Asking the obvious

[Pat Speer]

18 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

The CIA as well as the FBI and other public institutions still have very high levels of public trust. I am curious why now you think "investors are starting to fear the worst"? Because of the recent batch of document dumps? Because of Tucker Carlson? I see no signs of this changing anytime. I am asking because I would genuinely like to be wrong. But I also really wouldn't get my hopes up. The CIA has been operating with impunity for the last 59 years, if not longer.

The CIA was almost dismantled in the 70's. Its bad behavior had been exposed and Jimmy Carter tried to push it from being the department of dirty tricks to being chiefly an intelligence-gathering organization. This trend was reversed during the Reagan years. Some at the time thought this was no coincidence, and that the crash of Carter's presidency along with the crash of an American rescue mission in Iran, was no accident. 

[Guest]

 

On 12/18/2022 at 1:57 PM, Lance Payette said:

Here is a list of the 12 CIA Directors just since 1992. Since the creation of the office of Director of National Intelligence in 2004, there have been 12 DNI's or acting DNI's. Presidents since 1992, of course, have included Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden.

Rather a disparate list of characters, it seems to me.

Is it plausible to you that ALL these people would have joined in the CIA stonewalling if the objective of said stonewalling were to hide LHO's role as an operative and/or some level of CIA involvement in the assassination? Really? Why?

Who do you think controls the release of documents - some secret cabal within the CIA that thumbs its collective nose at the President, DNI and Director of the CIA, perhaps some secret cabal (reptilian aliens?) that actually controls the Government if not the World?

As with so many things in Conspiracy World, the logic of this escapes me. (FWIW, precisely the same logic applies in UFO world, where there is always some super-secret cabal of Keepers of the Alien Truth that is answerable to no one and somehow maintains the Dark Secrets from generation to generation over a span of decades.)

 

As I'm always eager to learn (and being a newbie at this) . 

So (after all these years since 1963) you believe the reason for not having all files disclosed is what is stated here below ?   If you believe this, please give me a couple of real life examples why this would still be an issue today (some 59 years later...).    I mean, a lot has happened since then... so it should be something really really important ? Not ?  

Also, people have a strong desire - and need - to trust the government, do you think the government has done a good job in this case ?

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Gene Kelly]

This thread brings to mind former President Harry Truman's cautionary message in a column written for The Washington Post on December 22, 1963 (which he actually began writing nine days after Kennedy was killed). The headline said it all: “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence.”  Truman, who had created the Agency, stated:

“For some time, I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government ... injecting itself into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.”

The timing of Truman’s column - one month to the day after Kennedy’s murder - has been suggestive to many who suspect CIA involvement.  Truman didn't mention JFK's death in his column, but rather addressed the allegations of CIA complicity in the assassination obliquely:

“This quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and subject for cold war enemy propaganda."

Truman said he knew the first two directors of the CIA and called them “men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity” ... int the spirit of this EF Thread, he then added he could only assume the same about “all those who continue in charge.”  But he nonetheless recommended that the CIA’s operational duties should be terminated.  Truman also alluded to the CIA's subterfuge with the Bay of Pigs (where they tried to "mousetrap" JFK into a Cuban conflict), writing:

" ... the most important thing was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions.”

Truman apparently recognized that Dulles and his 'unrepentant associates' might not be above conspiring to get rid of a president they felt was soft on Communism and get even for their Bay of Pigs fiasco (see "Truman’s True Warning on the CIA" by Ray McGovern, Consortium News, 2013). The column didn't sit well with the recently fired Allen Dulles ... just four months later, Dulles paid Truman a visit and unsuccessfully tried to obtain a retraction.  Undeterred, Dulles nonetheless fabricated a retraction, falsely claiming that Truman told him the Post article was “all wrong,” and that Truman “seemed quite astounded at it.”  Jim DiEugenio has suggested that Dulles behavior constituted what prosecutors call "consciousness of guilt".  However, Truman denied any such retraction in a June 1964 letter to Look magazine, where he restated his critique of covert action, emphasizing that he never intended the CIA to get involved in “strange activities.”

As to considering this "disparate" group of Agency Directors over the past 20 years - and why it's unlikely they would collectively stonewall information on the Agency's involvement - I am reminded of what a former colleague, who had been an HSCA investigator, once shared with me about the CIA.  I was new to the assassination backstories at the time (circa 1992, when Robert Gates was DCI) and had expressed skepticism about CIA's role in the assassination, and why it hadn't been eventually exposed and/or acknowledged.  His response was simple and concise, and has resonated with me ever since:

"What makes you think that's the worst thing that they ever did?" 

Gene

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

The CIA was almost dismantled in the 70's. Its bad behavior had been exposed and Jimmy Carter tried to push it from being the department of dirty tricks to being chiefly an intelligence-gathering organization. This trend was reversed during the Reagan years. Some at the time thought this was no coincidence, and that the crash of Carter's presidency along with the crash of an American rescue mission in Iran, was no accident. 

I think Pat's timeline is correct, Reagan reinvigorated the Intelligence state with William Casey  But it never really got back to the level of the 50's and 60's, which doesn't mean you shouldn't be vigilant.

 

For those who take comfort in a "deep state". I don't mean to bust the bubble, but I don't think the government  can get away with 20% of what they could get away with in the 60's. But I don't claim to be an expert. But they certainly got better technology to track us. That's where some big problems are. Still the IRS has an over 30 year old computer system, which pretty much shows our government priorities.

 

Of course to contrast  there will always be Ben who claims the "deep state" are more powerful than ever and then he'll say that the stated 750 billion the pentagon says they spend this year is actually double that, mostly being black budget and some veteran's benefits, he wants to eliminate, that he got from an Indian article he read, I believe. So take it with a grain of salt, the estimate's are all over the place. But it's important to get some perspective, the OMB can't surreptitiously double the Defense budget and hope no one will see it.

 

The heyday of government funding was after the war where the U.S. emerged as the world superpower as result of largely remaining unscathed from WW2, and controlling nearly half the world's resources. And due to higher taxation rates, the size of the government skyrocketed and government department  heads became gods within themselves. That condition doesn't exist anymore.

 

Jean Paul, it wouldn't surprise me if Lance would also want the release of files.

Yes, Gene, and Truman released that one month after the assassination 12/22/1963, I believe. I've never heard that quote from Gates. That would be very powerful.

 

 

[Pat Speer]

35 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

This thread brings to mind former President Harry Truman's cautionary message in a column written for The Washington Post on December 22, 1963 (which he actually began writing nine days after Kennedy was killed). The headline said it all: “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence.”  Truman, who had created the Agency, stated:

“For some time, I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government ... injecting itself into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.”

The timing of Truman’s column - one month to the day after Kennedy’s murder - has been suggestive to many who suspect CIA involvement.  Truman didn't mention JFK's death in his column, but rather addressed the allegations of CIA complicity in the assassination obliquely:

“This quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and subject for cold war enemy propaganda."

Truman said he knew the first two directors of the CIA and called them “men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity” ... int the spirit of this EF Thread, he then added he could only assume the same about “all those who continue in charge.”  But he nonetheless recommended that the CIA’s operational duties should be terminated.  Truman also alluded to the CIA's subterfuge with the Bay of Pigs (where they tried to "mousetrap" JFK into a Cuban conflict), writing:

" ... the most important thing was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions.”

Truman apparently recognized that Dulles and his 'unrepentant associates' might not be above conspiring to get rid of a president they felt was soft on Communism and get even for their Bay of Pigs fiasco (see "Truman’s True Warning on the CIA" by Ray McGovern, Consortium News, 2013). The column didn't sit well with the recently fired Allen Dulles ... just four months later, Dulles paid Truman a visit and unsuccessfully tried to obtain a retraction.  Undeterred, Dulles nonetheless fabricated a retraction, falsely claiming that Truman told him the Post article was “all wrong,” and that Truman “seemed quite astounded at it.”  Jim DiEugenio has suggested that Dulles behavior constituted what prosecutors call "consciousness of guilt".  However, Truman denied any such retraction in a June 1964 letter to Look magazine, where he restated his critique of covert action, emphasizing that he never intended the CIA to get involved in “strange activities.”

As to considering this "disparate" group of Agency Directors over the past 20 years - and why it's unlikely they would collectively stonewall information on the Agency's involvement - I am reminded of what a former colleague, who had been an HSCA investigator, once shared with me about the CIA.  I was new to the assassination backstories at the time (circa 1992, when Robert Gates was DCI) and had expressed skepticism about CIA's role in the assassination, and why it hadn't been eventually exposed and/or acknowledged.  His response was simple and concise, and has resonated with me ever since:

"What makes you think that's the worst thing that they ever did?" 

Gene

FWIW, at one time I looked at the timing of Truman's statement regarding the CIA, and concluded he was not talking about the Kennedy assassination, but about the situation in Vietnam. It had been reported that the CIA was undermining Kennedy's (actually Lodge's) policies in Vietnam. As I recall, the chief of station Richardson was against the coup then in planning, and Lodge and others wanted him out. So they planted some stories in the press about the CIA being out of control, and forced Richardson's removal. I seem to recall as well that Richardson's son was on the forum at one point, and basically said the same thing, But it was a long time ago, and my memory is a bit foggy. 

[Guest]

On 12/20/2022 at 11:35 AM, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

As I'm always eager to learn (and being a newbie at this) . 

So (after all these years since 1963) you believe the reason for not having all files disclosed is what is stated here below ?   If you believe this, please give me a couple of real life examples why this would still be an issue today (some 59 years later...).    I mean, a lot has happened since then... so it should be something really really important ? Not ?  

Also, people have a strong desire - and need - to trust the government, do you think the government has done a good job in this case ?

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Lori Spencer]

19 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said:

The CIA as well as the FBI and other public institutions still have very high levels of public trust.

Why do Americans still trust the CIA and FBI? Like, at all? 🤷🏼‍♀️ 

According to a Sept. 2022 Gallup poll, public approval of  the CIA is 52% and FBI is 50%. 

In 2019, those agencies had 60% and 57% positive job ratings, respectively. 
 

These agencies haven’t exactly been bastions of integrity all these decades. 

Make it make sense?

Edited December 21, 2022 by Lori Spencer

[Lori Spencer]

Ron Paul has been saying for 40 years we need to just abolish the CIA and FBI. They’re unconstitutional for starters — and they cannot be reformed. 

JFK tried reforming the CIA. Bobby tried to rein in the FBI. How did that work out for them? 
 

As Trump found out, draining the swamp isn’t as easy as it sounds. 
 

I agree with Dr. Paul that we don’t need the CIA. Military intelligence agencies handled intelligence gathering and analysis just fine before 1947, and we should return to that. 
 

As for the Bureau, we don’t need a federal police force anymore (Paul argues we never did). We have the technology to easily coordinate crime investigations across state lines in the 21st Century. All police work should be state and local, Dr. Paul argues — I think his arguments are very persuasive.

In light of the recent Tucker Carlson JFKA/CIA reveal and the Twitter Files, Ron Paul is again repeating his long-standing call to abolish these agencies that do nothing good for our Republic (and in my opinion, never did). 

He gives more detail at the 7:50 mark in this 1988 Firing Line interview with Wm. F. Buckley Jr.:

 

 

Edited December 21, 2022 by Lori Spencer

[Gene Kelly]

18 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I think Pat's timeline is correct, Reagan reinvigorated the Intelligence state with William Casey  But it never really got back to the level of the 50's and 60's, which doesn't mean you shouldn't be vigilant.

 

For those who take comfort in a "deep state". I don't mean to bust the bubble, but I don't think the government  can get away with 20% of what they could get away with in the 60's. But I don't claim to be an expert. But they certainly got better technology to track us. That's where some big problems are. Still the IRS has an over 30 year old computer system, which pretty much shows our government priorities.

 

Of course to contrast  there will always be Ben who claims the "deep state" are more powerful than ever and then he'll say that the stated 750 billion the pentagon says they spend this year is actually double that, mostly being black budget and some veteran's benefits, he wants to eliminate, that he got from an Indian article he read, I believe. So take it with a grain of salt, the estimate's are all over the place. But it's important to get some perspective, the OMB can't surreptitiously double the Defense budget and hope no one will see it.

 

The heyday of government funding was after the war where the U.S. emerged as the world superpower as result of largely remaining unscathed from WW2, and controlling nearly half the world's resources. And due to higher taxation rates, the size of the government skyrocketed and government department  heads became gods within themselves. That condition doesn't exist anymore.

 

Jean Paul, it wouldn't surprise me if Lance would also want the release of files.

Yes, Gene, and Truman released that one month after the assassination 12/22/1963, I believe. I've never heard that quote from Gates. That would be very powerful.

 

 

Kirk

That quote (about the worst thing ever done) was not from Robert Gates ... it was made by a knowledgeable investigator (a former NYC detective) that I had previously worked with, who was involved in the HSCA.  He related to me how extraordinarily difficult it was to get any meaningful information from the CIA, in spite of being a Congressionally sanctioned investigator.  And while I was skeptical (at the time) of CIA involvement in the plot, he was quite sure of it.  When I asked him how sure, he said that he would bet a year's salary on it. 

Gene  

[Gene Kelly]

15 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Hi, Jean Paul - A recent article on the Politico site, which wasn’t especially sympathetic to the CIA, examined some of the Agency's reasoning about documents that have been withheld or redacted. We can also observe it in the redactions that were later unredacted. Much of what the CIA protected might strike you or me as almost silly. I think an agency like the CIA has an exaggerated sense of what constitutes a threat to "intelligence operations" and "foreign relations." It appears the CIA thinks anything that has any conceivable relevance to any living person or existing operation must be protected, which is surely overbroad. I would welcome it if Biden would cut through the crap and order the release of anything and everything because I'm confident there is no JFKA Bombshell (and would be fascinated if there were); I’m confident we’d see that both the CIA’s zeal to protect and the conspiracy community’s efforts to compel disclosure were much ado about pretty much nothing.

The conspiracy community seems to me to have a very exaggerated sense of the importance and impact of any conceivable JFKA Bombshell, as though it would be the equivalent of learning the skies were filled with aliens. This is somewhat understandable because a hypothesized JFKA Bombshell is the raison d’etre for the existence of the conspiracy community – the altar at which much of the community worships.

I really don’t think a JFKA Bombshell dating back to 1963 would be much of a bombshell in 2023. If the truth were that a group of high-level CIA officials 60 years ago were involved in plotting the JFKA, I doubt the public response would be more than “Fascinating – just what we suspected!” or that there would be huge ramifications for the CIA today. Why would there be?

The most troubling aspect of such a revelation would be, “Why did you feel compelled to hide this for 60 years?” Considering the revelations that actually have come to light about the CIA, is it reasonable to view the JFKA as being in some uniquely ghastly category 40, 50 or 60 years later? I don’t think so; others apparently do.

If there were actually 60-year-old documents showing CIA involvement in the JFKA, then no – I don’t see how they could conceivably fit within the excepted categories in the 1962 Act. This really underscores my point. When you look at the caliber of the individuals who have served as CIA Director since 1992, and the Presidents to whom they reported, it’s inconceivable to me they all would have sold their integrity to protect 60-year-old documents that legally should have been disclosed. If Angleton, Joannides, et al., really were out-of-control fiends from hell, why would a CIA Director or President in 1992, 2002 or 2022 feel compelled to protect them at the expense of his own integrity and risk to his own reputation? It makes no sense to me.

I would bet my life savings there is no JFKA Bombshell. If there ever was, it surely went poof more than 50 years ago. For the reasons described in the above paragraph, if a JFKA Bombshell existed in 1992 I’m confident it would’ve been released by now. If I’m proven wrong – super, I’ll be fascinated. I just try to go where rationality leads me.

Lance

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with some of what you say here.  I don't anticipate there ever being the "bombshell" that you allude to. To think such a record still exists is a stretch.  And the individuals responsible for JFK's murder were very good at what they did (imho) ... and likely too smart to commit anything incriminating to paper. 

I've always had a difficult time wrapping my arms around the records release aspect of this case. Nor do I put much hope in it.  Pouring thru the released records seems a tedious task, akin to putting a giant jigsaw puzzle together, using bits and pieces (i.e., little scraps of information) to gain more insight.  In fairness, I suspect there are certain documents legitimately withheld for valid reasons (personal privacy, means/methods, confidential sources, investigative techniques, physical safety etc.). However, there are suspect individuals (e.g., William Harvey, David Morales, George Joannides) that appear to be inappropriately protected, even though its 50+ years later and they're no longer alive ... that sends a message that something damaging to the official story is still being withheld. Which is important to those still interested in knowing what really happened. 

Last, knowing a little about federal agencies, my experience is that they're about self-preservation, and protecting their image.  While they are public servants who take an Oath, and public opinion is important, it's really not what drives them to change ... only Congress - which funds their activities and controls their staffing levels - can make that happen.   

Gene

[Joe Bauer]

21 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

I was new to the assassination backstories at the time (circa 1992, when Robert Gates was DCI) and had expressed skepticism about CIA's role in the assassination, and why it hadn't been eventually exposed and/or acknowledged.  His response was simple and concise, and has resonated with me ever since:

"What makes you think that's the worst thing that they ever did?" 

Gene

Just as some related that the Watergate affair was just the tip of the iceberg regards other illegal domestic activities by such covert groups whose targets were always adversaries of the MIC Republican party.

And don't forget Jessie Ventura recounting his being called down to his Capital building basement right after he was elected as Governor of Minnesota to be questioned by a circled group of disparate average looking people including even young college age men and women who quizzed him about his ideological stances.  They were CIA...according to Ventura.

Ventura said he thought their role mandate was not supposed to be domestic. It really disturbed him that he was confronted like that.

[Gene Kelly]

Joe

I share your concern here.  The Domestic Operations Division was performing out of legal bounds in those days (not sure that it still persists) and clearly outside of the CIA's Charter.  In the 60's, those were some of the most outlandish (and illegal) activities that CIA conducted. They targeted anti-war groups and American "dissidents", and conducted all manner of dirty tricks (e.g., Operation CHAOS).  This was not aimed at something that threatened national security, and it strayed far from their original mandate of intelligence gathering ... which is the criticism that former President Truman made following the assassination.  Those were some of the worst abuses (imho) and - if for example you dig into the entire Charles Manson story - you'll find that the intelligence agencies had a hand in that fiasco.   

Gene

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/21/2022 at 5:59 AM, Lori Spencer said:

As Trump found out, draining the swamp isn’t as easy as it sounds.

 

Oh please.... Trump didn't do anything to drain the swamp. If anything, he filled it to the brim.

 

[James Wilkinson]

For all of Lance's harping on "logic," his original post on this thread is the textbook definition of an argument from incredulity (seasoned with a dash of straw men).

I can't say whether he was unaware of committing such a blatant Aristotelian fallacy or if it was done deliberately in bad faith. Neither explanation is defensible.

As I'm sure we all understand (at least the rest of us), identifying a logical fallacy in an argument means that argument can be wholly dismissed as irrational.

I'd say nice try, but that would be dishonest.

Edited December 24, 2022 by James Wilkinson

[Mark Ulrik]

3 hours ago, James Wilkinson said:

For all of Lance's harping on "logic," his original post on this thread is the textbook definition of an argument from incredulity (seasoned with a dash of straw men).

I can't say whether he was unaware of committing such a blatant Aristotelian fallacy or if it was done deliberately in bad faith. Neither explanation is defensible.

As I'm sure we all understand (at least the rest of us), identifying a logical fallacy in an argument means that argument can be wholly dismissed as irrational.

I'd say nice try, but that would be dishonest.

I'm not sure it's such a good example of an argument from incredulity. At least not a fully fledged one. There is a difference between "This doesn't seem plausible to me; does it seem plausible to you?" and "This doesn't seem plausible to me; therefore it MUST be FALSE."

Let's try to imagine that someone, perhaps a CT, would attempt to argue that, surely, ALL these witnesses CAN'T have been wrong about hearing shots from the GK, observing the limo come to a full stop, observing a large BOH defect, etc. Would it be fair to characterize those as arguments from incredulity, in your learned opinion?