How did Oswald just happened to get a job at the place where he was needed to be the patsy?

[Paul Brancato]

58 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

I have to point out again, there is nothing more immaterial than where LHO happened to be working on 11/22/63.

When people suggest that it was a necessity, they are essentially following the same logic as "Truly says LHO is only missing employee, ergo, He's the Shooter."

Anyone not working on the parade route that day could have figured out a building along the route that would work to shoot from. Putting Oswald's rifle in a building along the parade route was not a moon shot.

The insistence on making this aspect of the assassination complicated is truly baffling.

To be clear, you’re saying that the conspirators could have made it work without having Oswald in place, but you’re not saying that the conspirators didn’t place him in the TSBD. If so, I agree. I assume this thread is about how he might have been placed, and if so by whom.
Oswald was taken off the FBI watchlist a week before he began his employment. Add that to the list of improbable coincidences? 

 

3 hours ago, John Cotter said:

I don’t see how any of that constitutes a rebuttal of Douglass’s analysis, Ben

Your suggestion that switching off the alarm system might mean the securicrats “wanted LHO to be surveilled, but not harassed” doesn’t seem to make sense, since the switching off ostensibly means he wouldn’t be surveilled.

But of course, in reality it clearly means the very opposite, since such a bizarre intervention signifies that Oswald was being given very special attention. With the benefit of hindsight we can see that that very special attention involved, as Douglass put it, Oswald “being quietly manipulated right up through the assassination”. It necessarily included Oswald getting the job in the TSBD.

Whether these machinations related to a non-lethal false flag op or not is beside the point. The paragraph following the three paragraphs by Douglass quoted in my previous post further elucidates Douglass’s interpretation, to which I cannot imagine any credible alternative:

“What would have sounded the alarm on Oswald was the CIA's October 10, 1963, message to the FBI about Oswald contacting the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. Because Oswald's security watch had just been lifted, the CIA's October 10 message managed to document his latest Soviet connection in a way that could become explosive after the assassination, while at the same time avoiding a security alert on Oswald before the assassination. It was a brilliant tactic in manipulating the FBI that demonstrated just how sophisticated the plotters’ knowledge and control was of their national security bureaucracy. John Kennedy was killed by people who knew their national security state inside out and could direct it according to their will.”

The last paragraph from Douglass? Very astute logic. The question is who at CIA was calling those shots? How high up did it go? Was their agenda regime change in Cuba, nuclear confrontation with Russia, or removing a President whose policies were too liberal? The last makes most sense to me. 
The ‘leftist’ Oswald became a liability pretty quickly, yet a lot of effort had been made before, and after the assassination too, to connect him to Castro and Kruschchev. For that clique, however small or large or however high it went, Oswald’s assassination was the end, and JFK’s death unnecessary. It seems to me that Oswald’s minders were in that clique. 
 

[John Cotter]

3 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

True.

Not even remotely close to true.

 

Once again, the idea for the lunch at the Trade Mart had been refused by the WH, and thus the TSBD would not have worked as a shooting location.

"October 31, 1963: Bruno visits two other potential luncheon sites, the Dallas Memorial Auditorium, which he deems too large, and the Graduate Research Center of the Southwest, which he believes would be too far out of town and thus impractical. He is also informed that Governor Connally is unhappy with the decision not to use the Trade Mart for the luncheon because of the catwalk issue. Bruno agrees to visit the Trade Mart again but retains his misgivings... Bruno is now faced with two holes in the schedule, Fort Worth and Dallas. One last place is suggested as a luncheon possibility, the Women's Building (now known as The Women's Museum) at the fairgrounds at Fair Park."

It may be that you’re misinterpreting what I said, Matt. The two sentences in question are the following:

'With the benefit of hindsight we can see that that very special attention involved, as Douglass put it, Oswald “being quietly manipulated right up through the assassination”. It necessarily included Oswald getting the job in the TSBD.'

When I said, 'It necessarily included Oswald getting the job in the TSBD.' I didn’t mean that the plot necessitated Oswald having a job in the TSBD.

What I meant was that if the conspirators were controlling Oswald, it necessarily follows that they were responsible for him getting the job in the TSBD.

Edited October 29, 2022 by John Cotter

[Jonathan Cohen]

5 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

What I meant was that if the conspirators were controlling Oswald, it necessarily follows that they were responsible for him getting the job in the TSBD.

Please detail any evidence whatsoever that Oswald was being "controlled" by anyone in the weeks prior to the assassination.

[John Cotter]

22 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Please detail any evidence whatsoever that Oswald was being "controlled" by anyone in the weeks prior to the assassination.

The discussion has progressed beyond that stage, as you would see from Matt's penultimate post. Please don't be disruptive.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

The discussion has progressed beyond that stage, as you would see from Matt's penultimate post. Please don't be disruptive.

I’m hardly being disruptive by asking you for specific evidence to support your apparent assertion that Oswald was being “controlled” by the CIA or some other nefarious force in the weeks prior to the assassination. In the absence of this evidence, there is no reason to believe Ruth Paine or anyone else had an ulterior motive in helping him get the TSBD job, which, as I hope you’ve noticed, is the title of this thread.

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, John Cotter said:

I don’t see how any of that constitutes a rebuttal of Douglass’s analysis, Ben

Your suggestion that switching off the alarm system might mean the securicrats “wanted LHO to be surveilled, but not harassed” doesn’t seem to make sense, since the switching off ostensibly means he wouldn’t be surveilled.

But of course, in reality it clearly means the very opposite, since such a bizarre intervention signifies that Oswald was being given very special attention. With the benefit of hindsight we can see that that very special attention involved, as Douglass put it, Oswald “being quietly manipulated right up through the assassination”. It necessarily included Oswald getting the job in the TSBD.

Whether these machinations related to a non-lethal false flag op or not is beside the point. The paragraph following the three paragraphs by Douglass quoted in my previous post further elucidates Douglass’s interpretation, to which I cannot imagine any credible alternative:

“What would have sounded the alarm on Oswald was the CIA's October 10, 1963, message to the FBI about Oswald contacting the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. Because Oswald's security watch had just been lifted, the CIA's October 10 message managed to document his latest Soviet connection in a way that could become explosive after the assassination, while at the same time avoiding a security alert on Oswald before the assassination. It was a brilliant tactic in manipulating the FBI that demonstrated just how sophisticated the plotters’ knowledge and control was of their national security bureaucracy. John Kennedy was killed by people who knew their national security state inside out and could direct it according to their will.”

JC-

Yes...that's my point, in a way. Perhaps I should not have used the word "harassed."  

If anyone was in charge of LHO, they wanted him to complete his mission to Mexico City (and other activities) without being blocked or investigated.

We pretty much know LHO was closely monitored and even impersonated while in Mexico City. 

My point is that there may have been relatively benign plans for LHO, to participate in a false flag op of some sort, an Operation Northwoods type event.  That event could be blamed on LHO, an obvious Castro sympathizer. 

Sheesh, down in Mexico City, perhaps the intel state just wanted to verify Kostikov's location on that day, as they had a possible sighting of him in another country (he was a wet ops guy, some say), so they sent LHO over to have a look. 

In a larger sense, this is my take on Douglass' excellent but flawed book:

If one starts out, as the WC did, to prosecute LHO as the leftie, loner, loser assassin, and build a case that way, you will get one result. For many people, that result holds water. 

Or, you can build the case the other way, that there must have been higher-ups directing the the JFKA, from months before the event, right up to and including Angleton, Dulles and LBJ. So all available info is assembled to make that version hold water. 

Both the WC and Douglass made their cases like lawyers arguing briefs. 

Egads, some of Douglass' arguments get a little loony. There was a large military plane that landed on some dirt road or wash near Dallas on 11/22 that was to provide LHO a getaway. (It has been years since I read his book). You know, because driving away from Dallas in an unmarked car is such a bad idea.

At some points,  Douglass speaks about some witnesses with evangelical fever. 

Having been a court reporter for a stint, I can tell you everyone regards witness testimony as, well...put it this way: An Asst. US Attorney all but told me she does not rely anymore on witness testimony. 

You must be aware of the thousands of LHO sightings right after the JFKA. Most were probably earnest...people actually believed they saw LHO. 

....

I happen to believe a minimum of three people participated in the JFKA, and the WC covered up the truth. 

If the JFKA was a "mob hit" then those mobsters were so tied up with the CIA-FBI it was covered up---in other words, intel agencies were involved. 

Or, it could have been a CIA hit, mostly done out of the Miami station.  Call it rogue or mid-level. 

Or maybe the planning of the JFKA went to the top. Some people wanted to go into Vietnam.

But...I have reservations about JFKA versions that involve too many witting participants, or too many people afterwards to never reveal details. 

But hey, just IMHO....

 

 

 

 

[Joseph McBride]

But Oswald was not in Mexico City.

[Allen Lowe]

On 10/27/2022 at 11:27 PM, Matt Allison said:

LOL

You really have no interest in the truth, do you?

Try telling it some time, and we’ll see.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Joseph McBride said:

But Oswald was not in Mexico City.

JM--

Well....

 

They have Kostikov, on camera and recorded, and two of his colleagues, say they met the real LHO in the Soviet Embassy on that Saturday. About at the 1:03 mark. 

John Newman said LHO was both in MC and impersonated while there in a recent interview regarding his latest book. 

My guess is Newman is right...but just IMHO. 

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

But Oswald was not in Mexico City.

So you and some say.

I don't know for sure that Oswald was there but what I do know is Oswald said he had been there. In his own handwriting to the Soviet embassy. Verified by expert testimony to be Oswald's handwriting, no expert saying otherwise. That is hands-down evidence Oswald wrote that. 

Also, Silvia Duran's contact information at the Cuban consulate in Oswald's address book ... at the Dallas Police station at Fritz's office and copied by Hosty late afternoon Nov 22 ...

Marina at first covered up but then told that Lee told her he had been in Mexico City... told her in New Orleans that he planned to try to get into Cuba (what Lee told Marina anyway, according to Marina, whether or not what Lee told Marina was true or not). 

Notions that physical evidence was fabricated days or weeks after the assassination to show Oswald had been in Mexico City--a completely, wholly baseless suggestion that Ruth Paine fabricated such physical evidence appears in Max Good's film--runs counter to motive which would be to cover up or deny Oswald's presence in Mexico City if it were possible to do so. As early as Fri night Nov 22 the word came down from the top--from LBJ himself (via intermediaries) to prosecutor Wade's office in Dallas that Oswald should not be charged as part of a communist conspiracy, and Sat morning Nov 23 LBJ and Hoover were talking LBJ's emphasis with Hoover's cooperation on not going toward a Cuban or Soviet connection with Oswald but instead Oswald as lone nut, intent to cover up any Cuban or Soviet connection so as to avoid risk of nuclear war. But the Cuban and Soviet connection is entirely what Oswald in Mexico City was about--LBJ wanted that covered up to the extent possible, and Hoover was on board with LBJ on that. That is the exact opposite of any motive to have Ruth Paine's supposed ubiquitous "handlers" instructed to tell Ruth Paine to fabricate and plant some more Mexico City physical evidence to be attributed to Lee, as insinuated credulously in some books and the Max Good film.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems less complex to assume Oswald went to Mexico City with some coverup of what went on there and impersonation in addition to, not wholly in replacement of, Oswald there. If it had been possible to get away with covering up Oswald's presence in Mexico city altogether (in agreement with what some CT's want to have on this point), that would have been done. The only reason Oswald in Mexico City was acknowledged in the Warren Report is because it was not technically possible to deny it. If it had been, it would have been. Oswald in Mexico City serves nothing in support of the Warren Report's investigation conclusion. It was the major problem LBJ and Hoover had in making the argument for the Lone Nut conclusion. As if LBJ and Hoover were taking stupid pills and having Ruth Paine forge and plant physical evidence going against interest! 

Again, the way it is common to see Oswald's letter to the Soviet embassy just blithely explained by some CT's with a wave of the hand as forged and not Oswald's handwriting, without a shred of expert testimony in support, and opposed to expert testimony which says it is Oswald's handwriting, is just jumping the rails of reason. 

And if Oswald wrote the Soviet embassy in Washington, D.C., that he had been in Mexico City, it does not seem too much of a stretch to suppose maybe he had been in Mexico City during the days he was gone from Ruth and Marina and his whereabouts not securely proven to have been elsewhere during those days. 

Both on the Castro/Cuban side, and on the US side (LBJ/Warren Commission), there was motive to deny Oswald was in Mexico City if it were possible to do so (because Oswald was the accused assassin of JFK with all that meant). I have wondered if the claims of lack of photos of Oswald entering and leaving the Mexico City Soviet embassy and Cuban consulate are explained in that context. 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

John Newman said LHO was both in MC and impersonated while there in a recent interview regarding his latest book.

 

I'd like to see that recent interview. Or anything recent indicating the Newman still believes Oswald was in Mexico City. Because his presence there is highly questionable. (I'm not going to believe what a former KGB agent says.)

 

[Benjamin Cole]

33 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I'd like to see that recent interview. Or anything recent indicating the Newman still believes Oswald was in Mexico City. Because his presence there is highly questionable. (I'm not going to believe what a former KGB agent says.)

 

https://www.spreaker.com/user/7338953/197-october-16-2022-with-intent-to-suppr

Somewhere in this podcast, Newman says LHO was in MC and also impersonated there. 

Sorry, no time stamp.

For me, the LHO trip was part of the biography build on LHO, or shows again he was working as an intel asset.

Why the controversy? I suspect LHO may have gotten a ride back from MC, possibly even by private plane--but that's speculative. 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, John Cotter said:

To Matt:

What I meant was that if the conspirators were controlling Oswald, it necessarily follows that they were responsible for him getting the job in the TSBD.

 

John,

You're assuming that the plotters wanted to choose a location for the shooting.

If I understand Matt correctly, he thinks it was okay for a random person (like Linnie Mae Randall) to choose the location. Further, he assumes that if the randomly chosen location isn't good for the shooting, or isn't along the motorcade route, then an appropriate location can be chosen once the route is available. And that the assassination can be done with almost no planning. Just gotta make sure the incriminating rifle is stashed somewhere nearby.

Matt can correct me f I am wrong.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

36 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

For me, the LHO trip was part of the biography build on LHO, or shows again he was working as an intel asset.

 

That's true for me too. And it is also the center of the CIA's false flag operation against Cuba and Russia.

Oswald didn't need to be there. And the evidence that came out on it later indicates he wasn't IMO.

 

36 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Why the controversy?

 

No controversy. But once you accept that Oswald wasn't even there, understanding the trip becomes trivial. That is, if you know what's in the Lopez report.

A couple weeks ago I was reading Peter Dale Scott's Phase-1/Phase-2 interpretation of Mexico City and could see how his assumption of Oswald being in Mexico City made the whole thing a tortured exercise. Take out Oswald's presence and it becomes easy. (I'm not saying that, therefore Oswald wasn't there. I'm saying that if you assume Oswald wasn't there -- that the whole thing was done with imposters -- it becomes easy to understand.)

 

[Benjamin Cole]

18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

That's true for me too. And it is also the center of the CIA's false flag operation against Cuba and Russia.

Oswald didn't need to be there. And the evidence that came out on it later indicates he wasn't IMO.

 

 

No controversy. But once you accept that Oswald wasn't even there, understanding the trip becomes trivial. That is, if you know what's in the Lopez report.

A couple weeks ago I was reading Peter Dale Scott's Phase-1/Phase-2 interpretation of Mexico City and could see how his assumption of Oswald being in Mexico City made the whole thing a tortured exercise. Take out Oswald's presence and it becomes easy. (I'm not saying that, therefore Oswald wasn't there. I'm saying that if you assume Oswald wasn't there -- that the whole thing was done with imposters -- it becomes easy to understand.)

 

Hey, at this late date and with docs destroyed, tapes destroyed, possibly phony documents inserted into the record, who knows what else...of course, I am not sure LHO was in MC. I did read the Lopez Report, although it has been a few years. 

IMHO the only important aspect of LHO actually going to MC is that is more consistent with him being an intel asset. He will actually go places as instructed by handlers, possibly even playing a role to confirm Kostikov's presence in MC, or to see if Russians are more amenable to defectors again, or who knows what.

On the other hand, if LHO is a pure patsy, or nearly so, then the paperwork can be ginned up to put him anyplace. 

My view is LHO was an intel asset and playing ball with handlers, and going to Russia, or New Orleans or Dallas or Mexico City as instructed....

One aspect of the MC trip was to generate documentation and some eyewitnesses...

 

 

Edited October 30, 2022 by Benjamin Cole