Questions That Keep Me Up Nights

Why would anyone arrange the crime scene as they did? Arranging the three shells side-by-side in the SN? And what about that one crimped shell that stands out in bright neon proclaiming "I was not fired". It was obviously saying "planted". Not only was this not the sign of a rushed cover-up, this was something deliberately done and it took far more time to do than simply tossing the shells to the floor.
 
And then there is this rifle that was not really up to the task it was assigned? A faulty rifle with a busted scope? Really? I think finding a good rifle with a proper scope would be far easier to find than that Marcano. Any sporting goods store has simply dozens of them available and I am sure the agencies involved in the cover-up would have had a few better specimens on hand to use for planting rather than taking a relic out of someone's garbage can... no offense to the Marcano. The Mauser would have been a better choice!
 
A pistol with a busted firing pin? Same as above. Good pistols can be found even in the lowliest pawn shop, fer chrissakes! Why plant one that isn't any good?
 
A "magic bullet" that could not have possibly done all that it was claimed? What does this tell us if not "planted evidence"?
 
But why would anyone go to the trouble of planting the evidence in a way to make it obvious the evidence was indeed planted? Most people act like this stuff was planted just to point the finger to Oswald but on closer inspection it simply screams the opposite. It screams "planted".
 
But why?
 
What was the purpose of this charade? It is almost like there is a hidden message being sent...
 
This stuff is crazy.

terlin wrote:Why would anyone arrange the crime scene as they did? Arranging the three shells side-by-side in the SN? And what about that one crimped shell that stands out in bright neon proclaiming "I was not fired". It was obviously saying "planted". Not only was this not the sign of a rushed cover-up, this was something deliberately done and it took far more time to do than simply tossing the shells to the floor.
 
And then there is this rifle that was not really up to the task it was assigned? A faulty rifle with a busted scope? Really? I think finding a good rifle with a proper scope would be far easier to find than that Marcano. Any sporting goods store has simply dozens of them available and I am sure the agencies involved in the cover-up would have had a few better specimens on hand to use for planting rather than taking a relic out of someone's garbage can... no offense to the Marcano. The Mauser would have been a better choice!
 
A pistol with a busted firing pin? Same as above. Good pistols can be found even in the lowliest pawn shop, fer chrissakes! Why plant one that isn't any good?
 
A "magic bullet" that could not have possibly done all that it was claimed? What does this tell us if not "planted evidence"?
 
But why would anyone go to the trouble of planting the evidence in a way to make it obvious the evidence was indeed planted? Most people act like this stuff was planted just to point the finger to Oswald but on closer inspection it simply screams the opposite. It screams "planted".
 
But why?
 
What was the purpose of this charade? It is almost like there is a hidden message being sent...
 
This stuff is crazy.

Mr T,

I know of one guy whose theory is that Oswald did the deed and framed himself for it so that he could then prove in court he was framed and voila! he's out and protected by Double Jeopardy laws. Motive: a pox on both their houses. Sort out the Cold War, or nuke everyone and everything.

The same issue arises for me, Oswald was not on the 6th floor to do the deed.

You're in good company, Terlin.  Vincent Salandria said very similar things in 1965 about the Warren Report itself.  If the conspirators were sending a message, the Commission understood it, it seems.

terlin wrote:Why would anyone arrange the crime scene as they did? Arranging the three shells side-by-side in the SN? And what about that one crimped shell that stands out in bright neon proclaiming "I was not fired". It was obviously saying "planted". Not only was this not the sign of a rushed cover-up, this was something deliberately done and it took far more time to do than simply tossing the shells to the floor.
 
And then there is this rifle that was not really up to the task it was assigned? A faulty rifle with a busted scope? Really? I think finding a good rifle with a proper scope would be far easier to find than that Marcano. Any sporting goods store has simply dozens of them available and I am sure the agencies involved in the cover-up would have had a few better specimens on hand to use for planting rather than taking a relic out of someone's garbage can... no offense to the Marcano. The Mauser would have been a better choice!
 
A pistol with a busted firing pin? Same as above. Good pistols can be found even in the lowliest pawn shop, fer chrissakes! Why plant one that isn't any good?
 
A "magic bullet" that could not have possibly done all that it was claimed? What does this tell us if not "planted evidence"?
 
But why would anyone go to the trouble of planting the evidence in a way to make it obvious the evidence was indeed planted? Most people act like this stuff was planted just to point the finger to Oswald but on closer inspection it simply screams the opposite. It screams "planted"..................

Terry, my impression has always been that "they" didn't think too far ahead, or were a bit half-assed; so this or that was "good enough" or "close enough" (see also the retired linebacker posing "as" Oswald in Mexico City). Which is why my initial conclusions had been that the set-up of Oswald had been done on a relatively low-level by persons associated with but not necessarily operating completely under supervision by intelligence agencies (Banister, Ferrie, etc). That conclusion has to be tossed once other issues surface (DeMohrenshieldt and the Paines and the whole military career, etc etc etc).

Two other ways of looking at it: 

1.  the "make-over" can be improvised or imperfect (after all, an operation of this sort had to be multifaceted and by nature susceptible to exposure) as long as you have (or can guarantee) tight control over the information flow, can backstop errors, can generate enough disinformation to defuse questions, etc.  The close connection between intelligence and the fourth estate has perhaps been the conspirators' biggest asset over the years, if not in being able to hide issues, at least in being able to neutralize them.

2.  while the basic design of the plot may have been controlled by only a few people, there may have been mixed agendas among the various "mechanics", and at the lower level, the coordination may have been looser.

Just thinking aloud here.

think about it - they probably had a strong sense that the forces of coverup would go into action; they probably figured the cops were too stupid or too lazy to deal with these contradictions; they probably figured the media was too dumb and/or lazy to really investigate; and guess what? They were right, about all of the above.

just to add to the above, you have to remember how different things were back then; just a different and far less cynical world.

I think the mistake that both pro-conspiracy researchers and anti-conspiracy researchers make is the assumption that if there was a conspiracy to frame Oswald, it needed to have been executed flawlessly. The reality is that conspiracies are not always executed flawlessly(ie the botched Watergate burglary). People make mistakes. Things don't always go according to plan.

I think Oswald's arrest was not planned and Ruby's murder of Oswald was improvised.

I think many of the problems with the evidence don't bother many folks because absent irrefutable proof of a conspiracy, people can rationalize why the problems with the evidence are not important.

And I think the Watergate burglary is a perfect example of how a group made up of people with ties to the CIA(the Plumbers) could execute a criminal conspiracy...

Unless the burglary was meant to be discovered.

The following account/hypothesis/theory/scenario would provide the answers to Terlin’s questions:
 
The cover-up was a brazen show of the same arrogant contempt for democracy as was displayed in the broad daylight assassination – a macabre street theatre dumbshow demonstrating that real power was beyond the reach of the demos: It was in the hands of plutocrats whose minions could plot the murder of a US president with impunity and could script a cover-up parody designed not to convince but rather to mystify the powerless spectators.
 
One may dismiss such a literary characterization of the plot and cover up as fanciful. However, it is worth bearing in mind the literary leanings of the leading facilitators of the drama (in descending order of rank if not importance):
 
·         Allen Dulles, Ian Fleming fan and spy story anthologist
·         James Jesus Angleton, poet manqué and general literary dilettante
·         David Atlee Phillips, amateur actor and spy novelist
·         E Howard Hunt, prolific novelist
 
All of these agents were professional liars and killers if not actually murderers. They may not have scripted everything in detail. There was no need for that – the bit players and rude mechanicals could be relied upon to improvise or alter their lines where necessary. And in any event aberrant details are insignificant in the context of the dramatic whole. The main thing was the basic concept and style of the drama, bearing in mind the desired psychological effect. The basic concept and style was derived from that of ancient Greek tragedy.

The word "tragedy" appears to have been used to describe different phenomena at different times. It derives from Classical Greek τραγῳδία, contracted fromtrag(o)-aoidiā = "goat song", which comes from tragos = "he-goat" and aeidein = "to sing" (cf. "ode"). (Wikipaedia)

This concept of tragedy involves the ritual slaughter of the sacrificial victim he-goat and the related concept of the scapegoat. The scapegoat motif seems an ineradicably evil facet of human and animal behavior. It is central to Christianity in the dogma of substitutionary sacrifice and has always been a default collective defense mechanism in human culture, politics and society.
 
A drama centred on JFK as the ritually sacrificed scapegoat in the noonday sunlit amphitheatre of Dealey Plaza and filmed for all the world to see works on many levels. Primarily it lulls spectators into a false catharsis (‘purification’ or ‘cleansing’), a catharsis effected through the morally abominable ‘remedy’ of scapegoating.
 
It is so graphically violent as to stun and traumatize spectators (ie the world at large) into political silence and docility. It is such a decisive display of Realpolitik – of the dictum that power proceeds from the barrel of a gun – as to render almost fatuous the very thought of any normal political response. It is so morally outrageous as to render normal ethical criteria inadequate to the task of evaluating the scale of the iniquity. It is, in short, as James Douglass said, virtually unspeakable.
 
From this perspective, the success of the assassination depends on ritual order displacing moral and intellectual order (Just as the ceremonial of the Christian mass blinds worshippers to the fact that it is centred on human sacrifice and cannibalism). The dramatic suspension of disbelief supersedes all evidence contrary to the fictional story. Those who question this story are upstaged by the chorus who provide the officially approved explanation of the play. The techniques used by the chorus are essentially the same as those used by their ancient Greek counterparts: ‘…they used techniques such as synchronization, echo, ripple, physical theatre and the use of masks to aid them.’ (Wikipaedia) 
 
The auteur principal of the mise-en-scène was James Jesus Angleton, CIA Counterintelligence Chief (See, for example, Lisa Pease, ‘The Hunt Memorandum’, in The Assassinations, pp 195-197). From his immersion in poetry and literary theory as an undergraduate in Yale, Angleton was well versed in the hugely influential ideas presented in Sir James Frazer’s anthropological study The Golden Bough:

The Golden Bough attempts to define the shared elements of religious belief to scientific thought, discussing fertility rites, human sacrifice, the dying god, the scapegoat and many other symbols and practices whose influence has extended into twentieth-century culture. (Wikipaedia)

 
Angleton well understood the psychological power of myth and ritual to evoke the ‘participation mystique’ effect and the archetypal impulses that would trump logic and thus facilitate the cover-up.
 
The ancient scapegoating ritual even allows for a second victim such as LH Oswald – or even JD Tippit:

And Aaron shall place lots upon the two he goats: one lot "For the Lord," and the other lot, "For Azazel." (Leviticus 16.

As explained in Wikipaedia:

Two goats were chosen by lot: one to be "The Lord's Goat", which was offered as a blood sacrifice, and the other to be the "Azazel" scapegoat to be sent away into the wilderness.

 
The staging of the ritual sacrifice, the planting of the props and the framing of the second scapegoat in Dallas are all clearly visible.
 
But empirical evidence counts for nothing when the play’s the thing.

I think the mistake that both pro-conspiracy researchers and anti-conspiracy researchers make is the assumption that if there was a conspiracy to frame Oswald, it needed to have been executed flawlessly.

Remember there appears to be two conspiracies in play, working somewhat at cross-purposes: 1. the plot to kill Kennedy and frame Cuba (with Oswald the tie-in, he wasn't intended to be seen as a lone nut) &  2. the plot to make Oswald the lone nut (to avoid following bread crumb trail/war path left by first conspiracy that lead to Cuba).

Or, possibly two views of what (1) was for: 

A) in the PD Scott "dialectical" view, (1) was supposed to lead to, or be used as leverage for (2); similar views in John Newman and others that the Russian/Cuban link to LHO was a time-bomb to be used to force the cover-up via threat of nuclear war; 

B) some elements or faction of the conspirators, however, may have actually wanted to use (1) to provoke action against Cuba, but they were squelched.

Subsequent to the assassination, some of the suggestions that LHO was "connected" to Cuba or Russia would be recycled during crucial moments in order once again to create bureaucratic panic and harden the lone-nut cover.

Interesting analysis, raises the question whether Johnson was a useful idiot (who was panicked into supporting the lone-nut cover) or a co-conspirator who used the nuclear war time bomb to cover his own tracks.  From reading Roger Stone's book, I'd say the later.

I believe whomever left all the bait behind that day to implicate Oswald knew the DPD and the FBI would take it hook, line and sinker. They really had no choice but to take it. Not only take it, but run with it.

I can't see Johnson riding in the motorcade behind JFK if he was involved or knew in advance what was going to happen.

I think after learning about the Oswald impersonation down in Mexico City, Johnson probably realized Kennedy's murder was an inside job. Rather than get to the bottom of it, he chose to cover up the conspiracy.

I also think that Johnson was sharp enough to figure out what he was "expected" to do and enough of an opportunist to do it.  So, yes, capone81, I would tend to agree. 

One thing is disturbing in this, though:  we have the "transcript" (like Mexico City) of the Johnson-Hoover call at 10:05 (?) AM 11/23, but the tape, as Rex Bradford discovered, was erased and is nothing but 14 minutes of blips.  So we really don't know exactly what LBJ and Hoover said to each other.


---
Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that the tape was erased because of something LBJ said.  What if Hoover made some comment, like the one on the memo from several months later, about being powerless when it comes to the CIA?

Al, it seems that Johnson was enough of an opportunist to do what was expected of him so that he could "be the man". It is sadly something I see happening with every president since that time as well.

They get to play the part and do exactly what they're told.

Somehow I do not think the founding fathers pictured this in their original view of how democracy was supposed to work.

Wow! There have been some very good, thoughtful responses here.

Seeing this event woven into the framework of a much larger opus is very easy to do.

I have had friends who began studying the JFK assassination and were soon enticed by a luring connection that led them down a winding path into the high grass, and beyond into the impenetrable forest where the paths crossed and criss-crossed into a matrix from when all things made perfect sense. They could show you the connections between the murder of the Pharaoh Tutankhamen and the sacrificial slayings of Mary Pinchot Meyer and Vincent Foster in DC parks. They saw the patterns of the stars reflected in the surface of the Earth and saw the angles calling for blood in an astrological orgy of a conspiracy ravaging the planet for 5,000 years and is now sitting atop the US Government trying to control the world through monetary manipulation.

And all that is good. Very good. But what has it got to do with the case at hand? I am certain it fits into the grand scheme of the conspiracy to establish the One World Order but let that beast rest a bit. Let us focus on the small matter of the murder of a sitting US President regardless of how this one portion fits into a larger Grand Historical Conspiracy.

I like what Al said about the "mixed agendas among the various 'mechanics', and at the lower level, the coordination may have been looser." It seems from all the misdirection present in so many facets of the case that there was more than one cover-up going on, leading in more than one direction. And it would be nice to be able to sort some of these out - and assign ownership.

Allen's idea about "the media was too dumb and/or lazy to investigate" is sadly very true even up to today.

And capone81-
"I think Oswald's arrest was not planned and Ruby's murder of Oswald was improvised." I agree completely. I think the Mauser was there originally to pin it on someone else. He continued, "I think many of the problems with the evidence don't bother many folks because absent irrefutable proof of a conspiracy, people can rationalize why the problems with the evidence are not important." So true.

Goban Saor's rather lengthy account/hypothesis/scenario was fascinating, almost metaphysical. It reminds me of the mention of Theosophy on another thread here and the rise of late nineteenth century spiritualism. The use of ritualism and myths by James Angleton is very reminiscent of Frazer's The Golden Bough, as well as Jung's archetypes, and the mysticism of Aleister Crowley and his Golden Dawn group who passed along the secret knowledge to a pair of disciples: Mr. Parker (if I recall correctly) who carried it to Adolf Histler, and L. Ron Hubbard, who created the Church of Scientology.

I am always up for a good mysticism angle and I think this case has plenty, and apparently some from various organizations. The differing flavors of the planted evidence and the trails leading to various non-events (i.e. disinformation) speak a lot of the "mixed agendas among the various 'mechanics'" that Al Rossi spoke about.

I also like beowulf's comment "Remember there appears to be two conspiracies in play, working somewhat at cross-purposes: 1. the plot to kill Kennedy and frame Cuba (with Oswald the tie-in, he wasn't intended to be seen as a lone nut) &  2. the plot to make Oswald the lone nut (to avoid following bread crumb trail/war path left by first conspiracy that lead to Cuba)." As well as Al's corollary bringing up the PD Scott angle.

Paul Klein added "I believe whomever left all the bait behind that day to implicate Oswald knew the DPD and the FBI would take it hook, line and sinker. They really had no choice but to take it. Not only take it, but run with it." But I always have wondered if some of the planting of evidence was not done by them. They had to be complicit if not overtly active in the rifle switch, the pistol, the wallet(s), and a host of other trifling details.

Thanks for all the responses. A lot to think about for sure.

Thanks for all the responses. A lot to think about for sure.

An excellent thread - and more proof - if it was needed - that this is the little forum that could. 

Even without the world's largest emoticon collection. 

 

greg parker wrote:An excellent thread - and more proof - if it was needed - that this is the little forum that could. 

Even without the world's largest emoticon collection. 

 

Where's Stan Dane? I think that's his cue...

terlin wrote:

greg parker wrote:An excellent thread - and more proof - if it was needed - that this is the little forum that could. 

Even without the world's largest emoticon collection. 

 

Where's Stan Dane? I think that's his cue...

You rang?
 

Thanks! I needed that.

terlin wrote:Why would anyone arrange the crime scene as they did? Arranging the three shells side-by-side in the SN? And what about that one crimped shell that stands out in bright neon proclaiming "I was not fired". It was obviously saying "planted". Not only was this not the sign of a rushed cover-up, this was something deliberately done and it took far more time to do than simply tossing the shells to the floor.
 
And then there is this rifle that was not really up to the task it was assigned? A faulty rifle with a busted scope? Really? I think finding a good rifle with a proper scope would be far easier to find than that Marcano. Any sporting goods store has simply dozens of them available and I am sure the agencies involved in the cover-up would have had a few better specimens on hand to use for planting rather than taking a relic out of someone's garbage can... no offense to the Marcano. The Mauser would have been a better choice!
 
A pistol with a busted firing pin? Same as above. Good pistols can be found even in the lowliest pawn shop, fer chrissakes! Why plant one that isn't any good?
 
A "magic bullet" that could not have possibly done all that it was claimed? What does this tell us if not "planted evidence"?
 
But why would anyone go to the trouble of planting the evidence in a way to make it obvious the evidence was indeed planted? Most people act like this stuff was planted just to point the finger to Oswald but on closer inspection it simply screams the opposite. It screams "planted".
 
But why?
 
What was the purpose of this charade? It is almost like there is a hidden message being sent...
 
This stuff is crazy.

The issue of the shells being placed together relies mainly on Tom Alyea. However, his comments only emerged years later and did not receive much attention from the mainstream media.

Half a century afterwards, it seems obvious to many who have looked into the case that the framing of Oswald was slipshod. A belt-and-braces approach was used, resulting in 'incrimination overload' - mail-order rifle and revolver, wallet at the Tippit murder scene, the emergence of the backyard photos and certain instances of impersonation. The overriding factor in relation to the rifle was ensuring that it could be quickly traced to Oswald. It may have been assumed that any deficiencies with the weapon would simply have been ignored or covered up by investigators.  

If the mechanics of the assassination had been 'outsourced' by the instigators of the conspiracy in order to cover their tracks it is likely they had to depend on individuals who were not as competent as they'd have wished. Why else would two figures other than the 6th floor sniper allow themselves to be seen by witnesses below?

In spite of all the arguments that militate against the rifle being anything other than a prop, a large constituency will always believe it was used by Oswald, so in that respect the plot worked. The same applies to all the other evidence.

CE399 looks very much like a bullet from the MC rifle that was fired into a tub of water.

Thanks, Redfern.

"Incrimination overload" - I like that. What seems hilarious is that the framing of the assassination of a President seems to have been carried out by the three stooges without cross-checking what each of them was going to plant.

Probably they threw everything (and the kitchen sink) into the mix and worked on sorting it all out later. It worked in 1863 but there was not a bunch of nosy-parkers around trying to keep everyone honest.

With a multitude of evidence - and much of it going all over the place - those putting the case together could pick only the "good stuff" that sealed the case.