JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Robert Reeves on December 15, 2021, 05:46:50 PM
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvMT0rYX/files-to-be-relwased.jpg)
-
Good to hear. I'm glad to see that the files are being digitized.
-
Anyone know --- Was this ever resolved? Ruby visited Cuba in late 1962 or 1963?
(https://i.postimg.cc/XqVfPXdr/was-ruby-in-cuba-1963.jpg)
-
These files are really helpful. Now I know who killed Kennedy. Oswald.
-
These files are really helpful. Now I know who killed Kennedy. Oswald.
Good one. My understanding is that most of these have been released before with minor redactions. CTers cling to the unreleased documents mantra like a drowning man to a straw. The answer is out there!
-
Anyone know --- Was this ever resolved? Ruby visited Cuba in late 1962 or 1963?
(https://i.postimg.cc/XqVfPXdr/was-ruby-in-cuba-1963.jpg)
Never resolved no. He went in 58 or 59 but nothing to prove he went again.
-
Politico: What’s Missing From the New JFK Document Release
In October, President Joe Biden announced he was restarting the process of declassifying and releasing the documents under provisions of a 1992 law, the Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act. He scheduled this week’s release and another for next December — declaring the disclosures “critical to ensure that the United States Government maximizes transparency.”
But the announcement also contained an admission that should worry anyone who truly believes in transparency. Biden is the first president to come close to acknowledging what cynical conspiracy theorists have long assumed: There are assassination-related documents sealed away at the Archives that might never be made public, or at least not in the lifetime of anyone who remembers where they were when they heard the shocking news from Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.
As the author of a 2013 history of the Warren Commission, the panel created by President Lyndon B. Johnson to investigate Kennedy’s murder, I am among the researchers who have long called for all the JFK documents to be made public — and not just for the sake of transparency. So long as the government continues to keep some documents hidden, it will only further promote the idea that sinister conspiracies about Kennedy’s death have a basis in fact. Why else, the conspiracy theorists ask, would the government feel the need to hide from the American public important information about a turning point in U.S. history? As time goes on, this secrecy could fuel even more outrageous, and more dangerous, movements: Today, QAnon, which the FBI has deemed a domestic terrorism threat, has embraced JFK conspiracy theories.
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who has campaigned on Capitol Hill for years for full release of the JFK documents, said in an interview that he was disappointed by Biden’s failure to release the entire library early in his presidency. “All of this information was supposed to have been shared with the public years ago,” Cohen said. “It belongs to the public.” He said he feared Biden had bowed to powerful bureaucrats at the CIA, FBI and elsewhere who are trying to keep the documents secret in order to protect the reputation of their agencies, even if that keeps the conspiracy theories alive. “I’m a big supporter of President Biden and think well of him,” Cohen added. “But he’s a company man on these sorts of things.”
The White House told me Biden is willing to overrule the CIA, FBI and other agencies and insist that some of the secret documents be made public. But for now, the administration said, the president believes there is legitimate concern that some documents reveal information that could do damage to national security if revealed, noting that that some of the still-classified documents in the JFK library refer to law-enforcement operations that occurred decades after the Kennedy assassination.
Cohen is not a conspiracy theorist. He said he suspects the still-secret documents will not undermine his belief that Oswald was the sole gunman in Dallas. Instead, Cohen said, he assumes the documents have been kept secret because they expose incompetence or wrongdoing by the CIA, FBI and other agencies. Among the millions of pages of documents declassified in the 1990s, some files showed that the CIA and FBI had Oswald under aggressive surveillance before the assassination and missed opportunities to stop him.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/12/15/jfk-kennedy-assassination-documents-524221
-
Good one. My understanding is that most of these have been released before with minor redactions. CTers cling to the unreleased documents mantra like a drowning man to a straw. The answer is out there!
You are correct. I wasted about four hours looking at files yesterday. Major bust for the CTs as it had to be.
-
You are correct. I wasted about four hours looking at files yesterday. Major bust for the CTs as it had to be.
US government: "We have nothing to hide but some JFK files may never be de-classified."
LN'ers: "Why do so many people still speculate that LHO didn't act alone? Those damn Russians!"
-
You are correct. I wasted about four hours looking at files yesterday. Major bust for the CTs as it had to be.
A very bizarre mentality. Not curious, just glad that nothing came to light that might shed further light on the assassination.
We don't know the full impact of the remaining documents withheld but yet you just want to score points over doubters. Makes me wonder what you've got invested in this subject.
-
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/release2021
Just [at a glance] previously released files that were originally redacted.
Could we really believe that any incriminating stuff would be divulged [if not already destroyed] ?
-
A very bizarre mentality. Not curious, just glad that nothing came to light that might shed further light on the assassination.
We don't know the full impact of the remaining documents withheld but yet you just want to score points over doubters. Makes me wonder what you've got invested in this subject.
Well if I had no curiosity, I would not have looked at all. But I know what happened (as far as any fact in this world can be known) Oswald killed JFK. As far as having an investment, sure I've been in this since 1984. I have 63 (I think) articles at my blog and I've written many others which are at McAdams' site. But I've always said if someone can prove something I'll change my mind. I'm still waiting.
-
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/release2021
Just [at a glance] previously released files that were originally redacted.
Could we really believe that any incriminating stuff would be divulged [if not already destroyed] ?
I don’t expect there to be a smoking gun buried in the files but the government is running out of excuses for delaying to full de-classification of the files.
The more they kick the can, the more people will wonder if they have some dark secrets to hide…
-
Good one. My understanding is that most of these have been released before with minor redactions. CTers cling to the unreleased documents mantra like a drowning man to a straw. The answer is out there!
The answer is out there!
Indeed... hidden in plain sight for nearly six decades.
For once we agree!
-
Did anyone see this file?---
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/docid-32106384.pdf
So much information there that I am just overwhelmed! ???
-
The answer is out there!
Indeed... hidden in plain sight for nearly six decades.
For once we agree!
So you are finally admitting that you are a CTer? My understanding is that at least some researchers have been granted access to most of the unreleased documents. And there has been no revelation that they contain any bombshells. The answer remains that Oswald did it. All by his lonesome. I'm all for the release of any and all documents relating to this case. One less crutch for CTers to grasp before accepting the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence.
-
So you are finally admitting that you are a CTer? My understanding is that at least some researchers have been granted access to most of the unreleased documents. And there has been no revelation that they contain any bombshells. The answer remains that Oswald did it. All by his lonesome. I'm all for the release of any and all documents relating to this case. One less crutch for CTers to grasp before accepting the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence.
So you are finally admitting that you are a CTer?
Sure, just like you are finally admitting you're an idiot.
The answer remains that Oswald did it. All by his lonesome.
No, that's what the official narrative is, and probably will be forever. The real answer is in plain sight and I do not have to be a CT to reach that conclusion. But let me confuse you even more; I couldn't care less if there was a conspiracy and who was involved if there was one. My only interest in this case is, and has always been, to determine, for myself, if the offical narrative blaming it all on Oswald is actual credible.
I don't really understand, and probably never will comprehend, why people like you are so afraid of any other scenario except that "Oswald did it alone" one. Nothing what we say or do on this forum will ever change the official narrative. So, why are you and your ilk fighting so desperately hard to keep the "Oswald did alone" fairytale alive?
The difference between you and me is that I could be persuaded that Oswald was a lone gunman, if you presented credible evidence to show that. You, on the other hand, will never ever be persuaded that Oswald was a patsy, no matter how many problems there are with the evidence against him. That's sad!
-
So it was still Oswald then
-
So you are finally admitting that you are a CTer?
Sure, just like you are finally admitting you're an idiot.
The answer remains that Oswald did it. All by his lonesome.
No, that's what the official narrative is, and probably will be forever. The real answer is in plain sight and I do not have to be a CT to reach that conclusion. But let me confuse you even more; I couldn't care less if there was a conspiracy and who was involved if there was one. My only interest in this case is, and has always been, to determine, for myself, if the offical narrative blaming it all on Oswald is actual credible.
I don't really understand, and probably never will comprehend, why people like you are so afraid of any other scenario except that "Oswald did it alone" one. Nothing what we say or do on this forum will ever change the official narrative. So, why are you and your ilk fighting so desperately hard to keep the "Oswald did alone" fairytale alive?
The difference between you and me is that I could be persuaded that Oswald was a lone gunman, if you presented credible evidence to show that. You, on the other hand, will never ever be persuaded that Oswald was a patsy, no matter how many problems there are with the evidence against him. That's sad!
So what did you mean by the "answer" was "hidden in plain sight for six decades"? What hidden answer are you referring to? It's hard to square that with being anything other than a closet CTer. You are operating under some form of self-delusion if you think anyone could ever persuade you of Oswald's guilt.
-
I don’t expect there to be a smoking gun buried in the files but the government is running out of excuses for delaying to full de-classification of the files.
The more they kick the can, the more people will wonder if they have some dark secrets to hide…
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.
-
So what did you mean by the "answer" was "hidden in plain sight for six decades"? What hidden answer are you referring to? It's hard to square that with being anything other than a closet CTer. You are operating under some form of self-delusion if you think anyone could ever persuade you of Oswald's guilt.
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? :D
-
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? :D
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 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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
These are in sequence of date.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dym6CGgR/reggab1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/hvNdZX4q/reggab2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/7Z32XPpp/reggab3.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/8kdcqXy6/was-oswald-in-tangier.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
Why was this file classified and kept secret for over 60 years?
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/docid-32336796.pdf
-
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
-
The answer remains that Oswald did it.
"remains". LOL.
Like that "answer" has ever been demonstrated to be true.
-
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.
-
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.
-
What's unreal is that "Richard" doesn't know the difference between evidence and subjective conclusions made about the evidence.
-
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?
That's an argument from ignorance fallacy. You have to actually demonstrate that it is the same rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle, not just assume it.
-
Sorry, I don't respond to insults.
And I wouldn't too !! Best wishes for you, sir, in the following year of 2022+
-
That's an argument from ignorance fallacy. You have to actually demonstrate that it is the same rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle, not just assume it.
Which was done but you reject their conclusions. You don't show where they were wrong, you just dismiss their conclusions. The HSCA photographic experts, for example, studied the photos microscopically. They concluded the rifle in the photo was the rifle recovered from the TSBD.
But you say they're wrong. Can they be wrong? Of course. But you have to show it. But you say I have to somehow prove they are right. And impossible standard. You reject them OUT OF HAND. So does Weidmann. Then you can't give an alternate explanation for the existence of this evidence.
So where do we go? We cite "A" and "B" and "C" and you folks deny the existence of "A" and "B" and "C". We have to somehow - by your standard - demonstrate that "A" and "B" and "C" exist. We can't. Then when we ask, "Okay how did this come into being if it's not legitimate?" we get no response.
There is no way we can prove to your satisfaction that the rifle belonged to Oswald. Et cetera, et cetera. None.
Meanwhile, we have all of these conspiracy claims being made - the Stone movie - and you skeptics are nowhere to be found. Pardon me if we have doubts about your claims about not being conspiracists.
And that, as they say is that. It's a New Year and I'm moving on. But this is like being in the Mob (so they say); once you're in it you're in for life. <g>.
-
Which was done but you reject their conclusions. You don't show where they were wrong, you just dismiss their conclusions. The HSCA photographic experts, for example, studied the photos microscopically. They concluded the rifle in the photo was the rifle recovered from the TSBD.
Conclusions aren't evidence. In this case, one panel member, Sgt Kirk, thought the single mark he saw in CE 133A "tilted the scales". That's not to the exclusion of any other rifle. No analysis or measurements of any kind were offered. I get that you like the conclusion, but that doesn't make it justified.
Frankly, it's mind-boggling that this level of proof is sufficient for you to accept the conclusion. It's as if you don't care how a conclusion is arrived at as long as it confirms what you already believe.
There is no way we can prove to your satisfaction that the rifle belonged to Oswald.
That's correct, because there is no proof of that. At best you can demonstrate that unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon (from microfilm that is "missing") purports that he filled out an order coupon for a similar but not identical firearm. You have no evidence that the CE 139 rifle ever went through the postal service, was delivered to a post office in Dallas, or was ever signed for and picked up by Oswald or anybody else. You have no conclusive evidence that CE139 belonged to Oswald or even was ever in the possession of Oswald on 11/22/63, or ever.
That's why we "LOL" at the expression "Oswald's rifle".
Meanwhile, we have all of these conspiracy claims being made - the Stone movie - and you skeptics are nowhere to be found. Pardon me if we have doubts about your claims about not being conspiracists.
What "conspiracy claim" in Stone's movie would you like me to be skeptical of?
-
And I wouldn't too !! Best wishes for you, sir, in the following year of 2022+
Thanks and same to you Mark!
-
Which was done but you reject their conclusions. You don't show where they were wrong, you just dismiss their conclusions. The HSCA photographic experts, for example, studied the photos microscopically. They concluded the rifle in the photo was the rifle recovered from the TSBD.
But you say they're wrong. Can they be wrong? Of course. But you have to show it. But you say I have to somehow prove they are right. And impossible standard. You reject them OUT OF HAND. So does Weidmann. Then you can't give an alternate explanation for the existence of this evidence.
So where do we go? We cite "A" and "B" and "C" and you folks deny the existence of "A" and "B" and "C". We have to somehow - by your standard - demonstrate that "A" and "B" and "C" exist. We can't. Then when we ask, "Okay how did this come into being if it's not legitimate?" we get no response.
There is no way we can prove to your satisfaction that the rifle belonged to Oswald. Et cetera, et cetera. None.
Meanwhile, we have all of these conspiracy claims being made - the Stone movie - and you skeptics are nowhere to be found. Pardon me if we have doubts about your claims about not being conspiracists.
And that, as they say is that. It's a New Year and I'm moving on. But this is like being in the Mob (so they say); once you're in it you're in for life. <g>.
It's the same lazy contrarian shell game that involves applying a subjective, impossible standard of proof to any evidence that implicates Oswald to suggest false doubt. Then going down the rabbit hole using a lot of pedantic arguments. Using that contrarian standard, no fact in human history could ever be proven. By necessity, if this form of analysis had any validity it would, by implication, suggest that something else occurred. There is no evidence, however, to support any of these alternative narratives much less evidence to satisfy the contrarian's own impossible standard of proof standard. As a result, they ignore the implications of their own analysis having any validity. It begins and ends with suggesting doubt as to Oswald's guilt. Thas is the sole objective. Like a defense attorney defending a guilty client. Repeat endlessly. The case against Oswald is overwhelming. His rifle was found at the crime scene. It was used to kill JFK. Oswald had no credible alibi or explanation for the presence of his rifle on the 6th floor. Instead he lied about his ownership of that rifle, fled the scene, and was involved in another murder less than an hour later. A slam dunk case. He would have been convicted in ten minutes by any jury.
-
It's the same lazy contrarian shell game that involves applying a subjective, impossible standard of proof to any evidence that implicates Oswald to suggest false doubt.
Translation from "Richard"-speak: I know my evidence is weak and inconclusive, but you should accept my conclusions anyway because it's all I've got.
Then going down the rabbit hole using a lot of pedantic arguments. Using that contrarian standard, no fact in human history could ever be proven. By necessity, if this form of analysis had any validity it would, by implication, suggest that something else occurred.
Translation from "Richard"-speak: I can't prove my claims so I'll shift the burden of proof and hope nobody notices.
The case against Oswald is overwhelming.
"Richard" is easily overwhelmed.
His rifle was found at the crime scene.
"His rifle". LOL.
It was used to kill JFK.
You don't know what weapon killed JFK.
Oswald had no credible alibi
Neither did at least 5 other people in the TSBD alone.
or explanation for the presence of his rifle on the 6th floor.
"His rifle". LOL.
Instead he lied about his ownership of that rifle,
Translation from "Richard"-speak: The way I know he "lied" is because I believe he owned it.
Circular.
fled the scene,
Translation from "Richard"-speak: if somebody leaves and I think they're guilty, then it is "fleeing".
and was involved in another murder less than an hour later.
Translation from "Richard"-speak: if I accuse somebody of committing another murder, then that somehow becomes evidence that he committed a different murder.
A slam dunk case. He would have been convicted in ten minutes by any jury.
Translation from "Richard"-speak: my fantasy about what would happen at a hypothetical trial is interesting and persuasive.