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

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Nice try, but your bulk rabbit hole diversion just referring to a Blob of musings doesn't work.

Your claim: But I know what happened (as far as any fact in this world can be known) Oswald killed JFK.

(and we can add Tippit, according to your Blob, which should double the fun once you get started on the facts)

So, let's see how far you can take the facts you claim to know!

Sorry, I don't respond to insults.

[Jerry Freeman]

Why was this file classified and kept secret for over 60 years?
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/docid-32336796.pdf

[Jerry Freeman]

This one seems interesting because it appears to reveal how much that government informants were paid weekly back in '60-'61 .... $35-$38   
Page 7 -8
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/docid-32336088.pdf

[John Iacoletti]

The answer remains that Oswald did it.

"remains".  LOL.

Like that "answer" has ever been demonstrated to be true.

[Richard Smith]

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?

Great example of taking the discussion down an endless contrarian rabbit hole.  Martin contends that the "answer is in plain sight."  When I ask him to simply explain what he means by this, we get endless deflection and hysterics. 

Here is a classic Martin statement that I defy anyone to make sense of: "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."  He has "no problem with the evidence" except for the "credibility" and "authentication" of that evidence!  Unreal. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Great example of taking the discussion down an endless contrarian rabbit hole.  Martin contends that the "answer is in plain sight."  When I ask him to simply explain what he means by this, we get endless deflection and hysterics. 

Here is a classic Martin statement that I defy anyone to make sense of: "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."  He has "no problem with the evidence" except for the "credibility" and "authentication" of that evidence!  Unreal.

It's once again putting the evidence in a sort of Twilight Zone. It exists but it doesn't; it's there but it's not; we can discuss it but we can't; you can cite it but you can't.

As in: "Yes, there's a photo of Oswald with the rifle; but it's not credible or authentic."

So how did it come into being? Who made it? If it exists then it came to be. How did that happen? Is it real or is it faked? His answer: both. And neither.

My New Year's Resolution was to stop doing this; just dismiss it. I couldn't make it through a week. Well, there's always 2023.

[John Iacoletti]

What's unreal is that "Richard" doesn't know the difference between evidence and subjective conclusions made about the evidence.