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?