JFKA CTs need to believe a government agency or rogue actors thereof killed JFK

[Steve M. Galbraith]

While I will always believe it was a mafia hit, the real conspiracy was Government agencies covering their asses. Secret Service just looked around and left him be killed and illegally removed his body. The autopsy was half assed thanks to RFK hurrying the doctors, then stealing the brain from the archives. The autopsy photos were doctored it goes on and on.

Why would Earl Warren and the commission, and the HSCA, and the news media and all of these other people for 60 years cover up for a Mafia hit on the President?

The autopsy photos have been examined again and again and again. The conclusion is they were not altered. The person who took them, John Stringer, said they are authentic. But they were altered to protect Carlos Marcello or the Mafia? Again, for what goal/purpose?

But you are relying on the decades old memory of Thomas Robinson? Robinson said there was no bullet hole in JFK's back. Do you believe him?

You think the eyewitness account of an embalmer years later is more credible than the accounts of the doctors who performed the autopsy? And is more credible than the x-rays and photos? Why would his account be accurate and all of this other evidence be wrong?

Here is Robinson's account: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/html/Image00.htm

Note this part:
Question: "Was there any other mark, hole or wound in the body?
Robinson: "I saw the body turned over, it was turned over and examined on its side, rolled from each side, I saw nothing down below where the doctors had been working on the head."
Question: Did you see anything between the head wound and the...back that could have been a wound?
Robinson: "No."

He saw no back wound?

[Jon Banks]

Dear Left-Bank,

Are you aware that Steele's main source, Igor Danchenko, is very probably a Russian intelligence agent? As James Angleton told the Church Committee (iirc), "A double agent will tell you 98% truth and 2% lies, and really mess you up, boy" (or words to that effect).

I'm aware that the FBI investigated Danchenko as a potential spy but beyond that, I don't know. Here's what I do know about his role in the 2016 election:

Igor Danchenko worked for a Democratic Think-Tank, the Brookings Institute. He and Charles Dolan had close ties to the Clinton campaign and Brookings. Everything with the Steele Dossier traces back to the Clintons, not Putin:

"Danchenko began his American career at the Brookings Institution, where he said he worked closely with economist Clifford Gaddy and Russianist Fiona Hill. Danchenko’s first big break came in 2005 when he somehow managed to obtain Putin’s 1996 dissertation. In a 2006 joint presentation with Gaddy, Danchenko alleged that large swathes of Putin’s dissertation had been plagiarised.

Fiona Hill took steps to advance Danchenko’s career. A Russia expert at a Washington think-tank tells the National Interest, “Danchenko was unusual because he worked forever at Brookings. Fiona needed to get rid of him or find a way for him to transition. So she introduced him to Christopher Steele. Danchenko is enterprising.”

Steele, of course, is a former British spy who ran a London-based intelligence firm. Steele had been contracted by the research agency Fusion GPS, itself hired by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to dig up dirt on then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Hill also allegedly connected Danchenko to Chuck Dolan."

Link - https://nationalinterest.org/feature/was-brookings-hidden-hand-behind-steele-dossier-195852

Regardless, could you please tell me which of the following sections of the Steele Dossier have been debunked?

The stuff in the Steele Dossier that had corroboration was mostly publicly available information.

The uncorroborated stuff sent the FBI on a "wild goose chase" and blew the cover of potential CIA asset, Carter Page:

Peter Strzok says Steele dossier led FBI on 'wild goose chase' - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/peter-strzok-steele-dossier-wild-goose-chase

Carter Page says he was 'never paid one cent' for serving as CIA, FBI informant as bureau paid Danchenko $200K - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/carter-page-says-he-was-never-paid-one-cent-for-serving-as-cia-fbi-informant-as-bureau-paid-danchenko-200k


The FBI's Horowitz report confirmed that Page had a relationship with the CIA as an informant prior to 2016. The FBI suppressed that information when they sought a warrant to spy on Page in 2016. It's plausible, but not confirmed, that Page was still informing the CIA about his contacts in Russia through 2016.

There's no evidence that Page had a relationship with Paul Manafort as Christopher Steele's dossier implied.

See below:

"The FBI knowingly omitted details of Page’s prior working relationship with the CIA,  as well as numerous potentially exculpatory statements he made to other sources that undercut central allegations included in the Steele dossier.

The report also confirms that a top FBI national security lawyer doctored an email that explained that Page was “a source” for the CIA in order to give the opposite impression to the federal spy court."

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ig-report-details-significant-omissions-and-inaccurate-information-in-fisa-application-to-surveil-carter-page/

[Jon Banks]

From the 1961 letter from Schlessinger to Kennedy:

"I submit the following views as one who worked in OSS during the war and served as a periodic CIA consultant in the years since.

On balance, CIA's record has probably been very good. In the nature of clandestine operations, the triumphs of an intelligence agency are unknown; all the public hears about (or should hear about) are its errors. But again in the nature of the case, an agency dedicated to clandestine activity can afford damned few visible errors.

The important thing to recognize today, in my judgment, is that the CIA, as at present named and constituted, has about used up its quota. Its margin for future error is practically
non-existent. One more CIA debacle will shake faith considerably in US policy at home as well as abroad. And, until CIA is visibly reorganized, it will (as in the Algerian instance) be widely blamed for developments of which it is wholly innocent.

The argument of this memorandum is that the CIA's trouble can be traced to the autonomy with which the agency has been permitted to operate and that this autonomy is due to three main causes: (1) an inadequate doctrine of clandestine operations) (2) an inadequate conception of the relationship between operations and policy: (3) an inadequate conception of the relationship between operations and intelligence. The memorandum also suggests ways in which come of these problems can perhaps be alleviated."


Link - https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2025/0318/176-10033-10145.pdf


Kennedy didn't succeed at reorganizing the CIA. The significance of the letter is that it proves that Kennedy was concerned about the way the agency was operating at that time.

Still waiting for Steve G to stop evading my comment about the Schlessinger memo. ^

Does it not strongly imply that Kennedy and Schlessinger were concerned about CIA officers going rogue? 

[Tom Graves]

Everything with the Steele Dossier traces back to the Clintons, not Putin.

Dear Banksie,

Do you really think all of the allegations in the Steele Dossier trace back to the evil, evil Clintons, and that none of them trace back to "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin or his oodles and gobs of "cutouts"?

Regardless, once again, please tell us which of those nineteen (19) Steele Dossier allegations I listed for you in my previous post have been definitively debunked.


Here they are, again, for you:


1) Cultivation of Trump through time

2) Russian assistance to the 2016 Trump Campaign

3) Fake news and social media misinformation (sic; should be "disinformation")

4) Manafort’s and others’ cooperation with Russian efforts

5) Russian conversations confirmed

6) Kompromat and “Golden Showers” allegations

7) Role of the Agalarovs

8 ) Trump viewed as under Russian influence

9) Kremlin’s “Romanian” hackers and use of Wikileaks, and Trump campaign reaction

10) Timing of release of hacked emails

11) Manafort and kickback payments from Yanukovych

12) Page met with Rosneft officials

13) Brokerage of Rosneft privatization

14) Trump’s attempts to lift sanctions

15) Cohen and alleged Prague visit

16) Republican position on Russian conflict with Ukraine and related sanctions

17) Relations with Europe and NATO

18) Spy [Mikhail Kalugin, misspelled "Kulagin" in the Steele Dossier] withdrawn from Russian Embassy

19) Botnets and porn traffic by hackers


-- Wikipedia

. . . . . . .

Igor Danchenko worked for a Democratic Think-Tank, the Brookings Institute. He and Charles Dolan had close ties to the Clinton campaign and Brookings. Everything with the Steele Dossier traces back to the Clintons, not Putin:

"Danchenko began his American career at the Brookings Institution, where he said he worked closely with economist Clifford Gaddy and Russianist Fiona Hill. Danchenko’s first big break came in 2005 when he somehow managed to obtain Putin’s 1996 dissertation. In a 2006 joint presentation with Gaddy, Danchenko alleged that large swathes of Putin’s dissertation had been plagiarised.

Fiona Hill took steps to advance Danchenko’s career. A Russia expert at a Washington think-tank tells the National Interest, “Danchenko was unusual because he worked forever at Brookings. Fiona needed to get rid of him or find a way for him to transition. So she introduced him to Christopher Steele. Danchenko is enterprising.”

Steele, of course, is a former British spy who ran a London-based intelligence firm. Steele had been contracted by the research agency Fusion GPS, itself hired by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), to dig up dirt on then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Hill also allegedly connected Danchenko to Chuck Dolan."

-- The National Interest

Does it surprise you that a 98% truth / 2% lies Russian Intelligence agent like Danchenko would infiltrate a "Democrat" institution like Brookings, and that among other things he would dupe his colleague, Fiona Hill, into introducing him to Steele?

Thanks!

-- Tom

PS You said you voted for Hillary in 2016. For whom did you vote in in 2000 and 2024 (if you voted at all)?

PPS Do you watch Fox News a lot?

PPPS The National Interest? The Dimitri K. Simes-connected The National Interest?

[Jon Banks]

Dear Banksie,

Do you really think all of the allegations in the Steele Dossier trace back to the evil, evil Clintons, and that none of them trace back to "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin or his oodles and gobs of "cutouts"?

Regardless, once again, please tell us which of those nineteen (19) Steele Dossier allegations I listed for you in my previous post have been definitively debunked.

Here they are, again, for you:



4) Manafort’s and others’ cooperation with Russian efforts -> Definitely not true

6) Kompromat and “Golden Showers” allegations -> Likely not true

8 ) Trump viewed as under Russian influence -> Speculation

9) Kremlin’s “Romanian” hackers and use of Wikileaks, and Trump campaign reaction -> Speculation

15) Cohen and alleged Prague visit -> Debunked

Beyond those points, I'm not going to waste my time debating all 19 of your points.

I'll only encourage you to read former FBI agent Peter Strozk's take on the Steele Dossier. Or read the Inspector General report (aka the Horowitz report).

Both sources have made clear under oath in Congress that the only stuff in the Steele Dossier that proved to be true was the stuff that anyone can look up on the internet:


"According to the papers, released by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday, disgraced agent Peter Strzok and his bosses were aware in January 2017 that the “Steele dossier” produced by a former MI6 agent was based only on rumors and third-hand accounts."

https://nypost.com/2020/07/18/fbi-docs-show-early-lack-of-evidence-for-trump-russia-claims/

Does it surprise you that a 98% truth / 2% lies Russian Intelligence agent like Danchenko would infiltrate a "Democrat" institution like Brookings, and that among other things he would dupe his colleague, Fiona Hill, into introducing him to Steele?

Stuff like that happens all the time in the DC swamp. Wouldn't surprise me at all if he is a spy.

Now help me make sense of your point.

You seem convinced that Igor Danchenko, one of Christopher Steele's main sources, might've been a Russian spy. If true, why then are you trying to convince me that the Steele dossier was credible?

Aren't you indirectly validating my argument that the dossier didn't have reliable information about Trump?

PPS Do you watch Fox News a lot?

I almost never watch Cable news. I read news articles online mostly.

[Tom Graves]

Beyond those points, I'm not going to waste my time debating all 19 of your points.

Left-Bank / Right-Bank,

How can you say that Manafort didn't cooperate with GRU officer Kilimnik and Putin's favorite Oligarch, Deripaska?

Bottom line: Only one of the nineteen allegations I listed for you has been debunked. (Kinda.)

Thanks for confirming for me that you prevaricated (fancy word for "lied") in your OP.

I told you that a good double agent tells 98% truth and 2% lies. In this case it looks as though about 8% of the allegations Danchenko shared with Steele were false, and about 92% were either true or . . . gasp . . . unverifiable in the KGB-Mafia-state known as Russia.

How convenient for a double agent!!!

Both sources have made clear under oath in Congress that the only stuff in the Steele Dossier that proved to be true was the stuff that anyone can look up on the internet.

Point being?

You seem convinced that Igor Danchenko, one of Christopher Steele's main sources, might've been a Russian spy.

If true, why then are you trying to convince me that the Steele dossier was credible?

Aren't you indirectly validating my argument that the dossier didn't have reliable information about Trump?

See above.

[Jarrett Smith]

Why would Earl Warren and the commission, and the HSCA, and the news media and all of these other people for 60 years cover up for a Mafia hit on the President?

The autopsy photos have been examined again and again and again. The conclusion is they were not altered. The person who took them, John Stringer, said they are authentic. But they were altered to protect Carlos Marcello or the Mafia? Again, for what goal/purpose?

But you are relying on the decades old memory of Thomas Robinson? Robinson said there was no bullet hole in JFK's back. Do you believe him?

You think the eyewitness account of an embalmer years later is more credible than the accounts of the doctors who performed the autopsy? And is more credible than the x-rays and photos? Why would his account be accurate and all of this other evidence be wrong?




Here is Robinson's account: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/html/Image00.htm

Note this part:
Question: "Was there any other mark, hole or wound in the body?
Robinson: "I saw the body turned over, it was turned over and examined on its side, rolled from each side, I saw nothing down below where the doctors had been working on the head."
Question: Did you see anything between the head wound and the...back that could have been a wound?
Robinson: "No."

He saw no back wound?

Steve, Kenneth Sayler said the wound ran from the temple the whole way into the back of the head, and that the autopsy photos were not what he saw at Parkland, unless they stitched the scalp together. You can clearly see that wound on the Zapruder and Moorman photos. The story goes LBJ was afraid of a war so he got Warren to head the commission. Blakey thinks the mafia ordered the hit.

[Lance Payette]

Steve, Kenneth Sayler said the wound ran from the temple the whole way into the back of the head, and that the autopsy photos were not what he saw at Parkland, unless they stitched the scalp together. You can clearly see that wound on the Zapruder and Moorman photos. The story goes LBJ was afraid of a war so he got Warren to head the commission. Blakey thinks the mafia ordered the hit.

Salyer, not Sayler. He said all along that the wound appeared to be from a frontal shot. He also said that the wound appeared to have been taped into place for some of the Bethesda photos; when shown Groden's book in the attached video, he actually thought he saw tape. Notwithstanding all this, he also said it was possible the wound was from the rear, and he became a strong proponent of the LN narrative and the SBT. Lastly, he called Crenshaw's book and Stone's movie fiction. While he later became a giant of craniofacial surgery and strikes me as highly credible, he is scarcely a friend of CTers for anything more than "one of the earliest doctors to see JFK thought a frontal shot appeared to be the most likely cause of the head wound."

https://www.jfk.org/collections-archive/dr-kenneth-salyer-oral-history/