info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Time to release ALL the files
112 views
Skip to first unread message
Anthony Marsh
Nov 2, 2018, 10:07:46 AM11/2/18
to
Is anyone here old enough to remember Watergate?
At least Nixon had the decency to resign.
But the Grand Jury recommended criminal charages that should be brought
up in an impeachment trial. That report was kept secret until yesterday.
https://www.msnbc.com/brian-williams/watch/newly-released-docs-show-grand-jury-was-ready-to-indict-nixon-1358753347567?v=railb&
If they can release 41 year old files why can't they release ALL the JFK
assassination files? Who benefits from the continuing cover-up?
Does anyone really think the original conspirators are still alive?
At least Nixon had the decency to resign.
But the Grand Jury recommended criminal charages that should be brought
up in an impeachment trial. That report was kept secret until yesterday.
https://www.msnbc.com/brian-williams/watch/newly-released-docs-show-grand-jury-was-ready-to-indict-nixon-1358753347567?v=railb&
If they can release 41 year old files why can't they release ALL the JFK
assassination files? Who benefits from the continuing cover-up?
Does anyone really think the original conspirators are still alive?
donald willis
Nov 2, 2018, 11:45:37 PM11/2/18
to
incriminating documents are long-destroyed. These would include witness
James Tague's 11/22/63 statement, which he testified that he made, but has
to my knowledge never surfaced. It would also include the "missing" 11/22
affidavits of Bob Jackson and Charles Brehm, which might have been pretty
explosive, and those (less interestingly) of Floren Lawrence, Louis Schug,
G.G. Slack, and Lonnie Ray Wright, which were not released with the batch
of 11/22 affidavits which WERE released, way back when. All this (except
Tague's) from Deputy Sheriff Lummie Lewis's list of those witnesses who
made statements that weekend. (v19 527)
In sum: We'll never know the full stories of Brehm and Jackson....
dcw
ps Witness Amos Euins' affidavit was made public, but for some reason did
not include anything like the sentence which Lewis writes about him:
"Saw man on 5th floor." Note that Euins IDs the floor in a different
manner in his Commission testimony.
Marcus Hanson
Nov 3, 2018, 12:24:45 PM11/3/18
to
But which ones ? We've been assured that there is no smoking gun in the
files given to the AARB.
Surely though you would be much more keen to view any docs that *weren't*
given to the AARB ?
Even the most die-hard LN-er would be naive to think they got *all*
pertinent documents.
Here's a fun piece :
https://www.ft.com/content/0e11b892-ba56-11e7-8c12-5661783e5589
My own opinion ( and as the saying goes , they are like a-holes , cos
everybody has one ) is that there is reticence on the part of government
agencies to put everything in the public domain because :
(1) They are fiercely protective of "sources and methods" . even if the
time elapsed has made that reason redundant .
(2)They are secretive for secrecy's sake - it's in their nature.
(3)They want to avoid the scrutiny to protect an agency's reputation. You
may argue , not unreasonably , that such reputations have already been
trashed. But that may not be how a particular agency sees it.
I believe there have been cover-ups in the case , but not to cover up a
conspiracy against Kennedy.
So what , then , is being covered up ?
I don't *know* , but on a benign level , it's likely
incompetence/bureaucratic blunders (though plenty of that has already been
revealed). On a more sinister level , it could be definitive proof of
greater foreknowledge of Oswald's activities , including possibly
manipulating him for purposes wholly unrelated to 11/21/63 (e.g. Morley
-Joannides).
I have no intrinsic objection to high-level conspiracies. Of course they
happen. I just don't believe that was the cause of Kennedy's murder.
bigdog
Nov 3, 2018, 7:49:03 PM11/3/18
to
On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 10:07:46 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Is anyone here old enough to remember Watergate?
No. Why don't you tell us about it?
> Is anyone here old enough to remember Watergate?
in covering up anything. That should tell you there is no continuing cover
up.
Marcus Hanson
Nov 4, 2018, 8:17:20 AM11/4/18
to
*CORRECTIONS* ARRB not AARB and 11/22 not 11/21. Old age and bad eyesight
ain't no fun !
ain't no fun !
Anthony Marsh
Nov 4, 2018, 2:07:47 PM11/4/18
to
On 11/2/2018 11:45 PM, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 7:07:46 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Is anyone here old enough to remember Watergate?
>> At least Nixon had the decency to resign.
>> But the Grand Jury recommended criminal charages that should be brought
>> up in an impeachment trial. That report was kept secret until yesterday.
>>
>> https://www.msnbc.com/brian-williams/watch/newly-released-docs-show-grand-jury-was-ready-to-indict-nixon-1358753347567?v=railb&
>>
>> If they can release 41 year old files why can't they release ALL the JFK
>> assassination files? Who benefits from the continuing cover-up?
>> Does anyone really think the original conspirators are still alive?
>
> A worthy endeavor, Anthony, but I'm afraid that most of the more
> incriminating documents are long-destroyed. These would include witness
> James Tague's 11/22/63 statement, which he testified that he made, but has
> to my knowledge never surfaced. It would also include the "missing" 11/22
> affidavits of Bob Jackson and Charles Brehm, which might have been pretty
> explosive, and those (less interestingly) of Floren Lawrence, Louis Schug,
> G.G. Slack, and Lonnie Ray Wright, which were not released with the batch
> of 11/22 affidavits which WERE released, way back when. All this (except
> Tague's) from Deputy Sheriff Lummie Lewis's list of those witnesses who
> made statements that weekend. (v19 527)
>
> In sum: We'll never know the full stories of Brehm and Jackson....
>
> dcw
>
There is no story. They were just witnesses. Never rely on witnesses.
> On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 7:07:46 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Is anyone here old enough to remember Watergate?
>> At least Nixon had the decency to resign.
>> But the Grand Jury recommended criminal charages that should be brought
>> up in an impeachment trial. That report was kept secret until yesterday.
>>
>> https://www.msnbc.com/brian-williams/watch/newly-released-docs-show-grand-jury-was-ready-to-indict-nixon-1358753347567?v=railb&
>>
>> If they can release 41 year old files why can't they release ALL the JFK
>> assassination files? Who benefits from the continuing cover-up?
>> Does anyone really think the original conspirators are still alive?
>
> A worthy endeavor, Anthony, but I'm afraid that most of the more
> incriminating documents are long-destroyed. These would include witness
> James Tague's 11/22/63 statement, which he testified that he made, but has
> to my knowledge never surfaced. It would also include the "missing" 11/22
> affidavits of Bob Jackson and Charles Brehm, which might have been pretty
> explosive, and those (less interestingly) of Floren Lawrence, Louis Schug,
> G.G. Slack, and Lonnie Ray Wright, which were not released with the batch
> of 11/22 affidavits which WERE released, way back when. All this (except
> Tague's) from Deputy Sheriff Lummie Lewis's list of those witnesses who
> made statements that weekend. (v19 527)
>
> In sum: We'll never know the full stories of Brehm and Jackson....
>
> dcw
>
> ps Witness Amos Euins' affidavit was made public, but for some reason did
> not include anything like the sentence which Lewis writes about him:
> "Saw man on 5th floor." Note that Euins IDs the floor in a different
> manner in his Commission testimony.
>
Anthony Marsh
Nov 4, 2018, 2:08:28 PM11/4/18
to
On 11/3/2018 12:24 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:07:46 AM UTC+10, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Is anyone here old enough to remember Watergate?
>> At least Nixon had the decency to resign.
>> But the Grand Jury recommended criminal charages that should be brought
>> up in an impeachment trial. That report was kept secret until yesterday.
>>
>> https://www.msnbc.com/brian-williams/watch/newly-released-docs-show-grand-jury-was-ready-to-indict-nixon-1358753347567?v=railb&
>>
>> If they can release 41 year old files why can't they release ALL the JFK
>> assassination files? Who benefits from the continuing cover-up?
>> Does anyone really think the original conspirators are still alive?
>
> I'm inclined to agree that all files should be released.
>
> But which ones ? We've been assured that there is no smoking gun in the
> files given to the AARB.
>
> Surely though you would be much more keen to view any docs that *weren't*
> given to the AARB ?
>
ALL files. I might spot a clue that everyone else ignores because I know
> On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:07:46 AM UTC+10, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> Is anyone here old enough to remember Watergate?
>> At least Nixon had the decency to resign.
>> But the Grand Jury recommended criminal charages that should be brought
>> up in an impeachment trial. That report was kept secret until yesterday.
>>
>> https://www.msnbc.com/brian-williams/watch/newly-released-docs-show-grand-jury-was-ready-to-indict-nixon-1358753347567?v=railb&
>>
>> If they can release 41 year old files why can't they release ALL the JFK
>> assassination files? Who benefits from the continuing cover-up?
>> Does anyone really think the original conspirators are still alive?
>
> I'm inclined to agree that all files should be released.
>
> But which ones ? We've been assured that there is no smoking gun in the
> files given to the AARB.
>
> Surely though you would be much more keen to view any docs that *weren't*
> given to the AARB ?
>
some code name.
> Even the most die-hard LN-er would be naive to think they got *all*
> pertinent documents.
>
> Here's a fun piece :
>
> https://www.ft.com/content/0e11b892-ba56-11e7-8c12-5661783e5589
>
> My own opinion ( and as the saying goes , they are like a-holes , cos
> everybody has one ) is that there is reticence on the part of government
> agencies to put everything in the public domain because :
>
> (1) They are fiercely protective of "sources and methods" . even if the
> time elapsed has made that reason redundant .
>
> (2)They are secretive for secrecy's sake - it's in their nature.
>
> (3)They want to avoid the scrutiny to protect an agency's reputation. You
> may argue , not unreasonably , that such reputations have already been
> trashed. But that may not be how a particular agency sees it.
>
>
> I believe there have been cover-ups in the case , but not to cover up a
> conspiracy against Kennedy.
>
Watergate? You Republiccans denied it for years and still think that Nixon
is innocent, just as you think Trump is innocent.
> So what , then , is being covered up ?
>
> I don't *know* , but on a benign level , it's likely
> incompetence/bureaucratic blunders (though plenty of that has already been
> revealed). On a more sinister level , it could be definitive proof of
> greater foreknowledge of Oswald's activities , including possibly
> manipulating him for purposes wholly unrelated to 11/21/63 (e.g. Morley
> -Joannides).
>
> I have no intrinsic objection to high-level conspiracies. Of course they
> happen. I just don't believe that was the cause of Kennedy's murder.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Nov 4, 2018, 6:01:32 PM11/4/18
to
have to hide?
Mark
Nov 5, 2018, 12:22:03 PM11/5/18
to
On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 7:17:20 AM UTC-6, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> *CORRECTIONS* ARRB not AARB and 11/22 not 11/21. Old age and bad eyesight
> ain't no fun !
You may already do this, but if you press CONTROL and the "+" on the
> *CORRECTIONS* ARRB not AARB and 11/22 not 11/21. Old age and bad eyesight
> ain't no fun !
keyboard, you should get larger type on the screen. At least that works
on my HP laptop.
Mark
Ramon F Herrera
Nov 5, 2018, 12:25:09 PM11/5/18
to
On 11/3/2018 6:49 PM, El Perro Ladrador wrote:
> The obvious answer to your question is that nobody has a vested interest
> in covering up anything. That should tell you there is no continuing cover
> up.
>
Why did I have to hack the JFK Collection database, clone it and make a
> The obvious answer to your question is that nobody has a vested interest
> in covering up anything. That should tell you there is no continuing cover
> up.
>
superior, usable front end?
http://www.jfknumbers.org/nara-collection/
Or as I call it: my humble tribute to Sylvia Meagher, who had to do a
table of contents for the Warren Commission Report.
You are welcome.
Back in 1964 and recently, did the government run out of money and
talented programmers?
When we introduced the FOIA by Michael Ravnitzky, why did The Archives
(who have the Excel original) decided to print it and then scan the pages
at a shitty, barely readable resolution and push it into a PDF? I had to
hire a lady in Sri Lanka who did computer-based and eye-based recognition,
triple checked. JFK Numbers did the job that your government neglected.
That is the only usable version, which I donated to CAPA and the MFF.
You are welcome.
Where are the blueprints for the limo? Richie Allen, the O'Gara
executive in charge told me a few weeks ago:
"Mr. Herrera, all I am going to say is that the government has the
rights and possession of those blueprints".
https://www.ogaraarmoring.com/about-ogara/
Do you want his phone number?
http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/Limo-Blueprints-Is-This-Envelope-Empty.png
http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/Limo-Blueprints-RIF-180-10067-10250.png
Why is the Undisputed King of LNs so scared of what I have to announce
and reveal that removed all my posts from his forum?
Why are you people so excited about a simple digitalization of the 3
X-rays and despise the notion, even for preservation purposes?
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Anthony Marsh
Nov 6, 2018, 3:10:40 PM11/6/18
to
On 11/3/2018 7:49 PM, bigdog wrote:
the documents and the tapes? Because he KNEW they would incriminate him.
Anthony Marsh
Nov 6, 2018, 3:11:02 PM11/6/18
to
On 11/5/2018 12:25 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> On 11/3/2018 6:49 PM, El Perro Ladrador wrote:
>> The obvious answer to your question is that nobody has a vested interest
>> in covering up anything. That should tell you there is no continuing
>> cover
>> up.
>>
>
> Why did I have to hack the JFK Collection database, clone it and make a
> superior, usable front end?
>
> http://www.jfknumbers.org/nara-collection/
>
> Or as I call it: my humble tribute to Sylvia Meagher, who had to do a
> table of contents for the Warren Commission Report.
>
> You are welcome.
>
> Back in 1964 and recently, did the government run out of money and
> talented programmers?
>
> When we introduced the FOIA by Michael Ravnitzky, why did The Archives
> (who have the Excel original) decided to print it and then scan the
> pages at a shitty, barely readable resolution and push it into a PDF? I
A lot of companies prefer to use PDFs instead of GIF or JPG. Do you like
> On 11/3/2018 6:49 PM, El Perro Ladrador wrote:
>> The obvious answer to your question is that nobody has a vested interest
>> in covering up anything. That should tell you there is no continuing
>> cover
>> up.
>>
>
> Why did I have to hack the JFK Collection database, clone it and make a
> superior, usable front end?
>
> http://www.jfknumbers.org/nara-collection/
>
> Or as I call it: my humble tribute to Sylvia Meagher, who had to do a
> table of contents for the Warren Commission Report.
>
> You are welcome.
>
> Back in 1964 and recently, did the government run out of money and
> talented programmers?
>
> When we introduced the FOIA by Michael Ravnitzky, why did The Archives
> (who have the Excel original) decided to print it and then scan the
> pages at a shitty, barely readable resolution and push it into a PDF? I
compression or do you prefer the raw file which is huge?
donald willis
Nov 6, 2018, 3:11:23 PM11/6/18
to
On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 11:07:47 AM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/2/2018 11:45 PM, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 7:07:46 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> Is anyone here old enough to remember Watergate?
> >> At least Nixon had the decency to resign.
> >> But the Grand Jury recommended criminal charages that should be brought
> >> up in an impeachment trial. That report was kept secret until yesterday.
> >>
> >> https://www.msnbc.com/brian-williams/watch/newly-released-docs-show-grand-jury-was-ready-to-indict-nixon-1358753347567?v=railb&
> >>
> >> If they can release 41 year old files why can't they release ALL the JFK
> >> assassination files? Who benefits from the continuing cover-up?
> >> Does anyone really think the original conspirators are still alive?
> >
> > A worthy endeavor, Anthony, but I'm afraid that most of the more
> > incriminating documents are long-destroyed. These would include witness
> > James Tague's 11/22/63 statement, which he testified that he made, but has
> > to my knowledge never surfaced. It would also include the "missing" 11/22
> > affidavits of Bob Jackson and Charles Brehm, which might have been pretty
> > explosive, and those (less interestingly) of Floren Lawrence, Louis Schug,
> > G.G. Slack, and Lonnie Ray Wright, which were not released with the batch
> > of 11/22 affidavits which WERE released, way back when. All this (except
> > Tague's) from Deputy Sheriff Lummie Lewis's list of those witnesses who
> > made statements that weekend. (v19 527)
> >
> > In sum: We'll never know the full stories of Brehm and Jackson....
> >
> > dcw
> >
>
> There is no story. They were just witnesses. Never rely on witnesses.
>
I'm guessing that there is a story, at least with Jackson.
> On 11/2/2018 11:45 PM, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 7:07:46 AM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> Is anyone here old enough to remember Watergate?
> >> At least Nixon had the decency to resign.
> >> But the Grand Jury recommended criminal charages that should be brought
> >> up in an impeachment trial. That report was kept secret until yesterday.
> >>
> >> https://www.msnbc.com/brian-williams/watch/newly-released-docs-show-grand-jury-was-ready-to-indict-nixon-1358753347567?v=railb&
> >>
> >> If they can release 41 year old files why can't they release ALL the JFK
> >> assassination files? Who benefits from the continuing cover-up?
> >> Does anyone really think the original conspirators are still alive?
> >
> > A worthy endeavor, Anthony, but I'm afraid that most of the more
> > incriminating documents are long-destroyed. These would include witness
> > James Tague's 11/22/63 statement, which he testified that he made, but has
> > to my knowledge never surfaced. It would also include the "missing" 11/22
> > affidavits of Bob Jackson and Charles Brehm, which might have been pretty
> > explosive, and those (less interestingly) of Floren Lawrence, Louis Schug,
> > G.G. Slack, and Lonnie Ray Wright, which were not released with the batch
> > of 11/22 affidavits which WERE released, way back when. All this (except
> > Tague's) from Deputy Sheriff Lummie Lewis's list of those witnesses who
> > made statements that weekend. (v19 527)
> >
> > In sum: We'll never know the full stories of Brehm and Jackson....
> >
> > dcw
> >
>
> There is no story. They were just witnesses. Never rely on witnesses.
>
Ramon F Herrera
Nov 9, 2018, 9:09:22 PM11/9/18
to Anthony Marsh
On 11/6/2018 2:11 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> A lot of companies prefer to use PDFs instead of GIF or JPG. Do you like
> compression or do you prefer the raw file which is huge?
>
Tony, among other things, my real job involves writing software for the
> A lot of companies prefer to use PDFs instead of GIF or JPG. Do you like
> compression or do you prefer the raw file which is huge?
>
processing (creation, conversion, etc.) of Excel and PDF files. Been
doing that for a couple decades.
[BTW: Do you do anything other than being here?]
The PDF format is a container. Inside it can have JPG, GIFs, etc.
Find the Excel files below.
The original one was produced by Shamima B, the Freelancer from
Bangladesh that I hired.
https://www.freelancer.com/u/BithiXpert
As you can see, it cost me 50 bucks.
https://www.freelancer.com/projects/data-entry/extract-record-numbers-from-pdf/?w=f#/details
The other Excel files were generated by my programs, from a MySQL database.
One of the most important achievements by the JFK community was the
assembly (T-Rex was really curious about my methods) of the exhaustive
list containing the 319,106 RIF numbers. NARA treated those as another
State Secret:
http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/JFK-Collection-All-Record-Numbers.xlsx
http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/FOIA-in-1-Column.xlsx
The PDF file released by NARA and used to insult The People contains 146
pages. There you go:
http://www.jfknumbers.org/~ramon/jfk/FOIA-in-146-Tabs.xlsx
[Wecht fired me from CAPA for publicly e-yelling at the AOTUS and Martha
Murphy. I said to them: "Next time show more respect for your employers,
The People!"]
Due to all the spots/dirt in the PDF file (whose pages are images), it
is actually larger than the Excel. By using a shitty resolution, they
made the PDF bigger.
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
0 new messages