Unreleased Documents?

[David Von Pein]

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19866&st=75#entry266056

WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

Arguing with the Lone Nutters and convincing them there was a
conspiracy is a noble goal but not one that I think will change
anything.

Rather, I think it more important to try to use the intense interest
in the 50th anniversary to call attention to the yet unanswered
questions and still withheld government records, without which we
should not even begin to debate the subject.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The notion that many conspiracy theorists seem to have about there
being thousands and thousands of secret assassination-related
documents still being withheld from the public is very likely just
another one of the many conspiracy "myths" that continue to surround
this case.

Let's listen and watch:

http://box.com/s/3if3887c39w7dg4d6iri

http://c-spanvideo.org/clip/4346873

So, who's the liar in the above two audio and video clips? Vincent
Bugliosi? John Tunheim? G. Robert Blakey? Anna K. Nelson? Or are all
four of those people liars with respect to what they said about the
release of the documents?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/2/2013 1:42 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> David:
>
> The CIA continues to withhold documents citing "logistical reasons" for
> not releasing them. (Approx. 1700 plus documents) or perhaps as many as
> 50,000 pages.
>
> They will supposedly comply by 2017.
>
> David Belin, whom I talked with on many occasions, and who assisted me
> many times said to me that he too had "seen all of the classified
> documents" we now know that wasn't accurate.
>
> He simply thought he had.
>

Maybe he was TOLD that he had. He said on a TV talk show that one of the
problems the WC had was that the CIA had withheld so much information.

> Bugliosi says the HSCA and the ARRB saw ALL of the documents. That's
> highly doubtful.
>

Bugliosi is a known liar.

> It's not who's "lying" it's about who is truly informed.
>
> Attached is the letter from the AARC to NARA in 2012.
>

Attached? Where? Do you even know how to attach documents?
Don't rely on McAdams to post them for you. It is not automatic.

> John F.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:c3634fe2-b816-477e...@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

[Marcus Hanson]

Good luck to Jefferson Morley in his quest to get the remaining 1,117 CIA
files released.Even Gerald Posner supported that 'release all the
files'letter back in,what,2003?

No,there won't be a 'plot to kill the President' memo,of course,in either
WC or CIA files. Is JM suggesting CIA killed Kennedy? Or that CIA is
"merely" covering up its intelligence failures?

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/jfk-records-ignored-in-latest-national-declassification-center-report/

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/john-brennan-and-the-cias-last-jfk-secrets/

http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/forty-more-signatures-for-jfk-records-petition/#comments

Also,there is the 'sources and methods' argument against release. And the
argument over what exactly is a 'jfk file'. ("The Monkeys Have No Tails in
Zamboanga" argument)

[David Von Pein]

>>> "The CIA continues to withhold documents citing "logistical reasons"
for not releasing them. (Approx. 1700 plus documents) or perhaps as many
as 50,000 pages." <<<

But would those documents truly be considered "JFK assassination-
related documents"? I wonder.

[John Fiorentino]

David:

It's just not the CIA either.

For example, I'm interested in the handwriting analysis (endorsements) on
the back of several checks (unemployment) issued to Oswald.

"Postponed in Full" the last I checked. What National Security or other
issue could possible be involved 50 years later? Unless of course, the
handwriting doesn't match.

Very frustrating.

John F.

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:fc775f8d-4bc5-4a8f...@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

Nice try. Look for keywords and cryptonyms which relate only to the JFK
assassination. I bet they weren't about horseracing in Mexico.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/2/2013 11:20 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> Good luck to Jefferson Morley in his quest to get the remaining 1,117 CIA
> files released.Even Gerald Posner supported that 'release all the
> files'letter back in,what,2003?
>
> No,there won't be a 'plot to kill the President' memo,of course,in either
> WC or CIA files. Is JM suggesting CIA killed Kennedy? Or that CIA is
> "merely" covering up its intelligence failures?
>

People used to joke the same way about the futile quest for a let's kill
Castro memo. Until we found it. And the DCI approving the assassination
memo. Even more fun is the CIA memo we found which says,
"Stop using the word assassination."
Sometimes the clues are in the memo and people can't see them.
Like the CIA memo where the agent says, "I'll be late for the picnic,
but I'll bring a loaf of bread and 2 pineapples."

> http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/jfk-records-ignored-in-latest-national-declassification-center-report/
>
> http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/john-brennan-and-the-cias-last-jfk-secrets/
>
> http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/forty-more-signatures-for-jfk-records-petition/#comments
>
> Also,there is the 'sources and methods' argument against release. And the
> argument over what exactly is a 'jfk file'. ("The Monkeys Have No Tails in
> Zamboanga" argument)
>

Are you talking about the CIA files that they already stipulated are
assassination records under the JFK Records Act, or the CIA records that
they placed in the National Archives in the JFK assassination collection
or the CIA files that were reviewed by the ARRB and withheld?

[Marcus Hanson]

> Are you talking about the CIA files that they already stipulated are
>
> assassination records under the JFK Records Act, or the CIA records that
>
> they placed in the National Archives in the JFK assassination collection
>
> or the CIA files that were reviewed by the ARRB and withheld?

I can see that was not clear.Yes,we know about the ones CIA have deemed to
be relevant records.But where is the certainty that CIA gave up ALL
relevant records? The 'Zamboanga argument' long pre-dates the ARRB,of
course,but I expect the same mindset still prevails.

Also,did the ARRB get to review complete documents? My understanding is
that there were missing pages.I don't know if there were any redactions.
Good luck if you or anyone else can pick anything of value from the next
batch.

Whilst I'm here:you made some comment on another forum that you had
already found a(the?)'smoking gun' document,based on it being released
with handwritten notes in the margins. Could you expand on this or post
the link/doc for us? Thanks.

Talking of links,you will probably have seen this by the time this post
gets through,but anyway :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272945/Was-Iran-really-responsible-Lockerbie-bombing-French-spy-expert-claims-CIA-FBI-know-covered-information-up.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Nothing about it on https://www.cia.gov/index.html yet.I'm sure they'll
get round to it.Eventually.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/4/2013 1:06 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
>
>> Are you talking about the CIA files that they already stipulated are
>>
>> assassination records under the JFK Records Act, or the CIA records that
>>
>> they placed in the National Archives in the JFK assassination collection
>>
>> or the CIA files that were reviewed by the ARRB and withheld?
>
> I can see that was not clear.Yes,we know about the ones CIA have deemed to
> be relevant records.But where is the certainty that CIA gave up ALL
> relevant records? The 'Zamboanga argument' long pre-dates the ARRB,of
> course,but I expect the same mindset still prevails.
>

Of course the CIA is withholding records that they have not even admitted
having. But no one is requesting those because they don't know they exist.
The current controversy is only about the documents that the CIA had
admitted to and claims are too sensitive to be released.

> Also,did the ARRB get to review complete documents? My understanding is
> that there were missing pages.I don't know if there were any redactions.
> Good luck if you or anyone else can pick anything of value from the next
> batch.
>

What batch? We have to dig for them and sometimes stumble onto them. I
requested one document which the CIA had given to the Church Committee and
the CIA said the document never existed.

You have to know specifically about the document before requesting it.

> Whilst I'm here:you made some comment on another forum that you had
> already found a(the?)'smoking gun' document,based on it being released
> with handwritten notes in the margins. Could you expand on this or post
> the link/doc for us? Thanks.
>

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Kohler63.gif

Do you know what marginalia are? Do you know who "BKS" is?
Bromley Keables Smith.

THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN I FOUND AT THE KENNEDY LIBRARY.

Bromley Keables Smith (BKS) was the Executive Secretary of the National
Security Council (NSC). At one meeting he used this Department of State
telegram to write a note at the bottom of the page indicating that Richard
Helms, Director of the Department of Plans at the Central Intelligence
Agency had assured the NSC that Barghoorn had no ties to the CIA or Army.
Smith then passed that information on to President Kennedy.

> Talking of links,you will probably have seen this by the time this post
> gets through,but anyway :
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272945/Was-Iran-really-responsible-Lockerbie-bombing-French-spy-expert-claims-CIA-FBI-know-covered-information-up.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
>
> Nothing about it on https://www.cia.gov/index.html yet.I'm sure they'll
> get round to it.Eventually.
>

We knew that at the time, but it was joint operation, paid for by Iran
and carried out by Libyan agents. And Libya was the enemy du jour.

[John Fiorentino]

Marsh:

It IS attached to my post .............

John F.



"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:510d7c0b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/4/2013 7:57 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Marsh:
>
> It IS attached to my post .............
>
> John F.
>

No, silly. You can't attach things to forum messages like e-mail.

[Marcus Hanson]

David,

I see the videos you posted did cover the redaction matter,though allegedly there are some missing pages.
Thanks.

Anthony,

How is the Barghoorn telegram + handwritten note a 'smoking gun' in the Kennedy assassination? Can you elucidate?

[deke]

Something I've always wondered - if LHO was the lone assassin and it was a
random act, why were any classified documents pertaining to the
assassination generated in the first place! Doesn't there very existence
point to a conspiracy? On top of that, why are even a few being withheld?
What possible national security issues could there be 50 years after the
assassination and over 20 years after the cold war ended. This seems to be
as anachronistic as it gets. It's like plans for the D-day invasion still
being top secret.

[John Fiorentino]

Anthony:

Erm.................

Maybe you can't see it, or you have other problems.

It's in fact attached to my ist response on this thread which itself is
the first response below Von Peins and was logged in at 1:42pm 2/2/2013.
Size 492KB.

What are you smoking??

John F.

"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:5110900a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/5/2013 2:15 PM, deke wrote:
> Something I've always wondered - if LHO was the lone assassin and it was a
> random act, why were any classified documents pertaining to the
> assassination generated in the first place! Doesn't there very existence

For one reason because the Cuban Exiles were spreading rumors that
Oswald had been paid by Castro to assassinate President Kennedy.
Those had to be investigated, but the public not know about it.

> point to a conspiracy? On top of that, why are even a few being withheld?
> What possible national security issues could there be 50 years after the
> assassination and over 20 years after the cold war ended. This seems to be
> as anachronistic as it gets. It's like plans for the D-day invasion still
> being top secret.
>

The CIA just last year revealed secrets from WWI. They are still keeping
secrets from the Peloponnesian war.

[Anthony Marsh]

It is only the smoking gun for the French theory that the CIA killed
Kennedy before Kennedy could kill the CIA for lying about Barghoorn
working for the CIA.

[Ace Kefford]

I can't tell if this was a troll, but taking you seriously, here are some answers:

- All of the "unreleased documents" "pertaining to the assassination" were not necessarily generated BECAUSE OF the assassination. They could involve things that happened before, for (made up) example information about plots against Castro. Moreover, even if created in response to the assassination they could involve high security sources or methods, for (made up) examples possibly illegal wiretaps or letter openings or sources inside the Kremlin.

- As for why things remain classified, do some reading on how classification and declassification works. For whatever reasons, valid and invalid, agencies are notoriously reluctant to declassify or release documents and some in fact generally take a "cat and mouse" approach of being deliberately obtuse and literal in response to Freedom of Information actions. It's just the way bureaucracies are -- it means nothing re: the assassination.

Others here could be a lot more direct with real world examples.

[deke]

> The CIA just last year revealed secrets from WWI. They are still keeping
>
> secrets from the Peloponnesian war.

Did anyone file FOIA requests for the WWI documents, or are they just getting around to releasing them? There's a big difference there. I know Sparta was a kind of an ancient national security state, but who would be keeping their secrets at this late date?

[deke]

I do agree with you to a point - there are documents pertaining to the
assassination that involve issues not tied to the assassination. What I'm
referring to are the documents that have nothing to do with national
security or intelligence agency methods. One good real world example I can
think of is LHO's income tax records. Why should they not be available 50
years after his death?

[John Fiorentino]

Deke:

I have to agree. I already posted about my frustration re: the handwriting
analysis of some of the endorsements on LHO's unemployment checks.

National security issue??

I'm a "lone-nutter" and some of this stuff even makes me scratch my head.

John F.





"deke" <drw...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
news:0c41532f-ae20-47e0...@googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

Why should anyone's tax records be released to the public without the
permission of the person?

[Anthony Marsh]

I'll have to dig out that article, but as I remember it someone had
filed an FOIA for a book he was writing and it was denied. Then an
archivist stumbled onto the request and was shocked to see the CIA was
still withholding it and helped get it declassified.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/6/2013 1:28 PM, Ace Kefford wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 2:15:14 PM UTC-5, deke wrote:
>> Something I've always wondered - if LHO was the lone assassin and it was a
>>
>> random act, why were any classified documents pertaining to the
>>
>> assassination generated in the first place! Doesn't there very existence
>>
>> point to a conspiracy? On top of that, why are even a few being withheld?
>>
>> What possible national security issues could there be 50 years after the
>>
>> assassination and over 20 years after the cold war ended. This seems to be
>>
>> as anachronistic as it gets. It's like plans for the D-day invasion still
>>
>> being top secret.
>
> I can't tell if this was a troll, but taking you seriously, here are some answers:
>
> - All of the "unreleased documents" "pertaining to the assassination" were not necessarily generated BECAUSE OF the assassination. They could involve things that happened before, for (made up) example information about plots against Castro. Moreover, even if created in response to the assassination they could involve high security sources or methods, for (made up) examples possibly illegal wiretaps or letter openings or sources inside the Kremlin.
>

I recently pointed out one document which was a perfect example of that.
But it was part of the CIA's collection on the JFK assassination because
they were tracking down every rumor.

> - As for why things remain classified, do some reading on how classification and declassification works. For whatever reasons, valid and invalid, agencies are notoriously reluctant to declassify or release documents and some in fact generally take a "cat and mouse" approach of being deliberately obtuse and literal in response to Freedom of Information actions. It's just the way bureaucracies are -- it means nothing re: the assassination.
>

When you talk to real intelligence officials they will confirm that many
documents are needlessly and improperly classified.

[mainframetech]

If they're hiding his income tax reports, then they're probably
hiding his income...I wonder where he was getting income from that
they would want hidden? He wasn't living like he was making a
bundle.

Chris

[deke]

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 12:23:22 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Why should anyone's tax records be released to the public without the
>
> permission of the person?

You obviously can't get permission from someone who's been dead 50 years,
but if that person has been accused of being involved in a presidential
assassination, their tax records might show who's payroll they were on at
the time. Remember the old Watergate mantra - follow the money.

[John McAdams]

On 7 Feb 2013 11:42:45 -0500, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 6, 8:49=A0pm, deke <drw...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:28:46 PM UTC-5, Ace Kefford wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 2:15:14 PM UTC-5, deke wrote:
>>
>>

>> > - As for why things remain classified, do some reading on how classific=
>ation and declassification works. =A0For whatever reasons, valid and invali=
>d, agencies are notoriously reluctant to declassify or release documents an=
>d some in fact generally take a "cat and mouse" approach of being deliberat=
>ely obtuse and literal in response to Freedom of Information actions. =A0It=

>'s just the way bureaucracies are -- it means nothing re: the assassination.
>>
>> > Others here could be a lot more direct with real world examples.
>>
>> I do agree with you to a point - there are documents pertaining to the
>> assassination that involve issues not tied to the assassination. What I'm
>> referring to are the documents that have nothing to do with national
>> security or intelligence agency methods. One good real world example I can
>> think of is LHO's income tax records. Why should they not be available 50
>> years after his death?
>
> If they're hiding his income tax reports, then they're probably
>hiding his income...I wonder where he was getting income from that
>they would want hidden? He wasn't living like he was making a
>bundle.
>

http://www.jfklancer.com/LHOtax.html

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[mainframetech]

On Feb 7, 5:37 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2013 11:42:45 -0500, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com>

Thank you John...:)

Chris

[John Fiorentino]

The tax records I was aware of, I'm surprised more people aren't.

NOW if you could just dig up those handwriting analyses on LHO's
Unemployment checks, we'd really be making progress.

John F.




"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:51142cab....@news.supernews.com...

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Feb 4, 11:09 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> No, silly. You can't attach things to forum messages like e-mail.

In Usenet you can.

-Ramon

----------------------

"9. Why doesn't the size of the files I downloaded match my usage stats?
Please remember that binary attachments are uuencoded by the posting
software, which converts the binary data to text for transfer over the
internet. This can add as much as 40% to the size of the file. Your news
reader uudecodes the attachment after it is downloaded, before it is saved
to your hard drive. "

http://www.newshosting.com/en/newshosting-usenet-tech-support-faq.php

----------------------

http://www.elfqrin.com/docs/ngload.php

----------------------

[Anthony Marsh]

This is not a binary newsgroup.

[Anthony Marsh]

So, after all your whining did you see any secret codes which indicate
money coming from the CIA? How did my father hide the fact that he was
receiving money from the CIA?

[Anthony Marsh]

That's the Social Security file, not the IRS file. Where are the 1040A's
and the W-2's? Why are you still withholding his taxes?
Why the need for the cover-up until 3030?

[Anthony Marsh]

Obviously you can get the permission from the next of kin.
The government doesn't cite privacy because Marina already gave her
permission. They site National Security.

[Anthony Marsh]

Most CIA agents do not want to advertise by living extravagantly. It
draws too much attention. That's how some moles were detected.

> Chris
>
>

[mainframetech]

I didn't see anything remarkable, but then it wasn't his actual tax
returns, and if he was receiving money from other sources, it could
well have been 'under the table' and not recorded anywhere where it
would show.

Chris

[John Fiorentino]

Ramon:

You can't talk to Anthony. I post things here with attachments frequently.

Anthony seems to be going the way of Cinque.

John F.


"Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
news:8edec65b-de43-4122...@w4g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

[John Fiorentino]

All:

Just as an aside, not all positions pay FICA tax, nor bother to send
1099's.

I'm sure if Oswald worked for the CIA, you wouldn't find it anywhere on
the SS records or his income tax returns for that matter.

John F.





"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1644a8a4-ba66-46a8...@i15g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

[deke]

Yes, you are correct. And that is my point - what would his tax records have to do with national security? It sure looks like something's being hid. In any case, we wont know until we see the actual records, unless they've been redacted somehow.

[deke]

On Friday, February 8, 2013 9:14:14 PM UTC-5, John Fiorentino wrote:
> All:
>
>
>
> Just as an aside, not all positions pay FICA tax, nor bother to send
>
> 1099's.
>
>
>
> I'm sure if Oswald worked for the CIA, you wouldn't find it anywhere on
>
> the SS records or his income tax returns for that matter.
>
>
>
> John F.
>

True, but he could have been working for some other government agency. Th

[deke]

On Friday, February 8, 2013 9:14:14 PM UTC-5, John Fiorentino wrote:

> All:
>
>
>
> Just as an aside, not all positions pay FICA tax, nor bother to send
>
> 1099's.
>
>
>
> I'm sure if Oswald worked for the CIA, you wouldn't find it anywhere on
>
> the SS records or his income tax returns for that matter.
>
>
>
> John F.
>

True, but he could have been working for some other government agency. The Attorney General for the state of Texas at that time seemed sure he was working for the FBI. He even came up with an ID number for him.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not True. The assistant DA in Dallas made up a hoax from his imagination
and the number was phony.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe, but if it's the ONI how do you tell the difference between his
pay from the ONI or from the Marines?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/9/2013 11:07 AM, deke wrote:

Exposing the identity of an intelligence officer or agent comes under
the National Security Act.

[Ace Kefford]

On Saturday, February 2, 2013 9:36:34 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19866&st=75#entry266056
>
>
>
> WILLIAM KELLY SAID:
>
>
>
> Arguing with the Lone Nutters and convincing them there was a
>
> conspiracy is a noble goal but not one that I think will change
>
> anything.
>
>
>
> Rather, I think it more important to try to use the intense interest
>
> in the 50th anniversary to call attention to the yet unanswered
>
> questions and still withheld government records, without which we
>
> should not even begin to debate the subject.
>
>
>
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>
>
> The notion that many conspiracy theorists seem to have about there
>
> being thousands and thousands of secret assassination-related
>
> documents still being withheld from the public is very likely just
>
> another one of the many conspiracy "myths" that continue to surround
>
> this case.
>
>
>
> Let's listen and watch:
>
>
>
> http://box.com/s/3if3887c39w7dg4d6iri
>
>
>
> http://c-spanvideo.org/clip/4346873
>
>
>
> So, who's the liar in the above two audio and video clips? Vincent
>
> Bugliosi? John Tunheim? G. Robert Blakey? Anna K. Nelson? Or are all
>
> four of those people liars with respect to what they said about the
>
> release of the documents?

Whatever "they" were paying him it must have been cut-rate given Oswald's
lavish lifestyle!

[Anthony Marsh]

My father worked for $1.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "My father worked for $1." <<<

Why?

Why would anyone work at a job like that for virtually nothing? I'm
just curious to know.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think in the trade it is called nominal. Why did my father continue
working with the CIA after they had illegally used him in a drug testing
experiment? He was in a group of about 20 men who were given a variety of
mind altering drugs. One was Frank Olson and you know that he had a bad
reaction and was going to blow the whistle on them when the CIA threw him
out of the hotel window.

[deke]

Just wondering - what motive would an assistant DA have for doing something like that?

[Anthony Marsh]

It's called revenge. Because Hoover had personally threatened the DA to
take out the conspiracy language from the murder charge that Alexander had
written up. Which included the phrase, "in furtherance of an International
Communist Conspiracy." Why can't you do a little homework on Google before
you saunter in here and ask silly questions?

[Walt]

On Feb 5, 1:15 pm, deke <drw...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> Something I've always wondered - if LHO was the lone assassin and it was a
> random act, why were any classified documents pertaining to the
> assassination generated in the first place! Doesn't there very existence
> point to a conspiracy? On top of that, why are even a few being withheld?
> What possible national security issues could there be 50 years after the
> assassination and over 20 years after the cold war ended. This seems to be
> as anachronistic as it gets. It's like plans for the D-day invasion still
> being top secret.

Deke..... I believe the people in control are scared to death that if the
American people learn the truth about the murder of President Kennedy the
may rise up and revolt. Personally, I don't think that should be a great
concern, because the large majority of the American people are too fat,
lazy, apathetic, and indifferent to revolt against the liars and con-men
who work out of Washington DC. The con-men keep the fools divided and
uninformed so there's little danger in releasing the imaginary or non
existant classified documents. If we were allowed access to the files
today,,,,we'd find the sama thing that Geraldo Rivera found in "Al
Capone's vault" ....nothing!

Those con-men want to keep the truth hidden and the money flowing into
their bank accounts.

[Walt]

On Feb 6, 11:23 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 2/6/2013 8:49 PM, deke wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:28:46 PM UTC-5, Ace Kefford wrote:

> >> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 2:15:14 PM UTC-5, deke wrote:
>
> >>> Something I've always wondered - if LHO was the lone assassin and it was a
>
> >>> random act, why were any classified documents pertaining to the
>
> >>> assassination generated in the first place! Doesn't there very existence
>
> >>> point to a conspiracy? On top of that, why are even a few being withheld?
>
> >>> What possible national security issues could there be 50 years after the
>
> >>> assassination and over 20 years after the cold war ended. This seems to be
>
> >>> as anachronistic as it gets. It's like plans for the D-day invasion still
>
> >>> being top secret.
>

> >> I can't tell if this was a troll, but taking you seriously, here are some answers:
>
> >> - All of the "unreleased documents" "pertaining to the assassination" were not necessarily generated BECAUSE OF the assassination.  They could involve things that happened before, for (made up) example information about plots against Castro.  Moreover, even if created in response to the assassination they could involve high security sources or methods, for (made up) examples possibly illegal wiretaps or letter openings or sources inside the Kremlin.
>

> >> - As for why things remain classified, do some reading on how classification and declassification works.  For whatever reasons, valid and invalid, agencies are notoriously reluctant to declassify or release documents and some in fact generally take a "cat and mouse" approach of being deliberately obtuse and literal in response to Freedom of Information actions.  It's just the way bureaucracies are -- it means nothing re: the assassination.

>
> >> Others here could be a lot more direct with real world examples.
>
> > I do agree with you to a point - there are documents pertaining to the
> > assassination that involve issues not tied to the assassination. What I'm
> > referring to are the documents that have nothing to do with national
> > security or intelligence agency methods. One good real world example I can
> > think of is LHO's income tax records. Why should they not be available 50
> > years after his death?
>

> Why should anyone's tax records be released to the public without the
> permission of the person?

Would you volunteer to visit Lee Oswald and get his permission to
release his income tax return for 1962, and the government's records
of his income for 1963?

Then perhap's we could determine if he was being paid $200.00 per
month to work with FBI agents.

[Walt]

Tony why the disinformation!!..... Lee Oswald was being paid $200.00 per
month by the FBI. The WC commission records reveal that the members
nearly soiled their skivvies when that info was revealed to them. They
knew that they were stuck in a conundrum because they couldn't demand
anything from Hoover. He'd just give them the finger and threaten to
expose the skeletons in their closets. They knew they had to play ball by
Hoover and Johnson's rules or they'd get the bat jammed up their tuckus.
They played ball rather than risk having the military seize power and put
everybody concerned on trial. They knew that americans had shook off the
shock of the brutal murder and were in no mood to learn that LBJ ws no
better than Adoph Hitler.

[Walt]

Mind altering drugs?..... Your father participated in a mind altering
drug experiment for the CIA?

Hmmmmm..... Was that before you were born?

[Anthony Marsh]

1954-55. I was born in 1947.
He never did find out what the drug was. But I pretty sure it was not
LSD. They were testing other drugs then.

He asked me to try to find out which program it was. I suspect the drug
was meant to create eidetic memory so that an agent could memorize
documents just by looking at them with no need to copy them or
photograph them or smuggle them out.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/11/2013 7:52 PM, Walt wrote:

> On Feb 9, 6:58 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/9/2013 11:08 AM, deke wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Friday, February 8, 2013 9:14:14 PM UTC-5, John Fiorentino wrote:
>>>> All:
>>
>>>> Just as an aside, not all positions pay FICA tax, nor bother to send
>>
>>>> 1099's.
>>
>>>> I'm sure if Oswald worked for the CIA, you wouldn't find it anywhere on
>>
>>>> the SS records or his income tax returns for that matter.
>>
>>>> John F.
>>
>>> True, but he could have been working for some other government agency. The Attorney General for the state of Texas at that time seemed sure he was working for the FBI. He even came up with an ID number for him.
>>
>> Not True. The assistant DA in Dallas made up a hoax from his imagination
>> and the number was phony.
>
> Tony why the disinformation!!..... Lee Oswald was being paid $200.00 per
> month by the FBI. The WC commission records reveal that the members

No, he wasn't. It was just a hoax. Stop being so naive.

[Anthony Marsh]

We already know he wasn't. We also know that he wasn't paid $6,500 by
Castro.

>
>