Was There a Set-up Distinct from the Cover-up?

[Paul Trejo]

Well, David, here's one that I think is James Jesus Angelton. What do you think?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul:

I just saw your post. FWIW: I don't think that looks like Angleton--at all. Of course, I would like to know who it is; in the spirit that I'd like a complete identification of all the images in all the photographs. I wish someone had organized a project to identify all the bystanders in all the principal photos.

DSL

5/8/15 - 4:20 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, CA

OK, David, fair enough. Just FYI, though, I got the question from a source who wishes to remain anonymous for the time being, who used a computer program to measure the distances of human facial features from each other, and the proportions of this face match the proportions of official photos of Angleton to 99.9%, which is unusually high.

I realize that the photo is old and the camera isn't the best -- but quantification is a scientific approach, and I thought it could be worth a try.

It might be that my source is oriented toward a CIA-did-it thesis, but his program also found "matches" to Ann Goodpasture and George Joannides; and even Thomas Beckham in Dallas that day. Not proof, of course, but intriguing.

Now, as many here know, I'm not a CIA-did-it CTer. IMHO, the Cuba Problem was the key issue that united the Right-wing with disloyal elements in the US Government. So, IMHO, a Right-wing plot simply attracted CIA rogues who were worried about the long-term consequences of the Bay of Pigs.

Yet if my source is correct, then I have a lot of re-thinking to do -- because so many CIA MEXI agents in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963 suggests something beyond a Right-wing plot.

Now, Larry Hancock expressed certainty that the military precision of the JFK murder strongly suggests a Professional military staff. Yet my theory maintains that Right-wing fanatics are often Ex-Military. If one is raised to use a firearm, then the US Military is a viable job choice for a young person. Military experts are not exactly rare among Right-wingers.

So, an Ex-General with a Paramilitary staff could do the job just as precisely as a Professional military staff, IMHO.

If a few CIA Rogues were at Dealey Plaza, helping out Ex-General Edwin WALKER, then my theory holds. But if we have a majority of CIA Rogues in Dealey Plaza that day -- then I must go back to the drawing board.

So, I'm willing to consider new evidence -- my mind isn't closed. Still, I'll maintain a WALKER theory until proven wrong.

To respond to the theme of this thread -- yes, there was a Set-up of Lee Harvey OSWALD to be the Patsy of a JFK murder. The Set-up started on Easter Sunday 1963, and continued through OSWALD's Mexico City episode. The person who led the Set-up was Ex-General Edwin WALKER, in revenge for the 10 April 1963 assassination attempt against him.

The Cover-up was completely separate -- it was the official US Government reaction to the JFK murder (for the purpose of National Security) and it started at 3PM CST on 11/22/1963. It became US Government dogma for 15 years.

It was easy for WALKER to get helpers, all around the country. Right-wing nutcases like Joseph Milteer were a dime a dozen in 1963, when John Martino, Guy Gabaldon and Stanley Drennan were the tip of the iceberg of Right-wing nuts in America.

I think we have more than enough Paramilitary expertise among the US Right-wing to execute the Dealey Plaza murder -- but if I'm mistaken, and CIA Rogues were the real leaders, then photographic evidence will one day prove that case, I feel certain.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 8, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Guest Mark Valenti]

OK, David, fair enough. Just FYI, though, I got the question from a source who wishes to remain anonymous for the time being, who used a computer program to measure the distances of human facial features from each other, and the proportions of this face match the proportions of official photos of Angleton to 99.9%, which is unusually high...It might be that my source is oriented toward a CIA-did-it thesis, but his program also found "matches" to Ann Goodpasture and George Joannides; and even Thomas Beckham in Dallas that day. Not proof, of course, but intriguing.

Your "source" is off his or her rocker. Doesn't that same guy appear in several other photos in DP that day? It's as plain as the straps on a straight-jacket that it's not Angleton.

[Paul Trejo]

Your "source" is off his or her rocker. Doesn't that same guy appear in several other photos in DP that day? It's as plain as the straps on a straight-jacket that it's not Angleton.

OK, Mark, fair enough. It seems that my WALKER theory is that much safer today.

Tentative Conclusion:

* The Set-up of OSWALD as Patsy by Ex-General Edwin WALKER started on 14 April 1963.

* CIA Rogues joined WALKER's movement through Guy Banister in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.

* The Cover-up of the JFK murder started at 3pm CST on 22 November 1963, by J. Edgar Hoover, for purposes of National Security.

The entire mechanism of the Cover-up was simply to insist on a "Lone Nut" and to use the FBI (as well as the authority of the White House) to suppress all data about the "Accomplices" of Lee Harvey OSWALD.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 8, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

Your Walker and cover-up theory resonate with something I learned about fitting a line to a data set.

There are a couple of different ways to "calculate" the line so as to get the best fit.

I think your theory represents a good fit to certain data but not so good a fit to other data.

What other data? One "data point" is McGeorge Bundy's communications with AF-1 on the afternoon of November 22. Bundy comes off as [a] believing Oswald did it all by himself, and as wanting very strongly the autopsy to be performed at Bethesda. Call this a data point or data points. Your theory is not an especially good fit with this data.

Why? It's a good fit in terms of Oswald as lone nut. But not a good fit in terms of Walker. Bundy was prepped to go. Surely, I think, he wasn't prepped by Walker.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo,

Your Walker and cover-up theory resonate with something I learned about fitting a line to a data set.

There are a couple of different ways to "calculate" the line so as to get the best fit.

I think your theory represents a good fit to certain data but not so good a fit to other data.

What other data? One "data point" is McGeorge Bundy's communications with AF-1 on the afternoon of November 22. Bundy comes off as [a] believing Oswald did it all by himself, and as wanting very strongly the autopsy to be performed at Bethesda. Call this a data point or data points. Your theory is not an especially good fit with this data.

Why? It's a good fit in terms of Oswald as lone nut. But not a good fit in terms of Walker. Bundy was prepped to go. Surely, I think, he wasn't prepped by Walker.

Well, Jon, I actually considered that. Here's my explanation, and a defense of my theory.

(1) Bundy could never have been working with WALKER, because WALKER insisted on a "Communist" OSWALD. We see this in the Warren Commission testimony of WALKER.

(2) Bundy announced a "Lone Nut" OSWALD.

(3) This places the two men into two opposite camps: (i) WALKER was part of the JFK Kill Team; and (ii) Bundy was part of the JFK Cover-up Team.

(4) History professor David R. Wrone (Wisconsin U.) says that J. Edgar Hoover came up with the "Lone Nut" theory before 3pm CST on the day JFK was murdered.

(5) Hoover quickly announced this to his senior FBI staff.

(6) I postulate that FBI senior staff rushed this news to LBJ, via McGeorge Bundy, who was just about to phone LBJ, already inside AF-1, at approximately 3pm CST 11/22/1963.

I think that solves it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 14, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Jon,

Since I was obliged by David Josephs to recant my theory that J. Edgar Hoover "invented" the "Lone Nut" theory of Lee Harvey Oswald before 3pm CST on 11/22/1963, and that Hoover at that time ordered all FBI agents to begin tampering with JFK murder evidence to frame Oswald as the "Lone Nut", I must modify point #6 in my explanation above.

What the FBI memoranda by Hoover on 11/22/1963 show is less dramatic than that. They show that by 3pm CST, Hoover had already spoken to RFK, to announce that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only current suspect -- and that he was NOT a "member" of the Communist Party, and he was NOT a "leader" of the FPCC in New Orleans.

So -- by 3pm CST 11/22/1963, Hoover had identified Lee Harvey Oswald alone as the JFK assassin, and found (at that time) no other accomplices.

HOWEVER -- there was no mandate to the FBI at 3pm CST to tamper with any evidence to frame Oswald as the "Lone Nut".

That would come later in the evening, as I now maintain.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 25, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

Paul - just FYI, the measuring of facial features and distance in photographs is a demanding science...

You "source" needs to pony up some photogrammetrical proof for what was done... not pixel counts or lines drawn on faces..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100273/

and

http://www.academia.edu/2999539/PHOTOGRAMMETRY_WITH_THE_3_CAMERAS_METHOD_FOR_FACIAL_MORPHOMETRY

is a start....

As for when the tampering begins - my GUESS is that it had something to do with the viewing of the zfilm late Friday night via Rowley... it was so obvious there were shots from the front a decision had to be made as to how to proceed... but that is total speculation at this point...

[Paul Trejo]

On 5/25/2015 at 12:04 PM, David Josephs said:

Paul - just FYI, the measuring of facial features and distance in photographs is a demanding science...

You "source" needs to pony up some photogrammetrical proof for what was done... not pixel counts or lines drawn on faces..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100273/

and

http://www.academia.edu/2999539/PHOTOGRAMMETRY_WITH_THE_3_CAMERAS_METHOD_FOR_FACIAL_MORPHOMETRY

is a start....

As for when the tampering begins - my GUESS is that it had something to do with the viewing of the zfilm late Friday night via Rowley... it was so obvious there were shots from the front a decision had to be made as to how to proceed... but that is total speculation at this point...

All good advice, David. By the way, here's what my pal says his computer program suggested as a possible match for Anne Goodpasture at Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963. This is a fairly famous photograph, so, if this really is Anne Goodpasture, the reliable CIA secretary for both Angleton and Phillips, I'd be surprised to hear that nobody has mentioned this likeness before.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 20, 2018 by Paul Trejo
Had to remove photo due to limited space.

[Thomas Graves]

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.

bumped