Im Gipper said:

---

FireAg said:

---

You've spent a lot of bandwidth proving folks can't change your mind and you can't change theirs…

Not sure exactly what the constant back-and-forth is really accomplishing at this point, other than adding clutter to this thread for all of us to have to weed through…

Maybe take a break from the keyboard today?

---

Interesting that you want the poster bringing factual information backed with links to references to take a break, but are okay with all the people posting unsourced rumors, innuendo and in some cases flat our falsehoods.

If you want to wallow in the conspiracies without having to weed through factual information, try renting Oliver Stone's JFK!

---

Again…here's the problem…

What you believe are "facts" may or may not be "truths"…

It all depends on who controls the narrative…

In 1930s Germany, it was "fact" that Jews carried all kinds of diseases and were the reason behind Germany's fall from grace…

But then look at who was writing the "facts" and suppressing the opposition…

BMX Bandit said:

---

guitarsoup routinely provides links supporting all of his posts.

others here just believe something they saw on twitter.

You can choose to believe what you want, but you cannot deny he always backs up his positions with evidence.

calling that "clutter" is bizarre.

---

Again…his links are accepted as "facts" when we have no idea whether or not they are "truths"…

Reality is, we don't know the motivations of folks who published the "facts" that he uses to support his arguments…were they truly published by qualified, independent, nonpartisan individuals, or were they published by individuals who had motivation to control the narrative a certain way?

The conundrum here is that many folks, especially after the last 8 years, look at everything reported as "facts" with a great deal of skepticism because we have learned later that the actual "truth" was the exact opposite of the accepted "facts" when they were originally presented, and much of that probably would not have even been possible had someone like Musk taken over Twitter and put an end to false narrative propaganda…

All of the nonsense surrounding Covid and jabs during the height of the panic should be enough to convince most rational people that "facts" and "truths" aren't always the same things…

Again…here's the problem…

YOU are accepting what you want to believe based on ZERO actual evidence.

If you chose not to accept the EVIDENCE presented by Soup, that is fine. But he is at least brining something to the table!

Yet you want him to stop so you can just read unsupported Txeets that confirm the beliefs you already have!


It is literally like someone posting news stories, links to interviews, photographs debunking the "Russia Russia Russia" narrative, then someone else coming along posting an X post from Krassenstein saying "a hooker peed on Trump"

The COVID lies are exposed within 5 years, the JFK "lies" are still not exposed, merely questioned without evidence

Im Gipper said:

---

Again…here's the problem…

YOU are accepting what you want to believe based on ZERO actual evidence.

If you chose not to accept the EVIDENCE presented by Soup, that is fine. But he is at least brining something to the table!

Yet you want him to stop so you can just read unsupported Txeets that confirm the beliefs you already have!

---

Ah yes…remember all of the "factually supported tweets and documentation" surrounding Covid and the subsequent "vaccine"? Remember all of the testimony before Congress that folks were told was "factual" even though many of us didn't believe it, but the evidence supporting our skepticism was suppressed and scoffed at as pure fiction?

How'd that work out?

If not for the Musk takeover of Twitter, we might all still be in the dark regarding that actual "truths" about Covid and the jab…

Derail and obfuscate. That is all you have.

What you are missing is that Soup is the opposite of the COVID narrative pushers!

COVID skeptics and Soup: here are links to articles, news, etc. showing why what you are telling us is not true. You are spreading lies.

COVID freaks and JFK conspirators: JUST TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT!!!

BMX Bandit said:

---

guitarsoup routinely provides links supporting all of his posts.

others here just believe something they saw on twitter.

You can choose to believe what you want, but you cannot deny he always backs up his positions with evidence.

calling that "clutter" is bizarre.

---

Real or manufactured...sadly both exist and those who manufacture have a motive to keep the 'real' at bay.
Trust the govt, especially the 3 ltr. agencies (who have myriads of experience at it)...lol. something...something.."Fools rush in..."

BQ78 said:

---

The COVID lies are exposed within 5 years, the JFK "lies" are still not exposed, merely questioned without evidence

---

The JFK "facts" had decades worth of cover without having to fight against the pushback of current social media…

The "facts" had zero credible pushback because one side was easily suppressed…

Now add in that, in those same decades, there's no way to know what evidence was re-written or destroyed under the cover of the narrative that the government made sure "won the day"…

The reality is, we will never know for sure what forces (or lack thereof) were acting on and before 11/22/63…

You can argue either side until you're blue in the face…and it ain't gonna convince the other side, and I have laid out exactly why using quite modern examples of "facts" versus "truths" and who controls the narrative…

The links are supported by reams of documentation for Oswald's entire life, his movements, his motivations, his actions, the witness testimonies, the ballistics, and much more. Literally every minute of the days before and after the assassination has been studied to create a detailed timeline. Every frame of the Zapruder film has been analyzed. The facts of the assassination have been well established for decades, and point to one conclusion. For every proposed alternative theory, there are documented facts that disprove it. For every witness that claims they saw something, there is documentation to either support or negate their testimony. It is a very odd and tenuous position to take that established, provable facts actually represent nothing more than someone's opinion.

It's not derailing as I am showing actual, contemporary examples of how "truths" can be suppressed in favor of driving a particular narrative with "facts"…

Russian collusion and quid pro quo are other contemporary examples of precisely what I am talking about, but I digress…

I'll just employ the "ignore" feature moving forward…only way I could sift through the "factual bull****" being posted during Covid…

I have some work appointments so I can't be in front of a computer until later today. But I'll reply to some of the nonsense posted on here when I can.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1902324820190118118.html

This is a good post from an ABC reporter about so the CIA specific documents that both conspiracy theorists and LHO theorists were looking for.

The Schlesinger Memo has been redacted for a while so partially known.

Jefferson Morley (conspiracy guy I follow) is working on making all the JFK documents searchable. With the fading of ink and the quality of scans, that's easier said than done. But the archives didn't really do us any favors on that front

FireAg said:

---

I'll just employ the "ignore" feature moving forward…

---

Thank you for proving the point!

You want to ignore any information that contradicts the position you have already set in your mind as correct. You think Soup posing links to information so you can read for yourself is "clutter" but random X posts with ZERO backing are great for the board.

What you are really missing is that YOU are the mask wearer in this scenario. You don't want to do any research or learn, just buying hook line and sinker what you see on X. Must be awful blissful!

No one is saying you have to believe Soup. Do your own research. Make your own conclusions.

What we are calling out is the hilarious position you have taken in wanting him to stop posting!

Just a friendly reminder that the evidence collection in dealey plaza was not done by the FBI, the CIA, the KGB, the NSA, or any other three-letter agency you want to bring up.

Well it was done by the DPD, if you want to call them a 3-letter agency. Dallas Police handled it. And they had reporters with cameras next to them while they were doing it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence. And we can only draw our conclusions based on what we have. Now evidence collection certainly wasn't done in the early '60s the way it would be done today. But that doesn't make it a conspiracy and it certainly doesn't make a conspiracy that dozens of Dallas police officers were a part of just because they happen to be stationed in dealey plaza at the time.

There's still lots of things we don't know, and probably lots of things we will never know. The biggest that we have a chance to find out is the threat assessment that the FBI and CIA had on Oswald. Did they see him as a useful idiot or just an idiot? What was known, what was ignored, what should have been turned over to the other agency and wasn't?

I do know a lot about this, not because I just study one point of view but because I read all of them. I don't believe that Oswald was involved in a conspiracy, but those are way more interesting stories. I actually do want to know the evidence pointing to both sides and the reasons why people believe what they do. I think there are a lot of really interesting narratives surrounding it, and it's especially interesting seeing how the different agencies in the government worked back then.

But at the end of the day we have to go back to facts and evidence as they are known. We have over six decades of research on this and the facts are what they are. People certainly want to find more facts, but it's unlikely that any facts about the actual assassination will be seen because it's been studied so thoroughly by so many thousands or millions of people for 60 years. That's why everyone that is well researched on the subject has been saying for years that these documents won't shine a light on the actual assassination but they could give us more understanding about how things worked on the periphery. That's what I said on here months ago and that's what the real experts are saying as well.

Y'all have a good day and enjoy this nice weather.

FireAg has a point. If Covid had happened in the 1960s the lab leak origins would have been sufficiently buried and Guitarsoup would be ridiculing anyone for bringing it up.

I've learned not to waist my time on threads like these but there are people who have dedicated their lives to researching JFK that are thoroughly convinced Oswalt was not acting alone.

I personally don't know, but my gut says something was covered up. Whether it was incompetence or malfeasance we will probably never know.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

If Covid had happened in the 1960s the lab leak origins would have been sufficiently buried and Guitarsoup would be ridiculing anyone for bringing it up.

There are people who have dedicated their lives to researching JFK that are thoroughly convinced Oswald was not acting alone.

I personally don't know, but my gut says something was covered up. Whether it was incompetence or malfeasance we will probably never know.

---

Agree with every point above…

Quote:

---

Well it was done by the DPD, if you want to call them a 3-letter agency. Dallas Police handled it. And they had reporters with cameras next to them while they were doing it.

---

There was this murder in the 90s. Super high profile. LAPD handled the investigation. Billions of cameras following their every move. Basically everyone knew who did it.

Guy got away with it. Crazy, I know right?

The first book I read on the assassination was Posner's Case Closed. That got me interested to the point I picked up a copy of the much maligned Report of the Warren Commission. Ultimately Bugliosi released Reclaiming History and I added that to my reading. Pro tip: Don't let the thickness of Bugliosi's book turn you off. The publisher made up for it by using fine print.

If you really want insight into the mountains of evidence against Oswald and can only find the time for one of these, I suggest Bugliosi over the other two simply because he made a point of responding to the most popular conspiracy theories (an advantage not shared by the Warren Commission) and it was researched thoroughly as one would expect of a seasoned prosecutor. Not meant to disparage the other two publications.

I only wish I had total recall of the contents as per Guitar Soup. Should have taken notes and built a file.

If you drain yourself of the conspiracy theories you have been fed and absorb the contents of Bugliosi's tome, you will find it difficult to conclude that anything other than circumstances and circumstances alone led to the juxtaposition of Oswald and Kennedy in Dealey Plaza and the coming together of Oswald and Ruby in the basement of Dallas Police HQ's.

The sheer number of random events that preceded each event would make it impossible to orchestrate these events toward the successful fulfillment of a grand plan.

Also, if I had been CIA and took an active role in the assassination, J D Tippit would have been an asset within the local PD with orders to neutralize Oswald while "attempting an arrest" rather than allowing him to be captured and interrogated for two days.

Some have forgotten the govt. (incl. the POTUS) lied about WMD.

What's your stance or best fact support argument on the Warren Commission's single bullet theory?

I'm beginning to wonder if FireAg and Silent Too Long have ever heard the adage about beating a dead horse?! 2 full pages of continual repetition. It was clear what their points were early on and it's clear at least one was offended. But my goodness, enough- we get it. And we would rather see posts about the actual information. Sorry about your feelings, but ….

FireAg said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Again…here's the problem…

YOU are accepting what you want to believe based on ZERO actual evidence.

If you chose not to accept the EVIDENCE presented by Soup, that is fine. But he is at least brining something to the table!

Yet you want him to stop so you can just read unsupported Txeets that confirm the beliefs you already have!

---

Ah yes…remember all of the "factually supported tweets and documentation" surrounding Covid and the subsequent "vaccine"? Remember all of the testimony before Congress that folks were told was "factual" even though many of us didn't believe it, but the evidence supporting our skepticism was suppressed and scoffed at as pure fiction?

How'd that work out?

If not for the Musk takeover of Twitter, we might all still be in the dark regarding that actual "truths" about Covid and the jab…

---

This is your go-to argument now? 57 years after JFK's assassination we were lied to about COVID, therefore everything that surrounds that 1963 event must have been a lie too? One of the bigger whataboutism jumps I've seen on F16.

My argument is about rudely attacking people for what they believe…it has zero to do with who is right/wrong about the JFK assassination…(a question that will actually never be solved nationally, let alone on TexAgs)…

Different times, different circumstances. If journalists of the 60s had any inkling that Kennedy had been murdered by the government they would have run that to ground. The press loved JFK.

I agree with this assessment

The more I read, the more I’m considering the possibility that the CIA were trying to frame the Soviets/Cuba for JFK’s assassination, in order to cover their tracks and create broader war.

It seems like the CIA were trying to establish the idea that Oswald was connected to the… pic.twitter.com/SnNaqMgHFP

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) March 19, 2025

The more I read, the more I'm considering the possibility that the CIA were trying to frame the Soviets/Cuba for JFK's assassination, in order to cover their tracks and create broader war.

It seems like the CIA were trying to establish the idea that Oswald was connected to the Soviets/Cubans. It's like they were trying to make it obvious. Maybe I am way off base, and perhaps the Soviets/Cubans did play a role, but it seems like the CIA were trying to steer the conversation towards blaming the Soviets.

My reasoning is that after JFK's death, LBJ escalated Vietnam and gave the CIA their next war to launder money from. A war that JFK did not want, despite many in the intelligence community pushing for it.

The CIA tried to drag the US directly into war in Cuba, JFK refused to do it, and then he averted nuclear war. Then the CIA tried to drag the US directly into the war in Vietnam, and JFK refused to do it. JFK was repeatedly standing in the way of the CIA from utilizing their business model, also known as, war.

The Soviets did not benefit from JFK's assassination, but the CIA did. Soviet PM Khrushchev respected JFK after the Cuban missile crisis, and viewed him as a rational counterpart. Meanwhile, LBJ was an impulsive warhawk. The Soviets did not express joy after JFK's death, they expressed concern. Things only got worse for the Soviets geopolitically after JFK's death, and the CIA only continued to get more powerful.

Obviously there is no smoking gun that proves this definitively, it's just an observation based on what I am seeing from the files, and a scenario I think is worthy of consideration.

Farmer_J said:

---

I agree with this assessment

The more I read, the more I’m considering the possibility that the CIA were trying to frame the Soviets/Cuba for JFK’s assassination, in order to cover their tracks and create broader war.

It seems like the CIA were trying to establish the idea that Oswald was connected to the… pic.twitter.com/SnNaqMgHFP

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) March 19, 2025

The more I read, the more I'm considering the possibility that the CIA were trying to frame the Soviets/Cuba for JFK's assassination, in order to cover their tracks and create broader war.

It seems like the CIA were trying to establish the idea that Oswald was connected to the Soviets/Cubans. It's like they were trying to make it obvious. Maybe I am way off base, and perhaps the Soviets/Cubans did play a role, but it seems like the CIA were trying to steer the conversation towards blaming the Soviets.

My reasoning is that after JFK's death, LBJ escalated Vietnam and gave the CIA their next war to launder money from. A war that JFK did not want, despite many in the intelligence community pushing for it.

The CIA tried to drag the US directly into war in Cuba, JFK refused to do it, and then he averted nuclear war. Then the CIA tried to drag the US directly into the war in Vietnam, and JFK refused to do it. JFK was repeatedly standing in the way of the CIA from utilizing their business model, also known as, war.

The Soviets did not benefit from JFK's assassination, but the CIA did. Soviet PM Khrushchev respected JFK after the Cuban missile crisis, and viewed him as a rational counterpart. Meanwhile, LBJ was an impulsive warhawk. The Soviets did not express joy after JFK's death, they expressed concern. Things only got worse for the Soviets geopolitically after JFK's death, and the CIA only continued to get more powerful.

Obviously there is no smoking gun that proves this definitively, it's just an observation based on what I am seeing from the files, and a scenario I think is worthy of consideration.

---

That has been pretty much my stance all along…

Farmer_J said:

---

I agree with this assessment

The more I read, the more I’m considering the possibility that the CIA were trying to frame the Soviets/Cuba for JFK’s assassination, in order to cover their tracks and create broader war.

It seems like the CIA were trying to establish the idea that Oswald was connected to the… pic.twitter.com/SnNaqMgHFP

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) March 19, 2025

The more I read, the more I'm considering the possibility that the CIA were trying to frame the Soviets/Cuba for JFK's assassination, in order to cover their tracks and create broader war.

It seems like the CIA were trying to establish the idea that Oswald was connected to the Soviets/Cubans. It's like they were trying to make it obvious. Maybe I am way off base, and perhaps the Soviets/Cubans did play a role, but it seems like the CIA were trying to steer the conversation towards blaming the Soviets.

My reasoning is that after JFK's death, LBJ escalated Vietnam and gave the CIA their next war to launder money from. A war that JFK did not want, despite many in the intelligence community pushing for it.

The CIA tried to drag the US directly into war in Cuba, JFK refused to do it, and then he averted nuclear war. Then the CIA tried to drag the US directly into the war in Vietnam, and JFK refused to do it. JFK was repeatedly standing in the way of the CIA from utilizing their business model, also known as, war.

The Soviets did not benefit from JFK's assassination, but the CIA did. Soviet PM Khrushchev respected JFK after the Cuban missile crisis, and viewed him as a rational counterpart. Meanwhile, LBJ was an impulsive warhawk. The Soviets did not express joy after JFK's death, they expressed concern. Things only got worse for the Soviets geopolitically after JFK's death, and the CIA only continued to get more powerful.

Obviously there is no smoking gun that proves this definitively, it's just an observation based on what I am seeing from the files, and a scenario I think is worthy of consideration.

---

Literally the only aspect of this theory confirmed (or even suggested) in these files is that Cuban leadership believed this to varying degrees. And we already knew that because Castro spent a half century telling anyone who would listen that the US government in some capacity aided the assassination.

The events as they occurred make even LESS sense if you ascribe CIA direction to them, not more. And because there is literally no evidence they did so it's just a completely incoherent notion.

"no evidence" yawn

Well, the intelligence agencies control the evidence, so i'm really shocked that they didn't implicate themselves. lol

Oswald acted alone but the CIA was looking the other way on any potential threats to allow someone to kill him.

Farmer_J said:

---

"no evidence" yawn

Well, the intelligence agencies control the evidence, so i'm really shocked that they didn't implicate themselves. lol

---

The absence of evidence isn't evidence, especially when we're talking about one of the most scrutinized and investigated events in human history.

Meanwhile, the evidence that Oswald killed JFK and acted alone is as extensive as it is for any event in all of recorded history to that point in time.

Omperlodge said:

---

Oswald acted alone but the CIA was looking the other way on any potential threats to allow someone to kill him.

---

Even if this is true, it's so far from the conspiratorial claims that have dominated discourse on this topic since it happened that it is effectively irrelevant to the discussion. It's like saying God exists because we don't know how the universe started, and then using that claim as evidence for the literal interpretation of the story of Jonah. The claims are so far removed from each other as to be irrelevant in context.

Essentially it just amounts to retreating back to a unfalsifiable notion just to maintain some semblance of the argument.

I have no thoughts one way or the other on this subject, I haven't read anything, but I did watch the movie JFK and it was entertaining. I did have a high school teacher that spent a couple of days talking about it, and he was absolutely sure that Oswalt did not act alone.


My question is, why has it taken so long to release all of this information? What was the hold up?