US National Archives: (some) Files to be released today

[Richard Smith]

So what did you mean by the "answer" was "hidden in plain sight for six decades"?

If you need to ask what it means, why did you respond to it when I said it?

It's hard to square that with being anything other than a closet CTer.

Yeah, yeah... blablabla... keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. You desperately need something to attack, don't you?

You are operating under some form of self-delusion if you think anyone could ever persuade you of Oswald's guilt.

So now you even think you know me better than I know myself? And then you talk about delusional? 

I can't translate any of this into a coherent point.  What did you mean by the answer was hidden in plain sight?  It is not a trick question.

[Martin Weidmann]

I can't translate any of this into a coherent point.  What did you mean by the answer was hidden in plain sight?  It is not a trick question.

I don't consider it to be a trick question. But you are so full of yourself that you first reply to a comment and then have to ask what the meaning of the comment was.

Since you seem to think you know it all, why don't you just try to figure it out. It isn't hard to do.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Instead of just waiting, why don't you share all you claim to know backed up with evidence?

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/parnell/index.htm

[Richard Smith]

I don't consider it to be a trick question. But you are so full of yourself that you first reply to a comment and then have to ask what the meaning of the comment was.

Since you seem to think you know it all, why don't you just try to figure it out. It isn't hard to do.

Why should I have to "figure it out"?  It's your statement we are discussing.  So much dodging.  It's almost as bad as when Bill called your bluff on debating him and you became hysterical.  It's impossible to understand what you are even babbling about here.  This is simple.  You said the answer is hidden in plain sight.  I'm just asking you to clarify what the "answer" is that you are referring to.  You don't accept the evidence that Oswald was the assassin.  That appears to narrow down the options to being a CTer but you also refuse to come out of the closet and admit you are a CTer.  Instead you retain your Inspector Clouseau persona of "suspecting everyone and suspecting no one."  Very humorous in how this highlights the dishonest, lazy, and bizarre contrarian approach to this case.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why should I have to "figure it out"?  It's your statement we are discussing.  So much dodging.  It's almost as bad as when Bill called your bluff on debating him and you became hysterical.  It's impossible to understand what you are even babbling about here.  This is simple.  You said the answer is hidden in plain sight.  I'm just asking you to clarify what the "answer" is that you are referring to.  You don't accept the evidence that Oswald was the assassin.  That appears to narrow down the options to being a CTer but you also refuse to come out of the closet and admit you are a CTer.  Instead you retain your Inspector Clouseau persona of "suspecting everyone and suspecting no one."  Very humorous in how this highlights the dishonest, lazy, and bizarre contrarian approach to this case.

So much venom from an entitled one who doesn't get his way. Pathetic!

A one trick poney sounding like a broken record stuck in a bad quality groove...

It's your statement we are discussing.

We are not discussing anything of the kind. You desperately want to discuss it. I am not interested in discussing it. If you want you can figure it out yourself and if you don't want to, that's ok by me as well.

You don't accept the evidence that Oswald was the assassin.

Says who? As per usual you're completely missing the mark. I have no problem with the evidence, such as it is. My problem is with the credibility and authentication of that evidence as well as the assumptions made to connect non existing dots and the conclusions that are not supported by that same evidence.

That appears to narrow down the options to being a CTer but you also refuse to come out of the closet and admit you are a CTer.

You really can't let this go, can you now? I've already told you where my interests lie and I am not going to tell you again. Deal with it.... or don't. See if I care.

Oh and btw, talking about chickening out, why haven't you accepted my little Europe challenge?

[Jon Banks]

This is the inevitable evolution on the CTer narrative. When the documents are not all released, it means the government is hiding evidence of a conspiracy.  When the documents are released and don't provide any evidence of a conspiracy, the take is that the conspirators wouldn't document the act.  And on and on forever pivoting to avoid checkmate.

Unbelievable how you're still blaming "CT'ers" for ordinary people speculating that the government must have something to hide if they won't de-classify the files.

Blame the US government for failing to be transparent. Blame Donald Trump and Joe Biden if you must.

[Robert Reeves]

These are in sequence of date.









I've not found any researcher investigations of this allegation that Marina had a Moroccan boyfriend in Moscow. And slim pickings on details of whether LHO had visited Tangier Morocco.