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

[Charles Drago]

Jan,

Amen.

And thank you for your many kindnesses, most especially and on this thread:


"My own interpretation of this thread is that Charles pitched it high.

"He cited the work of Prof Peter Dale Scott and wanted to use this thread to explore a hypothesis. And right from the start, that hypothesis was ignored, and discussion took place in another dimension.

A Twilight Zone - if you will."


I think it appropriate to re-post my introductory offering:

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?

The bold section above was not highlighted in the original. I draw everyone's attention to it now -- especially to the word "inevitable" -- to support my statement for the record that yes, at the core of my hypothesis are my assumptions that the Phase I story was created to be used and was used in the fashion I describe, and that those who bought it almost certainly would have asked the "When/how will be strike back?" questions.

Forgive me for being a cockeyed optimist, but I never suspected that I would have to provide the following definition to even one DPF reader:

hy·poth·e·sis (h-pth-ss)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.


I failed to declare the obvious with an air of discovery. Then all hell broke loose. And at one point it occurred to me that if the Dealey Plaza shooters had missed their target as often as some correspondents on this thread have missed my point, John Kennedy would have lived to comb gray hairs.

Perhaps if I had opened the proceedings with "WHAT IF ... " or "LET'S CLOSE OUR EYES AND MAKE BELIEVE ... " we might avoided the ugliness.

All of this being stated:

Adele, I thank you for your clarifying, much needed words here. You can share my foxhole anytime.

And that goes for you too, Jan -- and Magda, and Dawn. Despite what I might have written last night.

My best to you,

Charles