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

[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.