Any CIA disinformation agents here?

[Lance Payette]

Lance... I'm with you... Thanks for clarifying and being cordial until I fully understood your thoughts...

I think it's pretty unlikely the CIA would concern itself with the JFKA at all, at least at the level of hiring faux Lone Nutters to haunt internet forums. But if they did, it makes far more sense that the disinformation agents would be H&L types who embarrass the entire CT effort. The Paul Bennewitz case really is instructive. When he stumbled upon secret military activities, the AFOSI didn't simply try to convince him these weren't secret military activities. No, they led him into near-insanity with tales of alien treaties, underground alien bases and all the rest. The Dulce Underground Alien Base was a major, major story in the UFO community at the time and still haunts more serious UFO research efforts. It was clearly intended to disrupt and embarrass - and it DID, in spades. In fact, I'm going to start a thread about the uncanny parallels between the Roswell UFO case and the JFKA. Most CTers have no real idea as to how the Conspiracy Game operates in other arenas - i.e., exactly the way it operates in the JFKA. This doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy, but it is reason for caution before diving headfirst down the conspiracy rabbit hole.

I try to have fun with this because the CT community is so grimly humorless and it never, ever occurs to them that the lunatic fringes of their own community are where CIA disinformation agents, if there were any, would likely be found.

[Richard Smith]

What difference does it make to anyone in government today what anyone believes happened in 1963?

Isn't that the ultimate question?

Which raises another: Why have there been persistent efforts to keep the public from knowing all there is to know about the assassination of our president, which happened over 60 years ago?

Yeah... these are the questions.

And another question: "Why shouldn't we know "the sources?"

Every law-abiding citizen should want to know "the sources" involved in either the assassination of their president or the cover-up... and should want to know "the methods" used for either the assassination or the cover-up or perhaps, the framing of Oswald.

To claim that such secrecy of "sources" and "methods" is an effort to protect national security is most likely the reason given by those who are trying to hide something - to protect prominent names or government agencies or some other entity.

Furthermore, national security is jeopardized MOST when "sources" and "methods" are protected from exposure.
THAT is what jeopardizes national security... as well as the security of every citizen who might be framed and blamed.

And who has any trust in anything government officials say, when the highest ranking law enforcement official dictates a memo THE DAY AFTER the assassination, that says:

(On November 23, 1963) "The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."

THE DAY AFTER!

If that doesn't concern you... Whew!... I'm not sure any rational conversation about this can be productive...

It is possible that intelligence sources that were used to investigate Oswald's connection to Russia, Cuba, and the mob are still alive.  The lives of those people and their families might be at risk if their identities became known.  Again, though, intelligence agencies are secretive by nature.  Their inclination is to never disclose any information.  Nothing good can come from that from their perspective.  You are conflating that with having something to hide about the JFK assassination.  They are not the same thing.  Once the remaining documents are released and they do not provide any evidence of a conspiracy, will you be satsified that LHO acted alone?  My guess is no.

[Jake Maxwell]

I'm not sure anyone in the US government is concerned about the lives of people in Russia or Cuba who might have been connected to Oswald or JFK's assassination in any way.

The most likely concern to explain all the secrecy is to protect the reputation of prominent families here, or the reputation of the agencies who pulled off a coup and pinned it on Oswald.

When the top law enforcement official dictates a memo THE DAY AFTER the assassination, that says:

(On November 23, 1963) "The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin." - J. Edgar Hoover

THE DAY AFTER!

If that doesn't concern you... Whew!... I'm not sure any rational conversation about this can be productive... and I wouldn't suspect you to accept a conspiracy at the top level if MORE evidence is produced to implicate the guilty parties.

Did I say, THE DAY AFTER!?

Yes, THE DAY AFTER!

Hoover had no concern to discover the truth of the matter. A rush to judgment and a rush to pin it all on Oswald.
If that doesn't concern you and make you want to investigate Hoover and others at the top level of government, you have little or no concern for truth and justice... and no concern for the principle of "innocent, until proven guilty."

There's your evidence of conspiracy, if you choose to accept it.

[Richard Smith]

I'm not sure anyone in the US government is concerned about the lives of people in Russia or Cuba who might have been connected to Oswald or JFK's assassination in any way.

The most likely concern to explain all the secrecy is to protect the reputation of prominent families here, or the reputation of the agencies who pulled off a coup and pinned it on Oswald.

When the top law enforcement official dictates a memo THE DAY AFTER the assassination, that says:

(On November 23, 1963) "The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin." - J. Edgar Hoover

THE DAY AFTER!

If that doesn't concern you... Whew!... I'm not sure any rational conversation about this can be productive... and I wouldn't suspect you to accept a conspiracy at the top level if MORE evidence is produced to implicate the guilty parties.

Did I say, THE DAY AFTER!?

Yes, THE DAY AFTER!

Hoover had no concern to discover the truth of the matter. A rush to judgment and a rush to pin it all on Oswald.
If that doesn't concern you and make you want to investigate Hoover and others at the top level of government, you have little or no concern for truth and justice... and no concern for the principle of "innocent, until proven guilty."

There's your evidence of conspiracy, if you choose to accept it.

The US is not interested in the lives of intelligence sources who aided them?  I doubt that would give much confidence to anyone who is thinking about providing the US with information in the future when they find out the policy is to reveal their names at some point.  There were legitimate reasons to convince the public that Oswald was guilty.  First and foremost, because he WAS guilty.  He did it.  The evidence leaves no doubt.  Second, you would not WWIII to break out because some paranoid conspiracy theorists convinced the public that Russia or Cuba was involved when they were not.  Those are very legitimate and compelling reasons. 

[Jake Maxwell]

The US is not interested in the lives of intelligence sources who aided them?  I doubt that would give much confidence to anyone who is thinking about providing the US with information in the future when they find out the policy is to reveal their names at some point.  There were legitimate reasons to convince the public that Oswald was guilty.  First and foremost, because he WAS guilty.  He did it.  The evidence leaves no doubt.  Second, you would not WWIII to break out because some paranoid conspiracy theorists convinced the public that Russia or Cuba was involved when they were not.  Those are very legitimate and compelling reasons.

So, here you are taking up for Hoover, saying he had "legitimate reasons to convince the public that Oswald was guilty."

And the first reason is "because he [Oswald] WAS guilty. He did it. The evidence leaves no doubt."

Do you really think Hoover had all the evidence within ONE DAY to justify condemning Oswald? And that Hoover knew from the evidence he did it, and there was "no doubt?"

It's people who rush to judgment like this who are a threat to national security.

No... you've got the narrative wrong. Hoover was not trying to protect the US... He was most likely trying to protect himself and his cronies from being exposed.
To hell with justice, let Oswald be condemned.

[Tim Nickerson]

The lunatic fringe at the Ed Forum - notably one of the current moderators, but he's not alone - is obsessed with the idea that internet forums and specifically JFKA forums are literally teeming with paid CIA disinformation agents posing as Lone Nutters. The EF loons worship at the altar of someone named Cass R. Sunstein. This was a new name to me, but apparently he suggested the idea years ago.

Because I'm sane, I find this notion wildly implausible. If it's true, hopefully Elon and DOGE will soon get to the bottom of it and stop the CIA from wasting $30 billion annually on internet trolls so the money can be better spent on a fleet of Tesla cybertrucks.

In the meantime, however, yours truly would like to get in on the gig if possible. Are any of my fellow Lone Nutters here on the payroll? How much are you paid? Who do I contact? Just send me a PM if outing yourself in public would violate your contract and cause your name to be added to the list of Mysterious JFK-Related Deaths.

Let's be serious here, folks: If the CIA actually had the inclination and resources to sponsor legions of internet trolls, do you really think said trolls would be posing as Lone Nutters? Or would they pose as absolute lunatics, people who believe things like Harvey & Lee and Prayer Person and Jim Garrison and Other Assorted Nonsense, thereby embarrassing the JFKA community and causing all CT efforts to be laughed at?

That's right, The Caped Factoid Buster hereby accuses the EF loons and anyone here of similar CT ilk of being CIA disinformation agents! Prove you aren't or shut up. I'm looking at you, EF forum moderators, because there is no way anyone this side of an asylum actually believes the absurdities you purport to believe. Promoting Harvey & Lee is, ipso facto, proof that you receive $750 a month from the CIA and have a red telephone with a direct line to Langley. Prove you don't!

(On the small chance that any fellow Lone Nutters actually are on the payroll, however, do let me know how it works because the price of Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Ale has simply gone through the roof since The Donald was elected.)

Anyway, this video was recently posted at EF and will confirm your darkest suspicions:

To be frank, the pay is not very good. I could do a lot better in the private sector.

[John Mytton]

So, here you are taking up for Hoover, saying he had "legitimate reasons to convince the public that Oswald was guilty."

And the first reason is "because he [Oswald] WAS guilty. He did it. The evidence leaves no doubt."

Do you really think Hoover had all the evidence within ONE DAY to justify condemning Oswald? And that Hoover knew from the evidence he did it, and there was "no doubt?"

It's people who rush to judgment like this who are a threat to national security.

No... you've got the narrative wrong. Hoover was not trying to protect the US... He was most likely trying to protect himself and his cronies from being exposed.
To hell with justice, let Oswald be condemned.

All the agencies and people accused of being involved with a conspiracy were not connected, so how was this planned?

Hoover and FBI were behind it?
The CIA had Oswald as an employee?
The rich Texas oilmen profited?
The Dallas Police planted evidence?
The SS were relaxed with their security and stole the body?
The medical autopsy was a fraud?
Various private citizens lied, for what reason? Fame maybe, Fortune definitely not.

Whereas on the other hand if it's just Oswald, there is no need for any accusations, Oswald did it with a side helping of a little human incompetence which is to be expected with an investigation with so many hands involved. In fact having so many differing agencies would have kept everyone as honest as they possibly could be, because who knew who was looking over their shoulder!

JohnM