New JFK Files: “Nothing to See Here! Please disperse!”

[W. Tracy Parnell]

41 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

I'd think the outright destruction of the documentation of the event and it's subsequent proceedings would cause you to pause. 

I wouldn't support any proven destruction of relevant files. But it happens I suppose. Fortuneately, we have 5 million documents in the JFK Collection and we can see the big picture.

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Sure, that makes sense. I wanted to see Veciana's SSCIA testimony for sure. I think it would have helped my case. But I don't subscribe to the idea that we can't know what happened in Dallas unless every piece of paper is released. I've looked at the files and I see what they have been holding back and it is people's names, project names and so on. Just my view.

I was more referring to the records we know are missing, since some of that stuff could be critical to understanding certain aspects of the case. For example, the few surviving SSCIA INS/Customs records already suggest that Oswald may have had a relationship with the government in New Orleans - and all we have left is something like 12 pages worth of memos. We know for a fact that we’re missing at least four deposition transcripts and two pre-interview reports, but that investigation spanned months and there’s evidence suggesting that the Committee interviewed dozens of INS and Customs agents in both New Orleans and Dallas. Where’d all that stuff go, and why did it disappear? Considering the subject matter I have a hard time believing that someone just filed it all the wrong drawer. 

Malcolm Blunt did an interesting interview with Bart Kamp on missing records about a year ago. It’s definitely worth a watch: 

 

[Lori Spencer]

22 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

What about the document that said the KGB had turned Oswald while in Russia?

It really is remarkable that almost 60 years later, all the experts in Russia and the US still can't quite pin down who Oswald was really working for. 

For a low-level asset/informant, that Oswald was pretty savvy after all, it turns out. 

[Michael DiGiovanni]

On 12/16/2022 at 4:11 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Oh, you underestimate hard-working journalists. 

CBS read all 24 volumes of the Warren Report, as I recall, and vouched for WC findings in day or two. 

The NY Times reviewed the 26 volumes on November 23, 1964, the day they were published.  Took me almost two years (full-time job got in the way).  MSM is and has been a joke.  I find it fascinating that some on this board are slamming Tucker Carlson for stating publicly what most on here have believed for years, yet the MSM (NBC, CBS, ABC, NY Times, WaPo, etc) continue to cover-up for the CIA’s assassination of a President.  

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/16/2022 at 10:50 PM, Lori Spencer said:

It really is remarkable that almost 60 years later, all the experts in Russia and the US still can't quite pin down who Oswald was really working for. 

For a low-level asset/informant, that Oswald was pretty savvy after all, it turns out. 

 

In that very document where it is stated that Oswald was considered by the Russians to be a KGB agent, it is also stated that a person like Oswald WOULD be considered to be KGB if he merely opened up and talked about himself. The local KGB would say he was turned just for the prestige it brought them.

I've seen no reason to believe that Oswald was turned.

On the other hand, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to conclude that Oswald was a CIA asset or agent. For some reason a lot of people believe that direct (non-circumstantial) evidence is necessary to draw that conclusion.

 

[Lori Spencer]

34 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

've seen no reason to believe that Oswald was turned.

On the other hand, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to conclude that Oswald was a CIA asset or agent. For some reason a lot of people believe that direct (non-circumstantial) evidence is necessary to draw that conclusion.

Agreed. I don’t think Lee fooled KGB for one minute. But they were certainly keeping a close eye on him, as well they should have.