THE AMERICAN COUP D'ETAT OF 1963 - Lee Harvey Oswald

The American writer Josiah Thompson has remarked on the implausibility of an American leftie in the early 1960s murdering the left-wing President John F Kennedy in Dallas of all places, at the very heart of the right-wing American South. The reason that it is implausible is because it is absurd, and the reason it is absurd is because it is pretentious. Pretences are always the opposite of the fact, so to discover the truth behind one, it is necessary to reverse the values in the pretence. The designer of this one would be a right-winger, probably having originated from the South himself, and since he is pretentious, he would be operating in a pretentious situation, such as a right-winger in JFK's Democrat government, where he would also be in a position to organize everything.

The 1960s was a unique decade in American history, because it featured no less than three high-profile political assassinations, all of them committed with guns (the gun lobby being very strong in the South), and all the victims were left-wingers. Two of the victims were the Kennedy brothers, who carried the same political values and hopes for the American public, namely John F Kennedy himself and Robert F Kennedy, who was in the process of running for the presidency when he was murdered. Both died in public rallies. The third victim was Martin Luther King, whose civil rights campaign for black people was getting elbow-room under JFK's government, and whose politics would have been very much disliked by a right-winger from the South.

All three of these attacks have features and evidence suggestive of a conspiracy, and all have produced culprits whose guilt is contested, and all have the same victim type. They all accord with the above profile of the designer, and they indicate someone in government being behind all these events.

The anti-talented don't leave evidence of the truth behind them, they only leave evidence for their pretence, and in order to suss them out, it is necessary to resolve the pretence logically. One often can't prove guilt in these cases except by deductive logic.

In addition to the design of the pretence, it is necessary to look for motive and opportunity, and these point directly to Lyndon B Johnson, who, as Vice President, stepped into the Presidency after the murder of JFK, and who was in power when RFK and Martin Luther King were murdered. He came from Texas and carried the votes of the South for the Democrats.

Only someone in government and in a position of power could have organized all this carnage, and the only person whose ambition serves as motive for it is Lyndon B Johnson, who went on to cause great damage to western society through the hippy movement when he attacked North Vietnam in 1965, turning what looked like a defensive war obligation into an offensive one. The damage to western democracy that was caused by this would be consistent with the effects that would have arisen from the after-effects of these assassinations if he had organized them. Anyone who has read Alfred Jarry's Ubu writings will be able to recognize the symbolism of Ubu in LBJ's career and in these events, and Ubuisms abound in the conspiracy that sacrificed Lee Harvey Oswald.

In the matter of motive, it is well-known that LBJ hated the Kennedy brothers both personally and politically, and as a right-winger, he must also have hated Martin Luther King. And being the man who drafted teenagers into the Army to fuel his war in Vietnam, he was evidently capable and willing to sacrifice pawns like Lee Harvery Oswald and Police Officer Tippit for his designs.

In 1963, the murder of a president was not a federal offence, so it didn't come under the jurisdiction of the FBI. Whoever designed the events in Dallas would have known that the Dallas police would have responsibility for the investgation.

Throughout the two days that Lee harvey Oswald was in police custody, he behaved as an innocent man must, being bewildered, polite with the press at public gatherings, but narked underneath. He appealed to the press for a lawyer, and knew only what the police had told him. No record was kept of his questioning by the police, and he called out to the press that he was a patsy, this being a Mafia word for someone who is set up to take the punishment for a crime that he did not commit. Either he was lying, or else he was a witness and victim in a conspiracy. If he had been involved in the assassination of JFK, why would he defend himself by saying that he was a patsy?

Oswald's behaviour while in custody indicates that he was always speaking the truth when dealing with the press. The police had only one eyewitness, who claimed that he had been sitting opposite the Texas School Book Depository where one of the assassins was stationed, and that he had seen a man later identified by the police as Lee Harvey Oswald withdraw a rifle from a window on the sixth floor. The police immediately broadcast a description, which was of an "unknown" white male, slender build, age about 30, and 165 pounds.

An eyewitness would not be able to tell the difference surely between 160 and 170 pounds in a person's weight, and this detail (165 pounds) is too precise for an authentic eyewitness description. It suggests a known value, or perhaps an example of what happens with liars, the precision being used to give substance to fake information. The description of the man at the window (with the exception of the word "unknown") may have come from government records of a known man, and the use of the term "unknown", which is unnecessary, looks like another pretence, the point being that they might have known the man they were looking for from the outset.

While he was being transferred by the police to the county jail, Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby, amidst a mass of TV cameras and press. The timing of this must be significant because after this critical point, no one would have been able to get at Oswald, and he would have been able to defend himself in a trial. Yet afterwards Jack Ruby claimed "ruefully" to the press that if he had taken an illegal turn in his car as he had intended, he wouldn't be in the situation he was in now after the shooting. We are therefore required to believe that Oswald's murder happened by chance, and that the imminence of a trial defence was not the reason for killing him. In this, Ruby was using a traffic illegality that he had not committed to rue another illegality (homicide) which he had committed, and this looks like another pretence. And why should Ruby rue having murdered Oswald if that was what he had wanted to do, and if he had done it in front of the press?

He seems to have done the same thing over his motive, when he claimed that he had done it to protect Mrs Kennedy from the ordeal of having to testify in court, and this is the reverse of the practical motive to prevent Oswald from testifying in court, which must be the real motive, and this looks like another pretence. And as Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald, he called out (to the press), "You shot the President!" His words refer to the office rather than to the popular figurehead of JFK, which impersonalizes his attitude to Kennedy, so that his motive again looks pretentious.

Ruby claimed that he had shot Oswald on an impulse having been attracted by the crowd that had gathered for his transfer to jail, but this doesn't accord with the facts, because on this occasion he had a gun, while the night before, he was seen and photographed at a similar public showing of Oswald, when he did not have a gun, or did not use it if he did have one.

Ruby's pretentious behaviour may be due to his personality in this situation, but the fact remains that in killing Oswald in a public rally, he had copied what had happened to JFK, and he had silenced a witness that an innocent government and the American public would have wished to interrogate.

For a time after his arrest, Oswald only knew that he was being charged with the murder of Police Officer Tippit, whose killer had led the police to the cinema where Oswald was arrested. This cinema is considered to have been used as a secret rendez-vous point for CIA operatives at the time, which would suggest that he had gone there according to earlier instructions and that he was working for the CIA, which had always been his mother's understanding. Private investigators subsequently found the fingerprints of a known Texas assassin named Malcolm Everett Wallace in the Texas School Book Depository building crime scene, and Wallace had a history of association with LBJ, and he owed his liberty and his life to LBJ's legal friends.

If Oswald had knowingly been involved in the assassination of JFK, why would he be carrying with him on the day of the assassination the identity papers of the alias Alik Hidell, the name in which the rifle that was left at the Book Depository building had been bought by mail order earlier that year? This logically would not have been his own design, unless he intended to take the credit for the assassination. The revolver that killed Police Officer Tippit was also ordered through the same alias, which makes this situation doubly absurd. It is evidently a pretence.

Neither of these weapons was suitable for the murders, because JFK was killed with high-velocity bullets, and the rifle that was left behind for evidence was a low-velocity weapon from the Second World War, while the killer of officer Tippit fired five shots into him, and this pistol is likely to have been an automatic. The shell cases were left behind. These weapons appear to have been bought purely for evidence to implicate Oswald.

Witnesses saw two men involved in this attack. Police Officer Tippit was said to have been murdered after getting out of his car and approaching a man on the street as the news about the assassination of JFK was spreading. It is claimed that he was acting on the description that was being broadcast by the police of their suspect in the JFK murder. After a brief conversation, the man shot him five times and fled. The killer had evidently meant to kill the officer, but if Tippit was following up the description of the suspect on the radio, there would be no reason why the man should be sure to murder him. This does not look like a spontaneous police officer shooting. This killing led the authorities to the arrest of Oswald in the cinema, and like Oswald and JFK (and Ruby) Tippit could have been set up for this.

Witnesses of Oswald's behaviour inside the Texas Book Depository Building saw an employee behaving normally. Oswald left the Book Depository Building by the front door onto the street and caught a bus. He had been standing casually by a soft drinks machine when the police entered the building and he was vouched for by a fellow employee. Another witness saw a strange man running out of the building by the back door after the shooting, which is logically the guilty way out.

Oswald left the Book Depository shortly after the police had arrived and he caught a bus, but this got stuck in traffic, and he got off and caught a taxi. This suggests that he was in a hurry. When he got back to his rooming house he stayed for only three minutes, during which time his landlady saw a police car pull up outside and toot its horn twice before driving off. Oswald then left and walked to the cinema where he was seized by the police. This indicates that his hurry had only concerned the timing of his arrival home.

This sequence of events has Oswald leaving the police at the scene of the assassination, and Oswald being summoned by the police at a pre-arranged rendez-vous, and Oswald being picked up by the police at another pre-arranged rendez-vous, nicely fitted up with the incriminating evidence and the assassinations of JFK and Police Officer Tippit.

Lee Harvey Oswald fits the victim profile in this series of murders entirely. He was a leftist utopeanist who had expressed his views on local TV and radio during 1963, so that he had a similar political orientation to the three high-profile murder victims of the 60s, as well as having surfaced in the mass media as they had done. His left-wing politics would have been the reason that he had been selected for the patsy. His assassin Jack Ruby had significant police, political and underworld connections, so that all aspects of the conspiracy are encapsulated in his involvement.

Oswald's mother had always understood that her son was working for the government in some way, and if this were so, it would mean that all three victims in the JFK case would have been working for the government when they were murdered. This again would indicate a conspirator in government, especially since Oswald's role would have been clandestine.

The question remains whether it is possible to trace a connection between Oswald and the CIA, and the only way that this can be done is through the pattern of his behaviour in 1963, which suggests that there was a conspiracy.

During this period Oswald rented a Post Office box because he was always changing address, and only he and his wife Marina had access to it. It was only accessible to the names of Lee Harvey Oswald, Marina Oswald, and the pseudonym A J Hidell. This means that either Oswald had ordered the incrinimating rifle and revolver, which he strenuously denied, or else his wife had. On at least one occasion Marina had added the name A J Hidell to a personal document of Oswald's without his knowledge of it.

Oswald's activities of that year include another revealing incident, the attempted assassination of General Walker, which is alleged to have occurred in April. Oswald's wife Marina is the source of information that Oswald had been responsible for it. The General had been sitting behind a window at home, and Oswald is alleged to have fired a single shot at him with the rifle, but the bullet hit the window frame. The General was unhurt.

This incident corresponds with the assassination of JFK in a perfect symmetry of opposite values, the General being a right-winger while JFK was a left-winger; the General being a sitting duck for a target while JFK was a moving target and at some considerable distance; and the attempted assassination on the easy target being unsuccessful while the extremely difficult target was successfully killed. This pattern of values exactly matches the overall pretence of this case and completes it. It produces the same designer profile again: a right-winger, in government, with a base in Dallas, and it shows that Marina Oswald would have been actively involved in the treachery against Lee Harvey Oswald.

The people closest to the Oswalds in the year 1963 were the Paines, Ruth and Michael, neither of whom liked Oswald, and he didn't like them (nor did his elder brother Robert). They made contact with the Oswalds in March, after which the incriminating rifle was ordered. An investigator afterwards became suspicious because he wasn't able to get access to the Paines' tax records for 1963 or other state documents as they were covered by national security. The Paines belonged to a family of Quakers in Philadelphia and had several relatives who were employed by an organization that is thought to be connected to the CIA and naval intelligence. It was through Ruth Paine that Oswald got his job at the Texas School Book Depository building, and it was through her that he got his lodgings at the time of the assassination. Oswald's Russian wife Marina lived at the Paines' house in the spring and autumn of 1963 while Oswald lived separately.

In the summer, Oswald went to New Orleans where his wife joined him, and it was there that he established his pro-Cuba image, handing out leaflets in support of Castro which he had printed off himself, and getting into a fight over them with an anti-Castro group that he had infiltrated. He earned a night in jail for this and a $10 fine, as well as publicity and local TV and radio appearances in which he expounded his political views. Without joining the Fair Play For Cuba Committee, he set himself up as an unofficial chapter and produced hundreds of membership cards. On one of these his wife Marina wrote the alias A J Hidell as the chapter president, thus linking this activity with the ordering of the incriminating evidence and with Oswald's arrest.

While he was in New Orleans, Oswald is understood to have gone to Mexico City in an attempt to get visas for Cuba and Soviet Russia at the Cuban embassy there (although there is doubt that this was actually Oswald). This would imply in a conspiracy that he was organizing an escape route. While there, he made contact with a Steve Kennan (or Keenan), who was a Quaker from Philadelphia and who is understood to have been an undercover operator for both the Russian KGB and the CIA. Two telephone calls were made there in the name of Oswald in which Cuba and a Russian assassin were connected, and both a CIA source and J Edgar Hoover in the FBI noted that the voice in these calls was not that of Oswald, and that the caller was an impostor. This means that while Oswald was in Mexico, or if he was in Mexico, his affairs were being organized by others without his knowledge.

The elements of this situation harmonize exactly with his situation back home, because all the factors match. It has a Russia - assassin - CIA - Philadelphia Quakers - Cuba connection in Mexico involving an Oswald impostor, while back in New Orleans and Dallas there is an identical connection, viz: Russia (Oswald's Russian wife and Oswald's and Ruth Paine's knowledge of the Russian language) - assassin (Mac Wallace, and the murderers of JFK and Police Officer Tippit (and Oswald)) - Cuba (whereby Oswald was acting as an impostor in the Fair Play For Cuba Committee) - Philadelphia Quakers (the Paines and their family) - and then there is the implication from this matching pattern of a secretive CIA connection. Likewise there is a link-up between the impostor-assassin factors at both ends, because in Mexico there is the telephone call of the Oswald impostor and the mention of the Russian assassin, and in the USA there is an implicit Oswald-impostor-assassin, and an Oswald the impostor-assassin, whereby the conspiracy is revealed again. An interesting extra circumstance is that Michael Paine is seen as a dead-ringer for Oswald himself, resembling him in age and appearance and weight.

This symmetrical pattern implies that Oswald was working for the CIA, but not in a way that he would have wished, and with others controlling his affairs and his destiny. The thread is intricately slippery but the sum is geometrically perfect.

And above all this there is the same pattern again, with an impostor-leftie in JFK's government and Democrat Party (LBJ) who is linked by an assassin's fingerprint to the Texas School Book Depository and the assassinations of JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald. And there is the Cuba-Russia factor again, which LBJ used to justify the Warren Commission the following year. The Warren Commission was set up in 1964 to investigate (or whitewash) the assassination of JFK, and it concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone in the murder of JFK. This outcome has caused conspiracy theories to flourish ever since. LBJ took political advantage of this by disregarding its finding himself and taking the view that a Cuban conspiracy had been behind the assassination, so that he had a foot in both camps, with Lee Harvey Oswald fitted up both ways. Yet LBJ had persuaded a reluctant Warren to take part in his investigation by saying that otherwise a Cuba-Russia conspiracy would be implicated in the murders, which implies that LBJ knew that they hadn't been involved and that the purpose of the Commission was to reach the conclusion that it did reach. Here again, LBJ has a foot in both camps, using concern about a Cuban conspiracy to justify the Warren Commission and its finding, while ignoring its finding and preferring the Cuban conspiracy theory afterwards.

Everything in this case indicates an American coup d'etat. Every aspect of it has a secretive value that is difficult to trace, with disappearing evidence and signs of pretences at every point of the official case, and matching symmetrical values everywhere, all of them recurring. It is a perfect, geometric, three-dimensional whole, a tesseract of deception and pretence.

There is a large list of witnesses to the assassination of JFK, whose accounts attracted harassment from the police and who died mysteriously or were murdered soon afterwards. Among these was the manager of a motel complex in Oklahoma who claimed on the 23rd November that three men (and not Oswald) had killed the President and that a man called Ruby would kill Oswald tomorrow. Another witness saw two men in preparation and action on the Grassy Knoll where it is believed shots were fired during the assassination. Another witness saw a strange man run out of the back door of the Texas School Book Depository shortly after the shooting. These two witnesses account for the three assassins that the motel manager had referred to. Two women tried to warn people that the President was going to be killed in Dallas, and one of them was an employee of Jack Ruby's. Another witness who saw the killer of Officer Tippit running away awkwardly while trying to get his pistol into his belt saw a different haircut than Oswald's.

The assassination of JFK was a catastrophe for the American people at the time, but the most damaging long-term effects would be the success of any such conspiracy. So long as such a deception succeeds, western democracies cannot be trusted to govern themselves honourably, and innocent people cannot be safe in them. Innocent citizens should never be sacrificed to the detriment of their nation.

By David Dixon.

Revising April 2008

For the Algebra of Justice click here.

For the Ian Huntley case click here.

For the probable identity of Jack the Ripper and an innovative account of the Whitechapel murders click here.

justalgebra@yahoo.com