Trump to Release Documents

[John McAdams]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jfk-assassination-trump-to-allow-release-of-classified-documents/

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Steve M. Galbraith]

As to the MC part: My guess is they'll be a lot of embarrassing
information about the Mexican government - officials paid off by the CIA,
the government essentially taking orders from the US, perhaps some
material on Operation Mongoose and the assassination plots against Castro
that could have been run out of there.

Win Scott made all sorts of claims about Oswald being closely monitored,
about sources inside the Cuban consulate, et cetera. I think that was
bunk. But maybe they'll be something in these documents about it. I doubt
it.

[Jonny Mayer]

Cool!

[claviger]

So President Trump is doing something no Democrat president was willing to
do, allow the US public to see these documents.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 9:03:52 AM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:

When the files are released and they still don't contain what the
conspiracy hobbyists are sure is there, they will cry foul and insist the
government is still holding back the good stuff. That's pretty much what
happened two decades ago when the ARRB released previously classified
files and it turned out to be a big nothing burger. We've seen this movie
before.

[Anthony Marsh]

Sections

Subscribe
Sign In

Accessibility for screenreader

Local
Trump plans to release JFK assassination documents despite concerns from
federal agencies

The Kennedy motorcade drives through Dallas moments before the president
was fatally shot Nov. 22, 1963. (Jim Altgens/AP)
By Ian Shapira October 21 at 9:50 AM

President Trump announced Saturday morning that he planned to release
the tens of thousands of never-before-seen documents left in the files
related to President John F. Kennedy’s assassination held by the
National Archives and Records Administration.

“Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be allowing, as
President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened,”
Trump tweeted early Saturday.

Kennedy assassination experts have been speculating for weeks about
whether Trump would disclose the documents. The 1992 Kennedy
Assassination Records Collection Act required that the millions of pages
— many of them contained in CIA and FBI documents — be published in 25
years, by Oct. 26. Over the years, the National Archives has released
most of the documents, either in full or partially redacted.

[Pressure grows on Trump to release the JFK files]

But one final batch remains, and only the president has the authority to
extend the papers’ secrecy past the October deadline. In his tweet,
Trump seemed to strongly imply he was going to release all the remaining
documents. But he also hedged, suggesting that if, between now and Oct.
26, other government agencies made a strong case not to release the
documents, he wouldn’t. Also, Trump was unclear about whether he would
publish all of the documents in full or with some of them redacted.

In the days leading up to Trump’s tweet, a National Security Council
official told The Washington Post that government agencies were urging
the president not to release some of the documents. But Trump’s longtime
confidant Roger Stone told conspiracy theorist Alex Jones of Infowars
this week that he personally lobbied Trump to publish all of the documents.
ADVERTISEMENT

[Roger Stone is the man the media can’t ignore]

Stone also told Jones that CIA Director Mike Pompeo “has been lobbying
the president furiously not to release these documents.”

Though Kennedy assassination experts say they don’t think the last batch
of papers contains any major bombshells, the president’s decision to
release the documents could heighten the clarity around the
assassination, which has fueled so many conspiracy theorists, including
Trump himself.

In May 2016, while on the presidential campaign trail, Trump gave an
interview to Fox News strongly accusing the father of his GOP primaries
opponent, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, of consorting with Kennedy assassin
Lee Harvey Oswald right before the shooting.

The assassination experts do suspect the papers will shed light on the
activities of Oswald while he was traveling in Mexico City in late
September 1963 and courting Cuban and Soviet spies.

[JFK’s last birthday: Gifts, champagne and wandering hands on the
presidential yacht]
Play Video 12:06
What you may not have known about JFK's last days
On the 50th Anniversary of John F. Kennedy's assassination, author James
Swanson shares the stories he learned while writing his book, "The End
of Days: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy". (The Washington Post)

Phil Shenon, who wrote a book about the Warren Commission, the
congressional body that investigated Kennedy’s killing, said he was
pleased with Trump’s decision. But he wonders to what degree the papers
will ultimately be released.

Must Reads

5 stories you can't afford to miss, every Saturday.

“It’s great news that the president is focused on this and that he’s
trying to demonstrate transparency. But the question remains whether he
will open the library in full — every word in every document, as the law
requires,” Shenon said. “And my understanding is that he won’t without
infuriating people at the CIA and elsewhere who are determined to keep
at least some of the information secret, especially in documents created
in the 1990s.”

Jefferson Morley, a former Post reporter who has studied the Kennedy
assassination records for years, said the last tranche of material is
also intriguing because it contains files on senior CIA officials from
the 1960s — officers well aware of Oswald’s activities in the days
before the assassination.

On Saturday morning, Stone, the Trump confidant, was rejoicing on Twitter.

“Yes! Victory!” he tweeted.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/21/2017 9:03 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>

Great. 3 million BLANK pages. See, that's why they call it transparency
because you can see through the pages.

[bigdog]

The problem for conspiracy hobbyists is the stuff they imagine is in the
classified documents is a lot more interesting than what they will
actually find is in them. This falls under the category of "be careful
what you wish for".

[Steve M. Galbraith]

On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 9:03:52 AM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:

Absurdly, the article quotes the absurd Roger Stone on this issue with
Stone saying the documents will show that Oswald was a CIA officer. As if
Stone is a serious scholar into the event. Or anything else. Really, why
quote him?

Judge Tunheim said he saw these documents and there's nothing of
importance there.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/21/2017 1:58 PM, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 9:03:52 AM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jfk-assassination-trump-to-allow-release-of-classified-documents/
>>
>> .John
>> -----------------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> As to the MC part: My guess is they'll be a lot of embarrassing
> information about the Mexican government - officials paid off by the CIA,
> the government essentially taking orders from the US, perhaps some
> material on Operation Mongoose and the assassination plots against Castro
> that could have been run out of there.
>

Especially about Mexican agents following around Oswald and
photographing him for the CIA. Maybe more details on the Mexicans
torturing Sylvia Duran to get her to change her story.

> Win Scott made all sorts of claims about Oswald being closely monitored,
> about sources inside the Cuban consulate, et cetera. I think that was
> bunk. But maybe they'll be something in these documents about it. I doubt
> it.
>

So you say that Scott as head of the CIA in Mexico made up everything? Why?

[Marcus Hanson]

Good,but nothing special will be revealed.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! As a proud CT, I'm not looking for anything to be in the
files. They've been hidden for over 50 years, so by now they could have
been rewritten 50 times over. A few bits and pieces may come from them,
but I'm not holding my breath. As to the ARRB info, it contains proof of
the false autopsy, and the cover up that wen on, as well as many other
important facts on the case. I have only praise for the folks that
managed the ARRB job.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Take note, Trump has a thing in favor of conspiracies. As well, he
left himself an out. Something maybe he could demand some income from.

He said:

“Subject to the receipt of further information, I will be
allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be

opened”

So he could get out of it before it's released. Believe him when it
happens, not when he says something.

Chris

[bigdog]

Amazing how nobody found the "proof of the false autopsy" until Doug Horne
wrote his silly books which only a few gullible people bought into.

[Anthony Marsh]

Minor point, but how would you, as a non-researcher, even know if the
CIA complied? Is 3,000 blank pages compliance?

[Anthony Marsh]

How about uncovering WHAT they tried to cover up. Won't that give you a
clue?

[claviger]

Trump is doing something no Democrat was allowed to do, grant access for
US citizens to read these documents. The Kennedy family would not allow
any Democrat President to do that. However, Trump is a rich guy and rich
folks stick together, so chances are 50/50 at best there will be a full
release of all remaining documents.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! You really seem to know less and less about the case as time
goes on. Douglas Horne came after David Lifton, who was one of the first
to find that there had been a phony autopsy report, and a number of other
problems with the phony WCR.

And there were far more than a "few gullible people" that continue to
buy the Douglas Horne 5 volumes reporting on the work of the ARRRB, which
he served on for years. No one was in a better position to speak about
their doings than him.

The Amazon customer reviews show almost complete appreciation among
the readers of the Horne books. The maximum rating of 5 stars was given
by 96% of readers:

https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Assassination-Records-Review-Board/dp/098431444X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1508845211&sr=8-4&keywords=douglas+horne+arrb

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Not exactly. It's called a LAW. Trump is just ostensibly obeying the law.

The Kennedy family had no power to block FBI and CIA files.
Stop making up crap.
Trump is conspiracy kook. He hopes the documents will blame LBJ.

[Anthony Marsh]

Marsh Rule ammended:
If both Marsh and the CIA say the theory, that is proof that the theory
is crazy. A lot of people do not know the difference between a CIA
officer and a CIA agent.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/21/2017 9:35 PM, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:

> On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 9:03:52 AM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jfk-assassination-trump-to-allow-release-of-classified-documents/
>>
>> .John
>> -----------------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> Absurdly, the article quotes the absurd Roger Stone on this issue with
> Stone saying the documents will show that Oswald was a CIA officer. As if
> Stone is a serious scholar into the event. Or anything else. Really, why
> quote him?
>

I hope the point is to show how paranoid he is, and by extension Trump.


Which article? There are several. Do you mean THIS:

Roger Stone, a longtime friend of Mr. Trump who wrote a book alleging that
Johnson was the driving force behind Kennedy's assassination, had
personally urged the president to make the files public, he told far-right
conspiracy theorist and radio show host Alex Jones this past week.

"Yesterday, I had the opportunity to make the case directly to the
president of the United States by phone as to why I believe it is
essential that he release the balance of the currently redacted and
classified JFK assassination documents," Stone said, adding that "a very
good White House source," but not the president, had told him the Central
Intelligence Agency, "specifically CIA director Mike Pompeo, has been

lobbying the president furiously not to release these documents."

"Why? Because I believe they show that Oswald was trained, nurtured and
put in place by the Central Intelligence Agency. It sheds very bad light
on the deep state," he said.

______

I searched for the word OFFICER and I couldn't find it.
You wouldn't make up something that's not true, would you?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/21/2017 9:03 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 1:58:22 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 9:03:52 AM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jfk-assassination-trump-to-allow-release-of-classified-documents/
>>>
>>> .John
>>> -----------------------
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> As to the MC part: My guess is they'll be a lot of embarrassing
>> information about the Mexican government - officials paid off by the CIA,
>> the government essentially taking orders from the US, perhaps some
>> material on Operation Mongoose and the assassination plots against Castro
>> that could have been run out of there.
>>
>> Win Scott made all sorts of claims about Oswald being closely monitored,
>> about sources inside the Cuban consulate, et cetera. I think that was
>> bunk. But maybe they'll be something in these documents about it. I doubt
>> it.

The CIA used Sylvia Duran as an informant and had the cooperation of the
Mexican police.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not true. This is a law and it takes effect when Trump is in office.

[John McAdams]

On 25 Oct 2017 16:28:20 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 10/21/2017 9:03 PM, bigdog wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 1:58:22 PM UTC-4, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 9:03:52 AM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jfk-assassination-trump-to-allow-release-of-classified-documents/
>>>>
>>>> .John
>>>> -----------------------
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>>
>>> As to the MC part: My guess is they'll be a lot of embarrassing
>>> information about the Mexican government - officials paid off by the CIA,
>>> the government essentially taking orders from the US, perhaps some
>>> material on Operation Mongoose and the assassination plots against Castro
>>> that could have been run out of there.
>>>
>>> Win Scott made all sorts of claims about Oswald being closely monitored,
>>> about sources inside the Cuban consulate, et cetera. I think that was
>>> bunk. But maybe they'll be something in these documents about it. I doubt
>>> it.
>
>The CIA used Sylvia Duran as an informant and had the cooperation of the
>Mexican police.
>

The latter is clear from Jefferson Morley's OUR MAN IN MEXICO.

As for the former: we shall see. It's possible.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[bigdog]

When you preach to the choir, you get a lot of "amens".

[Ace Kefford]

Yeah, that and that a law was passed! You do understand that the
necessity to make a decision on release of the documents is because of a
law. Trump didn't just decide to do this.

[John McAdams]

On 26 Oct 2017 14:30:41 -0400, Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

But Trump could have blocked the release.

In fact, he *may be* blocking the release of some documents.

The Archive website now says "stay tuned."

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[claviger]

You live in a fantasy bubble.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's one way to attack him. How many WC defenders ever read any books
about the JFK assassination?

[Anthony Marsh]

I just bought his new book The Ghost, about Angleton and was
disappointed that he glossed over he Mole Hunt and didn't even mention
John Paisley. I may be the only person left who knows about that.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Ace Kefford]

Yes, but it's not like Trump voluntarily took up the issue. He has to do
something one way or another. Just as Hillary Clinton would have. Or
Gary Johnson!

[John McAdams]

On 26 Oct 2017 23:32:57 -0400, Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com>

But Trump's hostility to the Deep State probably made him more likely
to release all the documents.

However, the news, as of this moment, seems to show Trump giving the
Deep State what it wanted.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

You have a very short memory. It was Trump who said that Ted Cruz's father
helped Lee Harvey Oswald assassinate President Kennedy. And his source,
ROger Stone, also says that LBJ was behind it and Oswald was working for
the CIA.

It's not MY fantasy. It's Trump's. THAT's why you like him. Because he's a
paranoid conspiracy kook.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/26/2017 2:32 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2017 14:30:41 -0400, Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 3:41:16 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 7:53:03 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 8:03:52 AM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
>>>>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jfk-assassination-trump-to-allow-release-of-classified-documents/
>>>>>
>>>>> .John
>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>>>
>>>> So President Trump is doing something no Democrat president was willing to
>>>> do, allow the US public to see these documents.
>>>
>>> Trump is doing something no Democrat was allowed to do, grant access for
>>> US citizens to read these documents. The Kennedy family would not allow
>>> any Democrat President to do that. However, Trump is a rich guy and rich
>>> folks stick together, so chances are 50/50 at best there will be a full
>>> release of all remaining documents.
>>
>> Yeah, that and that a law was passed! You do understand that the
>> necessity to make a decision on release of the documents is because of a
>> law. Trump didn't just decide to do this.
>
> But Trump could have blocked the release.
>

Yes, but he is a conspiracy kook who wants to see them released to stir
up more controversy.

> In fact, he *may be* blocking the release of some documents.
>

Hey, watch that. No paranoia allowed here.

> The Archive website now says "stay tuned."
>

Technical issues. Bandwidth and demand.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Jason Burke]

Do you even know HOW to read, Anthony Anthony? Well, except for STOP and
RR XING.

[David Emerling]

On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 8:03:52 AM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jfk-assassination-trump-to-allow-release-of-classified-documents/
>
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

If there's one thing that these released documents shatter to smithereens
is the often expressed view by many conspiracy theorists that Oswald never
visited Mexico City. There was no Oswald double. He really went there and
what many of these documents seem to indicate is that our intelligence
agency knew a lot more about his visit than we thought. Yet, there is
nothing earth-shattering that has yet emerged from these documents. I'll
give it time for the researchers to pour over them - but I'm doubtful much
will come up.

My guess is that the documents that are not going to be released fall under
one of several categories.
1) There are intelligence gathering sources and methods that were being used
then that are still being used today. Naturally, the intelligence agency
doesn't want that to get out. They are always going to resist the release
of that kind of information.
2) There are some embarrassing things for certain people (and families) in
the record that became known but are completely irrelevant to the Kennedy
assassination.
3) There are things in the record that do not reflect favorably on the United
States - maybe even illegal operations. It has probably already been
determined that they have nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination so
there is no point in airing our dirty laundry.
4) Some information is probably personal information that has no relevance
to the Kennedy assassination and there is no value in placing it in the
public domain.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Chosen Ten]

This latest sequence of events is particularly troubling in light of how
increasingly likely it seemed Trump would allow the release of all the
remaining withheld documents.

But now it seems the "national security" line is being thrown around yet
again. Troubling to say the least regardless of whether you're a LN
advocate or a Conspiracy advocates. I don't like this one bit.

All it is doing is raising even more red flags. Surely even the lone nut
advocates must be raising their eyebrows at this? Something does not feel
right about this. Troubling. Troubling. Troubling.

>
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Jason Burke]

Killary prolly woulda eaten the docs.

[Marcus Hanson]

On Monday, October 23, 2017 at 9:00:15 AM UTC+11, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> Good,but nothing special will be revealed.

And here is the proof :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5022799/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-met-KGB-assassin-JFK-killing.html

Not a new name and not much of a revelation.

[Ralph Cinque]

Oswald never went to Mexico City, and that's something that Mark Lane
figured out by December 1963. Supposedly, the CIA tracked Oswald the
entire time he was in Mexico City. And yet, they could NEVER capture a
photo of him? Not even from behind? Why are all of the images of Oswald in
Mexico City phony? Why are they all impostors? It's because Oswald wasn't
there. And he said he wasn't there. At his first interrogation, he said
the only place in Mexico he ever went was Tijuana. Shouldn't all Oswald
defenders believe him? If you know he was innocent of murder, why would he
lie about something as innocuous as a trip to Mexico City?

Only one person, Postman Harry Holmes, claimed that Oswald waxed on about
going to Mexico City at his last interrogation. And he said nothing about
Oswald acknowledging that he previously denied going there. It seems to me
that if one was going to change one's story that one would start by
acknowledging having previously lied. Otherwise, it seems awfully
incoherent- like you were oblivious to what you said yesterday. But,
Holmes said nothing about that. And then there is Bookhout saying that he
asked Fritz if anything important came out at the last interrogation, and
Fritz said no. So, that wasn't important? The acknowledgement of a
previous lie?

Many attended that final interrogation but no one except Harry Holmes said
a word about Oswald reversing himself on Mexico City.

And it seems crazy to me that that they would be that interested in Mexico
City. No crime was committed there. No connection existed between what
happened there and what just happened in Dallas. They hadn't even proven
yet that Oswald was guilty. They hadn't even covered how Oswald got from
his room to the Texas Theater, and why he would have wound up at 10th and
Patton, and where he was heading up to that point until the Tippit
shooting (assuming it was him) and yet, they were fussing about a
crimeless, victimless sojourn to Mexico City?


Oswald didn't go to Mexico City. Understand?

[mainframetech]

WRONG! You've made your usual mistake. Amazon often gets bad reviews
for a book that readers have chosen to read. But not in the case of
Horne.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

When you use the term "Deep State" you are admitting that you are a
follower of Steve Bannon, part of the Alt-Right.

Remember when IKE said Military Complex and you guys said there was no
such thing and anyone who believed in it must be a paranoid kook?

How does it feel now when the shoe is on the other foot?

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[John McAdams]

On 27 Oct 2017 23:50:04 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 10/26/2017 11:34 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 26 Oct 2017 23:32:57 -0400, Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but it's not like Trump voluntarily took up the issue. He has to do
>>> something one way or another. Just as Hillary Clinton would have. Or
>>> Gary Johnson!
>>
>> But Trump's hostility to the Deep State probably made him more likely
>> to release all the documents.
>>
>> However, the news, as of this moment, seems to show Trump giving the
>> Deep State what it wanted.
>>
>
>When you use the term "Deep State" you are admitting that you are a
>follower of Steve Bannon, part of the Alt-Right.
>

You think everybody who disagrees with you is a Nazi.

>Remember when IKE said Military Complex and you guys said there was no
>such thing and anyone who believed in it must be a paranoid kook?
>

No, you guys misinterpreted him.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

>How does it feel now when the shoe is on the other foot?
>

You mean now that Hillary is the one found to have colluded with the
Russians?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Some agency has to file an objection and then Trump rules on it.
Do you think Trump is smart enough to remember all those code name? He
can't even remember his granddaughter's code name.

[bigdog]

Ho-hum.

[Anthony Marsh]

The LNers know it was a conspiracy, but want to keep it covered up.

>
>>
>> .John
>> -----------------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/27/2017 6:54 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 8:03:52 AM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jfk-assassination-trump-to-allow-release-of-classified-documents/
>>
>> .John
>> -----------------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> If there's one thing that these released documents shatter to smithereens
> is the often expressed view by many conspiracy theorists that Oswald never
> visited Mexico City. There was no Oswald double. He really went there and
> what many of these documents seem to indicate is that our intelligence

Well, yes Oswald really went to Mexico City. He admitted that.
But the CIA could have impersonated him or his voice while he was there
as a provocation.

> agency knew a lot more about his visit than we thought. Yet, there is

And some of them show that they knew LESS than they thought. Like
identifying that photo as possibly being Oswald. Well, he DID look LIKE
an American.

> nothing earth-shattering that has yet emerged from these documents. I'll
> give it time for the researchers to pour over them - but I'm doubtful much
> will come up.

OK, I'll give you that. WHen they refuse to release the explosive
documents then nothing explosive has come out. Maybe we can tell what is
explosive by what they refuse to release.

>
> My guess is that the documents that are not going to be released fall under
> one of several categories.
> 1) There are intelligence gathering sources and methods that were being used
> then that are still being used today. Naturally, the intelligence agency
> doesn't want that to get out. They are always going to resist the release
> of that kind of information.
> 2) There are some embarrassing things for certain people (and families) in
> the record that became known but are completely irrelevant to the Kennedy
> assassination.

Wow, wouldn't want to embarrass the assassin's family. After all, they
were not the ones pulling the trigger. If you think Oswald was the
shooter, never release anything about Marina.

> 3) There are things in the record that do not reflect favorably on the United
> States - maybe even illegal operations. It has probably already been
> determined that they have nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination so
> there is no point in airing our dirty laundry.

Duh! And maybe illegal.

I'm glad that you don't want to air our dirty laundry. So that no one will
ever be held responsible and they can keep repeating the same crimes over
and over again ad infinitum. Maybe you don't mind them feeding your
children radioactive cereal or LSD.

> 4) Some information is probably personal information that has no relevance
> to the Kennedy assassination and there is no value in placing it in the
> public domain.
>

And who gets to decide that? YOU?

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Typical ignorant comeback. The answer you were not brave enough to admit
is that NO, you have never read ny books about the JFK assassination.

>

[David Von Pein]

Then where was the real Lee Oswald from Sept. 25 to Oct. 2 or 3 of 1963,
Ralph? If he wasn't really in Mexico for those 8 eight days, then where
was he? Did he just vanish off the planet for over a week? Marina
certainly didn't lay eyes on him for that 8-day period. Neither did Ruth
Paine. Nor did anyone else in the USA (as far as we know). So where was
he, Ralph?

[David Emerling]

It could be embarrassing to wide range of people - not just Oswald's
family.

> > 3) There are things in the record that do not reflect favorably on the United
> > States - maybe even illegal operations. It has probably already been
> > determined that they have nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination so
> > there is no point in airing our dirty laundry.
>
> Duh! And maybe illegal.

Well, the Rockefeller Commission caught the CIA red-handed in a lot of
illegal stuff. As they say in the courtroom, "Asked and answered!"

By the way - it never ceases to amaze my why those conspiracy theorists
who think our government was covering up for the CIA are not perplexed
about the Rockefeller Commission (a government investigation) exposing the
CIA in all kinds of areas but, apparently, not the Kennedy assassination.
Is that the way it works ... really?

>
> I'm glad that you don't want to air our dirty laundry. So that no one will
> ever be held responsible and they can keep repeating the same crimes over
> and over again ad infinitum. Maybe you don't mind them feeding your
> children radioactive cereal or LSD.
>
> > 4) Some information is probably personal information that has no relevance
> > to the Kennedy assassination and there is no value in placing it in the
> > public domain.
> >
>
> And who gets to decide that? YOU?

Well, SOMEBODY has to decide. It doesn't make much sense to release the
information to the public and let the public decide whether it should have
been released to the public. How am I supposed to answer that question?
Apparently, the President of the United States can decide.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

Total sales?
Best Seller rating?

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/27/2017 11:27 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Oswald never went to Mexico City, and that's something that Mark Lane
> figured out by December 1963. Supposedly, the CIA tracked Oswald the
> entire time he was in Mexico City. And yet, they could NEVER capture a
> photo of him? Not even from behind? Why are all of the images of Oswald in
> Mexico City phony? Why are they all impostors? It's because Oswald wasn't
> there. And he said he wasn't there. At his first interrogation, he said
> the only place in Mexico he ever went was Tijuana. Shouldn't all Oswald
> defenders believe him? If you know he was innocent of murder, why would he
> lie about something as innocuous as a trip to Mexico City?
>
> Only one person, Postman Harry Holmes, claimed that Oswald waxed on about
> going to Mexico City at his last interrogation. And he said nothing about
> Oswald acknowledging that he previously denied going there. It seems to me
> that if one was going to change one's story that one would start by
> acknowledging having previously lied. Otherwise, it seems awfully
> incoherent- like you were oblivious to what you said yesterday. But,
> Holmes said nothing about that. And then there is Bookhout saying that he
> asked Fritz if anything important came out at the last interrogation, and
> Fritz said no. So, that wasn't important? The acknowledgement of a
> previous lie?
>
> Many attended that final interrogation but no one except Harry Holmes said
> a word about Oswald reversing himself on Mexico City.
>
> And it seems crazy to me that that they would be that interested in Mexico
> City. No crime was committed there. No connection existed between what

But there could be a conspiracy hatched there. That in and of itself
would constitute a crime.

> happened there and what just happened in Dallas. They hadn't even proven
> yet that Oswald was guilty. They hadn't even covered how Oswald got from
> his room to the Texas Theater, and why he would have wound up at 10th and
> Patton, and where he was heading up to that point until the Tippit
> shooting (assuming it was him) and yet, they were fussing about a
> crimeless, victimless sojourn to Mexico City?
>
>
> Oswald didn't go to Mexico City. Understand?
>

Then why did he admit that he did?

>

[Anthony Marsh]

But it really scared Angleton because he knew that Kostikov was in
charge of the assassination bureau in the West.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/27/2017 7:02 PM, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 10/26/2017 8:32 PM, Ace Kefford wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 2:32:46 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 26 Oct 2017 14:30:41 -0400, Ace Kefford <bglo...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 3:41:16 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 7:53:03 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, October 21, 2017 at 8:03:52 AM UTC-5, John McAdams
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jfk-assassination-trump-to-allow-release-of-classified-documents/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .John
>>>>>>> -----------------------
>>>>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So President Trump is doing something no Democrat president was
>>>>>> willing to
>>>>>> do, allow the US public to see these documents.
>>>>>
>>>>> Trump is doing something no Democrat was allowed to do, grant
>>>>> access for

>>>>> US citizens to read these documents.?? The Kennedy family would not
>>>>> allow
>>>>> any Democrat President to do that.?? However, Trump is a rich guy

>>>>> and rich
>>>>> folks stick together, so chances are 50/50 at best there will be a
>>>>> full
>>>>> release of all remaining documents.
>>>>

>>>> Yeah, that and that a law was passed!?? You do understand that the

>>>> necessity to make a decision on release of the documents is because
>>>> of a

>>>> law.?? Trump didn't just decide to do this.

>>>
>>> But Trump could have blocked the release.
>>>
>>> In fact, he *may be* blocking the release of some documents.
>>>
>>> The Archive website now says "stay tuned."
>>>
>>> .John
>>> -----------------------
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>

>> Yes, but it's not like Trump voluntarily took up the issue.?? He has to do
>> something one way or another.?? Just as Hillary Clinton would have.?? Or

>> Gary Johnson!
>>
>
> Killary prolly woulda eaten the docs.
>
>

What do you think is in the JFK documents that could possibly
incriminate the Clintons?

[Anthony Marsh]

Where were YOU at those times. Can you prove it?
DId you prearrange an alibi? I didn't know to prearrange an alibi when a
diplomate was assassinated just down the street while I was sleeping.

> was he? Did he just vanish off the planet for over a week? Marina
> certainly didn't lay eyes on him for that 8-day period. Neither did Ruth

So, did Lee tell Marina where he was going and why?
When he went out to shoot Marina did he tell her that is where he was
going? You seem to have a very old romanticized idea about Husbands and
wives.

[Anthony Marsh]

It is Bannon who urged Trump to release all the files.
To attack the CIA.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh my, we wouldn't want that now, would we? It might he embarrassing to
the families of the CIA officers and/or agents who assassinated the
President or covered it up. Can't have that.

>
>>> 3) There are things in the record that do not reflect favorably on the United
>>> States - maybe even illegal operations. It has probably already been
>>> determined that they have nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination so
>>> there is no point in airing our dirty laundry.
>>
>> Duh! And maybe illegal.
>
> Well, the Rockefeller Commission caught the CIA red-handed in a lot of
> illegal stuff. As they say in the courtroom, "Asked and answered!"
>

Sure, but you WC defenders keep denying those things too.

> By the way - it never ceases to amaze my why those conspiracy theorists
> who think our government was covering up for the CIA are not perplexed
> about the Rockefeller Commission (a government investigation) exposing the
> CIA in all kinds of areas but, apparently, not the Kennedy assassination.
> Is that the way it works ... really?
>

What works ever? We knew at the time that it was a cover-up, but they
needed to admit something to release the tension.

>>
>> I'm glad that you don't want to air our dirty laundry. So that no one will
>> ever be held responsible and they can keep repeating the same crimes over
>> and over again ad infinitum. Maybe you don't mind them feeding your
>> children radioactive cereal or LSD.
>>
>>> 4) Some information is probably personal information that has no relevance
>>> to the Kennedy assassination and there is no value in placing it in the
>>> public domain.
>>>
>>
>> And who gets to decide that? YOU?
>
> Well, SOMEBODY has to decide. It doesn't make much sense to release the

Better to have a neutral party decide it.

> information to the public and let the public decide whether it should have
> been released to the public. How am I supposed to answer that question?
> Apparently, the President of the United States can decide.
>

Not exactly. It is a process which triggers a review by a panel.
Do you really think Trump can understand those documents if you can't?

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Bud]

Tony Marsh knows it was Oswald acting alone but he keeps trying to pin
Oswald`s crimes on the CIA because he doesn`t like them.

> >
> >>
> >> .John
> >> -----------------------
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> >
> >

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Hosty said (in his WC testimony and his book) that Oswald denied going to
Mexico City. It was against US law at that time to visit Cuba without US
permission. I would guess that "trying" to do so was also illegal. Oswald
likely would have known that.

Hosty's WC testimony:
Mr. McCLOY. I didn't hear you repeating your testimony that he denied ever
having been in Mexico.
Mr. HOSTY. Oh, yes; he was being questioned about his activities outside or
the United States, where he had been outside of the United States. He told
Captain Fritz that he had only been to Mexico to visit at Tijuana on the
border, and then he did admit having been in Russia.
Mr. McCLOY. He only admitted to having been at Tijuana in Mexico?
Mr. HOSTY. Right.
Mr. McCLOY. Not to Mexico City.
Mr. HOSTY. Not to Mexico City; that is right.

And from Hosty's book, "Assignment Oswald".

"Out of deference to Fritz, I said, "Ask him if he has ever been to Mexico City."

Fritz turned to Oswald and said, "Tell us about that, Lee."

Oswald hesitated for a just a moment, then answered., "Sure, sure, I've
been to Mexico. When I was stationed in San Diego with the Marines a
couple of my buddies and I would occasionally drive down to Tijuana over
the weekend."

"No, not Tijuana. Mexico City. Captain, ask have you ever been to Mexico
City," I persisted.

Oswald was visibly upset. "What makes you think I've been to Mexico City?
I've never been there. I deny that." He was shaking his head, and he was
starting to sweat now. I knew I had touched a nerve."

Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=Eoi7x5i_bDkC&lpg=PT42&vq=Mexico&pg=PT42#v=snippet&q=Mexico&f=false

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Yes, Marina said that he told her he was going to MC and try to get to Cuba. Then, she would find a way to get to Cuba by herself.

From her WC testimony:

Mr. RANKIN. Had he discussed with you the idea of going to Mexico City?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. When did he first discuss that?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was in August.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you why he wanted to go to Mexico City?
Mrs. OSWALD. From Mexico City he wanted to go to Cuba--perhaps through the
Russian Embassy in Mexico somehow he would be able to get to Cuba.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything about going to Russia by way of Cuba?
Mrs. OSWALD. I know that he said that in the embassy. But he only said so.
I know that he had no intention of going to Russia then.
Mr. RANKIN. How do you know that?
Mrs. OSWALD. He told me. I know Lee fairly well--well enough from that
point of view.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you that he was going to Cuba and send you on to
Russia?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, he proposed that after he got to Cuba, that I would go
there, too, somehow.

She also testified to the HSCA about the trip.

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

So, did Lee tell Marina where he was going and why?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, of course. Marina Oswald went into great detail about her knowledge
of her husband's Mexico City trip in her 1964 Warren Commission testimony,
beginning at 1 H 26....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0019b.htm

Do you think all that testimony in Volume 1 is just a pack of lies, Tony?
If so, why do you think Marina felt compelled to lie so much about an
event (LHO's trip to Mexico) which really had nothing to do with the
question of whether or not Lee shot President Kennedy?


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

When he went out to shoot Marina [sic], did he tell her that is where he
was going?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

He went out to shoot Marina, eh? That's curious. (You meant to say General
Walker, I know.) :-)


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

You seem to have a very old romanticized idea about husbands and wives.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What's that got to do with the fact that I pointed out in my earlier post?
--- i.e., the fact that Marina DID NOT LAY EYES ON LEE HARVEY OSWALD
during the entire 8-day period in September & October of 1963 when
conspiracy theorists insist that LHO was *NOT* in Mexico City, Mexico.

So, since everybody's got to be *someplace* at all times, I just want the
conspiracy believers to answer my very simple question:

If Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't in Mexico City in late September and early
October of 1963, then WHERE WAS HE?

To date, not a single CTer has answered that question. Nor, as far as I
can recall, has any conspiracy believer even attempted to answer it.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1265.html

[mainframetech]

The game is OBVIOUS! They had 25 years to redact the information, yet
they only came out about it on the last day. Pretty obvious ploy, I would
think.

Chris

[John McAdams]

On 30 Oct 2017 20:56:56 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>

> The game is OBVIOUS! They had 25 years to redact the information, yet
>they only came out about it on the last day. Pretty obvious ploy, I would
>think.
>

What kind of ploy? It looks more like incompetence, both on the part
of the agencies and of the White House.

Create huge extra drama surrounding the documents?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[OHLeeRedux]

You're treading on thin ice, Marsh.

[Anthony Marsh]

Slander. I have never thought Oswald did it all by himself. Not even
that afternoon. I don't see how one person can fire from the sniper's
nest and the grassy knoll at the same time.

>>>
>>>>
>>>> .John
>>>> -----------------------
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>>
>>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/30/2017 3:48 PM, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> Hosty said (in his WC testimony and his book) that Oswald denied going to
> Mexico City. It was against US law at that time to visit Cuba without US
> permission. I would guess that "trying" to do so was also illegal. Oswald
> likely would have known that.
>

Fun to guess, isn't it? If there really was a travel ban didn't the US
violate it by transporting Cuban Exiles to the Bay of Pigs?

> Hosty's WC testimony:
> Mr. McCLOY. I didn't hear you repeating your testimony that he denied ever
> having been in Mexico.
> Mr. HOSTY. Oh, yes; he was being questioned about his activities outside or
> the United States, where he had been outside of the United States. He told
> Captain Fritz that he had only been to Mexico to visit at Tijuana on the
> border, and then he did admit having been in Russia.
> Mr. McCLOY. He only admitted to having been at Tijuana in Mexico?
> Mr. HOSTY. Right.
> Mr. McCLOY. Not to Mexico City.
> Mr. HOSTY. Not to Mexico City; that is right.
>
> And from Hosty's book, "Assignment Oswald".
>
> "Out of deference to Fritz, I said, "Ask him if he has ever been to Mexico City."
>
> Fritz turned to Oswald and said, "Tell us about that, Lee."
>
> Oswald hesitated for a just a moment, then answered., "Sure, sure, I've
> been to Mexico. When I was stationed in San Diego with the Marines a
> couple of my buddies and I would occasionally drive down to Tijuana over
> the weekend."
>
> "No, not Tijuana. Mexico City. Captain, ask have you ever been to Mexico
> City," I persisted.
>
> Oswald was visibly upset. "What makes you think I've been to Mexico City?
> I've never been there. I deny that." He was shaking his head, and he was
> starting to sweat now. I knew I had touched a nerve."
>

False. What Oswald really said was, "How did you know about that?"

> Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=Eoi7x5i_bDkC&lpg=PT42&vq=Mexico&pg=PT42#v=snippet&q=Mexico&f=false
>

[Jason Burke]

On 10/30/2017 5:49 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> So, did Lee tell Marina where he was going and why?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Yes, of course. Marina Oswald went into great detail about her knowledge
> of her husband's Mexico City trip in her 1964 Warren Commission testimony,
> beginning at 1 H 26....
>
> https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0019b.htm
>
> Do you think all that testimony in Volume 1 is just a pack of lies, Tony?

Because Anthony Anthony NEEDS to believe everything is a pack of lies.
Or else his whole house of cards fall down, pancake-like.

[Anthony Marsh]

Is that supposed to be a threat from the CIA?
Take a ticket and wait your turn.

>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/30/2017 9:02 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2017 20:56:56 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 10:24:43 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 7:51:41 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 10/27/2017 6:54 PM, David Emerling wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, SOMEBODY has to decide. It doesn't make much sense to release the
>>> information to the public and let the public decide whether it should have
>>> been released to the public. How am I supposed to answer that question?
>>> Apparently, the President of the United States can decide.
>>>
>>
>> The game is OBVIOUS! They had 25 years to redact the information, yet
>> they only came out about it on the last day. Pretty obvious ploy, I would
>> think.
>>
>
> What kind of ploy? It looks more like incompetence, both on the part
> of the agencies and of the White House.
>

To wait until the last second to object. They had 25 years to file a
complaint and waited until the last possible second.
Why do we have to constantly keep pointing out the obvious to you?

[OHLeeRedux]

I thought he said, "Cash me ouside. How bout dah?"

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/30/2017 8:49 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> So, did Lee tell Marina where he was going and why?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Yes, of course. Marina Oswald went into great detail about her knowledge
> of her husband's Mexico City trip in her 1964 Warren Commission testimony,
> beginning at 1 H 26....
>
> https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0019b.htm
>
> Do you think all that testimony in Volume 1 is just a pack of lies, Tony?

No. I just don't think he told her everything he was planning.

> If so, why do you think Marina felt compelled to lie so much about an
> event (LHO's trip to Mexico) which really had nothing to do with the
> question of whether or not Lee shot President Kennedy?
>

I didn't say she lied, but she may not have known all the details. And not
knowing the details she had no idea if the trip to Mexico had anything to
do with the JFK assassination or not. Some people in the CIA worried that
it did.

>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> When he went out to shoot Marina [sic], did he tell her that is where he
> was going?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> He went out to shoot Marina, eh? That's curious. (You meant to say General
> Walker, I know.) :-)
>

Yes - Walker.

>
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> You seem to have a very old romanticized idea about husbands and wives.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> What's that got to do with the fact that I pointed out in my earlier post?

Your old-fashioned idea that husbands tell their wives everything.

> --- i.e., the fact that Marina DID NOT LAY EYES ON LEE HARVEY OSWALD
> during the entire 8-day period in September & October of 1963 when
> conspiracy theorists insist that LHO was *NOT* in Mexico City, Mexico.
>

I am not here to defend those kooks. Nor to defend the 2 Oswald theory and
Marina not even knowing which Oswald it was or worse yet be the KGB
sleeper agent controlling the KGB impersonator. Those theories are cute,
but not believable.

> So, since everybody's got to be *someplace* at all times, I just want the
> conspiracy believers to answer my very simple question:
>

Well, OK, but do you have the moral authority to make up straw man
arguments?

> If Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't in Mexico City in late September and early
> October of 1963, then WHERE WAS HE?
>

How many guesses do we get?
1. Special CIA training sessions
2. MK/UTRA testing
3. Spying on the Cuban Exile training camps.
4. Playing third base for the Cubs (that's why nobody saw him)

> To date, not a single CTer has answered that question. Nor, as far as I
> can recall, has any conspiracy believer even attempted to answer it.
>

Certainly no serious researcher would bother feeding your straw man
arguments. But at least they are cute and apropos for the holiday.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1265.html
>