CIA and FBI protecting themselves. Protecting foreign intelligence assets that gave information so they and their progeny aren't compromised or even outright killed.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

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.

---

You realize you contradicted yourself right?

Your posts are almost too boring to reply to.

MelvinUdall said:

---

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?

---

Your teacher is just like all the other viewers of Oliver Stone's JFK movie whose only knowledge of the assassination comes from that movie and clips of the "back and to the left" magic bullet scene. Stone's movie was based on Jim Garrison's investigation. Garrison's version has a lot of problems, including, but not limited to, outright blackmail of witnesses.

G Martin 87 said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

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?

---

Your teacher is just like all the other viewers of Oliver Stone's JFK movie whose only knowledge of the assassination comes from that movie and clips of the "back and to the left" magic bullet scene. Stone's movie was based on Jim Garrison's investigation. Garrison's version has a lot of problems, including, but not limited to, outright blackmail of witnesses.

---

His view wasn't that way because the movie wasn't out when he talked about it 4 years prior to the movie coming out.

MelvinUdall said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

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?

---

Your teacher is just like all the other viewers of Oliver Stone's JFK movie whose only knowledge of the assassination comes from that movie and clips of the "back and to the left" magic bullet scene. Stone's movie was based on Jim Garrison's investigation. Garrison's version has a lot of problems, including, but not limited to, outright blackmail of witnesses.

---

His view wasn't that way because the movie wasn't out when he talked about it 4 years prior to the movie coming out.

---

Ah, thought by "spent a couple of days talking about it" that you were referring directly to the movie since you mentioned it in the previous sentence.

Quote:

---

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…

---

It is funny that you call my content clutter and attack the back and forth... then proceed to give two pages of back and forth bringing up all kinds of things that aren't related to the three assassinations this thread is about.

As others have pointed out, I have consistently given sources, citations, and directions on where to find things. Not only that, but I have posted sources from multiple theories and experts on the case that believe differently than I do.

So I am not sure what all the back and forth you engaged in today really accomplished other than to attack me. Maybe you should try to actually talk about the cases. Isn't that why we are here?

Quote:

---

These were the Guitar posts I found to be berating, disrespectful, and over the line

---

Mea cupla. I agree I went over the line in my replies. I'll also note that you screen capped my posts, but provided no context. And some lack of context on your end is probably because it seems multiple posts have been deleted since I replied to them. But there are also others still up.

I'll also point out that I am happy to stay on topic and actually discuss the assassinations, theories, and evidence as best as I can. I would invite you to do the same. Unlike you, I am asking for other people to share information and evidence. I want to read it and learn from it. You are telling people to shut up, denigrating them and the content they post.

All you have done is derail the thread and attack after starting the morning belittling me for the same.

Quote:

---

I'm arguing you don't have to be an ass to simply make the case for your side…and the acts of being an ass, from either side of this argument, is clogging up an otherwise meaningful discussion…

---

I agree. Take a look at your posts.

Bottom line, let us talk about the assassination, the evidence, and the theories. We can all do better. I will as well.

Agree, the Bugalosi book is a must read. Makes some key points in simple compelling fashion

Silent For Too Long said:

---

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?

---

Big difference: OJ wasn't acquitted because of lack of evidence, or bad evidence. They can say otherwise, but I think the race relations at the time and the DA's decision not to try it at Santa Monica's court sealed it. The Korean shop owner, Rodney King, happened then you had this and a majority black jury. They voted 10-2 and the 2 quickly changed their vote to get out. Bigger problem was the dream team vs overmatched Darden/Clark and Fuhrman was a perfect scapegoat.

But even those jurors will say OJ probably did it. And they said it at the time.

But the common societal accepted theory is that OJ did it. Very few people believe otherwise. I just don't think it is a good comparison.

G Martin 87 said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

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?

---

Your teacher is just like all the other viewers of Oliver Stone's JFK movie whose only knowledge of the assassination comes from that movie and clips of the "back and to the left" magic bullet scene. Stone's movie was based on Jim Garrison's investigation. Garrison's version has a lot of problems, including, but not limited to, outright blackmail of witnesses.

---

His view wasn't that way because the movie wasn't out when he talked about it 4 years prior to the movie coming out.

---

Ah, thought by "spent a couple of days talking about it" that you were referring directly to the movie since you mentioned it in the previous sentence.

---

Ah…that is fair, I didn't think about it from what I posted.

Piers talks about this here with guests.

"There's A BOMBSHELL!" Trump Releases JFK Files, CIA 'Involvement' & Oswald Silenced

SB IV said:

---

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

---

It has been recreated pretty much identically since then.



I would watch the entire thing, but I did cue it up to 1h 15m 45s when they actually set up and do the shot if you want to skip to that. There were other tests and backstory prior to that.

So yes, I do think it is possible.

-------------------------

The bigger thing is map out the ballistics for a shot from any other location. If the shot that hit Connally was not also the shot that went through JFK first and then tumbled to cause the oblong wound, where did that shot come from and how were his wrist and thigh hurt?

How did a shot from in front of JFK go in the middle of his throat and out the right side of JFK's spine in the back if you thought he was shot from the front. There is not a possible location for a shooter from that direction. Plus from that side, you have the problem of the windshield, Connally in front of him, etc.

I can go on longer if you want to discuss it more in depth.

Guitarsoup said:

---

SB IV said:

---

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

---

It has been recreated pretty much identically since then.



I would watch the entire thing, but I did cue it up to 1h 15m 45s when they actually set up and do the shot if you want to skip to that. There were other tests and backstory prior to that.

So yes, I do think it is possible.

-------------------------

The bigger thing is map out the ballistics for a shot from any other location. If the shot that hit Connally was not also the shot that went through JFK first and then tumbled to cause the oblong wound, where did that shot come from and how were his wrist and thigh hurt?

How did a shot from in front of JFK go in the middle of his throat and out the right side of JFK's spine in the back if you thought he was shot from the front. There is not a possible location for a shooter from that direction. Plus from that side, you have the problem of the windshield, Connally in front of him, etc.

I can go on longer if you want to discuss it more in depth.

---

Thanks and Ill give the video a watch later. Ive visited the museum and stood in the window location. Im a hunter and from a distance perspective its not that difficult IMO. Ill followup if something from the video stands out.

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.

---

I think that LHO acted alone. How much the FBI or CIA knew about him and how dangerous he is is somewhat unknown. If they ignored the threat, discounted the threat, or encouraged the threat is unknown.

After the fact, I don't think the CIA was necessarily trying to frame the KGB for Oswald so much as hide their own sins of omission - how do you not spend a significant amount of time on a guy that tried to defect, married a Russian, came back home, has mental health conditions, had known problems with guns, and recently tried to get visas to USSR/Cuba? No matter what your reasoning on why they dropped the ball (intentional, inept) they dropped the ball unquestionably.

And I agree that the CIA benefitted, but that benefit would be way more negated if it was known how much they ****ed up by not adequately tracking LHO.

SB IV said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

SB IV said:

---

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

---

It has been recreated pretty much identically since then.



I would watch the entire thing, but I did cue it up to 1h 15m 45s when they actually set up and do the shot if you want to skip to that. There were other tests and backstory prior to that.

So yes, I do think it is possible.

-------------------------

The bigger thing is map out the ballistics for a shot from any other location. If the shot that hit Connally was not also the shot that went through JFK first and then tumbled to cause the oblong wound, where did that shot come from and how were his wrist and thigh hurt?

How did a shot from in front of JFK go in the middle of his throat and out the right side of JFK's spine in the back if you thought he was shot from the front. There is not a possible location for a shooter from that direction. Plus from that side, you have the problem of the windshield, Connally in front of him, etc.

I can go on longer if you want to discuss it more in depth.

---

Thanks and Ill give the video a watch later. Ive visited the museum and stood in the window location. Im a hunter and from a distance perspective its not that difficult IMO. Ill followup if something from the video stands out.

---

Yeah, it isn't a hard shot and he had a 4x scope.

Additionally, many initially thought he has 4-5 seconds, but most modern estimates put it at 8-13 seconds between shot 1 and shot 3. Longest shot was <90 yards with a 4x scope. I think pretty much any Marine could pull off those three shots.

So if LHO was the loan shooter, It seems to me like there's three possibilities in regards to our government (CIA, FBI, etc):

1. Nobody in our government knew about it or took the threat seriously until it was too late
2. People knew about it and were complicit as far as standing down and not preemptively stopping LHO (it was convenient to let it happen and claim plausible deniability)
3. The government actually was involved and set up LHO or did things to actively encourage him to shoot JFK.

Do you have any opinion among these 3 possibilities?

dustin999 said:

---

So if LHO was the loan shooter, It seems to me like there's three possibilities in regards to our government (CIA, FBI, etc):

1. Nobody in our government knew about it or took the threat seriously until it was too late
2. People knew about it and were complicit as far as standing down and not preemptively stopping LHO (it was convenient to let it happen and claim plausible deniability)
3. The government actually was involved and set up LHO or did things to actively encourage him to shoot JFK.

Do you have any opinion among these 3 possibilities?

---

The big thing is the timing about planning the trip. The route was not planned and approved until very close to the date. The D Times-Herald posted the route on 11/21 and the DMN posted it 11/22.

It was known that JFK was coming to Dallas long before, but having a parade and the route of the parade was not finalized or known until right before.

It was simply dumb luck that Kennedy even went in front of the TSBD. It was Ken ODonnell (JFK's great friend, RFK's roommate) that pushed for the venue and route that would lead them in front of that building. Connally wanted a different venue and did not want a big parade. But Texas was a battleground state and Kennedy wasn't going to waste the opportunity.

So I do not think there was any real time for a plan to come together... except for LHO, who happened to work in the perfect sniper's nest.

I don't know if the CIA/FBI/etc had any knowledge of LHO's book sorting/moving job. I've never seen anything to suggest they knew where he worked prior to the assassination.


So I don't think they knew he had the opportunity or knew they could set him up in time to make an actionable plan.

I tend to believe that they discounted him as a useless idiot more than they thought he would actually do something significant. They probably knew he had motive. They knew he had been a Marine and training for means. But I don't think anyone took seriously the opportunity and don't think he was tracked tightly enough to know he had motive, means, and opportunity.

Then why keep it secret for 75 years? And every President since then refused to release it.

No one knows what the real story is outside the intel agencies. Theres an awful lot of cover up for it to be benign.

Farmer_J said:

---

Then why keep it secret for 75 years? And every President since then refused to release it.

No one knows what the real story is outside the intel agencies. Theres an awful lot of cover up for it to be benign.

---

Keep what specifically secret?

This is the type of thing showing up, and it is pretty obvious why it was kept secret. I posted it earlier today.

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

If you prefer to click on Twitter to read the thread:

🧵

I spent much of last night digging through the #JFKfiles for @ABC. Here’s my take:

Most of what the government released last night is not new -- in fact, much of what has attracted attention on social media has long been in the public domain, except for minor redactions,…

— Steven Portnoy (@stevenportnoy) March 19, 2025

If LHO acted alone and was just a random crazy guy (I think that's what you're saying but don't want to assume anything), why did Jack Ruby murder him? It's conceivable that 2 guys acted independently and alone but is that likely?

Yup, James Earl Ray was just a crazy lone gunman, too.
Same with sirhan sirhan.

Whole lotta coincidences when on in the 60s

Wow - So the information that the government wouldn't release, but then decided to release 60 years later, doesn't implicate them in the assassination?

I'm shocked.

dustin999 said:

---

If LHO acted alone and was just a random crazy guy (I think that's what you're saying but don't want to assume anything), why did Jack Ruby murder him? It's conceivable that 2 guys acted independently and alone but is that likely?

---

I think Jack Ruby thought he would be hero by killing the man who killed JFK and saving Jackie from a trial.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/jack-rubys-relatives-talk-for-first-time/2047708/

Quote:

---

Ruby's nieces maintained investigators got it right. Ruby was not a mobster. He had no mission. He was just a man who was overcome with grief.

"Just the perfect storm, just the events came together, for that shooting to occur,' the younger sister remembered. "If he did think about it in that snap, he thought he was going to be a hero. Thought he was going to be a big shot. People were going to thank him for killing the man who killed the president."

---

Farmer_J said:

---

Wow - So the information that the government wouldn't release, but then decided to release 60 years later, doesn't implicate them in the assassination?

I'm shocked.

---

Hard to believe the CIA would hide things that:

1. Would make them look bad
2. Would expose spying activities
3. Would expose assets

The reason JFK was murdered by a lone nut is the same reason Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and DJT were almost murdered by lone nuts. The Secret Service is not nearly as organized and effective as we have been led to believe. Like most every government agency before or since, they were underfunded, understaffed and didn't have the autonomy to protect the president as he should've been protected.

Lee Oswald came within a few inches of killing a retired General in Dallas a few months before he killed Kennedy and no one even knew it.

Read "Hellhound on His Trail" by Hampton Sides. Excellent book about James Earl Ray and MLK.

Aggie Dad Sip said:

---

The reason JFK was murdered by a lone nut is the same reason Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and DJT were almost murdered by lone nuts. The Secret Service is not nearly as organized and effective as we have been led to believe. Like most every government agency before or since, they were underfunded, understaffed and didn't have the autonomy to protect the president as he should've been protected.

Lee Oswald came within a few inches of killing a retired General in Dallas a few months before he killed Kennedy and no one even knew it.

---

If there's one thing politicians and government officials have mastered, it's the art of inaction.

I wasn't around for the JFK assassination, and I was too young to fully grasp what happened with Reagan, but I witnessed the Trump era unfold in real time.

With Trump, it seemed like the qualifications of the Secret Service were at an all-time low. That made the situation oddly convenientby assigning the most underqualified agents to his detail, it's as if they engineered a scenario where failure, or worse, became a plausible outcome. Incompetence, in that context, becomes a tool.

That's why I asked guitarsoup for his take on the government's role. There's a lot to be said about how systemic failure and "lack of resources" can serve as a cover for achieving certain outcomes without ever having to get their hands dirty.

Refreshing to see rational takes here of late lol

Quote:

---

It was funny and close enough to the real thing that I couldn't tell if I was laughing at a joke or not.

---

And this is where we really know each other.

Another coincidence is the Dorothy killgallen story with her interview with Jack Ruby and her surprising death in 1965 to alcohol & drugs.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/dorothy-kilgallen

And then of course you have Marilyn Monroe's death just when things were by really going good for her.

And of course LBJ's ties to Billy Sol Estes and Archie Parr. Not exactly reputable people.

Makes you wonder if there were any links to woody harrelson's Dad who tried to kill or did kill a district judge in San Antonio. Wasn't he supposed to be behind some shrubs on the grassy knoll?

So many things to resolve as to why?

Possibly Tying all this together would make Killary look like a piker.

Quote:

---

Oswald acted alone - the only statement that matters to this discourse
Elvis is dead - yes, despite what Jerry Glanville used to say
We are alone in the universe - you cannot possibly know this

---

Whole lotta killing/dying going on around that time. And then we have the death of the USDA agent in Hearne in '61.


https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/08/14/1961-suicide-ruling-changed-to-homicide/1010492840000/

In March 1965, the New York Times reported the CIA had contaminated 14,135 bags of Cuban sugar bound for Russia to “create discord between Cuban and Russian authorities” and JFK had to step in and turn the ship around. The CIA’s confession here remained redacted until March 2025 https://t.co/EhdHR90Iwm pic.twitter.com/Nvh7oduy8s

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) March 21, 2025

I think the more interesting thing here are these files help show the depth and scope the cia and us govt were involved with regime change around the world, but especially with trying to get rid of castro.

Artimus Gordon said:

---

Another coincidence is the Dorothy killgallen story with her interview with Jack Ruby and her surprising death in 1965 to alcohol & drugs.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/dorothy-kilgallen

And then of course you have Marilyn Monroe's death just when things were by really going good for her.

And of course LBJ's ties to Billy Sol Estes and Archie Parr. Not exactly reputable people.

Makes you wonder if there were any links to woody harrelson's Dad who tried to kill or did kill a district judge in San Antonio. Wasn't he supposed to be behind some shrubs on the grassy knoll?

So many things to resolve as to why?

Possibly Tying all this together would make Killary look like a piker.

---

Remind me about LBJ and Billy Sol Estes.

Excerpt from above article on USDA agents homicide.

"Lowry issued the order after hearing two days of testimony, including that of a Texas Ranger who investigated Marshall's death.



When he died, Marshall was investigating the convoluted business dealings of Texas swindler Billie Sol Estes, who was later convicted and served a federal prison term for fraud.

Estes, 60, was arrested Tuesday in Abilene, Texas, on charges he sexually assaulted a woman he had hired as a maid. He posted a $10,000 bond and was released."

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/08/14/1961-suicide-ruling-changed-to-homicide/1010492840000/