Does Lifton's Best Evidence indicate that the coverup and the crime were committed by the same people?

[Michael Clark]

6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The Lone Nut scenario was decided upon within hours of Oswald's capture.

Cliff, that is the consensus. I think all the information that I mentioned had to be coalesced and evaluated to see if it could be made to stick. As we know, there is plenty of evidence that the LN scenario is a falsehood. Some damning, undeniable piece if info could have popped-up in those few hours that would have made a conspiracy irrefutable. Also, something could have come out in the next few days to make a conspiracy irrefutable. There was always the possibility that they would have to walk that story back and work with a conspiracy scenario. The LN declaration was made in the first couple hours, but it was necessarily tentative.

Cheers,

Michael

[Michael Clark]

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And after all that, the assassination plotters had time to figure out how to snatch Kennedy's body?

It seems to me that the plan to snatch and alter the body had to have been created prior to assassination day. It seems that there is simply no way of getting around that.

 

By snatching, I assume you mean, taking the body from Parkland. And I assume you are then referring to a presumed session under a scalpel, prior to the official Autopsy.

Sure, all, of that would be planned.

[Ron Ecker]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I'm not sure why the plotters had to hide the fact that there were multiple shooters just because Oswald was caught alive.

Look at it as a three-act play. Act One was sheep-dipping Oswald as a pro-Castro Commie rat. Act Two was the assassination. Act Three was to establish Oswald not just as a shooter but one of multiple shooters acting under orders from Castro. (It was manifestly a multi-shooter ambush, but identifying one, Oswald, as a shooter for Castro would suffice.) This would require further manipulation of Oswald, in whatever form that was supposed to take. According to Win Scott's widow in Mexico City, as told to Dick Russell, some "lost Oswald luggage" was found at the Mexico City airport. If true, that was probably part of the Act Three script, Oswald losing his luggage on the way to Cuba (with Oswald no doubt losing more than his luggage before he got to Cuba). But Oswald got nabbed by the Dallas cops, killing Act Three. He could not be manipulated further while sitting in jail and possibly singing soon (saying he was a patsy, trying to call Mr. Hurt, saying leave Ruth Paine out of this, etc.). So the script had to be thrown away, the lost luggage really got lost, they decided to use what evidence they had already manufactured of Oswald as a shooter (the MC, the sniper's nest, etc.) and call him a lone nut. They stole the body, took it through a back door of the morgue while the Dallas casket arrived in front, and did what they had to do to make it look like Oswald had pulled off a Mission Impossible all by himself. The plotters lost out on Cuba, but knew they were getting something more important, a good war in Vietnam.

  

[Cliff Varnell]

21 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Cliff, that is the consensus. I think all the information that I mentioned had to be coalesced and evaluated to see if it could be made to stick. As we know, there is plenty of evidence that the LN scenario is a falsehood. Some damning, undeniable piece if info could have popped-up in those few hours that would have made a conspiracy irrefutable. Also, something could have come out in the next few days to make a conspiracy irrefutable. There was always the possibility that they would have to walk that story back and work with a conspiracy scenario. The LN declaration was made in the first couple hours, but it was necessarily tentative.

Cheers,

Michael

They had plenty of irrefutable evidence!

They had bullet holes in JFK's clothes too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

They just ignored everything pointing to conspiracy.

They controlled the body, the investigators and the press.  What else did they need to make the LN stick?

[Cliff Varnell]

30 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Look at it as a three-act play. Act One was sheep-dipping Oswald as a pro-Castro Commie rat. Act Two was the assassination. Act Three was to establish Oswald not just as a shooter but one of multiple shooters acting under orders from Castro. (It was manifestly a multi-shooter ambush, but identifying one, Oswald, as a shooter for Castro would suffice.) This would require further manipulation of Oswald, in whatever form that was supposed to take. According to Win Scott's widow in Mexico City, as told to Dick Russell, some "lost Oswald luggage" was found at the Mexico City airport. If true, that was probably part of the Act Three script, Oswald losing his luggage on the way to Cuba (with Oswald no doubt losing more than his luggage before he got to Cuba). But Oswald got nabbed by the Dallas cops, killing Act Three. He could not be manipulated further while sitting in jail and possibly singing soon (saying he was a patsy, trying to call Mr. Hurt, saying leave Ruth Paine out of this, etc.). So the script had to be thrown away, the lost luggage really got lost, they decided to use what evidence they had already manufactured of Oswald as a shooter (the MC, the sniper's nest, etc.) and call him a lone nut. They stole the body, took it through a back door of the morgue while the Dallas casket arrived in front, and did what they had to do to make it look like Oswald had pulled off a Mission Impossible all by himself. The plotters lost out on Cuba, but knew they were getting something more important, a good war in Vietnam.

  

Bingo!

 

[David Lifton]

On 4/10/2017 at 11:49 AM, Ron Ecker said:

Sandy,

All I know to do is repeat myself from earlier in this thread. Here's what I wrote:

"The assassination was designed to look like exactly what it was, a military-style ambush, and it was to be blamed on Castro. (Edit: Operation Northwoods Revised Edition.) Body alteration became necessary only when Oswald was taken alive instead of almost immediately eliminated (as one of Castro's shooters), and the decision was quickly made to blame it all on Oswald, who therefore, according to official history, is now famous for pulling off a ridiculously impossible feat."

Have I still not made myself clear? Oswald was supposed to be framed as ONE OF THE SHOOTERS, not as THE SHOOTER. He wasn't supposed to get himself arrested (he was supposed to be promptly shot or taken out of Dallas, and then shot or whatever, but somebody got cold feet, slept late, or just screwed up) and ruin the scenario by which he was supposed to be identified (DEAD) as one of the shooters sent by Castro. Taken alive and declaring himself a patsy, he had to be declared a lone nut, to be shot by a nightclub owner who felt sorry for Jackie, while the Secret Service and military had to play Keystone Kops with JFK's body in order to butcher it and cover up evidence of the multiple shooters.

.

 

  

 

 

Ron,

I’m posting this to take a strong position against the basic thesis of your post. Here is your key assertion:  “The assassination was designed to look like exactly what it was, a military-style ambush, and it was to be blamed on Castro.”

Addressing the first part of your sentence—“The assassination was designed to look like exactly what it was, a military-style ambush”: that is not supported by the evidence, not at all.

The basis for my making this statement—and mounting my objection—is the public record, as it existed on November 22, 1963.

THE PUBLIC RECORD (modified and augmented today, 4/19/2017, at 8:45 p.m. PDT)

To understand what the assassination “look[ed] like,” one must go to the public “media” record, and I’m referring now to the accounts published by both major American wire services—the Associated Press (“AP”) and United Press International (“UPI”), on their “A” wire.

I addressed this very question starting around 1970—setting aside what I (personally)  “thought I saw” in this or that photograph of the grassy knoll, or my personal beliefs about “what had happened” (based on testimony gathered after the publication of the Warren Report (Sept 1964) and then (in November 1964) of the 26 Volumes),  and focusing on this question: Just what did the assassination “look like” on the day it occurred?

For that reason, I sought to obtain records of the “A” wire of both AP and UPI.

I obtained a number of hours of the UPI wire on a trip to New York City, and a lengthy visit with a UPI Vice President at their headquarters. As I recall, he arranged for me to obtain several hours of the completely uncut UPI "A" wire.  I don't recall exactly how I obtained the 4-6 hours of the uncut AP "A" wire.  Over the years, it became clear that other sources were available, but I had already spent hours studyig what I had and I didn't want to return to the subject, when so many other matters had risen to the top of my "To Do" list.  But ideally, I would like to see someone gather the completely uncut records of these four items: the UPI "A" wire, the first 12 hours (at least); the UPI "B" wire, again,  the first 12 hours; and then the ssame for the AP "A" and "B" wires. Without this information, it is very difficult to understand "who knew what, and when."  Of course, one can go to "the next day's newspaper" (to see all of these dispatches); but it is extremely helpful--and sometimes vitally important--to actually see the minute-by-minute record of the dispatches, as "the story" of the Kennedy assassination evolved, in real time.

 

THE WIRE SERVICE RECORDS

The study of the “A” wire of both these media outlets—which I consider to be just as important as any record to be found in the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission, or at the National Archives—makes clear what the assassination “looked like” at the time.

It provides a minute-by-minute account of what the reporting of this major historical event--sentence by sentence, and then paragraph by paragraph, as the reporters fed into the system their observations, and the stories of what the assassination “looked like”; and these accounts were distributed around the nation, and the world, and published within hours (and certainly by the next morning) in the nation’s print media.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE SINGLE ASSASSIN PERCEPTION. . .

For both wire services, the answer is the same: the assassination was reported, in the media, and based (initially, on the Dallas Police investigation) as being the work of one man.

First came the reports that “shots” were fired—in the case of UPI, it was “three shots,”a story that was distributed around the world within 2 to 3 minutes.

Shortly thereafter came the information that the police said the shots came from a certain “building.”

Then came the information that the source was apparently a sniper on an upper floor of the building.

Then came the very specific information that it was discovered that “the window” was on the sixth floor, south-east corner window, and so forth.

In the case of AP, when there was an error, a dispatch would be sent that started, “CORRECTION” and stating that in some prior dispatch (and a number would be specified), there was an error, and “fifth floor” should be changed to “sixth floor.” (In my review of the AP records, I paid particular attention to these "CORRECTION" notices).

 

ZEROING IN ON OSWALD

As to the zeroing in on Oswald, that emerged as follows:

First came the fact that a Dallas police officer was shot; then the fact that the police were surrounding a Theater in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas.

Finally came information that “a” suspect was arrested; then, the information that “the suspect” was an ex-Marine who had defected to Russia in October 1959, had lived there for over 2-1/2 years, etc.

Soon, dispatches were distributed from Ft. Worth, the source for information about Oswald’s October 1959 defection; and from New Orleans about his activities there in the summer of 1963.

Bottom line: At no point on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, was it stated that there had been a “military style” ambush, or anything of the sort.

The closest thing to a “multiple assassin” scenario was what I consider to be a relatively minor dispatch, hours later, that the Mexican border had been closed to prevent anyone from escaping to that country.  But that was treated purely as unimportant miscellany.

 

THE CONTRARY ARGUMENT. . .

Now, all of that having been said, it is of course possible to argue—based on an analysis based on data that became known months or even years later—that there was a crossfire, or that shots were heard from “other” directions and so forth, but that was definitely not the perception distributed national on the wire services, it was not reported that way by any network news anchor, and it was certainly not reported that way in the print media (the NY Times and all the others). Therefore, when you write “Oswald was supposed to be framed as ONE OF THE SHOOTERS, not as THE SHOOTER,” I fail to see the basis for such an inference, based on the known historical record.

Again: The assassination was not reported as a “multiple shooter” event.

To the contrary, it was reported as the work of a solo assassin.

Therefore, the notion that autopsy falsification “must have occurred”  because Oswald was “arrested alive” and the crime had to be pinned on “only him”  etc.—none of that is supported by the media record.

Another problem with this faulty analysis is that it makes it look as if autopsy falsification is something that occurred “after the fact”; whereas, exactly the opposite is the case.

Now having said “all of the above,” there’s an important addendum that must be added.

THE ADDENDUM - THE "INSIDER'S COVER STORY"

Nothing I have said above precludes the possibility that, among knowledgeable insiders, the story was being circulated—e.g., by Lyndon Johnson himself—that that although the media was focusing on this one person who was arrested, there was a darker truth; that in fact “others” who were involved.

In other words, its entirely possible that Johnson or McGeorge Bundy or Sec Def McNamara or Robert Kennedy—that any (or all) of these insiders)—were scared to death because they were afraid of some “secret reality” about a foreign assassination plot, a “secret reality” that they didn’t want to be discovered.

For decades, I’ve been aware of this possibility, and I have referred to this as the “insider’s cover story.”

This “insider’s cover story”—call it simply “national security”—is the ultimate justification to engage in falsification of evidence, and obstruction of justice.

Was such a rational used to justify acts that, in normal circumstances, would be considered illegal?

Yes, I suspect that to be true.

However, that does not mean, for example, that autopsy falsification was conceived of “after the fact”. 

FWIW, and IMHO: This “insider’s cover story” was not publicly revealed –in all its glory—until 1975 with the Rockefeller Commission investigation, and then, in more detail, with the investigation of the Senate Select Committee (the Church Committee).

 

PERFECT EXAMPLE: ABC Newsman Howard K. Smith

And that’s why you have ABC’s Howard K. Smith revealing, in June 1976, that Lyndon Johnson –who died in January 1973—had  once told him, after swearing him to secrecy:

 

QUOTE: 

I'll tell you something [about Kennedy's murder) that will rock you,” Mr. Smith quoted the late President as saying. “Then he said, Kennedy was trying to get to Castro, but Castro got to him first,” Mr. Smith continued.  “I was rocked all right. begged for details,” Mr. Smith added. “He refused, saying it will all come out one day. UNQUOTE (New York Times, 6/25/76,  p.12; appearing under the headline: JOHNSON IS QUOTED ON KENNEDY DEATH.

 

MY FINAL ASSESSMENT:

I have no problem with theorizing about what “may have happened” months or years later, but there is no basis, based on the media record, for believing that such considerations were rooted in reality, and operative in real time; and specifically, there is no reason to believe that someone decided—almost out of the blue—to “falsify the autopsy” (more bluntly stated: alter the body) in order to “hide the existence” of any “Castro shooters.”

Again, I don’t rule out someone using that as a cock and bull story to justify doing something to the body, but that is strictly “after-the-fact.”

Based on the appearance of the assassination, as it was reported—from the Dallas Police radio to the national media (i.e., the two major wire services)—this was designed, from the outset, to create the appearance that President Kennedy was assassinated by a sniper located on an upper floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

That was the story that was designed to be distributed; and the assassination was carried out in such a way as to fit with those “specs”; i.e., those “political specifications.”

The most reasonable implication: any plan to falsify the autopsy—however that was to be accomplished—was almost certainly integral to the design of the original crime.

Think about it: how could any sensible persons design a plot to frame a single shooter, whether it was Oswald or anyone else, without taking into account that “other bullets” would be resident inside President Kennedy’s body?

The autopsy had to be falsified, in order to falsify the story of how Kennedy died.  And for there to be a reasonable, non-chaotic political transition, and to have the transition occur in accordance with the provisions for succession spelled out in the U.S. Constitution,  the president’s death would have to be made to appear to be a historical accident, and a quirk of fate.

In fact, that’s the way the assassination “appeared to be” on November 22, 1963, and I believe that was a matter of intentional design.

DSL

4/10/2017 – 11:25 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited April 20, 2017 by David Lifton

[Gerry Simone]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Problem is, the Mexico City incident -- including Oswald's alleged conversation with Russian assassin Valery Kostikov -- seem to be designed to implicate Russia in a conspiracy. Not to implicate only a "home grown Communist nut."

 

Problem is, how could the cover-up artists (the Johnson Administration) have come up with a plan so quickly to snatch Kennedy's body undetected? (For the purpose of removing evidence of multiple shooters.)

 

You could be right for the 1st point, but the MC incident could've PRIMARILY meant to show's Oswald's plan to get a VISA for his escape.  But Oswald or his impostor was denied one and made a scene..  There were other "diplomats" there in MC too, and Kostikov was one of them.  That doesn't make it a Russian plot. (Many diplomats were KGB or CIA).  Just a case for an idealistic Commie-nut like Oswald who ostensibly was trying to appease Mother Russia like he tried to do when he defected to the USSR.

As for the second point, I don't think it was a complex plan to snatch Kennedy's body either in Dallas or between Dallas/Andrews AF Base and Bethesda, due to the power of the new President, the Secret Service and the military, with plausibly good intentions.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Gerry Simone

[Gerry Simone]

27 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Ron,

I’m posting this to take a strong position against the basic thesis of your post. Here is your key assertion:  “The assassination was designed to look like exactly what it was, a military-style ambush, and it was to be blamed on Castro.”

Addressing the first part of your sentence—“The assassination was designed to look like exactly what it was, a military-style ambush”: that is not supported by the evidence, not at all.

The basis for my making this statement—and mounting my objection—is the public record, as it existed on November 22, 1963.

THE PUBLIC RECORD

To understand what the assassination “look[ed] like,” one must go to the public “media” record, and I’m referring now to the accounts published by both major American wire services—the Associated Press (“AP”) and United Press International (“UPI”), on their “A” wire.

I addressed this very question starting around 1970—setting aside what I (personally)  “thought I saw” in this or that photograph of the grassy knoll, or my personal beliefs about “what had happened” (based on testimony gathered after the publication of the Warren Report (Sept 1964) and then (in November 1964) of the 26 Volumes),  and focusing on this question: Just what did the assassination “look like” on the day it occurred?

For that reason, I sought to obtain records of the “A” wire of both AP and UPI.

 

THE WIRE SERVICE RECORDS

The study of the “A” wire of both these media outlets—which I consider to be just as important as any record to be found in the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission, or at the National Archives—makes clear what the assassination “looked like” at the time.

It provides a minute-by-minute account of what the reporting of this major historical event--sentence by sentence, and then paragraph by paragraph, as the reporters fed into the system their observations, and the stories of what the assassination “looked like”; and these accounts were distributed around the nation, and the world, and published within hours (and certainly by the next morning) in the nation’s print media.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE SINGLE ASSASSIN PERCEPTION. . .

For both wire services, the answer is the same: the assassination was reported, in the media, and based (initially, on the Dallas Police investigation) as being the work of one man.

First came the reports that “shots” were fired—in the case of UPI, it was “three shots,”a story that was distributed around the world within 2 to 3 minutes.

Shortly thereafter came the information that the police said the shots came from a certain “building.”

Then came the information that the source was apparently a sniper on an upper floor of the building.

Then came the very specific information that it was discovered that “the window” was on the sixth floor, south-east corner window, and so forth.

In the case of AP, when there was an error, a dispatch would be sent that started, “CORRECTION” and stating that in some prior dispatch (and a number would be specified), there was an error, and “fifth floor” should be changed to “sixth floor.” (In my review of the AP records, I paid particular attention to these "CORRECTION" notices).

 

ZEROING IN ON OSWALD

As to the zeroing in on Oswald, that emerged as follows:

First came the fact that a Dallas police officer was shot; then the fact that the police were surrounding a Theater in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas.

Finally came information that “a” suspect was arrested; then, the information that “the suspect” was an ex-Marine who had defected to Russia in October 1959, had lived there for over 2-1/2 years, etc.

Soon, dispatches were distributed from Ft. Worth, the source for information about Oswald’s October 1959 defection; and from New Orleans about his activities there in the summer of 1963.

Bottom line: At no point on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, was it stated that there had been a “military style” ambush, or anything of the sort.

The closest thing to a “multiple assassin” scenario was what I consider to be a relatively minor dispatch, hours later, that the Mexican border had been closed to prevent anyone from escaping to that country.  But that was treated purely as unimportant miscellany.

 

THE CONTRARY ARGUMENT. . .

Now, all of that having been said, it is of course possible to argue—based on an analysis based on data that became known months or even years later—that there was a crossfire, or that shots were heard from “other” directions and so forth, but that was definitely not the perception distributed national on the wire services, it was not reported that way by any network news anchor, and it was certainly not reported that way in the print media (the NY Times and all the others). Therefore, when you write “Oswald was supposed to be framed as ONE OF THE SHOOTERS, not as THE SHOOTER,” I fail to see the basis for such an inference, based on the known historical record.

Again: The assassination was not reported as a “multiple shooter” event.

To the contrary, it was reported as the work of a solo assassin.

Therefore, the notion that autopsy falsification “must have occurred”  because Oswald was “arrested alive” and the crime had to be pinned on “only him”  etc.—none of that is supported by the media record.

Another problem with this faulty analysis is that it makes it look as if autopsy falsification is something that occurred “after the fact”; whereas, exactly the opposite is the case.

Now having said “all of the above,” there’s an important addendum that must be added.

THE ADDENDUM - THE "INSIDER'S COVER STORY"

Nothing I have said above precludes the possibility that, among knowledgeable insiders, the story was being circulated—e.g., by Lyndon Johnson himself—that that although the media was focusing on this one person who was arrested, there was a darker truth; that in fact “others” who were involved.

In other words, its entirely possible that Johnson or McGeorge Bundy or Sec Def McNamara or Robert Kennedy—that any (or all) of these insiders)—were scared to death because they were afraid of some “secret reality” about a foreign assassination plot, a “secret reality” that they didn’t want to be discovered.

For decades, I’ve been aware of this possibility, and I have referred to this as the “insider’s cover story.”

This “insider’s cover story”—call it simply “national security”—is the ultimate justification to engage in falsification of evidence, and obstruction of justice.

Was such a rational used to justify acts that, in normal circumstances, would be considered illegal?

Yes, I suspect that to be true.

However, that does not mean, for example, that autopsy falsification was conceived of “after the fact”. 

FWIW, and IMHO: This “insider’s cover story” was not publicly revealed –in all its glory—until 1975 with the Rockefeller Commission investigation, and then, in more detail, with the investigation of the Senate Select Committee (the Church Committee).

 

PERFECT EXAMPLE: ABC Newsman Howard K. Smith

And that’s why you have ABC’s Howard K. Smith revealing, in June 1976, that Lyndon Johnson –who died in January 1973—had  once told him, after swearing him to secrecy:

 

QUOTE: 

I'll tell you something [about Kennedy's murder) that will rock you,” Mr. Smith quoted the late President as saying. “Then he said, Kennedy was trying to get to Castro, but Castro got to him first,” Mr. Smith continued.  “I was rocked all right. begged for details,” Mr. Smith added. “He refused, saying it will all come out one day. UNQUOTE (New York Times, 6/25/76,  p.12; appearing under the headline: JOHNSON IS QUOTED ON KENNEDY DEATH.

 

MY FINAL ASSESSMENT:

I have no problem with theorizing about what “may have happened” months or years later, but there is no basis, based on the media record, for believing that such considerations were rooted in reality, and operative in real time; and specifically, there is no reason to believe that someone decided—almost out of the blue—to “falsify the autopsy” (more bluntly stated: alter the body) in order to “hide the existence” of any “Castro shooters.”

Again, I don’t rule out someone using that as a cock and bull story to justify doing something to the body, but that is strictly “after-the-fact.”

Based on the appearance of the assassination, as it was reported—from the Dallas Police radio to the national media (i.e., the two major wire services)—this was designed, from the outset, to create the appearance that President Kennedy was assassinated by a sniper located on an upper floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

That was the story that was designed to be distributed; and the assassination was carried out in such a way as to fit with those “specs”; i.e., those “political specifications.”

The most reasonable implication: any plan to falsify the autopsy—however that was to be accomplished—was almost certainly integral to the design of the original crime.

Think about it: how could any sensible persons design a plot to frame a single shooter, whether it was Oswald or anyone else, without taking into account that “other bullets” would be resident inside President Kennedy’s body?

The autopsy had to be falsified, in order to falsify the story of how Kennedy died.  And for there to be a reasonable, non-chaotic political transition, and to have the transition occur in accordance with the provisions for succession spelled out in the U.S. Constitution,  the president’s death would have to be made to appear to be a historical accident, and a quirk of fate.

In fact,

That’s the way the assassination “appeared to be” on November 22, 1963, and I believe that was a matter of intentional design.

DSL

4/10/2017 – 11:25 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

You make a good case for a lone assassin patsy and pre-autopsy case Mr. Lifton (as well as remind us about a few key common sense points).

Another problem with the multiple shooter angle is could an after-the-fact cover-up team come up with a CE 399 plant so early in the game (let alone last minute plans to conduct a pre-autopsy)?

Also, if we are to believe that CIA assets also exist in the news media, they sure didn't help to promote or put out a multi-party conspiracy.

[Gerry Simone]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Ron,

Thanks for responding.

I'm not sure why the plotters had to hide the fact that there were multiple shooters just because Oswald was caught alive. I guess it depends on what he knew. I've always thought the plot would have been highly compartmented, in which case Oswald wouldn't have known much... only enough to complete his mission. Whatever that was.

But given that Oswald had to be silenced, he had to have known something important.

Oswald didn't have to know anything important with respect to the assassination per se (especially if he was a low-level agent and on a need-to-know basis), except that he could establish an alibi or provide a credible defense at trial.   That was bad for the plotters.  However on second thought, maybe you're right too since he seemed to be afraid for his life when he went home to change and get his hand gun.

[Paul Trejo]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Paul,

What you say [i.e. that the decision to force a pre-autopsy autopsy was made for the very first time after 4pm EST on 11/22/1963] certainly seems to be a possibility. I've considered it and have seen others do the same.

But there seems to be a fundamental flaw in this theory. Kennedy's body was apparently snatched very quickly after his death. It seems inconceivable to me that the body could be stolen without having a preconceived plan. I mean, just imagine LBJ deciding to conceal the conspiracy, then making that plan known to others, and then someone coming up with the idea of removing evidence of conspiracy from the body. After that, somebody has to figure out how to steal the body without detection, etc. etc. Finally the body is snatched. How could all that possibly have been achieved in such a short period of time?

Sandy,

Jackie Kennedy testified -- along with the Secret Service -- about the 11/22/1963 decision to rip JFK's body away from Parkland Hospital before an autopsy in Dallas as follows:

(1) After JFK was pronounced dead at 1pm, the Secret Service from Washington DC now considered Dallas a hell-hole; and uncertain whether this was a wider conspiracy, had one new duty -- to get LBJ out of Dallas ASAP, before LBJ himself might be assassinated.

(2) Jackie could not be left behind.  She had her own Secret Service men dedicated to her, and LBJ would not leave without her.  

(3)  The original plan at 1pm CST on 11/22/1963.was to leave JFK's body at Parkland and just hurry out of Dallas.

(4) HOWEVER -- Jackie absolutely refused to be separated from the body of JFK -- as a matter of personal emotion and family honor.

(5) THEREFORE -- to get LBJ and Jackie out of the Dallas danger-ground ASAP, the only compromise in this scenario was to insist -- forcefully  -- that the body of JFK had to fly to Washington with LBJ and Jackie (and the whole Secret Service staff) and obtain an autopsy back East.

(6) The Secret Service had to draw their pistols to rip JFK's body away from Parkland Hospital.  But protecting LBJ and Jackie was now job one.

(7) The Secret Service gave Jackie every convenience in this action -- they got a suitable casket for the body, first; although time was ticking away.  When the casket wouldn't fit into the doors of the airplane, they sawed the handles off -- quick.

(8) Then LBJ was sworn in at 2:38pm CST on AF1.   Then they began their flight back to Washington DC.

The following is my CT:

(9) At about 4pm EST somebody in Washington DC, likely J. Edgar Hoover, came up with the Lone Gunman theory of the JFK assassination (says David Wrone (2001)). 

(10) At about 6pm EST AF1 landed at Andrews AFB.  

(11) This two-hour gap, from 4pm to 6pm EST, was when a pre-autopsy autopsy was planned and begun -- to accommodate the Lone Nut theory.   Oswald alone would bear the full blame for the JFK assassination -- as US State Dogma.

It might seem a tight fit, but the US Government had nothing else to do but to coordinate the national response to this outrage.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 11, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Ron,

I’m posting this to take a strong position against the basic thesis of your post. Here is your key assertion:  “The assassination was designed to look like exactly what it was, a military-style ambush, and it was to be blamed on Castro.”

Addressing the first part of your sentence—“The assassination was designed to look like exactly what it was, a military-style ambush”: that is not supported by the evidence, not at all.

The basis for my making this statement—and mounting my objection—is the public record, as it existed on November 22, 1963.

THE PUBLIC RECORD

To understand what the assassination “look[ed] like,” one must go to the public “media” record, and I’m referring now to the accounts published by both major American wire services—the Associated Press (“AP”) and United Press International (“UPI”), on their “A” wire.

I addressed this very question starting around 1970—setting aside what I (personally)  “thought I saw” in this or that photograph of the grassy knoll, or my personal beliefs about “what had happened” (based on testimony gathered after the publication of the Warren Report (Sept 1964) and then (in November 1964) of the 26 Volumes),  and focusing on this question: Just what did the assassination “look like” on the day it occurred?

For that reason, I sought to obtain records of the “A” wire of both AP and UPI.

THE WIRE SERVICE RECORDS

The study of the “A” wire of both these media outlets—which I consider to be just as important as any record to be found in the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission, or at the National Archives—makes clear what the assassination “looked like” at the time.

It provides a minute-by-minute account of what the reporting of this major historical event--sentence by sentence, and then paragraph by paragraph, as the reporters fed into the system their observations, and the stories of what the assassination “looked like”; and these accounts were distributed around the nation, and the world, and published within hours (and certainly by the next morning) in the nation’s print media.

 ZEROING IN ON OSWALD

As to the zeroing in on Oswald, that emerged as follows:

First came the fact that a Dallas police officer was shot; then the fact that the police were surrounding a Theater in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas.

Finally came information that “a” suspect was arrested; then, the information that “the suspect” was an ex-Marine who had defected to Russia in October 1959, had lived there for over 2-1/2 years, etc.

Soon, dispatches were distributed from Ft. Worth, the source for information about Oswald’s October 1959 defection; and from New Orleans about his activities there in the summer of 1963.

Bottom line: At no point on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, was it stated that there had been a “military style” ambush, or anything of the sort.

The closest thing to a “multiple assassin” scenario was what I consider to be a relatively minor dispatch, hours later, that the Mexican border had been closed to prevent anyone from escaping to that country.  But that was treated purely as unimportant miscellany.

 ...Therefore, when you write “Oswald was supposed to be framed as ONE OF THE SHOOTERS, not as THE SHOOTER,” I fail to see the basis for such an inference, based on the known historical record.

Again: The assassination was not reported as a “multiple shooter” event.

To the contrary, it was reported as the work of a solo assassin. 

David,

What is missing from this scenario is the Jim Garrison discovery of 544 Camp Street, and the six-month sheep-dip of LHO to make him look like an officer of the FPCC in New Orleans.

That material was intended to be exploited -- not tossed in a trash can.   (The same with the Mexico City and Kostikov connection).

One must go from 544 Camp Street to the Lone Nut scenario -- and y'all have not done that yet.

Also -- the Official Wire Service is, IMHO, too late on the chain.   It wasn't established until 11/23/1963, and they had all night to jimmy with it.

Instead, we should ask for the Local, Dallas Wire Service -- what they said minute-by-minute from 12:30 CST until 2:30 CST.

That's a special study, and would stand on its own.

There was even talk about General Walker in the local news in Dallas during the first two hours after the JFK murder.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 11, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The Lone Nut scenario was decided upon within hours of Oswald's capture.

Right.

[Steve Thomas]

Is there a record of anyone ever explaining to Jackie Kennedy that state law required the autopsy to be performed in Texas, and that she would be breaking the law to have JFK's body taken out of state?

 

I have no problem believing that LBJ would have no concerns about this trifling little legal problem, but I've always wondered how Jackie overcame that in her own mind. 

 

I don't care how you want to phrase loyalty and/or love for JFK by the Secret Service, or LBJ's fears of national security; legally the Secret Service's oversight of JFK, and LBJ's paranoia, ended when JFK died. 

Who convinced Jackie it was okay and how?

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

[Steve Thomas]

19 hours ago, David Lifton said:

 

There’s little question in my mind that Oswald was ever supposed to leave the building alive. 

David,

 

I just ask this out of curiosity and not for any other reason.

 

What do you think would have been the scenario?

 

A lengthy standoff?

A discovery of LHO hiding?

A shootout?  Doesn't seem like there would be enough bulletis in the rifle for a shootout.

Oswald rushing the police armed with?

A throwdown gun?  Planted by which likely culprit? 

 

Steve Thomas

[Ray Mitcham]

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Is there a record of anyone ever explaining to Jackie Kennedy that state law required the autopsy to be performed in Texas, and that she would be breaking the law to have JFK's body taken out of state?

 

I have no problem believing that LBJ would have no concerns about this trifling little legal problem, but I've always wondered how Jackie overcame that in her own mind. 

 

I don't care how you want to phrase loyalty and/or love for JFK by the Secret Service, or LBJ's fears of national security; legally the Secret Service's oversight of JFK, and LBJ's paranoia, ended when JFK died. 

Who convinced Jackie it was okay and how?

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

I agree with your comments, Steve. After JFK was murdered, Jackie became the ex President's wife, with no special privileges. The excuse that she had to leave with Johnson is a non-sequitor. It was just an excuse to get the body out of the grasp of the Texas authorities. IMO. The only job for the SS men, at that time, was to get the new President out of Dallas, pronto. Nothing else.

Edited April 11, 2017 by Ray Mitcham