Lifton On Gofundme

First topic message reminder :

Looks like Lifton is running out of money to write his book.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/publishing-final-charade-seq-to-best-evidence

I don’t believe that skilled covert ops types would attempt a complicated crossfire ambush with the intent of trying to make it appear to be the work of a single assassin. The more assassins, the more likelihood something goes wrong. What if one misses and hits the limo? Or gets spotted? You also have to get possession of the body, remove evidence of crossfire, alter films and a host of other cleanup jobs. Having on a crossfire of several assassins also limits your flexibility for different locations if contingencies arise.

The actual mechanics of the assassination could have been done with one assassin with the proper rifle or at most two, both firing from behind and roughly along the line of travel of the limo (TSBD and Dal-Tex) that could be plausibly explained by a single gunman (the TSBD shooter not to concerned about being spotted). I assume that a shot was fired from that location as several people saw a rifle barrel protrude from the sixth floor window. Anyone there at the time was already at risk, they might as well take a shot. Though I’ve yet to see how such an assassin escaped. It’s possible these witnesses were mistaken or lying to misdirect attention. Same is true of those that saw the men in suits on the 6th floor shortly before the assassination.

The book “Rise and Kill First” is a history of Israeli targeted killings. Most are up close and personal handgun shootings, letter bombs and IED’s. There was one long distance kill with two assassins on a stationary target. There was one supposedly psychologically programmed killer who they claimed was a failure. In all the cases, there is one or two assassins with a much larger group of support personnel. A good example is the killing of Hamas official Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai in 2010. While up to 30 Mossad agents handled surveillance, lookouts, communications and logistics (all captured on surveillance cameras), the actual killing was done by two men using a toxin that simulated a heart attack. All used stolen passports from various nations modified to have the picture of their bearer and made extensive use of disguises. To this day, none have been identified.

I doubt if the Mossad gave a shit whether it appeared that their killing were done by one or several people. They wanted as simple an operation as would guarantee success and successful escape.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Mahmoud_Al-Mabhouh

Roger Odisio wrote:The story the killers planned to go with was that Oswald murdered Kennedy as the sole assassin from the 6th floor window. But the plan itself was to actually kill Kennedy in a crossfire with multiple shooters, including shots from the front. 

These were the snipers in papier mach trees?

Who came up with this plot... I can't even begin to get my head around how - to be blunt - excrutiatingly bad this plan is. 

How were these two things--the frame of Oswald and the facts of the murder-- going to be reconciled? There had to be a plan for that.  What was it?  

If the above was Lifton's starting point, I am not surprised at how quickly it all heads south from there.

He thought he had figured out the first part of the initial plan. 

Old Chinese proverb: Thought thought his legs were hanging out of bed so he got up to check
 
The original premise is wrong, as is everything that Lifton claimed flowed from it. 

This plan has so many points at which it could come undone, only a lunatic would come up with it. 

Fuck sake Roger, you are better than this utter lunacy.

I used the term crossfire as shorthand, Lanceman,  to indicate there was more than one shooter. I don't think the shooting was complicated. I don't know where they fired from tho it seems pretty clear JFK was hit from both the front and back.
 
I also don't think the configuration of multiple shooters was done with the "intent" of making it appear to be the work of a single gunmen. The shots from different directions belie that notion. Framing Oswald as a lone gunman was a separate problem, as I tried to indicate.
 

I also agree with Mick in one sense.  By the time they got to murdering Bobby they no longer had much to worry about, if they ever did. The JFKA was the big one and they showed how easy it was to get away with murder. Before Bobby, they had already obliterated most of the leaders on the "Left" with impunity:  JFK, MLK,  Malcolm, Medgar Evers . The autopsy on Bobby showed he died from a shot from behind, upclose, near his ear.  It didn't matter.  

The whole corpse kidnapping theory sounds so ridiculous. Like a fairy tale.

Isn't it just so unbelievable or perhaps believable how ridiculously easy it was to manipulate the story or official narrative to whatever suited them as they made changes in direction on the fly......especially in the sixties. No socials, a compliant media, a populous eager to conform to whatever authorities (insert whoever - FBI, SS, CIA, Government etc.) were asking of them at the time and police forces, especially in Dallas, circa 1950's - 1970's,  who were a law unto themselves.

They just didn't care, the Z film is evidence of the conspiracy. So are the ear and eyewitnesses of Dealey Plaza - Did they worry about any of this stuff - not in the slightest. 
They had nothing on Oswald and they knew it - did it concern any of them...not one bit.

No one cared. Period. Except of course  for a few brave souls who became suspicious of the story unfolding from the WC hearings....

Roger Odisio wrote:I used the term crossfire as shorthand, Lanceman,  to indicate there was more than one shooter. I don't think the shooting was complicated. I don't know where they fired from tho it seems pretty clear JFK was hit from both the front and back.
 
I also don't think the configuration of multiple shooters was done with the "intent" of making it appear to be the work of a single gunmen. The shots from different directions belie that notion. Framing Oswald as a lone gunman was a separate problem, as I tried to indicate.
 

I also agree with Mick in one sense.  By the time they got to murdering Bobby they no longer had much to worry about, if they ever did. The JFKA was the big one and they showed how easy it was to get away with murder. Before Bobby, they had already obliterated most of the leaders on the "Left" with impunity:  JFK, MLK,  Malcolm, Medgar Evers . The autopsy on Bobby showed he died from a shot from behind, upclose, near his ear.  It didn't matter.  

One of the reasons I cited the attempt to use psychologically programmed  assassin from the book “Rise and Kill First” was the idea that Sirhan Sirhan was such a case. The book was written with the cooperation of the Israeli security apparatus so it must be taken with a grain of salt. Probably a mixture of “we use these techniques judiciously”, self-promotion, opportunity to boast about capabilities but not officially confirm them. But it seems they did try this. The question is did it really fail?

Greg sez:  "This plan has so many points at which it could come undone, only a lunatic would come up with it."  It's not clear whether you're talking about the assassination plan of the perps or Lifton's explanation of the changes that had to be made to it on the fly.  I'm guessing it's the latter. In any case, let's try to untangle somethings.
 
The original plan was straightforward. Kill Kennedy, frame Oswald, cajole, intimidate, or murder anyone who tries to contradict the story, control the flow of information about the murder, and create the Warren Commission to establish the frame of Oswald as the basis to repel any dissent from the official story. 
 
Its implementation, however, was difficult, and not straightforward.  It had holes in the sense that some things didn't go as planned and mistakes were made. 
 
For example, a clear blunder was the message from the White House situation room to the plane coming back from Dallas saying the killer has been arrested and he acted alone. They could not have known either thing at that time. Clear evidence that the plan to frame Oswald was already in progress and it came from the top echelons of the government. 
 
"The original premise is wrong, as is everything that Lifton claimed flowed from it."
 
No.  This claim is the heart of the matter.  Lifton's original premise was that there is a contradiction between the Oswald story and what actually happened that had to be resolved in some way to support the story.  Far from wrong, the contradiction is undeniable unless you're a LNer, or think their was some other lone assassin firing from the 6th floor.  You don't fit either case. 
 
The best evidence of the contradiction, according to Lifton, is what Kennedy's wounds reveal, and particularly what they say about the direction of the bullets..  They had to be altered, or in some way covered up or lied about. The perps to varying degrees tried to use all three methods.
 
Lifton chose to explore ideas about how the wounds could have been altered. Probably because he thought the murderers wouldn't have relied solely on obfuscation and trickery with such a central point of such an enormous undertaking--a coup that changed everything (yes, I mean everything).  If the wounds could be shown to be the result of bullet(s) fired from the front, their story blows up and they're toast.
 
He explored lots of ideas including some that seem wild and crazy by themselves, for which he was criticized.  And which led to lazy use of the word lunacy to describe his work in general, while ignoring the value of what he was trying to do.  Ultimately the pursuit of endless rabbit holes led to him being unable to finish what he started. I think that was unfortunate.  
 
There are people right now working on the material he left behind to try to in some way complete his work. People who over the years had been in touch with Lifton and exchanged ideas with him.  It won't be easy.  I hope they succeed.

Greg sez:  "This plan has so many points at which it could come undone, only a lunatic would come up with it."  It's not clear whether you're talking about the assassination plan of the perps or Lifton's explanation of the changes that had to be made to it on the fly.  I'm guessing it's the latter. In any case, let's try to untangle somethings.

What I said was in direct response to this:

RO: The story the killers planned to go with was that Oswald murdered Kennedy as the sole assassin from the 6th floor window. But the plan itself was to actually kill Kennedy in a crossfire with multiple shooters, including shots from the front. 
 
How were these two things--the frame of Oswald and the facts of the murder-- going to be reconciled? There had to be a plan for that.  What was it?  


So according to you (via Liftonian reverie), the plan was to

1. kill Kennedy from multiple firing positions
   
2. Frame Oswald as the sole shooter from the TSBD 6th floor
   
3. Reconsile the reality with the frame via taking control of the corpse and "editing" the wounds through surgery to comply with a  lone TSBD 6th floor assassin.
   

THAT'S the lunacy. 

It only take one accurate sniper to do the job. 

If you want to use multiple snipers from multiple positions,your plan has to be to frame more than just one person. Say, an organization (eg, FPCC), or a foreign enemy (eg Cuba, Soviet Union) as part of the "Communist Conspiracy"

If you want to frame one person, you use a single sniper. Then there is no need to have to risk the cartoonish Maxwell Smart storylines. 

Bottom line: the Great Bloviator's original premise was wrong and as a result, everything that flowed from it was wrong.

The original plan was straightforward. Kill Kennedy, frame Oswald, cajole, intimidate, or murder anyone who tries to contradict the story, control the flow of information about the murder, and create the Warren Commission to establish the frame of Oswald as the basis to repel any dissent from the official story. 
 
Its implementation, however, was difficult, and not straightforward.  It had holes in the sense that some things didn't go as planned and mistakes were made. 
 
For example, a clear blunder was the message from the White House situation room to the plane coming back from Dallas saying the killer has been arrested and he acted alone. They could not have known either thing at that time. Clear evidence that the plan to frame Oswald was already in progress and it came from the top echelons of the government. 

Now you seem to be walking your original statement backwards that the plan all along was to reconsile the multiple shooter evidence to fit a  lone nut scenario. 

Of course they did not know that at the time. They were trying to play down any talk of an attack by a foreign state that would lead to nulclear conflagration. They did the same thing in regard to Ruby. The first message sent back was through the Secret Service. That message assured Washington that Ruby had also acted alone. 

"The original premise is wrong, as is everything that Lifton claimed flowed from it."
 
No.  This claim is the heart of the matter.  Lifton's original premise was that there is a contradiction between the Oswald story and what actually happened that had to be resolved in some way to support the story.  Far from wrong, the contradiction is undeniable unless you're a LNer, or think their was some other lone assassin firing from the 6th floor.  You don't fit either case. 

So which is it. They preplanned to deal with this contradiction, or simply reacted to it. You seem to be continually shifting the goal posts on that. 

Any such preplanning would necessarily mean commandeering the body. Pretty bold move which could have resulted in a Mexican standoff, or all out war against Texas. 

Or was that done simply because they did not trust Texas officials on top of the belief that the head of state could not be treated like any other murder victim, despite the law saying that is exactly how he should be treated?

That this resulted in an autopsy that was a clusterfuck is beside the point, but a Godsend to cunts like Lifton.  The clusterfuck was simply a result of too many military chiefs and not enough experienced gunshot wound doctors. And both of those things were the result of there being no protocols in place to deal with this situation. It was the very definition of a clusterfuck and was never going to be anything else from the time the body was consifscated. No one knew who was supposed to be in charge because no one was. There was NO LAW - NO PROTOCOL SPELLING IT OUT. It was a like a bunch of kids fighting over who was going to be captain of a park football team and what the rules should be - even though football had been banned from that particular park and they might get caught at any moment if they start a game.  

The best evidence of the contradiction, according to Lifton, is what Kennedy's wounds reveal, and particularly what they say about the direction of the bullets..  They had to be altered, or in some way covered up or lied about. The perps to varying degrees tried to use all three methods.

So pick a position and stick to it. Was stealing the body to alter the wounds preplanned, or was it a reaction to the situation that they themselves created and should have foreseen and planned for --- say by oh I dunno... maybe just using a single sniper and dispensing with the need to steal the body?

Lifton chose to explore ideas about how the wounds could have been altered. Probably because he thought the murderers wouldn't have relied solely on obfuscation and trickery with such a central point of such an enormous undertaking--a coup that changed everything (yes, I mean everything).  If the wounds could be shown to be the result of bullet(s) fired from the front, their story blows up and they're toast.

So in using snipers to the rear and to the front while simultaneously planning to frame a single man shooting from behind, they had to know they were going to create a contradiction that would need to be dealt with by stealing the body. Correct?

So the plan was to steal the body at gunpoint and organize pre-autopsy surgery to alter the wounds, all under the noses of Kennedy family members, then make sure the autopsy itself is a complete clusterfuck with no one knowing who was in charge and using doctors unfamiliar with gunshot wounds - all a deliberate ploy to muddy the waters on the nefarious, macabre and comical ways in which the pre-autopsy surgery was accomplished.

He explored lots of ideas including some that seem wild and crazy by themselves, for which he was criticized.  And which led to lazy use of the word lunacy to describe his work in general, while ignoring the value of what he was trying to do.  Ultimately the pursuit of endless rabbit holes led to him being unable to finish what he started. I think that was unfortunate.  

Lifton was no lunatic, despite espousing loony solutions. What he was, was an egotistical cunt who stole research - not only according to me - but also according to Weisberg - and who spent his whole fucking life bragging about his shitty book and defending his shitty theories in every unscrupulous fucking fashion you could imagine - and many that you couldn't.

I can only add that there was no value in what he tried to do. None. Zero. Nada. Sweet Fuck all. Not to "our" side anyway. 

What he tried to do, he did do with at least some success. Carve out a career based on total nonsense. 

There are people right now working on the material he left behind to try to in some way complete his work. People who over the years had been in touch with Lifton and exchanged ideas with him.  It won't be easy.  I hope they succeed.

Reminds me of Albereli's last book. He was lucky. Those who finished the shitty book got to take the blame for it.

If there was a conspiracy that really needed to control the autopsy and perhaps alter the body, the best way to do that would be for the conspirators to get an accomplice in the Texas state government to say something like “Because of the enormous public interest in this murder, we are going to name [insert name of conspirator's choice of forensic pathologist] a well respected pathologist of unimpeachable credentials to perform the autopsy”.

Ironically, Dr. Earl Rose’s autopsies on Lee Harvey Oswald, J.D Tippit and Jack Ruby were far more competently done than the one for JFK which, by law, he was supposed to do.

I think Lifton does deserve credit for uncovering the shell game with the ambulances at Bethesda. My guess is that US government officials might have wanted to perform a preliminary examination of the body to make sure there were no surprises but I’m not sure they would even have time for that.

Jackie said that she would not leave Dallas without her husband's body. The SS agents were worried because Parkland was a public place with unknown people and that it could not guarantee her safety in such conditions. They felt it was better that she return to the White House where they could keep her safe. Since she refused to leave without JFK the Secret Service agents decided to seize his body and take it to Washington. Yes it was against the law but considering the heat of the situation it is quite understandable.

Let's run straight thru the the framework of Lifton's analysis so, at a minimum, you can see (1) I don't keep changing the story, nor (2) do I keep moving the goal posts, as you claim.
 
Killing Kennedy was the biggest job the perps had ever done, or ever would do. They couldn't afford to miss. They had their pick of trained assassins from around the world.  They used more than one shooter to provide greater assurance of success.  One reason they picked Dealey Plaza was the sharp, greater than 90 degree turn in front of the TSBD where the motorcade slowed to about10 miles an hour and headed down the hill. It was perfect for a crossfire.
 
That's not just me theorizing, we know for a fact there was more than one shooter because JFK was hit in both the front (entry in the neck), and in the back (showing a hole in his shirt and coat about 5 inches below the neck). That's before the fatal head shot(s) (from the front) are even considered. 
 

Forget all that nonsense about the need to match the number of shooters with Oswald the lone nut.  We know that didn't happen. They weren't worried about that, or at least it wasn't a priority. Greater certainty of success is what mattered.  And 60 years later we know that contradiction, which set Lifton off, hasn't been a significant problem, has it?
 
So, yes. the original plan created a contradiction between two *facts* we know--the plan to blame Oswald and the use of at least two shooters for the murder. They understood this from the beginning.  There was no surprise or need to react.  Nor was there any need in the original plan to commander or steal the body as I will explain.
 
Lifton sought to figure out how they were going to deal with this contradiction they created.  
 
Recall the public was told for about 30 minutes after the shooting that the Parkland doctors were working to save JFK's life, before he was pronounced dead.  Lifton said Clint Hill told him he thought JFK died instantly when his head was blown open.  The 30 minutes was supposed to be used, Lifton concluded, to alter the wounds in the 6th floor operating room at Parkland to conform to the official story. Parkland was not the closest hospital to Dealey Plaza.  Lifton believed it was chosen as the place to set up the work on the coverup that needed to be done.
 
Hill's story was corroborated by one of the attendants back in Washington who received the body.  He told Lifton he didn't believe the Parkland doctors had performed a tracheotomy, leaving the implication that the procedure was done to obscure the fact that the throat wound was an entrance wound. Why, Lifton asked. JFK's brain was almost all gone when he saw the body.  Why would you do a tracheotomy on a dead person?
 
Lifton had noticed a statement in the next day's Dallas Morning News that said JFK had died in the operating room on the 6th floor at Parkland.  That was the cover story they were given from the plan and no one thought to change it for publication.
 
A brief diversion.  Yesterday Lanceman commented favorably on Lifton's "uncovering" of the ambulance story. Lifton had heard several references to the "ambulance" by listening to police recordings of that day.  He concluded that switching the body to an ambulance on the way to Parkland was part of the original plan to wrench the body from Jackie, mainly, (which you rightly finger as a problem for them) so they could work their magic on it. But it didn't work; they were stuck with Jackie never leaving JFK's side, which was a major problem for the plan.
 
The 30 minute delay in announcing the death was probably mostly determined by the time it took them to realize the original plan for Parkland wasn't going to work. They had to get the body back to Washington where they could control the autopsy.  They needed to announce the death to do that. 
 
That was the backup plan--to illegally snatch the body at gun point from the local authorities (who resisted) with the jurisdiction over the body and the autopsy. They knew the law they were breaking, but they couldn't allow a real autopsy.
 
Let me ask you.  If it wasn't to take the body back to Washington where they could do their own fake autopsy by unqualified hacks, while renowned coroners like Cyril Wecht were nearby, why were they so desperate to do that?  The question answers itself.  Plus, back in Washington they had time before the official autopsy to work on the body as originally planned, just to be safe.
 
Two days later they silenced Oswald and a few days after that the Warren Commission was named by LBJ, in charge of the coverup, so the 7 great Americans could officially establish the story of what happened that day.  They were off and running.
 
I understand that you despised Lifton as a person.  After I posted the first note, I read the exchange you had with him several years ago. That was in addition to the comments you made about him in this thread.
 
Give me a hint.  What is the blame Leslie Sharp et. al. are taking for "Coup in Dallas"?
 

The assassinations of Archduke Ferdinand and Reinhard Heydrich relied on the automobiles they were traveling in to slow down for a turn. However in both cases, the assassin(s) approached the vehicles on foot and shot at relatively close range. In the case of the Archduke, his car was originally planned to make the turn. However, several assassination attempts earlier that day changed the route. The driver mistakenly made the turn, realized his mistake and was attempting to turn around when the assassination took place.

By the time the first shot was fired in Dealey Plaza, the motorcade had largely regained its normal 10-15 mile per hour speed with the followup car perhaps 5-8 feet behind.The assassin(s) did not rely on the reduction in speed but rather that the limo was traveling in a relatively straight line relative to the TSBD and/or Dal-Tex building. A south knoll shooter would have to contend with the windshield and two rows of occupants. A shot from the overpass would have to contend with nearby witnesses. A shot from the grassy knoll would have to worry about someone like Lee Bowers or other railroad workers or spectators getting in the way or hearing the shots. The limo would come into view of the grassy knoll shooter late in the firing sequence when the limo would be expected to already be reacting to the shots, speeding up and getting out of the motorcade (unless you believe the secret service driver deliberately slowed down in order to give the knoll shooter a better chance), all while passing across the field of view complicating the ability to track.

Regarding early newspaper reports. They are a mixed bag. They may reveal inconvenient facts before those controlling the narrative can spring into action. They could be prepared plants. Or they could be misquotes, misinterpretations, repeating an erroneous statement or some other mistake.

Lifton's blog.

https://davidlifton-bestevidence-finalcharade.blogspot.com/

Roger Odisio wrote:Let's run straight thru the the framework of Lifton's analysis so, at a minimum, you can see (1) I don't keep changing the story, nor (2) do I keep moving the goal posts, as you claim.
 
Killing Kennedy was the biggest job the perps had ever done, or ever would do. They couldn't afford to miss. They had their pick of trained assassins from around the world.  They used more than one shooter to provide greater assurance of success.  One reason they picked Dealey Plaza was the sharp, greater than 90 degree turn in front of the TSBD where the motorcade slowed to about10 miles an hour and headed down the hill. It was perfect for a crossfire.

Killing Kennedy was the biggest job.... speculation.

They couldn't afford to miss... speculation.


They had their pick of trained assassins from around the world... speculation. 

They used more than one shooter... specualtion based on some earwitness accounts, false confessions from born liars, and a futile disagreement with the autopsy

One reason they picked Dealey Plaza was the sharp turn causing a slowdown... regurgitation of a wrong-headed shibboleth.

That's not just me theorizing, we know for a fact there was more than one shooter because JFK was hit in both the front (entry in the neck), and in the back (showing a hole in his shirt and coat about 5 inches below the neck). That's before the fatal head shot(s) (from the front) are even considered. 

Yes, Roger. It is just you theorizing. Your theory may be correct. But it is not a proven fact. You and like-minded souls can spend the rest of eternity shouting at the experts for the other side, but a more productive pursuit is getting the Darnell film.

Forget all that nonsense about the need to match the number of shooters with Oswald the lone nut.  We know that didn't happen. They weren't worried about that, or at least it wasn't a priority. Greater certainty of success is what mattered.  And 60 years later we know that contradiction, which set Lifton off, hasn't been a significant problem, has it?

I must be losing the plot because I could have sworn that the whole point of your argument at the start was the need to have the evidence match the lone nut scenario.

Lots of things haven't been a problem - lots of things that should have been. This isn't one of them. 

The "contradiction" that set Lifton off was the Sibert/O'Neil report about alleged pre-autopsy surgery.  

From the great Harold Weisberg:

Lifton's great "discovery" with which he had been exciting many critics for many years was neither his nor a discovery and was clearly a mistake. My belief is that when they saw the size of the section of the President's head that was missing one of the autopsy prosectors asked those in the autopsy amphitheater, who included some who had been in Texas, if there had been surgery of the head. After four days, unless in making a note of the words indicating that it was a question, those distraught FBI agents, deep in so unusual and unprecedented a tragedy, could easily have taken the words of the question they had in their notes to have been an observation.


It just is not possible that those doctors said anything like that. They were baffled, they were out of their depth, and they were groping for answers and understanding. FBI agent James Sibert did tell the House
assassins committee that it was a mistake.


And from that and the already published work Lifton presented as his own he built his reputation and his wealth.

The effort Macmillan made to promote the book also was exceptional with books on the assassination.

So he had been "teasing" for years about his "discovery? A leopard sure doesn't change its spots. As far as I can tell, his latest tome with its "discoveries" has been dangling for much more than a decade, and probably close to two give or take. 

Lifton was not worthy of licking the boots clean of the likes of Weisberg, Meagher, Shirley Martin and a few select others.

A brief diversion.  Yesterday Lanceman commented favorably on Lifton's "uncovering" of the ambulance story. Lifton had heard several references to the "ambulance" by listening to police recordings of that day.  He concluded that switching the body to an ambulance on the way to Parkland was part of the original plan to wrench the body from Jackie, mainly, (which you rightly finger as a problem for them) so they could work their magic on it. But it didn't work; they were stuck with Jackie never leaving JFK's side, which was a major problem for the plan.

Lots of "uncovering". One example: The epileptic as a diversion and excuse for delaying of ambulance for others if needed.

Except the epileptic wasn't. An epileptic that is. It was vertigo. From a motor car accident. He left the hospital because he could see the bedlam from the assassination, and felt better after being given some Dramamine. Not because he had "done his job". 

It took me only a few hours of research to tear that shibboleth down. 

The history of critical thought and research on the assassination should be a discipline unto itself.

Started out reasonably well, looking at the evidence on the ground, questioning actions of the police etc

It was all downhill from there, hitting the nadir in the 1990s when distrust of government and its institutions took over the critical faculties of the critics and basically, anything that went against official narratives was accepted with open arms, no matter that much of it lacked internal logic and contradicted OTHER theories. I mean, it just meant that like the universe, The Cosnpiracy just needed to keep expanding. Worse still, it became a competative combat sport. You say Oswald was impersonated in several areas? I can go one better. I say he had a doppelganger. But that's not all - so did his mother! And that's a fact. Armstrong wrote a book on it. It's full of words. It has to be right.

The expanding universe will either one day explode, or just become unable to sustain life.

The begining of the end of the faith-based WCR and its opposing ever-expanding conspiracy happens with the obtaining of the Darnell film and a new inquiry based on the principles used in any other cold case and by the Innocence Project. 

The 30 minute delay in announcing the death was probably mostly determined by the time it took them to realize the original plan for Parkland wasn't going to work. They had to get the body back to Washington where they could control the autopsy.  They needed to announce the death to do that. 

That was the backup plan--to illegally snatch the body at gun point from the local authorities (who resisted) with the jurisdiction over the body and the autopsy. They knew the law they were breaking, but they couldn't allow a real autopsy.

The delay was due to Catholicism and the desire not to pronounce someone dead until the last rites were adminsitered.

The desire to get out of Dodge, and Jackie insisting that she wouldn't leave without JFK, were the reason for the autopsy being taken away from Rose. As I previously said, the whole thing up to and including the autopsy was a clusterfuck because there were no laws, policies or protocols in place covering this situation. 

Point me to a clusterfuck were witnesses to it are all on the same page as to what exactly happened.

Let me ask you.  If it wasn't to take the body back to Washington where they could do their own fake autopsy by unqualified hacks, while renowned coroners like Cyril Wecht were nearby, why were they so desperate to do that?  The question answers itself.  Plus, back in Washington they had time before the official autopsy to work on the body as originally planned, just to be safe.

Yes, I'm aware that Cyril likes to pose those rhetorical questions. But then Cyril is also on record as offering up Oswald to WC defenders. As if Oswald was his personal property. As if Oswald had been a witting co conspirator. Ptui!

And yes. The question answers it iteslf.

Apart from being a clusterfuck, giving the Commander in Chief a military autopsy and funeral was as close to a protocol as they could get. 

I understand that you despised Lifton as a person.  After I posted the first note, I read the exchange you had with him several years ago. That was in addition to the comments you made about him in this thread.

A few years ago, Lifton threatened to sue Hood College because it was discovered that it housed some material that was not very flattering to him. That was a staple of the Lifton MO. Sue or threaten to sue.  

In any case, Hood finally agreed to take the material down from the online Weisberg archives.

But not before I downloaded it.

According to Weisberg, Lifton 

- slandered Meagher
- stole documents from him and others
- stole a high quality copy of the Z-Film, bragged about it to Meagher and then when he threatened to sue Feinman and Feinman advised he would counter sue, Lifton went online and claimed he had lied to Meagher about stealing the film. As Feinman said at the time, imagine what he would say to the judge."Trust me. I lied." 

Sorry but I see zero reason to see any good in Lifton whatsoever. He stole research. He continually threatened others. He was just an all-round loathsome human being. 

And to top it off, his theories to historical accuracy were no stockings on chooks' lips. 

Maybe in another dimension...
 

Give me a hint.  What is the blame Leslie Sharp et. al. are taking for "Coup in Dallas"?

For it being both a mess and a political polemic that is a pathetic joke and/or a fraud. 

It does show that nothing, no matter how fucked-up and reliant on garbage it is, cannot be folded into the expanding conspiracy model.

He also claimed that Oswald was murdered by a Parkland doctor who was working for the conspirators. He claims Oswald's wound was survivable but one of the doctors deliberately did something to kill him in the operating room. What a disgusting thing to say.

Roger Odisio wrote: wrote:Let's run straight thru the the framework of Lifton's analysis so, at a minimum, you can see (1) I don't keep changing the story, nor (2) do I keep moving the goal posts, as you claim.
 
Killing Kennedy was the biggest job the perps had ever done, or ever would do. They couldn't afford to miss. They had their pick of trained assassins from around the world.  They used more than one shooter to provide greater assurance of success.  One reason they picked Dealey Plaza was the sharp, greater than 90 degree turn in front of the TSBD where the motorcade slowed to about10 miles an hour and headed down the hill. It was perfect for a crossfire.

RO:  Speculation:  forming a theory, opinion, or conjecture without firm evidence.  None of my statements qualifies.
 
GP:  Killing Kennedy was the biggest job.... speculation.
 
RO:  Name a bigger, more important, one to the perps.  I should note I am generally talking about the war machine security state run by the CIA and its allies when I use "they" or "perps".

GP:  They couldn't afford to miss... speculation.
 
RO:  Obviously true when trying to kill a popular president of the most powerful country on the planet.  Kennedy was an existential threat to them, as was a failure to kill him.

GP:  They had their pick of trained assassins from around the world... speculation. 
 
RO: You seriously question this?

GP:  They used more than one shooter... specualtion based on some earwitness accounts, false confessions from born liars, and a futile disagreement with the autopsy

RO:  The assertion of multiple shooters is not based on any of the the things you make up here.  See next answer

That's not just me theorizing, we know for a fact there was more than one shooter because JFK was hit in both the front (entry in the neck), and in the back (showing a hole in his shirt and coat about 5 inches below the neck). That's before the fatal head shot(s) (from the front) are even considered. 

GP:  Yes, Roger. It is just you theorizing. Your theory may be cortrect. But it is not a proven fact. You and like-minded soulds can spend the rest of eternity shouting at the experts for the other side, but a more productive puruit is getting the Darnell film.
 
RO: That's the basis for asserting multiple shooters--wounds in the front and back. For which you offer no response

Forget all that nonsense about the need to match the number of shooters with Oswald the lone nut.  We know that didn't happen. They weren't worried about that, or at least it wasn't a priority. Greater certainty of success is what mattered.  And 60 years later we know that contradiction, which set Lifton off, hasn't been a significant problem, has it?

[size]
GP:  I must be losing the plot because I could have sworn that the whole point of your argument at the start was the need to have the evidence match the lone nut scenario.[/size]
 
RO:  Yeah you're really confused  *You* claimed only one shooter had to be used to kill JFK because they were using a lone patsy in their story. They had to match, you said:  "If you want to use multiple snipers from multiple positions, your plan has to be to frame more than just one person. Say, an organization (eg, FPCC), or a foreign enemy (eg Cuba, Soviet Union) as part of the 'Communist Conspiracy'.  If you want to frame one person, you use a single sniper. Then there is no need to have to risk the cartoonish Maxwell Smart storylines."   I, and the facts about what happened, showed you were wrong--there was one patsy and multiple shooters.  Now you're back trying to claim it was me who insisted there was a need to match patsy and the number of killers.  The unmitigated gall.  Two questions:  Where is Greg Parker; what have you done with him?

RO:  The 30 minute delay in announcing the death was probably mostly determined by the time it took them to realize the original plan for Parkland wasn't going to work. They had to get the body back to Washington where they could control the autopsy.  They needed to announce the death to do that. 

That was the backup plan--to illegally snatch the body at gun point from the local authorities (who resisted) with the jurisdiction over the body and the autopsy. They knew the law they were breaking, but they couldn't allow a real autopsy.

GP:  The delay [announcing the death and leaving Parkland] was due to Catholicism and the desire not to pronounce someone dead until the last rites were adminsitered.

The desire to get out of Dodge, and Jackie insisting that she wouldn't leave without JFK, were the reason for the autopsy being taken away from Rose.
 
RO: This is self contradictory.  Actually they wanted to "get out of Dodge" because they couldn't let the autopsy be done by someone not in on the gig.  Jackie insisting she wouldn't leave without JFK as a reason for the autopsy being taken from Rose makes no sense.  Your answer doesn't touch what I said was the real reason for leaving Parkland, which also determined when it happened and when the death  was announced: when it became clear that the original plan to alter the wounds at Parkland would not work. Continue to believe if you want the fact that JFK was Catholic mattered to the murderers, while the body was lying there incriminating them.
 

Let me ask you.  If it wasn't to take the body back to Washington where they could do their own fake autopsy by unqualified hacks, while renowned coroners like Cyril Wecht were nearby, why were they so desperate to do that?  The question answers itself.  Plus, back in Washington they had time before the official autopsy to work on the body as originally planned, just to be safe.

And yes. The question answers it iteslf.

Apart from being a clusterfuck, giving the Commander in Chief a military autopsy and funeral was as close to a protocol as they could get. 
 
RO:  Can you really believe this?  You think they did the autopsy in DC with the generals, apparently including Curtis LeMay gloating, looking on and directing it, so that JFK could have a *military* funeral?  Rather than to control what was done in the autopsy itself and later reported?

Give me a hint.  What is the blame Leslie Sharp et. al. are taking for "Coup in Dallas"?

[size]
For it being both a mess and a political polemic that is a pathetic joke and/or a fraud. 

It does show that nothing, no matter how fucked-up and reliant on garbage it is, cannot be folded into the expanding conspiracy model.[/size]
 
RO:  A political polemic?  The JFKA was quintessentially a political act.  I don't know how much you know about what happened to the US, and the world, after the war machine security state and their allies took over following the JFKA.  But a political crime requires in part a political analysis. 
 
Sharp says she's satisfied with the provenance of the LaFitte datebook after detailing her study of it for two years:  "I am satisfied, objectively and to the most reasonable degree of certainty under the circumstances, that the provenance is what Hank said it was. and that the datebook is authentic."  (p. 574,Coup in Dallas)
 
Apparently you've concluded the datebook and the book it spawned are a fraud. You should do more to substantiate that claim.
 

Nevertheless the renewed focus on Skorzeny and Souetre has been valuable for where it leads and the connections it shows. (as one example, see the discussion still going on in the EF thread that began with the claim that Souetre was ejected from Dallas 2 days after the murder).

RO: That's the basis for asserting multiple shooters--wounds in the front and back. For which you offer no response.

Okay, so what is your assertion (re multiple shooters) based on if not what I actually did say (some earwitnesses, false confessions from born liars, and a futile disagreement over the autopsy)? I mean, you might not agree with it, but it most certainly was a response. So if none of that applies, what else you got?

GP:  They couldn't afford to miss... speculation.
 
RO:  Obviously true when trying to kill a popular president of the most powerful country on the planet.  Kennedy was an existential threat to them, as was a failure to kill him.

Once upon a time it was obviously true that if sailed too far, you've go over the edge of the earth. This is basically an admission that you have no evidence for the claim. It is an appeal top "common sense".

GP:  They had their pick of trained assassins from around the world... speculation. 
 
RO: You seriously question this?

Yes. I want to see the evidenc e for it. You laim you are not speculating. You also defined speculation as a lack of evidence, so you must have some. "Common sense" is not evidence.

GP:  I must be losing the plot because I could have sworn that the whole point of your argument at the start was the need to have the evidence match the lone nut scenario.[/size]
 
RO:  Yeah you're really confused  *You* claimed only one shooter had to be used to kill JFK because they were using a lone patsy in their story. 

Not quite Roger. Read it again and note that two-letter word "if". I said if you want to frame a single patsy..." etc 

I, and the facts about what happened, showed you were wrong--there was one patsy and multiple shooters.  

Yes. That's your asserstion.... to which I responded IF you want to frame one person, you should only use one shooter. 

Now you're back trying to claim it was me who insisted there was a need to match patsy and the number of killers.

Yes. Your comments have been a genuine source of confusion for me.

This was your first comment on the subject. Highlighting mine:

I've got what I think is a more central question.
 
The story the killers planned to go with was that Oswald murdered Kennedy as the sole assassin from the 6th floor window. But the plan itself was to actually kill Kennedy in a crossfire with multiple shooters, including shots from the front. 
 
How were these two things--the frame of Oswald and the facts of the murder-- going to be reconciled? There had to be a plan for that.  What was it?  
 
Obviously even a cursory look at JFK's wounds would destroy their story. The wounds had to be altered or somehow covered up or lied about. 
 
It was figuring out the original plan of reconciliation that began Lifton's journey in Best Evidence and consumed him until his death.
 
He thought he had figured out the first part of the initial plan.  They would take JFK's body (already manifestly dead) to the 6th floor operating room to alter the wounds while telling the public they were trying to save his life. (they did the latter part, i,e, the media's story went on for about 30 minutes after the murder before JFK was pronounced dead)
 
Lifton found corroboration for this.  The story in the Dallas Morning News the next day said JFK had died in the 6th floor operation room! It's still in their archives!  That was the plant of the original story and no one had thought to change it.
 
The plan for the 6th floor operating room didn't work and they were left with illegally snatching the body back to Washington where they could better control the autopsy.  At that time there was no federal statute on murder; the Dallas coroner had jurisdiction over the autopsy.
 
Along the way in his account, Lifton uncovered a myriad of puzzles and tried to solve each. Puzzle solving, particularly of minute ones, seems to be flaw common to the JFKA community.  Set all that aside.
 
Was Lifton correct to focus on the reconciliation plan?  Did he get the basics right to start with?  If not, what do you think the initial plan was to reconcile the framing of Oswald with the facts of the murder?  As I said, there had to be one.

In a later reply to Lanceman, you wrote

I also don't think the configuration of multiple shooters was done with the "intent" of making it appear to be the work of a single gunmen. The shots from different directions belie that notion. Framing Oswald as a lone gunman was a separate problem, as I tried to indicate.

Which looks to me like clearing the path to begin the backward walk. What you indicated was that it was part of the preplanning after the act to immediately reconcile the evidence to match a lone nut. 

In your reply to me, any indication of preplanning to reconcile the evidence of multiple shooters with a single patsy via surgery of the corpse, completely disappears. The original plan now only includes the usual methods -- control of info... intimidation... a rubber-stamp committee. 

The original plan was straightforward. Kill Kennedy, frame Oswald, cajole, intimidate, or murder anyone who tries to contradict the story, control the flow of information about the murder, and create the Warren Commission to establish the frame of Oswald as the basis to repel any dissent from the official story. 

In a later reply still, you state

Forget all that nonsense about the need to match the number of shooters with Oswald the lone nut.  We know that didn't happen. They weren't worried about that, or at least it wasn't a priority. Greater certainty of success is what mattered.  And 60 years later we know that contradiction, which set Lifton off, hasn't been a significant problem, has it?

So here we are. You went from initially claiming "there had to be a plan" (to reconcile the evidence of ,multiple shooters with a lone nut patsy) to "Forget that nonsense about the need to match the number of shooters with Oswald the lone nut. We know that didn't happen.

Where is Greg Parker; what have you done with him?

Still here, still moving forward with a two-pronged approach. Removing the shit from the table and Adding bona fide new leads. 

RO:  A political polemic?  The JFKA was quintessentially a political act.  I don't know how much you know about what happened to the US, and the world, after the war machine security state and their allies took over following the JFKA.  But a political crime requires in part a political analysis. 

 

Sharp says she's satisfied with the provenance of the LaFitte datebook after detailing her study of it for two years:  "I am satisfied, objectively and to the most reasonable degree of certainty under the circumstances, that the provenance is what Hank said it was. and that the datebook is authentic."  (p. 574,Coup in Dallas)

The Hitler Diaries were a series of sixty volumes of journals purportedly written by Adolf Hitler, but forged by Konrad Kujau between 1981 and 1983. The diaries were purchased in 1983 for $3.7 million US by the West German news magazine Stern, which sold serialisation rights to several news organisations. One of the publications involved was The Sunday Times, who asked their independent director, the historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, to authenticate the diaries; he did so, pronouncing them genuine. 

But of course, that turned out not to be the case. 

Then there is Regicide: The Official Assassination of John F. Kennedy by Gregory Douglas based on a faked CIA document. Yet a quick check of Amazon reveals it was still getting 5 star reviews long after the fraud was exposed. Which I admit, is really fucking depressing.

There was also a faked police report about being called to a fight between Ruby and Oswald. 

You can add this shitty book to the list.

The fact that you accept on face value, Sharp's claim that she has "faith" in the material, is mind-blowing. But it is also a prevalent practice when it agrees with personal biases and is why "alternative bullshit" is defended against "mainstream bullshit".  It just has to push all the right buttons and after that, it does not matter one iota what fucked-up crap they send down the pike - it has an audience - and therefore is a revenue stream to be tapped. 

You have obvious talents, Roger. I really wish you would concentrate on the good work you've done on pushing for the release of two films and leave this toxic garbage for its true audience - the brain dead.

RO: That's the basis for asserting multiple shooters--wounds in the front and back. For which you offer no response.

GP:  Okay, so what is your assertion (re multiple shooters) based on if not what I actually did say (some earwitnesses, false confessions from born liars, and a futile disagreement over the autopsy? I mean, you might not agree with it, but it most certainly was a response. So if none of that applies, what else you got?
 
RO:  I say the evidence for multiple shooters is the multiple bullet holes, front and back.  You, say what else you got?  wtf?

GP:  They couldn't afford to miss... speculation.
 
RO:  Obviously true when trying to kill a popular president of the most powerful country on the planet.  Kennedy was an existential threat to them, as was a failure to kill him.

[size]
GP:  This is basically an admission that you have no evidence for the claim. It is an appeal top "common sense".[/size]
 
RO:  They knew JFK was an existential threat, a threat to their continued existence.  If they tried to kill him and missed, or if they were caught, that too would be a severe threat to their existence as an agency and as individuals. That's why they sought the best killers they could find and employed more than one shooter.  That's logic, based on known facts.  It actually belongs in the full definition of speculation:  without logic or evidence. (Please don't claim I'm moving the goalpost)
 
Which leads me to ask: if you dispute my claim, which I take to be obvious, can you explain how they *could* afford to miss killing Kennedy?  Why limiting themselves to one shooter to conform to their Oswald story was more important to them than using everything they thought they needed to get the job done?  That seems ridiculous, doesn't it? 

GP:  They had their pick of trained assassins from around the world... speculation. 
 
RO: You seriously question this?

[size]
GP:  Yes. I want to see the evidence for it. You laim you are not speculating. You also defined speculation as a lack of evidence, so you must have some. "Common sense" is not evidence.[/size]
 
RO:  The evidence is the CIA's track record of mayhem around the world for decades.  Do you claim ignorance of that?  Is that why you're asking for evidence?  From the time Eisenhower let the Dulles brothers run wild internationally, and in some cases, like the murder of Lamumba in early1961, encouraged/or directed them, the CIA has traversed the globe disrupting and overthrowing governments and dispatching leaders.  Kennedy was just one of them, although he was their most important hurdle.
 
In the early 60s the CIA developed Project ZRRifle, whose purpose "is to spot, develop and use foreign agent assets or Division D operations.  Agents will be spotted in several areas, including the United States, but for operational security reasons will probably not be used in their countries of residence." (memo from Richard Helms posted on EF)
 
Under "Personnel" for ZRRifle, the memo also referred to the mysterious person, QJWIN, "as principle agent with the primary task of spotting agent candidates" and spelled out his budget from them for 1962 which was renewable after that.  That was probably Otto Skorzeny who was running a training camp for the OAS in Spain. (oops, now that has an element of speculation to it as well as some logic behind it, which is why I said probably) 
 

GP:  I must be losing the plot because I could have sworn that the whole point of your argument at the start was the need to have the evidence match the lone nut scenario.

 
RO:  Yeah you're really confused  *You* claimed only one shooter had to be used to kill JFK because they were using a lone patsy in their story. 

GP:  Not quite Roger. Read it again and note that two-letter word "if". I said if you want to frame a single patsy..." etc 

I, and the facts about what happened, showed you were wrong--there was one patsy and multiple shooters.  

Yes. That's your asserstion.... to which I responded IF you want to frame one person, you should only use one shooter. [/size]
 
RO:  Pointing to your use of the word "if" does not rescue your statement.  Here it is again, which you don't mention in full.   "If you want to use multiple snipers from multiple positions, your plan has to be to frame more than just one person....If you want to frame one person, you use a single sniper.
 
The murderers clearly rejected your assertion.  They used multiple shooters, confident they could get away with the discrepancy. They have been right so far. More than that, we know they *did* frame one person and they *did* use multiple shooters!   The facts alone disprove your assertion. So much for your implication that your last sentence is some sort of immutable truth.
 
I'm going to skip your tortured attempt to show I am confused, or somehow moving the goal post, to go directly to your conclusion.  Your Aha! moment.

GP:  So here we are. You went from initially claiming "there had to be a plan" (to reconsile the evidence of ,multiple shooters with a lone nut patsy) to "Forget that nonsense about the need to match the number of shooters with Oswald the lone nut. We know that didn't happen.

 
RO:  You can claim these two statements are inconsistent only by ignoring their context.  They are in fact consistent.  When discussing your claim about the number of shooters that *had* to be used, I said that was wrong.  ("Forget that nonsense about the need to match the number of shooters with Oswald the lone nut.")  They could choose (and did choose ) to use multiple shooters despite framing Oswald. *But* in doing so, they would need a plan to reconcile that discrepancy if they were challenged on that point.  
 

RO:  A political polemic?  The JFKA was quintessentially a political act.  I don't know how much you know about what happened to the US, and the world, after the war machine security state and their allies took over following the JFKA.  But a political crime requires in part a political analysis. 

 

Sharp says she's satisfied with the provenance of the LaFitte datebook after detailing her study of it for two years:  "I am satisfied, objectively and to the most reasonable degree of certainty under the circumstances, that the provenance is what Hank said it was. and that the datebook is authentic."  (p. 574,Coup in Dallas)

GP:  The fact that you accept on face value, Sharp's claim that she has "faith" in the material, is mind-blowing.
 
RO:  I didn't say I accept Sharp's claim, on face value or otherwise.  I said if you don't, you need to do more than call the book shitty and a fraud.

GP:  You have obvious talents, Roger. I really wish you would concentrate on the good work you've done on pushing for the release of two films and leave this toxic garbage for its true audience - the brain dead.
 

RO:  Thanks for the advice, but I don't need to be pigeonholed, and can do more than one thing at a time.  Why do I get the feeling you're patting me on the head and saying:  you have done a good job on that one item, sonny, but leave the rest of this case to us big boys. You're too easily fooled by bad actors.

Roger, one of my objections to the body alteration thesis is that a bullet either traverses the body or is stopped by the body. If it traverses the body, there is no bullet to recover from the body (ie JFK and the SBT). For a high velocity bullet to be stopped within the body, it either expands or fragments. If it expands, how can it be surgically recovered without a noticeable surgical incision or if extracted through the entrance, considerably enlarging the entrance? Conversely, if the bullet fragmented it would be impossible to extract all the pieces in the time allotted and an extraction would probably not even be attempted so no need for surgery. They might try to fake the x-rays but how could they be sure there wouldn’t be an an exhumation in the future?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_ballistics

Roger Odisio wrote:

RO: That's the basis for asserting multiple shooters--wounds in the front and back. For which you offer no response.

GP:  Okay, so what is your assertion (re multiple shooters) based on if not what I actually did say (some earwitnesses, false confessions from born liars, and a futile disagreement over the autopsy? I mean, you might not agree with it, but it most certainly was a response. So if none of that applies, what else you got?
 
RO:  I say the evidence for multiple shooters is the multiple bullet holes, front and back.  You, say what else you got?  wtf?

I say that comes under the heading of being "a futile disagreement over the autopsy" which did not make that finding.

RO:  They knew JFK was an existential threat, a threat to their continued existence.  If they tried to kill him and missed, or if they were caught, that too would be a severe threat to their existence as an agency and as individuals. That's why they sought the best killers they could find and employed more than one shooter.  That's logic, based on known facts.  It actually belongs in the full definition of speculation:  without logic or evidence. (Please don't claim I'm moving the goalpost)

Your assertions are not facts until proven, and circular logic is no route to the truth.

Which leads me to ask: if you dispute my claim, which I take to be obvious, can you explain how they *could* afford to miss killing Kennedy?  Why limiting themselves to one shooter to conform to their Oswald story was more important to them than using everything they thought they needed to get the job done?  That seems ridiculous, doesn't it? 

The modelling is all wrong. That's the issue.

Where is the evidence that Oswald was always going to be designated a lone nut? 

They were drawing up conspiracy charges and planting conspiracy evidence.

RO:  The evidence is the CIA's track record of mayhem around the world for decades.  Do you claim ignorance of that?  Is that why you're asking for evidence?  From the time Eisenhower let the Dulles brothers run wild internationally, and in some cases, like the murder of Lamumba in early1961, encouraged/or directed them, the CIA has traversed the globe disrupting and overthrowing governments and dispatching leaders.  Kennedy was just one of them, although he was their most important hurdle.

As they are forced to admit in investment ads here "past performance is no guarantee of future performance."


I would have thought that as far as "existential threats" go, a democratically elected president who can be voted out is somewhat less of an existential threat than a Soviet backed island 90 miles off the coast with an entrenched permanent leader. 

Yet apparently they could afford to fail with with removing him and concentrate instead on a plan that with one misstep, would lead to them spending the rest of their days in prison, if not strapped into electric chairs - all to kill a leader they could remove by planting stories in the press?

Some serious mental issues at play with them, if that is the case. Issues like that usually lead to perps getting caught. 

In the early 60s the CIA developed Project ZRRifle, whose purpose "is to spot, develop and use foreign agent assets or Division D operations.  Agents will be spotted in several areas, including the United States, but for operational security reasons will probably not be used in their countries of residence." (memo from Richard Helms posted on EF)
 
Under "Personnel" for ZRRifle, the memo also referred to the mysterious person, QJWIN, "as principle agent with the primary task of spotting agent candidates" and spelled out his budget from them for 1962 which was renewable after that.  That was probably Otto Skorzeny who was running a training camp for the OAS in Spain. (oops, now that has an element of speculation to it as well as some logic behind it, which is why I said probably) 

Everything you say about this falls under the heading of speculation, circular logic or appeals to common sense. But it is just hard to see that reality when you're down that rabbit hole and the only information you have is in the form of an echo chamber. There is a touch of cheer squadding to it as well. You're picked a side and you will cheer for that side no matter what. I mean, others could easily accuse me of being a one-eyed football fan, as well.

But that's fooball. That's passion. That's blaming the ref for the losses and sticking it to the opposing fans with the wins. 

But this is history. This is life-affecting and affirming. We need to get it right for the sake of the future. Picking sides is bullshit. Refusing to see the light of day and stayingdown rabbit holes is bullshit. Refusing to see your own biases so you can avoid moving past them, is bullshit. 

Some of it is based on hotly disputed evidence, not proven fact, despite your proclivity to call it the latter. 

The most apt description of Skorzeny I have seen is that he was "a Teutonic version of Gerry Hemming, but with a bit more class."

Or to put it another way, he made his living later in life schmoozing with Nazi fanboys and spinning tall tales for them. 

Yes. That's your asserstion.... to which I responded IF you want to frame one person, you should only use one shooter. [/size]
 
RO:  Pointing to your use of the word "if" does not rescue your statement.  Here it is again, which you don't mention in full.   "If you want to use multiple snipers from multiple positions, your plan has to be to frame more than just one person....If you want to frame one person, you use a single sniper.
 
The murderers clearly rejected your assertion.  They used multiple shooters, confident they could get away with the discrepancy. They have been right so far. More than that, we know they *did* frame one person and they *did* use multiple shooters!   The facts alone disprove your assertion. So much for your implication that your last sentence is some sort of immutable truth.

The facts show that they were planning to "prove" a communist conspiracy - with or without multiple shooters. Options were open on that.

Until conspiracy was taken off the table. 

I'm going to skip your tortured attempt to show I am confused, or somehow moving the goal post, to go directly to your conclusion.  Your Aha! moment.

There was nothing tortured about it. I merely copied and pasted your various comments which appeared to me to be contradictory. 

GP:  So here we are. You went from initially claiming "there had to be a plan" (to reconsile the evidence of ,multiple shooters with a lone nut patsy) to "Forget that nonsense about the need to match the number of shooters with Oswald the lone nut. We know that didn't happen.
 
RO:  You can claim these two statements are inconsistent only by ignoring their context.  They are in fact consistent.  When discussing your claim about the number of shooters that *had* to be used, I said that was wrong.  ("Forget that nonsense about the need to match the number of shooters with Oswald the lone nut.")  They could choose (and did choose ) to use multiple shooters despite framing Oswald. *But* in doing so, they would need a plan to reconcile that discrepancy if they were challenged on that point.  

I'll make this as painless as possible.

Choosing multiple shooters may in some situations, be the right option. But if you are going to go that route, you either have a plan to frame an organization or group, or you are certain whatever investigation happens, it is one you have already been assured will fall in your favor.

That apparently was not the case in your scenario.

So my question for you is, why the over-riding need to frame a lone nut?

Because in wide-angle panaramic shots - the BIG PICTURE - detail is hard to make out and can easily be missed or misinterpreted, here are a serious of Polaroid snaps that detail exact moments in time as close-up as possible. When put together side by side, these Polaroid snaps show an entirely different picture to what you think you see in your panarama shot. 

They named multiple rifles as being found - handy if you're going down the conspiracy path and there were in fact multiple shooters.

They arrested Frazier as a co-conspirator.

They tried to get something on Molina to arrest him, as well.

They initially searched for Craig's "getaway driver" as another conspirator.

They were drawing up conspiracy charges. 

Oswald was asking for a lawyer not known for murder cases, but for defending communist conspiracy charges (my speculation is that they fed Abt's name to him)

They planted a box top on him. A box top was used as evidence at the Rosenberg trial. It was claimed that it was to be used by Greenglass to identify himself to a Soviet agent in a movie theatre. It is my speculation that the boxtop planted on Oswald was going to be used to make the same claim)

In short, on day one, the evidence is strong that Oswald was going to be framed as part of the "International Communist Conspircy".

He could be framed for that whether he was a lone shooter, or if the evidence showed multiple shooters.

The evidence further shows the high probability that Roy Truly was the inside man at the TSBD. He created the floor laying crew as cover, he hired Oswald, he gave Oswald permission to leave and then he set the cops after him.

The evidence also shows a high probabllity that Truly and Shelley were informants in defense plants during WWII for either the military or the FBI and that the FBI had a long association with TSBD president Jack Cason through the American Legion Contact Program (Cason had been commander of American Legion Post 53 in Dallas). This program, like the Defense Plant program, was based on informing on subversive or unAmerican activity.

Roy Truly was a cousin to the wife of Fred Korth. Korth knew the Oswald family through his legal representation of Edwin Ekdahl. Korth was forced to resign as NavSec and had sided with the generals during the CMC. As a member of the Navy League and being NavSec, Korth had close ties to ONI.

The law office of Robert Sansom was where Oswald went to get his manuscript on life in Minsk typed. Roy Sansom Truly and Vera Sansom Korth were both cousins of Rober Sansom. 

The evidence also suggests the following

-Frazier was used as a Trojan Horse to get Oswald into the building (he lied to the WC about the agency used to place him into the TSBD - and he and Oswald may well be the only two employees who never got their job at the TSBD  through the Texas Employment Commission).

-Oswald was cashing pay checks at a department store via a brother of an FBI agent who worked in the credit department. Was this the method used to pay him as an informant?

-Oswald was initially being framed somely by the Dallas police because it is what they did. 

-The FBI and other agencies got on board as CYA to hide past associations with Oswald

-Oswald was not a whitting part of any conspiracy

-Oswald was killed by Ruby on behalf of the police to avoid an embarrassing trial in fron of the World media

-the most likely conspiractors at the higest levels were from various sections of the MIC

-the motive was most likely saving Korth from further senate and house scrutiny - and to get Johnson into the White House. His supporters were not prepared to wait four more years and then chance him winning an election in 1968 - or even being healthy enough to run by then. Of course, other matters flowed from getting Johnson into the White House, apart from Saving Korth and others. Proxy Wars in South East Asia probably topping the list. 

The TWO things that made it urgent enough to remove Kennedy before the election was saving Korth, and getting Johnson in office - his only viable chance to take the crown.  

Was Johnson in on the planning? I doubt it. Plausable deniability and all that. He probably did have some sort of inkling though, and just let it happen.

RO: That's the basis for asserting multiple shooters--wounds in the front and back. For which you offer no response.

GP:  Okay, so what is your assertion (re multiple shooters) based on if not what I actually did say (some earwitnesses, false confessions from born liars, and a futile disagreement over the autopsy? I mean, you might not agree with it, but it most certainly was a response. So if none of that applies, what else you got?
 
RO:  I say the evidence for multiple shooters is the multiple bullet holes, front and back.  You, say what else you got?  wtf?

GP:  I say that comes under the heading of being "a futile disagreement over the autopsy" which did not make that finding.
 
RO:  You would be wrong.  There was no actual autopsy, just a show in Bethesda. Moreover, an autopsy is not needed to prove JFK was hit from behind.  The hole in the back of the shirt matching the hole in the back of the suit coat establishes that. That leaves you claiming you see no evidence of a shot from the front.
 
Unlike what you insist on getting from me, you offer no evidence for this  claim.  You make no attempt to confront the voluminous observers who do claim evidence of at least one shot from the front and show where they are wrong.
 
This leads us to a larger discussion of the basic framework for this whole discussion.  You claim I have the burden of proving the truth of any statement I make.  Your job is to judge whether I have met that burden to your satisfaction.  And surprise! you have found my response to be lacking every time.
 
You apply this approach to everything I say, including innocuous statements like JFK posed an existential threat to the CIA war machine and their allies.
 
This is not productive; it's not a real conversation. If you disagree with the statement in my example you have a burden too--to say that is not true, or at least may not be true, such that you don't think it provides an important reason for the murder, *because*....
 
Then we could discuss both points of view, rather than the empty back and forth about what constitutes evidence in which we have been stuck.  The current discussion is becoming tedious and leading nowhere.
 
Having said that, I'm going to respond to some of the things you say below that jump out at me.

RO:  They knew JFK was an existential threat, a threat to their continued existence.  If they tried to kill him and missed, or if they were caught, that too would be a severe threat to their existence as an agency and as individuals. That's why they sought the best killers they could find and employed more than one shooter.  That's logic, based on known facts.  It actually belongs in the full definition of speculation:  without logic or evidence. (Please don't claim I'm moving the goalpost)

GP:  Your assertions are not facts until proven, and circular logic is no route to the truth.
 
RO: Here is the example I mentioned, complete with the usual mantra at the front.  Claiming I am using "circular logic" here adds an extra layer of ludicrousness to your response.

Which leads me to ask: if you dispute my claim, which I take to be obvious, can you explain how they *could* afford to miss killing Kennedy?  Why limiting themselves to one shooter to conform to their Oswald story was more important to them than using everything they thought they needed to get the job done?  That seems ridiculous, doesn't it? 

GP:  The modelling is all wrong. That's the issue.
 
RO:  Here I think is the first time I asked you to explain something, you demurred, and quickly changed the subject, without explaining anything.  What modeling? You mean Lifton's story?  If so, you haven't come close to explaining what is "all wrong" about it.  

GP: Where is the evidence that Oswald was always going to be designated a lone nut? 
 
RO; Back to insisting I provide evidence for something, this time for something I didn't even say. Which you misstated to boot.  Oswald was always going to be the lone *assassin*, motive to be worked out. The lone nut part came when LBJ rejected tying him to any foreign power.

GP:  They were drawing up conspiracy charges and planting conspiracy evidence.
 
RO: Yep.

RO:  The evidence is the CIA's track record of mayhem around the world for decades.  Do you claim ignorance of that?  Is that why you're asking for evidence?  From the time Eisenhower let the Dulles brothers run wild internationally, and in some cases, like the murder of Lamumba in early1961, encouraged/or directed them, the CIA has traversed the globe disrupting and overthrowing governments and dispatching leaders.  Kennedy was just one of them, although he was their most important hurdle.

[size]

GP:  I would have thought that as far as "existential threats" go, a democratically elected president who can be voted out is somewhat less of an existential threat than a Soviet backed island 90 miles off the coast with an entrenched permanent leader. [/size]
 
RO;  JFK was less of a threat to them than Castro?  C'mon.   

GP: Yet apparently they could afford to fail with with removing him and concentrate instead on a plan that with one misstep, would lead to them spending the rest of their days in prison, if not strapped into electric chairs - all to kill a leader they could remove by planting stories in the press?
 
RO:  Even sillier.  You've said this before.  This shows a lack of understanding of Washington and how US politics works.

In the early 60s the CIA developed Project ZRRifle, whose purpose "is to spot, develop and use foreign agent assets or Division D operations.  Agents will be spotted in several areas, including the United States, but for operational security reasons will probably not be used in their countries of residence." (memo from Richard Helms posted on EF)
 
Under "Personnel" for ZRRifle, the memo also referred to the mysterious person, QJWIN, "as principle agent with the primary task of spotting agent candidates" and spelled out his budget from them for 1962 which was renewable after that.  That was probably Otto Skorzeny who was running a training camp for the OAS in Spain. (oops, now that has an element of speculation to it as well as some logic behind it, which is why I said probably) 

[size]
GP:  Everything you say about this falls under the heading of speculation, circular logic or appeals to common sense.[/size]
 
RO:  Your mantra has gone completely off the tracks. Apparently, you'll claim it applies to anything, including a recovered memo from Helms at the CIA outlining the purpose and procedures of the ZRRIfle Project.  
 
GP:  But it is just hard to see that reality when you're down that rabbit hole and the only information you have is in the form of an echo chamber. There is a touch of cheer squadding to it as well. You're picked a side and you will cheer for that side no matter what. I mean, others could easily accuse me of being a one-eyed football fan, as well.
 
RO:  Did you intend to insult me here? I picked a side (whatever that means in this context)  and will cheer for them no matter what the facts or truth are? That's the definition of a lack of character.

GP:  But this is history. This is life-affecting and affirming. We need to get it right for the sake of the future. Picking sides is bullshit. Refusing to see the light of day and stayingdown rabbit holes is bullshit. Refusing to see your own biases so you can avoid moving past them, is bullshit. 
 
RO:  All true but what does it have to do with me?  Is this where I ask you for evidence for your insinuations?

GP:  Some of it is based on hotly disputed evidence, not proven fact, despite your proclivity to call it the latter. 
 
RO:  The fact that evidence is hotly disputed by some does not preclude me from trying to show it is nevertheless true. Just about everything to do with the JFKA is (hotly) disputed by someone.

The most apt description of Skorzeny I have seen is that he was "a Teutonic version of Gerry Hemming, but with a bit more class."

Or to put it another way, he made his living later in life schmoozing with Nazi fanboys and spinning tall tales for them.
 
RO: I suspect you have a lot to learn about Skorzeny.

Yes. That's your asserstion.... to which I responded IF you want to frame one person, you should only use one shooter.

 
RO:  Pointing to your use of the word "if" does not rescue your statement.  Here it is again, which you don't mention in full.   "If you want to use multiple snipers from multiple positions, your plan has to be to frame more than just one person....If you want to frame one person, you use a single sniper.
 
The murderers clearly rejected your assertion.  They used multiple shooters, confident they could get away with the discrepancy. They have been right so far. More than that, we know they *did* frame one person and they *did* use multiple shooters!   The facts alone disprove your assertion. So much for your implication that your last sentence is some sort of immutable truth.

GP:  The facts show that they were planning to "prove" a communist conspiracy - with or without multiple shooters. Options were open on that.

Until conspiracy was taken off the table. [/size]
 
RO:  Yes, a communist conspiracy behind Oswald was one plan.  But that was never going to happen with LBJ in charge as President. I suspect the CIA gang knew that and weren't that disturbed about it.

GP:  So here we are. You went from initially claiming "there had to be a plan" (to reconsile the evidence of ,multiple shooters with a lone nut patsy) to "Forget that nonsense about the need to match the number of shooters with Oswald the lone nut. We know that didn't happen.

 
RO:  You can claim these two statements are inconsistent only by ignoring their context.  They are in fact consistent.  When discussing your claim about the number of shooters that *had* to be used, I said that was wrong.  ("Forget that nonsense about the need to match the number of shooters with Oswald the lone nut.")  They could choose (and did choose ) to use multiple shooters despite framing Oswald. *But* in doing so, they would need a plan to reconcile that discrepancy if they were challenged on that point.  

I'll make this as painless as possible.

Choosing multiple shooters may in some situations, be the right option. But if you are going to go that route, you either have a plan to frame an organization or group, or you are certain whatever investigation happens, it is one you have already been assured will fall in your favor.
 
RO:  There probably was some of the latter, but, most probably in this case, they weren't worried about an investigation. There wasn't going to be any (and there hasn't been). 

GP:  That apparently was not the case in your scenario.
 
RO:  Wrong. 

GP:  So my question for you is, why the over-riding need to frame a lone nut?
 
RO: Why did they frame Sirhan or James Earl Ray?  Because the lone nut story, a person unconnected to anything, is easy to sell to the media and by extension the public.  Nothing to see here.  It's all over with the murder  No effects to worry about. Go back to your lives.

GP:  Because in wide-angle panaramic shots - the BIG PICTURE - detail is hard to make out and can easily be missed or misinterpreted, here are a serious of Polaroid snaps that detail exact moments in time as close-up as possible. When put together side by side, these Polaroid snaps show an entirely different picture to what you think you see in your panarama shot. 
 
RO:  A bunch of speculations without a hint of proof for any of them.  Let's let that go and dive into some of them. 

GP:  They named multiple rifles as being found - handy if you're going down the conspiracy path and there were in fact multiple shooters.
 
RO:  I think the multiple rifle identification was an early mistake, which they quickly corrected to the Carcano and Oswald.  You think there was more to it than that?

GP:  They arrested Frazier as a co-conspirator.
 
RO:  No, they *threatened* to arrest him to intimidate him get his cooperation on important matters, like you don't know who that was standing next to you in Darnell, do you.

GP: Oswald was asking for a lawyer not known for murder cases, but for defending communist conspiracy charges (my speculation is that they fed Abt's name to him)
 
RO:  At that point it's not clear he knew he was being fingered for the JFKA. He also asked for an ACLU lawyer. And when approached by the head of the Dallas bar on Saturday, he said he would consider one of theirs if he could not get his preferred options. Meaning he knew he needed a lawyer and soon.  That helped them get more serious, if that was necessary, about killing him.  He was dead about 17 hours later.  

GP:  In short, on day one, the evidence is strong that Oswald was going to be framed as part of the "International Communist Conspircy". He could be framed for that whether he was a lone shooter, or if the evidence showed multiple shooters.
 
RO:   Actually, that was one plan, but you're overstating it.  LBJ was never going to approve that part of the plan and I think the CIA knew that. 

GP  -Oswald was initially being framed somely by the Dallas police because it is what they did.  
 
RO: A favorite theme of yours.  But it's bogus.  The frame of Oswald was setup beforehand by the perps.  The Dallas police could be trusted to help because that's what they do.  That was their role. The JFKA would never have happened without a frame as an integral part up front.

GP -The FBI and other agencies got on board as CYA to hide past associations with Oswald
 
RO:  They had no choice.

GP  -Oswald was not a whitting part of any conspiracy
 
RO:  If you believe Oswald was not on the 6th floor, did not fire a shot, and was probably on the steps, that's a logical view.

GP-Oswald was killed by Ruby on behalf of the police to avoid an embarrassing trial in fron of the World media
 
RO:  Nah. Another needlessly psychological conclusion.  Ruby killed Oswald to keep him from defending himself against the frame 

GP  -the most likely conspiractors at the higest levels were from various sections of the MIC
 
RO: Since you're merely speculating, can you be a tiny bit more specific? That's not very helpful.

GP  The TWO things that made it urgent enough to remove Kennedy before the election was saving Korth, and getting Johnson in office - his only viable chance to take the crown.  
 
RO:  Saving Korth was definitely a more important reason for the murder than the existential threat JFK posed to the CIA/war machine and their allies!

GP  Was Johnson in on the planning? I doubt it. Plausable deniability and all that. He probably did have some sort of inkling though, and just let it happen.
 
RO:  An LBJ discussion deserves its own thread. I'll just scratch the surface.  When LBJ came to Washington as a congressman in the 40s he bought a house across the street from Hoover and they became 30+ year friends.  It was part of the process of rising to become one of the most powerful Senate Majority Leaders in US history. It wasn't enough.  He wanted to be president.
 
He finagled his way onto the ticket in '60 with JFK because the race for the nomination showed him he could never get the party's nod to be President.  He was viewed as a largely (Southern) regional politician when it came to seeking national office
 
It was LBJ in the Spring of '63 who convinced JFK that he (JFK) was needed for a trip to Texas that Fall to help settle down (largely fake) feuding factions there. Texas was a key state in the '64 election.  Was that an early part of the plan that led to Dallas?
 
By the 60s the two main power centers in Washington were Allen Dulles running the deep state/war machine and Lyndon Johnson running Congress. As a sidelight Johnson also controlled everything  of importance in Texas.
 
Each knew the other one wanted to get rid of Kennedy, for different reasons.  They were natural allies.  In my opinion the job never would have happened without the approval of both.  It was an extremely dangerous undertaking.  Different than anything either had ever done before, despite all the nefarious deeds each had previously performed. Its success depended each performing their roles. 
 


_________________

This thread seems like a case study on how threads can go awry-- mainly because they become about so much more than the subject at hand. And then people like myself stumble on them after the fact and say to themselves, "Wait, what was this whole thing about in the first place? Oh, wait, David Lifton? Where did he go in this whole conversation?"

Here's what I understand about David Lifton: dude purported to be an authority on the medical aspects of the JFK assassination, lived for the JFK assassination in an unhealthily devouted way (eschewing companionship like a monk), wrote one book, speculated on some really goofy shit including people dressed as trees at Dealey Plaza, literally stalked Jim DiEugenio, and had some really wild ideas he was kicking around for decades in hopes of selling a second book, in which caskets and corpses of JFK become duplicated and switched out in a Final Charade that sounded like it beggared belief. As in, where is this secret information you, David Lifton, have coming from? Is it that you have uncovered the secrets of the ages or that you're just going off into la-la land?

Maybe there was some inspired lunacy there but it seems like Lifton fit the bill of The Conspiracy Theorist as constructed by the CIA in the wake of the JFK assassination to a "T." Maybe that's a harsh assessment of someone who clearly devoted much more time and thought to this case than I ever will, but that's my takeaway.

On circular reasoning

It is something that any of us can fall into unintentionally. In my thousands of posts on various sites, it would be astounding if I have not also fallen into at some stage.

Here is what I referring to an example in this thread.

Q: What was the motive to assassinate JFK?
A: He posed an existential threat to the plotters.


Q: What is the evidence that he posed an existential threat to the plotters?
A: They assassinated him.

--------
Your plotters are the CIA.

The CIA had a well-organized web of assets embedded in the media.  The existential threat to them was hardly likely to unfold before the election - therefore there was no reason to act to rashly and put into play a highly risky assassination plot. They had their media assets for  apurpose: the purpose was to sway public opinion to whatever ends they needed. That was the low risk/high percentage method for them to deal with their existential fears. 

Besides(and I ask this not knowing the answer), would the president even have the power to disband the CIA with the stroke of a pen? Would it not also take the Senate and the House to do this? Saying you want to scatter the CIA to the winds and actually being able to do it, seem like they could be miles apart. And the only evidence that the threat was eevn made, was in the form of hearsay.

Fred Korth on the other hand, did not have the luxury of time, nor the media assets to set loose. His only hope of not being further examined was the immediate removal of Kennedy and the installing of LBJ. And that is how it panned out. Investigations ceased. Korth would also have had other motives. He was one of those who wanted to nuke Cuba during the CMC. But the only urgent motive was the first one listed.

I do not believe it was any coincidence Korth's wife was related to Roy Truly, or that he was Edwin Ekdahl's legal representative in all matters, including the divorce from Marguerite, or that his wife and Truly were also related to Robert Sansom whose law office was used to type up Lee's manuscript on life in Minsk. 

It is all a neat little package.

On asking for Abt

GP: Oswald was asking for a lawyer not known for murder cases, but for defending communist conspiracy charges (my speculation is that they fed Abt's name to him)
 
RO:  At that point it's not clear he knew he was being fingered for the JFKA. He also asked for an ACLU lawyer. And when approached by the head of the Dallas bar on Saturday, he said he would consider one of theirs if he could not get his preferred options. Meaning he knew he needed a lawyer and soon.  That helped them get more serious, if that was necessary, about killing him.  He was dead about 17 hours later.  

Oswald was interrogated for around 12 hours in total. What we know of what was said wouldn't fill much more than hour. 

I think a lot of time was spent during those early sessions, trying to pin him on their International Communist Conspiracy... they one the kept reading about in their Bircher literature.

This is why he makes the comment to the media in the hall that they only picked him because he had lived in Russia. 

This is why he asks for a lawyer who specializes in defending against Communist conspiracy charges. 

Those two points only make sense if the Communsit Conspiracy angle was the bulk of the early interrogations. Indeed, we know they were drawing up just such charges.

As for Louis H Nichols of the Dallas Bar Association - I am a little suspicious that he got access, but the guys from the DCLU never. The Bar Association he reptresented was not a criminal bar association. Cruiminal lawyers had their own separate association. In any event, it was Prof Chuck Webster who talked Nichols into going to speak to Oswald. Webster was at those initial interrogations and was most likely the person who gave Oswald the name Abt. Webster was also associated with FBI informant William Lowery in political matters.  Nicholls represented the Big End of town and its interests. The whole thing stinks and we only have Nicholls word on what was said. It did its work thouhj... assured the press that Oswald was legally okay and could get a lawyer any time he wanted. Absolute bullshit. 

Other points

RO:  I think the multiple rifle identification was an early mistake, which they quickly corrected to the Carcano and Oswald.  You think there was more to it than that?

Multiple mistakes in identifaction from gun nut offiercs? Really???

GP:  They arrested Frazier as a co-conspirator.
 
RO:  No, they *threatened* to arrest him to intimidate him get his cooperation on important matters, like you don't know who that was standing next to you in Darnell, do you.

I think you're confusing "arresting" with "charging". AFAIK, he was arrrested, but not charged. 

GP  -Oswald was initially being framed somely [sic - I have no feakin idea what I was trying to type there!] by the Dallas police because it is what they did.  
 
RO: A favorite theme of yours.  But it's bogus.  The frame of Oswald was setup beforehand by the perps.  The Dallas police could be trusted to help because that's what they do.  That was their role. The JFKA would never have happened without a frame as an integral part up front.

I suspect here, we talking at cross purposes. What you seem to be talking about is the plot to get get him working on the parade route and whatever else you think was part of the planning to set things up. What I am talking about is the police frame that took place to convict him of double murder. 

GP-Oswald was killed by Ruby on behalf of the police to avoid an embarrassing trial in fron of the World media
 
RO:  Nah. Another needlessly psychological conclusion.  Ruby killed Oswald to keep him from defending himself against the frame 

Now I am confused.

Are you suggesting Ruby was one of the plootters? 

The evidence is very clear that Ruby was assigned the role via Det Olsen and that he immediately set about trying to extracate himself from that by ( a ) solving the case ( b ) trying to get someone to ordder him out of the state and ( c ) making telephone threats against Oswald to try and get security boosted so no attempt could be made.

It was Fritz's plan to form a four person press around Oswald and it was Fritz who skipped merily forward allowing the kill shot.

rogerhucek wrote:This thread seems like a case study on how threads can go awry-- mainly because they become about so much more than the subject at hand. And then people like myself stumble on them after the fact and say to themselves, "Wait, what was this whole thing about in the first place? Oh, wait, David Lifton? Where did he go in this whole conversation?"

Here's what I understand about David Lifton: dude purported to be an authority on the medical aspects of the JFK assassination, lived for the JFK assassination in an unhealthily devouted way (eschewing companionship like a monk), wrote one book, speculated on some really goofy shit including people dressed as trees at Dealey Plaza, literally stalked Jim DiEugenio, and had some really wild ideas he was kicking around for decades in hopes of selling a second book, in which caskets and corpses of JFK become duplicated and switched out in a Final Charade that sounded like it beggared belief. As in, where is this secret information you, David Lifton, have coming from? Is it that you have uncovered the secrets of the ages or that you're just going off into la-la land?

Maybe there was some inspired lunacy there but it seems like Lifton fit the bill of The Conspiracy Theorist as constructed by the CIA in the wake of the JFK assassination to a "T." Maybe that's a harsh assessment of someone who clearly devoted much more time and thought to this case than I ever will, but that's my takeaway.

When you then add the theft, lying, threats and bullying, he was what I said previously. A cunt.

I will only add two things.

For Roger O:

I have said nothing about him I never said to him in posts, or would not have said if it was appropriate in the circumstances.

If you had said this much earier, we could have saved a lot of time! That said, I did get some further clarity out of the exchanges that I may not have otherwise achieved.  So, ty.