One thing I’ve noticed about any topic is this: He who usually gets first presentation, enjoys a bias towards their ideas on that topic.
The Warren Commission Report Summary itself has steered the whole conversation away from the totality of the evidence, and is basically an 888 page “This is the case for why we think Oswald, and Oswald alone did it."
It’s one of the reasons I like to learn everything I can about something from as many different sources as possible, provided those sources are well-researched and accurate. The WC is voluminous, where the Volumes contradict the 888pg conclusion. Great strategy, because they knew almost nobody would ever read the 888pg summary, let alone the encyclopedic "supporting volumes".
My apprehension about the various assassination research literature is that many conclusions were drawn early-on without access to comprehensive information, though most authors have done impressive amounts of research. Most authors are not ballisticians, ER Docs, or Intelligence professionals. They had to learn about those topics after-the-fact in a limited-information environment that required actual legwork and witness interviews.
People in the US up until 1963 were extremely trusting, only had 3 major TV news stations (CBS, NBC, ABC), a few magazines, and newspapers that fed them the same story from the AP. Starting with the assassination of JFK, followed by MLK and RFK, the 1960s broke a lot of the trust people had in the system. Combined with LBJ’s reversal of JFK’s position on Vietnam and the ensuing war where 58,281 US personnel were KIA, 153,372 WIA, and 1,584 MIA, there was a massive shift in the public trust among young and old alike.
That led to the Church Committee Hearings and HSCA in the 1970s. Most Americans are not aware of what happened with the Church Committee or HSCA and the AARB. I’ve always wondered how the 1960s JFK assassination authors would handle their manuscripts, given the incremental drip of declassified documents over the years, and especially now after the 2017 document dump.
We’re in a totally different era now where legacy corporate presstitute brothelslop is openly-ridiculed and has very low viewership, while an unfathomable number of micro and macro channels online dominate people’s attention.
It will be interesting to see who actually studies the thousands of pages of declassified documents that Trump will order opened-up. There is a lot of material already that has not been processed since the 2017 dump. The legacy assassination authors have already done their books from the 1960s-forward, but I haven’t seen any new blood open up the 2017 document dump and look at the case with a clean sheet.
What I do know is that the Presstitute corporate media all in-unison ran headlines in 2017 saying, “Nothing to see here really, no bombshells".....except LBJ and Hoover discussing how Oswald needed to be quickly pinned as the lone assassin, not to mention any of the countering or confusing evidence, that Oswald and Ruby knew each other and were seen working together, that key witnesses for the Church Committee and HSCA were ordered not to discuss any defector testimony relative to Oswald, that Hoover knew Oswald was not the guy they had photos of in Mexico City, etc.
Oswald in Mexico City at the Embassy. The US already had a vast photographic and layered surveillance apparatus in key foreign locations at the time, so we would be able to see images of Lee Harvey Oswald if he had actually gone to the Soviet and Cuban embassies, as alleged by the Warren Commission. This is who was in the photos:
