Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 03/01/2025 Vol.505, Q Day 2682

It would be interesting to run all these new JFK files through an AI that is trained to look for patterns of obfuscation and learn if they even considered anything besides a lone gunman.

.

Can you make a shadow on sand? Those 2,000 pounders are going to make sand out of all the regular scenic tourist spots. No posing in front of the casbah——soonish?

4104

From way BTT; needs checking:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02vKGUFdvGRtYTsJkMSHooENWDh6GTb4fEwnsftUftEiktGiDWmT86fpV6yb8dkex8l&id=100064381164299&mibextid=RtaFA8

“
BREAKING: 🚨 Representatives Eli Crane, Andy Olges, Andrew Clyde and Brandon Gill tee up Articles of Impeachment for 4 activist judges blocking Trump orders.

HT EXX Alerts via X
“

Is this space x rescue the sky event with the may 10th delta???

Is that about when they took off?

gisd O

https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/chief-justice-roberts-rebukes-trump-after-he-called-impeach-judge-over

Chief Justice Roberts rebukes Trump after he called to impeach judge over deportation ruling

Impeach Roberts now!

ThankQ!!!!!

ThankQ LJ for the links!

https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4301258/posts?page=4074#4074

ThankQ CtC for the links!

https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4301258/posts?page=4075#4075

Great!

Mike Pompeo...

https://youtube.com/shorts/nT88RVbRLqY?si=qkUmLzGWeUGAAbb_

The Files may be behind behind Pompeo’s
tasteless run for the presidency.

I’ve had to be pulled back regarding Bondi - Perhaps it’s just my impatience on wanting things to start turning better.

In reality, things are turning better - the enemy is fighting hard to keep their corruption games going, but the layers of the fraudulent onion are being peeled back one by one.

Still want to see some big names getting perp-walked though.

I’ve gone through a bit of the released JFK documents. In only one page I’ve seen so far mentions Oswald. A Russian government official warned the U.S. that Oswald was an assassin and was going to kill JFK. He also warned of the assassination of MLK.

Everything else I’ve seen so far relates to Cuba.

-SB

That’s ‘cause we gonna be Rockin’ the Casbah!
They really won’t like it.

MarQ

It would be interesting to run all these new JFK files through an AI that is trained to look for patterns of obfuscation and learn if they even considered anything besides a lone gunman.

[F]:
Please review todays JFK FILE release at https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk reporting report any obfuscation by type and learn if they even considered anything besides a lone gunman.

I’ve reviewed the JFK assassination records released today, March 18, 2025, as available through the National Archives at https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk. My analysis is based on the information presented on that page and related content from the National Archives, given that I can search the web and analyze linked content when applicable. Below, I’ll address your request by reporting any obfuscation found (by type) and assessing whether the release considers anything beyond the lone gunman theory.

Overview of the Release

The National Archives page indicates that this release stems from Executive Order 14176, signed by President Donald J. Trump on January 23, 2025, mandating the declassification of records related to the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr. The JFK portion of this release reportedly includes approximately 80,000 pages of documents, building on prior releases and adding newly declassified material, such as 2,400 FBI records discovered in 2025. The page emphasizes transparency, stating that the vast majority of the JFK Assassination Records Collection—over 6 million pages—has been declassified and is accessible either online or in-person at the National Archives in College Park, Maryland.

Findings on Obfuscation

Obfuscation refers to the deliberate obscuring or withholding of information, often through redactions, vague language, or omission of key details. Here’s what I found, categorized by type:

1. Redactions in Documents
The National Archives notes that some records in this release contain "newly released information," implying that previous versions were redacted. However, the extent of remaining redactions in the 80,000 pages is not explicitly detailed on the main page. Prior releases (e.g., 2022 and 2023) involved agency reviews to remove redactions, and this release follows a similar process. Without direct access to each document’s full text at this moment (as the site provides links to the National Archives Catalog rather than inline PDFs), I can’t quantify the exact number or nature of redactions in today’s batch. However, the lack of a clear statement confirming that all redactions have been lifted suggests some may persist, potentially obscuring sensitive details like informant identities or intelligence methods.

Assessment: Partial obfuscation likely remains due to incomplete disclosure of previously withheld sections, though the scale is unclear without document-by-document review.

2. Vague or Ambiguous Language
The main page describes the release as supporting “maximum transparency” but does not specify what new insights or conclusions emerge from the 80,000 pages. It mentions that the records include FBI, CIA, and other agency documents, but there’s no summary of findings—e.g., whether they reinforce the lone gunman theory or introduce alternative perspectives. This vagueness leaves interpretation open-ended, which could obscure significant shifts in narrative if they exist.

Assessment: The absence of a detailed executive summary or key takeaways introduces mild obfuscation by omission, forcing researchers to sift through raw data without guidance.

3. Omission of Analytical Context
The release provides raw records (e.g., FBI reports, CIA memos) but lacks an official analysis or commentary from the National Archives or contributing agencies on whether these documents challenge or confirm existing narratives. For instance, there’s no mention of whether the 2,400 newly discovered FBI records or details about Oswald’s Mexico City visits (noted in prior releases) alter the established story. This omission shifts the burden of interpretation entirely to the public, potentially burying significant details in the volume of material.

Assessment: This is a form of passive obfuscation—by not highlighting critical findings, the release may obscure evidence that doesn’t fit the lone gunman framework unless explicitly sought out.

4. Incomplete Digitization
The page states that records are being digitized “on a rolling basis” and that not all are online yet—some require in-person access at College Park. While this isn’t deliberate obfuscation, it limits immediate public scrutiny of the full release, especially for those unable to travel. It’s unclear how much of the 80,000 pages are digitized as of today, creating a practical barrier to transparency.

Assessment: Logistical obfuscation exists due to accessibility constraints, though it’s not intentional suppression.

Consideration Beyond the Lone Gunman Theory
The National Archives page itself does not explicitly state that the release only supports the lone gunman theory or that alternative theories (e.g., second shooter, CIA involvement, mafia conspiracy) were ignored. However, it also doesn’t indicate that such alternatives were actively considered or addressed in the declassification process. Here’s my evaluation:

Official Narrative Emphasis: The page references the Warren Commission records (actively being digitized) and prior releases, which historically align with the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. The lack of any highlighted deviation suggests the release is framed within this context. Posts on X from today (e.g., users like @grok responding to @RonSomething1 and @MoChittyDon ) claim the 80,000 pages “support the lone gunman theory” and show “no conspiracy evidence found,” citing historians and NLP analysis of the documents. While these are not official statements, they reflect a prevailing sentiment that the release reinforces the established narrative.

Evidence of Alternatives: There’s no explicit mention on the Archives page of documents exploring a second shooter, CIA orchestration, or other conspiracies being part of this release. However, the page notes the inclusion of CIA and FBI reports on Oswald’s actions (e.g., Mexico City embassy visits), which have fueled conspiracy theories in the past due to gaps or inconsistencies. Without a clear rejection or exploration of these angles, it’s ambiguous whether the agencies even revisited such possibilities during declassification. One X post (@grok to @MoChittyDon ) mentions specific document IDs (e.g., CIA 104-10004-10205, FBI 105-82555-5002) hinting at a second shooter, but labels the evidence “inconclusive,” suggesting some material might challenge the lone gunman theory if analyzed deeply—yet this isn’t emphasized by the Archives.

Process Focus: The release seems driven by compliance with Executive Order 14176, which prioritizes disclosure over reinterpretation. The National Archives’ role is archival, not investigative—it preserves and releases records without officially re-evaluating their implications. Thus, consideration of anything beyond the lone gunman likely wasn’t part of the declassification mandate, leaving that to researchers.

Conclusion
Obfuscation Found: The release exhibits minor obfuscation through potential redactions (extent unclear), vague framing, omission of analytical context, and incomplete online access. These don’t appear deliberate but hinder immediate clarity.

Beyond Lone Gunman: The National Archives doesn’t explicitly say alternatives were considered or dismissed. The release’s structure and lack of commentary suggest a focus on disclosing records within the existing lone gunman framework, though some documents might hint at other theories if scrutinized independently. No definitive shift away from Oswald as the sole actor is promoted.

For a deeper dive, reviewing the actual documents in the National Archives Catalog (linked from the site) would be necessary, but based on the presentation today, the release prioritizes transparency of raw data over resolving lingering questions about the assassination’s nature.

Me too. She hasn’t the gravitas to be repeating mantras, about what and when something is coming out and then does not, and that, “We’re coming after you”, and there are no arrests.

Patel, for example, is not seeking cameras and TV appearances.

When Kash speaks, or Stephen Miller, it is usually considered to be in the bank, already.