Released gov papers indicate CIA involved in JFK cover-up

DamagedTrax

CIA historian David Robarge claims

the cover-up was intended to keep the commission focused on “what the agency believed at the time was the best truth- that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy.” McCone directed the CIA to provide only “passive, reactive and selective” assistance to the Warren commission, meaning the investigation was severely compromised and did not follow up any other leads which may have been crucial in the search for truth.

Here are the released documents.. no mention of bush senior of course :mad:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB493/docs/intell_ebb_026.PDF

Overheal

That's similar to how they tried to steer the committee that investigated the Challenger disaster as well, in which they tried to direct that the members only regard NASA in the best light, extremely thorough and professional, etc and this was given it was the Cold War; they didn't want NASA to look like it had any competency issues, and in addition they did not want information to leak about potential vulnerabilities in the US's launch capabilities (that the US could not launch ICBMs in near-freezing conditions - this might have predated conventional silos). I wouldn't be surprised if similar tactics were used to completely bollox the 9/11 Commission, given that they would have been more focused about keeping the country moralized to go to war than to spread any doubt - whether true or not - that it was all a big conspiracy or something.

MJI

I think the Kennedy assassination was most definitely an inside job. And I blame Lyndon Baines Johnson. No he didn't pull the trigger himself, but he knows who did and I seriously doubt he acted alone in the planning of the incident

da6xsi

JFK was killed because he was about to take on the federal reserve and disband it and give the american government back the power to print their own money instead of getting the reserve to do so while paying them large amounts of interest

Most people think cause its called federal reserve that it belongs to the US government when in reality the federal reserve is a private-owned bank who prints americas money so its commonly known they infact control american politics and policies.

JFK gave many speeches on the secret banking cabal who runs america and has a large say in any issue they want to be involved in

From a JFK speech

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match."

It is said JFK had the legislation prepared to give america backs its power to print its own money interest free and this is why he was shot and since then no president has been brave enough to stand up to the federal reserve

Dohnjoe

The Fed isn't private, it's the central bank of the US

Ipso

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The Fed isn't private, it's the central bank of the US

No, it's controlled by certain people. You would be surprised at their religion.

DamagedTrax

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The Fed isn't private, it's the central bank of the US

its technically owned (on a pro rata basis) by the commercial banks of america. to have a commercial banking license you must buy into the fed.

from the fed website:

The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System

[The Federal Reserve] is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms

da6xsi

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The Fed isn't private, it's the central bank of the US

which is privately owned and ran by the banking elite

they might say not for profit but they charge plenty of interest on every note they print out for america

Dohnjoe

DamagedTrax wrote: »

its technically owned (on a pro rata basis) by the commercial banks of america. to have a commercial banking license you must buy into the fed.

from the fed website:

True but it's not like normal stock, they can't can buy/sell it nor does it give them any control. They can't change any laws, but they are however allowed to vote on a portion of the Fed's board. The dividends are one incentive to join (which is not compulsory for commercial banks)

Personally I think JFK's speech is aimed at the spectre of communism rather than bankers

da6xsi

Dohnjoe wrote: »

True but it's not like normal stock, they can't can buy/sell it nor does it give them any control. They can't change any laws, but they are however allowed to vote on a portion of the Fed's board. The dividends are one incentive to join (which is not compulsory for commercial banks)

Personally I think JFK's speech is aimed at the spectre of communism rather than bankers

from freedom to fascism is a documentary which explains the federal reserve and how corrupt and crippling it is to american economy, freedom and politics.

give it a watch will help show you how things are really run compared to how they tell the public their run and JFK was 110% on about the banking elites plenty of stuff online about it

DamagedTrax

Dohnjoe wrote: »

True but it's not like normal stock, they can't can buy/sell it nor does it give them any control. They can't change any laws, but they are however allowed to vote on a portion of the Fed's board. The dividends are one incentive to join (which is not compulsory for commercial banks)

Personally I think JFK's speech is aimed at the spectre of communism rather than bankers

no it doesnt give them control but when you look at who has been selected to chair the fed, you can clearly see that the interests of the members will be more favorably looked at than the interests of the people.

For instance current chair Yellen, sat back and watched it all happen in 2008 -

"arguments against trying to deflate a bubble outweigh those in favor of it"

the housing bubble could be large enough to feel like a good-sized bump in the road, but the economy would likely be able to absorb the shock

she cant be seen in any way to be an appointment chosen for public good, when she was so far wrong on the 2008 crash.

Dohnjoe

da6xsi wrote: »

from freedom to fascism is a documentary which explains the federal reserve and how corrupt and crippling it is to american economy, freedom and politics.

give it a watch will help show you how things are really run compared to how they tell the public their run and JFK was 110% on about the banking elites plenty of stuff online about it

Perhaps but is there any group that didn't kill JFK at this stage

There's plenty of info available online as to how the Fed is run and what it does. As central banking systems go it's relatively transparent.

josephryan1989

The physical evidence proves that Oswald fired the three shots with the rifle he purchased by mail order under an assumed name in his hand writing. Oswald from what we know of his life history was absolutely the last guy the CIA would hire on behalf of a plot to replace the President and risk exposure. The conspiracy theories are utter nonsense and contradict each other at every turn. The simplest explanation is more likely to be true. A loser with delusions of grandeur decided he would become famous and shoot the President from the window of his work place during his lunch break.

DamagedTrax

josephryan1989 wrote: »

The physical evidence proves that Oswald fired the three shots with the rifle he purchased by mail order under an assumed name in his hand writing. Oswald from what we know of his life history was absolutely the last guy the CIA would hire on behalf of a plot to replace the President and risk exposure. The conspiracy theories are utter nonsense and contradict each other at every turn. The simplest explanation is more likely to be true. A loser with delusions of grandeur decided he would become famous and shoot the President from the window of his work place during his lunch break.

So if Oswald was the only gunman (and if what we were told was true), why do we now have documented evidence that the CIA did everything to cover-up the situation and steer the investigation in a way that matched the official narrative?

Seems to me that there would be no need.. if Oswald was a lone gunman.

Overheal

The same reason the US always gets caught doing such things: because its in the 'interest of national security' to not have the lingering doubts, to keep the American people on the same page. Completely antithetical to a democracy, mind you, but time and again that's how the government has been shown to operate.

DamagedTrax

Overheal wrote: »

The same reason the US always gets caught doing such things: because its in the 'interest of national security' to not have the lingering doubts, to keep the American people on the same page. Completely antithetical to a democracy, mind you, but time and again that's how the government has been shown to operate.

or to cover up the fact that (amongst other things) ruby worked for/with nixon previously?

(nixon, ruby, prescot bush - circa late 40s)


even (and thats a big word in this situation) if Oswald's did somehow kill kennedy, the fact is that he was still a CIA asset and was killed by someone with heavy ties to the CIA (bush) and future admisnistration (nixon).

that alone screams conspiracy. add in some CIA tinkering to the investigation and you have enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a new investigation.

StringerBell

Oswald was killed by Bush now? The **** happened to Ruby?

DamagedTrax

StringerBell wrote: »

Oswald was killed by Bush now? The **** happened to Ruby?

what? i think you misread my post. i meant he had ties to the CIA through prescot.

Dohnjoe

Overheal wrote: »

The same reason the US always gets caught doing such things: because its in the 'interest of national security' to not have the lingering doubts, to keep the American people on the same page. Completely antithetical to a democracy, mind you, but time and again that's how the government has been shown to operate.

Virtually every government is the same, real politik

Obviously this was awhile back, two nuclear armed superpowers at the height of the Cold war in the 60's - national security was always going to be pretty high on the agenda

A lot of "dirty" actions happened on both sides, it's part and parcel. It's clear from the piece that the CIA were paranoid of their image (I mean just before news of the assassination they were in a meeting discussing CIA image)

It seems McCone was reluctant to fully disclose relevant info to the Warren commission because it implicated the CIA in plots like assassinating Castro.. in conjunction with the mafia

(U) That cooperation, however, was
narrower than those numbers might
suggest. CIA produced information
only in response to commission
requests-most of which concerned
the Soviet Union or Oswald's activities
while he was outside the United
States--and did not volunteer material
even if potentially relevant-for
example, about Agency plans to
assassinate Castro.

Not very pretty in the public domain

They also had to make sure they have absolutely no direct or indirect links to Oswald.. pretty tough in the murky world of espionage and counter-espionage

They were covering their ass basically

McCone later admitted they should have been more forward with the Warren Commission

The report does not dispute that Oswald killed the president and supports that he acted alone

josephryan1989

So if Oswald was the only gunman (and if what we were told was true), why do we now have documented evidence that the CIA did everything to cover-up the situation and steer the investigation in a way that matched the official narrative?

Seems to me that there would be no need.. if Oswald was a lone gunman.

Oswald took the rifle to work in a paper parcel. The paper wrapping, the rifle, and three spent cartridges were found on the 6th floor. Witnesses saw a man closely resembling Oswald in the window with a rifle before the shooting and during the shooting saw the man firing from there. Most ear witnesses heard three shots from the TSBD. Oswald fled the scene and boarded a bus, then left the bus and boarded a taxi before returning to his rooming house where he remained for a matter of minutes before leaving zipping up his windbreaker. A Dallas cop was shot by a man matching Oswald's description and Oswald's jacket was found in a nearby parking lot. Oswald was observed ducking into the doorway of a shoe shop as if hiding from a passing police car before he continued up the street into a movie theatre without paying for a ticket. When he was arrested by Dallas cops he tried to draw and fire his revolver and when he was booked the same ammo used to killed the Dallas cop was in his pockets.
His rifle was proven to be the weapon that was the source of the bullet found on Connally's stretcher at Parkland Hospital and the fragments of a bullet found on the front seat of the limousine.
The trajectories of the shots that hit both Kennedy and Connally originated from the 6th floor window.
His revolver was proven to be the weapon that fired the fatal shots that killed the Dallas cop.
No reasonable person can doubt Oswald was the culprit and he acted alone.

DamagedTrax

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Oswald took the rifle to work in a paper parcel. The paper wrapping, the rifle, and three spent cartridges were found on the 6th floor. Witnesses saw a man closely resembling Oswald in the window with a rifle before the shooting and during the shooting saw the man firing from there. Most ear witnesses heard three shots from the TSBD. Oswald fled the scene and boarded a bus, then left the bus and boarded a taxi before returning to his rooming house where he remained for a matter of minutes before leaving zipping up his windbreaker. A Dallas cop was shot by a man matching Oswald's description and Oswald's jacket was found in a nearby parking lot. Oswald was observed ducking into the doorway of a shoe shop as if hiding from a passing police car before he continued up the street into a movie theatre without paying for a ticket. When he was arrested by Dallas cops he tried to draw and fire his revolver and when he was booked the same ammo used to killed the Dallas cop was in his pockets.
His rifle was proven to be the weapon that was the source of the bullet found on Connally's stretcher at Parkland Hospital and the fragments of a bullet found on the front seat of the limousine.
The trajectories of the shots that hit both Kennedy and Connally originated from the 6th floor window.
His revolver was proven to be the weapon that fired the fatal shots that killed the Dallas cop.
No reasonable person can doubt Oswald was the culprit and he acted alone.

and to the contrary

Oswald had no credible motive
More than three shots were fired
Shots were fired from more than one location
The sixth–floor rifle was inaccurate and unreliable
Oswald was not a good enough marksman
Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the assassination
Oswald did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination
Some of the evidence against Oswald was manufactured after the event
Oswald was set up in advance
The crime was not properly investigated

http://22november1963.org.uk/case-for-conspiracy-jfk-assassination

Overheal

Before we go any further understand this is my level of knowledge about the JFK assassination:

King Mob

DamagedTrax wrote: »

and to the contrary


Oswald had no credible motive
More than three shots were fired
Shots were fired from more than one location
The sixth–floor rifle was inaccurate and unreliable
Oswald was not a good enough marksman
Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the assassination
Oswald did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination
Some of the evidence against Oswald was manufactured after the event
Oswald was set up in advance
The crime was not properly investigated

http://22november1963.org.uk/case-for-conspiracy-jfk-assassination

Leaving aside the accuracy of these statements, they bring up a point that's always confused me about this.

If you are alleging that some conspirators set up Oswald and went as far as manufacturing evidence, why didn't they do a better job?

Why would they give him a an "inaccurate and unreliable" rifle? Why would they not get him to fire it? Why would they not put him in the place they are going to claim he shot from? Why not make him fire the gun?
Why not manufacture a credible motive? Why not just get someone who could make the shots?

Your statements, even if true, don't make any sense in the context of a conspiracy. If there was plot holes this big in the official story doubters like yourself would be screaming and pointing to them non stop.

DamagedTrax

King Mob wrote: »

Leaving aside the accuracy of these statements, they bring up a point that's always confused me about this.

If you are alleging that some conspirators set up Oswald and went as far as manufacturing evidence, why didn't they do a better job?

Why would they give him a an "inaccurate and unreliable" rifle? Why would they not get him to fire it? Why would they not put him in the place they are going to claim he shot from? Why not make him fire the gun?
Why not manufacture a credible motive? Why not just get someone who could make the shots?

Your statements, even if true, don't make any sense in the context of a conspiracy. If there was plot holes this big in the official story doubters like yourself would be screaming and pointing to them non stop.

i dont think i made any statements as to what i believe happened, did i? im quite undecided on it myself. i lean towards Oswald possibly thinking he was acting alone but ending up a patsy.. having shadowy help to make sure it all went to plan, and im pretty sure bush was involved.

i posted a piece of information that has come to light. a poster ran with the official narrative, so i asked what this new evidence could mean. the poster then went on with the official narrative so i quoted an alternative narrative back at him because clearly the original piece of evidence went over his head or he just didnt read it. infact 'and to the contrary' were the only words of my own in that post.

the stuff i posted when quoting overheal was just more evidence to the contrary. there's no denying the picture of nixon, ruby and p bush is quite interesting given the circumstances.


sometimes people think that coming in here, claiming we're all nuts and spouting an official narrative is enough... in those cases its easier to just give them an opposing view rather than waste your time with opinion... otherwise by the time someone that respects a good discussion comes along, you're in no mood for typing anymore.

i dont include yourself or other posters that regularly engage in debate, in that category btw.

King Mob

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i posted a piece of information that has come to light. a poster ran with the official narrative, so i asked what this new evidence could mean. the poster then went on with the official narrative so i quoted an alternative narrative back at him because clearly the original piece of evidence went over his head or he just didnt read it.

Fair enough, but my point is that these "facts":

Oswald had no credible motive
More than three shots were fired
Shots were fired from more than one location
The sixth–floor rifle was inaccurate and unreliable
Oswald was not a good enough marksman
Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the assassination
Oswald did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination
Some of the evidence against Oswald was manufactured after the event
Oswald was set up in advance
The crime was not properly investigated

Don't make any sense in the context of an alternative narrative.

Do you think that the alternative narrative makes sense of these claims?
Do you think these claims are accurate?

josephryan1989

Oswald had no credible motive{/QUOTE]

He was pro-Castro and was enraged by US government policy toward Communist Cuba. Killing Kennedy as he passed below the windows of his workplace gave him a perfect opportunity to change history. From his writings Oswald believed himself to be destined to be major historical figure.

More than three shots were fired

The majority of witnesses heard three shots.

Shots were fired from more than one location

False. Two shots hit Kennedy and Connally and the source of their trajectories were the 6th floor window.

The sixth–floor rifle was inaccurate and unreliable

The 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano is an accurate and reliable rifle and was used for decades by the Italian military including two world wars.

Oswald was not a good enough marksman

Oswald was trained and qualified as a marksman during his stint in the US Marines. Shooting three shots in about 6 secs from less than 100 yards is well within the capability of even an amateur shooter.

Oswald was not on the sixth floor during the assassination

The man seen in the window closely resembled Oswald and the testimony of witnesses who saw him in the window and saw him shooting the rifle was the basis of the Dallas Police APB in the minutes after the shooting.

Oswald did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination

The parafin test used on Oswald was used as a ruse by police forces to obtain confessions and at the time was not a reliable test of whether a suspect had fired a weapon. The presence of Oswald in the 6th floor, the use of his rifle in the shooting, the presence of cloth fibres from his shirt and his palm print on the weapon and the testimony of his coworkers that he was last seen on the 6th floor plus his noted absence from the TSBD following the assassination all point to his guilty.

Some of the evidence against Oswald was manufactured after the event

What evidence was manufactured and by whom and how?

Oswald was set up in advance

By whom and how? To frame Oswald would have required the co-operation of thousands of people all of whom would have had intimate knowledge of the conspiracy and none of whom talked.

The crime was not properly investigated

Yes it was.
The Dallas PD did a competent job and arrested the right man. All the evidence points to Oswald's sole guilt.

DamagedTrax

He was pro-Castro and was enraged by US government policy toward Communist Cuba. Killing Kennedy as he passed below the windows of his workplace gave him a perfect opportunity to change history. From his writings Oswald believed himself to be destined to be major historical figure.

he was a CIA asset that was being lined up for insertion into cuba. his girlfriend juydth baker was a cancer scientist working on a way to assininate castro using cancer (she has admitted this in many interviews).

The majority of witnesses heard three shots.

actually 40 odd witnesses claim they heard shots from the grassy knoll.

ALL the below claim shots from that direction.

Victoria Adams
Danny Garcia Arce
Virgie Baker (née Rackley)
Jane Berry
Charles Brehm
Ochus Campbell
Faye Chism
John Chism
Harold Elkins
Ronald Fischer
Buell Wesley Frazier
Dorothy Garner
Jean Hill
S. M. Holland
Ed Johnson
Dolores Kounas
Paul Landis
Billy Lovelady
Austin Miller
A.J. Millican
Luke Mooney
Thomas Murphy
Jean Newman
William Newman
Kenneth O’Donnell and David Powers
Roberta Parker
Frank Reilly
Arnold Rowland
Edgar Smith
Joe Marshall Smith
Forrest Sorrels
James Tague
Roy Truly
Harry Weatherford
Seymour Weitzman
Otis Williams
Mary Woodward
Abraham Zapruder

False. Two shots hit Kennedy and Connally and the source of their trajectories were the 6th floor window.

so explain the shot that went through the limo window from the front? and the witnesses to the inwards hole?

Stavis Ellis
H. R. Freeman
Richard Dudman
Evalea Glanges
George Whitaker (senior manager at ford, who saw the limo being worked on and windoscreen replaced)

or the doctors who gave evidence that there was a front entry shot to the throat before it was hacked open by the coroner?

or the acoustic evidence which led HSCA to admit the possibility of a grassy knoll shot?

The 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano is an accurate and reliable rifle and was used for decades by the Italian military including two world wars.

the type of rifle itself may be accurate but the one found that day was not

The US army and FBI testing on it proved this as they found

Shims had to be applied to the telescopic sight before the rifle could be aimed.
Even after the telescopic sight had been repaired, it proved unreliable and inaccurate.
The condition of both the bolt and the trigger pull meant that the rifle could not be aimed accurately.

Oswald was trained and qualified as a marksman during his stint in the US Marines. Shooting three shots in about 6 secs from less than 100 yards is well within the capability of even an amateur shooter.

i'll agree with this. i think he was probably a good shot having been a marine and CIA asset.

The man seen in the window closely resembled Oswald and the testimony of witnesses who saw him in the window and saw him shooting the rifle was the basis of the Dallas Police APB in the minutes after the shooting.

Yet the mac wallace fingerprint is still ignored. word of mouth gets a man arrested, physical evidence gets another ignored.

The parafin test used on Oswald was used as a ruse by police forces to obtain confessions and at the time was not a reliable test of whether a suspect had fired a weapon. The presence of Oswald in the 6th floor, the use of his rifle in the shooting, the presence of cloth fibres from his shirt and his palm print on the weapon and the testimony of his coworkers that he was last seen on the 6th floor plus his noted absence from the TSBD following the assassination all point to his guilty.

Howard Brennan was the one who claimed to see him, yet failed to recognise him later that day?

TSBD employee Carolyn Arnold placed him at either the 1st or 2nd floor at time of shooting.

also

Neutron activation analysis confirmed the absence of incriminating quantities of gunpowder residues on Oswald’s cheek, and demonstrated that the rifle he was accused of firing would certainly have deposited such residues.

What evidence was manufactured and by whom and how?

There is little doubt about the paper bag. the miraculous intact bullet was also introduced into evidence illegally.

By whom and how? To frame Oswald would have required the co-operation of thousands of people all of whom would have had intimate knowledge of the conspiracy and none of whom talked.

Well just look at who benefited most to answer that. Its the same person who used every avenue to keep the investigation off track. who's estate to this day keeps trying to hush and cover up. hell the man even had a terrible nickname - 'lying lyndon'

at a party in Dallas the very night before the shooting, he told his mistress (madaline brown) that those kennedy SOBs will never embarrass me again.

if you look at who attended that party, you have the 'who?' right there. add in the power of prescot and george snr bush through the CIA and you have the 'how?'.

even the head of the commision was CIA - alan dulles!

Seems to me with that kind of power involved, covering it up wouldnt be too hard a job.

its very interesting to take a look at the murders of those with links, in the years after the event (so many that even the house select committee on assassinations had to look into it)
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/deaths.html

Yes it was.
The Dallas PD did a competent job and arrested the right man. All the evidence points to Oswald's sole guilt.

that is a matter of opinion really, as it is still officially an unsolved murder case. we cant really judge the dallas police on a case that never got solved.

pueblo

Dohnjoe

pueblo wrote: »

Full speech here

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=8093

Which puts it more into context (Communism and the free press)

BloodBath

No offence JosephRyan but let me guess. You watched a documentary on the discovery channels and now you're an expert.

You know nothing about this case which is blatantly obvious by your regurgitating of the official story. People like you annoy me. You know nothing about the subject matter yet you have the confidence and arrogance of someone who has a PHD on the subject.

There was a 100% cover up in the Kennedy assassination. Anyone who believes otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or a straight up shill.

Overheal

BloodBath wrote: »

No offence JosephRyan but let me guess. You watched a documentary on the discovery channels and now you're an expert.

You know nothing about this case which is blatantly obvious by your regurgitating of the official story. People like you annoy me. You know nothing about the subject matter yet you have the confidence and arrogance of someone who has a PHD on the subject.

There was a 100% cover up in the Kennedy assassination. Anyone who believes otherwise is either ignorant of the facts or a straight up shill.

Argumentum ad Hominem, and Argumentum ad Populum attacks are personal attacks, and not permitted here.