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

[David Josephs]

[National Security Action Memorandums (NSAM)]

This is what we wound up with... while what JFK wanted is below... it is legend that this was changed PRIOR to the assassination by Bundy.

http://jfklancer.com/NSAM273.html some great work from Greg Burnham

DJ

THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON

November 26, 1963

NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 273

TO: The Secretary of State

The Secretary of Defense

The Director of Central Intelligence

The Administrator, AID

The Director, USIA

The President has reviewed the discussions of South Vietnam which occurred in Honolulu, and has discussed the matter further with Ambassador Lodge. He directs that the following guidance be issued to all concerned:

1. It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The test of all U. S. decisions and actions in this area should be the effectiveness of their contribution to this purpose.

2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U. S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.

3. It is a major interest of the United States Government that the present provisional government of South Vietnam should be assisted in consolidating itself and in holding and developing increased public support. All U.S. officers should conduct themselves width this objective in view.

4. The President expects that all senior officers of the Government will move energetically to insure the full unity of support for established U.S. policy in South Vietnam. Both in Washington and in the field, it is essential that the Government be unified. It is of particular importance that express or implied criticism of officers of other branches be scrupulously avoided in all contacts with the Vietnamese Government and with the press. More specifically, the President approves the following lines of action developed in the discussions of the Honolulu meeting, of November 20. The offices of the Government to which central responsibility is assigned are indicated in each case.

5. We should concentrate our own efforts, and insofar as possible we should persuade the Government of South Vietnam to concentrate its efforts, on the critical situation in the Mekong Delta. This concentration should include not only military but political, economic, social, educational and informational effort. We should seek to turn the tide not only of battle but of belief, and we should seek to increase not only the control of hamlets but the productivity of this area, especially where the proceeds can be held for the advantage of anti-Communist forces.

(Action: The whole country team under the direct supervision of the Ambassador.)

6. Programs of military and economic assistance should be maintained at such levels that their magnitude and effectiveness in the eyes of the Vietnamese Government do not fall below the levels sustained by the United States in the time of the Diem Government. This does not exclude arrangements for economy on the MAP account with respect to accounting for ammunition, or any other readjustments which are possible as between MAP and other U. S. defense resources. Special attention should be given to the expansion of the import, distribution, and effective use of fertilizer for the Delta.

(Action: AID and DOD as appropriate. )

7. Planning should include different levels of possible increased activity, and in each instance there should be estimates of such factors as:

A. Resulting damage to North Vietnam;

B. The plausibility of denial;

C. Possible North Vietnamese retaliation;

D. Other international reaction.

Plans should be submitted promptly for approval by higher authority.

(Action: State, DOD, and CIA. )

8. With respect to Laos, a plan should be a developed and submitted for approval by higher authority for military operations up to a line up to 50 kilometers inside Laos, together with political plans for minimizing the international hazards of such an enterprise. Since it is agreed that operational responsibility for such undertakings should pass from CAS to MACV, this plan should include a redefined method of political guidance for such operations, since their timing and character can have an intimate relation to the fluctuating situation in Laos.

(Action: State, DOD, and CIA.)

9. It was agreed in Honolulu that the situation in Cambodia is of the first importance for South Vietnam, and it is therefore urgent that we should lose no opportunity to exercise a favorable influence upon that country. In particular a plan should be developed using all available evidence and methods of persuasion for showing the Cambodians that the recent charges against us are groundless.

(Action: State.)

10. In connection with paragraphs 7 and 8 above, it is desired that we should develop as strong and persuasive a case as possible to demonstrate to the world the degree to which the Viet Cong is controlled, sustained and supplied from Hanoi, through Laos and other channels. In short, we need a more contemporary version of the Jorden Report, as powerful and complete as possible.

(Action: Department of State with other agencies as necessary.)

s/ McGeorge Bundy

McGeorge Bundy

cc:

Mr. Bundy

Mr. Forrestal

Mr. Johnson

NSC Files

(page 3 of 3 pages)

[DECLASSIFIED - was classified TOP SECRET

Auth: EO 11652

Date: 6-8-76

By: Jeanne W. Davis

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ]

11/21/63

DRAFT (and what was removed or changed)

TOP SECRET

NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263

The President has reviewed the discussions of South Vietnam which occurred in Honolulu, and has discussed the matter further with Ambassador Lodge. He directs that the following guidance be issued to all concerned:

1. It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The test of all decisions and U. S. actions in this area should be the effectiveness of their contribution to this purpose.

2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U. S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.

3. It is a major interest of the United States Government that the present provisional government of South Vietnam should be assisted in consolidating itself and in holding and developing increased public support. All U.S. officers should conduct themselves with this objective in view.

4. It is of the highest importance that the United States Government avoid either the appearance or the reality of public recrimination from one part of it against another, and the President expects that all senior officers of the Government will take energetic steps to insure that they and their subordinates go out of their way to maintain and to defend the unity of the United States Government both here and in the field.

More specifically, the President approves the following lines of action developed in the discussions of the Honolulu meeting of November 20. The office or offices of the Government to which central responsibility is assigned is indicated in each case.

5. We should concentrate our own efforts, and insofar as possible we should persuade the Government of South Vietnam to concentrate its efforts, on the critical situation in the Mekong Delta. This concentration should include not only military but political, economic, social, educational and informational effort. We should seek to turn the tide not only of battle but of belief, and we should seek to increase not only our control of land but the productivity of this area wherever the proceeds can be held for the advantage of anti-Communist forces.

(Action: The whole country team under the direct supervision of the Ambassador.)

6. Programs of military and economic assistance should be maintained at such levels that their magnitude and effectiveness in the eyes of the Vietnamese Government do not fall below the levels sustained by the United States in the time of the Diem Government. This does not exclude arrangements for economy on the MAP account with respect to accounting for ammunition, or any other readjustments which are possible as between MAP and other U. S. defense resources. Special attention should be given to the expansion of the import distribution and effective use of fertilizer for the Delta.

(Action: AID and DOD as appropriate. )

7. With respect to action against North Vietnam, there should be a detailed plan for the development of additional Government of Vietnam resources, especially for sea-going activity, and such planning should indicate the time and investment necessary to achieve a wholly new level of effectiveness in this field of action.

(Action: DOD, and CIA. )

8. With respect to Laos, a plan should be a developed for military operations up to a line up to 50 kilometers inside Laos, together with political plans for minimizing the international hazards of such an enter- prise. Since it is agreed that operational responsibility for such undertakings should pass from CAS to MACV, this plan should provide an alternative method of political liaison for such operations, since their timing and character can have an intimate relation to the fluctuating situation in Laos.

(Action: State, DOD, and CIA.)

9. It was agreed in Honolulu that the situation in Cambodia is of the first importance for South Vietnam, and it is therefore urgent that we should lose no opportunity to exercise a favorable influence upon that country. In particular, measures should be undertaken to satisfy ourselves completely that recent charges from Cambodia are groundless, and we should put ourselves in a position to offer to the Cambodian a full opportunity to satisfy themselves on this same point.

(Action: State.)

10. In connection with paragraphs 7 and 8 above, it is desired that we should develop as strong and persuasive a case as possible to demonstrate to the world the degree to which the Viet Cong is controlled, sustained and supplied from Hanoi, through Laos and other channels. In short, we need a more contemporary version of the Jorden Report, as powerful and complete as possible.

(Action: Department of State with other agencies as necessary.)

McGeorge Bundy

TOP SECRET

[DECLASSIFIED - was classified TOP SECRET

Auth: EO 12356, Sec. 3.4

Date: 1/21/91

By: SKF, NARA

[Jon G. Tidd]

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

Maybe Castro knows...for sure. I wouldn't be surprised if normalization of American-Cuban relations leads to some major JFK assassination revelations.

What might Castro know? My guess is he had the best intel on U.S.-based anti-Castro Cubans and their CIA handlers. I don't believe the assassination was rooted in that ground. Castro probably knows for sure in my estimation.

I hope some researcher gives us a book on what Castro knows and can document.

[David Lifton]

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.

Jon:

Regarding your statement "I lean toward believing the backyard photos were created post-assassination."

FWIW: Marina made clear to me--in many conversations starting around January 1981 --when Best Evidence was published, and I first met her--that Lee asked her to photograph him with the rifle etc. She also repeated those statements --with considerable certainty--in her interview with Jesse Ventura. I realize that she may have taken pictures that were not identical to the one's in evidence; my point is that, at Oswald's request, she did take photos of him posing with the rifle.

DSL

4/21/15 - 8:45 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, Ca

[Thomas Graves]

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.

Jon:

Regarding your statement "I lean toward believing the backyard photos were created post-assassination."

FWIW: Marina made clear to me--in many conversations starting around January 1981 --when Best Evidence was published, and I first met her--that Lee asked her to photograph him with the rifle etc. She also repeated those statements --with considerable certainty--in her interview with Jesse Ventura. I realize that she may have taken pictures that were not identical to the one's in evidence; my point is that, at Oswald's request, she did take photos of him posing with the rifle.

DSL

4/21/15 - 8:45 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, Ca

David,

Why should we believe her?

--Tommy

[Paul Trejo]

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....

Well, Jon, I think you omitted a logical possibility, namely: [e] There was both a set-up and a cover-up, under vastly different control, where the cover-up was intended to cancel out the set-up.

In my theory, the extreme right-wing in the South set-up OSWALD to willingly portray himself as a Communist FPCC Director in New Orleans, using newspaper, radio and TV to cinch the portrait. They started doing this in April 1963. They would manipulate matters to ensure that OSWALD was at the JFK murder scene, whenever it would occur.

In my theory, the FBI and US Government covered-up the fact of an extreme right-wing coup d'état in order to diffuse it, and so defeat it. They started doing this at 3PM CST on 11/22/1963. They would manipulate all JFK murder evidence to ensure that OSWALD would be perceived as the "Lone Shooter", and also as a deranged personality or "Lone Nut."

There is much evidence for my view, which I call the "Unified Field Theory" of the JFK murder, because I proceed only by taking Eye-Witness evidence, and I combine it with material evidence from the personal papers of rightist ideologue Edwin Walker.

Here's another bit of evidence on my side. Researchers typically site the 11/25/1963 memo from AAG Nicholas Katzenbach to Bill Moyers, yet like Mark Lane, they stop with the first paragraph, viz.

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

This paragraph is damning, they say, because it convicts Lee Harvey OSWALD before all the evidence was heard. But it doesn't take into account the MOTIVATION for Katzenbach's suspicious sentence -- except to accuse him of a conspiracy to murder JFK. On the contrary -- I say that researchers should press through to the second paragraph, which reads:

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off; and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately, the facts on Oswald seem about too pat -- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas Police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it is they who were in charge when Oswald was shot and thus silenced.

With this paragraph we see how the set-up team (the extreme rightists, including the Dallas Police) were about to clash head-on with the cover-up team (the US Government).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

David Lifton,

Your book "Best Evidence" is in my opinion a great contribution to the JFK literature. I don't know who altered JFK's wounds prior to the official autopsy. I believe, however, the wounds reported were not the wounds sustained.

As for Marina, did she regard you as an authority figure?

[David Andrews]

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

This paragraph is damning, they say, because it convicts Lee Harvey OSWALD before all the evidence was heard. But it doesn't take into account the MOTIVATION for Katzenbach's suspicious sentence -- except to accuse him of a conspiracy to murder JFK. On the contrary -- I say that researchers should press through to the second paragraph, which reads:

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off; and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately, the facts on Oswald seem about too pat -- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas Police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it is they who were in charge when Oswald was shot and thus silenced.

With this paragraph we see how the set-up team (the extreme rightists, including the Dallas Police) were about to clash head-on with the cover-up team (the US Government).

In my version of a unified field theory, Dulles and McCloy on the WC seem to have put this motion to use quashing any thought that someone other than Oswald fired the shots, Did Dulles also participate in creating a right-wing conspiracy to carry out the assassination? Dulles and McCloy's financial overlords seem to have profited from the coverup as much as the public safety did. They also profited from the assassination. I think the differentiation between the set-up and the cover-up is useful, but that it ceases above a certain level of involvement.

Edited April 22, 2015 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

In my version of a unified field theory, Dulles and McCloy on the WC seem to have put this motion to use quashing any thought that someone other than Oswald fired the shots, Did Dulles also participate in creating a right-wing conspiracy to carry out the assassination? Dulles and McCloy's financial overlords seem to have profited from the coverup as much as the public safety did. They also profited from the assassination. I think the differentiation between the set-up and the cover-up is useful, but that it ceases above a certain level of involvement.

Well, David A., I admit that if my WALKER theory turns out to be incorrect, my second-choice theory for the JFK murder would be CIA ROGUES.

It's not just that Edward Lansdale was at Dealey Plaza that day, but I've seen some photographs which suggest to me that Jesus Angleton was also there, as well as George Joannides, as well as Anne Goodpasture. If so -- WHAT WERE THEY DOING THERE?

The operation was paramilitary. I count at least 7 shots. The shooters had spotters who were also radio men, and they used walkie talkies as well as an umbrella signal to coordinate shooting.

There seem to be at least three teams.

Now, IMHO, a paramilitary mind like Ex-General Edwin WALKER could do this easily. He had paramilitary troops like the Minutemen (almost all of whom had military and paramilitary training for years) and they were fiercely loyal to him.

One would not need millions of dollars to pay these guys -- these guys would do it for free -- all they needed was a leader.

Edwin WALKER had the means, the motive and the opportunity.

However, if it wasn't Edwin WALKER, then it would have to be somebody who was super-skilled at military and paramilitary operations. That would suggest experts in the Pentagon and the CIA.

The Pentagon and CIA, however, tend to be fiercely loyal to the US President. So, they would be my LAST choice.

(Also, if the Pentagon was bold enough to kill the President, they would also have the manly courage to come out on TV and publicly announce it, and announce why they did it, and what the new conditions were. That's the very nature of a coup d'état. Since that never happened, I conclude immediately that there was no Pentagon plot; but only a failed civilian plot to invade Cuba.)

Yet even if mere CIA Rogues did it, then, as Larry Hancock rightly notes (NEXUS, 2011) they would still need somebody inside Dallas who knew the lay of the land, an expert in Dallas per se; somebody who was well-connected to people in official places in Dallas.

That, in my mind, could never be Jack Ruby (who was a DPD groupie) but could easily be Edwin Walker (who had the personal loyalty of many DPD officers who were also JBS members, or Minutemen, or Friends of Walker, or all three).

So, as I say, if it wasn't WALKER, then it was almost certainly CIA ROGUES.

Yet -- whether led by WALKER or CIA Rogues -- the participation of key members of the DPD is undeniable, IMHO.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited April 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Guest Mark Valenti]

It's not just that Edward Lansdale was at Dealey Plaza that day, but I've seen some photographs which suggest to me that Jesus Angleton was also there, as well as George Joannides, as well as Anne Goodpasture. If so -- WHAT WERE THEY DOING THERE?

The operation was paramilitary. I count at least 7 shots. The shooters had spotters who were also radio men, and they used walkie talkies as well as an umbrella signal to coordinate shooting.

<edit typos>

[David Andrews]

It's not just that Edward Lansdale was at Dealey Plaza that day, but I've seen some photographs which suggest to me that Jesus Angleton was also there, as well as George Joannides, as well as Anne Goodpasture. If so -- WHAT WERE THEY DOING THERE?

The operation was paramilitary. I count at least 7 shots. The shooters had spotters who were also radio men, and they used walkie talkies as well as an umbrella signal to coordinate shooting.

<edit typos>

I'd like to see these additional photo IDs in Dealey.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

I like your thinking. Who, in your thinking, apart from Walker and CIA rogues, were participants the hit?

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo,

I like your thinking. Who, in your thinking, apart from Walker and CIA rogues, were participants the hit?

I think they were mostly local Dallas right-wingers -- plenty of moxy, plenty of confidence, in the feeling that they were doing the right thing for the USA. Most were unpaid -- they were doing their patriotic duty, they thought.

I'll start at a general level, and then quickly drill down to the street-crew.

They would include a combination of these factors: DPD officer, Minutemen, JBS member, Friends of Walker. Many Friends of Walker were also members of so-called "Citizens Councils" which were popular in the South, especially Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, and the Deep South generally.

These Minutemen would go to paramilitary training in the South -- and very often in 1962-1963 they would encounter many Cuban Exiles, and their American sympathizers. Bay of Pigs survivors would be their heroes. Military heroes from WW2 and Korea would rank high in their rightist ranks, there on the Minutemen field (and this could include Edwin Walker as well as Gabby Gabaldon).

I would seek out any DPD men who were close to Edwin Walker, as well as Cuban Raid groups like Interpen, DRE, La Sambra and so many others.

OK, that's the big picture. Now for the ground-crew. I think we have confessions from two CIA Rogues -- David Morales and Howard Hunt. They seem to have given secret CIA information to Guy Gabaldon and his crew in New Orleans Parish. But Hunt was only seen as a gun-runner that day. Not in Dealey Plaza. As for David Morales, he seems to be limited to feeding secret information to the JFK plotters. Maybe he sent some of his underlings to Dealey Plaza -- it seems that Larry Hancock leans towards this thesis.

We also have confessions from CIA wannabes like Frank Sturgis, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin and Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Lee OSWALD, also, was a CIA wannabe, IMHO, but was merely the patsy, I think Oswald was waist deep with them, and had no idea that he was the patsy -- he thought he was one of them (and he probably thought they were only trying to kill Fidel Castro -- as they would all probably tell him every day).

Loran Hall also gave clues to the FBI and then backed off -- so we have a half-confession from him, and he named Larry Howard and Billy Seymour, another Interpen guy. Gerry Patrick Hemming's rifle was found in Dallas that very day -- but the case was dropped when Hoover insisted on one "Lone Shooter."

Some Cuban Exiles would be involved, but I'm more interested in the Americans, who would have been, IMHO, seen as the leaders. I count, first and foremost, Ex-General Edwin Walker --once a candidate for Texas Governor, and even had his sights on the White House at one time (according to some).

Second in command would be Guy Banister -- another Southern political figure on the right, who was also a candidate for government posts in Louisiana, but could never get elected. The Citizens Councils, sometimes called White Citizens Councils, were his stronghold. Guy Banister would provide the patsy well-packaged.

Once these two leaders said that all systems were go, they attracted paramilitary resources like flies. David Morales was quick to sign up, and he brought Hunt and Sturgis with him.

Ex-General Walker was considered a "nutcase" by most Americans, but by the right-wing he was practically worshipped like a god. In the same year that he ran for Texas Governor (1962), after he came in last place, he shortly after led a massive race riot at Ole Miss University, where hundreds were wounded and two were killed (9/30/1962).

In response, JFK and RFK sent Walker to a looney bin for a 90-day evaluation. The ACLU sprung Walker in only 3 days, but the stigma stuck -- Walker was considered a "nutcase" by the majority of Americans ever since.

Still, as I say, the right-wing still had high hopes for Walker -- maybe Walker would lead the South to final victory against the North and their proposed MLK Day. Maybe Walker would turn back the hands of Time.

So, Jon, IMHO these were some of the local participants at Dealey Plaza itself: (1) Roscoe White; (2) J.D. Tippit; (3) Loran Hall; (4) Larry Howard.

As I say, I believe they had several Cuban Exile "helpers" in the group, as well, but I want to focus on the Americans at this point.

The role of Jesse Curry, IMHO, was to simply lead the JFK motorcade into the sniper's nest. The fact that Jesse Curry, the lead car way out in front, told newspapers a few hours later that he "was certain he heard shots from the TSBD building, was, IMHO, that he was inside on the plot.

The reason that Will Fritz did not take formal notes during the hours of OSWALD interrogation, was, IMHO, that he was inside on the plot. Dallas Mayor, Earl Cabell, has long been named as a plotter -- in a position to change the parade route.

Gerry Patrick Hemming played a dual role. He convinced OSWALD to bring his rifle to the TSBD on 11/22/1963. Also, his own rifle was in the hand of Loran Hall who was in Dallas that day, which startled Hemming.

I think Sheriff Decker was at least in on the plot, and so was useful in keeping secrets. I also believe those inmates who claim that they witnessed, after the JFK murder, some DPD officers building a sniper's nest on the 6th floor of the TSBD building.

The fact that the area around the Grassy Knoll was really a Sheriff's Department parking lot, with only one entrance which was the same as the exit, and was always padlocked except to parking space holders -- tells me that the DPD controlled Dealey Plaza COMPLETELY.

Therefore, whoever shot JFK was surrounded by and supported by these radical elements within the DPD.

As for WALKER and his funders: the Hunts, the Murchisons -- they were also inside on the plot, but mainly as money bags. At their abstract level we have many people, including Carlos Marcello, Sam Giancana and Santos Trafficante. They had a few adventurers among the Mafia who lived to get involved, i.e. Johnny Roselli (who confessed) and John Martino.

But that may be going too far afield, Jon. I think you only wanted to see my list of Dealey Plaza shooters, as above.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited April 24, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

 

On 4/24/2015 at 1:35 PM, David Andrews said:

On 4/23/2015 at 11:51 AM, Mark Valenti said:

On 4/23/2015 at 9:43 AM, Paul Trejo said:

It's not just that Edward Lansdale was at Dealey Plaza that day, but I've seen some photographs which suggest to me that Jesus Angleton was also there, as well as George Joannides, as well as Anne Goodpasture. If so -- WHAT WERE THEY DOING THERE?

The operation was paramilitary. I count at least 7 shots. The shooters had spotters who were also radio men, and they used walkie talkies as well as an umbrella signal to coordinate shooting.

<edit typos>

I'd like to see these additional photo IDs in Dealey.

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

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

 

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

[David Andrews]

No. It's Arthur Miller, seeking revenge for Marilyn Monroe

Edited April 25, 2015 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

No. It's Arthur Miller, seeking revenge for Marilyn Monroe

Very clever, David. Yet I think Arthur dumped Marilyn for her wandering eye long before the JFK murder. Besides, Arthur had thinner lips than that.

That said, of course I can be mistaken. After fifty years, somebody else would have surely commented on this photo.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo