The JFK Files: Rhetoric vs. Truth

[W. Tracy Parnell]

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

Why does the ghost of William Harvey need protection?

I wasn't talking about Harvey. But to answer your question, there could be sources and methods in Harvey's file that need to be protected or that the CIA at least believes need protection.

[Jon Banks]

I wasn't talking about Harvey. But to answer your question, there could be sources and methods in Harvey's file that need to be protected or that the CIA at least believes need protection.

From day one, the CIA has prioritized protecting the CIA from serious inquiries.

Hundreds of books have been published about Espionage sources and methods from 60 years ago.

Harvey’s adventures in Europe have been pretty well documented.

Espionage today is more high-tech. No one really buys the “sources and methods” thing anymore.

[Bill Chapman]

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

Boo-hoo.

-----------
Meantime
-----------

So far I have contributed US$150.00 to the forum. I haven't noticed any contributions from you. You're a freeloader, Freeman.

Now, maybe stop running your mouth and leave a little oxygen for the rest of us.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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

Tracy: Aren't these documents the same ones that were found and reviewed by the AARB ARRB and then withheld on national security concerns? These are the ones that Judge Tunheim said he saw and that, in his opinion, contained sources and methods and nothing indicating a conspiracy?

Or is this a different batch?

As to Morley: at this point the man has turned into a tabloid style conspiracy writer. He's gotten progressively irresponsible over the years and now seems to hit bottom. Anyone who writes that the CIA is an "incipient Gestapo" is, frankly, not very reliable. That idea may have made sense - or was debatable - after the "Family Jewels" revelations in the 1970s that showed the agency engaging in lawless and immoral activity (almost all approved by presidents including JFK). But the CIA today is a far different entity. Gestapo? They're largely a incompetent bureaucracy that can't get out its way.

Nalli's comment that you quote summarizes this whole controversy quite well (if that's possible):

"Once we start denying key pieces of evidence (e.g., the Zapruder Film, autopsy materials, physical evidence, etc.) without ironclad proof (i.e., other more fundamental evidence), we can then deny all the evidence on the same grounds. And once we have descended to that point, we no longer have any basis for investigation or argument, nor any basis for ‘believing it’—we are simply wasting our time debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

That's it. Oswald defenders/apologists and conspiracists think that by finding that an official lied (some did), or an eyewitness was wrong (some were), or aspects were covered up (they were) that that itself constitutes enough evidence to show a conspiracy. That Oswald was framed. That larger forces were behind the event. Sorry, it's not.

But here we are some almost six decades later with the same arguments, the same discussions. At this point the evidence is sufficient: one can accept the fact that a nobody like Oswald changed history or that  no, it has to be much more than that simple explanation. People have a need to believe that great events must have a great cause behind it. They can't or won't believe that Oswald was the agent that altered the world so much. The Oswald cult is like the Trump cult. Their guy simply didn't do anything wrong.

[John Iacoletti]

You could say the same thing about the cult that believes the WC got it right.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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."

In Jefferson Morley's book on Win Scott he shows pretty convincingly that the US government, through the CIA, had essentially bribed much of the Mexican government to follow US policy.

I'll guess that some of those officials are still alive and were promised anonymity in return for, er, let's say "cooperation".

As to sources in the embassies: the CIA was pretty adamant that Oswald never met Cuban officials or had any dealings with Cuban connected people outside of the incidents in the embassies and consulates. This included the so-called "twist party" that Oswald allegedly went to where he was seen with some Cuban embassy officials including the consul Azcue. The CIA said it never happened. I'll guess that sources - Duran? - who did attend the party said Oswald never was there. Would they still be alive?

[Jon Banks]

In Jefferson Morley's book on Win Scott he shows pretty convincingly that the US government, through the CIA, had essentially bribed much of the Mexican government to follow US policy.

I'll guess that some of those officials are still alive and were promised anonymity in return for cooperation.

As to sources in the embassies: the CIA was pretty adamant that Oswald never met Cuban officials or had any dealings with Cuban connected people outside of the incidents in the embassies and consulates. This included the so-called "twist party" that Oswald allegedly went to where he was seen with some Cuban embassy officials including the consul Azcue. The CIA said it never happened. I'll guess that sources - Duran? - who did attend the party said Oswald never was there. Would they still be alive?

Who in the Mexican government from back in 1963 is still serving in their government today? 

They’ve gone through several changes in government since the 1960s and the current regime doesn’t have a cozy relationship with the US.

Names of sensitive government assets usually can be redacted.

Does it violate the JFK Records Act to release the records with redactions?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

You could say the same thing about the cult that believes the WC got it right.

And the HSCA cult? And the Washington Post cult? And the PBS cult?

We've had numerous investigations by the government and by the media and by private reporters/historians directly and indirectly into this event. They found nothing (yes, I'm including the HSCA).

You just dismiss all of this. Everybody lied, everybody was corrupted, everybody was fooled.

Right, who really has a faith based view on Oswald's innocence here?