03-01-2013, 02:14 PM
I'm posting tentatively because I am aware that there are many people here more knowledgable than me, and that fools are not taken lightly.
I'm sure that I read somewhere in the 80s that the flow of traffic on Houston Street is from north to south, that is, the opposite direction to the motorcade. I'm sure that this was the case when I visited Dealey Plaza in 2000. What was the normal flow of traffic in 1963?
Also I read that Joachim Joesten took cabs from Main to the Trade Mart (to prove this point) and never went via Elm.
So the question becomes - did anyone ever explain the rationale for a motorcade route that did not even form the normal flow of traffic, especially when this violated known protocols?
Secondly, over the Christmas break I read Last Word by Mark Lane. I'd read Plausible Denial earlier in 2012 but the claims of CIA involvement were clinched for me by the knowledge that the CIA were the provider of authentic Secret Service credentials and materials until 1964.
Clearly the CIA had spent considerable time laying the foundations of Mexico City even before the assassination (which I take as their foreknowledge and participation) and yet some silly errors were made. For example, the "photo" of Oswald in Mexico City that wasn't him. They went to the trouble of providing that photo with the background removed, yet still gave the photo of the wrong guy. If they were going to remove the background, why not simply use an authentic (but covert) photo of Oswald taken anywhere?
Similarly, why lay the trail to the MC-owning Oswald and then leave a Mauser on the 6th Floor?
I'm assuming that shooters were placed to coincide with the "above and behind" story, whether in TSBD and/or elsewhere. My further assumption is that a frontal shooter (wherever located) was a kind of back-stop. I'm guessing that the plan was not to fire from in front unless it was clear that the fatal shot had not been landed and there was a chance the plan might not work. Unless the plotters were so brazen that they though they would be able to "sell" the LN case despite medical evidence showing frontal shot(s)?
Or was the idea to double-bluff? To leave a trail of an incompetent plot (Mauser, photo etc) to make the LN case the "Occams Razor" alternative? A false bread-trail?
I'm sure that I read somewhere in the 80s that the flow of traffic on Houston Street is from north to south, that is, the opposite direction to the motorcade. I'm sure that this was the case when I visited Dealey Plaza in 2000. What was the normal flow of traffic in 1963?
Also I read that Joachim Joesten took cabs from Main to the Trade Mart (to prove this point) and never went via Elm.
So the question becomes - did anyone ever explain the rationale for a motorcade route that did not even form the normal flow of traffic, especially when this violated known protocols?
Secondly, over the Christmas break I read Last Word by Mark Lane. I'd read Plausible Denial earlier in 2012 but the claims of CIA involvement were clinched for me by the knowledge that the CIA were the provider of authentic Secret Service credentials and materials until 1964.
Clearly the CIA had spent considerable time laying the foundations of Mexico City even before the assassination (which I take as their foreknowledge and participation) and yet some silly errors were made. For example, the "photo" of Oswald in Mexico City that wasn't him. They went to the trouble of providing that photo with the background removed, yet still gave the photo of the wrong guy. If they were going to remove the background, why not simply use an authentic (but covert) photo of Oswald taken anywhere?
Similarly, why lay the trail to the MC-owning Oswald and then leave a Mauser on the 6th Floor?
I'm assuming that shooters were placed to coincide with the "above and behind" story, whether in TSBD and/or elsewhere. My further assumption is that a frontal shooter (wherever located) was a kind of back-stop. I'm guessing that the plan was not to fire from in front unless it was clear that the fatal shot had not been landed and there was a chance the plan might not work. Unless the plotters were so brazen that they though they would be able to "sell" the LN case despite medical evidence showing frontal shot(s)?
Or was the idea to double-bluff? To leave a trail of an incompetent plot (Mauser, photo etc) to make the LN case the "Occams Razor" alternative? A false bread-trail?
