The JFK Files: Rhetoric vs. Truth

[W. Tracy Parnell]

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

It is more a book about how they went about conducting the investigation (Willens shows that the investigation was dilligent and comprehensive). Which I use to counter the argument that the WC was merely a coverup vehicle.

[John Iacoletti]

...and who do these hypothetical sources in their 80s need protecting from?

[Jerry Freeman]

Willens shows that the investigation was dilligent and comprehensive. Which I use to counter the argument that the WC was merely a coverup vehicle.

The WC was merely a coverup vehicle. A rubber stamp followed by other rubber stamps that gave a  to the Dallas police, Secret Service, CIA and the FBI---moderately admonishing  carelessness respectively.
The district attorney of Dallas [Henry Wade] declared the evening of the assassination that "We have our man on all counts"...so what was the need of any further investigation?---There really was no investigation.

Jean Davison, Priscilla McMillan, Gerald Posner, Norman Mailer, Vincent Bugliosi and others have shown that the key to the case lies in a detailed study of the entirety of Oswald’s life. Their work proves that he was a misanthropic loner

Don't leave David Belin and Gerald Ford out. Even if Oswald was a derelict that doesn't prove that he was a cold blooded killer.
Much more sinister motives lie in the assassination and the government chose to ignore them.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

...and who do these hypothetical sources in their 80s need protecting from?

Who knows? You would have to know the circumstances regarding each source to answer that. But they have the right to be protected. I'll give you an example. John Whitten, who famously went by the alias John Scelso in certain documents, wanted his name to be protected because he lived in Europe and reasonably believed he could be in danger if his CIA employment were common knowledge. The ARRB agreed with him. Upon his death, the name was released. And when it was, no one knew anything more about the "JFK assassination truth" than they did before.

[Jon Banks]

Who knows? You would have to know the circumstances regarding each source to answer that. But they have the right to be protected. I'll give you an example. John Whitten, who famously went by the alias John Scelso in certain documents, wanted his name to be protected because he lived in Europe and reasonably believed he could be in danger if his CIA employment were common knowledge. The ARRB agreed with him. Upon his death, the name was released. And when it was, no one knew anything more about the "JFK assassination truth" than they did before.

There are several dead CIA officers’ files still being kept secret.

Why does the ghost of William Harvey need protection?

[Bill Chapman]

    billchapman

Nothing sinister nor any rhetoric needed. Watch this:

Oswald signed off—in full view—at 10th & Patton as a cold-blooded killer
Oswald served himself up on a silver platter and got what he deserved

'What goes around comes around'
What went around came around:

A) Oswald ambushes Tippit
B) Ruby ambushes Oswald
    An eye for an eye
    Justice is served

    And that's the truth




   billchapman

[Jerry Freeman]

What goes around comes around

I believe everyone has seen Chapman's position here. Now if he will do the board a favor and go back and delete all of those idiotic images that have been posted and recover untold gigabytes of valuable web space

[Rick Plant]

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

It's dishonest to be blaming President Biden for not releasing the JFK Files when we had several previous Presidents who could have already released the JFK Files. Obviously something is still being protected from coming out which is why they are still under wraps. What that is who knows, but to falsely state that Biden is refusing to release them is very dishonest when we had previous Presidents that never released them as well. Why aren't you blaming them?