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

[Ron Ecker]

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Ron,

What you suggest -- that the snatching and alteration of the body was Plan B, to be implemented should Oswald be taken alive -- makes sense to me. He no doubt would have spilled his guts about being a CIA asset or agent, etc., etc.

 

And it doesn't make much sense to me that conspirators would plan a multi-shooter ambush with the express intent of blaming it on one person. 

Seems to me that whoever would suggest such a plan would get some blank stares from his co-conspirators.

 

[Paul Trejo]

On 4/14/2017 at 4:41 PM, David Lifton said:

Please show me photos of police searching the cars. Or produce some police reports which support this claim.

How many Dallas Police officers--innocent or criminal-- do you think were engaged in this "parking lot search"?

Have you examined the DPD file for information as to how many uniformed patrolman, if any, were searching cars in the parking lot?

Is this your belief as to how Kennedy's assassins "got away"?  How they escaped? That there was no planned "exfiltration". Rather, Kennedy's assassins posed as members of the Dallas Police Department, dressed in full uniform, who after Kennedy's murder simply holstered their guns, and ended up in the parking lot behind the grassy knoll, engaged in searching automobiles?

But what about the genuine members of the Dallas Police Department who, you allege, were involved in "searching the grassy knoll parking lot"?

Might they not notice these false police officers? 

"Hey Joe, have you searched that Pontiac over there?  Wait a minute. . you're not Joe.  Have I met you before? Who are you?" etc

Don't you think this co-mingling of genuine DPD officers (who, you claim, were searching cars) with false police officers, who were actually assassins, have posed a real risk?

Does this represent your belief about how the Kennedy plot worked?

Sorry to pose my question this way, but I'm just reading what you wrote above, and wondering if you really believe what you said:

"No need for the assassins to slip away -- they were wearing DPD uniforms -- and so they just began searching the GN parking lot like all the other cops."

Really?

DSL

David,

I finally get some time this Easter weekend to respond to your worthy questions.

First, yes, I really believe what I wrote.  "No need for the assassins to slip away -- they were wearing DPD uniforms -- and so they just began searching the GN parking lot like all the other cops."

My main source for this is Professor Walt Brown, in his book, Treachery in Dallas (1995).  Like the early books of Joachim Joesten, Professor Brown makes a solid case that the Dallas Police were in the very best position to assassinate JFK.

Secondly, I note that you misunderstood my main point when you asked:  But what about the genuine members of the Dallas Police Department who, you allege, were involved in "searching the grassy knoll parking lot"?   Might they not notice these false police officers? 

It's your mistake, David, because I never said they were "false police officers."   Just the opposite -- I said they were real Police Officers. 

Here's a plausible scenario: the few Police Officer Shooters were around the picket fence area of the Grassy Knoll.  They shot JFK.  When DPD motorcycle cops, Dallas Deputies, DPD street cops and the public started rushing the Grassy Knoll (as they testified to the WC) and started searching cars for shooters --  the Police Officer Shooters just started "looking" for shooters, too.  They would have blended in instantly.  

Thirdly, it is futile to ask the Dallas Police to provide photographs of their own crime.  They wouldn't provide them if they had them.  Professor Brown explains why.   (I highly recommend his book.)  Here are a few bullets from Walt Brown's book:

.  As a means to escape, a DPD uniform was the best guarantee.

. DPD cops abounded at the R/R lot on 11/22/1963, and clearly not as protectors, e.g. Badgeman

.  DPD cop Luke Mooney said about the R/R lot:   
    - We were trying to clear the area out.
    - And get all civilians out that weren’t officers.

.  WC Witness Mrs. Donald Baker rushed to the GN parking immediately after the JFK shots, and said she saw a cop there.

.  Jean Hill (the Lady in Red) told her motorcycle cop boyfriend B.J. Martin, “I saw a cop with a rifle.”
    - B.J. said, “Keep quiet; cops don’t carry rifles.”

.  Vickie Adams, TSBD office worker, said she ran to the R/R lot within minutes after the JFK shooting 
    -  A DPD cop sternly ordered Vickie back into the TSBD, despite her objections

.  Beverly Oliver (stripper at Carousel Club) was at the GN at the instant of the shooting...and filmed it (but the FBI took her film)
    - Beverly said she had filmed DPD cops Roscoe White and Patrick Dean there.
    - She knew Roscoe White, as "Geneva’s husband” because Geneva also worked at the Carousel Club.

.  On his 1971 deathbed, said his wife, Geneva, Roscoe White had confessed his role in the JFK murder
    -  Geneva was robbed in 1975, but when recovered, her things had a BYP among them.

These eye-witnesses, David, rather than DPD photographs, are what Walt Brown and I offer as evidence for a CT in which the Dallas Police and Sheriff's Department were the main ground crew.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 16, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Sandy,

Just off the top of my head (ewww, pardon the morbid pun), the bad guys had to obfuscate / hide the damage done by the second shooter because they knew if they didn't, that shooter might eventually be caught and forced to "spill the beans'.

How's that?

--  Tommy

Tommy,

Basically you're saying that the reason the plotters wanted the evidence to point to one gunman, was to stop the investigation. (That is to say, the investigation for other gunmen.) Because that one gunman (Oswald) was already in custody. Yeah, that makes sense.

Let's compare that to Ron's "Plan B" hypothesis. If Oswald were taken alive, then Plan B would be in effect and the effect of his hypothesis is equivalent to yours. On the other hand, If Oswald were killed, the body alteration would not take place under Ron's hypothesis. And a protracted investigation would ensue (if a government cover-up were not put in place).

At first glance, your hypothesis seems to be superior to Ron's in terms of protecting the conspirators. Because it stops the investigation regardless of whether or not Oswald is taken alive. But when you consider the fact that the body alteration itself is a complicated, risky business that increases the odds of the conspirators being caught, then the answer is not so clear.

Having given it some thought, I think Ron's hypothesis makes more sense. Keep in mind that if Oswald is taken alive, the effects of your and Ron's hypotheses are equivalent. However, if Oswald is killed, here is what will happen:

Under Thomas's hypothesis: A protracted investigation will be averted. But at the cost of having to execute the body alteration scheme, which increases the risk that the conspirators being caught.

Under Ron's Hypothesis: A protracted investigation ensues. However, given that the evidence surrounding Oswald points to a communist plot, the investigation will be focused on communists, not the real conspirators.

Of course, just because IMO Ron's hypothesis makes more sense, doesn't mean it is more likely to be the correct one.

 

[Gerry Simone]

3 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

And it doesn't make much sense to me that conspirators would plan a multi-shooter ambush with the express intent of blaming it on one person. 

Seems to me that whoever would suggest such a plan would get some blank stares from his co-conspirators.

 

Maybe it wasn't supposed to be a multi-shooter ambush after all because other shooters were simply a contingency or back up plan in case a shot from the rear (whether TSBD or County Records or Dal-Tex Building) did not clearly end Kennedy's life.  But that part of the mission failed.  So they ended up having a problem when a fatal shot came from the front but alas, they had a contingency plan to remove that evidence.

The original plan still could've been to frame a lone gunman who was a Commie nut with a dubious history that would have unfolded in the aftermath, because that might have been enough to persuade the government to take retaliatory action, as well as enhance or emphasize the threat by the "evil empire", and maintain the Cold War.

But LBJ and Hoover weren't stupid to take the bait.  They knew something was up and had to cover things up.

The pre-autopsy contingency plan was still in place, but this time, it would become a legitimate national security measure.

P.S. It's also possible that the plotters just hated Kennedy and wanted him dead.  IF an invasion of Cuba resulted from the assassination, that would've been a bonus, but the plotters might not have cared much for that.

[Thomas Graves]

40 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tommy,

Basically you're saying that the reason the plotters wanted the evidence to point to one gunman, was to stop the investigation. (That is to say, the investigation for other gunmen.) Because that one gunman (Oswald) was already in custody. Yeah, that makes sense.

Let's compare that to Ron's "Plan B" hypothesis. If Oswald were taken alive, then Plan B would be in effect and the effect of his hypothesis is equivalent to yours. On the other hand, If Oswald were killed, the body alteration would not take place under Ron's hypothesis. And a protracted investigation would ensue (if a government cover-up were not put in place).

At first glance, your hypothesis seems to be superior to Ron's in terms of protecting the conspirators. Because it stops the investigation regardless of whether or not Oswald is taken alive. But when you consider the fact that the body alteration itself is a complicated, risky business that increases the odds of the conspirators being caught, then the answer is not so clear.

Having given it some thought, I think Ron's hypothesis makes more sense. Keep in mind that if Oswald is taken alive, the effects of your and Ron's hypotheses are equivalent. However, if Oswald is killed, here is what will happen:

Under Thomas's hypothesis: A protracted investigation will be averted. But at the cost of having to execute the body alteration scheme, which increases the risk that the conspirators being caught.

Under Ron's Hypothesis: A protracted investigation ensues. However, given that the evidence surrounding Oswald points to a communist plot, the investigation will be focused on communists, not the real conspirators.

Of course, just because IMO Ron's hypothesis makes more sense, doesn't mean it is more likely to be the correct one.

 

Sandy,

Honestly --  whatever, dude.  

"To blame it on Oswald and Oswald alone" would be a more honest way of putting it.

But you're rubbing off on me, so I'm gonna go and over-analyze my belly button now.

--  Tommy

PS  Read only about half of your post.  Maybe I'll get around to the other half when I've finally figured out my belly button.

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

You guys are confusing me. I think it's much simpler. The sniper's nest proves to me that the plan was to blame the patsy. However, multiple shooters were necessary, especially from places other than the TSBD, for obvious reasons. It's not clear to me that any shots that hit their target were fired from the sniper's nest. It was a poor choice for anything other than a patsy plan. It was a military style ambush in fact, but the plan had to have been to hide that fact. That's the only explanation for the sniper's nest, unless you accept the WC conclusion. I find it hard to believe that Oswald was let out of the building on purpose. Way too messy. 

[Ron Ecker]

3 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

 It was a military style ambush in fact, but the plan had to have been to hide that fact. That's the only explanation for the sniper's nest, unless you accept the WC conclusion.

I don't understand why you say that. If Oswald was to be identified (framed) as a shooter among shooters in an ambush, then it made sense to construct the place he supposedly shot from. Hence the sniper's nest. I don't understand why that construction precludes other shooters.

[Sandy Larsen]

I like Ron Ecker's Plan B hypothesis so much that I thought I'd repeat it and expound on it a bit.
 

Ron Ecker's Plan B Hypothesis -- From the point of view of the plotters:

The plan is to create a pretext for war with the Russians. (Or an invasion of Cuba?). We will paint Oswald as a communist plotter and make him the fall guy.. We will do so with the Kostikov / "Comrade Kostin" subplot.

We will have multiple gunmen to ensure that Kennedy is killed.

Plan A is to have Oswald killed shortly after the assassination so he can't talk. The wounds in the body will reveal that there were multiple gunmen, and so the authorities will launch a full-scale investigation searching for these gunmen and any other plotters. But that's okay... due to the evidence that Oswald acted under communist control, the investigation will be nothing but a wild goose chase looking for communist agents and assassins.

The pretext for war is achieved if all goes well.

But if something should go wrong that might reveal the true source of the plot (the CIA et. al.), Plan B will be implemented. Plan B is designed to silence key people and to limit the investigation as much as possible. The best evidence for multiple shooters are the gunshot wounds. Therefore the body must be snatched and altered as best as possible to make it appear that the shots came from behind. That way the blame and the investigation will be limited to Oswald (and his communist conspirators).

End Hypothesis

When Oswald was taken alive, he was sure to spill his guts about his CIA activities. Thus Plan B was triggered. He (and Tippet) were silenced in accordance with the plan. And JFK's body was snatched and altered in accordance with the plan.

 

EDIT: I based the above on Ron's hypothesis. Some of it may not reflect his views.

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

38 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

"To blame it on Oswald and Oswald alone" would be a more honest way of putting it.

Tommy,

Wouldn't that preclude one of the plotters' goals, that being to create a pretext for war?

You need to put what you said in context for me to understand your objection

 

[Sandy Larsen]

50 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

You guys are confusing me. I think it's much simpler. The sniper's nest proves to me that the plan was to blame the patsy. However, multiple shooters were necessary, especially from places other than the TSBD, for obvious reasons. It's not clear to me that any shots that hit their target were fired from the sniper's nest. It was a poor choice for anything other than a patsy plan. It was a military style ambush in fact, but the plan had to have been to hide that fact. That's the only explanation for the sniper's nest, unless you accept the WC conclusion. I find it hard to believe that Oswald was let out of the building on purpose. Way too messy. 

Paul,

I suggest you read my Ron Ecker's Plan B Hypothesis post, two posts above this. It conforms to almost everything you wrote in your post. The only difference is that the body snatching was necessary only if the plan backfired in a way that could expose  the plotters. Which it did when Oswald was taken alive.

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Thomas Graves]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tommy,

Wouldn't that preclude one of the plotters' goals, that being to create a pretext for war?

You need to put what you said in context for me to understand your objection

 

How would the 11/22/63 death-by-police of JFK's Commie-but-solo-assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, "for resisting arrest and attempting to kill a policeman or two" have necessarily obviated said pretext for war, especially since Oswald was a known Communist and Castro sympathizer who had not only lived in the Soviet Union for 2.5 years and married the niece (or something) of a Belorussian MVD officer, but had recently visited the Mexico City Soviet Embassy (if not the Cuban Consulate, as well), under very mysterious circumstances. indeed?

--  Tommy

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Paul,

I suggest you read my Ron Ecker's Plan B Hypothesis post, two posts above this. It conforms to almost everything you wrote in your post. The only difference is that the body snatching was necessary only if the plan backfired in a way that could expose  the plotters. Which it did when Oswald was taken alive.

 

I have practically no interest in this "issue," and therefore very limited knowledge about it, but I do have a question:

Did the bad guys start altering JFK's wounds before , or after , they found out Oswald had been captured alive?

Or doesn't that even matter?

--  Tommy

[Sandy Larsen]

42 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

I have practically no interest in this "issue," and therefore very limited knowledge about it, but I do have a question:

Did the bad guys start altering JFK's wounds before , or after , they found out Oswald had been captured alive?

Or doesn't that even matter?

--  Tommy

Tommy,

According to Best Evidence, the alteration took place after JFK's body had been transported to Washington, DC. (Either at Walter Reed or Bethesda Hospital, I forget which.) On the order of 6 PM eastern time, IIRC. So that was after Oswald was captured.

Whether or not it matters is up for discussion. As is being done here.

As I understand it, Final Charade shifts some activities to Dallas. So maybe it will have some or all of the alterations being done there. In which case alterations may have been underway before Oswald was captured. Though by then it may have been known that Oswald hadn't been killed according to plan.

 

[Thomas Graves]

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tommy,

According to Best Evidence, the alteration took place after JFK's body had been transported to Washington, DC. (Either at Walter Reed or Bethesda Hospital, I forget which.) On the order of 6 PM eastern time, IIRC. So that was after Oswald was captured.

Whether or not it matters is up for discussion. As is being done here.

As I understand it, Final Charade shifts some activities to Dallas. So maybe it will have some or all of the alterations being done there. In which case alterations may have been underway before Oswald was captured. Though by then it may have been known that Oswald hadn't been killed according to plan.

 

Are you suggesting that if Oswald had been killed in the theater, JFK's wounds wouldn't have been altered by anyone, good or bad, anywhere?

I'm not making some kind of rhetorical statement, I'm just asking.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

17 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Are you suggesting that if Oswald had been killed in the theater, JFK's wounds wouldn't have been altered by anyone, good or bad, anywhere?

I'm not making some kind of rhetorical statement, I'm just asking.

That is what Ron Ecker's Plan B hypothesis states, if I understand it correctly. So I guess that's what he believes. It makes a lot of sense to me, so I'm inclined to believe it.