Cory Santos

Politico had this story on the 20th, before Trump tweeted, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/20/trump-block-release-jfk-kennedy-assassination-files-documents-215732 Then, it changed its tune, http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/21/trump-jfk-assassination-files-john-kennedy-244018 Probably due to the sources politico is utilizing, Shenon etc.

I think the articles are becoming more disingenuous each time. They seem to contradict prior comments each time. Now, to suggest that releasing the docs. will merely increase the conspiracy theories and therefore, do not release them because it will be a fiasco, excuse me while I go barf around the corner. I am disgusted any credible news source would print that crap. This is history, our country, and transparency. If it was Oswald, there is nothing to hide.

President Trump is making the correct decision. I hope nothing changes. I do know from several associates that this is a big issue right now. So, it will be interesting to see what the documents contain. I am, however, sick of the Sabato and friends articles. These guys change their tune every week it seems depending on who is interviewing them, politico, etc. It would be nice if other reputable people would be interviewed. That brings me to the big question, if Judyth Baker is legit, has she provided any insight on anything relevant that she personally knows about Oswald, which is not public info elsewhere, which will be confirmed in the document release? Now is the time for her to spill that info if she has not already, if she is legit that is.

Very interesting. I had not heard this before. https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/

Very interested in it. Will probably stream it.

I would be interested in reviewing these documents. http://www.wfaa.com/features/14-boxes-of-jack-ruby-records-become-public-next-week/477719764

One has to wonder, assuming this report is true, could this document have been utilized by the W.C. and if not, why? If Oswald was in D.C. in September, this document could have been proof of two things for the W.C. First, that he has a problem with authority and was not afraid to publicly confront someone over his views (see how he confronted the driver and continued to linger around). Second, that he was in D.C. in September, perhaps to stalk JFK? Yet, this report, to my knowledge, was not utilized by the W.C. As a trial attorney, I must ask "why" because it would have made sense to include it. Now, unless I am incorrect and it was cited by the W.C., then that answer to that why might be relevant to determine if he was being set up to look the part of the W.C. theme. Jim or Vince, perhaps you can elaborate?

Is there a document or report which confirms that it was "Lee" who reported one of the alleged teams? In other words, is this based on a government document or someone stating it? Thanks.

I actually worked on a Woody Harrelson movie, "Kingpin". He is a really good actor, was very nice on the set, and yes, he will be considered for his role in LBJ.

Is anyone aware of any alias David Ferrie might have utilized? Thank you.

This is very very interesting on so many levels.

Actually, the reviews from critics have been excellent. I represent actor Dan Hewitt Owens who plays Abe Fortas in the film. He directed a movie, "Project: Puppies for Christmas" last year and my daughter and I acted in it. Considering the cast, I think it is a must see and is getting early award considerations. If you only want to see conspiracy films, well, you can wait for a sequel to JFK I suppose but if you are open to other films, this should be on your list of good movies to see.

Do we know who the witnesses were? Investigating a criminal case is not easy as one thinks. I can think of many reasons not to interview a witness. First, a known credibility issue. Second, maybe they interviewed the witness previously and saw no reason to interview them again. Third, they probably asked what the alleged witness knew and then decided against interviewing them. Perhaps, in reality, the witness knew nothing. If they investigate some aspect of the case and decide it is not relevant and then someone offers information on that same aspect of the case, perhaps they did not feel it would produce anything. I think before jumping to conclusions as to what happened we need to know who the witnesses are, what information they can provide, and answer why they said nothing decades ago (assuming this is the first time they brought forward any information). Simply saying they did not interview everyone and thus the investigation was somehow rigged, that is not a logical leap, at least, not in the legal system. If this author feels he has such strong evidence, he has the ability to make his case, release the information and maybe the office will change its opinion. I am not sure what young prosecuting attorney would not enjoy obtaining information on a high profile cold case and make the headlines by prosecuting it with solid evidence. Makes no sense.

Actually, not just gold, a mountain of gold! You got that right but remember, they even connected Marilyn to it!

Douglas (if I may call you by your first name), Thank you for your information. I find that very interesting. But one thought I would like you to respond to, if there was an "alien presence" and JFK knew about it and then worked with the soviets, many have argued that an "independence day" type event brings the world together and unites us. That would involve more spending on military if there was a known threat. So logically, why not present that to the world because it would help the military industrial complex visa increased spending. Seems to kind of not make sense then. I am sure there can be other reasons though, such as mass hysteria. Please feel free to add more information as your comments are highly relevant. Having said that, my intent here was to bring attention to this documentary to this group and have people watch it and give their opinions. I was hoping for perspective. I feel kind of like I just argued a case in front of a jury but rather than look at the evidence and then hear my argument, the jurors relied on their own ideas rather than look at the evidence.I have several good friends retired from the Secret Service that when we sit around and talk about JFK, they discredit anything about the assassination. I ask them if they knew this fact or that fact or watched this or that. The response is "no, I don't watch that trash". But I wanted to have dialogue with them having this information so they can think about it and then give their opinion. My point is how can researchers not consider all points and arguments by ignoring a documentary or film or book, etc. without having looked at it. It is like the juror who has a decision on day one of the trial. You have to look at it and then give your thought. As a trial attorney I would never just ignore something, I need to look at it and then determine the relevance thereof. I do appreciate the lively debate I just would like people to watch it and then tell me its wrong or right, etc.

Not sure if you are still looking for an answer on this but, probably no, they could have had a satellite office, but, generally they were combined. There was also an Arthur J. Sullivan. He was in Texas. Make sure he is not confused with Arthur C. Sullivan.

New to Netflix is a documentary from Dr. Greer regarding UFO's titled "Unacknowledged". I had heard about it so I watched it last night. Interestingly, it wove into the theme the theory that the JFK Assassination and the unfortunate events regarding Marilyn Monroe were connected to UFO's. I will not expand on the theory because I do not want to spoil it for you. Of course, I do not give an opinion on the overall conspiracy presented, but, will say as a documentary, it was much better than the usual UFO documentary one finds on youtube or netflix as Dr. Greer presents somewhat more credible witnesses and documentary evidence. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6400614/ Watch it and feel free to give me your thoughts as I am interested to see if this documentary hit the mark for all of you or was a miss, especially as it relates to JFK. Regards,

Jim, I think what he is trying to catch you in is this: Jim, since you believe an intelligence conspiracy killed JFK, do you think the same group is conspiring to get rid of President Trump visa a fake Russian hack of the election. Then if you say "no" he has you, but you punted, you said you dont have all the evidence. So he swings his bait to Ruth Paine. . . implying that you speculated in your books about her. . . so alas, you can do so on Trump. Certainly, if you have been watching CNN, you would know President Trump has done lots of bad things. So if you continue to not take the bait and say you dont have the evidence, he will use that to destroy your theory on Ruth Paine. At least that is what I got out of it. It was a clever bait. He knew what he was doing. Jim, you did not fall for it.

Strange, I keep seeing politicians trying to utilize the records release to support their political views. To some, its the "right wing zealots" behind the assassination. To others, as Mike Huckabee stated recently:

To elaborate on my prior post, now the media has been reporting quite a bit on the Russian alleged link. https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2017/07/27/-russia-involved-assassination-jfk/104059566/ http://www.newsweek.com/cia-releases-secret-interviews-russian-spy-imprisoned-jfk-assassination-642486 several others were found. Again, the media seems to be focusing on a Russian link which coincides with other current events.

Interesting point, but as for the noise caused by the patrols, did any witnesses state there was significant noise caused by the patrols? I recall most witnesses clearly stating the approximate areas of where the shots came from, what they heard, screaming, etc. I do not recall anyone stating significant noise caused by the cycles. Yes, there were several motor patrols, but they were all in different areas at the time of this alleged shot. They were not all on Houston Street where this alleged shot came from. Besides, even with background noise -assuming arguendo that the cycles were all near that street and causing significant noise- people not accustomed to gun shots jump when they hear rifles, especially if it is right over their head. There is no evidence of this in the video. Lastly, its a terrible position as it is too low and provides no cover or concealment as opposed to the sixth floor of the BD or the grassy knoll for example. As for the video, it is merely an 8 second video of a guy pointing to the book depository. The person does not state shots came from records building in the clip you linked above. Is there some other video where he states this?

Coincidences mean everything when investigating a case. Though the picture is interesting, can you point out one ground witness - and there were many- that said the shot came from that area? The press vehicle is right there below the window and none of them appear to notice it. Having been around live gun fire, people unaccustomed to a blast from a rifle jump. So, although an interesting find, probably a coincidence without more. I would recommend analysis be a specialist to determine what the image is, that is what would be required in court.

Interesting find regarding the memo and the bullet behind the ear. . . I have yet to find that reported on by major media. I find prior posts above interesting as well. Ignoring the anti Trump comments, I wonder, is it a coincidence that the press reporting on the release is focusing mainly on files related to Russia and specifically Yuri Nosenko? When one considers the political climate now and the strange History Channel show (which apparently will not finish its run in the U.S.) which was heavily focused on pointing the finger at Russia, I question whether this is a coincidence or something more. Coincidences are a strange thing indeed.

One thought, creative people do creative things, i.e., hide a name on a video game and create the Easter Egg in Atari's Adventure; they hide hidden images of characters and messages in theme parks in plain view just to see if people catch on; they hide lyrics in films, literature, plays and TV. This is their nature, it does not equate to a nefarious conspiracy. I suppose there have been exceptions to this. Read about the Wizard of Oz controversies, though they have been debunked, new videos on the subject are made. I submit that the reason is as I stated above, creative people do creative things. It is in their brain. By creative people, I am of course referring to members of the Beatles band.

Hi, I can merely say that he is a very fascinating person. He is a great pilot. Many of his views can be found on youtube videos. Does that answer your question or did you have something specific in mind?