The Cover-Up: How Was Movement from Phase I to Phase II Justified?

[Charles Drago]

Peter Dale Scott's masterful multi-phase JFK assassination cover-up hypothesis is both a distillation of previous research (his own and that of others) and a greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts template for post-Dallas deep state conspiracies and their aftermaths.

http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3835

Scott's Phase I describes the production of wholly contrived evidence suggesting that "the" Soviets and the Cubans had conspired successfully to kill the president. Release of this information to the public, it was argued by LBJ and others, would result in irresistible calls for retaliation in the form of a war that, in the now-infamous phrase, "would cost 40 million American lives."

LBJ claimed that this very argument was enough to get Earl Warren to head the commission that would endorse Phase II of the cover-up: the admittedly contrived fallback position that Oswald acted alone.

So how did LBJ and other Phase I touts respond to the inevitable, outrage-driven question, "Are we going to let those Commie murderers off the hook?"

I think that the most likely response was something along these lines:

-- Powerful individuals within the Soviet and Cuban governments were responsible, but the assassination was not a sanctioned act of those governments. We'll take out the guilty parties in good time -- without spilling the blood of innocents in their tens of millions.

How else might movement from Phase I to Phase II have been facilitated peacefully?

[John Mooney]

Well maybe there are some possibilities.

1) The Phase II people knew what the Phase I people were up to and let them get on with it knowing they could put a cap on it later.

2) The Phase II people didn't know about Phase I but put a cap on it anyway because they knew it was global war otherwise.

3) Phase II and Phase I were all working together.

4) Some other possibility - Phase II really thought it was a LN (joke)?

The problem with 1) is that there is no way they could know that it could be capped by a LN scenario. Jackie, JFK or anyone in the car could have got their heads blown off simulataneously - or within 2 seconds of each other - immediately ending the LN theory.

With 2) they were fortunate that the event lent itself to a LN theory.

Scenario 3) Is unlikely, Phase II foiled Phase I.

I probably go with 2).

There is no way that 1) could have been planned beforehand because there is no way they could guarantee it could be made to look like a LN.

It could be something else.

[Bill Kelly]

Well maybe there are some possibilities.

1) The Phase II people knew what the Phase I people were up to and let them get on with it knowing they could put a cap on it later.

2) The Phase II people didn't know about Phase I but put a cap on it anyway because they knew it was global war otherwise.

3) Phase II and Phase I were all working together.

4) Some other possibility - Phase II really thought it was a LN (joke)?

The problem with 1) is that there is no way they could know that it could be capped by a LN scenario. Jackie, JFK or anyone in the car could have got their heads blown off simulataneously - or within 2 seconds of each other - immediately ending the LN theory.

With 2) they were fortunate that the event lent itself to a LN theory.

Scenario 3) Is unlikely, Phase II foiled Phase I.

I probably go with 2).

There is no way that 1) could have been planned beforehand because there is no way they could guarantee it could be made to look like a LN.

It could be something else.

Charles asks if LBJ promised to go and get the real killers of JFK - "We'll take out the guilty parties in good time" - and I don't think so, as they did him a favor and he is the one who left them off the hook by adopting the Lone Nut Phase Two scenario.

The link provided goes to a PDS discussion of the Oklahoma City bombing, and not the Phase One and Phase Two cover stories for the assassination of JFK.

I talk about them and pinpoint precisely when the decision was made to discount Phase One and go with Phase Two and who was party to the decision - LBJ - Cliff Carter - Walter Jenkins - when they were alone in LBJ's office room in the Executive Office Building on Friday Nov. 22, between 8:30 and 9:30 PM.

They had just gotten wind of the rumor that Dallas DA Henry Wade was going to charge Oswald with being part of an international communist conspiracy, which is exactly what assistant DA Alexander was doing, and being egged on by Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Joe Goulden.

LBJ put a squelch on it by having Cliff Carter call the attorney general of Texas and a number of other high Texas officials, who got to Wade, who was eating dinner at a restaurant. Wade confronted his staff and according to Vincent Bugliosi, Alexander lied and said they didn't intend to charge Oswald with commie conspiracy, even though he told Goulden they were.
[URL="http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/06/deep-politics-101-jfk-preview-to.html"]
JFKcountercoup: Deep Politics 101- Preview to the Tipping Point[/URL]

[URL="http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/06/tipping-point.html"]JFKcountercoup: The Tipping Point
[/URL]
Certainly the Phase One - Castro Commie Cover Story stems directly from the David Atlee Phillips - DRE - Alpha 66 - JMWAVE crowd, and very close to those we suspect of actually engineering the Dealey Plaza Operation - and that LBJ and Carter recognized it as a domestic conspiracy blaming the commies - but used it to create the WC and sustain the longshot but basically explainable Lone Nut scenario.

What is mysterious is how and why people still hold either the Phase One Cover Story, which Russo and Lettell and others still promote - "That's my story and I'm sticking to it," while others continue to believe Oswald was a deranged, psychologically motivated madman, and ignore the evidence he was set up for the crime and that he was a covert intelligence operative.

Along the same lines - the Mob did it - could be considered the Phase Three Cover Story, and one that is also still being promoted.

I don't know how many possible scenarios there could be, but I do know the assassination only happened one way.

BK
JFKcountercoup

[Charles Drago]

Charles asks if LBJ promised to go and get the real killers of JFK - and I don't think so, as he is the one who left them off the hook by adopting the Lone Nut Phase Two scenario.

That's not what I'm asking at all, Bill, so allow me to pose the question again -- this time a bit more artfully.

FOR EXAMPLE: If Earl Warren bought the Cubans/Russians-did-it Phase I story as TRUTH and chose to support the Phase II cover-up lie in order to avoid WW III, would he not have been expected to ask of LBJ and others in the know, "How will justice be done?"

ASKED ANOTHER WAY: Why would -- in this example -- Earl Warren permit Johnson to let the real killers off the hook? Why wouldn't he have reasoned, in essence, if the Cuban and Russians can get away with the murder of a U.S. president, what other acts of war will they be emboldened to carry out?

PUTTING YOU IN THOSE SHOES: "Okay General/Secretary/Judge Kelly, we've convinced you that the Cubans and Russians hit Jack Kennedy, but we're not willing to lose 40 million American lives by retaliating. So with your help we'll convince the people that a lone nut did it."

How does General/Secretary/Judge Kelly respond?

[Bill Kelly]

Charles asks if LBJ promised to go and get the real killers of JFK - and I don't think so, as he is the one who left them off the hook by adopting the Lone Nut Phase Two scenario.

That's not what I'm asking at all, Bill, so allow me to pose the question again -- this time a bit more artfully.

FOR EXAMPLE: If Earl Warren bought the Cubans/Russians-did-it Phase I story as TRUTH and chose to support the Phase II cover-up lie in order to avoid WW III, would he not have been expected to ask of LBJ and others in the know, "How will justice be done?"

ASKED ANOTHER WAY: Why would -- in this example -- Earl Warren permit Johnson to let the real killers off the hook? Why wouldn't he have reasoned, in essence, if the Cuban and Russians can get away with the murder of a U.S. president, what other acts of war will they be emboldened to carry out?

PUTTING YOU IN THOSE SHOES: "Okay General/Secretary/Judge Kelly, we've convinced you that the Cubans and Russians hit Jack Kennedy, but we're not willing to lose 40 million American lives by retaliating. So with your help we'll convince the people that a lone nut did it."

How does General/Secretary/Judge Kelly respond?

Okay, Sorry Charles, I get it, and my response is the same - I don't think LBJ ever promised Earl Warren or anyone - that justice would be done - and he replaced the regular US system of Justice - the grand jury system - with the Executive Summery of a written report that had no ability to indict suspects even if they did find a conspiracy.

I don't know about hypothetical situations, I have enough trouble trying to understand reality.

But the movement from Phase One to Phase Two was not justified with any threat or promise to learn the truth or obtain justice.

They didn't need to justify it.

They were just telling us that they killed the SOB in broad daylight in front of hundreds of people, and there's nothing you can do about it.

BK

[Charles Drago]

Perhaps.

Certainly the "you can't do anything about it" meme is at the core of the decision to do it the way it was done. I've known this for decades.

But my guess -- and it's no more or less valid than your own -- is that die-hard patriots who had bought the Cuban/Russian patsy construct were, at some point or other, pacified by tall tales of vengeance.

With my novelist's cap in place: Might not the death of Che have been characterized -- secretly and falsely, of course -- as an act of retribution against one of the JFK conspiracy's prime movers?

The way the alleged murder of OBL has been explained?

[Cliff Varnell]

Peter Dale Scott's masterful multi-phase JFK assassination cover-up hypothesis is both a distillation of previous research (his own and that of others) and a greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts template for post-Dallas deep state conspiracies and their aftermaths.

http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3835

Scott's Phase I describes the production of wholly contrived evidence suggesting that "the" Soviets and the Cubans had conspired successfully to kill the president. Release of this information to the public, it was argued by LBJ and others, would result in irresistible calls for retaliation in the form of a war that, in the now-infamous phrase, "would cost 40 million American lives."

LBJ claimed that this very argument was enough to get Earl Warren to head the commission that would endorse Phase II of the cover-up: the admittedly contrived fallback position that Oswald acted alone.

So how did LBJ and other Phase I touts respond to the inevitable, outrage-driven question, "Are we going to let those Commie murderers off the hook?"

I think that the most likely response was something along these lines:

-- Powerful individuals within the Soviet and Cuban governments were responsible, but the assassination was not a sanctioned act of those governments. We'll take out the guilty parties in good time -- without spilling the blood of innocents in their tens of millions.

How else might movement from Phase I to Phase II have been facilitated peacefully?

First, McGeorge Bundy called AF1 from the White House Situation Room and informed LBJ that there was no evidence of a conspiracy in Dallas. I think this call was to reassure LBJ that the powers-that-be had no intention of hanging the JFK assassination on him. Was it the fear of having been set-up that made Lyndon have a melt-down on AF1 (according to Gen. McHugh)?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-m-g...39026.html

That rush to judgment was followed up a little before 7pm EST 11/22/63 when W. Averell Harriman, the number 3 man at State and the capo di tutti capi of the Skull & Bones blueblood elite, shows up at the White House to tell Johnson that the US gov't's top Kremlinologists had unanimously concluded the Soviets had nothing to do with JFK's demise (this is according to Max Holland, who apparently heard the tapes).

Oswald's Red connections hit the airwaves circa 4:20 EST. According to his official biographer. Harriman went to the airport to greet AF1. That leaves less than 2 hours for the US gov't's top Kremlinologists to arrive at a certain conclusion when no other facts of the case were known. No where in Harriman's biography is such a meeting of the minds mentioned.

Did Harriman lie to Johnson? How could such counsel have been legitimately given? If Harriman knew the Russians weren't involved -- doesn't that indicate Harriman knew who was involved?

A little while later Jock Whitney, publisher of the New York Herald Tribune, popped into his office to write an editorial for the morning paper denouncing Oswald as a lone nut.

What did McGeorge Bundy, W. Averell Harriman, and Jock Whitney have in common?

Yale secret societies. WASP, Inc.

[John Mooney]

So how did LBJ and other Phase I touts...

Is it certain LBJ was a Phase I tout?

"Phase I tout" being somone involved in the creation of the "evidence" that Oswald was actively working for foreign powers?

I think possibly LBJ may have been aware that Kennedy was going to be killed (which was fine by him), but I don't know about him being fully up to speed on the details or motives or whether he was told another story until it was too late (like JFK and the Bay of Pigs invasion) and faced with fait accompli.

Is it not possible than on quickly learning the real motives of the assassination and where he was being pushed that he put the brakes on (Hoover as well), because even he couldn't see the potential death of 40 million Americans as a good idea.

And that would be the justification for Phase I to Phase II?

[Charles Drago]

Cliff, John,

For the purposes of this thread, I'm not interested in the criminal acts of LBJ or Harriman or anyone else.

OF COURSE those who created Phase I of the cover-up knew it was a lie.

Don't over-complicate my question.

I'll try to ask it one more time:

How were the most powerful people in and around government who, innocent of any involvement in the conspiracy, were told and accepted as being true what today we call the Phase I story, mollified when they asked (and I believe many of them did), "If we go along with this cover-up of Cuban and Soviet complicity for the greater good, how and when will the guilty Cuban and Soviet parties be punished?"

My hope is that I've finally found the words and constructions required to make my point.

Because I'm done trying.

[John Mooney]

Charles,

Your question may be too subtle for me, but this is how I see it:

I'm not sure the most powerful people in and around government openly asked the question ""If we go along with this cover-up of Cuban and Soviet complicity for the greater good, how and when will the guilty Cuban and Soviet parties be punished".

They were being told it was a lone nut by the President, Hoover and investigating authorities - "we have our man, no conspiracy" - from day one.

Were they going to call them liars at the height of the cold war?

Anyone who pondered a simplistic cover-up of "Cuban and Soviet complicity" were surely outside the real power circle anyway.

Those who knew the cover-up was of US intelligence complicity wouldn't ask your original question.

Are there not two groups here, divided by what they thought was being covered up?

And is it possible that the people you have put in the "Cuban and Soviet complicity" group were a bit smater than that and suspected something else? There were suspicions of an inside job from day one as well were there not?

The suspect list would have been a long one considering the number of people the Kennedys managed to upset in three years.

People in Government and power are generally not stupid and are usually deeply suspicous.