BREAKING NEWS: List of Withheld JFK Assassination Documents.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Query:

Does the authorship of truth have bearing on the truth itself?

I only ask, because of your opening paragraph in the post to which I am replying. I do not understand the relevance of identity within the framework of this discussion, and seek enlightenment as to your meaning.

a reply to: texasgirl

Yes, Bush sucked. Both Bush presidents did.

So did Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Clinton. So does Obama.

What's your point? Bush didn't do it. You know it, I know it...why even bring it up? (aside from the apparently overwhelming need to draw an association between Bush and every atrocity since the Crusades?)

a reply to: TrueBrit

There is no possibility what so ever, that a legitimate reason can be given today, to keep the files on the assassination of JFK a secret. There is no national security issue pertaining to that period, which can even remotely have any relevance, either to current intelligence operations, or to the foreign affairs policy of the United States of America in this day and age.

What if the KGB is implicated? Relations with Russia are not exactly solid at the moment. Can you imagine what the right wing backlash would be like? Can you imagine how shrilly the Russian government would deny it? And don't forget the Cuban connection: Fidel is still around and the US and Cuba are trying to normalize relations. Opening up old wounds will not help.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

HW...Malcom Wallace...Billie Estes...Lyndon Johnson...Cliff Carter...
Bush did it...

a reply to: DJW001

The truth is never unhelpful.

If a situation exists, in which the truth would be detrimental to it, then that situation must change to accept the truth, to include it. Too much reliance on lies and deceit is what has lead us to the unholy cluster copulation in which the human race finds itself in this day and age, and it is about time we stopped appeasing and started being proactive as a species, in ensuring that our future is founded on reality, not fantasy.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Query:

Does the authorship of truth have bearing on the truth itself?

I only ask, because of your opening paragraph in the post to which I am replying. I do not understand the relevance of identity within the framework of this discussion, and seek enlightenment as to your meaning.

First off, it was a compliment of the highest order. To you.

To your question; no, it does not. However, sometimes the context of who the author was is important in evaluating the weight /value of said comment.

To be clear, the reason I stated what I did was because I feel it would be enlightening for Americans to read your comment and understand not only the context, but also the fact that it comes from a British citizen, not to mention the fact it is also an accurate, seemingly honest and objective observation in my opinion.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Then thanks are in order, both for the compliment, and for the clarification.

Freedom is an important topic for me, and the sort of obfuscatory action that holds files such as those discussed in this thread, away from the people of the United States, is the sort of action that I vehemently oppose, no matter where in the world I see it. I am glad that you appreciate that, and that you do not take unkindly to the passion I have for this topic, given that I am not from the nation in which it originates.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The truth is never unhelpful.

Didn't a countryman of yours once say: "truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies?"

a reply to: TrueBrit

I have been pretty much in lock step agreement with your posts on this thread so far.

I also applaud your enlightened input. It is sorely missing from much of society today.

a reply to: DJW001

Just because a countryman of mine said it, does not make it a wise thing to say.

For example, a phrase which to this day eludes me in terms of meaning, was oft uttered by residents of the district in which my mother grew up, just outside London. It reads as follows:

"Bobs your uncle, Fannys your aunt, fifteen, two and a pairs four."

This impenetrable monstrosity, of which only the last five words can be said to have any causal relationship to one another, is about as wise as slapping oneself over the head with a limp salmon, and yet was spoken by many of my countrymen! Demography is not all it is cracked up to be!

a reply to: TrueBrit

My point was that revealing the truth still has the potential to open old wounds and make situations that currently might be getting better get worse again.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Just because a countryman of mine said it, does not make it a wise thing to say.

True. "Mission Accomplished" comes readily to mind (throwing the Bush haters a bone with this one). Sometimes I think people make a proclamation knowing the poignancy of a moment warrants them to say something, anything, and they wind up making some bone-headed statement which lives on (in infamy).

Other times, people even through the fog of their own mind can make the most profound statements in these same moments. Winston Churchill comes to readily to mind with his immortal "This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

a reply to: 5StarOracle

That photograph shows a mangled mess, more accurately.

I can however see why one might assume that the wound appears to have been made by a low entry point, high exit point bullet transit through the skull. However, that is a bloody mess we are looking at, and without modern day high resolution photography, it would be hard to confirm what you are saying, because the image quality is so low.

a reply to: DJW001

And I would say that if the situation requires a lie in order to maintain it, then the situation needs to change.

Again, founding peace on lies is no way to move forward.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: texasgirl

Yes, Bush sucked. Both Bush presidents did.

So did Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Clinton. So does Obama.

What's your point? Bush didn't do it. You know it, I know it...why even bring it up? (aside from the apparently overwhelming need to draw an association between Bush and every atrocity since the Crusades?)

But I don't know for an absolute fact Bush wasn't involved:

Thomas J Devine left the CIA in 1953 to co-found Zapata Petroleum in Texas with George Bush. He later rejoined the CIA in June 1963. The company split into several companies, one of them being Zapata Offshore.

John Sherwood, who was in charge of the anti-Castro operations in the 60s said that Zapata Offshore was used as a front for the CIA.

The Bay of Pigs Invasion was code-named Operation Zapata

Felix Rodrigues, who made a career with the CIA during the Bay of Pigs Invasion( as gathering intelligence in Cuba) has ties to Bush in Iran-Contra.

There is a document from Hoover saying a George Bush with the CIA was in Dallas the day Kennedy was killed.

Don't you think it's strange Bush was named Director of Intelligence if he just joined the CIA?

My point? If this is all in the classified documents then it points that we have presidents involved in the JFK shooting. Maybe even Johnson and Nixon, too. Maybe they feel this could be damaging for the country's future. Who knows?

But I'll give it a rest now.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The mess is more due to the autopsy that had dubious motives...
Still they could not hide the fact the bullet came from the front side traveling upwards...
And if you look at the cars location at the instant he was shot and draw a line from the top of his skull to the drain in my picture it leads straight to the truth...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

High speed kinetic impacts to liquid filled vessels often produce effects which are quite different than what people expect. This has been proven countless times. The rigidity / durability of the container and the viscosity of the liquid both have dramatic effects on how much energy the projectile imparts on the fluid...and in what direction.

This is evidenced in the video below



Some of these photos are taken at 1m fps. None of this technology even existed in 1963. Being able to discern much from a static picture is pretty unlikely (as has been noted).

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Oh ya...
I forgot how some bullets zig and zag...dip duck dodge and dive too...
My bad...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

No, I'm not trying to suggest you're wrong, but rather just saying you can't really tell much from the pictures.

I will be the first person to say there was more than just Oswald as the shooter. However, in the context of the OP, I doubt the withheld documents will ever validate this theory. That information, if it was ever even documented, was destroyed long ago.