I think the primary reason for so many people doubting Oswald acted alone is their doubts about the SBT, and for many of those folks, it was the courtroom demonstration performed by Costner/Garrison in Oliver Stone's fictional account of the JFKA. I remember coming out of the movie theater and hearing many of the patrons expressing their doubts about Oswald's acting alone based on that scene. It's a shame that Ollie's movie was the primary source of their "knowledge" of the JFKA.

It's a shame that Comrade Stone's self-described mythological ("to counter the myth of the Warren Report") movie was based in large part on Jim Garrison's 1989 book, On the Trail of the Assassins, which was based on Garrison's futile 1969 trial of Clay Shaw, which in turn was based on an article in a Communist-owned Italian newspaper, "Paese Sera," which motivated the overly ambitious, scandal-plagued, and revengeful DA to change his theory against Shaw from "He masterminded a Loeb-and-Leopold-like homosexual thrill-kill assassination of JFK!!!" to "He organized it for the evil, evil, evil CIA!!!"

[Michael Griffith] thinks this non-existent poll of Western opinion seemingly means he gets a blank check for whatever conspiracy fantasy pops into his head. As in: he says Babushka Lady was June Cobb whom, he says, was a CIA agent.

Whether or not she was a CIA agent, June Viola Cobb probably wasn't in Dealey Plaza on 22 November 1963.

It's interesting to note, however, that her Office of Security file is one of several that probable KGB mole Bruce Solie (James Angleton's confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior in the Office of Security who "cleared" false-defector-in-place-in-Geneva-in-June-1962, Yuri "The KGB Had Nothing to Do with LHO in the USSR" Nosenko, via a bogus polygraph exam and a specious report in October 1968) hid from the HSCA in 1978.

https://mff-pdf.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/pdf/102/mffpdf_102755.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAVC3WDYZCDSZ2TSYD%2F20260914%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20260914T025734Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEBMaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJHMEUCIEUUcip4SvoJzqENY7sFOa0woG1rfaQCZ7n8deJ8gGHmAiEAysn5YJZOyGAI%2FWPkUBy9RcMjXmz0OC0EgrtjpF8YHFEqvAUI3P%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARADGgwzNDk3NTA2NzUwMTIiDE5xuvJxWBndi0P6VyqQBQUcOZ5zkZ8pyxF0MkN8hRFI8j%2F%2BbdSfUeFjlySwpSLmwoqjZoyFw6QLJ4QBNmjA73VASQ6JgwG8L6FFVJ%2FFRuyb3PGfVuB6%2BBlOY4OMcStX0VMDcv3SfsLqTuCJThTBb%2BYG06s4yyJt65X8tFExmFMoecuIVjvVEyzGzXAYEql0VpAmrojAqlvmQKCjcC2Vwwebmm1U%2FH6zn%2FURKnhs9mI5i%2FtiIP%2Biczc%2ByjdGh93qDm0AMqHJSwDA35mHnjQwUl0MLbu%2FTrzTmAo68ANWG0xNI3CIleDPp9GNz4jrUWm%2BKIeiqrNtPjtpvQvEtyR2JZXOLCj1BqeYdW14ymKcW8JpZ4vrtL7pRpNtLKhgCcUS5FoP6%2B%2FTn8VvHfQChH8qamXBsdq7V3r7m17%2FVn%2F5pWWEx3vCOYfPkyMNJSWEDUx1c2jPaZdvagXcZcXuyVcx4gj5ftrrzKSGZ%2BuC66ree4Io69ciS0RPZbAdgeZNUJHNsMrikgtP7Lih4NflrPm1kg8O0pnzuBDsEWkgxeCxoAsj1UrIfih6SAvEtFz0hHEaPi5UgOfiZWKSlofzoB5UsF1vLBR7leERvp5wZ7HgwXbbJdMJbh%2FQDRSS2UMoOR804Vcd3whw95RRrCvDmaGIWjcNXvp9o19oK0yojhvF42UIcewsiVGafWzE8axSDhvZsUKbom%2Fpo%2BjjJPulHrxF70x%2FB3lrQD7z1qqbk%2FwKRrkToiexsOgEyK9D0pH9vdYiCy%2B4dpLQZmqzlKd1zKvMqQ37GdQal9rqMd6kueCOx3%2Fr9m4ANR6hn%2BRHSejlByNzsNrccYqb0IKpKEQ6fJ0iUwynVSMhyhkm2YbSWKfPnB19dHjL11YMWRGriYIVei8oMN%2B1ndUGOrEB5RujjD5P2iMycHJ8ygmYShn05IiSDgMd24cyVlBrHxyFCH4%2FJqktjTdxZm0vMjWWxl%2BasUNjZiwad7B9PuksIkhIMXLmSuFm6znktsDXXHJAtjkWzNFe073IaYrBWOJqcA8ckvY2luREEI1whTv3hf09GAB%2BfgPKz0uVu%2Bp9SahYwkfapXBvYK83bKwu2HoeEojLGz8bq8Asf5oBEv7aVjHxng0pEZmqCaOIPo6BPODj&X-Amz-Signature=e6bbdd8c89d6c5cad927b9fbfeb9586e22d96612b11f0f0ed2d2bc6cc2fd4496


ME: Was June Viola Cobb a CIA agent?

Perplexity AI: Yes—June (Viola June) Cobb was a CIA asset/contract agent, though the terminology matters. Declassified CIA material indicates that the Agency sought to recruit her in 1960 while she was employed by Castro’s government in Cuba; one document says she was “not used as an Agent” in the particular operation summarized there, but that refers to that limited early effort rather than her full later relationship.

What the record shows

Cobb worked in revolutionary Cuba as a translator and public-relations employee with access to figures around Fidel Castro. The CIA saw that position as potentially valuable and recruited her to collect information on the Castro government. Later declassified records and historical reporting identify her as a paid CIA operative, including under the cryptonym AMUPAS-1, during her Cuba-related work, and later in Mexico.

The apparent contradiction comes from reading one CIA file too broadly:

The CIA historical-review document says that, in the specific 1960 episode it describes, officials hoped to recruit Cobb “in place,” conducted surveillance and a polygraph, and states: “Although Subject was not used as an Agent,” she remained of operational interest for debriefing until roughly 1968.

Other declassified-document reporting says that she subsequently entered a formal operational relationship with the CIA, receiving compensation to penetrate and report on the Castro regime.

Best formulation

For historical writing, the most defensible phrasing would be:

June Cobb was a CIA-recruited and paid contract agent/asset who provided intelligence reporting on Cuba and later operated in the Mexico City milieu; she was not necessarily a CIA staff officer.

That distinction avoids two common errors:

Calling her merely an “informant,” which can understate the operational relationship documented in the record.

Calling her a CIA “employee” or career officer, which can imply a staff position not established by the available evidence.

Why it matters

Cobb later became relevant to JFK-assassination research because she reported information concerning alleged witnesses and Lee Harvey Oswald’s Mexico City visit. Her CIA relationship therefore bears directly on how researchers assess her accounts: she was not simply a politically engaged private witness, but someone whose reporting, access, motivations, and handling should be evaluated in the context of an intelligence relationship.

The short answer, then, is yes—but “CIA contract agent/asset” is more precise than the broad popular term “CIA agent.”

ME: I didn't ask if she was a staff officer.

Perplexity AI: You’re right. The direct answer is: yes, June Viola Cobb was a CIA agent.

The CIA’s own historical-review file uses the term “Agent” in discussing her prospective recruitment and handling, and the broader declassified record identifies her as a CIA operational asset who reported on Cuba and related matters. The qualification I added about staff status was unnecessary to your question.

The replies from WC defenders amount to this position:

"Never mind that no bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have hit JFK's back at an upward angle and then passed through his neck at an upward angle. Never mind that this means no bullet from the sixth-floor window could have exited JFK's throat at a downward angle, much less at a 25-degree downward angle. Never mind that we therefore cannot get a bullet from JFK's throat to Connally's back in the first place, unless we're willing to rule out the sixth-floor window as the source of the shot. Just never mind these facts.

"We will continue to excuse ourselves from credibly dealing with these facts until you provide us with a non-SBT trajectory through Connally -- and the trajectory has to be one that we are willing to accept, but of course we will never accept any such trajectory because that would raise further doubt about the SBT.

"Moreover, we will continue to refuse to acknowledge the self-evident implications of the hard physical evidence of JFK's clothing, specifically, the fact that JFK's tie, including the tie knot, had no bullet hole through it, and that the nick on the tie knot was not on the edge of the knot but was visibly inward from the edge, because acknowledging the import of these facts would mean admitting that no bullet exited the throat. In the case of the SBT, we judge fact by theory, not the other way around."

We should keep in mind that the HSCA FPP's SBT does not merely require that JFK's head was tilted substantially forward but that his upper torso was tilted substantially forward as well, as Dr. Baden was nice enough to demonstrate.

As many here know, I am by no means the first researcher to note that the HSCA FPP's SBT is actually fatal to the SBT because no photo or footage shows JFK leaning so far forward during the SBT's timeframe. By acknowledging that the WC placed the back wound at least 2.5 inches too high and that the bullet hit and tunneled at an upward angle, the FPP actually destroyed the SBT. Dr. Wecht repeatedly made this point in his presentations on the SBT.

As I documented in a previous reply, both the NOVA and the Dale Myers SBT trajectory animations have JFK's upper torso virtually upright and have his head either upright (NOVA) or tilted only slightly forward (Myers), and they have the bullet traveling a downward path from the back wound to the throat wound.

And, of course, Lattimer's bogus SBT diagrams, which continue to be used by many WC apologists to this very day, show JFK sitting upright with his head upright, place the back wound visibly above the throat wound, show the bullet traveling downward through the neck, and show the bullet exiting the neck at a downward angle of at least 20 degrees.

No WC apologist has yet produced an SBT trajectory illustration that takes into account the forensic facts pointed out by the HSCA FPP regarding the back wound's upward trajectory, the upward trajectory through the neck, and the pronounced forward lean required to make that trajectory align with the sixth-floor window.

Indeed, even the NASA expert whom the HSCA hired to do their headshot and SBT trajectory analyses, Dr. Thomas Canning, simply ignored the HSCA FPP's diagram showing JFK's forward lean (7 HSCA 100, Figure 12) and instead showed JFK sitting virtually upright with his head virtually upright as well (2 HSCA 177, JFK Exhibit F-142). Incredibly, Canning also impossibly showed the back wound above the throat wound and showed the bullet exiting at a point visibly below JFK's throat wound.

Thank you Sherlock for helping with seeing the light. The whole investigation with certain known facts is the wrong way to view the assassination. Make up your own facts, that is way better. Claim people stated things that they didn't. The shooter was not on the sixth floor 8 feet above Williams, Norman, and Jarmin. He was really down on the street about level with the trunk of the car. Who would have thunk it. Who cares about JFK's and JBC's wounds and the bullet trajectory through their bodies. Obviously the doctors had no idea what they were doing. Greer should have driven the car down the road to a pet clinic and JFK and JBC would have gotten better medical care by people who knew all about gunshot wounds. I am sorry, I had this all wrong about you, I need to add the word savant to the word idiot.

Thanks Michael for all you do. Your knowledge of the assassination is unsurpassed. We all owe you a deep debt of gratitude. It is a debt that can never be repaid.

The replies from WC defenders amount to this position:

"Never mind that no bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have hit JFK's back at an upward angle and then passed through his neck at an upward angle. Never mind that this means no bullet from the sixth-floor window could have exited JFK's throat at a downward angle, much less at a 25-degree downward angle. Never mind that we therefore cannot get a bullet from JFK's throat to Connally's back in the first place, unless we're willing to rule out the sixth-floor window as the source of the shot. Just never mind these facts.

Another of your FUBAR premises for which you are so well known. No bullet hit JFK in the back on the an upward angle. If you think so, tell us where it could ahve been fired from that made sense. 

"We will continue to excuse ourselves from credibly dealing with these facts until you provide us with a non-SBT trajectory through Connally -- and the trajectory has to be one that we are willing to accept, but of course we will never accept any such trajectory because that would raise further doubt about the SBT.

"Moreover, we will continue to refuse to acknowledge the self-evident implications of the hard physical evidence of JFK's clothing, specifically, the fact that JFK's tie, including the tie knot, had no bullet hole through it, and that the nick on the tie knot was not on the edge of the knot but was visibly inward from the edge, because acknowledging the import of these facts would mean admitting that no bullet exited the throat. In the case of the SBT, we judge fact by theory, not the other way around."[/font]

In addition to your faulty premises, you seem to thrive on refuting strawman arguments that no one has made. It's a lot easier than dealing with things people have actually said in defense of the WCR.

We should keep in mind that the HSCA FPP's SBT does not merely require that JFK's head was tilted substantially forward but that his upper torso was tilted substantially forward as well, as Dr. Baden was nice enough to demonstrate.

Another of MGT's traits is on display here, conflating two separate issues. The SBT had nothing to do with the head shot.

As many here know, I am by no means the first researcher to note that the HSCA FPP's SBT is actually fatal to the SBT because no photo or footage shows JFK leaning so far forward during the SBT's timeframe. By acknowledging that the WC placed the back wound at least 2.5 inches too high and that the bullet hit and tunneled at an upward angle, the FPP actually destroyed the SBT. Dr. Wecht repeatedly made this point in his presentations on the SBT.

You seem to know a lot of things that just ain't so.

As I documented in a previous reply, both the NOVA and the Dale Myers SBT trajectory animations have JFK's upper torso virtually upright and have his head either upright (NOVA) or tilted only slightly forward (Myers), and they have the bullet traveling a downward path from the back wound to the throat wound.

Yes they do and they show the SBT works when JFK and JBC are positioned correctly.

And, of course, Lattimer's bogus SBT diagrams, which continue to be used by many WC apologists to this very day, show JFK sitting upright with his head upright, place the back wound visibly above the throat wound, show the bullet traveling downward through the neck, and show the bullet exiting the neck at a downward angle of at least 20 degrees.

I've never seen Lattimer's diagrams so I can't speak to their validity. I do know that I'm not going to take your word on what he has said.

No WC apologist has yet produced an SBT trajectory illustration that takes into account the forensic facts pointed out by the HSCA FPP regarding the back wound's upward trajectory, the upward trajectory through the neck, and the pronounced forward lean required to make that trajectory align with the sixth-floor window.

Indeed, even the NASA expert whom the HSCA hired to do their headshot and SBT trajectory analyses, Dr. Thomas Canning, simply ignored the HSCA FPP's diagram showing JFK's forward lean (7 HSCA 100, Figure 12) and instead showed JFK sitting virtually upright with his head virtually upright as well (2 HSCA 177, JFK Exhibit F-142). Incredibly, Canning also impossibly showed the back wound above the throat wound and showed the bullet exiting at a point visibly below JFK's throat wound.

Misconceptions are not facts whether they are yours or the HSCA's. The HSCA got lot's of things wrong, including their conclusion of a probable fourth shot and a conspiracy to kill JFK. WC defenders are not obligated to also defend the HSCA.

Trump is not giving money to anyone.  I support his policies but he often thinks out loud with all sorts of ideas that never come to fruition.  Some of which are terrible.  I think it's entirely possible, however, that AI will create such efficiency and wealth that few may have to work in the near term future.  Not sure what the implications are from that but government policies that promote such efficiencies could result in rewarding citizens with such payments and services.  Maybe providing incentives to be good citizens including reducing crime and promoting art and education.  We are not forever limited to the capitalist vs socialist choices.  The opposition to data centers is futile.  There are legitimate concerns, but it is still coming for good or ill.  China and others are not going to hold back.  The US has no real choice.  Trump knows that.  It would not surprise me if the anti-data center campaign is even being funded by the Chinese.

You are vastly overrating the effect of AI especially in the near term. AI will change the job skills in demand and will assist those in many walks of life but there will always be work that humans must do that AI can't. The AI revolution will vastly increase the demand for people with electrical skills for example. The day that machines will be doing most of the work is a long way off. It won't happen in our lifetimes.