Posted on 10/26/2017 6:37:29 PM PDT by barmag25
From July’s Declassified Files:
.... “no smoking gun, but something smells.” .... a great deal of interesting stories and revelations, some of them quite startling. ... surprising documents and interviews which support the idea of a medical cover-up of a shot from the front, much more detail on Oswald trip to Mexico City, revelations on CIA’s monitoring and fear of the Garrison probe, and much more, including a wealth of detail on many of the characters known to JFK assassination researchers.
A few samples from the released files:
A transcript of a phone call between Pres. Johnson and FBI Director Hoover from the morning after the assassination, wherein Hoover informed LBJ that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City. The tape of this phone call has been erased.
In response to a cable reporting Oswald’s call to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, CIA HQ cabled back false information about Oswald to its own CIA station there. One of the cabling officers said in 1995: “I’m signing off on something I know isn’t true,” and said this indicated “a keen interest in Oswald held very closely on the need to know basis.”
Acknowledgment by the CIA that at least one defector to the Soviet Union was part of a false defector program.
Revelations of CIA relationships with many of the “independent” writers on the case, including Priscilla Johnson, Hugh Aynesworth, writers at the Miami Herald, and others.
In New Orleans grand jury testimony, Marina Oswald stated that the Secret Service warned her to stay away from Ruth Paine, who was “sympathizing with the CIA. She wrote letters over there...”
Capt. Will Fritz’ contemporaneous notes of an interview with Oswald on Nov 22, in which Oswald provided an alibi for his whereabouts at lunch.
A contact report from Dr. Burkley’s lawyer to the HSCA, saying that his client (JFK’s personal physician) had information that “others besides Oswald must have participated.”
Documents showing that the HSCA had tested the Navy camera which was supposed to have taken JFK’s autopsy photographs, and it failed the authenticity tests.
HSCA interviews of autopsy witnesses directly contradicting the depictions of wounds presented by the medical panel; the interviews were suppressed and misrepresented by the HSCA.
A sworn interview with Saundra Kay Spencer, who developed the JFK autopsy photos, in which she declared that the photos in the Archives are not the ones she developed. Autopsy photographer John Stringer similarly disavowed the supplemental autopsy brain photographs.
Papers on “Operation Northwoods,” a proposed program to initiate real and simulated attacks on the U.S. and blame them on Castro, as a pretext for invading Cuba.
Plans for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam drawn up in the spring of 1963.
Lyndon Johnson —The declassification of tapes of Lyndon Johnson’s phone calls, along with other documents, provided an explanation for why the WC might have engaged in a cover-up: to prevent World War III. Johnson continually refers in phone calls to “foreign complications” (allegations of Communist conspiracy, mainly emanating from Mexico City) and that the lives of “40 million Americans” were at stake. He told Senator Russell that he had finally convinced Earl Warren to head the Commission because of “what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City.” (audio)
https://maryferrell.org/pages/JFK_Assassination.html
I have reviewed ORIGINAL SOURCES and evidence. Someone’s book for profit on the topic is hardly to be considered an original source. Many prefer to look at the released files found through the search engines and wade through a variety of expert opinions and viewpoints. Weighing in on the FACTS is examining the original data.
Some of these researchers have been diligently collecting, reviewing and debating information for decades and their opinions carry weight. They openly share their findings, many without writing another new JFK book for profit. It’s interesting to weed through and connect the dots.
At this day of a new release, how would you personally know without a doubt that there is nothing to see? Have you just digested thousands of pages of documents and related audio recordings? Certainly, no one has had the time to understand the depth of the new material.
Realize that if you are an expert JFK theory analyst, your dissuasion will still fail to convince the other 60-70% of Americans to ignore evidence that is fresh to us.
As a footnote, you will find few Kennedy worshipers here. Many don’t consider his death to be some ‘great senseless tragedy’ or bought into the Camelot tale. (Sorry that Caroline & Jr. lost their daddy.) His death as an answer to someone(s) personal, political, financial, national, or international problem made perfect sense to a long list of Kennedy foes.
In regard to your points about the fascination by the Kennedy cult of conspirators:
1). Most have done little research, but they recognize when something fails to pass the ‘smell test.’
2) People profit, it’s the American way. ‘Case Closed’ did not close the case in the view of the majority.
3). Conspiracies are entertaining, especially when contradictory evidence continues to Pop-Up!
4). It only becomes unbelievable when the data and facts imply otherwise and fail to uphold the story.
5). You forgot the big one. Whenever an assassin is assassinated it fuels conspiracy. And this is most especially true when the suspected assassin is executed in the custody of LEO.
Conspiracy theories are non-falsifiable. In my experience (as one who was very much into them when younger), the vast majority of their proponents will never drop them. They are emotionally wedded to them.
Yes I agree.
Conspiracy buffs also are not comfortable with the common sense of “Occam’s Razor”—the tried and true universal principle that the vast majority of the time, the true “solution” to a situation or a problem is the one that has the fewest assumptions.
I trust the expertise of Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi, and the many skilled researchers, forensic scientists, and law enforcement personnel who took the original evidence, and as professionals, analyzed/interpreted the evidence. These people are not amateur sleuths.
Having or seeing the evidence is one thing, interpreting the evidence correctly is another matter.
In any case, I know we’re not going to agree on this, and that’s okay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.