necessarily had foreknowledge of or complicity in the assassination. [2] If there was a set-up distinct from the cover-up, every individual who knowingly and voluntarily participated in or otherwise facilitated the set-up committed conspiracy to murder JFK. [3] If the set-up and cover-up were not distinct, they were not distinct for one of four reasons: [a] Either there was no set-up. Or there was no cover-up. [c] Or there was neither a set-up nor a cover-up. [d] Or there were both a set-up and a cover-up, under common control, that were intended to be parts of a single plan. The reason I don't know the answer to the question I pose is that I'm not sure there was a set-up the way I've defined it. I'm not sure because [a] I don't know the truth about Oswald's actions leading up to the assassination; and I don't know the truth about the physical items used to implicate Oswald. Here's how I lean, I lean toward believing whatever Oswald did, he did for his own reasons. I lean toward believing Oswald, like almost anyone, was capable of being influenced -- not in his reasoning but in the assumptions on which he acted. I lean toward believing the Mannlicher-Carcanno in the National Archives was not found in the TSBD. I lean toward believing the backyard photos were created post-assassination. So, according to my own definitions, I tend to lean toward there having been a cover-up but no set-up. This is a somewhat unsatisfactory conclusion to me. It doesn't feel right. It allocates to the cover-up all post-assassination acts intended to implicate Oswald falsely in the murder of JFK. In particular, it allocates to the cover-up acts intended to implicate Oswald falsely that were performed between the time of JFK's murder and the time of Oswald's arrest. These acts may include the murder of J.D. Tippit and the police broadcast of a Robert-Webster-like description. I resolve my lack of satisfaction this way: It's possible Oswald was not set up as I've defined set-up; i.e., was not set up pre-assassination to take the fall. It's possible Oswald through his own voluntary acts simply made himself into an ideal patsy. And it's possible there was a criminal conspiracy to implicate him in JFK's (and possibly also in J.D. Tippit's) murder that commenced immediately following JFK's murder. Such a conspiracy could have worked in parallel to the cover-up, which began quickly and which certainly served the purpose of any such a conspiracy, but which was not part of such conspiracy. Edited March 1, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 1, 2015 Author Posted March 1, 2015 Perhaps the title of this diary should be, "Untangling Conspiracy to Murder JFK from the Cover-up".
Thomas Graves Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) On 3/1/2015 at 8:17 AM, Jon G. Tidd said: Was there a set-up distinct from the cover-up? By "cover-up" I mean acts intended to blur or conceal or falsify the facts of the assassination. Acts performed post-assassination. By "set-up" I mean acts intended to implicate falsely Marina's husband ("Oswald", or if you prefer, "Harvey") as the killer of JFK. Acts performed pre-assassination. I define the terms "cover-up" and "set-up" in order to facilitate an exchange of ideas. If you don't like my definitions and want to use "cover-up" or "set-up" to mean other than the meaning I've given, please provide your own definition, so that back-and-forth may remain rational and focused. I do not know the answer to the question I pose. I do know this, however: [1] If there was a set-up distinct from the cover-up, not all those involved in the cover-up necessarily had foreknowledge of or complicity in the assassination. [2] If there was a set-up distinct from the cover-up, every individual who knowingly and voluntarily participated in or otherwise facilitated the set-up committed conspiracy to murder JFK. [3] If the set-up and cover-up were not distinct, they were not distinct for one of four reasons: [a] Either there was no set-up. Or there was no cover-up. [c] Or there was neither a set-up nor a cover-up. [d] Or there were both a set-up and a cover-up, under common control, that were intended to be parts of a single plan. The reason I don't know the answer to the question I pose is that I'm not sure there was a set-up the way I've defined it. I'm not sure because [a] I don't know the truth about Oswald's actions leading up to the assassination; and I don't know the truth about the physical items used to implicate Oswald. Here's how I lean, I lean toward believing whatever Oswald did, he did for his own reasons. I lean toward believing Oswald, like almost anyone, was capable of being influenced -- not in his reasoning but in the assumptions on which he acted. I lean toward believing the Mannlicher-Carcanno in the National Archives was not found in the TSBD. I lean toward believing the backyard photos were created post-assassination. So, according to my own definitions, I tend to lean toward there having been a cover-up but no set-up. This is a somewhat unsatisfactory conclusion to me. It doesn't feel right. It allocates to the cover-up all post-assassination acts intended to implicate Oswald falsely in the murder of JFK. In particular, it allocates to the cover-up acts intended to implicate Oswald falsely that were performed between the time of JFK's murder and the time of Oswald's arrest. These acts may include the murder of J.D. Tippit and the police broadcast of a Robert-Webster-like description. I resolve my lack of satisfaction this way: It's possible Oswald was not set up as I've defined set-up; i.e., was not set up pre-assassination to take the fall. It's possible Oswald through his own voluntary acts simply made himself into an ideal patsy. And it's possible there was a criminal conspiracy to implicate him in JFK's (and possibly also in J.D. Tippit's) murder that commenced immediately following JFK's murder. Such a conspiracy could have worked in parallel to the cover-up, which began quickly and which certainly served the purpose of any such a conspiracy, but which was not part of such conspiracy. "Oh My God, look!! He's taking curtain rods to work. That's perfect! But I'll tell the police later that the package was way too short to contain that broken down carbine we ordered for him. That'll really mess with their minds!"" --Tommy Question: How far in advance did the bad guys plan on shooting from the TSBD? Or was that a last minute decision, too? Edited May 15, 2017 by Thomas Graves
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 1, 2015 Author Posted March 1, 2015 Tommy, Do you believe Buell Wesley Frazier as to his curtain rod story?
Thomas Graves Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) On 3/1/2015 at 11:15 AM, Jon G. Tidd said: Tommy, Do you believe Buell Wesley Frazier as to his curtain rod story? There you go again! Good point, actually. Darn. Hmmmm... I'll see what I can come up with after I've had my cookies and milk and taken a nice long nap. Oh yeah! What about my earlier question about the TSBD? --Tommy PS The fascinating thing about WBF and the curtain rods is that he said the package was too short to have contained the broken-down MC. Why would he have said that if he was lying? Because he thought the MC was even shorter than it really was? Or to make his lie sound more plausible by using a little "reverse psychology?" Fascinating contradiction. Edited May 3, 2017 by Thomas Graves
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 1, 2015 Author Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) Tommy, You write: "Question: How far in advance did the bad guys plan on shooting from the TSBD? Or was that a last minute decision, too?" All that's known for sure is that the government said all the shots were fired from the TSBD. I'm not sure any shots were fired from the TSBD. The pertinent questions in the context of this diary, are, I believe: [1] Did the plotters somehow "install" Oswald in the TSBD in order to set him up for the murder of JFK? [2] If so, did the plotters arrange for the motorcade to pass by the TSBD in order to set Oswald up for the murder of JFK? It's important I believe to accept that certain individuals were intent on killing JFK and didn't care much about where he was killed or perhaps when he was killed. These individuals would have been focused over time on opportunity. Opportunity to kill JFK and have the killing pinned on individual A or group B. Dallas would have come together for these individuals as an exciting prospect, for so many reasons. A hotbed of rightwing activists. A gun-loving culture. A ready-made patsy. Maybe there were or might have been other prospects. Miami was a bust, as was Chicago, according to CT lore. Dallas was low-hanging fruit. Edited March 1, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd
Thomas Graves Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Tommy, You write: "Question: How far in advance did the bad guys plan on shooting from the TSBD? Or was that a last minute decision, too?" All that's known for sure is that the government said all the shots were fired from the TSBD. I'm not sure any shots were fired from the TSBD. The pertinent questions in the context of this diary, are, I believe: [1] Did the plotters somehow "install" Oswald in the TSBD in order to set him up for the murder of JFK? [2] If so, did the plotters arrange for the motorcade to pass by the TSBD in order to set Oswald up for the murder of JFK? It's important I believe to accept that certain individuals were intent on killing JFK and didn't care much about where he was killed or perhaps when he was killed. These individuals would have been focused over time on opportunity. Opportunity to kill JFK and have the killing pinned on individual A or group B. Dallas would have come together for these individuals as an exciting prospect, for so many reasons. A hotbed of rightwing activists. A gun-loving culture. A ready-made patsy. Maybe there were or might have been other prospects. Miami was a bust, as was Chicago, according to CT lore. Dallas was low-hanging fruit. Jon, Did Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, and / or that young married couple (whose name escapes me at the moment), etc, see men with guns on the top floors of the TSBD, or a "pipe" sticking out of a window in Euins case? I'm not sayin' they saw Oswald. If shots were not fired from the TSBD, were the plotters planning in advance on making it look as though there had been? IMHO, of the witnesses I've mentioned, Brennan is by far the most culpable. Did the plotters give him a "script" before the assassination happened, or was he kinda a "target of opportunity," too, because they noticed him a-sittin' there below the window? I think it's logical to assume that shots were fired from at least one TSBD window (probably on the west end of the building, closer to the limo in the kill zone), but not from the "Oswald's Sniper's Lair" window. What do you think? --Tommy Edited March 2, 2015 by Thomas Graves
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 2, 2015 Author Posted March 2, 2015 Tommy, Witnesses said they observed an armed man or armed men on the 6th floor of the TSBD immediately preceding the assassination. Amos Euins said he saw someone firing a rifle from TSBD. I believe Euins is basically credible; I've never thought Brennan was credible. It appears to me, then, that there is a fairly strong probability that a shot or shots were fired from the TSBD (but I can't be sure). If there were, I'm inclined to think they were not pre-planned to be the primary shots. The way JFK was moving down, sideways, and away as he moved along Elm Street, just in front of the Queen Mary, would have made any shot at him from the TSBD difficult IMO. I've always believed there were pre-planned shots that involved clear lines of fire and presented a target that was moving in a relatively straight line relative to the shooter. IOW, pre-planned shots that were made as easy as they could be made. Any shot or shots from the TSBD would have been secondary to the assassination but primary to establishing the TSBD as the source of shots. In this imagining, and I admit it's an imagining, the shooting from the TSBD was part of a set-up of Oswald as the shooter. The creation of the sniper's nest also would be part of a set-up if the sniper's nest was created pre-assassination. On this point, the record contains contradictions from what I know.
Thomas Graves Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Tommy, Witnesses said they observed an armed man or armed men on the 6th floor of the TSBD immediately preceding the assassination. Amos Euins said he saw someone firing a rifle from TSBD. I believe Euins is basically credible; I've never thought Brennan was credible. It appears to me, then, that there is a fairly strong probability that a shot or shots were fired from the TSBD (but I can't be sure). If there were, I'm inclined to think they were not pre-planned to be the primary shots. The way JFK was moving down, sideways, and away as he moved along Elm Street, just in front of the Queen Mary, would have made any shot at him from the TSBD difficult IMO. I've always believed there were pre-planned shots that involved clear lines of fire and presented a target that was moving in a relatively straight line relative to the shooter. IOW, pre-planned shots that were made as easy as they could be made. Any shot or shots from the TSBD would have been secondary to the assassination but primary to establishing the TSBD as the source of shots. In this imagining, and I admit it's an imagining, the shooting from the TSBD was part of a set-up of Oswald as the shooter. The creation of the sniper's nest also would be part of a set-up if the sniper's nest was created pre-assassination. On this point, the record contains contradictions from what I know. [emphasis added by T. Graves] Jon, That's what I was rhetorically getting at. Point being, if distracting / incriminating shots were fired from the TSBD, it would mean that the plotters had chosen Oswald to be the patsy and it would also suggest that they had chosen him for that role as soon as they learned the motorcade's exact route, IMHO. Of course many people believe that Ruth Paine was a CIA asset and that she made sure that Oswald got that job at the TSBD... --Tommy Edited March 3, 2015 by Thomas Graves
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 3, 2015 Author Posted March 3, 2015 Tommy, OK. There is an individual or two or more individuals on the 6th floor as the limo approaches. One or more of these individuals have a rifle. One or more of these individuals fire a shot at JFK. Question: How does this individual, or how do these individuals, escape the TSBD? As I study the record, it wasn't by stairs. It was by elevator. Question: Did this individual or did these individuals have help getting down and out from the TSBD?
Thomas Graves Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Tommy, OK. There is an individual or two or more individuals on the 6th floor as the limo approaches. One or more of these individuals have a rifle. One or more of these individuals fire a shot at JFK. Question: How does this individual, or how do these individuals, escape the TSBD? As I study the record, it wasn't by stairs. It was by elevator. Question: Did this individual or did these individuals have help getting down and out from the TSBD? Jon, Food for thought: Three or four guys in suits and coming down the stairs were passed by a policeman or sheriff who was going up them shortly after the shots. The policeman or sheriff thought the guys were plainclothes sheriffs themselves, but he couldn't identify them. Going from memory of course, so I don't remember his name. I don't think it was officer Baker, but... Also, the elevators.... Never mind. Too complicated to remember the details of their movements off the top of my head. Steelworker Carr at "Old Red" claimed to have seen someone run away from the back of the TSBD. Last but not least, Gerry Patrick Hemming claimed that the shooter(s) climbed down a rope inside the elevator's shaft. Am I forgetting anything? Parting thought: If the shooter was an undercover police officer or sheriff (or posing as one), there might not have been any need to escape right away. Just mingle and help search for the killer and the "evidence" he'd left behind. --Tommy Edited March 5, 2015 by Thomas Graves
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 3, 2015 Author Posted March 3, 2015 Tommy, Let's assume everything you relate is true. Guys in suits coming down the stairs past Baker and Truly. A guy lowering himself along a rope in the elevator shaft. A guy running out the back of the TSBD. What weapons did these guys use to shoot at JFK? Weapons they carried with them as they escaped? Weapons left behind? The corroded M-C examined by Robert Frazier on the morning of 11-23-63? I don't dispute what you write. Just want a complete picture.
Thomas Graves Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) On 3/3/2015 at 3:41 PM, Thomas Graves said: On 3/3/2015 at 3:15 PM, Jon G. Tidd said: Tommy, Let's assume everything you relate is true. Guys in suits coming down the stairs past Baker and Truly. A guy lowering himself along a rope in the elevator shaft. A guy running out the back of the TSBD. What weapons did these guys use to shoot at JFK? Weapons they carried with them as they escaped? Weapons left behind? The corroded M-C examined by Robert Frazier on the morning of 11-23-63? I don't dispute what you write. Just want a complete picture. Jon, You raise a good point. What happened to the weapons the assassins used to shoot JFK from the TSBD? They could have fired your practically inoperable MC just to create some evidence, I suppose, and not necessarily to kill JFK with that rifle.. They could have tossed the "real deal" out a rear window to a colleague or lowered it to him on a rope. They could have hidden the rifle or rifles with the knowledge of the corrupt DPD. Heck, I don't know. But it's besides the point that I was originally trying to make -- i.e., That Oswald wasn't a last-minute "patsy of opportunity" but was set up by the plotters in advance, as evidenced by the fact that witnesses claimed that they saw guns or gun-like objects in the windows of the TSBD before and during the assassination. My point is that those guns or gun-like objects were there in that building in order to implicate Marxist / Communist Oswald (who just happened to work in that building) in the murder of JFK and maybe even shoot JFK from there, as well. If it involved the latter goal, too, then the plotters would have been "killing two birds with one stone," wouldn't they. The implicating of TSBD-worker Oswald by brandishing guns or gun-like objects near to or from the TSBD windows dovetailed perfectly with and complimented the "eyewitness description of the assassin," i.e., the Robert Webster-like description that was given to Sawyer (or even to the DPD in advance) and which Sawyer broadcast on police radio only fifteen minutes after the assassination. The fact that that very same 1960 intentionally-inaccurate Webster-like description had originally been applied to Oswald by Dallas FBI agent John Fain right after Oswald had "defected" to Russia, and that those same intentionally-inaccurate "bios" had soon thereafter been incorporated into the CIA's computerized registry by CIA SR/6 officer Bill Bright -- who, ironically, was later assigned to Mexico City to monitor the LIENVOY Spanish-speaking transcribers there, (that , dear friends, could very well have been a classic case of "The fox guarding the hen house"! ) is more than a coincidence, IMHO, and is very telling. Why do I say "telling?" Because, in a way, the original (1960) intentionally-inaccurate Oswald description which was apparently given to Sawyer by a mysterious man under mysterious circumstances a few minutes after the assassination comprises the ultimate "marked card" of all the "marked cards" that were created over the years involving Lee Harvey/Henry Oswald. A "marked card" which has far-outlived its original purpose (uncovering Popov's mole?) but which, ironically, could act as a valuable "marked card" for us to use in figuring out who framed Oswald for the assassination! What's really fascinating is the fact that the plotters gave to Sawyer a description of Oswald which they evidently didn't realize was an inaccurate description, a description that was based on an old "marked card" involving Oswald and Robert Webster. This mind boggling "disconnect" suggests that the plotters were either careless in this detail, or that they had never actually seen Oswald, which in turn argues for the theory that Oswald was framed not only in advance time-wise, but also from some impersonal "distance." Either that, or some high-level plotter (Angleton?) was insuring future silence and co-operation on the issue by effectively blackmailing some mid-level plotters in making them use their own 1960 Webster-Oswald "marked card" which he knew could be traced back to them. Hmmm. But I digress. Heck, maybe the "bad guys" only stuck "lay down" metal pipes through the windows and threw a couple of firecrackers out of them, too, in order to focus post-assassination attention on the TSBD and Oswald. Or maybe they "cajoled / bribed" Brennan, Euins, the Rowlands, et al., into claiming that they had seen men with guns and/or a "metal pipe" at or in those windows. Or maybe, just maybe the mysterious man who gave Sawyer the assassin's description actually saw the real assassin and saw him not in an upper floor window, but running away from the TSBD, in which case his description could very well have been an accurate one and one which just happened to be identical to Oswald's old Webster-based FBI / CIA "marked card." I've always wondered why Tippit, who had heard over police radio the incorrect, Webster-based description of the assassin, stopped skinny 'ol Oswald as he was walking down the street. Did Oswald do something suspicious like turn around and walk the other direction when he saw Tippit's police car coming towards him? Did he look away from Tippit or hide his face as he passed? Those actions would have been out of character for the cool-headed, street smart Oswald, who only about thirty minutes earlier had had the presence of mind to have his taxi driver go past his rooming house a block or two in order to see if anyone was "staking it out." What I'm getting at is that it seems to me that Tippit knew Oswald and was actively looking for him. The inaccurate description of Oswald that was broadcast over police radio by Sawyer didn't distract or confuse Tippit. Through an act of divine intervention and by using his own God-given intuition, he somehow managed to get killed by Oswald, regardless. LOL In closing, I think we gotta ask ourselves the following question: "Why was immediate attention at that end of Dealey Plaza focused on the TSBD if not for the fact that that's the building into which Officer Baker was seen running ("It was the pigeons!"), the fact that some guns and / or a metal pipe were said to have been seen sticking out the windows, gunshots or firecracker sounds had been heard coming from there, and the fact that Marxist / Commie / former "defector" Oswald was not only known about by the plotters (who probably arranged for the just-mentioned things to happen), but also known by the plotters to be working there. --Tommy expanded and bumped please excuse the double post Edited May 3, 2017 by Thomas Graves
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 4, 2015 Author Posted March 4, 2015 Tommy, As I consider what you write, I ask myself: Were the goings-on in the TBSB strictly for the purpose of framing Oswald? Were they for the dual purpose of killing JFK and framing Oswald? Were they for the sole purpose of killing JFK? Escape and evasion would have been easiest, I imagine, if the only purpose was to frame Oswald. I do believe the framing of Oswald, even though clumsily done, was central to the planning of the assassination. I also believe whoever was on the TSBD 6th floor during the shooting had confederates who helped carry out the escape and evasion. Note to self: need to drill down on studies of the TSBD elevator movements.
Thomas Graves Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) Tommy, As I consider what you write, I ask myself: Were the goings-on in the TBSB strictly for the purpose of framing Oswald? Were they for the dual purpose of killing JFK and framing Oswald? Were they for the sole purpose of killing JFK? Escape and evasion would have been easiest, I imagine, if the only purpose was to frame Oswald. I do believe the framing of Oswald, even though clumsily done, was central to the planning of the assassination. I also believe whoever was on the TSBD 6th floor during the shooting had confederates who helped carry out the escape and evasion. Note to self: need to drill down on studies of the TSBD elevator movements. Thanks for the feedback, Jon. I do enjoy our exchanges. I don't think it was for the sole purpose of killing JFK. I suppose the easiest scenario for them to pull off would have been "for the sole purpose of framing Oswald," but even that would have been problematical, IMHO, because you gotta ask yourself the same question: "What did they do with the rifle or rifles?" A thought I had just now: Could the (bad) actors have used the rifles that Truly (or somebody) had brought to work a couple of days earlier to "show off" to the workers? Used them only as "props," I mean, in drawing attention to the upper floors of the TSBD as part of the "let's incriminate Oswald" project? Just an idea. I also like my idea that the shooters who, under your 2nd scenario both implicated Oswald and shot JFK from the TSBD, might have been undercover members of the police or sheriff's department who just kinda "mingled" with their co-workers and "helped" them look for the "assassin" and the evidence said "assassin" had left behind. I'm thinking that they could have hidden the "real deal" rifle or rifles inside the TSBD with the complicity of some of their police or sheriff "brethren" and gotten away with "it." BTW, I was wrong to even suggest that it might have been Baker (and/or Truly) who encountered the three or four "suits" on the wooden stairs a few minutes after the assassination. I've been too lazy to do any fact-checking on that, but the more I think about it the more I realize that it wasn't Baker (or Truly) but someone else. I believe it was a sheriff deputy who had a "desk" rather than a "street" job with the Sheriff's Department, but like I said, I'm just to lazy to check it right now... I know for sure that it wasn't Baker or Truly. Don't want to mislead future generations of "researchers" with that. LOL --Tommy Edited March 4, 2015 by Thomas Graves
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now