Oswald Leaving TSBD?

[Alistair Briggs]

For informational purposes only this may be of interest:

Quote

By ARRB law (of 1998), all existing assassination-related documents will be made public by October 2017. At the moment, 40,000 documents are still not fully available to the public, among them, 3,000 have never been seen by the public.

In 2013 the ARRB's former chairman John R. Tunheim and former deputy director Thomas Samoluk wrote in the Boston Guide that after the ARRB had declassified 5 million documents, "There is a body of documents that the CIA is still protecting, which should be released. Relying on inaccurate representations made by the CIA in the mid-1990s, the Review Board decided that records related to a deceased CIA agent named George Joannides were not relevant to the assassination. Subsequent work by researchers, using other records that were released by the board, demonstrates that these records should be made public." Tunheim and Samoluk pointed out that the CIA had not told the Warren Commission that George Joannides was the CIA lead for the Agency's links with the anti-Castro group Oswald had a public fight with in mid-1963; nor had they told the HSCA, to which Joannides was the CIA's liaison.Tunheim said in a separate interview that "It really was an example of treachery... If [the CIA] fooled us on that, they may have fooled us on other things."

 

[Sandy Larsen]

12 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

The (big) change is you have the Review Board did not determine something, when it is the  Review Board's examination of the records that determined the records did not impact the facts.

Thanks for all the explaining, Alistair. The part I quoted above is what got me understanding what Bugliosi meant to say.

It's not true that I changed the meaning of what Bugliosi said. Bugliosi worded it wrong and I merely maintained the meaning of his incorrect statement.

Bugliosi said:

"....the records were examined by the Review Board and were not determined to impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination."

It should be:

"....the records were examined by the Review Board and were determined to not impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination."

Although that's a little awkward. I would have worded it this way:

"....the records were examined by the Review Board and were determined to have no impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination."

With that cleared up, the other part becomes clear. (Though Bugliosi messed up the wording on that too,,, I guess he was in a big rush to get the thing written.) Bugliosi thinks he and the Warren Commission have the facts of the JFK assassination, and those are the facts that the Review Board determined the records would have no impact on.

[Bill Miller]

5 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

The thing about his tax record that I don't quite understand is, if Oswald was being paid as an informant (by whoever) would that have been declared on his tax records? Seems to me that it wouldn't be declared - it would be kept off the records. Perhaps it would have been declared. It does make sense as to why his tax records haven't been released. Whatever the reason, I reckon it was for something that was happening before he started work at the TSBD (for example, what Paul says about being a 'part-time informant for the FBI in 1962'.

The excuse for them not being released was said to be over National Security. I could see Oswald's records being an issue when he was supposed to be wanting to give up his U.S.  Citizenship, but his earnings once back in the States would be another matter. I have never seen a reason why that period of time could not have been released if only in a closed session.

[Alistair Briggs]

lol I think I over-explained it of course. lol

The easiest way to explain it would have just to do something like this:

Orginal statement;

Quote

all of the records were examined by the Review Board and were not determined to impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination

simplified;

Quote

all of the records were not determined to impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination

I agree that it would read better the two ways you have put it... " determined to not impact " or " determined to have no impact"... the last one is probably how I would have worded it too. I would probably have changed determined to found though for simplicity too.

I was a wee bit cautious in my previous respones and deliberatly made no mention of Bugliosi. And the reason I was cautious on that point is because I took the original statement from Wikipedia, there is a chance that it was just whoever wrote it on Wikipedia that had worded it that way - ie: not a direct quote from Bugliosi's book (which was referenced as a footnote.) Just a bit of caution on my part, no biggy though. Even still, Bugliosi is merely stating what the ARRB are going to do...

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Bugliosi thinks he and the Warren Commission have the facts of the JFK assassination, and those are the facts that the Review Board determined the records would have no impact on.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, but I think your distaste of Bugliosi and the Warren Commission may be leading you in to over-thinking it a wee bit, or maybe reading too much in to it. Inasmuch as because both of them are in the 'lone assassin, no conspiracy' camp and they have based that conclusion on the 'facts' of the case, that from reading that the ARRB are going to release records that don't impact those facts you are reading it as 'self-fullfilling' to the needs of Bugliosi and the WC.

As you know, from the currently available records, any number of different possibilites as to what happened can be raised. Thus, we can use the same facts that Bugliosi and the WC used to come to their conclusion to construct a case that has a different conclusion. Just because Bugliosi and the WC have used the facts to conclude 'lone assassin/no conspiracy' that doesn't make it true. They could be wrong! But the 'facts' they used to reach their conclusion remain as 'facts' irrespective of their conclusion.

The ARRB are going to release records that (they say) don't impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination. That doesn't, in and of itself, mean it backs up Bugliosi's and the WC's conclusion. If they are wrong then they are wrong. The 'facts' remain the 'facts'.

(NB: The 'facts' are the records themselves, and doesn't mean that what is in any individual record is a fact. Quick example, (one that isn't from the official records but I use it just as an example as it came to my mind), it is a fact that Jean Hill said she saw a white dog in the limo, it is not a fact that there was a dog. - hope that makes sense)

Regards

[Alistair Briggs]

19 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

The excuse for them not being released was said to be over National Security. I could see Oswald's records being an issue when he was supposed to be wanting to give up his U.S.  Citizenship, but his earnings once back in the States would be another matter. I have never seen a reason why that period of time could not have been released if only in a closed session.

lol the 'National Security' excuse always sounds a bit sinister doesn't it - like, what are they trying to hide. lol

Seriously though, I don't know how it works. Could they have released just a part of it, or does it have to be an 'all or nothing', I just don't know. It's not having been released though does imply there is something in there that someone somewhere doesn't want us to know. Fingers crossed it will be released. And if not, the suspicion will remain...

 

[Sandy Larsen]

32 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

simplified;

Quote

all of the records were not determined to impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination

 

Alistair,

The phrase is incorrectly worded. It means something different from what Bugliosi meant his sentence to mean.

This is off topic and I'm sure of no interest to others. So I'll explain why I say that in a PM.

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

The excuse for them not being released was said to be over National Security. I could see Oswald's records being an issue when he was supposed to be wanting to give up his U.S.  Citizenship, but his earnings once back in the States would be another matter. I have never seen a reason why that period of time could not have been released if only in a closed session.

Bill,

Here's my opinion:

(1) The reason for 1964 non-disclosure of thousands of documents related to the JFK assassination was stated to be National Security.  I accept that.

(2) In the absence of a fuller explanation, I presume that this referred to the Cold War with the USSR raging hot in 1964.

(3) Of course this would include Cuba's new treaty with the USSR.

(4) There were two explanations offered by CTers in 1964:

(4.1) That the JFK assassination was a Communist plot.   This was restated in fair detail by retired FBI agent James Hosty in his book, Assignment Oswald (1996).

(4.2) That the JFK assassination was a Radical Right plot.   This was restated in fair detail by professor Walt Brown in his book, Treachery in Dallas (1995).

(5) I myself am persuaded by the arguments of Walt Brown.   Here is my reasoning:

(5.1) If there had been a Communist plot, there would have been no reason for the USA to hide the fact, and every reason to publicize it in USA propaganda campaigns. 

(5.2) If there had been a Radical Right plot, the reason for the USA to hide the fact would be that the USSR would use the fact in its propaganda campaigns.

(5.3)  A major change in US history occurred when the USSR had collapsed in 1990, and the Cold War ended.

(5.4)  With the end of the Cold War, IMHO, there was less reason to withhold JFK assassination documents.

(5.5) In 1992, US President GHW Bush signed the JFK Records Act -- moving the date of disclosure from 2039 to 2017.   Evidently President Bush thought the USA could handle it, now that Communism was (probably) dead.

I fully expect to see in October this year, the US Government release documents showing that the Radical Right in Dallas assassinated President JFK and used LHO as a Patsy.

While one might exclaim that the US Government was an "accessory after the fact" (Sylvia Meagher, 1967), the sharp difference is this: the JFK Kill Team set up LHO to be a Communist Patsy.  The JFK Cover-up Team twisted the profile of LHO to be a "Lone Nut."

All these considerations persuade me that the Cold War was the main reason for the US Government holding back the JFK assassination documents, and that the collapse of the USSR was the main reason that President Bush signed the JFK Records Act in 1992.

To bring this back to the current thread: the Radical Right theory of the JFK assassination demonstrates that the Fritz-Holmes-Hosty-Bookhout-Sorrels TEAM was lying to the Warren Commission, and that all the TSBD workers were telling the truth.  Therefore, Prayer Man is unlikely to be LHO.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 6, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Alistair Briggs]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The phrase is incorrectly worded. It means something different from what Bugliosi meant his sentence to mean.

The phrase is not incorrectly worded! Sure it could be worded better, in a more clear way, but it's meaning is very clear and it means exactly what Bugliosi the Wiki editor who wrote it based on Bugliosi's book meant the sentence to mean. and that is 'all of the records were not determined to impact the facts'.

Quote

Although these documents may include interesting historical information, all of the records were examined by the Review Board and were not determined to impact the facts of the Kennedy assassination

That really couldn't be any clearer.

 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This is off topic and I'm sure of no interest to others. So I'll explain why I say that in a PM.

As a courtesy I have responded to your PM on this subject.

[Alistair Briggs]

30 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

To bring this back to the current thread: the Radical Right theory of the JFK assassination demonstrates that the Fritz-Holmes-Hosty-Bookhout-Sorrels TEAM was lying to the Warren Commission, and that all the TSBD workers were telling the truth.  Therefore, Prayer Man is unlikely to be LHO.

Bloody Prayer Man. lol It's such a stumbling block imo. From reading through all the earlier posts in this thread a good case is made for Prayer Man being Oswald - and yet there are other things pointing away from it (like no one reporting him standing there)...

... is there anything else that can be done to work out Prayer Man?

I can't say I have seen anything identifying all the people on the steps, does such a thing exist? Anyone know?

Regards

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Alistair Briggs said:

The phrase is not incorrectly worded!

I maintain it is. And, as you know, I've asked the members of Quora to judge whether I'm right or not..

Sure it could be worded better, in a more clear way, but it's meaning is very clear and it means exactly what Bugliosi the Wiki editor who wrote it based on Bugliosi's book meant the sentence to mean. and that is 'all of the records were not determined to impact the facts'.

That really couldn't be any clearer.

As a courtesy I have responded to your PM on this subject.

 

[Darren Hastings]

16 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

I fully expect to see in October this year, the US Government release documents showing that the Radical Right in Dallas assassinated President JFK and used LHO as a Patsy.

 

 

I fully expect that if anything is released it will be thousands of pages of worthless xxxx that further confuses the key issues.

I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Edited February 7, 2017 by Darren Hastings

[Paul Trejo]

6 hours ago, Darren Hastings said:

I fully expect that if anything is released it will be thousands of pages of worthless xxxx that further confuses the key issues.

I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Darren,

Despite the chaos underway in Washington DC at the moment, I remain confident in the wheels of the US Government -- and that standing Presidential orders will be executed appropriately.

IMHO, the reason that these documents were never released earlier was because LBJ put his signature of the ban.  Jim Garrison could not overcome that ban.  The HSCA could not overcome that ban.  Only another US President could overcome that ban.

I presume that is how our government works.

Now that President Bush put his signature on the release, I look forward to the actual release of all the JFK assassination documents.   Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren stated openly that they were indeed being "preserved."   Earl Warren could not read the future -- he could not tell when the USSR would collapse.  Therefore, he just took a guess and gave 75 years as the date (according to US urban legend).

President GHW Bush did the right thing, IMHO, by signing the JFK Records Act in 1992.  It was a heroic act, IMHO.  I look forward to the wheels of the US Government just obeying another Presidential order, and letting the cards fall as they may.

At least, I hope so -- as you do.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Kirk Gallaway]

I hope I'm wrong.

It is what it's going to be. There will be no tax records showing LHO's spy employment. The content and amount of information would have been released and been identical no matter  who won the Presidency.

I tend to think the next big government disclosure will be through the courts involving Johannides. Again, I hope I'm wrong.

[Sandy Larsen]

18 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I hope I'm wrong.

It is what it's going to be. There will be no tax records showing LHO's spy employment. The content and amount of information would have been released and been identical no matter  who won the Presidency.

I tend to think the next big government disclosure will be through the courts involving Johannides. Again, I hope I'm wrong.

I too hope that you are wrong, Kirk. But I'm pretty sure you are right.

I feel that CIA elements who are in-the-know are committed to keeping the coup d'etat covered up... forever. Because disclosure of the CIA's participation in the assassination would prove disastrous to the organization.

[Paul Trejo]

23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I too hope that you are wrong, Kirk. But I'm pretty sure you are right.

I feel that CIA elements who are in-the-know are committed to keeping the coup d'etat covered up... forever. Because disclosure of the CIA's participation in the assassination would prove disastrous to the organization.

Sandy

With all the blows to the head that the CIA has taken in the past decade, it seems to me that  a scandal that occurred 50 years ago would not matter much.

Besides, that, I still maintain that Bill Simpich (2014) showed conclusively that the CIA was dumbfounded by the Oswald Impersonation in Mexico City on October 1, 1963, and that's why they started an internal Mole Hunt to find the culprit.  They never found him.

Whoever impersonated Oswald in Mexico City was part of the JFK Kill Team, set up to frame LHO as a Communist -- in this case, speaking with a KGB Agent.

Bill Simpich suggests it was CIA agent David Morales who claimed to be LHO over that heavily tapped telephone between the Cuban consulate and the USSR embassy in Mexico City.

Yet, if there was a Mole Hunt in search of the Mole, and he was never found, then this means that the CIA high-command was not part of the plot that David Morales was participating in.  That confirms my hypothesis -- that David Morales was part of a Civilian plot, more precisely, a Radical Right plot centered in Dallas with a hub in New Orleans.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 9, 2017 by Paul Trejo