Entire Volume of CIA Files On Lee Harvey Oswald, to be Released in October, Has ‘Gone Missing’

a reply to: audubon

Good job piecing all that together. Unfortunately, your post will be ignored by most of the folks in this thread because it clashes with what they prefer to believe. You are probably on their list of "ATS members that are government misinfo agents" now.

originally posted by: audubon
a reply to: Justoneman

Ford was rewarded with Nixon's post

Too simplistic. Look at the chronology.

Nixon's VP had been Spiro Agnew since day one in January 1969. On 10 October 1973, Agnew resigned after pleading guilty in court to having committed tax fraud.

Nixon then picked Ford to succeed Agnew, and Ford was appointed on 12 October 1973.

A week after that, Nixon went full-salvo and fired everyone whose name he could remember through his haze of whisky fumes ("The Saturday Night Massacre").

Nixon was letting loose at last because he had his 'soft landing' in position. If he resigned, Ford would pardon him, just as Ford had toed the official line while on the Warren Commission. He was a 'safe pair of hands', not imaginative enough to be dangerous. He wasn't going to upset the establishment apple-cart.

Ford wasn't rewarded with the presidency, he was positioned to receive it in case Nixon eventually had to resign and needed someone dependable to give him his pardon.

TL;DR - Ford was an insurance policy, and it paid off.

Simplistic or not in your mind, Ford was in the Warren Commission and they lied. He then ends up being in Nixon's spot. I am sure giving Nixon a pass was part of the plan from "go".

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: audubon

Good job piecing all that together. Unfortunately, your post will be ignored by most of the folks in this thread because it clashes with what they prefer to believe. You are probably on their list of "ATS members that are government misinfo agents" now.

Hell we all could be for that matter. You don't seem to be so on top of things or able to win debates on ATS so I guess your little dig starts there. Maybe, if you were like a certain ATS member used to be when we were all into the talk on those NASA pics. Oh, yea he was deflecting then too but we liked his style.

I will admit I have some government connection but I am not a liar. I might be wrong and have to say so but I will try to say what I believe to be the real truth and back it with evidence to help those who think like me have fodder to argue with those who would wish to believe lies, or share them in ignorance.

Why Ford ended up on the Warren Commission has never been clear to me. He was a nobody, and prior to appointing him a commissioner, LBJ had met him exactly once in the 1950s.

My theory is the only one I can construct from the few facts available. LBJ and Hoover (both Masons) picked a dull but competent nobody (who was also an ambitious freemason). He could be depended upon to do his duty, to secure promotion within the Brotherhood, but just to be on the safe side Hoover kept a dirt file on Ford's sexual adventures, which could be wafted across his desk if need be.

(Ford later told the French PM (as you do...) that he wasn't satisfied with the WC's story, but they hadn't been able to do a better one, which definitely has the ring of bureaucratic truth about it).

Come 1974, Hoover and LBJ are safely dead, but the "Ford dirt file" is still at large, somewhere in the FBI. And it's at the height of Watergate, everyone is leaking about everyone, the CIA and FBI are at each other hammer and tongs.

The new FBI director Patrick Gray is a Nixon henchman. Ford sees the writing on the wall and does his duty. He never hears anything more about the dirt file, and he's fairly happy with that outcome.

a reply to: Justoneman

It's funny how you whine about me "deflecting" but don't actually address any of the points he made in the post I was referring to. You did exactly what I said, ignored it because it inconveniently explains away this "mystery".

Be misled some more, that's your choice.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Justoneman

It's funny how you whine about me "deflecting" but don't actually address any of the points he made in the post I was referring to. You did exactly what I said, ignored it because it inconveniently explains away this "mystery".

Be misled some more, that's your choice.

Not deflecting, keeping to the facts. I don't need to deflect to make my point. I do like to present a reason for it though.

originally posted by: kloejen
How long are you gonna stand up to this BS American ppl ???

Not until every Big Mac has been eaten, every extra large soda drunk, and not before The Walking Dead series finale!

Probably were "burned up" in a "government building fire" in 1969 and couldn't be reproduced. Sounds totally reasonable to me. Can't have evidence, you don't have... No matter how hard they want you to have it. I'm
going to say, the guberment has this "case", pretty much wrapped up... Time to find a new horse to saddle. Let us just remember J.F.K. as the PT 109 commander and a Good Rebublican President that ran as a democrat.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Maybe once Poppy Bush is gone they might consider releasing it,
but I have my doubts it will ever see the light of day.
Some truths are just too ugly to let out to the public.

heh, funny that was my first thought.

a reply to: kloejen

Countless concerned individuals are still searching for answers surrounding the mysterious death of the 35th president of the United States, John F. Kennedy.

No need to wonder any longer.

Televised on TV was the testimony of an ex-CIA officer who was involved in the assasination that day.

I wish I can remember the documentary.

His testimony was given on his death bed.

He revealed that it was an orchestrated hit involving the CIA.

It was code named - "The Big Event"

originally posted by: Diabolical1972
I'm not surprised, if they ever released the classified files on 9/11, watch the same thing happen to those files.

Unfortunately those classified files on 9/11 were destroyed on... 9/11

I do not apologise for my cynicism.

a reply to: nOraKat

Was that deathbed confession ever verified in any way?

Think i found a clip from the docu?

If anyone were going to be involved in the JFK murder, it would be be Everett Howard Hunt.

The thing that gets me is how little attention his confession has received among JFK researchers generally. I suspect this is because although Hunt was CIA (which is catnip to conspiracists) he identified the "Mr Big" behind the assassination as Lyndon Johnson.

For some reason, the "LBJ dunnit" solution has never really caught on, even though it is the best-supported in terms of hard evidence and reputable insiders.

a reply to: kloejen

Very dissapointed. The CIA isnt American. Its federal reserve.

They might as well just be hired guns.

originally posted by: kloejen
a reply to: nOraKat

Was that deathbed confession ever verified in any way?

That was my first question too. Even lower-profile murders sometimes have multiple people coming forward to confess just seeking attention/fame. Indeed, this CIA guy isn't the first person to claim to have killed Kennedy.

a reply to: face23785

James Files is a fraud and his JFK lies were conclusively refuted by my favourite conspiracy-oriented publication a month or two ago (PDF link)

a reply to: audubon

I was aware he was a fraud. My point was that the folks rushing to believe this CIA guy's deathbed confession could do with a healthy dose of skepticism, specifically because fakes have "come forward" before.

a reply to: face23785

It's certainly true that one shouldn't rush into believing an uncorroborated confession, particularly in the JFK case.

But Hunt's confession is a bit weightier than that. Look into his past and weigh his confession accordingly.

Also, if you find pictures persuasive you might well wonder why someone in Dealey Plaza was dressed like this on a sunny day that hit 72 Fahrenheit.

a reply to: audubon

Strange though that may look, there are any number of mundane explanations for it. If that's all you've got, you got nothing.

As for Hunt's background, it does little more than make him one of thousands of people with the type of background that could make such a claim sound juicy. Other than that it really proves nothing. And the circumstances of his confession are rather suspect, according to the Washington Times:

According to Hunt's widow and other children, the two sons took advantage of Hunt's loss of lucidity by coaching and exploiting him for financial gain.

That's just as, if not more, believable than his supposed connection to the assassination. At least to me it is, call me a cynic.

Edit: in all fairness, it's possible they were just being spiteful about the claims due to family drama. Absent any tangible evidence, we'll never really know.

Interesting.