The secret JFK assassination files are finally here | Hacker News Reader

The secret JFK assassination files are finally here

axios.com

Gotta love how this one needed to be secret for so long:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/10...

"In summary, and based on the above information, it is concluded that the letter was transmitted via normal Swedish postal channels. The letter is probably a "crank letter", most likely written by a Swede, using a Swedish-keyboard typewriter and Swedish stationary."

Im really worried this was not tongue in cheek and someone actually had to spend time doing this.

The mere thought of this kind of bureaucracy requiring this lengthy reply to a nonsense letter worries me.

It’s amazing that in the scene in JFK he talked about how (I don’t remember the scene exactly) presidential records on the JFK assassination would be sealed until the 2030s, and how excited he was that his grandchildren would be able to read it.

And even with all that pushback it’s still true. They keep releasing 70%, making that last bit of the documents that’s unreleased ever smaller. But there’s always something unreleased!

Is there anything of interest in there? I imagine not 30% is quite a lot.

Surely all the juicy stuff is held back.

Looks like we are now allowed to know that the CIA had agents in Australia but didn't want to admit it:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/10...

...was that really so secret 60 years ago that we had to keep the memo about the memo under wraps? And still so secret that even this revelation has so many redactions?

Given their influence in the toppling of Australia's democratically elected prime minister in 1975, I'm not surprised.

Oh wow you nailed it I reckon.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-...

I had no idea.

Curious.

I believe at this point most of the world realises that the US intelligence has successfully infiltrated every nation ally or otherwise so quiet bizarre to redact.

Edit: I hadn't read the reply below I think he nailed it. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/23/gough-...

If they keep holding back documentation on a public event that occured decades ago the truth is certainly awful, along the lines of "Mossad/Shin Bet did it."

If Russia did it the information would have been released by now due to total collapse of diplomatic relations.

Six decades is not such a long time. No matter how boring the truth is about the JFK assassination, some portion of the documents will still reveal tangentially-related state secrets.

The most credible theory at this point seems to be that it was indeed a CIA operation and that George Bush Sr. ran the field ops on it. Too many pieces of evidence don't make any sense if he wasn't involved in the planning and cleanup portion.

Sounds crazy reading the above, but as skeptical as I've been over the years of every theory, this is the closest to the truth based on the evidence that we have.

So true. He was a CIA officer at the time, but he's the only guy who didn't remember where he was that day!

But Barbara Bush said in her memoirs that he was in Texas, near Dallas, at that time.

In the absence of the truth, there will ever only be theories.

That makes a lot of sense when you read about Félix Rodríguez.

I have no idea what evidence there is linking the former president to this, but anyways... If the big secret were that the CIA was involved, why would Trump have extended the secrecy? The CIA is supposed to be at the core of the deep state.

There are a few things of note. First, when Bush Sr. became Director of the CIA he claimed to have never worked for the CIA, making him the first civilian to head the Agency. It was always odd since nobody could figure out what he did to earn the Directorship with no previous CIA involvement. That was in 1975, but we learned years later that wasn't true[0]. Bush was not only in the CIA, he was the main project lead for all things Cuba, using his Zapata oil business as cover. Coincidentally, the codename for the Bay of Pigs Invasion was ZAPATA.

Bush Sr was so important in 1963 (despite being officially just an oilman and a Senate candidate from Texas) that J. Edgar Hoover as head of the FBI sent Bush a memo right after JFK was killed briefing him about the effect this assassination was having on Cuban exiles. The CIA essentially claimed years later that it wasn't the same George Bush, but never offered an explanation of who this other George Bush was who was so important that Hoover would be briefing him on the developments.

So Bush was unofficially in the CIA in 1963 heading up field operations related to Cuba, but officially he was running Zapata Oil and he was running for the open US Senate seat in Texas. And yet years later when Kitty Kelly was interviewing him for his biography and she asked where he was when he first heard about the JFK Assassination, he said he didn't recall. Everybody alive when JFK was killed remembers exactly where they were when they heard the news, just like people who were alive on 9/11 remember it clear as day what they were doing when they saw the towers fall. And yet here is a guy doing work for the CIA which was very much in opposition to what Kennedy wanted done in Cuba, and who was running for US Senate and yet when JFK was killed he doesn't really remember it well enough to know what he was doing at the time.

Well thanks to the Kitchel memo[1], we now know that Bush Sr. was staying in the Dallas Sheraton Hotel, a block away from where JFK was killed, and checked out after the assassination.

Also in that memo it shows that he effectively called in a false flag on some other guy named James Parrot[1], for unknown reasons. It could be argued that it helped distract the Secret Service away from Oswald, who was already being at least passively surveilled due to his prior known associations regarding Cuba and political "activism" in general.

This is a lot of circumstantial evidence that is hard to explain away with a different explanation. As to why Trump wouldn't expose any of this information, that would assume Trump was more than just a conman grifter who tricked his way into the White House. Of that, I have not seen enough evidence.

[0] https://ia801304.us.archive.org/17/items/nsia-CIABushGeorgeH...

[1] https://i.redd.it/n669oefmdb3z.jpg

There's a picture of him there that day near the TSBD. It's fuzzy and not close-up, but you can make out his features on close analysis.

Barbara Bush said in her memoirs that he was in Texas, near Dallas, at that time.

Trump, for all the things he did that were "rebellious", was in lock-step with the deep state for not releasing all of the files. I'd like to see the discussion Trump had with the Archives custodian's or whomever has the power to release or not allow the release of such things.

Trump was smart to have his own private security detail.

In the absence of the truth, there will ever only be theories.

The photo isn't conclusive one way or the other but it actually doesn't matter in light of all of the other evidence placing him there during the assassination.

Given the allegation that the intelligence agency deleted heads of state you can imagine the head of state has little real power over the intelligence agency. The illusion is just that.

Well that's the core of the deep state theory; but for it to apply in this instance you'd have to allege that the deep state is capable of issuing EOs against the will of the president. That's taking things... a bit far.

Given how Trump abused the DOJ during his tenure, one might suspect that he was looking forward to employing the CIA to do the same to his own enemies.

I don't like getting into politics but Correction: the DOJ abused Trump. If you hate Trump, that's fine, but that's a different discussion.

JFK very much disliked how the CIA had it's own secret wars and operations without presidential approval or even knowledge of their existence. Trump, for all the things he did that were "rebellious", was smart to have his own private security detail.

JFK's assassination was the original fake news.

Did JFK dislike it as much as Diem did?

As much as I’d like to avoid politics myself ;), I’m afraid we just gotta agree to disagree on your premise. my friend.

I hate nobody, but I am bothered greatly by those who seek to weaken their own country by selling its secrets to others — for their own personal profit.

That Trump and members of his administration remain free, despite openly doing just that on numerous occasions, would seem to undermine your belief that the DOJ did anything other than ask Trump “how high?”.

So, Correction: no, they did not :)

Trump publicly called them Nazis; I doubt they're on good terms.

In my experience folks in that line of work couldn’t care less what’s said about them in public, so long as the budget is increased.

The juice: https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/release2022

Some interesting stuff in there, just from browsing the overview .XLSX file.

> In a memo, President Biden authorized more than 70% of the roughly 16,000 remaining files on JFK's death to "now be released in full."

What about the remaining percentage? Why is that not being released?

I wonder if it's along the lines of 30% of the pages have PII on them. something along the lines of "visited ${person} at their home located at ${address}" and they're censoring that portion?

Will be interesting to see what all's been released, but I feel like at this point he (jfk) had so many enemies (Cuba/three letter agencies/mob) that short of someone coming forward with a confession and new solid evidence we'll never know much beyond Oswald.

I do think most likely though that Oswald was just off his rocker.

I think that they will release all the files eventually while leaving out actual secrets that would harm security, and also leave out the names of the people and the groups/societies/organizations/mafia who were responsible.

In the 2017 release, some files were shown to have been rereleased with fewer redactions, while others had added redactions. This is not likely nefarious but due to either a different/newer team working on them, or a mistake, or perhaps changing to a different document system.

> 70% ... "now released in full."

Is this the new "70% of the time it works every time"? (I get that "in full" means "not redacted" but it's still a funny juxtaposition of words.)

It's usually because that information relates to other sensitive intelligence sources.

I mean that's what they _tell_ us anyway

Sure but the idea isn’t exactly preposterous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com