Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajhurliman | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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

One method of achieving goals like this are to find the one man, groom him, and enable him to do what you want him to do.

The FBI runs sting operations like this all the time where they find dumb big talkers, encourage their little group over beers, and then sell them guns or explosives or whatever and arrest them.

It is a standard covert operations strategy, get a vulnerable person to do it for you and your actions leave very few fingerprints.

Not saying you're right or wrong but please provide supporting evidence for the claims you've made. It sounds very armchair espionage to me...

There you go, the FBI is known for it's entrapment plots that are very...borderline to say the least. Motherjones had a small series covering how that

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/fbi-terrorist-i...

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/terror-factory-...

Not saying this has anything to do with JFK, but the comment you replied to got the part about the FBI right.

Man... that shit is wild. I'm from a country with a different legal system to the US and I cant help but feel like this would be a form of entrapment here(probably not using the term right from a legal perspective). Is the logic in the US that the individual could/should refuse to participate at each and every step? Ensuring they aren't 'entrapped' despite being presented with a manufactured scenario designed to entice crime because they voluntarily preceded? Especially in the second link where the individual was described as 'dim', if we replace the undercover FBI agent with say, a supportive non-radical religious figure in the Mosque, does this young man go on to try to make a bomb?

Really interesting links thanks!

" FBI entrapped suspects in almost all high-profile terrorism cases in US "

https://www.rt.com/usa/174484-hrw-fbi-sting-entrapment/

Wow! Really interesting and pretty condemning for the extensive modern use in the US, I just wrote a comment about if some of these stings would or should be considered entrapment replying to another user so I wont repeat myself but thanks for that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Big_(police_procedure)

Why are the conspiracy theorists "big final pieces of evidence" always unrelated wikipedia articles? It's just like you guys are admitting you don't know how to evaluate sources for credibility and you don't even know it.

To be fair that wasn't the user I asked for sources, we should see if they have something still. Also that wiki link was fairly interesting, particularly the Hart case in 2014 in which the Canadian Supreme Court found that using the confession drawn from the Mr. Big technique was inadmissible (although their was a later exception in a relation to a violent case that already had supporting evidence). To me, this would actually support the point the others were making a bit at least... If we can believe that this would have been more common prior to 2014, at least in Canada then MAYBE that could indicate that it was/is commonplace in the US which AFAIK does not have a ruling like in the Hart case.

Then you assassinate the patsy so he can never tell anybody about his 'friends' who talked him into it.

In the first two pages of these documents it seems like there's evidence Oswald met with someone involved in the KGB assassination program and a Soviet chauffer reported Soviet involvement with the assassination before and after the event. How does that with your description?

Maybe its the other way around. Him pursuing them, them rebuking.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/534727-woman-ac...

Could be, but I think there are a lot of things about the assassination that belie the description of it as an open and shut simple affair. Potential involvement with the KGB is one of those things.

Why wouldn't the government have revealed that information at the time, or 20 years ago? On the other hand, I suppose I have to ask myself why would it have taken them nearly 60 years to fabricate these documents?

I don't know. I wish the government would also realize a summary of the important information and why it was classified for so long. Looking at this stuff a lot of it seems random or meaningless but then I wonder why they didn't declassify it on schedule.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com