Oliver Stone Was Right About The Central Intelligence Agency By Jacob G. Hornberger!!
(2017-11-02 at 15:01:14 )

Oliver Stone Was Right about the Central Intelligence Agency by Jacob G. Hornberger

I can not decide which is more amusing: the Central Intelligence Agencys use of "National Security" to justify keeping secret its 50-year-old records in the John F. Kennedy assassination or the mainstream medias response to the continued secrecy.

On the one hand, the Central Intelligence Agencys use of "National Security" to justify keeping 98 percent of the still-secret records is palpably laughable. However one defines that nebulous term "National Security," one thing is patently clear: Nothing - absolutely nothing - would have happened to the United States if the Central Intelligence Agency had been forced to let the American people see its still-secret, 50-year-old John F. Kennedy records on October 26, 2018, as the 1992 John F. Kennedy Records Act mandated. The United States would not have fallen into the ocean. The federal government would not have turned Red.

After all, what happened to the United States when only 2 percent of the long-secret records were finally released last week? Nothing. The United States is still standing and the commies have not taken over the federal government. But do not forget: For more than 50 years, the Central Intelligence Agency has maintained, falsely as it turns out, that disclosing those 2 percent of its records would threaten "National Security."

Although the mainstream media does not seem to be buying this national-security nonsense, they simply cannot bring themselves to reach the commonsense and logical conclusion: The 98 percent of the long-secret Central Intelligence Agency records contain more circumstantial evidence of guilt - circumstantial evidence that demonstrates that Oliver Stone was right when he posited in his movie JFK that the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, effect one of its storied regime-change operations right here in the United States on November 22, 1963.

There is something important to keep in mind about Stones movie: It was the impetus that caused the American people to force Congress to enact the JFK Records Act in 1992, which forced the Central Intelligence Agency and other federal agencies to disclose their JFK-assassination records to the American people. If Congress had not inserted the provision into the law that gave the Central Intelligence Agency another 25 years to keep its records secret, the American people would have seen the records that the Central Intelligence Agency is still steadfastly keeping secret 25 years ago.

The media emphasizes that the 2 percent of "he records that were released contain no "smoking guns” that point to the Central Intelligence Agencys guilt in the assassination.

By "smoking gun" they are referring to a videotaped confession or a Central Intelligence Agency memorandum setting forth plans for the assassination. Having convinced themselves of the validity of the official theory - that the president was killed by a lone-nut former United States Marine communist, they are unable to recognize the pieces of important circumstantial evidence that, over the decades, have filled in the overall mosaic of a Central Intelligence Agency regime-change operation, one based on the purported need to protect the nation from a president whose policies and actions were supposedly threatening "National Security."

In figuring out what happened in the Kennedy assassination, it is important that a person employ common sense, logic, and a critical mindset. It is the only way to pierce through all the so-called conspiracy theories about the assassination, some of which are undoubtedly designed to confuse and confound people from piercing through to the truth.

Why is the circumstantial evidence important? Because there would have been a "smoking gun" videotaped confession or even a memorandum detailing the assassination of the president. There is no way that the Central Intelligence Agency would be that stupid. In fact, long ago, the Central Intelligence Agency made it clear that no Central Intelligence Agency official should ever mention in writing any of its state-sponsored assassinations, for fear that the record might, inadvertently, come to light.

That means that in determining what actually happened, circumstantial evidence becomes critically important. No matter how much planning goes into a state-sponsored assassination, it is inevitable that some things will not go according to plan. It is like an army operation - no matter how much planning goes into it, things inevitably go wrong. And when things do not go according to plan, circumstantial evidence oftentimes demonstrates that.

The Central Intelligence Agency knows that. That is why from the very beginning of the John F. Kennedy assassination, secrecy was of the utmost importance. That is why most of the Warren Commission proceedings were shrouded in secrecy. That is why the records of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and the military were ordered to be kept secret for 75 years after the Warren Commission issued its report. It is why they are still steadfastly keeping their records secret.

After all, ask yourself: If the president were really killed by some lone-nut assassin who suddenly decided to kill the president for no reason at all, would it really be necessary to shroud the official investigation in secrecy for 75 years?

And ask yourself this: If the Central Intelligence Agency really did orchestrate the assassination, would it not be in the Central Intelligence Agencys interest to shroud the entire operation in secrecy in order to prevent people from discovering the pieces of circumstantial evidence that pointed to their guilt?

Let me give you an example of circumstantial evidence that point to the Central Intelligence Agencys guilt, which is part of the two percent of the records that the Central Intelligence Agency just released. It gives you an idea of why the Central Intelligence Agency cannot afford to release the other 98 percent of the records it is still keeping secret.

The 2 percent that was released includes a report marked "Secret" from J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which states as follows:

"There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead. The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin."

Hoover wrote that secret report on November 24, 1963, never dreaming, of course, that the American people would ever see it. That is the same day that the presidents accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was murdered (and forever silenced) by Jack Ruby.

That is an incredible report. While some of the mainstream media are highlighting it, few of them are drawing the obvious inference - that Hoovers aim was to shut down any further investigation into the assassination as part of the cover-up of the crime.

Instead, some in the media are simply pointing out that Hoovers report is "old news," given United States Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbachs statement to the same effect.

Here is what Katzenbach stated in a memorandum that he began writing just a few hours after Oswald had been killed, which Katzenbach sent to the White House on November 25, 1963:

"The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

Now, here is where your common sense, logic, and critical mindset come into play.

Does this sound like law enforcement officers to you? Is this what you would ordinarily expect from law-enforcement officers when someone is killed, especially a federal official?

Think about what happens when a cop is murdered. What do the other cops do? Do they not pull out all the stops to figure out everyone who was involved in the murder?

In 1985, a Drug Enforcement Agency agent named Kiki Camarena was kidnapped and murdered in Mexico. His brutally tortured body was found in a rural area in Mexico.

The Drug Enforcement Agency immediately pulled out all the stops to figure out every person who had conceivably participated in Camarenas murder. They even went so far as to kidnap people in Mexico who they suspected of being involved in the murder and bringing them back to the United States to stand trial. Here is the "Wikipedia" entry on Camarena.

That is the way we would expect federal law enforcement officials to operate, especially when a federal official is murdered. That is just common sense.

In 1982, a federal judge named John H. Wood Jr. was assassinated in San Antonio, Texas. No one knew who had done the assassinating. Again, federal officials responded in the way we would expect them to respond. They pulled out all the stops to figure out everyone who was involved in the killing, including secretly listening in on conversations between suspects and their attorneys, which constituted a grave violation of the attorney-client privilege. Three people were later convicted of crimes relating to the assassination, including the crime of conspiracy. Here is a "New York Times article" about the case.

Now, let us return to the John F. Kennedy case. The president of the United States, the highest federal official in the land, has just been assassinated. A suspect, Lee Harvey Oswald, is almost immediately taken into custody. He repeatedly denies his guilt and even goes one important step further by asserting that he is being framed for the crime. Two days later, Oswald is assassinated while in custody of the Dallas police.

And suddenly the federal governments highest law-enforcement officer in the nation and the second highest federal official in the Department of Justice are preparing memos and reports that effectively say: "A lone nut did it. His claim of innocence was false. He is now dead. Shut down the investigation immediately."

Does that make any sense? Does that comport with common sense? Why not instead determine if he was culpable and had confederates?

Hoover and Katzenbach were not the only ones. On the very night of the assassination, President Johnson, through his aide Cliff Carter, telephoned Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade and instructed him to not investigate any evidence of a conspiracy in the assassination - to simply charge Oswald as the lone assassin.

Does that make any sense? Does it comport with common sense? How could Johnson know on the very night of the assassination that Oswald, if culpable, had no confederates? How could the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation know that? How could the deputy attorney general in the Justice Department know that?

Indeed, does it make any sense that a team of Secret Service agents used the threat of deadly force to prevent Texas state officials from conducting an autopsy on the dead presidents body, knowing full well that Texas law required such an autopsy? Does it make any sense that a president of the United States (Lyndon Johnson) would order that team of Secret Service agents to do that?

Does it make sense that Johnson would patiently wait for the body at Dallas Love Field instead of immediately taking off, especially given the supposed threat of a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union? (See my book " The Kennedy Autopsy" for more details about this episode and about the fraudulent nature of the JFK military autopsy.)

Consider the terrorist attack in New York City this week. Suppose law-enforcement officials had suddenly announced after the arrest of the suspect, Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov: "He was undoubtedly a lone-nut terrorist and so we have suddenly decided to shut down the investigation without seeing if he had confederates."

Would you not at least raise your eyebrows at such an announcement? Would you not instead expect them to do exactly what they are doing today-pulling out all stops to determine whether Saipov conspired with others to commit the crime?

Given that we already knew about the Katzenbach memo and Johnsons instructions, an important question arises: Why would the Central Intelligence Agency keep the Hoover report secret from the American people? Do not forget, after all, that they have kept the Hoover report secret for more than 50 years. Their grounds? "National Security," the same ground that they are still keeping the 98 percent of their president John F. Kennedy assassination records secret.

But how in the world would the disclosure of Hoovers report threaten "National Security"? Would disclosure of the report cause the United States to fall into the ocean or cause the communists to take over the federal government?

Of course not. We all know that the record has now been released and that nothing bad has happened to the United States. What they really mean is that disclosure of the evidence would damage the Central Intelligence Agency, which the Central Intelligence Agency equates to a threat to "National Security."

There can be only one reason for keeping the Hoover report secret: It provided further evidence of the cover-up of the crime. And it was obviously important since it came from the chief federal law-enforcement officer in the country, J. Edgar Hoover.

The mainstream media has accepted the official narrative, which is why they begin with the presumption that Oswald was guilty.

Given that mindset, the only question that enters their mind is: Did Oswald act alone or did he work with others to assassinate president Kennedy? Given that mindset, they cannot see any significance to the Hoover report. It is just no big deal to them.

But let us begin with a different assumption. Let us assume that Oswald was, in fact, innocent. Let us assume, even further, that he was an intelligence agent who the Central Intelligence Agency was framing him for the crime - that he was exactly what he said he was, a patsy.

In that case, the Hoover report becomes a critically important piece of circumstantial evidence because it adds one more piece to the mosaic set forth in Oliver Stones movie JFK - that in a national-security regime-change operation, the United States national-security establishment orchestrated the assassination of President Kennedy and then used overwhelming secrecy, based on purported concerns for "National Security," to cover it up.

And it would explain, in simple, understandable terms, why the Central Intelligence Agency is still fighting hard to steadfastly keep Americans from ever seeing the 98 percent of the records that are still being kept secret.

For the overall mosaic of what happened in the John F. Kennedy assassination and why all the bogus "conspiracy theories" are nothing more than ways to prevent people from piercing through to the truth, see the following:

The " The Kennedy Autopsy" by Jacob Hornberger

"JFKs War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated" by Douglas Horne

"Regime Change: The Kennedy Assassination by Jacob Hornberger"

"The CIA, Terrorism, and the Cold War: The Evil of the National Security State" by Jacob Hornberger

"CIA & JFK: The Secret Assassination Files link" by Jefferson Morley

"The National Security State and JFK.", a FFF conference featuring Oliver Stone and ten other speakers

"Altered History: Exposing Deceit and Deception in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence", a five-part video by Douglas P. Horne

Printed here with permission from Mr. Jacob G. Hornberger of The Future of Freedom Foundation!! Their Great Website!!