Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:52:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446

Since Trump couldn't tell Napolitano what was in the documents, that indicates they are still
classified. We don't know what is in the classified documents because we aren't supposed to
see what are in the classified documents. Since we don't know, you take the liberty of assuming
what we aren't allowed to see is evidence of a conspiracy. You refuse to consider any other
possible reasons the information is classified.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:52:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446

Since Trump couldn't tell Napolitano what was in the documents, that indicates they are still
classified. We don't know what is in the classified documents because we aren't supposed to
see what are in the classified documents. Since we don't know, you take the liberty of assuming
what we aren't allowed to see is evidence of a conspiracy. You refuse to consider any other
possible reasons the information is classified.

It's POSSIBLE that the CIA had more interest in Oswald than what was disclosed, but that's been assumed as a possibility for a long time. Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC and murdered JDT by himself, no conspiracy.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:43:45 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:52:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446

Since Trump couldn't tell Napolitano what was in the documents, that indicates they are still
classified. We don't know what is in the classified documents because we aren't supposed to
see what are in the classified documents. Since we don't know, you take the liberty of assuming
what we aren't allowed to see is evidence of a conspiracy. You refuse to consider any other
possible reasons the information is classified.

It's POSSIBLE that the CIA had more interest in Oswald than what was disclosed, but that's been assumed as a possibility for a long time. Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC and murdered JDT by himself, no conspiracy.

I seriously doubt the withheld classified information has anything directly involving Oswald. I
suspect it has more to do with protecting assets and operations which might still be compromised.
Of course I don't know that for fact. No one does, but that's my guess. If it was a matter of the
CIA being more involved with Oswald than what is known, what reason would they have for
maintaining that secret?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:43:45 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:52:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446

Since Trump couldn't tell Napolitano what was in the documents, that indicates they are still
classified. We don't know what is in the classified documents because we aren't supposed to
see what are in the classified documents. Since we don't know, you take the liberty of assuming
what we aren't allowed to see is evidence of a conspiracy. You refuse to consider any other
possible reasons the information is classified.

It's POSSIBLE that the CIA had more interest in Oswald than what was disclosed, but that's been assumed as a possibility for a long time. Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC and murdered JDT by himself, no conspiracy.

To further expound, if Oswald had been a CIA asset, why the hell would they have placed him in
a menial job at the TSBD? He got that job before the details of JFK's Texas trip had been worked
out, before it was decided there would be a motorcade, and before the motorcade route was
known. Taking it back a little further, why would they have had him defect to the USSR, where he
was relegated to another menial job at an electronics factory.

I have no doubt the KGB and the CIA would have been suspicious of Oswald and for good
reason. There's no evidence he was ever in position to provide either side with sensitive
information. He wouldn't have had sensitive knowledge of the U-2 flights beyond what the
Soviets would already have known.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 3:17:00 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:43:45 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:52:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446

Since Trump couldn't tell Napolitano what was in the documents, that indicates they are still
classified. We don't know what is in the classified documents because we aren't supposed to
see what are in the classified documents. Since we don't know, you take the liberty of assuming
what we aren't allowed to see is evidence of a conspiracy. You refuse to consider any other
possible reasons the information is classified.

It's POSSIBLE that the CIA had more interest in Oswald than what was disclosed, but that's been assumed as a possibility for a long time. Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC and murdered JDT by himself, no conspiracy.

To further expound, if Oswald had been a CIA asset, why the hell would they have placed him in
a menial job at the TSBD? He got that job before the details of JFK's Texas trip had been worked
out, before it was decided there would be a motorcade, and before the motorcade route was
known. Taking it back a little further, why would they have had him defect to the USSR, where he
was relegated to another menial job at an electronics factory.

I have no doubt the KGB and the CIA would have been suspicious of Oswald and for good
reason. There's no evidence he was ever in position to provide either side with sensitive
information. He wouldn't have had sensitive knowledge of the U-2 flights beyond what the
Soviets would already have known.

Ben will be along shortly to remind you that there is no reasoning allowed on his watch.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 6:05:37 AM UTC+11, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:43:45 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:52:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446

Since Trump couldn't tell Napolitano what was in the documents, that indicates they are still
classified. We don't know what is in the classified documents because we aren't supposed to
see what are in the classified documents. Since we don't know, you take the liberty of assuming
what we aren't allowed to see is evidence of a conspiracy. You refuse to consider any other
possible reasons the information is classified.

It's POSSIBLE that the CIA had more interest in Oswald than what was disclosed, but that's been assumed as a possibility for a long time. Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC and murdered JDT by himself, no conspiracy.

I seriously doubt the withheld classified information has anything directly involving Oswald. I
suspect it has more to do with protecting assets and operations which might still be compromised.

What assets and operations could they possibly need to hide regarding a lone nut?

Of course I don't know that for fact. No one does, but that's my guess. If it was a matter of the
CIA being more involved with Oswald than what is known, what reason would they have for
maintaining that secret?

I guess it is a no-win situation for them now. Hide shit and inspire conspiracy theories. Tell the truth WAY PAST WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE and inspire conspiracy theories.

The truth is some combination of the two reasons. Hiding unrelated operations - at least one of which they used Oswald's name and background - making him an unwitting asset. It would not be a good look. What bureaucracies fear more than being busted
for illegal acts, is being embarrassed by exposure of stupid but legal acts. Everything FBI agents did and said under Hoover was predicated on if it would embarrass the FBI or Hoover. None of the other intel organizations were much better.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:17:00 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:43:45 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:52:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446

Since Trump couldn't tell Napolitano what was in the documents, that indicates they are still
classified. We don't know what is in the classified documents because we aren't supposed to
see what are in the classified documents. Since we don't know, you take the liberty of assuming
what we aren't allowed to see is evidence of a conspiracy. You refuse to consider any other
possible reasons the information is classified.

It's POSSIBLE that the CIA had more interest in Oswald than what was disclosed, but that's been assumed as a possibility for a long time. Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC and murdered JDT by himself, no conspiracy.

To further expound, if Oswald had been a CIA asset, why the hell would they have placed him in
a menial job at the TSBD? He got that job before the details of JFK's Texas trip had been worked
out, before it was decided there would be a motorcade, and before the motorcade route was
known. Taking it back a little further, why would they have had him defect to the USSR, where he
was relegated to another menial job at an electronics factory.

I have no doubt the KGB and the CIA would have been suspicious of Oswald and for good
reason. There's no evidence he was ever in position to provide either side with sensitive
information. He wouldn't have had sensitive knowledge of the U-2 flights beyond what the
Soviets would already have known.

I don't think Oswald was a CIA asset, agent, etc. I think it's simply possible that the CIA had a little more interest in him than they let on. Documents may prove this. The JFK assassination was a bolt of lightning to the CIA in Langley, and after JFK
was killed and people realized after more was known that this was the one-off actions of a lone nut, the CIA was more interested in shutting doors rather than opening them and "exposing" their dirty laundry about Cuba, etc.

It's also possible that there isn't even this much in the remaining files.

Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC, and murdered JDT. There was no second or third gunman, and Oswald wasn't working for any group.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 7:37:57 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 6:05:37 AM UTC+11, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:43:45 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:52:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446

Since Trump couldn't tell Napolitano what was in the documents, that indicates they are still
classified. We don't know what is in the classified documents because we aren't supposed to
see what are in the classified documents. Since we don't know, you take the liberty of assuming
what we aren't allowed to see is evidence of a conspiracy. You refuse to consider any other
possible reasons the information is classified.

It's POSSIBLE that the CIA had more interest in Oswald than what was disclosed, but that's been assumed as a possibility for a long time. Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC and murdered JDT by himself, no conspiracy.

I seriously doubt the withheld classified information has anything directly involving Oswald. I
suspect it has more to do with protecting assets and operations which might still be compromised.

What assets and operations could they possibly need to hide regarding a lone nut?

That's for them to know and nobody to find out. That's why information gets classified.

Of course I don't know that for fact. No one does, but that's my guess. If it was a matter of the
CIA being more involved with Oswald than what is known, what reason would they have for
maintaining that secret?

I guess it is a no-win situation for them now. Hide shit and inspire conspiracy theories. Tell the truth WAY PAST WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE and inspire conspiracy theories.

It doesn't take much to inspire conspiracy theories.

The truth is some combination of the two reasons. Hiding unrelated operations - at least one of which they used Oswald's name and background - making him an unwitting asset. It would not be a good look. What bureaucracies fear more than being busted

for illegal acts, is being embarrassed by exposure of stupid but legal acts. Everything FBI agents did and said under Hoover was predicated on if it would embarrass the FBI or Hoover. None of the other intel organizations were much better.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 7:58:10 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 2:17:00 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:43:45 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:59:47 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:52:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446

Since Trump couldn't tell Napolitano what was in the documents, that indicates they are still
classified. We don't know what is in the classified documents because we aren't supposed to
see what are in the classified documents. Since we don't know, you take the liberty of assuming
what we aren't allowed to see is evidence of a conspiracy. You refuse to consider any other
possible reasons the information is classified.

It's POSSIBLE that the CIA had more interest in Oswald than what was disclosed, but that's been assumed as a possibility for a long time. Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC and murdered JDT by himself, no conspiracy.

To further expound, if Oswald had been a CIA asset, why the hell would they have placed him in
a menial job at the TSBD? He got that job before the details of JFK's Texas trip had been worked
out, before it was decided there would be a motorcade, and before the motorcade route was
known. Taking it back a little further, why would they have had him defect to the USSR, where he
was relegated to another menial job at an electronics factory.

I have no doubt the KGB and the CIA would have been suspicious of Oswald and for good
reason. There's no evidence he was ever in position to provide either side with sensitive
information. He wouldn't have had sensitive knowledge of the U-2 flights beyond what the
Soviets would already have known.

I don't think Oswald was a CIA asset, agent, etc. I think it's simply possible that the CIA had a little more interest in him than they let on. Documents may prove this.

The should have had an interest in him. He was a repatriated defector. Of course they would
want to know what he was doing.

The JFK assassination was a bolt of lightning to the CIA in Langley, and after JFK was killed and people realized after more was known that this was the one-off actions of a lone nut, the CIA was more interested in shutting doors rather than opening

them and "exposing" their dirty laundry about Cuba, etc.

I can see that being their concern in1964. Since Operation Mongoose was exposed a long time
ago, I find it hard to believe they would want to cover that up. That horse already left the barn.

It's also possible that there isn't even this much in the remaining files.

Probably, but they could have a valid reason for not exposing even small secrets.

Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC, and murdered JDT. There was no second or third gunman, and Oswald wasn't working for any group.

100% certain Oswald was the murderer.
99.99% certain he had no accomplices.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 10:43:43 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chuckschuyler123@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:59:47?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:52:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446

Since Trump couldn't tell Napolitano what was in the documents, that indicates they are still
classified. We don't know what is in the classified documents because we aren't supposed to
see what are in the classified documents. Since we don't know, you take the liberty of assuming
what we aren't allowed to see is evidence of a conspiracy. You refuse to consider any other
possible reasons the information is classified.

It's POSSIBLE that the CIA had more interest in Oswald than what was disclosed,

It's a CERTAINTY that they had more interest in Oswald that believers
are willing to admit.

Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC and murdered JDT by himself, no conspiracy.

As you couldn't cite any evidence for this empty speculation,
Chickenshit labels it a lie.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 09:59:45 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:52:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446

Since Trump couldn't tell Napolitano what was in the documents, that indicates they are still
classified.

Since he's talking about classified documents that have still not been released, even a moron could figure that one out.

But Trump *CAN* tell Napolitano - it's quite clear that he wanted to
tell him in person, and not over the phone.

Trump does have that power.

We don't know what is in the classified documents because we aren't
supposed to see what are in the classified documents.

Based on what criteria?

You know for a FACT that there was no reason to classify the medical
testimony - other than to allow the HSCA to lie about what it said.

There's *NO* legitimate reason to classify much of what *was*
classified.

And you can't argue against that fact... both because it IS a fact,
and because you're too much a coward to address evidence like this.

Since we don't know, you take the liberty of assuming

Nope, no "assumption" needed. Merely an understanding of the currently unclassified material.

what we aren't allowed to see is evidence of a conspiracy.

Some of it clearly is. Such as the info on former CIA rep to the
HSCA.

You refuse to consider any other
possible reasons the information is classified.

You merely commit logical fallacies because you can't prove your
assertion.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:23:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:21:31 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:14:29 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 7:37:57?PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 6:05:37?AM UTC+11, John Corbett wrote: >>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:43:45?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:59:47?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:52:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>>> Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.

https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446

Since Trump couldn't tell Napolitano what was in the documents, that indicates they are still
classified. We don't know what is in the classified documents because we aren't supposed to
see what are in the classified documents. Since we don't know, you take the liberty of assuming
what we aren't allowed to see is evidence of a conspiracy. You refuse to consider any other
possible reasons the information is classified.

It's POSSIBLE that the CIA had more interest in Oswald than what was disclosed, but that's been assumed as a possibility for a long time. Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC and murdered JDT by himself, no conspiracy.

I seriously doubt the withheld classified information has anything directly involving Oswald. I
suspect it has more to do with protecting assets and operations which might still be compromised.

What assets and operations could they possibly need to hide regarding a lone nut?

That's for them to know and nobody to find out. That's why information gets classified.

You cannot, and will not, justify some of the things that were
classified on ANY OTHER BASIS WHATSOEVER, other than to hide evidence
of a conspiracy.

Of course I don't know that for fact. No one does, but that's my guess. If it was a matter of the
CIA being more involved with Oswald than what is known, what reason would they have for
maintaining that secret?

I guess it is a no-win situation for them now. Hide shit and inspire conspiracy theories. Tell the truth WAY PAST WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE and inspire conspiracy theories.

It doesn't take much to inspire conspiracy theories.

All it takes is the evidence.

And an active imagination. No reasoning allowed.

The truth is some combination of the two reasons. Hiding unrelated operations - at least one of which they used Oswald's name and background - making him an unwitting asset. It would not be a good look. What bureaucracies fear more than being busted

for illegal acts, is being embarrassed by exposure of stupid but legal acts. Everything FBI agents did and said under Hoover was predicated on if it would embarrass the FBI or Hoover. None of the other intel organizations were much better.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 9:59:47 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:52:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446

Since Trump couldn't tell Napolitano what was in the documents, that indicates they are still
classified.

That hasn't stopped Trump in other instances!

We don't know what is in the classified documents because we aren't supposed to

see what are in the classified documents. Since we don't know, you take the liberty of assuming
what we aren't allowed to see is evidence of a conspiracy. You refuse to consider any other
possible reasons the information is classified.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 08:57:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:58:00 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:21:31 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:14:29 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 7:37:57?PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 6:05:37?AM UTC+11, John Corbett wrote: >>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:43:45?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:59:47?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:52:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>>> Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.

https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446 >>>>> Since Trump couldn't tell Napolitano what was in the documents, that indicates they are still

classified. We don't know what is in the classified documents because we aren't supposed to
see what are in the classified documents. Since we don't know, you take the liberty of assuming
what we aren't allowed to see is evidence of a conspiracy. You refuse to consider any other
possible reasons the information is classified.

It's POSSIBLE that the CIA had more interest in Oswald than what was disclosed, but that's been assumed as a possibility for a long time. Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC and murdered JDT by himself, no conspiracy.

I seriously doubt the withheld classified information has anything directly involving Oswald. I
suspect it has more to do with protecting assets and operations which might still be compromised.

What assets and operations could they possibly need to hide regarding a lone nut?

That's for them to know and nobody to find out. That's why information gets classified.

You cannot, and will not, justify some of the things that were
classified on ANY OTHER BASIS WHATSOEVER, other than to hide evidence
of a conspiracy.

Of course I don't know that for fact. No one does, but that's my guess. If it was a matter of the
CIA being more involved with Oswald than what is known, what reason would they have for
maintaining that secret?

I guess it is a no-win situation for them now. Hide shit and inspire conspiracy theories. Tell the truth WAY PAST WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE and inspire conspiracy theories.

It doesn't take much to inspire conspiracy theories.

All it takes is the evidence.

And an active imagination. No reasoning allowed.

The truth is some combination of the two reasons. Hiding unrelated operations - at least one of which they used Oswald's name and background - making him an unwitting asset. It would not be a good look. What bureaucracies fear more than being

busted for illegal acts, is being embarrassed by exposure of stupid but legal acts. Everything FBI agents did and said under Hoover was predicated on if it would embarrass the FBI or Hoover. None of the other intel organizations were much better.
So the idea is that sixty years later - two generations? three? - after these agents/figures are long gone we have a future generation of people, again two?, covering up for their incompetence? For what reason?
Hoover is long dead. His name has been disgraced. The abuses have been exposed. Same for the CIA. Et cetera. So these other abuses were exposed but the not "good look" with Oswald is being covered up? Again, for whose benefit? It makes no sense.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 11:23:50 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:58:00 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:21:31 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:14:29 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 7:37:57?PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote: >> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 6:05:37?AM UTC+11, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:43:45?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:59:47?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:52:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446 >>>>> Since Trump couldn't tell Napolitano what was in the documents, that indicates they are still

classified. We don't know what is in the classified documents because we aren't supposed to
see what are in the classified documents. Since we don't know, you take the liberty of assuming
what we aren't allowed to see is evidence of a conspiracy. You refuse to consider any other
possible reasons the information is classified.

It's POSSIBLE that the CIA had more interest in Oswald than what was disclosed, but that's been assumed as a possibility for a long time. Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC and murdered JDT by himself, no conspiracy.

I seriously doubt the withheld classified information has anything directly involving Oswald. I
suspect it has more to do with protecting assets and operations which might still be compromised.

What assets and operations could they possibly need to hide regarding a lone nut?

That's for them to know and nobody to find out. That's why information gets classified.

You cannot, and will not, justify some of the things that were classified on ANY OTHER BASIS WHATSOEVER, other than to hide evidence
of a conspiracy.

Of course I don't know that for fact. No one does, but that's my guess. If it was a matter of the
CIA being more involved with Oswald than what is known, what reason would they have for
maintaining that secret?

I guess it is a no-win situation for them now. Hide shit and inspire conspiracy theories. Tell the truth WAY PAST WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE and inspire conspiracy theories.

It doesn't take much to inspire conspiracy theories.

All it takes is the evidence.

And an active imagination. No reasoning allowed.

The truth is some combination of the two reasons. Hiding unrelated operations - at least one of which they used Oswald's name and background - making him an unwitting asset. It would not be a good look. What bureaucracies fear more than being

busted for illegal acts, is being embarrassed by exposure of stupid but legal acts. Everything FBI agents did and said under Hoover was predicated on if it would embarrass the FBI or Hoover. None of the other intel organizations were much better.

So the idea is that sixty years later - two generations? three? - after these agents/figures are long gone we have a future generation of people, again two?, covering up for their incompetence? For what reason?
Hoover is long dead. His name has been disgraced. The abuses have been exposed. Same for the CIA. Et cetera. So these other abuses were exposed but the not "good look" with Oswald is being covered up? Again, for whose benefit? It makes no sense.

Judge John Tunnheim, who headed the ARRB, said he and his people saw these withheld files. He says there's nothing in them related to the assassination or Oswald. They are mostly sources, some still alive, and methods or operations that are still used.
He said the State Department wanted files on US policies on Mexico withheld because it could cause political problems. Essentially, as I read it, the Mexican government at that time under the then ruling PRI party was working for the US with the major
figures being bought off. So State Department says the revelations would harm US relations even though the figured are long dead. So, embarrassing stuff but nothing related to the assassination.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 11:54:30 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 11:23:50 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 11:58:00 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:21:31 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:14:29 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 7:37:57?PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote: >> On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 6:05:37?AM UTC+11, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 1:43:45?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:59:47?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 11:52:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Donald Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office.
https://www.tiktok.com/@geraldcelente/video/7170407238027398446 >>>>> Since Trump couldn't tell Napolitano what was in the documents, that indicates they are still

classified. We don't know what is in the classified documents because we aren't supposed to
see what are in the classified documents. Since we don't know, you take the liberty of assuming
what we aren't allowed to see is evidence of a conspiracy. You refuse to consider any other
possible reasons the information is classified.

It's POSSIBLE that the CIA had more interest in Oswald than what was disclosed, but that's been assumed as a possibility for a long time. Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC and murdered JDT by himself, no conspiracy.

I seriously doubt the withheld classified information has anything directly involving Oswald. I
suspect it has more to do with protecting assets and operations which might still be compromised.

What assets and operations could they possibly need to hide regarding a lone nut?

That's for them to know and nobody to find out. That's why information gets classified.

You cannot, and will not, justify some of the things that were classified on ANY OTHER BASIS WHATSOEVER, other than to hide evidence of a conspiracy.

Of course I don't know that for fact. No one does, but that's my guess. If it was a matter of the
CIA being more involved with Oswald than what is known, what reason would they have for
maintaining that secret?

I guess it is a no-win situation for them now. Hide shit and inspire conspiracy theories. Tell the truth WAY PAST WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE and inspire conspiracy theories.

It doesn't take much to inspire conspiracy theories.

All it takes is the evidence.

And an active imagination. No reasoning allowed.

The truth is some combination of the two reasons. Hiding unrelated operations - at least one of which they used Oswald's name and background - making him an unwitting asset. It would not be a good look. What bureaucracies fear more than being

busted for illegal acts, is being embarrassed by exposure of stupid but legal acts. Everything FBI agents did and said under Hoover was predicated on if it would embarrass the FBI or Hoover. None of the other intel organizations were much better.

So the idea is that sixty years later - two generations? three? - after these agents/figures are long gone we have a future generation of people, again two?, covering up for their incompetence? For what reason?
Hoover is long dead. His name has been disgraced. The abuses have been exposed. Same for the CIA. Et cetera. So these other abuses were exposed but the not "good look" with Oswald is being covered up? Again, for whose benefit? It makes no sense.

Judge John Tunnheim, who headed the ARRB, said he and his people saw these withheld files. He says there's nothing in them related to the assassination or Oswald. They are mostly sources, some still alive, and methods or operations that are still used.

He said the State Department wanted files on US policies on Mexico withheld because it could cause political problems. Essentially, as I read it, the Mexican government at that time under the then ruling PRI party was working for the US with the major
figures being bought off. So State Department says the revelations would harm US relations even though the figured are long dead. So, embarrassing stuff but nothing related to the assassination.
Here is Tunheim (one "n" not two) last year: https://tinyurl.com/vz8nj5ha Interesting that he says the Secret Service destroyed most of their files including ones on threats to JFK. But the ARRB was able to find backups of them. He says a few other things that seem wrong to me. He says that *before* the assassination the FBI
investigated whether Oswald was the person who tried to shoot Walker? That's pretty surprising.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 08:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemgalbraith@yahoo.com> wrote:

So the idea is that sixty years later - two generations? three? -
after these agents/figures are long gone we have a future generation
of people, again two?, covering up for their incompetence? For what
reason?

Your whining doesn't change the fact that there are still classified
documents that should be released.

You have no explanation for why they were classified... but from some
that have been de-classified, it's CLEAR that they were classified to
avoid the truth. Such as the medical testimony before the HSCA.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 08:54:29 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemgalbraith@yahoo.com> wrote:

Judge John Tunnheim, who headed the ARRB, said he and his people saw
these withheld files. He says there's nothing in them related to the assassination or Oswald.

Trump says otherwise. All you've shown is a contradiction.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 09:59:20 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemgalbraith@yahoo.com> wrote:

Here is Tunheim (one "n" not two) last year: https://tinyurl.com/vz8nj5ha Interesting that he says the Secret Service destroyed most of their
files including ones on threats to JFK. But the ARRB was able to
find backups of them.

You're lying. Watch folks, as Steven ABSOLUTELY REFUSES to cite for
his lie.

He can't.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 2:08:28 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 08:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

So the idea is that sixty years later - two generations? three? -
after these agents/figures are long gone we have a future generation
of people, again two?, covering up for their incompetence? For what reason?

Your whining doesn't change the fact that there are still classified documents that should be released.

The whining of conspiracy hobbyists doesn`t change the fact that they haven`t been.

You have no explanation for why they were classified...

Why would he need one?

but from some
that have been de-classified, it's CLEAR that they were classified to
avoid the truth. Such as the medical testimony before the HSCA.

You can say they contain a cure for cancer if you like.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

TRUMP IS A LYING CUNT
END OF DEBATE

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 12:05:14 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)