JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Tom Graves on April 20, 2025, 10:56:19 AM
-
JFKA conspiracy theorists psychologically need to believe that a governmental agency, or rogue actors thereof, killed JFK.
Thoughts?
Feelings?
Borderline-hysterical rants?
-
(https://www.radiofrance.fr/s3/cruiser-production/2020/12/97a0cb0b-0e0a-469a-8f65-6054060f6396/1200x680_giscard3.001.webp)
French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing a few years ago about his private conversations with Gerald Ford:
"Gerald Ford was part of the Warren Commission, which was charged with investigating the Kennedy assassination. So I took a car ride with him once in the United States. He was president and I was president myself. I said to him, 'I'm asking you a prying question: you were on the Warren Commission, what conclusions did you reach?' He told me, 'It's not satisfactory. We reached an initial conclusion: it wasn't an isolated crime, it was something organized. We were sure it was organized. But we couldn't find out by whom. So there was an organization, which was never really exposed, that detested, hated, or feared President Kennedy, and decided to get rid of him.'"
-
French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing a few years ago about his private conversations with Gerald Ford:
"Gerald Ford was part of the Warren Commission, which was charged with investigating the Kennedy assassination. So I took a car ride with him once in the United States. He was president and I was president myself. I said to him, 'I'm asking you a prying question: you were on the Warren Commission, what conclusions did you reach?' He told me, 'It's not satisfactory. We reached an initial conclusion: it wasn't an isolated crime, it was something organized. We were sure it was organized. But we couldn't find out by whom. So there was an organization, which was never really exposed, that detested, hated, or feared President Kennedy, and decided to get rid of him.'"
Ford wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
-
JFKA conspiracy theorists psychologically need to believe that a governmental agency, or rogue actors thereof, killed JFK.
Thoughts?
Feelings?
Borderline-hysterical rants?
^Your post sounds like Russian disinformation. You're trying to sow discord among Americans.
We are still a free society where our citizens have the freedom to criticize our government (for now).
-
Your post sounds like Russian disinformation. You're trying to sow discord among Americans.
How ironic, Banks.
The KGB* has already been doing that for sixty-six years (it started in 1959), and to great effect, too, as can be seen with Vladimir Putin's being able to install The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with Xxxx) as our "President" in 2017 and 2025.
Question: How many bad guys and bad gals do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Just a few, or oodles and gobs?
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
JFKA conspiracy theorists psychologically need to believe that a governmental agency, or rogue actors thereof, killed JFK.
Thoughts?
Feelings?
Borderline-hysterical rants?
Sure, I believe there is a reason that CIA-oriented conspiracy theories are the rage while more plausible ones, like the Mafia, get short shrift. The Morley-Newman-Di Eugenio wing of Conspiracy World epitomizes this. These are mostly extremely left-leaning characters who believe the country has gone to hell in a handbasket since the JFKA and that we'd be living in a near-utopia if JFK and RFK had lived. They have elevated JFK and RFK to near sainthood, even to the extent of imagining policies and accomplishments that simply aren't true. The theorizing almost works in reverse: the country has gone to hell since the JFKA, hence the Dark Evil Forces responsible for this "must" have been responsible for the JFKA. I think they are less interested in the JFKA as a historical event than as a validation of their worldview. Plus, of course, elaborate CIA-type theories are simply more fun than some mundane Mafia hit. The LN narrative, of course, is completely unacceptable since it explains and validates nothing.
I started a thread on this topic at the Ed Forum after I'd been a member only a short time because what I was observing was so screamingly obvious. Suffice it to say, it wasn't popular.
-
Sure, I believe there is a reason that CIA-oriented conspiracy theories are the rage while more plausible ones, like the Mafia, get short shrift. The Morley-Newman-Di Eugenio wing of Conspiracy World epitomizes this. These are mostly extremely left-leaning characters who believe the country has gone to hell in a handbasket since the JFKA and that we'd be living in a near-utopia if JFK and RFK had lived. They have elevated JFK and RFK to near sainthood, even to the extent of imagining policies and accomplishments that simply aren't true. The theorizing almost works in reverse: the country has gone to hell since the JFKA, hence the Dark Evil Forces responsible for this "must" have been responsible for the JFKA. I think they are less interested in the JFKA as a historical event than as a validation of their worldview. Plus, of course, elaborate CIA-type theories are simply more fun than some mundane Mafia hit. The LN narrative, of course, is completely unacceptable since it explains and validates nothing.
I started a thread on this topic at the Ed Forum after I'd been a member only a short time because what I was observing was so screamingly obvious. Suffice it to say, it wasn't popular.
IMHO, it boils down to whether one hates / fears the "evil, evil, evil" CIA so much for employing "dirty, dirty" methods in its trying (since 1947 when it was formed) to fend off even more-evil Soviet Communism that one is willing to accept the idea that . . . gasp . . . GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE SBT THEORY IS A HOAX AND JFK'S HEAD "OBVIOUSLY" WAS SHOT FROM THE FRONT, ETC, ETC, ETC, OODLES AND GOBS of CIA bad guys and CIA bad gals MUST HAVE BEEN wittingly involved in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting (and at least part of the FBI's / DPD's / Secret Service's egg-on-face CYA cover up)!!!
Regardless, thank God we can now sit back and relax and tell ourselves, "THE COLD WAR IS OVER, AND WE WON!!!," even though a "former" KGB officer / Russian Mafia Godfather did install our "President" in 2017 and 2025.
(sarcasm)
-
How ironic, Banks.
The KGB* has already been doing that for sixty-six years (it started in 1959), and to great effect, too, as can be seen with Vladimir Putin's being able to install The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with Xxxx) as our "President" in 2017 and 2025.
It’s 2025 and you still believe the Russiagate nonsense?
And yet you have the audacity to call other people CT’ers?
Please elaborate on how Putin installed Trump in the White House. You know I love a good conspiracy theory 😂
-
It’s 2025 and you still believe the Russiagate nonsense?
And yet you have the audacity to call other people CT’ers?
Please elaborate on how Putin installed Trump in the White House. You know I love a good conspiracy theory 😂
It's not nonsense, Banksie.
Read the Mueller Report, the (bipartisan) Senate Intelligence Committee report, and Craig Unger's 2021 book, American Kompromat.
-
Sure, I believe there is a reason that CIA-oriented conspiracy theories are the rage while more plausible ones, like the Mafia, get short shrift. The Morley-Newman-Di Eugenio wing of Conspiracy World epitomizes this. These are mostly extremely left-leaning characters who believe the country has gone to hell in a handbasket since the JFKA and that we'd be living in a near-utopia if JFK and RFK had lived. They have elevated JFK and RFK to near sainthood, even to the extent of imagining policies and accomplishments that simply aren't true. The theorizing almost works in reverse: the country has gone to hell since the JFKA, hence the Dark Evil Forces responsible for this "must" have been responsible for the JFKA. I think they are less interested in the JFKA as a historical event than as a validation of their worldview. Plus, of course, elaborate CIA-type theories are simply more fun than some mundane Mafia hit. The LN narrative, of course, is completely unacceptable since it explains and validates nothing.
I started a thread on this topic at the Ed Forum after I'd been a member only a short time because what I was observing was so screamingly obvious. Suffice it to say, it wasn't popular.
I think it's interesting that those leftists who don't believe there was a conspiracy are also people with a critical view of JFK, people who don't see him as a transformative president. No Camelot for them with JFK. Think of a Chomsky, the late I.F. Stone and a few others. These are or were hardcore leftwingers but they viewed JFK as another Cold War warrior who was behind the Cuban covert war (recall Stone's statement after the assassination?) and simply wasn't going to just leave Vietnam (he wasn't) or dismantle the containment policies of the post-war period.
Those on the Left, however, who do view JFK as "one of ours", as someone who was going to expose the "war state" (as Garrison called it) and end the Vietnam war, normalize relations with Castro - that is, someone who was essentially going to, as they saw it, take democracy back from the right wing militarists who stole it after WWII - are really the ones who see the CIA behind it all. That's Stone, Morley, DiEugenio, Douglass, et al.
It's ironic that the real question that divides the CT/LN sides isn't just "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" it was "Who was John F. Kennedy?"
-
Sure, I believe there is a reason that CIA-oriented conspiracy theories are the rage while more plausible ones, like the Mafia, get short shrift. The Morley-Newman-Di Eugenio wing of Conspiracy World epitomizes this. These are mostly extremely left-leaning characters who believe the country has gone to hell in a handbasket since the JFKA and that we'd be living in a near-utopia if JFK and RFK had lived. They have elevated JFK and RFK to near sainthood, even to the extent of imagining policies and accomplishments that simply aren't true. The theorizing almost works in reverse: the country has gone to hell since the JFKA, hence the Dark Evil Forces responsible for this "must" have been responsible for the JFKA. I think they are less interested in the JFKA as a historical event than as a validation of their worldview. Plus, of course, elaborate CIA-type theories are simply more fun than some mundane Mafia hit. The LN narrative, of course, is completely unacceptable since it explains and validates nothing.
I started a thread on this topic at the Ed Forum after I'd been a member only a short time because what I was observing was so screamingly obvious. Suffice it to say, it wasn't popular.
I admit that as a Progressive Democrat, I’m guilty as charged.
Given all the horrible things the FBI and CIA have done at home and abroad, I don’t think it’s implausible that individuals connected to those agencies were complicit in a plot to kill a US president.
I understand that some people think that the US national security state plotting against a US President is a bridge too far for plausibility. But I personally don’t believe it’s implausible given what we know (confirmed history, not conspiracy theories) about the unethical things that individuals and leaders within those agencies have done.
And yes, I agree that an individual’s political views and biases play a role in how they interpret the facts of the JFK assassination investigations. Bias is unavoidable regardless of which side of this issue you fall on.
I believe it’s plausible that the mafia and other non-state actors were involved (the mafia collaborated with the military and CIA between WW2 and the 1960s) but certain things involving Oswald pre and post assassination can only be explained in the context of intelligence operations.
-
It's not nonsense, Banksie.
Read the Mueller Report, the (bipartisan) Senate Intelligence Committee report, and Craig Unger's 2021 book, American Kompromat.
You are misrepresenting the conclusions of those investigations Vladdy. 😂
Neither Mueller nor the Senate concluded that “Putin installed Trump” or successfully rigged the 2016 election.
-
I think it's interesting that those leftists who don't believe there was a conspiracy are also people with a critical view of JFK, people who don't see him as a transformative president. No Camelot for them in old Jack. Think of Chomsky, the late I.F. Stone and a few others. These are or were hardcore leftwingers but they viewed JFK as another Cold War warrior who was behind the Cuban covert war and simply wasn't going to just leave Vietnam (he wasn't).
Those on the Left who do view JFK as "one of ours", as someone who was going to expose the "war state" (as Garrison called it) and end the Vietnam war, normalize relations with Castro - essentially someone who was going to take our democracy back from the right wing militarists who stole it after WWII - are really the ones who see the CIA behind it all. That's Stone, Morley, DiEugenio et al.
It's ironic that the real question that divides the CT/LN sides isn't just "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" it was "Who was John F. Kennedy?"
I think 90% of those on the Far Left and on the Far Right believe the JFK assassination was committed by the evil, evil, evil CIA (or rogue agents thereof).
-
You are misrepresenting the conclusions of those investigations, Vladdy. 😂
Neither Mueller nor the Senate concluded that “Putin installed Trump” or successfully rigged the 2016 election.
The KGB* has been waging Sun Tzu-based deception, "active measures," and "Inside Man" / "Outside Man" strategic deception counterintelligence operations against us and our NATO allies since 1959, and they finally paid off in 2016 when our body politic had become so cynical, paranoiac, and apathetic that Putin, with a little help from his GRU and FSB hackers, Julian Assange, his professional Saint Petersburg trolls, Roger Stone, Harley Schlanger, Paul Manafort, Konstantin Kilimnik, Oleg Deripaska, et al. ad nauseam, was able to get The Traitorous Orange Bird elected as our "President."
Mueller's biggest shortcoming was that he conducted a criminal investigation when he should have conducted a counterintelligence investigation.
Regardless, why are you calling me "Vladdy," punk?
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
I admit that as a Progressive Democrat, I’m guilty as charged.
Given all the horrible things the FBI and CIA have done at home and abroad, I don’t think it’s implausible that individuals connected to those agencies were complicit in a plot to kill a US president.
I understand that some people think that the US national security state plotting against a US President is a bridge too far for plausibility. But I personally don’t believe it’s implausible given what we know (confirmed history, not conspiracy theories) about the unethical things that individuals and leaders within those agencies have done.
And yes, I agree that an individual’s political views and biases play a role in how they interpret the facts of the JFK assassination investigations. Bias is unavoidable regardless of which side of this issue you fall on.
I believe it’s plausible that the mafia and other non-state actors were involved (the mafia collaborated with the military and CIA between WW2 and the 1960s) but certain things involving Oswald pre and post assassination can only be explained in the context of intelligence operations.
The problem is, Lefty-Banksie, you probably think The Cold War ended in December 1991, and that even before that, the KGB* and the GRU were world-class (pardon the pun) humanitarian organizations, right?
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
The KGB* has been waging Sun Tzu-based deception, "active measures," and "Inside Man" / "Outside Man" strategic deception counterintelligence operations against us and our NATO allies since 1959, and they finally paid off in 2016 when our body politic had become so cynical, paranoiac, and apathetic that Putin, with a little help from his GRU and FSB hackers, Julian Assange, his professional Saint Petersburg trolls, Roger Stone, Harley Schlanger, Paul Manafort, Konstantin Kilimnik, Oleg Deripaska, et al. ad nauseam, was able to get The Traitorous Orange Bird elected as our "President."
Mueller's biggest shortcoming was that he conducted a criminal investigation when he should have conducted a counterintelligence investigation.
Regardless, why are you calling me "Vladdy," punk?
*Today's SVR and FSB
Because you’re sowing discord. For all we know, YOU could be the KGB troll. 🧌
And you don’t even have the honesty to admit that you’re speculating about Russia’s role in our elections.
There’s no proof that Trump didn’t win the 2016 and 2024 elections fair and square.
I say this as a lifelong Democrat who was honest enough to admit that the Russiagate conspiracy theories were full of gaping holes…
-
Because you’re sowing discord. For all we know, YOU could be the KGB troll. 🧌
And you don’t even have the honesty to admit that you’re speculating about Russia’s role in our elections.
There’s no proof that Trump didn’t win the 2016 and 2024 elections fair and square.
I say this as a lifelong Democrat who was honest enough to admit that the Russiagate conspiracy theories were full of gaping holes…
And you've always thought the CIA was much more evil than the KGB*, right?
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
I think 90% of those on the Far Left and on the Far Right believe the JFK assassination was committed by the evil, evil, evil CIA (or rogue agents thereof).
But the Left believes it because they think JFK was some sort of threat to the "national security state". He was going to, in their view, end the Cold War (or greatly reduce it), get out of Vietnam, normalize relations with Castro and so on. That is, essentially overturn the containment policies the US created after WWII. Plus, they think those policies were immoral and wrong and that the US was the chief cause of the Cold War anyway.
So the CIA had to kill him.
I don't think the Far Right sees JFK as that sort of president. They certainly don't think the Cold War was caused by the US, that the communists weren't a threat. So why they think JFK was killed by the "deep state" is a mystery to me.
-
The problem is, Lefty-Banksie, you probably think The Cold War ended in December 1991, and that even before that, the KGB* and the GRU were world-class (pardon the pun) humanitarian organizations, right?
*Today's SVR and FSB
No, the problem is that I know too much about US intelligence operations outside of the Kennedy assassination.
I’ve read biographies on Allan Dulles, James Angelton, and various books about covert operations abroad. I’ve studied COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, CHAOS, etc.
It’s not just my political biases but also the pattern of behavior of our national security state which leads me to believe it’s plausible that they were complicit in the Kennedy assassination.
-
[T]he US was the chief cause of the Cold War anyway.
Right on!!!
(LOL)
-
JFKA conspiracy theorists psychologically need to believe that a governmental agency, or rogue actors thereof, killed JFK.
Thoughts?
Feelings?
Borderline-hysterical rants?
Coming from anyone else this might be a serious question but coming from a guy who believes Russia and Putin are behind almost every event in history it is unintentionally hilarious. All baseless conspiracy theories from UFO to Bigfoot to JFK assassination need a government conspiracy by necessity to explain why they can never prove their pet conspiracy. Why? Because the government men in black are always just a step ahead to cover it up.
-
No, the problem is that I know too much about US intelligence operations outside of the Kennedy assassination.
I’ve read biographies on Allan Dulles, James Angelton, and various books about covert operations abroad. I’ve studied COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, CHAOS, etc.
It’s not just my political biases but also the pattern of behavior of our national security state which leads me to believe it’s plausible that they were complicit in the Kennedy assassination.
I hear you, Bro.
The evil, evil CIA did all of those nasty, nasty things against the world-class humanitarian organizations known as the KGB* and the GRU!!!
You know what's really groovy? Comrade Morley's book, The Ghost, about James JESUS Angleton!!! (Even though he still believes Yuri Nosenko was a true defector.)
Peace, Bro!!!
Why don't you do yourself a favor and google probable mole "Bruce Leonard Solie," and CIA good-guy, "Tennent H. Bagley," for starters?
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
I think 90% of those on the Far Left and on the Far Right believe the JFK assassination was committed by the evil, evil, evil CIA (or rogue agents thereof).
Steve is correct that there are factions of the far-Left who follow Noam Chomsky’s view of the JFK assassination. Chomsky doesn’t believe Kennedy wanted to get out of Vietnam (Chomsky has been proven wrong since the 90s) and he doesn’t believe there was a conspiracy.
There’s definitely not universal or 90% support for opposition to the LN narrative on the Left.
-
Coming from anyone else this might be a serious question but coming from a guy who believes Russia and Putin are behind almost every event in history it is unintentionally hilarious. All baseless conspiracy theories from UFO to Bigfoot to JFK assassination need a government conspiracy by necessity to explain why they can never prove their pet conspiracy. Why? Because the government men in black are always just a step ahead to cover it up.
We know for a fact that the KGB created "Operation Infektion," so it wouldn't surprise me if it has pushed "Flying Saucers Are Real," "The Alien Presence," and "Big Foot" garbage, as well.
Why don't you look it up, Smith?
Not to mention its publishing an anti-CIA / anti-Clay Shaw article in a Communist-owned Italian newspaper (Paese Sera) three days after an overly-ambitious, scandal-plagued and revengeful New Orleans DA by the name of Jim Garrison had arrested Shaw for the JFKA, which article motivated him to change his theory against Shaw from "He masterminded a homosexual thrill-kill assassination of JFK!!!" to "He supervised it for the CIA!!!"
-
No, the problem is that I know too much about US intelligence operations outside of the Kennedy assassination.
I’ve read biographies on Allan Dulles, James Angelton, and various books about covert operations abroad. I’ve studied COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, CHAOS, etc.
It’s not just my political biases but also the pattern of behavior of our national security state which leads me to believe it’s plausible that they were complicit in the Kennedy assassination.
But your problem here is that almost all of that was approved or ordered by Presidents (Cointelpro was done by the FBI). E.g., the covert war on Cuba essentially ended after JFK was killed. Why do you think that happened? Did you read the Weiner book on the CIA? The nasty stuff was on orders of Presidents. Ike, JFK, Nixon. I think that's why leftists like I.F. Stone and Chomsky, and a few others, didn't and don't believe in the "CIA did it" conspiracy. They knew who JFK was and they knew that many of the awful things the CIA did was on orders. It wasn't a rogue agency.
The idea that the CIA did bad things A, B, and C (and they did terrible things) means they killed their own President and then others went along to cover it up is preposterous. You are not talking about the national security state. You are talking about almost the entire government and news media.
You don't actually think someone like Hersh would cover this up? The same people who exposed the abuses you mentioned have covered up for the murder of JFK? That's completely illogical.
-
Coming from anyone else this might be a serious question but coming from a guy who believes Russia and Putin are behind almost every event in history it is unintentionally hilarious. All baseless conspiracy theories from UFO to Bigfoot to JFK assassination need a government conspiracy by necessity to explain why they can never prove their pet conspiracy. Why? Because the government men in black are always just a step ahead to cover it up.
Well we know for a fact that several government agencies participated in cover-ups relating to the Kennedy assassination. Both the FBI and CIA admit it. Other agencies haven't gone as far in admitting to cover ups but we know the Secret Service and Defense Dept suppressed some evidence too. What we don't know is "why" the need for a cover up when LHO was just "a lone loser"?
-
I hear you, Bro.
The evil, evil CIA did all of those nasty, nasty things against the world-class humanitarian organizations known as the KGB* and the GRU!!!
You know what's really groovy? Comrade Morley's book, The Ghost, about James JESUS Angleton!!! (Even though he still believes Yuri Nosenko was a true defector.)
Peace, Bro!!!
Why don't you do yourself a favor and google probable mole "Bruce Leonard Solie," and CIA good-guy, "Tennent H. Bagley," for starters?
*Today's SVR and FSB
The KGB/GRU does bad things to both good and bad people.
The CIA/FBI does bad things to both good and bad people.
Democracy is real and makes us superior to Russia but American Exceptionalism is not real. Our government does bad things and lies to us too…
-
The KGB/GRU does bad things to both good and bad people.
The CIA/FBI does bad things to both good and bad people. Democracy is real and makes us superior to Russia but American Exceptionalism is not real. Our government does bad things and lies to us too…
The KGB* (under one of its earlier names) murdered 2 - 3 million people in Ukraine in the 1930s by confiscating their harvests and letting them starve to death, millions of Soviet citizens were killed in "the Gulag" under Stalin and Soviet dictators, and your buddy, "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin, murdered 307 of his own citizens in the 1999 Russian Apartment Bombings so that he could become president and start the Second Chechen War and oh yeah, help Assad bomb and poison people in Syria, etc, etc.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
But your problem here is that almost all of that was approved or ordered by Presidents (Cointelpro was done by the FBI). E.g., the covert war on Cuba essentially ended after JFK was killed.
False. In fact, LBJ approved the execution of Che Guevara. The CIA continued supporting Cuban exile militias/terrorists into the 90s.
You can argue that LBJ dialed back our focus on Cuba after the Kennedy assassination but our covert operations against Cuba lasted throughout the Cold War and intelligence ops against Cuba continued into the Obama administration under USAID.
Why do you think that happened? Did you read the Weiner book on the CIA? The nasty stuff was on orders of Presidents. Ike, JFK, Nixon. I think that's why leftists like I.F. Stone and Chomsky, and a few others, didn't and don't believe in the "CIA did it" conspiracy. They knew who JFK was and they knew that many of the awful things the CIA did was on orders. It wasn't a rogue agency.
Have you read the unredacted Schlesinger-JFK memo?
How can you read that memo and not be convinced that the CIA went rogue in the 1960s? (I tend to believe they were more rogue prior to the Church investigations than they are today FYI)
How can you read President Truman's call for the CIA to be reeled-in a month after Kennedy's assassination as anything other than suggesting that Presidents don't fully control the agency? (Dulles, who was no longer officially with the agency at that time, tried to stop Truman from publishing the letter)
Truman in 1963: "Limit CIA Role To Intelligence" - https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/TrumanLimitCIA.html
You seem like a smart guy so I assume it's that you're in denial, not naive.
The idea that the CIA did bad things A, B, and C (and they did terrible things) means they killed their own President and then others went along to cover it up is preposterous.
Did I say that? No. I said it's plausible that they were involved. I remain open to other explanations but, no, I don't think it's implausible that the JFK assassination was an inside job.
There are many reasons why, including the pattern of unethical behavior by the CIA and the FBI over the course of the history of those agencies.
You are not talking about the national security state. You are talking about almost the entire government and news media.
I believe the mainstream news media has been complicit in the cover up over the last 60+ years.
I do not believe the entire government or the news media was complicit in the actual plot against JFK.
You don't actually think someone like Hersh would cover this up? The same people who exposed the abuses you mentioned have covered up for the murder of JFK?
I respect Sy Hersh's and Noam Chomsky's work on other topics but they are wrong about JFK. Everything we've learned in the declassification of JFK files since the 1990s has corroborated the claims that JFK didn't trust the CIA, or the Joint Chiefs, and that JFK wanted to get out of Vietnam.
Whether or not Kennedy would've followed through on pulling out of Vietnam had he not been killed is impossible to know. But there's now a mountain of evidence proving that he did in fact want our troops out of Vietnam.
-
The KGB* (under one of its earlier names) murdered 2 - 3 million people in Ukraine in the 1930s by confiscating their harvests and letting them starve to death, millions of Soviet citizens were killed in "the Gulag" under Stalin and Soviet dictators, and your buddy, "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin, murdered 307 of his own citizens in the 1999 Russian Apartment Bombings so that he could become president and start the Second Chechen War and oh yeah, help Assad bomb and poison people in Syria, etc, etc.
*Today's SVR and FSB
How many millions of people did our government kill between Vietnam in the 1960s and the Middle East today? Easily several million between Vietnam and Iraq alone.
Trump is mass murdering innocent people in Yemen while also assisting Israel's mass murder of Palestinians.
He is also kidnapping immigrants and sending them to a gulag in El Salvador.
We are not exceptional.
-
Well we know for a fact that several government agencies participated in cover-ups relating to the Kennedy assassination. Both the FBI and CIA admit it. Other agencies haven't gone as far in admitting to cover ups but we know the Secret Service and Defense Dept suppressed some evidence too. What we don't know is "why" the need for a cover up when LHO was just "a lone loser"?
To the extent the FBI or CIA participated in any "cover up" it was to protect themselves from criticism that perhaps they should have kept better tabs on Oswald. At worst it was CYA. To extrapolate from that to participation in a conspiracy to assassinate the president, frame Oswald, and kill the patsy is light years in difference.
-
To the extent the FBI or CIA participated in any "cover up" it was to protect themselves from criticism that perhaps they should have kept better tabs on Oswald. At worst it was CYA. To extrapolate from that to participation in a conspiracy to assassinate the president, frame Oswald, and kill the patsy is light years in difference.
All of the above are possible, including complicity in JFK's murder. Neither of us can draw any airtight conclusions about the why because neither of us are in a position to know what secrets they wanted to hide or are still hiding.
-
How many millions of people did our government kill between Vietnam in the 1960s and the Middle East today? Easily several million between Vietnam and Iraq alone.
Trump is mass murdering innocent people in Yemen while also assisting Israel's mass murder of Palestinians.
He is also kidnapping immigrants and sending them to a gulag in El Salvador.
We are not exceptional.
Trump is probably more your fault than mine, Banksie, because gullible Far-Lefty that you are, you've probably been more than willing to spout KGB*-promulgated anti-government CTs (including those about the JFKA) which have had the cumulative effect over the past sixty-plus years of making our body politic sufficiently cynical, paranoiac, and apathetic as to enable "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin to install his "useful idiot" (or worse), Donald J. Trump, as our "President."
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
I want to elaborate on my earlier comment to Steve about the CIA going rogue for more clarity:
Do I believe it's plausible that plotting JFK's assassination was ever official CIA policy? No. I don't think the CIA director ordered a hit on Kennedy.
At worst, I find it plausible that some individual CIA officers and contractors went rogue against Kennedy. Which is close to the HSCA's conclusion.
A year or so ago, I listened to a podcast that featured legendary CIA officer, Felix Rodriguez. In explaining the differences between the CIA today and the 1960s, he basically said, back then, they would do unethical stuff and let the CIA's lawyers clean it up afterwards. In contrast, today, the CIA officers talk to lawyers before proceeding with operations.
Under the context of the CIA's earlier years when there were agents who did some things that they had to hide from the President and even the CIA director, I don't find it implausible that some CIA operatives could've been involved in a plot against JFK. Recently declassified files have confirmed that upper levels of the CIA didn't know much about some of James Angelton's most secret operations. He hid stuff from everyone, including people who worked closely with him. And it's well known that CIA officers hid stuff from John McCone, Kennedy's pick for CIA director, after Dulles was fired.
If all of that is true or even suspected of being true, it would be in the interest of the CIA as an agency to cover up any potential links to Oswald or the Kennedy assassination rather than come clean about the possible involvement of their guys.
It's that context which explains why the CIA didn't disclose to the HSCA that George Joannides ran the DRE at the time when LHO was engaging with their operations in New Orleans. And why James Angelton lied under oath to the HSCA about his interest in Oswald prior to the assassination.
-
How many millions of people did our government kill between Vietnam in the 1960s and the Middle East today? Easily several million between Vietnam and Iraq alone.
Trump is mass murdering innocent people in Yemen while also assisting Israel's mass murder of Palestinians.
He is also kidnapping immigrants and sending them to a gulag in El Salvador.
We are not exceptional.
Trump is massing murdering innocent people in Yemen? Yemen is a terrorist state that fires on US warships and international shipping like pirates. Israel is mass murdering Palestinians? You mean the barbarians who attacked them murdering and raping and taking hostages including infants that they hold to this day? The same people who have vowed as the formal policy of their government to wipe out Israel and the US off the face of the map in an act of genocide. And you are concerned about an illegal alien who beat his wife and had ties to criminal terrorist gangs. That's the guy you are concerned about? Did you voice concern for the "Maryland women" who was a US citizen who was abducted, raped, beaten to death with a rock by an illegal alien? Was she not "exceptional" enough for you?
-
Trump is massing murdering innocent people in Yemen?
Yes. He proudly boasted about bombing a prayer circle in Yemen last week.
Militants don't gather in a circle out in the open when they know they're being surveilled by US drones and satellites but tribal people in Yemen traditionally do that.
Many civilians have been killed so far in his unauthorized war against Yemen.
Israel has killed 18,000 children since 2023. I thought Republicans were pro-life and believed "all lives matter"?
-
James Angelton lied under oath to the HSCA about his interest in Oswald prior to the assassination.
Did former Marine U-2 radar operator Oswald describe himself as a Marxist to Consul Richard Snyder in Moscow, tell him that he wanted to renounce his American citizenship, and say that he planned to tell the Soviets "something of special interest"? Did he then proceed to live half-a-mile from a KGB school for two-and-one-half years in Minsk? Did he marry a former KGB Leningrad "swallow" whose uncle was an MVD colonel and who had to be at the very least, according to KGB true defector Pyotr Deriabin, a low-level KGB informant? Did he talk with Soviet Embassy security officer Ivan Obyedkov over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phone line in Mexico City on 10/1/63, during which conversation Obyedkov volunteered to him that the name of the Soviet diplomat he'd met with at the Consulate a couple of days earlier was "Kostikov," i.e., KGB Colonel Valeriy Kostikov, someone the CIA and FBI (mistakenly?) believed at the time was a high-level officer in the First Chief Directorate's (today's SVR's) assassinations and sabotage section, Department 13?
If so, wouldn't the CIA have had good reason to be interested in Oswald prior to the assassination?
-
Did former Marine U-2 radar operator Oswald describe himself as a Marxist to Consul Richard Snyder in Moscow, tell him that he wanted to renounce his American citizenship, and say that he planned to tell the Soviets "something of special interest"? Did he then proceed to live half-a-mile from a KGB school for two-and-one-half years in Minsk? Did he marry a former KGB Leningrad "swallow" whose uncle was an MVD colonel? Did he talk with Soviet Embassy security officer Ivan Obyedkov over a sure-to-be-tapped-by-CIA phone line in Mexico City on 10/1/63, during which conversation Obyedkov volunteered to him that the name of the Soviet diplomat he'd met with at the Consulate a couple of days earlier was "Kostikov," i.e., KGB Colonel Valeriy Kostikov, someone the CIA and FBI (mistakenly?) believed at the time was a high-level officer in the First Chief Directorate's (today's SVR's) assassinations and sabotage section, Department 13?
If so, wouldn't the CIA have had good reason to be interested in Oswald prior to the assassination?
Yes. Why then, did they lie about it if the basis for their interest was as innocent as you describe? I think we all can agree that Oswald's visit to the Soviet Union should have raised alarm bells at the CIA and FBI. If that's all there was to it, there's no sense in lying about it and keeping secrets about it decades later.
Therefore we can reasonably speculate that there was more to it than you describe...
-
Yes. Why then, did they lie about it if the basis for their interest was as innocent as you describe? I think we all can agree that Oswald's visit to the Soviet Union should have raised alarm bells at the CIA and FBI. If that's all there was to it, there's no sense in lying about it or keeping secrets about it decades later.
Banksie,
Please freshen my memory -- How, exactly, did James Angleton "lie" about his interest in Oswald?
Regardless, JFKA conspiracy theorist John M. Newman (author of the 1995/2008 book, "Oswald and the CIA"), who used to think James Angleton was the mastermind of the JFKA, now says in his 2022 book, "Uncovering Popov's Mole," that a KGB mole by the name of Bruce Leonard Solie sent (or duped his confidant, protégé, and mole-hunting subordinate, Angleton, into sending) Oswald to Moscow in 1959 as an ostensible "dangle" in a (unbeknownst to Angleton and Oswald) planned-to-fail hunt for "Popov's Mole" / "Popov's U-2 Mole" (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA -- the Soviet Russia Division -- which mole hunt lasted nine years, tore the SRD apart, and drove Angleton nuts.
Factoid: Newman dedicated his book to the aforementioned CIA good-guy, Tennent H. Bagley (look him up).
-
Banksie,
Please freshen my memory -- How, exactly, did James Angleton "lie" about his interest in Oswald?
He denied that Oswald was ever the subject of a CIA operation. We can say with absolute certainty today that he lied:
(https://i.ibb.co/ks5M85wf/morley-april1.png)
Link - https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Morley-Written-Testimony.pdf
Again, if his reasons for surveilling Oswald were so obviously innocent, why lie about it?
PS: I prefer the nickname "Banksy". Great street artist. ;)
-
I want to elaborate on my earlier comment to Steve about the CIA going rogue for more clarity:
Do I believe it's plausible that plotting JFK's assassination was ever official CIA policy? No. I don't think the CIA director ordered a hit on Kennedy.
At worst, I find it plausible that some individual CIA officers and contractors went rogue against Kennedy. Which is close to the HSCA's conclusion.
A year or so ago, I listened to a podcast that featured legendary CIA officer, Felix Rodriguez. In explaining the differences between the CIA today and the 1960s, he basically said, back then, they would do unethical stuff and let the CIA's lawyers clean it up afterwards. In contrast, today, the CIA officers talk to lawyers before proceeding with operations.
Under the context of the CIA's earlier years when there were agents who did some things that they had to hide from the President and even the CIA director, I don't find it implausible that some CIA operatives could've been involved in a plot against JFK. Recently declassified files have confirmed that upper levels of the CIA didn't know much about some of James Angelton's most secret operations. He hid stuff from everyone, including people who worked closely with him. And it's well known that CIA officers hid stuff from John McCone, Kennedy's pick for CIA director, after Dulles was fired.
If all of that is true or even suspected of being true, it would be in the interest of the CIA as an agency to cover up any potential links to Oswald or the Kennedy assassination rather than come clean about the possible involvement of their guys.
It's that context which explains why the CIA didn't disclose to the HSCA that George Joannides ran the DRE at the time when LHO was engaging with their operations in New Orleans. And why James Angelton lied under oath to the HSCA about his interest in Oswald prior to the assassination.
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.
-
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.
Banksie,
Do you think this proves the evil, evil, evil CIA killed JFK?
Did JFK really say he was going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces?
Do you think reorganizing the CIA was the only suggestion by Schlessinger that JFK didn't implement?
-
To the extent the FBI or CIA participated in any "cover up" it was to protect themselves from criticism that perhaps they should have kept better tabs on Oswald. At worst it was CYA. To extrapolate from that to participation in a conspiracy to assassinate the president, frame Oswald, and kill the patsy is light years in difference.
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/l0CLVkXrFf522IKoU/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b95245jwhntanq35ip9spqapmgmxabshswvo9ywd0opx&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
-
Banksie,
Do you think this proves the evil, evil, evil CIA killed JFK?
No. The Schlessinger memo disproves Steve's point about the CIA never going "rogue".
But your problem here is that almost all of that was approved or ordered by Presidents (Cointelpro was done by the FBI). E.g., the covert war on Cuba essentially ended after JFK was killed. Why do you think that happened? Did you read the Weiner book on the CIA? The nasty stuff was on orders of Presidents. Ike, JFK, Nixon. I think that's why leftists like I.F. Stone and Chomsky, and a few others, didn't and don't believe in the "CIA did it" conspiracy. They knew who JFK was and they knew that many of the awful things the CIA did was on orders. It wasn't a rogue agency.
The memo clearly proves that Kennedy was concerned that the agency had too much "autonomy".
-
ME: Do you think the Schlessinger memo proves the evil, evil, evil CIA killed JFK?
BANKSIE: No. The Schlessinger memo disproves Steve's point about the CIA never going "rogue".
ME: Why the convoluted answer?
-
ME: Do you think the Schlessinger memo proves the evil, evil, evil CIA killed JFK?
BANKSIE: No. The Schlessinger memo disproves Steve's point about the CIA never going "rogue".
ME: Why the convoluted answer?
I answered your question and explained my real reason for posting the Schlessinger quote.
You’re welcome.
-
I answered your question and explained my real reason for posting the Schlessinger quote.
Left Bank,
Please freshen my memory as to why you posted the Schlessinger memo.
To prove that JFK wanted to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces?
To prove that the evil, evil, evil CIA (or some evil, evil, evil rogue agents thereof) killed JFK to prevent him from doing that?
What?
Thanks, Left Bank.
-
Left Bank,
Please freshen my memory as to why you posted the Schlessinger memo.
To prove that JFK wanted to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces?
I see what you're trying to do Vlad.
I don't know if JFK ever said that exact quote but the recently unredacted memo proves that it was true that JFK was concerned about the CIA "going rogue".
The claim that 'everything the CIA does is approved by the POTUS' wasn't true in 1961.
I don't know if it's true or not today. Things may have changed at the agency since then.
-
I see what you're trying to do Vlad.
It's ironic that you call me "Vlad," Left-Banksie, when you're the one who's been brainwashed by sixty-six years of KGB* disinformation (including but not limited to, oodles and gobs of KGB*-encouraged JFKA conspiracy theories), "active measures," and mole-based "Inside Man" / "Outside Man" strategic deception counterintelligence operations waged against us and our NATO allies.
*Today's SVR and FSB
[T]he recently unredacted memo proves that it was true that JFK was concerned about the CIA "going rogue."
Was the memo written by JFK or by Schlessinger, Banksie?
-
It's ironic that you call me "Vlad," Left-Banksie, when you're the one who's been brainwashed by sixty-six years of KGB* disinformation (including but not limited to, oodles and gobs of KGB*-encouraged JFKA conspiracy theories), "active measures," and mole-based "Inside Man" / "Outside Man" strategic deception counterintelligence operations waged against us and our NATO allies.
Given that you still believe in 2025 that Putin rigged the 2016 and 2024 US elections, there's nothing you can say to insult me :D
The speculation that others were involved with JFK's assassination has far more substance than your theories about Putin propping up Trump.
The very first high level US official to speculate about CIA involvement with JFK’s assassination was his brother Robert Kennedy, who reportedly asked CIA director McCone if the CIA was involved during the immediate aftermath of the JFK assassination.
How rogue was the CIA in 1963 for RFK Sr. to seriously wonder if they were involved?
There’s no evidence that RFK’s speculation was influenced by the “KGB”.
-
[Y]ou still believe in 2025 that Putin rigged the 2016 and 2024 US elections [...].
Left Banks,
Do you deny that "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin originally just wanted Hillary to lose, and when more and more Republican candidates started dropping out of the race he decided that he wanted Trump to win? Do you deny that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies determined after the election that Putin's professional Saint Petersburg trolls, his GRU and FSB hackers, and one oligarch in particular, Oleg Deripaska, had tried to help Trump win?
Do you deny that Hillary got three million more votes than Trump nationwide, but Trump "won" the Electoral College because he got a total of about 78,000 more votes than her in three critical "swing" states, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, about which states Trump's campaign manager, pro-Russia Paul Manafort, had given Trump Campaign polling data and strategy to his GRU helper, Konstantin Kilimnik, who in turn gave it to Putin's oligarch Oleg Deripaska so that Putin's trolls could target certain voters in those states and encourage them to get off the couch and go vote for The Traitorous Orange Bird (rhymes with Xxxx)?
I voted for Hillary Clinton, Banksie.
For whom did you vote (if you voted at all)?
Pro-Putin anti-vaxxer Jill Stein, by any chance, who got more votes in two of those states than Trump got over Clinton in them?
-
JFKA conspiracy theorists psychologically need to believe that a governmental agency, or rogue actors thereof, killed JFK.
Thoughts?
Feelings?
Borderline-hysterical rants?
Most any conspiracy theory tells a more interesting story than the truth, the most likely truth is that Oswald alone murdered JFK. Good stories work. They always have. They always will.
-
I voted for Hillary Clinton, Banksie.
For whom did you vote (if you voted at all)?
Pro-Putin anti-vaxxer Jill Stein, by any chance, who got more votes in two of those states than Trump got over Clinton in them?
I too voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 fyi.
Initially, I was receptive to the “Trump-Putin collusion” stuff but became more skeptical over time as one theory after another got debunked and the Christopher Steele dossier was exposed as a fraud.
We now know that most of those theories from the 2016 election originated from Clinton campaign operatives who paid for oppo-research on Trump in 2016. They laundered false information from the Steele dossier through the Press.
The Mueller investigation did not find any conspiracy between Trump’s campaign and Russia. At worst, Trump’s campaign didn’t disapprove of the Russians spreading “dirt” about Hillary.
-
Most any conspiracy theory tells a more interesting story than the truth, the most likely truth is that Oswald alone murdered JFK. Good stories work. They always have. They always will.
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.
-
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.
The Secret Service did not illegally remove his body. The brain was not stolen. It did not belong to the National Archives. The autopsy photos were not doctored. They were confirmed as being authentic and unaltered by the Bethesda pathologists, by the photographer who took them, and by the HSCA's 22 member panel of photographic analysis experts.
-
Initially, I was receptive to the “Trump-Putin collusion” stuff but became more skeptical over time as one theory after another got debunked and the Christopher Steele dossier was exposed as a fraud.
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).
Regardless, could you please tell me which of the following sections of the Steele Dossier have been debunked?
Thanks!
The following sections of the Steele Dossier describe how some allegations have been corroborated, while others remain unverified because they may be "untrue, unimportant or too sensitive." There are sometimes conflicting reports for or against their veracity, and, in some cases, there are discrepancies between sources and their allegations. (emphasis added)
1) Cultivation of Trump through time
2) Russian assistance to the 2016 Trump Campaign
3) Fake news and social media misinformation
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
. . . . . . .
We now know that most of those theories from the 2016 election originated from Clinton campaign operatives who paid for oppo-research on Trump in 2016. They laundered false information from the Steele dossier through the Press.
Dear Left-Bank,
I know that the Clinton Campaign assumed the funding of Steele's research when the original funder, a Never-Trump Republican, no longer had use for it, but what's your source for claiming that Clinton Campaign operatives laundered false information from the Steele Dossier through the press?
What "false information"?
At worst, Trump’s campaign didn’t disapprove of the Russians spreading “dirt” about Hillary.
Since Robert Mueller conducted a narrow criminal investigation instead of what he was supposed to conduct -- a counterintelligence investigation -- and even at that he didn't "follow the money" -- how can you be so sure that, "At worst, Trumps's campaign didn't disapprove of the Russian's spreading "dirt" about Hillary"? (emphasis added)
Addendum:
Just for giggles, google the following names simultaneously: Stone Schlanger Caddy. When you do, you'll find that Roger Stone (who left Trump's Campaign in August 2015 and who had just met with Harley Schlanger of the anti-Globalist / pro-Russia Lyndon LaRouche organization right after Schlanger had returned from Moscow) told former Watergate attorney and JFKA CT Douglas Caddy in early 2016 that he had a "back channel to Trump."
-
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?
-
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/
-
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?