The JFK Files: Rhetoric vs. Truth

[W. Tracy Parnell]

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-jfk-files-rhetoric-vs-truth.html

[John Iacoletti]

Says the guy spewing LN rhetoric...

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-jfk-files-rhetoric-vs-truth.html

My threads on this forum explain that SSA Hickey fired an accidental auto burst of his AR15, & that the last shot hit JFK at Z313.
Then after that there was a conspiracy to cover the accident up.
Oswald saw it happen. He knew he was a patsy.
Oswald fired 2 shots, the first ricocheted off the signal arm, some lead fragments showing up in Xrays (on the back of JFK's head).
The second shot is the magic bullet at about Z218.
It will be interesting to see if there is much documentation re this real conspiracy.

I doubt that there have been any additional conspiracy(s). What could they be wanting to hide? They could only be about peripheral issues of secondary importance. In theory we cant rule out the possibility of parallel plans to assassinate (highly unlikely), which never reached fruition.

Anyhow, there were no shots from the grassy knoll or elsewhere.
And there were no snipers on the grassy knoll or elsewhere.
We had a Carcano & an AR15. And a dead President.
But, that aint the end of story.
Lots more to come, one day.

[Jon Banks]

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-jfk-files-rhetoric-vs-truth.html

Mark Zaid, a Democratic Political Operative and Deep State national security lawyer said:

… there is the possibility there's some information within these files that still needs to be protected … I'll give you one example. Lee Harvey Oswald, the expected assassin, went to Mexico City in September of 1963. We know he visited the Soviet and the Cuban embassies. We might have had, probably did, sources in those embassies, both human and technical, and protecting those sources, especially human, they could still be alive 58 years later. They could be in their 80s right now.

Let's unpack what Zaid said...

He's completely speculating about what's in the files. He clearly doesn't know anymore than you or I.

He suggests that they could be protecting sources who are still alive, which is true but becoming rarer as times moves on. Zaid also overlooks that the CIA is still keeping secret, files on long deceased people of interest in JFK assassination lore like:

- David Atlee Phillips
- William King Harvey
- George Joannides


I still doubt that there's a "smoking gun" hidden in the remaining documents. What I expect is that the remaining files will create more "smoke" and lead to more questions than answers...

[Joe Elliott]

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-jfk-files-rhetoric-vs-truth.html

This article makes some excellent points.

Namely, it’s possible that these documents do not show any compelling evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. I think this is very probable. And, without a doubt, they do hold sensitive information that should not be released. It is inconceivable that they do not.

In any case, the U. S. government continuing to withhold this information is not any kind of a proof of the governments guilty in this matter. CTers just assume otherwise.

[John Iacoletti]

What could still be "sensitive" 60 years later?  Embarrassing maybe.

[Jerry Freeman]

The only rhetoric that I see consistently is how exhaustive and thorough the Warren Commission was in their quest for the facts. Who said recently we choose truth over facts or was it the other way around?
From the article--

To his credit, at least one conspiracy-minded author agrees with Zaid’s assessment of no “smoking gun.” David Kaiser, a former history professor at the Naval War College and author of The Road to Dallas, told Politico:

    Do I believe the CIA has a file that shows former CIA Director Allen Dulles presided over the assassination? No. But I’m afraid there are people who will believe things like that no matter what is in the files. 

Actually...Dulles presided over quite a bit of intelligence interests...Why do we think he was selected? Because he was a sweet and kindly jurist?
If the Report was so thorough and exhaustive then why all the other inquests?

As for the proof that Oswald killed JFK, government investigations including a preliminary inquiry by the FBI, the Rockefeller Commission, the Clark Panel, the Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) reaffirmed all or part of the WC’s conclusions

So?
Exactly who here has actually read all those reports?

The easiest myth to debunk is that the WC was merely a vehicle used to coverup a vast conspiracy. That notion was put to bed by Howard Willens’ 2013 book History Will Prove Us Right

Another Oswald did it book? Another? Really.. another?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

What could still be "sensitive" 60 years later?  Embarrassing maybe.

From the article quoting Mark Zaid:

"there is the possibility there's some information within these files that still needs to be protected … I'll give you one example. Lee Harvey Oswald, the expected assassin, went to Mexico City in September of 1963. We know he visited the Soviet and the Cuban embassies. We might have had, probably did, sources in those embassies, both human and technical, and protecting those sources, especially human, they could still be alive 58 years later. They could be in their 80s right now."