11/22/21

[Bill Chapman]

Because the documents protect sources and methods that they don't want to release and in fact have an obligation to protect. There may also be information about heretofore unknown operations. Much of this likely has little to do with the JFK case.

 

[Jerry Freeman]

Because the documents protect sources and methods that they don't want to release and in fact have an obligation to protect. There may also be information about heretofore unknown operations. Much of this likely has little to do with the JFK case.

Then they should be reviewed by the congressional intelligence committees and sorted out there.
   BTW--These sources and methods are a little out dated aren't they? I mean after 58 years...it's obviously not the same world.
Of course there is nothing nefarious to be concerned with when it comes to the CIA or the FBI right? 

[Jon Banks]

I know the CIA gets a bad rap over suspicion of their involvement with JFK's assassination but one thing which seems overlooked by the CT community is how there has been some disagreement within the intelligence community (going back to the Angleton era) about whether or not Oswald had accomplices.

Some former intelligence officers believe that the Russians and Cubans had prior knowledge and were involved in some way.

Former CIA Operative Argues Lee Harvey Oswald's Cuba Connections Went Deep
https://time.com/4753349/oswald-kennedy-declassified-documentary/

Former CIA chief's new book claims Oswald was KGB agent, killed JFK on order from then-Soviet leader Khrushchev
https://disrn.com/news/former-cia-chiefs-new-book-claims-oswald-was-kgb-agent-killed-jfk-on-order-from-then-soviet-leader-kruschev

Former CIA analyst Brian Latell: ‘Cuban intelligence officers were complicit in Kennedy’s death’
https://jfkfacts.org/former-cia-analyst-brian-latell-cuban-intelligence-officers-were-complicit-in-kennedys-death/


I find some of those theories to be compelling but still believe that it was most likely a domestic plot against JFK.

[Richard Smith]

One of the best indicators, if not the best, that the official narrative is correct, is the fact that contrarians never even attempt to provide a counternarrative (much less actual evidence) to explain what actually happened.

Trust "Richard" to actually confirm what I just said and come up with the biggest cop out of them all! Basically, he is saying here that he (the official narrative) is right unless a counter narrative proves him/it wrong. It's not a surprise, though. It's just about all "Richard" has to offer. In the real world, there is no need for a counter narrative. The official narrative either stands or doesn't when scrutinized. In this case it clearly doesn't, which is exactly why the LNs fail completely to defend it.

In fact, some contrarians won't even admit they are CTers.

Have you ever considered the possibility that somebody can scrutinize the official narrative, to see if it will withstand closer examination, without having any kind of theory about the conspiracy that must have existed, if the official narrative turns out to be a fairytale? Of course you haven't! Calling people CT's and contrarians is just a defense mechanism for you, designed to help you avoid having to discuss the actual evidence and the case.

Because the contrarian/defense attorney position requires no facts, evidence, common sense, or reason to defend.

To be a contrarian you need to dismiss, or disagree with, a popular opinion. That's not the case here as there is no popular opinion that supports the official narrative. For the past 58 years there has never been a majority in support of the official story. But, hey, when you disagree with "Richard" you must be a contrarian, right? 

You sound like a very bad prosecutor who complains to the judge that the defense is asking too many good questions.

Yawn.  Down the rabbit hole we go again.

[Dan O'meara]

58 years ago today.

What do we know with absolute certainty?

1. Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself and unassisted shot and killed John F. Kennedy.

In the short time I've been looking into this case, the only thing I know, with absolute certainty, is that there is not a single piece of credible evidence that Oswald took the shots.

Not a single piece!

Talking about "absolute certainty" over this matter reveals a belief system. A faith-based perception. Perhaps even indoctrination.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yawn.  Down the rabbit hole we go again.

See, I told you.... not even an attempt to defend his position. 

[Richard Smith]

See, I told you.... not even an attempt to defend his position.
[/quote

Perfect contrarian response.  Derail the discussion with personal insults.  Take no position on the matter being discussed.  Down the rabbit hole.