fc2112 said:

---

Guitarsoup - apply your skills to the Missy Bevers murder.

I actually knew her and it pisses me off the police have had their heads up their asses for years now.

---

Sorry I haven't heard of that case. If I get a chance I'll look it up. Feel free to message me any info you have

G Martin 87 said:

---

FobTies said:

---

I look forward to the original high quality autopsy photos being released and independently authenticated. I really don't see any reason why they haven't been yet. Until then, I remain cautious with regards to leaked images, handwritten diagrams, gov investigations and testimony about entry and exit (from both sides).

---

I expect this will come as a shock to you, but John Stringer, the chief of photography at Bethesda and the person who took those original autopsy photos, has confirmed the authenticity of the autopsy photos in the National Archives twice: Nov 1, 1966, and again in 1993. Moreover, the House Select Committee also studied the photos and x-rays and confirmed the authenticity.

Quote:

---

Maybe in the future we will get others to corroborate the ballistics/movements with more testing, and maybe we will get more conclusive confirmation on the wounds. Until then not much else to do but demand more scrutiny where little has been paid.

---

The ballistics/movements have been exhaustively studied. The wounds have been conclusively confirmed. With the exception of the dictabelt recording, which was later proven to be a recording some minutes after the assassination at the Trade Mart and not in Dealey Plaza, the House Select Committee actually did a very thorough re-investigation into all of the testimony and evidence. But I don't expect you to change your mind just because of my post. You'll have to read what the Warren Commission and House Select Committee actually reported and stop listening to what the conspiracy theorists claim they reported. Then, if you've made it that far, you'll have to take the final step: having the courage to believe that JFK died a senseless death at the hands of a mentally unstable worm like Lee Harvey Oswald who happened to be in the right place at the right time.

---

The treating physicians at Parkland disagree with you and the autopsy findings.

stetson said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

FobTies said:

---

I look forward to the original high quality autopsy photos being released and independently authenticated. I really don't see any reason why they haven't been yet. Until then, I remain cautious with regards to leaked images, handwritten diagrams, gov investigations and testimony about entry and exit (from both sides).

---

I expect this will come as a shock to you, but John Stringer, the chief of photography at Bethesda and the person who took those original autopsy photos, has confirmed the authenticity of the autopsy photos in the National Archives twice: Nov 1, 1966, and again in 1993. Moreover, the House Select Committee also studied the photos and x-rays and confirmed the authenticity.

Quote:

---

Maybe in the future we will get others to corroborate the ballistics/movements with more testing, and maybe we will get more conclusive confirmation on the wounds. Until then not much else to do but demand more scrutiny where little has been paid.

---

The ballistics/movements have been exhaustively studied. The wounds have been conclusively confirmed. With the exception of the dictabelt recording, which was later proven to be a recording some minutes after the assassination at the Trade Mart and not in Dealey Plaza, the House Select Committee actually did a very thorough re-investigation into all of the testimony and evidence. But I don't expect you to change your mind just because of my post. You'll have to read what the Warren Commission and House Select Committee actually reported and stop listening to what the conspiracy theorists claim they reported. Then, if you've made it that far, you'll have to take the final step: having the courage to believe that JFK died a senseless death at the hands of a mentally unstable worm like Lee Harvey Oswald who happened to be in the right place at the right time.

---

The treating physicians at Parkland disagree with you and the autopsy findings.

---

One treating physician at Parkland. There were many physicians at Parkland that saw or treated Kennedy. Only one said they think there was a front entry wound, but he also said he never saw it. Every other physician in that room disagrees with him. The differing of opinions of those doctors have been posted several times here.

But when that doctor, Bob McClelland, was interviewed for the peer reviewed Texas State Journal of Medicine prior to his Warren Commission testimony, his opinion was different than what it was later in his career. In the Journal, he said: "

Quote:

---

"the cause of death was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the right side of the head."

---

THREE PATIENTS AT PARKLAND.

• Published: Texas State Journal of Medicine, 1964, Vol. 60, p60-74
• By: PEAVY JE
• ISSN: 0096-7165

Yep, likely a bullet coming from JFK's front right side, striking him just above and between his right eye and right ear. A shot that couldn't have come from behind where Oswald was. That's consistent with the video. Maybe one day we will get first hand confirmation via original autopsy photos.

This game of consensus is meaningless. Just like it proved to be with COVID wet market, horse dewormer, and Hunter's KGB laptop.

Quote:

---

"the cause of death was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the right side of the head."

---

Umm?

"of" the right side of the head is not "to" the right side of the head. That is confusing.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

"the cause of death was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the right side of the head."

---

Umm?

"of" the right side of the head is not "to" the right side of the head. That is confusing.

---

Definitely so.

stetson said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

FobTies said:

---

I look forward to the original high quality autopsy photos being released and independently authenticated. I really don't see any reason why they haven't been yet. Until then, I remain cautious with regards to leaked images, handwritten diagrams, gov investigations and testimony about entry and exit (from both sides).

---

I expect this will come as a shock to you, but John Stringer, the chief of photography at Bethesda and the person who took those original autopsy photos, has confirmed the authenticity of the autopsy photos in the National Archives twice: Nov 1, 1966, and again in 1993. Moreover, the House Select Committee also studied the photos and x-rays and confirmed the authenticity.

Quote:

---

Maybe in the future we will get others to corroborate the ballistics/movements with more testing, and maybe we will get more conclusive confirmation on the wounds. Until then not much else to do but demand more scrutiny where little has been paid.

---

The ballistics/movements have been exhaustively studied. The wounds have been conclusively confirmed. With the exception of the dictabelt recording, which was later proven to be a recording some minutes after the assassination at the Trade Mart and not in Dealey Plaza, the House Select Committee actually did a very thorough re-investigation into all of the testimony and evidence. But I don't expect you to change your mind just because of my post. You'll have to read what the Warren Commission and House Select Committee actually reported and stop listening to what the conspiracy theorists claim they reported. Then, if you've made it that far, you'll have to take the final step: having the courage to believe that JFK died a senseless death at the hands of a mentally unstable worm like Lee Harvey Oswald who happened to be in the right place at the right time.

---

The treating physicians at Parkland disagree with you and the autopsy findings.

---

No, they don't. This is an assertion by conspiracy writers that is false and has been covered previously on this thread and again by Guitarsoup just now.

If you look closely you can see a stream of what is probably blood and tissue being ejected upward and fiorward of Kennedy (Zapruder frame 313). That's much more easily explained by a shot from the rear.. I have not been able to find it, but a high contrast view of this frame done by the Itek Corp shows the thin stream much more clearly.

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.

---

https://open.spotify.com/show/6hD4xxJbvSRRyYoG196aSw

Rob Reiner created a podcast a couple of years ago making the point that the CIA created Oswald's pre-assassination identity out of whole cloth. They put him in all the places that are now known to make him appear to be unstable, dangerous and pro-russian when the opposite was true. Even has details of him getting some CIA treatment that was meant to cause psychotic problems in their subjects.

Rob Reiner is a leftwing radical and sees the assassination as a vengeful ploy by CIA leaders who wanted more war with Russia.

WestAustinAg said:

---

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.

---

https://open.spotify.com/show/6hD4xxJbvSRRyYoG196aSw

Rob Reiner created a podcast a couple of years ago making the point that the CIA created Oswald's pre-assassination identity out of whole cloth. They put him in all the places that are now known to make him appear to be unstable, dangerous and pro-russian when the opposite was true. Even has details of him getting some CIA treatment that was meant to cause psychotic problems in their subjects.

Rob Reiner is a leftwing radical and sees the assassination as a vengeful ploy by CIA leaders who wanted more war with Russia.

---

Meathead has all kinds of fun ideas. He says the fatal shot came from the triple overpass.

"The fatal headshot came from the overpass," Reiner said. This of course would explain why in the Zapruder home movie we see Kennedy's head thrown violently backward as his brain explodes.


But we know there were tons of spectators on the triple overpass.

Look at the aerial view at the time: Where does a sniper take cover so all those people sitting on the triple overpass can't see them?




He also named 4 assassins that were shooting at JFK.

https://randallbeach.substack.com/p/rob-reiner-names-four-shooters-in

Quote:

---

Here they are:
Herminio Diaz Garcia, a Cuban exile, mob figure and skilled marksman. He had felt betrayed by JFK's inaction against Castro, especially his lack of military support during the Bay of Pigs invasion.
John Souetre, a French assassin who had tried to kill French President Charles de Gaulle.
Charles Nicoletti, a Chicago mob associate and hit man for Giancana. He was murdered in 1977 before he could testify in front of the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Jack Cannon, a CIA operative.
Reiner and Russell said these four were "rogue individuals" who were working separately for different operatives.

---

How crazy is it that there were four different plots happening at the same time in the same place!

Guitarsoup said:

---

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.

---

So..."it was just too hard for a small group of intel assets within the CIA (or others) to keep track of where JFK's car ride would be." But Oswald benefitted from dumb luck and just happened to be there to do the deed.

That makes no sense. If Oswald figured it out from open sources....then it was known earlier by government sources.

WestAustinAg said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

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.

---

So..."it was just too hard for a small group of intel assets within the CIA (or others) to keep track of where JFK's car ride would be." But Oswald benefitted from dumb luck and just happened to be there to do the deed.

That makes no sense. If Oswald figured it out from open sources....then it was known earlier by government sources.

---

The route of the trip was not planned and confirmed until the week of the trip. It was planned by Ken ODonnell, Kennedy's close friend. How is the CIA going to have inside information on the route before the route was planned. If they had a contact in the Secret Service, they might have known a couple days before it was published in the newspapers, because that is when the route was planned.

And regardless of who you think shot Kennedy, it would be dumb luck that the route was planned by JFK's advisor to go in front of the building Oswald had worked for a couple months. So if you think that it was a CIA operative and LHO was truly a patsy, they had the dumb luck of the route being planned in front of a useful idiot's warehouse job. Or if you think that it was LHO by himself, same dumb luck.

Guitarsoup said:

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

dustin999 said:

---

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.

---

---

---

---

You've done an awesome job throughout this thread stating your arguments for or against things, and I've followed your posts closely, but this statement here I just can't get behind.

Just because it isn't formally in writing somewhere doesn't mean they didn't know he worked there.

EDIT: guitar, I apologize, it looks like you were not the one who made that statement
EDIT 2: maybe you did, it looks like I looked at wrong user

I always wondered if it was possible LHO and someone in the grassy knoll happened to both have chosen the same kill box independently. LHO starts shooting and then is shocked when a better marksman takes out his target. There were three shell casings found, but perhaps more than three shots fired.

NPH- said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

dustin999 said:

---

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.

---

---

---

---

You've done an awesome job throughout this thread stating your arguments for or against things, and I've followed your posts closely, but this statement here I just can't get behind.

Just because it isn't formally in writing somewhere doesn't mean they didn't know he worked there.

EDIT: guitar, I apologize, it looks like you were not the one who made that statement
EDIT 2: maybe you did, it looks like I looked at wrong user

---

We don't really know how closely they tracked Oswald after he came back from Mexico and I think that's one of the failings of the CIA. If a guy's going to Mexico City and trying to defect to Cuba or Russia in 1963 and they both deny him and you know that you probably need to follow up on what he's doing with the rest of his life.

As far as I know, there is not much evidence that he was being followed closely in September to November in Texas.

GdM moved to Haiti in June 63.

rwpag71 said:

---

If you look closely you can see a stream of what is probably blood and tissue being ejected upward and fiorward of Kennedy (Zapruder frame 313). That's much more easily explained by a shot from the rear.. I have not been able to find it, but a high contrast view of this frame done by the Itek Corp shows the thin stream much more clearly.

---

That's the prevailing thought. But if you slow things down with other ballistics vids, you actually see the first movement and spray is actually towards the shooter. You can see the stream going forward in this video.

When this can't be explained, the default response is "well that's an inanimate object, JFK is different"....then its right back to the selected experts the CIA allowed to relay autopsy wound locations back to us sheep. A bunch of overwhelming evidence from a lot of top guys, "see look at these links with memos, diagrams, and testimony". Don't believe your lying eyes.

SO grateful that nut missed Trump or we'd still be having threads like this 60+ years later.

My CIA buddy told me there was more physical evidence collected at the scene that had never been disclosed to the public......

Agristotle said:

---

My CIA buddy told me there was more physical evidence collected at the scene that had never been disclosed to the public......

---

Exactly what evidence was found and suppressed?

techno-ag said:

---

SO grateful that nut missed Trump or we'd still be having threads like this 60+ years later.

---

We may be debating whether or not it actually grazed his ear 60 years from now….

I really enjoy this thread, and in particular when there is not personal pissing matches going on. Guitarsoup lays out many well presented, logical, and verifiable facts that shows why he believes as he does, and justifiably so. And he explains it in excellent fashion. Now, the one caveat to what are basically the "best practices" facts is that the sources and data to obtain this facts could be manipulated, in essence that is what we have all hoped would be either proven or dispelled by the release of these oh so delicate files.

What I have hoped for is for more shedding light on LHO's time in Mexico as to me it is the major nebulous deal in all of this. Mexico was for years a conundrum in public intelligence circles or for the average citizen. Why? Castro launched his revolution from Mexico, where he had support and was welcomed, I have met several people that met him there (well they were my parents friends). Che Guevara spent years in Mexico, Sandino did as well. Carlos Fonseca the founder of the FSLN was deported to Mexico as well. Many harsh leftist "revolutionaries" that would all end up at odds with US policy spent lots of time in Mexico. Now why is this so much of an oddity?

I have been searching for an article that was published in the mid-90's by a Mexican historian/political scientist that caused quite a bit of uproar, but I haven't been able to find it yet. This was the first published account/accusation, which was later all but 100% verified, that 3 former Mexican presidents had been top paid assets of the CIA, along with multitudes of others dating back to the 1940's. All these former presidents at one time held the highest position in the Mexican government in terms of management/ruling (Gobernacion). All were over the DFS, Mexico's combination FBI/CIA. And that organization had several others reporting to the CIA.
What this article lays out is the compromising of these Mexican government functionaries along with Mexico basically "fostering/supporting" leftist usurpers at the behest of the CIA. I mean if the CIA was against these leftists and the CIA was basically involved in, if not controlling, the Mexican security organizations why was this allowed to happen in Mexico. This article makes the case that Winston Scott, the longtime CIA station chief in CDMX, was the Mexican equivalent of J. Edgar Hoover in controlling Mexican internal security organizations and Mexican foreign policy. The article states that the CIA was promulgating this activity and no better place than Mexico where the CIA could oversee and know 100% what was going on. Mexico welcomed these subversives with the strong rule that nothing be done to affect Mexican politics and that there were to be under the discreet supervision of the DFS. Notice no true leftist threat ever emerged in Mexico, but many future ones were hatched there.

I keep perusing the releases for something earth shattering but nothing as of yet. But to repeat, the DFS/CIA had the CCCP embassy and Cuban mission bugged and infiltrated, this was laid out clearly in this Mexican article, by various assets. There was extensive surveillance and record keeping on the DFS side of things and the DFS picked up, held, and interrogated many Americans and nationals of other countries that approached these supposed hostile foreign governments missions. So how or why could LHO, a known defector and US subversive, just had a la-de-da trip to Mexico, call and visit both missions, attend a radical leftist party (which how in the world could he have known about it) and travel to and from the US, on an arduous, uncomfortable, and slightly dangerous route and just kinda stay off the radar entirely until after the assassination?

To me there are but two explications to the above: 1. The CIA/DFS and penetration staff were totally inept to the point of absolute stupidity or 2. LHO was allowed to go through these processes for some reason or another. And as mentioned the FBI/CIA basically didn't, or at least according to the records available, pursue LHO much if any after the return from Mexico. Despite the records of the intercepted calls, conveniently lost, and despite the DFS records of surveillance.

All the known evidence points to the lone shooter conclusion. Yet it was done by an unstable bungler that had a wild 5-6 years of adulthood and managed to defect to the USSR, marry a Russian, renounce his citizenship, travel to Sweeden/Europe, Mexico, be in NOLA and do who knows what else as I am just not that knowledgeable. All of this when the average American likely had never traveled out of their home state. Where did all the money come from to do all of this?

To me there is too much smoke pointing to some kind of handling of LHO, whether that included the assassination and the trigger pulling I just don't know but can't make a firm case otherwise. But I do not believe that LHO was who his public persona was crafted to be after his death.

We know Pompeo pleaded with Trump not to release something. Has anyone seen anything released yet that Pompeo would be upset about?

Trump said in his EO signing that he would "release everything". But we know from other releases, not to take that literal.

Trump has been uncharacteristically quiet on bashing the CIA/FBI over this one topic. Maybe he has seen something we haven't that convinces him Oswald acted alone. Maybe he is keeping something in his back pocket as leverage to keep his last term coup-lesss. Who knows, just an observation.

*I would think pretty much everything in favor of the CIA narrative would already be released by now, unless it's unseen original photos of wounds or something the family might be able to conceal.

I honestly don't know what evidence he was referring to, if he knew, he didn't share.

Agristotle said:

---

I honestly don't know what evidence he was referring to, if he knew, he didn't share.

---

The obvious problems are:

1. The CIA wasn't collecting or analyzing hard evidence.
2. This is a guy that is an officer decades later (safe to assume?)
3. Way more innocuous things have been classified, but this is not? If it is, why is he sharing
4. If it is that much of an open secret... why is it not common knowledge. Guys like Jefferson Morley aren't talking about it.
5. If he had evidence and was allowed to talk about it... why doesn't he use it to get rich. Lots of people (like Jefferson Morley, Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugolosi, etc) have made millions off the JFK assassination. Anyone with actual knowledge or evidence of a conspiracy or a different set of facts would stand to make ridiculous, generational wealth. It's ok to share it, LBJ's been dead for 50 years.
6. The press was right there with DPD and the FBI taking pics as evidence was collected.
7. We have the Dallas cops telling sometimes confusing or conflicting stories about their experiences that day, but we have nothing from the people that were actually collecting evidence suggesting something like that.

Maybe he is right... but it seems hard to keep the actual substance of that secret when people are willing to blab about it to their buddies, and there is nothing concrete conveyed. It seems more like a "My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night" situation rather than a "Still got the shovel!" situation.

RGV AG said:

---

What I have hoped for is for more shedding light on LHO's time in Mexico as to me it is the major nebulous deal in all of this.

---

Great post as always. I agree. Just cutting a couple things out to comment on.

After your posts on here, I was really looking forward to learning more about our CIA activities in Mexico as well as what type of investigation LHO's trip to Mexico triggered. I haven't seen much.

Quote:

---

Castro launched his revolution from Mexico, where he had support and was welcomed, I have met several people that met him there (well they were my parents friends). Che Guevara spent years in Mexico, Sandino did as well. Carlos Fonseca the founder of the FSLN was deported to Mexico as well. Many harsh leftist "revolutionaries" that would all end up at odds with US policy spent lots of time in Mexico.

---

There was some document that showed the CIA offered like 100k for killing Castro and 20k for each of a couple other guys, one of which was Che.

Quote:

---

So how or why could LHO, a known defector and US subversive, just had a la-de-da trip to Mexico, call and visit both missions, attend a radical leftist party (which how in the world could he have known about it) and travel to and from the US, on an arduous, uncomfortable, and slightly dangerous route and just kinda stay off the radar entirely until after the assassination?

---

It's insane. And we have pics of him there as well as audio recordings from the wiretaps we had in their embassies.

Quote:

---

There was some document that showed the CIA offered like 100k for killing Castro and 20k for each of a couple other guys, one of which was Che.

---

It truly is insane when you think about it as CDMX was THE cold war hot spot leading up to the Cuban missile crises and shortly after that. Even more so than Berlin. The CCCP's had a huge presence there.

Think about what you posted above, if the CIA had the head of the operational arm of the Mexican government on their payroll, and several of his deputies and many others according to some of the declassified docs and serious Mexican publications, how could they not arrange a killing of Castro and Guevara? I mean they over threw the Guatemalan government and had several folks killed there and was dallying with regime change there during the better part of 2 decades.

A Mexican DFS agent would have killed Castro and Guevara for $100K Pesos, much less dollars. Some LatAm political observers make the case that the CIA was behind having Mexico be so active as they had such deep and through control over it.

There are various accounts that Oswald was driven around CDMX by an American student there and there were several eye witnesses to Oswald eating at the Sanborn's restaurant right near the US embassy on Reforma avenue in the company of 3 Americans, one of which was the student, a Quaker from Philadelphia. Phillip Agee, a vile scrounge per the CIA, stated with backing facts, that the student, I think his name was Kennon or something, was in fact "LICOVY3" one of 3 young double CIA/KGB agents that the CIA was running and had placed in CDMX to be recruited by the KGB. That student later went on to work for the FBI.

The one of the main issues I have with LHO in CDMX is that everything is so jumbled up and nonsensical as if LHO was just trying to figure out a way to get to Cuba why all the odd contacts and furtive actions and movements? And why all the confusion and disjointed information about what he did? Maybe LHO was just an off the wall, doltish, goofball who jacked up most everything he did. I don't know. But in 1963 not many 24 year olds from New Orleans via disgrace in the USMC and having renounced citizenship could easily saunter down Mexico way hook up with a Quaker double agent, a Mexican working at the Cuban embassy (who the CIA station chief says was his hookup for the week), attend a party where a fairly prominent leftist poet remember him and reported it after the killing and she and her family are held and tortured by the DFS.

I mean if someone tried to write a script for a convoluted messed up deal they could not have come close to what is actually documented, in ever changing bits and pieces, and put out for us hoi polloi to weed through.

All fair. I really am just reporting what the guy told me. We both had clearance, we always spoke in secure locations and he had some bonafides.

He had other interesting stories, including an assassination attempt against Gaddaffi that he said was called off because the shot-callers decided Gaddaffi's heir apparent was in bed with the Soviets, while Gaddaffi was just crazy and hated everybody.

Interesting fellow. My relationship with him had nothing to do with government service.

I downloaded content directly from seperate vids on YouTube. I then stitched different portions of those compliant videos together in a way that challenged the LHO lone shooter narrative. At that point, the content suddenly became non-compliant. Even though all the same content is still up on YouTube as we speak in it's original form.

This is more proof that big tech censors content that challenges the deep state narratives. Only took a few hours.


Maybe it will get picked up on X....the feds have a harder time there now.

#JFK #JFKFilesRelease #JFKassassinationboard
Please get this circulated ASAP pic.twitter.com/CA0WGZPVe6

— DEI Brake Tapper (@WokesideReggie) March 27, 2025

Can you describe what you are saying you did a little differently? What do you mean the same content is still up, but yours is no longer able to play. Was there some kind of give-away in where you joined them. Were the videos perhaps from different authors? Stitching together might be something it doesn't allow -- a form of copyright violation? It could be selective censorship but something doesn't sound quite correct.

I posted the screenshot from youtube. They claimed mine was "violent and graphic". But all of that exact same content is still on youtube in its original seperate ballistic testing, and zapruder vids.

It wasnt a copyright violation message.

So in summary- You can post ballistic vids showing initial splatter towards shooter, and JFK headshot splatter vids independently. But when you put them together in one video it then becomes too "graphic". Hmmm I wonder why that is.

So is the one below the screencap what YouTube took down. Interesting. You can see the violence that could prompt the notice, but if its from content already up on YouTube that is curious for sure.

A longshot. Did the music give it an air and tone censors thought out of line. (In any case, yes, the sequence has been seen streamed online often now. It shouldn't be remarkable. As for the ballistics involved, have always seen why things like this raise eyebrows, but the counter explanations also seem to work. Ballistics and shocks and damage can be unusual. But all it means is what you see is there --- what happens is for experts in physics to really lay out. (As many have on the thread it appears)

I have gotten copyright notices for music before. This one was a clear YT terms violation related to visual. But to be sure, reposted with no music.

Let's see how long it takes Det. Gabe Itches to get Google to take this one down....

titan said:

---

Ballistics and shocks and damage can be unusual. But all it means is what you see is there --- what happens is for experts in physics to really lay out. (As many have on the thread it appears)

---

I havent seen anyone on this thread, or elsewhere, refute what is in the video I have posted. They just cite old memos and testimony that conflicts with the 4 different ballistic experiments I posted. All of those ballistic tests show the first observable reaction to impact going in the direction of the shooter. But with JFK, it's different. The "experts" just assume the blood splatter is exit wound (not entry) because they knew Oswald was from behind. They say JFK's muscles/nervous system had to have propelled him backwards towards Oswald, not energy from a frontal bullet. Mainly because there was no frontal shooter arrested, but they did catch LHO from the rear.

If you can quote or link something else, please do.

This is a video from the renowned pathologist, Dr. Cyril Wecht who had reviewed the "official" autopsy in 1966, and made no attempt to disguise his obvious contempt for the findings of the Warren Commission. Pretty compelling observations, but not "official", nor consensus. Just common sense.