Why We Still Don’t Have the JFK Assassination Files

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Katzenbach wrote this, conveniently not included above, in his memo:

"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United Stated and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now."

More important, Katzenbach had nothing to do with the WC investigation. Or the FBI investigation. Or the HSCA investigation. Or the Church Committee investigation. Or ABC investigation. Or the NY Times investigation. Or the Washington Post investigation. Or CBS investigation. Or the...I'll stop here since my fingers are getting tired.

But as we know, the conspiracists claim all of those investigations were coverups. All of them. Yes, hundreds of people, multiple generations of Americans, over a half a century covered up what happened. More conspiracies. It's the only answer they have.

[Jon Banks]

Question 1:

The government was secretive about it's Civil War secrets, some of which, may, have been related to the Lincoln assassination. Is this a good reason to strongly suggest the U. S. government was involved in the Lincoln assassination?

Since governments always keep secrets, is a good idea to judge the probably truth on whether or not the government keeps secrets? The government might want to keep secrets about who helped the Union army in the 1860's. The government might want to keep secrets about who helped, or might be willing to help, the U. S. government in Cuba in the 1960's.

Question 2:

Since using this form a reasoning "Does the government keep secrets?" always results in the same verdict, Yep, the government is likely guilty, is this a good form of reasoning?

What is my reasoning?

The side that generally dodges questions is probably not the side that has the overall truth on it's side.

All governments keep secrets. Most of the secrets aren’t related to national security.

After certain period of time, whether it be a few years or a few decades, government secrets SHOULD be made public. There’s no good excuse for not declassifying all files related to an event that happened almost 60 years ago.

I don’t believe the government is “guilty” of anything. However, I believe the government has something to hide. Otherwise, what’s the point in missing deadlines or fighting in court to keep certain decades old files a secret?

[Jon Banks]

Katzenbach wrote this, conveniently not included above, in his memo:

"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United Stated and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now."

More important, Katzenbach had nothing to do with the WC investigation. Or the FBI investigation. Or the HSCA investigation. Or the Church Committee investigation. Or ABC investigation. Or the NY Times investigation. Or the Washington Post investigation. Or CBS investigation. Or the...I'll stop here since my fingers are getting tired.

But as we know, the conspiracists claim all of those investigations were coverups. All of them. Yes, hundreds of people, multiple generations of Americans, over a half a century covered up what happened. More conspiracies. It's the only answer they have.

The assumption that everyone involved in a cover-up knows the truth is wrong. Often times people willfully lie to protect themselves or their organization without knowing all the facts or the truth.

Specifically in the Kennedy assassination, it appears that the investigators didn’t want to learn the truth despite the fact that many had doubts that Oswald acted alone. Including Lyndon Johnson who ordered the Warren Commission. Due to national security or other reasons, they immediately went into cover-up mode without doing a real investigation to find all the facts. Even the CIA admitted to engaging in a cover-up in the Kennedy assassination.

So we know for a fact that several government agencies did in fact cover-up stuff. Their motives may not be related to hiding their guilt but under no other circumstances would we conclude that a cover-up doesn’t indicate that people are hiding potentially incriminating stuff.

[Charles Collins]

The assumption that everyone involved in a cover-up knows the truth is wrong. Often times people willfully lie to protect themselves or their organization without knowing all the facts or the truth.

Specifically in the Kennedy assassination, it appears that the investigators didn’t want to learn the truth despite the fact that many had doubts that Oswald acted alone. Including Lyndon Johnson who ordered the Warren Commission. Due to national security or other reasons, they immediately went into cover-up mode without doing a real investigation to find all the facts. Even the CIA admitted to engaging in a cover-up in the Kennedy assassination.

So we know for a fact that several government agencies did in fact cover-up stuff. Their motives may not be related to hiding their guilt but under no other circumstances would we conclude that a cover-up doesn’t indicate that people are hiding potentially incriminating stuff.

…they immediately went into cover-up mode without doing a real investigation to find all the facts.


Are you claiming that the WC went into cover-up mode?   


Specifically what do you believe the WC should have done differently in order to, in your view, make it a “real investigation”?   

[Jon Banks]

…they immediately went into cover-up mode without doing a real investigation to find all the facts.


Are you claiming that the WC went into cover-up mode?   


Specifically what do you believe the WC should have done differently in order to, in your view, make it a “real investigation”?   

Yes. It’s clear that the WC omitted from the record or didn’t seriously investigate leads that could point to the involvement of others in Kennedy’s assassination. Their objective was to prove that Oswald acted alone.

They also were kept in the dark about relevant stuff related to CIA collaboration with the Mob and important details about Oswald’s Mexico City trip.

Given everything we know today about the Warren Commission, how gullible do you have to be to still believe the Warren Report was a serious attempt to investigate all possible explanations for why and how JFK was killed?

[Charles Collins]

Yes. It’s clear that the WC omitted from the record or didn’t seriously investigate leads that could point to the involvement of others in Kennedy’s assassination. Their objective was to prove that Oswald acted alone.

They also were kept in the dark about relevant stuff related to CIA collaboration with the Mob and important details about Oswald’s Mexico City trip.

Given everything we know today about the Warren Commission, how gullible do you have to be to still believe the Warren Report was a serious attempt to investigate all possible explanations for why and how JFK was killed?

Yes. It’s clear that the WC omitted from the record or didn’t seriously investigate leads that could point to the involvement of others in Kennedy’s assassination. Their objective was to prove that Oswald acted alone.


I asked for specifics….   

[Richard Smith]

Katzenbach wrote this, conveniently not included above, in his memo:

"It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United Stated and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now."

More important, Katzenbach had nothing to do with the WC investigation. Or the FBI investigation. Or the HSCA investigation. Or the Church Committee investigation. Or ABC investigation. Or the NY Times investigation. Or the Washington Post investigation. Or CBS investigation. Or the...I'll stop here since my fingers are getting tired.

But as we know, the conspiracists claim all of those investigations were coverups. All of them. Yes, hundreds of people, multiple generations of Americans, over a half a century covered up what happened. More conspiracies. It's the only answer they have.

And there were perfectly valid reasons to convince the public of Oswald's guilt that have nothing to do with preconceived bias.  Most importantly, the evidence confirms that Oswald was guilty!  It also avoids the risk of being pressured into WWIII if the public were falsely convinced by nutty CTers of the involvement of another country like Russia or Cuba in the assassination. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The assumption that everyone involved in a cover-up knows the truth is wrong. Often times people willfully lie to protect themselves or their organization without knowing all the facts or the truth.

Specifically in the Kennedy assassination, it appears that the investigators didn’t want to learn the truth despite the fact that many had doubts that Oswald acted alone. Including Lyndon Johnson who ordered the Warren Commission. Due to national security or other reasons, they immediately went into cover-up mode without doing a real investigation to find all the facts. Even the CIA admitted to engaging in a cover-up in the Kennedy assassination.

So we know for a fact that several government agencies did in fact cover-up stuff. Their motives may not be related to hiding their guilt but under no other circumstances would we conclude that a cover-up doesn’t indicate that people are hiding potentially incriminating stuff.

I've heard this "LBJ ordered the WC to cover up matters" hundreds of times over the years and have been presented with no evidence. Who covered up what exactly? What did LBJ order them not to look into? Mexico City? And what did we learn now that we didn't know in 1964? There's no there there besides some crazy rumors about Oswald meeting with Cuban and/or Soviet agents. You say that it "appears" the investigators didn't want to learn the truth? What was that truth? Were they ordered by LBJ or not?

And these other investigations - the HSCA, the Church Committee, the news media? Should we dismiss them too? As Joe asked above, what would you accept? Do we have to prove a negative? And how do we do this? Aren't all of these investigations enough?

As to covering stuff up: Yes, but what did they cover up have to do with the assassination of JFK? They covered up illegal activity, incompetency but not criminal malfeasance indicating involvement.