The WaPo Addresses JFK Records; But Misses a Big Angle

[Paul Brancato]

Roger - really good post.

[Benjamin Cole]

10 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

 

Multilayered coverup is a good description of the situation.

 

I think one way to break the logjam is to concentrate on Oswald's alibi (as Sylvia Meagher suggested decades ago).  Was Oswald on the 6th floor?  Did he shoot anyone?  In his first interrogation the afternoon of the murder Oswald said he was on the first floor and at some point went outside to "watch the p parade".

 

To do this, however, we must break out of the straightjacket that has been imposed, and accepted by too many around here, as to what constitutes relevant sources of information to look for.

 

It's true the JFK Act was written in terms of the release of govt records.  But the politicians who passed the law were smart enough to delegate to the ARRB the job of defining exactly what they were to look for and where to look.

 

After a couple of years of hearings and rulemakings, in the summer of '95, the ARRB settled on the broadest definition possible of "record".  A JFKA record is any information, no matter its form or who possesses it, that is relevant to understanding the murder.   Properly defining record opens up a mountain information mostly ignored in the frantic chase to uncover what the CIA is hiding.

 

What would an enhanced Darnell and Wiegman films show about who was on those steps shortly after the murder?  They are not being hidden by a govt agency, but by a private "media" org whose job it is supposed to be to bring the truth to the public.

 

Not only do I think NBC executives know what the film original shows, but it's likely, for example, that Darnell did too.  That's why when approached by folks from ROKC he refused to talk to them.  Too many difficult questions to answer, too hard to make up sufficient lies. But he died a few years ago while everyone was chasing govt documents.

 

I'd like to see the final report by the French of their March, 1964 investigation into the whereabouts of Jean Rene Souetre.  Fensterwald tried to get it in the 80s but was refused because Soetere was still alive.  He has since died. 

 

I think the newspaper article that instigated the inquiry was a hoax.  I wonder what the French concluded.  They knew Souetre had been involved in plots to shoot DeGaulle. And DeGaulle never believed the Oswald story.

 

In that investigation the FBI said that the CIA had a thick file on Souetre and the CIA admitted to talking to him in the Spring of '63.  Where is that file?  The JFK Act allows for the State Dept to contact the French about the matter.

 

I'd like to see the steno tapes of the interviews the WC did of Vicki Adams and Shelley and Lovelady, all on the same day. NARA says they established a place for them in the Collection, but they're missing.  Even Judge Seeborg apparently is amenable to allowing Bill and Larry to ask for a further search for records alleged to be missing.

 

Written statements were easy to alter.  Not so with the tapes.  It's important to nail down which lie the WR used to discredit Adams' testimony and to expose it as a such.  

 

In isolating Adams so they could discredit her, the WC did not officially interview Dorothy Garner, tho they talked to her and must have known what she said.  Is there anything more from Garner other than what she told Barry Ernest in his book? 

 

This is just a small inkling of the relevant information not currently in the Collection.  My understanding is that Bill and Larry have been compiling such a list to ask for at the proper time in their lawsuit.

 

The point is, chasing after information thought to be hidden by govt agencies may be mostly a diversion. That is particularly clear if David is right that such information is unlikely to exist.  Or if it did, it hasn't survived.

 

The focus of further work needs to be considerably broadened to encompass the actual definition of "record" established by the ARRB.

 

If Oswald's innocence can gain acceptance, that would destroy whatever validity remains of the WR, and should lead to demands to find out what really happened. 

RO-

Thanks for you collegial contributions to the EF-JFKA.

Just IMHO: I am not sure LHO is totally innocent.

My take: LHO was inside the TSBD during the JFKA, and no one knows where. So, he is a likely candidate for the TSBD6 shooter or enabler. 

Somebody fired a rifle from TDBD6, and left the building, unseen in his/her departure. That could be LHO, or somebody else. I suspect LHO. 

This does not mean LHO was witting participant in the JFKA. LHO may have been tricked into participating, and I suspect he was. 

LHO, in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA, went home and armed himself.  A reasonable deduction is LHO knew something was up, and he knew at least who had hoodwinked him into participating, that is their physical descriptions and what they said their names were, and who they said they were. 

But while in custody, LHO did not explain what he truly thought had happened, or what he saw, what his compatriots had looked like, etc.  

LHO did not confess to have been even an unwitting participant in the JFKA, while in custody. IMHO, that is not totally "innocent."

Maybe LHO would have told the truth, had he lived, and it is difficult to blame LHO for wanting some time to think things through, or stalling while trying to contact handlers inside the CIA. 

This is what I hope might be somewhat illuminated by the full and complete release of JFK Records. 

Again, if nothing is in the JFK Records...why the illegal permanent snuff job on the records by Biden/Garland? 

That does not add up. 

 

 

 

 

[Roger Odisio]

11 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

RO-

Thanks for you collegial contributions to the EF-JFKA.

Just IMHO: I am not sure LHO is totally innocent.

My take: LHO was inside the TSBD during the JFKA, and no one knows where. So, he is a likely candidate for the TSBD6 shooter or enabler. 

Somebody fired a rifle from TDBD6, and left the building, unseen in his/her departure. That could be LHO, or somebody else. I suspect LHO. 

This does not mean LHO was witting participant in the JFKA. LHO may have been tricked into participating, and I suspect he was. 

LHO, in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA, went home and armed himself.  A reasonable deduction is LHO knew something was up, and he knew at least who had hoodwinked him into participating, that is their physical descriptions and what they said their names were, and who they said they were. 

But while in custody, LHO did not explain what he truly thought had happened, or what he saw, what his compatriots had looked like, etc.  

LHO did not confess to have been even an unwitting participant in the JFKA, while in custody. IMHO, that is not totally "innocent."

Maybe LHO would have told the truth, had he lived, and it is difficult to blame LHO for wanting some time to think things through, or stalling while trying to contact handlers inside the CIA. 

This is what I hope might be somewhat illuminated by the full and complete release of JFK Records. 

Again, if nothing is in the JFK Records...why the illegal permanent snuff job on the records by Biden/Garland? 

That does not add up. 

 

 

 

 

Ben, the question I raise is whether Oswald was guilty of murdering Kennedy *as charged by the WC*.  Not whether he may have been involved in something, some way.  

 

Did the WC prove Oswald was on the 6th floor?  Did they prove he came down the back stairs after the shooting?

 

No and no.  IOW, the question is whether the WR fingering Oswald as the lone assassin is fundamentally a lie.  If it is, establishing that should open the way for a further inquiry into what really happened.  Such a recognition should, in fact, demand such an investigation.  With the help of some researchers.

 

What you have done here is create another rabbit hole to go down.  I see you've set up another thread for your rabbit hole.  That's fine.  But it's not responsive to the point of this thread.

[David Josephs]

22 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

If Oswald's innocence can gain acceptance, that would destroy whatever validity remains of the WR, and should lead to demands to find out what really happened. 

Hi Roger,

"gain acceptance"?   "what really happened"?

I see where we can already prove Oswald's innocence...  changing how history talks about it remains another thing

 

FWIW These are the conclusions of the WCR.

 

1. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository. No other locations were considered, and Robert West's actual surveys prove otherwise

2. The weight of the evidence indicates that there were three shots fired.   How does this have anything to do with Oswald?

3. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds.  🤥  Simply not physically possible... proven ad nauseam.

4. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald 
(a) The Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle from which the shots were tired was owned by and in the possession of Oswald. Provably false
(b) Oswald carried this rifle into the Depository Building on the morning of November 22, 1963. Provably false
(c) Oswald, at the time of the assassination was present at the window from which the shots were fired.  Provably false
(d) Shortly after the assassination, the Mannlicher-Carcnno rifle belonging to Oswald was found partially hidden between some cartons on the sixth floor and the improvised paper bag in which Oswald brought the rifle to the Depository was found close by the window from which the shots were fired.  Provably false
(e) Based on testimony of the experts and their analysis of films of the assassination, the Commission has concluded that a rifleman of Lee Harvey Oswald’s capabilities could have fired the shots from the rifle used in the assassination within the elapsed time of the shooting. The Commission has concluded further that Oswald possessed the capability with a rifle which enabled him to commit the assassination.19. Provably false
(f) Oswald lied to the police after his arrest concerning important substantive matters.  Provably false and has no bearing on real evidence
(g) Oswald had attempted to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker (Resigned, U.S. Army) on April 10,1963, thereby demonstrating his disposition to take human life. Provably false

5. Oswald killed Dallas Police Patrolman J. D. Tippit approximately 45 minutes after the assassination. Provably false

6. Within 80 minutes of the assassination and 35 minutes of the Tippit killing Oswald resisted arrest at the theatre by attempting to shoot another Dallas police officer.  That's the story we're told.  If Oswald tried to shoot another policeman in front of more policeman, why wasn't he charged with attempted murder of McDonald?  They literally asked Oswald NO QUESTIONS related to any details of the Tippit murder other than "did you kill Tippit" "No".

7. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning Oswald’s interrogation and detention by the Dallas police. What does this have to do with either Tippit or JFK's murder evidence?

(a) Except for the force required to effect his arrest, Oswald
was not subjected to any physical coercion by any law enforcement
officials. He was advised that he could not be compelled
to give any information and that any statements made by him
might be used against him in court. He was advised of his right
to counsel. He was given the opportunity to obtain counsel of
his own choice and was offered legal assistance by the Dallas Bar
Association, which he rejected at that time.
(b) Newspaper, radio, and television reporters were allowed
uninhibited access to the area through which Oswald had to pass
when he was moved from his cell to the interrogation room and
other sections of the building, thereby subjecting Oswald to harassment
and creating chaotic conditions which were not conducive to
orderly interrogation or the protection of the rights of the
prisoner.
(c) The numerous statements, sometimes erroneous, made to
the press by various local law enforcement officials, during this
period of confusion and disorder in the police station, would have
presented serious obstacles to the obtaining of a fair trial for
Oswald. To the extent that the information was erroneous or
misleading, it helped to create doubts, speculations, and fears in
the mind of the public which might otherwise not have arisen.

8. The Commission has reached the following conclusions concerning the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963. Again, how does this impact Tippit or JFK?

9. The Commission has found no evidence that either Lee Harvey Oswald or Jack Ruby was part of any conspiracy, domestic or foreign, to assassinate President Kennedy.  OK, RUBY is off the hook and Oswald was acting alone.  Is that what the evidence shows?

10. In its entire investigation the Commission has found no evidence of conspiracy, subversion, or disloyalty to the U.S. Government by any Federal, State, or local official. You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know

11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that Oswald acted alone. That's what #9 said.. and is easily proven wrong

12. (f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds that the (SS) agents most immediately responsible for the President’s safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD.  This, to me, is one of the more disgusting examples of supreme power of the facts.  Between the first HIT and 2nd those most responsible (Kellerman & Greer) not only did nothing, Greer stops the limo between frames 302 and 303... and lies to the WC.

I do believe we are getting extremely close to illustrating exactly where, when and how the limo stop occurs and is removed, but that's for another discussion.

 

 

[David Josephs]

12 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Again, if nothing is in the JFK Records...why the illegal permanent snuff job on the records by Biden/Garland? 

That does not add up. 

So when records finally do emerge they will have so much more credibility than they deserve.

You wanna make most people really WANT something?

Withhold it or make it illegal

Ben - had you ever considered that Oswald was silent because he "fell on his sword for the cause" believing in what occurred thru the combined efforts of the intel community pulling his strings?  As long as everyone thought he did it, those who did would be safe and communist appeasement would end.

We literally do not know enough about Oswald, even aft3er all these years, to say who he was or what he was thinking.

[David Josephs]

Hoover on Dec 12, 1963: to his Sr Staff
I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

The FBI report from Dec 9th: On the contrary, the data developed strongly indicates that he acted on his own initiative or impulse with little advance planning.
 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Ben, the question I raise is whether Oswald was guilty of murdering Kennedy *as charged by the WC*.  Not whether he may have been involved in something, some way.  

 

Did the WC prove Oswald was on the 6th floor?  Did they prove he came down the back stairs after the shooting?

 

No and no.  IOW, the question is whether the WR fingering Oswald as the lone assassin is fundamentally a lie.  If it is, establishing that should open the way for a further inquiry into what really happened.  Such a recognition should, in fact, demand such an investigation.  With the help of some researchers.

 

What you have done here is create another rabbit hole to go down.  I see you've set up another thread for your rabbit hole.  That's fine.  But it's not responsive to the point of this thread.

RO-- Thanks for your collegial comments.

You are correct, no one can prove where LHO was when shots rang out. I think I can state a rifle seen pointed from TSBD6 and that shots were heard by many within the TSBD.

Almost everybody's whereabouts, among TSBD employees, has been documented...but not LHO's.

LHO may have been lured to an obscure part of the TSBD by a ruse.

My suspicion is that LHO was not a lone assassin, but a patsy. 

I agree a new investigation needs to be done, as well as a complete and total opening up of the JFK records.

[David Josephs]

11 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I agree a new investigation needs to be done, as well as a complete and total opening up of the JFK records.

A new investigation was done Ben...  and with evidence potentially as questionable as that which we use today. Potentially.

But rather than engage in thorough analysis as any piece of evidence requires, the reality Salandria was right is ignored and the forum toddles along regurgitating the same Evidence of the Conspiracy as if we're saying something new.

Why do you suppose we are satisfied with agreeing and re-agreeing there was a conspiracy and cover-up.. AND we agree the assassination was a separate conspiracy than the ensuing cover-up. AND we expect the answer to be in documents provided/created by the same people who we think perpetrated it.

 

What makes one set of evidence more or less important to consider/authenticate/incorporate than any other?  We are aware reports are written, documents placed into evidence for the sole purpose of deception.  But it takes dedicated analysis to sniff these out.

Why is the newest evidence of the actual plot to assassinate JFK any less important to examine thoroughly, than anything that has come before?

 

"Micro-analyzing" is what we've all done to the WCR, HSCA, ARRB and independent research our entire lives.. and are still no closer to who did what BEFORE he arrives at Parkland.  I suggest we take a different approach.

 

            "I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly.  "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early.  I see that now.  We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy.  Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way?  They chose not to.  Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner.  The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.  The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear:  'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.'  It was a message to the people that their government was powerless.  And the people eventually got the message.  Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination.  People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

            "The tyranny of power is here.  Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by* promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad.  And that will lead not to revolution but to repression.  I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities.  No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy.  We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence.  That's exactly what they want us to do.  They have kept us busy for so long.  And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you.  They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."
 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

A new investigation was done Ben...  and with evidence potentially as questionable as that which we use today. Potentially.

But rather than engage in thorough analysis as any piece of evidence requires, the reality Salandria was right is ignored and the forum toddles along regurgitating the same Evidence of the Conspiracy as if we're saying something new.

Why do you suppose we are satisfied with agreeing and re-agreeing there was a conspiracy and cover-up.. AND we agree the assassination was a separate conspiracy than the ensuing cover-up. AND we expect the answer to be in documents provided/created by the same people who we think perpetrated it.

 

What makes one set of evidence more or less important to consider/authenticate/incorporate than any other?  We are aware reports are written, documents placed into evidence for the sole purpose of deception.  But it takes dedicated analysis to sniff these out.

Why is the newest evidence of the actual plot to assassinate JFK any less important to examine thoroughly, than anything that has come before?

 

"Micro-analyzing" is what we've all done to the WCR, HSCA, ARRB and independent research our entire lives.. and are still no closer to who did what BEFORE he arrives at Parkland.  I suggest we take a different approach.

 

            "I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly.  "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early.  I see that now.  We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy.  Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way?  They chose not to.  Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner.  The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.  The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear:  'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.'  It was a message to the people that their government was powerless.  And the people eventually got the message.  Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination.  People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

            "The tyranny of power is here.  Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by* promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad.  And that will lead not to revolution but to repression.  I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities.  No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy.  We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence.  That's exactly what they want us to do.  They have kept us busy for so long.  And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you.  They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."
 

 

DJ-

IMHO!

I am well aware of Salandria, and he was a shrewd observer of the passing parade. 

I may even agree with large parts of his Weltanschauung  of a globalist-national security state, and that Allen Dulles and the CFR wanted to run the world for capitalism (and human rights and Western liberal democratic values take a back seat, or even be tossed out of the car). Hell, I can take it back to Smedley Butler. And we have the ever-relevant Eisenhower farewell speech on the military side of the equation. 

All that said, Salandria stretches matters when he says the globalist cabal (at least Salandria was not a prisoner of anti-Semitic crackpotism, and his is a largely Anglo cabal) murdered JFK in broad daylight to send a signal. 

Salandria's Olympian views...well, I am still not sure the JFKA was not perped by Cuban exiles, angry at what they perceived as JFK fecklessness. If LHO and, say, and two Cuban exiles were all CIA assets (or Army intel), then that had to be covered up. Evidence phonied up. 

For all we know, the two Cuban exiles met an early demise, and we saw what happened to LHO. Dead men tell no tales.

I admit to a bias, in favor of small conspiracies (in terms of witting participants), and in the JFKA, a bottom's up organic plan. Did someone higher-up leak a password to the Cuban exiles to win LHO's confidence? I don't know.  

On contrast, when RFK1 started to gain traction towards the WH, with the threat of a bona fide JFKA investigation...perhaps that the RFK1A came from on high. 

Well, just IMHO. 

 

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

DJ-

IMHO!

I am well aware of Salandria, and he was a shrewd observer of the passing parade. 

I may even agree with large parts of his Weltanschauung  of a globalist-national security state, and that Allen Dulles and the CFR wanted to run the world for capitalism (and human rights and Western liberal democratic values take a back seat, or even be tossed out of the car). Hell, I can take it back to Smedley Butler. And we have the ever-relevant Eisenhower farewell speech on the military side of the equation. 

All that said, Salandria stretches matters when he says the globalist cabal (at least Salandria was not a prisoner of anti-Semitic crackpotism, and his is a largely Anglo cabal) murdered JFK in broad daylight to send a signal. 

Salandria's Olympian views...well, I am still not sure the JFKA was not perped by Cuban exiles, angry at what they perceived as JFK fecklessness. If LHO and, say, and two Cuban exiles were all CIA assets (or Army intel), then that had to be covered up. Evidence phonied up. 

For all we know, the two Cuban exiles met an early demise, and we saw what happened to LHO. Dead men tell no tales.

I admit to a bias, in favor of small conspiracies (in terms of witting participants), and in the JFKA, a bottom's up organic plan. Did someone higher-up leak a password to the Cuban exiles to win LHO's confidence? I don't know.  

On contrast, when RFK1 started to gain traction towards the WH, with the threat of a bona fide JFKA investigation...perhaps that the RFK1A came from on high. 

Well, just IMHO. 

 

David Josephs is exactly right. Salandria was both right and ignored, mostly in favor searching largely irrelevant rabbit holes that do not lead toward answers to the central questions.  Who did it and why.  A different approach is indeed called for.  

The quote at the end of David's note is from Gaeton Fonzi's book, The Last Investigation, p.29.  Fonzi was heading to DC in '75 to work on the JFKA and Salandria was not optimistic about what could be accomplished, given the power he was up against.  He was right about that too.

No, Ben, JFK was not murdered in public by Cuban exiles merely to send some signal.  Although, as Salandria said, the killers did have a message for official Washington and the public at large:  We're in charge now and there is nothing you can do about it. Indeed they were.

From Salandria's "False Mystery " speech at the COPA convention 26 years ago(!):  the message from the White Situation Room to officials coming back to DC the afternoon of the murder, informed "the Presidential Party that those among them who had witnessed the triangulation of fire which had brought down the President should not imagine that a few nuts in Dealey Plaza had gotten lucky.  They were being circuitously informed that the assassination had been committed by a level of US power that was above and beyond punishment".

Killing the President was a massive and risky endeavor.  It's axiomatic that it would not have happened without the killers *first* having in place a plan to (1) cover up their involvement and get away with it (their top priority), (2) blame someone else, and (3) get the policy changes that motivated the murder in the first place. They weren't going to kill JFK and then depend on others to get away with it.

Which of these things could the Cubans have done? 

The killers' had the power to accomplish the task. They were "above and beyond punishment" primarily because they --the planners-- ensured that the coverup accomplished the first two objectives--by such things as killing Oswald before he could talk to a lawyer, altering key evidence like the Z film, establishing the WC to frame Oswald. The planners of the murder covered it up.

The coverup was a special problem because the official story they were going with, Oswald alone shooting from the 6th floor, differed so markedly from what actually happened.  There was a lot to cover up.  The planners knew there would be.  They began the coverup within hours after the murder.

We have a lot of information about how the coverup was done and by whom.  It is from the roster of those folks that you'll find the planners of the murder.

[Benjamin Cole]

6 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

David Josephs is exactly right. Salandria was both right and ignored, mostly in favor searching largely irrelevant rabbit holes that do not lead toward answers to the central questions.  Who did it and why.  A different approach is indeed called for.  

The quote at the end of David's note is from Gaeton Fonzi's book, The Last Investigation, p.29.  Fonzi was heading to DC in '75 to work on the JFKA and Salandria was not optimistic about what could be accomplished, given the power he was up against.  He was right about that too.

No, Ben, JFK was not murdered in public by Cuban exiles merely to send some signal.  Although, as Salandria said, the killers did have a message for official Washington and the public at large:  We're in charge now and there is nothing you can do about it. Indeed they were.

From Salandria's "False Mystery " speech at the COPA convention 26 years ago(!):  the message from the White Situation Room to officials coming back to DC the afternoon of the murder, informed "the Presidential Party that those among them who had witnessed the triangulation of fire which had brought down the President should not imagine that a few nuts in Dealey Plaza had gotten lucky.  They were being circuitously informed that the assassination had been committed by a level of US power that was above and beyond punishment".

Killing the President was a massive and risky endeavor.  It's axiomatic that it would not have happened without the killers *first* having in place a plan to (1) cover up their involvement and get away with it (their top priority), (2) blame someone else, and (3) get the policy changes that motivated the murder in the first place. They weren't going to kill JFK and then depend on others to get away with it.

Which of these things could the Cubans have done? 

The killers' had the power to accomplish the task. They were "above and beyond punishment" primarily because they --the planners-- ensured that the coverup accomplished the first two objectives--by such things as killing Oswald before he could talk to a lawyer, altering key evidence like the Z film, establishing the WC to frame Oswald. The planners of the murder covered it up.

The coverup was a special problem because the official story they were going with, Oswald alone shooting from the 6th floor, differed so markedly from what actually happened.  There was a lot to cover up.  The planners knew there would be.  They began the coverup within hours after the murder.

We have a lot of information about how the coverup was done and by whom.  It is from the roster of those folks that you'll find the planners of the murder.

RO--

Thanks for commenting.

We may be on different pages on this one, but that is what a forum is for.

[Gene Kelly]

Roger

Your feedback and posts resonate for me. David Josephs is astute in pointing out that Vince Salandria was prescient about avoiding irrelevant rabbit holes that do not lead toward answers to the central questions.  I agree that a different approach is called for.  One overriding thought that I've always had is that our federal government has always had the power and resources to get at the truth and actual perpetrations (if so motivated).  The fact that we havent for more than 50 years speaks volumes.

Gene

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Roger

Your feedback and posts resonate for me. David Josephs is astute in pointing out that Vince Salandria was prescient about avoiding irrelevant rabbit holes that do not lead toward answers to the central questions.  I agree that a different approach is called for.  One overriding thought that I've always had is that our federal government has always had the power and resources to get at the truth and actual perpetrations (if so motivated).  The fact that we havent for more than 50 years speaks volumes.

Gene

Gene--

60 years! The federal government has been suppressing information on the JFKA for more than 60 years, and is presently doing so under the Biden/Harris administration snuff job on the JFK Records act.

Maybe you are right, a globalist cabal ordered the JFKA and Biden is but a puppet. Who knows?

[Gene Kelly]

Ben

With all due respect, the remaining records seem not too promising (i doubt that there are any smoking guns).  Also, there may be revelations that are are quite damaging to America's reputation and legacy.  So, maybe Biden and other Presidents are protecting our interests.

Gene

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Gene Kelly said:

Ben

With all due respect, the remaining records seem not too promising (i doubt that there are any smoking guns).  Also, there may be revelations that are are quite damaging to America's reputation and legacy.  So, maybe Biden and other Presidents are protecting our interests.

Gene

Gene-

Well...maybe. 

Even so, the JFK Records Act does not list reputation and legacy as reasons to do a permanent snuff job on the JFK Records. Only bona fide and obvious national security considerations. 

On the JFK Records, I say what I always say: We don't know what we don't know. 

We only know that the Biden Administration has tried (perhaps successfully) to make sure you will never see the records. 

Question: You say (shorthand) the globalist-capitalists ordered the JFKA. The Salandria view.  That's fine. 

Do you think Biden/Garland cooked up the Transparency Board on their own, or that Biden is essentially a puppet for neocon-capitalist-globalists (who control the CIA), the lineal descendants of the the Salandrian-defined group that perped the JFK?