JFK Assassination Records – 2021 Additional Documents Release

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/release2021

by cf100clunk • 5 years ago

209 296 5 years ago

archives.gov

kreeben• 5 years ago

Disappointing that this has been on HN for 20 minutes and we still haven't found who did it.

Rebelgecko• 5 years ago

To be fair it looks like there's almost 1500 documents

MayeulC• 5 years ago

Feed it into GPT-3

Though I don't think it has that much attention?

xwdv• 5 years ago

Nothing a good grep search can’t handle, or maybe fuzzy finder.

zhengyi13• 5 years ago

Post on Reddit, then.

cruano2• 5 years ago

Because reddit's amateur vigilante efforts have such a good track record, just remember when they found the Boston bomber

duxup3• 5 years ago

Well maybe the right out of context text blurb hasn’t yet been found?

worik• 5 years ago

It was Robert Anton Wilson

mindcrime• 5 years ago

Or Anton LaVey. Those "Anton" characters are always up to no good!

munk-a3• 5 years ago

I remain strongly in the camp that it was Jimmy Carter - sure, everyone says he was just chilling out on a peanut farm but that's just a cover story man.

lapetitejort2• 5 years ago

I know this is a joke but I had to know what he was up to at the time. He was serving his first term in the Georgia State Senate.

devoutsalsa2• 5 years ago

That sounds like a character in an espionage role playing game.

“I’m a contract assassin for the CIA. They use me for domestic operations where they can’t operate. My cover is that I’m a peanut farmer. My code name is The Telephoto Lens, because I’m great at those long distance shots. My secondary skill is the ability to invoke a temporary peanut allergy in any person without a saving throw, which presents all sorts of opportunities for covert killings.”

chrisdhoover• 5 years ago

It was not Jimmy Carter but the killer rabbit who attacked him. Carter prevailed where Kennedy failed.

java-man• 5 years ago

If I recall correctly, the reason for withholding the documents after 50 years was (possibly) some agent or agents being still alive. So, who died?

briffle• 5 years ago

George H.W. Bush.. If you believe some VERY fringe dark places on the web.

yucky4• 5 years ago

Not as fringe as you might think.

I think the two biggest red flags on it are that he claimed to one of his biographers to not recall where he was when he found out JFK had been killed. An odd thing for anybody to say who was not just alive at the time, but especially someone involved with government. As it turns out, he checked out of the Dallas Sheraton that morning, down the street.

Second, and even more interesting is that the initial telegraph that went to DC to confirm the President had expired, was sent to J Edgar Hoover (understandable) and some unknown CIA person named George Bush.

10 years later, he then became the first CIA Director with "no previous CIA experience". Doesn't mean he was involved, but those are interesting facts.

edit: checked out that morning.

rectang3• 5 years ago

He was stowing away in the wheel well of the presidential limo. But he didn't fire the shot — he gave a secret sign to Oswald to proceed.

bastardoperator2• 5 years ago

So why not retract the names and release the documents? It doesn't make much sense.

yupper32• 5 years ago

If some powerful people know which agent(s) were in the area, and it's confirmed that an agent did it, they can put the pieces together.

It still doesn't make much sense, though.

StanislavPetrov5• 5 years ago

There are still many documents that are being withheld, and many more that have only been released with massive "redactions" which render them as good as being withheld.

rectang3• 5 years ago

JFC — JFK assassination? I see that these additional records are being released according to a presidential memorandum. They won't resolve the "controversy", though, since there's an industry of grifters which will keep it alive no matter what because their profits depend on it.

ajhurliman• 5 years ago

Are you implying the JFK assassination wasn't actually controversial and that fringe groups are making a mountain out of a molehill? That seems like a bold claim.

rectang3• 5 years ago

There's "controversy" because of the trauma to the collective national psyche. People want to believe that larger forces are at work, commensurate to the mythos of a national leader.

But if you just examine the facts of the case, it's obvious what happened — a tiny, pathetic little man assassinated a president — with a confidence approaching 100%. (But not getting to 100% — it's important to always maintain your scientific skepticism.) See for example _Case Closed_, Gerald Posner's nearly 30-year-old book. https://www.posner.com/case-closed

vmception• 5 years ago

What a flurry of activity

I skimmed a couple and they seem to provide no insight, which is pretty common in these declassifications

mrtnmcc• 5 years ago

The CIA chronology document is a nice overview.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/do...

criddell2• 5 years ago

I've tried to read a couple of random documents and the only question that has been raised in my mind is why were these withheld in the first place? It all seems very mundane.

voltaireodactyl• 5 years ago

Practically speaking, if {The Company} only withholds the good bits, people know anything classified is worth a damn.

By classifying mundanity along with the actual secrets, they tip the signal/noise ratio in the favor of {The Company}

andrewclunn• 5 years ago

Never really got into the JFK conspiracy thing. Though considering how blatant and obvious so many "conspiracies" are now, it makes me wonder if my initial dismissal of older ones has more to do with social conditioning than their veracity.

onychomys• 5 years ago

This is a super interesting read about people back in the 60s (...it was written in 1967, so they're contemporaries) who were already poring over documents, convinced there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1967/06/10/the-buffs

dboreham2• 5 years ago

I believe people (including LBJ and RFK) were convinced within a few minutes.

tomrod• 5 years ago

But not before?

Just kidding :)

It was a shame he died. I wonder what things would look like had he not.

misiti3780• 5 years ago

LBJ got caught on a hot mic talking to Richard Russell saying he thought there was more than one shooter.

seanw444• 5 years ago

Some believe LBJ was in on it.

eternalban• 5 years ago

That was a very interesting read. Thanks.

xtracto2• 5 years ago

Fascinating read. Every time I read these sort of old articles, I wonder who the people named in there were. For example:

was being saved by Marjorie Field, the wife of a prosperous Beverly Hills stockbroker,

Who was Mrs Field? Apparently she had a really large house and a lot of free time. Who was her husband? What was her legacy?

dpweb• 5 years ago

I think the important thing that it would be impossible to disprove a conspiracy, even if there wasn’t one, so that idea will always be alive.

But I’ve never heard a reasonable argument in favor of the magic bullet theory. This could only be resolved by non-circumstantial evidence which may or may not exist. Every release of evidence is important however, even if proof of a conspiracy is never found.

munk-a3• 5 years ago

The beauty about conspiracy theories is that #1 the government can never release documents that disprove a conspiracy theory (because they're the government and clearly those documents are an effort to further the cover up) - and independently released information that doesn't align with the theory could always be a government plant - thus see #1.

Fervently believed conspiracy theories die out with their believers or when people get bored.

tehjoker6• 5 years ago

The reason the conspiracy won't die is because the official story is totally implausible. Watch JFK Revisited

0110101001• 5 years ago

The bullet is only "magic" if you assume the Governor's seat is directly in front of and at the same height as JFK's. It isn't.

If you model the actual position of everyone in the car at the moment of that shot, it's a straight line from the sniper's nest through all the wounds it caused

https://youtu.be/PfSXkfV_mhA

selimthegrim2• 5 years ago

I believe the jacket JFK was wearing was bunched up as well

oneoff7867• 5 years ago

Fully in the camp that a sniper fired a shot, and then a bodyguard accidentally capped the president from behind. Never revealed out of government shame. Hopeful to learn more.

pplante• 5 years ago

That is one of the most out there conspiracy theories I have heard.

michaelwilson• 5 years ago

So you haven't heard the one about Ted Cruz's father being behind it?

oneoff7867• 5 years ago

Not enough of a nutter to argue passionately about it, but it’s not that out there. There were secret service men right behind him in a car that suddenly lurched forward after the shots were made (so a physical force could have caused the accident not just an itchy trigger finger on a guard). His wound implies behind shot from behind but placing the snipers behind hasn’t made sense ever.

daneel_w• 5 years ago

If it were true it would've been a fatal accident, but not a conspiracy. Covering it up afterwards, out of embarrassment, would've been the conspiracy - and keep in mind that the US govt. has covered up some pretty crazy things in the past. But I hear you, it's definitely a wild theory.

sneeds2• 5 years ago

Do you think the video is edited or where was the body guard that you think shot him?

vanusa7• 5 years ago

It wasn't a "video", back then they only had ... never mind.

kritiko• 5 years ago

In the car behind him - there's a 1992 book about this theory if you are curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_Error

kyaghmour2• 5 years ago

There's a documentary about that fwiw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn97UF_kfYo

tehjoker6• 5 years ago

That doesn't make sense. The Zapruder film shows him shot from the front. Jackie Kennedy goes and grabs a piece of brain or skull from the back of the car.

madspindel• 5 years ago

Jackie Kennedy goes and grabs a piece of brain or skull from the back of the car.

Sorry, not from the US but why would she do that?

jrm4• 5 years ago

For some reason, I'm remembering peoples' take on this being that she was scared and running away, and I'm weirdly glad to see that someone else understood this. It's all morbid and strange, but some weird part of me feels that its important that we see this distinction; this wasn't cowardice, she was trying to "fix it."

sgt101• 5 years ago

It looks like he's shot from the front because it looks like there's a splash of matter from his face - like you'd get if you threw a water balloon at him.

But rifle bullets aren't water balloons. They don't splash on human flesh - they do on concrete or steel - but not flesh. They go through and what you are seeing is ejecta from a bullet passing through JFK's head and exiting, leaving a high pressure mess behind and a small hole for it to leave by.

God knows what Jackie was doing, maybe getting something, maybe trying to get to the guard. God knows.

hindsightbias• 5 years ago

I think you mean from the front. Guy riding shotgun turned around and you see his arm extended.

oneoff7867• 5 years ago

Probably yeah. I’m like toes deep invested in this one.

swearwolf2• 5 years ago

Me too. All the shadowy conspiracy theories seem way too complicated, but a simple screwup and the desire to bury it out of embarrassment seems so completely in line with every organization I've ever worked in.

For those of you who aren't familiar, the Secret Service team had been working hard in the year prior to the assassination, and decided to blow off some steam by going out drinking the night before the parade. Because they were all quite hungover, they assigned a relatively new team member, who hadn't gone out drinking with them, to hold the brand new AR-15 they had just been assigned. After the first shot was fired, that agent stood up and began to aim the AR-15, and was immediately knocked back down by the car lurching forward. The theory is that he accidentally squeezed off a round at that moment, which by chance struck Kennedy in the head and killed him.

Supporting evidence:

- The type of bullet that hit Kennedy's head was a frangible one, which is designed to explode upon impact, whereas Oswald's ammunition was non-frangible.

- The third shell found at the book depository was in a different place, and was bent. It could have been used as a chamber plug to keep the chamber safe from dirt and moisture.

- A ballistic expert determined that the fatal shot was most likely to have come from the left rear seat of the Secret Service followup car.

nextstep4• 5 years ago

This would make sense if you ignore all of the facts of the case and also have no understanding of how the government works.

bborud• 5 years ago

So essentially Hanlon's Razor.

fatbird5• 5 years ago

Here's video by CBS where they easily and repeatedly reproduce Oswald's shots: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghmY6HmR4fs. Contrary to a lot of assertion, it wasn't that difficult.

refurb• 5 years ago

A bodyguard firing a handgun from that distance isn't going to blow a fist sized hole in his skull. It was definitely a rifle round.

oneoff7867• 5 years ago

That’s not a point of contention. This theory identifies the person, with a raised rifle, being jostled by a lurching car.

coding123• 5 years ago

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/do...

dboreham2• 5 years ago

This one makes interesting reading: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/do...

bastardoperator2• 5 years ago

Take one of the private tours at Dealey Plaza, it will make your head spin.

depingus• 5 years ago

The title "CONTACT OF LEE OSWALD WITH A MEMBER OF SOVIET KGB ASSASSINATION DEPARTMENT" caught my eye. "Assassination department" invokes images of bored assassins sitting in cubicles doing busy work. Unfortunately, all the pages are redacted (or poorly scanned).

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2021/do...

optimalsolver• 5 years ago

They really hit their targets.

scop• 5 years ago

Unlike up and to the right, they want their targets going back and to the left.

t3rabytes• 5 years ago

all the pages are all redacted

I'm not sure if I'm missing a joke here, those are easily legible.

chromaton• 5 years ago

Zoomed out, it all looks grey, but zoomed in, you can kind of read it.

sparky_• 5 years ago

Indeed, this looks like a poor quality scan on an old monochrome Xerox machine or the like, not an actual attempt at redacting content. It's readable in Preview on macOS at the right zoom level.

basch3• 5 years ago

Sounds ripe for a Coen Brothers / Armando Iannucci hybrid series. Burn After Reading / Fargo meets The Death of Stalin. Something like The Office, dealing with the administrative support side of an Assassination Department. An IT-esque Department troubleshooting BondQ gadgets remotely. Fishy expense reports.

mzs• 5 years ago

That's not redacted, it's just a dither.

dathinab• 5 years ago

For me it looks like neither.

Instead it looks like the paper was scanned in one of this plastic sleeves you can put documents in if you don't want to punch holes in them or give them additional protection. Older versions of this sleeves tend to not be perfectly clear but instead have a pattern similar to that you can seen in the scan.

Through in the end it's just speculation.

beepbooptheory2• 5 years ago

You spend so long researching this and learning about the CIA and Allan Dulles and Fair Play for Cuba, you kind of forget that some people still actually believe Lee Harvey Oswald was just some crazy guy acting alone.

Edit: I don't mean to be too snarky, I encourage anyone to do their own research. Its just with things like this... there are always few dozen "smaller" conspiracies attached or related to it, that I truly believe a rational person would easily accept: that the CIA, for example, used certain people as actors to help rally Cuba antagonism, that JFK was himself considered a threat by the establishment at the time, that the CIA has deep connections to crime (for practical purposes). All these things, are believable and motivated by real things, and fit reality better than the official narrative. I think it's understandable though, when confronted with the "big" conspiracy, to hesitate, to be like "Well c'mon lets not be crazy." But really, I implore the diligent, tell me how this thing is NOT the sum of its parts.

shadowgovt3• 5 years ago

Given that a lone gunman without military training successfully put a bullet in Reagan because he thought it'd get an actress to notice him, I don't know why people have a hard time believing that a lone trained Marine could take out an under-defended target.

pwned111• 5 years ago

And visit Dealey Plaza and look at the shot for yourself. It's so easy, especially with a scope. And then stand on the grassy knoll and realize that it would be the dumbest place to put an assassin.

Natsu• 5 years ago

You can still get a lot of conspiracies out of that one, too, especially among those who believe that Mark Felt (AKA Deep Throat)'s pardon was backdated.

It's too bad I don't know how much data is still available, but network analysis of some past conspiracies (or claimed conspiracies) and released FBI, etc. docs could prove interesting.

jollybean• 5 years ago

This is a good point.

Our classical line of conspiracy thinking may be "If the CIA was involved it means they killed him"

But maybe we are growing in our understanding that the world is very complicated, and that any number of actors could have been indirectly involved, with any number of motives, and that the 'final straw' may have been something a bit more simple, but facilitate by the complex web of weirdness.

It's very easy to believe that the CIA etc. wanted Castro's head and an invasion, and that they were upset JFK wasn't supportive, and that they took a lot of clandestine steps towards 'something'. It's even easier to believe that there were even rogue actors within the agency that either went to for for ideological purposes or maybe even by accident.

... and then the dominoes fell in an ugly way.

It'd be nice if some day we got to the bottom of this.

poulsbohemian• 5 years ago

It's very easy to believe that the CIA etc. wanted Castro's head and an invasion, and that they were upset JFK wasn't supportive, and that they took a lot of clandestine steps towards 'something'.

This is the part I never understand about this approach though - The Bay of Pigs invasion happened on Kennedy’s watch, as did his push back on the Missile Crisis and the embargo so this narrative that he was soft on Cuba or something just isn’t the case.

duxup3• 5 years ago

A weird dude acting alone seems entirely plausible and not surprising historically.

rkk33• 5 years ago

Yeah but this "weird dude" has the backstory of being a US Marine, who defected to the USSR and then defected back to the US... Why assume they stopped being a state actor.

elif• 5 years ago

an official narrative is necessarily plausible

miles• 5 years ago

But then a man like Jack Ruby killing Oswald under such circumstances doesn't make any sense:

Who Was Jack Ruby? https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/who-was-jack-ruby...

Why Jack Ruby Killed JFK's Assassin https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/jack-ru...

ATsch3• 5 years ago

Could you give any examples? It is definitely true that people are often portrayed as "weird dudes acting alone", however it is much rarer that that is actually true.

hutrdvnj• 5 years ago

How about: A weird dude acting alone killing a weird dude acting alone?

adam12• 5 years ago

A weird dude acting alone seems entirely plausible and not surprising historically.

*A weird dude that could break the laws of physics with 3 bullets and a rifle.

inasio• 5 years ago

One reasonable explanation I've heard for all the secrecy was that it was indeed Oswald, but in the heat of the moment one of the Secret Service guys shot JFK by mistake, and it was decided it was best to avoid the embarrassment.

tata712• 5 years ago

not surprising historically

When considering history through the lens of bulletpoints in a child's textbook, maybe.

StanislavPetrov5• 5 years ago

Its a plausible narrative if you are entirely ignorant of the actual facts of the case and the numerous investigations that followed.

ekianjo4• 5 years ago

As long as you believe the historical hoaxes.

mc323• 5 years ago

The above can be true without a conspiracy happening. I.e., the establishment saw JFKs Cuba missile crisis actions in addition to his plan to withdraw from foreign military actions as extreme policy disagreements without having them actually want to rub him out.

So both things can be true. They hated him and did everything in their power to undermine him AND some crazy thought he was such a threat he shot him… without the establishment having been involved in the action in any way.

Of course it’s also possible but less likely the establishment thought he was such a danger they HAD to take him out… but there raises the question, with Trump, whom they hated just as much, did they adjust their MO?

VRay• 5 years ago

Trump, whom they hated just as much

Does anyone in power actually hate Trump? So far as I could tell, all he did for most of his tenure was slash taxes and carefully shepherd the market upward while playing a lot of golf

jl62• 5 years ago

I’m someone who has not spent much time looking into this. Can you tell me, based on your research, on balance of probabilities, who did it and why?

vanusa7• 5 years ago

Downvoting for your arrogant tone ("some people still actually believe ...") in regard to a topic that is genuinely murky and has a lot of conflicting indications (and about which there's still a lot of misinformation kicking around).

Even though -- after having done my own share of diligent research on this topic -- I eventually came to the (disappointing) conclusion on the question of whether or not there was a deep state conspiracy behind the events of that day -- I don't fault anyone for what they believe on the topic (pro or con).

It's just what they believe, given the murky historical record and the fog of public belief and opinion about the matter. That doesn't mean (as you imply) that they're idiots or tools.

beepbooptheory2• 5 years ago

You are right, I was being a little snarkey. I apologize and I agree its a murkey thing, but I dont think generally people approach it with with the same kind of critical patience you have, and its not like tin foil hat types are the hegemonic voice on these matters.

cafard• 5 years ago

The son of a bank president, a one-time McCarthyite, an eager-enough Cold Warrior. He green-lighted the Bay of Pigs, he green-lighted the overthrow of Diem in South Vietnam. Where was his threat to the establishment?

akomtu• 5 years ago

I heard JFK was seriously considering to disband CIA, and the organization had to defend itself.

throwawaylinux2• 5 years ago

Even the most senior politicians have admitted it is unwise to cross the intelligence agencies, and they have six ways from Sunday to extract revenge on their political enemies.

y4mi• 5 years ago

Edit: I don't mean to be too snarky, I encourage anyone to do their own research

And yet you encourage people to dive into misinformation in order to somehow magically figure out what of the provided information are outright lies or just misinformed ideas.

If you equate "Doing your research" to reading articles, opinions or even quoted declassified files then you're another victim of our current misinformation crisis.

And I honestly doubt that anyone but the most dedicated historians still actually study this assassination while crosschecking everything, reading everything indepth to make an attempt too actually figure out the context it had back then etc.

It is a lot of work to actually gain knowledge on something, however we've somehow started to consider reading documents which have at best entertainment value as doing research...

D-Coder• 5 years ago

There were so many people involved, they should have just waited a year for the election and voted him out.

morpheos137• 5 years ago

LHO was just a deluded gunman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM98e17SaBI

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4724389/user-clip-deluded-gun...

But sometimes I wonder, is the world really this small?

https://www.nytimes.com/1981/04/01/us/a-life-that-started-ou...

https://www.king5.com/article/news/nation-now/russian-born-o...

pwned111• 5 years ago

Vincent Bugliosi's book on the assassination is highly recommended. It destroys the conspiracy narrative. It's so impressively thorough.

kylebenzle• 5 years ago

'During his [Vincent Bugliosi] eight years in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, he successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, best known for prosecuting Charles Manson. He is also a best selling author.'

You don't get a 99% conviction rate by being honest, I would say this wouldn't be a great choice of person to put ANY faith in really. I MUCH prefer Colin McLaren's take, an ex police investigator who took on the "case" in his retirement as if it were any other cold case in his book, JFK: The Smoking Gun.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Bugliosi [2] https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Smoking-Gun-Colin-McLaren/dp/1743...

pwned111• 5 years ago

Sorry, but "he's not honest because I say so" isn't an argument. Let's say he isn't honest. Ok. His citations and endnotes themselves are hundreds of pages (I think over 1,000 pages). I've frequently checked many of them, because I was curious about this or that topic. Nothing was out of context or false. On the other hand, I frequently will look at quotations or documents cited by the conspiracists and more often then not the quote is either 1) out of context or lacking important context, or 2) false.

jldl8052• 5 years ago

If you're trying to convince people that you're a rational investigator, not batshit conspiracy theorist, making blanket dismissive judgements about his lack of honesty based on your subjective interpretation of his conviction rate is not going to help.

nextstep4• 5 years ago

Here’s a great book on why you shouldn’t believe anything Vincent Bugliosi says: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHAOS:_Charles_Manson,_the_C...

pwned111• 5 years ago

I read that book too. Both are fascinating. That's why you rely on primary sources. Bugliosi's JFK book is forebodingly well documented. Hundreds and hundreds of pages of notes.

I've spent years reviewing books from "both sides" and none are perfect. But on balance, the conspiracy books rarely stand up to even the most basic fact checking.

e15ctr0n• 5 years ago

Jesse Ventura's book on the assassination is also highly recommended. It provides a great alternative to the Lee Harvey Oswald narrative. It's so impressively thorough.

They Killed Our President: 63 Reasons to Believe There Was a Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK (October 1, 2013, Jesse Ventura with Dick Russell & David Wayne) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17593244-they-killed-our...

pwned111• 5 years ago

After dumps of millions and millions of records, still no one can point to anything even close to a "smoking gun" that anyone other than Oswald killed the president.

dj_gitmo• 5 years ago

There are a lot of goofy theories about the JFK assassination, but I don't think you can dismiss all of them. The theory that makes the most sense to me is that Oswald was part of it, but that he also was set up to be the fall guy.

There is evidence that Oswald was recruited by US intelligence when he was a teen in the Civil Air Patrol, and that he had gone to the Soviet Union as a false defector (the Soviets did the same to the US). He was part of operation to kill JFK, but then he was set up to be the fall guy behind his back. He claimed he was a patsy before he was he was killed.

If he wasn't working for the government than some of his actions and associations before the assassination are just baffling. It's also a mystery why he was able to return to the US without any issues after defecting.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/1290 https://jfkfacts.org/was-oswald-a-cia-operative-or-not/

pwned111• 5 years ago

I think it's completely legit to question Oswald and his history. It is just weird. I agree. Was he part of a larger conspiracy? I don't know. I sort of doubt it after reading a lot about his early life. But I have no doubt he pulled the trigger and killed the president. I think it's possible that the gov't tried very hard to cover up the fact that he was under surveillance because of his strange past. But I'm not sure we'll ever know. I know that after so many docs have been released, there is no smoking gun.

When it comes to the patsy argument, read about his interrogation and the cops who interrogated him. The notes are very illuminating. Oswald clearly behaved in a guilty way. Very smug. Remember that his entire life he thought he was destined for something big. He even called his diary "My Historical Diary." He was a loser that needed to do something to be relevant.

xtracto2• 5 years ago

(I'm not American btw)

I find it very plausible that although most of those things happened, there was no actual conspiracy to kill JFK. Like, there might have been a lot of chit-chat in those circles against JFK and all of what he was doing, but there was no concrete conspiracy to kill him. At the same time, there is this unstable person that seeing and hearing everything that happens around him, believes he will be doing a "greater good" if he killed the president.

Then, the he was silenced mainly because of all the other stuff that he was part of.

It's akin to the time when Trump was president (or Obama for all that matters): There was a lot of chat in the internet and elsewhere about how bad he was as president, how he was damaging the country, yada yada. It would only take one crazy person in the middle of a crazy clique to really go on with it.

adamnemecek• 5 years ago

What’s not mentioned enough is that Lee Harvey Oswald lived in Soviet Union for like three years.

emerged• 5 years ago

I did it, but you’ll never get me to confess!

nextstep4• 5 years ago

Oliver Stone has a new documentary this year with more information from newly declassified documents: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_Revisited:_Through_the_L...

Most interesting is the similar almost-assassinations that were tipped off in the months leading up to Dallas. Similar story, with a CIA asset like Oswald thinking they were tipping off secret service but were likely being setup as the fall guy. More information on why the Secret Service didn’t acknowledge (and buried) these very similar events in the 1963 FBI investigation and for the Warren commission is probably in the documents that the Biden again delayed declassifying this year.

But anyway, it is amazing how many Americans still seem to think there’s some doubt that this was a coup. The US is a very well-propagandized nation. The country has an agency that specializes in regime change, and a president that was very actively trying to reel in this agency was shot in the head. And then the guy they pinned it on was shot in broad daylight as well. And then the president’s brother was running for election, loudly talking about opening up the investigation to his brother’s death and he was also shot. But it’s somehow crazy talk to think any of this might be connected!

donclark• 5 years ago

Why do we not have an answer from 4chan yet?

regnull• 5 years ago

The facts are, Nikita Khrushchev was humiliated by the outcome of the Cuban missile crisis. Oswald lived in USSR, came back to the US to discover that nobody really cares, and was eager to gain some sort of celebrity status. He was also nuts. Could the Soviet Union know about his plans and give him some help? Possibly. This would also explain the secrecy around the documents. Any decisive knowledge that a foreign country had a major role in an assassination of an American president would lead to a war between two nuclear nations. We probably wouldn't know until the last documents are declassified.

nextstep4• 5 years ago

The facts are that Oswald was working for US intelligence his entire career and was not the one who actually pulled the trigger to kill Kennedy. The official position of the US government is that there was a plot amongst many individuals ie. a conspiracy to assassinate the president.

StanislavPetrov5• 5 years ago

Anyone who wants to take a deep dive into one of the more fascinating and under-discussed aspects of the JFK assassination should look into the murder of Mary Pinchot Meyer. She was married to CIA agent Cord Meyer and was also romantically involved with JFK. She was murdered in Washington DC less than a year after JFK (a murder that remains unsolved). Following her murder, her sister's husband Ben Bradlee (long time editor of the Washington Post) went to her house to get her diary. Upon arrival he found James Jesus Angleton (then CIA counterintelligence chief) burglarizing the house and searching for the diary. Bradlee retrieved the diary and handed it over to Angleton, who subsequently burned it. During the trial of Ben Crump (a black man who was tried and acquitted for the murder of Meyer), neither Bradlee or Angleton ever mentioned the existence of the diary or their role in destroying it.

Its a fascinating rabbit hole that raises more questions than it answers and is worth checking out for anyone interested in the subject.

shrimpx• 5 years ago

Thanks, I read the Wikipedia article. I get the impression that the US politics and intelligence of that era were just such nasty and morally corrupt environments. The affairs, the drugs, the secret service and CIA henchmen acting like criminal cleanup crews. The chief of CIA counterintelligence personally picking a lock like a petty vagrant, to destroy a diary detailing JFK’s drug-filled sexual escapades that were set up by the SS in the White House. Holy shit. No wonder we have so many conspiracy theories from that era.

JFK Assassination Records – 2021 Additional Documents Release

Related Stories