Paul Troglia

  It may be beneficial to your 17-year old protoge, Ms. Martin, who, while eloquent for her age, is swimming in a sea of angst common to youth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

EXCUSE me? "Sea of angst?" Please, enlighten me as to how I'm swimming in a "sea of angst," since you seem to know so much about me. I'm really curious to know.

I don't mind being spoken of as a "protege," even though if I WAS - it wouldn't be under the guidance of John Ritchson, as intelligent as he is. However, there are worse things one could be referred to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hello Ms. Martin,

Your written words on this site are the basis for my remark. You have asked for people to think how they would "feel" if a Republican were shot; you have lambasted the masses for their concern over J Lo's hair; you have described the anguish of your grandmother when listening to Walter Cronkite's announcement. What you have discovered is you're not off the hook--people form opinions about you when you express yourself. Some you like;some you don't. That's the big risk in life. Now you have to decide if you care what people think. Remember the words of Robert Burns, "O wad some power the gift he gie us, to see ourselves as others see us."

Paul T.

Paul

You said, "You know as well as I that Oswald's connection to the government was no secret, not even in 1963. All of it is explained in the 26 volumes and in the Warren Report itself."

I am confused by your statement.  In reality the Warren Commission states on page 325 (in bold letters I might add):  "Oswald Was Not an Agent for the U.S. Government"

You use the words "Oswald's connection to the governement was no secret..."  I'm confused by your position.

Jim Root

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Jim,

Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was the exploration of his possible connection to the governement was done by the Warren Commission and referred to in the Warren Report. They concluded he was not on the payroll and not an agent of the US governement.

Paul

Paul

Why would the government withhold the truth about what was known about Oswald from the American people?  How much more is there to discover?  When will it be discovered and by whom?

I agree there is alot of misinformation out there that is misleading but a great deal of misleading information is contained in the Warren Report.  Why?  For example, as Chris Mills points out, Warren Commission CE 946 implies "There was only one flight direct from London Airport (now Heathrow) to Helsinki on that date, this was a FinnAir flight  which departed London at 14.20 and arrived in Helsinki at 23.35 local time. It has been established, by the Warren Commission, that it would have been impossible for Oswald to have cleared customs and arrive at the "Hotel Torni" in downtown Helsinki before midnight. Herein lies the controversy, the hotel register states that Oswald checked in before midnight on the 10th.  We then find years later that there was indeed a choice of two flight that Oswald could have taken to arrive in Helsinki in time to check into the Torni Hotel.  But we find this out after information about passenger lists have been distroyed.  Why did the CIA keep this information from the American people?

The Warren Commission let us down.  It is sort of like a cheating spouse.  Once you discover that you have been deceived it is difficult to believe the deceiver again.  Perhaps you are different in this respect and feel that your "spouse" may have a good reason for cheating.

I suggest you read, "What Jane Roman Said."  The story is generated from government documents and an eye whitness account, not from "fake evidence that so obviously reveals itself? Phony x-rays, phony autopsy photos, phony Oswalds, phony guns, phony witnesses..."

http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/...RomanSaid_1.htm

Paul, why did the government withhold information about Oswald from the American public?  "i'd really like to know."

Jim Root

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Jim,

You know as well as I that Oswald's connection to the government was no secret, not even in 1963. All of it is explained in the 26 volumes and in the Warren Report itself. Even when he went to Russia, he wanted to work for the KGB, but they didn't want anything to do with him because he was such a loose cannon.

Another thing, and this is just my intuition now, but Oswald was only 24, a kid, really. What kind of sophisticatiuon could he bring to such intricate underground networks?

Paul

LN David Reese's website has several pages of interesting photos: Dallas then and now.

http://www.cannet.com/~reesedw/DealyPage1.html

On the last page I found this JFK/Tippit composite photo. This really gives me the creeps:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ron,

Gives me the creeps, too. Not because JFK and Tippit resembled each other, but because somebody thought it necessary to make such a picture. I think the photo is solid proof that Oswald was nuts. He thought he missed Kennedy at the Depository and had to shoot him again when he saw him in his cop outfit. Makes as much sense as some of the other theories on this site.

PT

John,

Bully for you. 

Now, instead of an emotional diatribe, how abour some facts.  Not just general ballistic facts, but facts that pertain to the flight of the bullet in the Kennedy assassination.  It may be beneficial to your 17-year old protoge, Ms. Martin, who, while eloquent for her age, is swimming in a sea of angst common to youth.

Paul Troglia, et al. (who, believe it or not, are out there)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have Patients Drill Sgt. I know you expect people to [Come TO] when you Bark an order but this old soldier doesn't jump to anyone's barks any longer regardless of their command presence.

I felt it important to provide the readers on this [Educational Forum] with some basic background before I start posting on the specifics of the JFK case, so that they will have some understanding as to what I writing about.

BTW, I will be posting on the specifics of both scenerios; the LN/WC scenerio as well as the Conspiracy Frontal shot scenerio.

So stay tuned and remember we are mostly [Civilians] around here.

Respectfully:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

John,

I eagerly await your posting on the ballistics.

By the way, if I were barking orders, I would have used a bold font!

PT

Come on everyone, let's shuck down to the cob:

Why would a conspiracy, any conspiracy, "The Conspiracy," produce so much fake evidence that so obviously reveals itself? Phony x-rays, phony autopsy photos, phony Oswalds, phony guns, phony witnesses---please.

What is going on? Why this avalanche of non-sensical opinion, distorted fact, and outright BS to elevate the Kennedy assassination into such a fantasy? Has there been a 40-year mass hypnosis?

I'd really like to know.

Faithfully yours,

Paul Troglia

PS: While this message sounds like a blow-off, I do respect your opinions, as convoluted as they may seem.

John,

Bully for you.

Now, instead of an emotional diatribe, how abour some facts. Not just general ballistic facts, but facts that pertain to the flight of the bullet in the Kennedy assassination. It may be beneficial to your 17-year old protoge, Ms. Martin, who, while eloquent for her age, is swimming in a sea of angst common to youth.

Paul Troglia, et al. (who, believe it or not, are out there)

The print they later found on the gun was put there after he was in the morgue.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please specify if this is opinion or if you have a reference for this. Thanks.

There is enough evidence to suggest that Lee ordered the rifle, received the rifle, and possessed the rifle. Marina has never wavered in her testimonies and statements that she saw the rifle, and while in New Orleans, saw Lee cleaning the rifle. Whether he fired the rifle on November 22 is another matter.

RJS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

_______________________________

Richard, re the LHO print being planted after his death: this is not an opinion, but I do not have time to cite sources, except two, Garrison, in his Playboy interview in 1967, and a second source who was a Dallas police officer that day and wishes to remain annonymous. There are other sources for this and I will get them when I have more time, I have an all day work commitment today, so cannot at the moment, but I will.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dawn,

Lack of time in solving the crime of the 20th century? Really.

PT

Hi George,

Even though your "Chance of solving this crime" string was not supposed to be posted, I think it's a great topic. And I'll be glad to pose one answer (for those who think it hasn't been solved)--no chance. Not because it's beyond solving, or because the evidence is contradictory, or that it's too old. The murder of John Kennedy is, and forever will be, a perpetual game of Clue (The CIA on the knoll with the Mauser; The Mafia on the overpass with the Luger; the Texas oilmen with the Patsy in the window). I think the reason is this: Most people on this site don't really want it solved. It is a classic example of how the journey is so much more important than the destination.

PS: Just in case they don't have it in Europe, George, Clue is a board game every kid in America plays while growing up.

I hadn't remembered that until you mentioned it. It was a pretty frightening time for a kid. I've got a knot in my stomach just thinking about it now!

We came SO close! When the Russians turned back, Dean Rusk made a comment I'll never forget: We are eyeball to eyeball, and I think the other fellow just blinked.

Oh, there are some who say the real hero of the crisis was Kruschev because he backed down, realizing Kennedy would actually go to war for that island. IMO Kennedy was the hero. Fair play for Cuba, but for real.

I had this feeling in my stomach before I even picked up my first pro-conspiracy book that Oswald was innocent - but believe me, if we had die-hard evidence, I would admit otherwise. Feelings can be wrong.

I have this drive to do the best I can for this case, even if it's not much. I want to help one more researcher in the generation after mine to get one step closer to the truth of why such a charismatic young man had to be killed in such a brutal, public display.

I plan on being a Presidential historian with emphasis on the Kennedy administration, and one of my main views is if it's happened once, and we don't know why or how, it can and will happen again.

When I was much younger, I wanted to be a detective. But here, at 17, the only case I spend any length of time researching is this one. I don't think you can choose to be a part of this case, I think it chooses you. But that's just me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

______________________

Nic,

I totally agree with you. You are one smart 17 year old. You will be a brilliant historian. Great instincts, as well as research abilities. You're education is serving you well. (Says a lot about our school system, doen't it?) ))

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ps Ron and Anitti: Good posts, gives Paul a LOT to think about. I believe LHO fired no shots that day. The print they later found on the gun was put there after he was in the morgue. There was no nitrate on his face, an impossibility if one fires a rifle. The MC is not an assassina's weapon of choice, hardly and the SBT is pure lunacy. Paul, the autopsy pics are FAKES. I know asking you to read David Lifton's book Best Evidence is too much to ask (it's soooo long) but this proof of fake autopsy photos is all in the Bob Groden video you said you would rent.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ok, ok, I'll rent it. But jeez, now fake photos?

  Greetings:

My defination of [RESEARCH] is exactly the same defination that is contained in my Websters 2nd Edition_ergo_1. Scholarly [OR] Scientific Investigation [OR] Inquiry._2. Close and Careful [sTUDY].

Question?

Are you suggesting that such does not occure on this forum?

Respectfully: 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi again,

I am not suggesting that none of that goes on. Check the work of Jim Root and others on the string "Why Assassination Necesssary." But look at your definition again. Do you see a lot of scientific inquiry or closed and careful study going on? It seems to me the word that best applies to much of this site is not research, but axiom: a statement or premise accepted as true without proof.

Paul

PS: I mean no disrespect, but check your spelling. After all, if such obvious detail is wrong, what else may be in error?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Greetings Paul:

If you check out my own posting history on this and other forums as well as some of the other serious researchers, I submit that you will find a great deal of valid scientific research all of which tends to poke rather large holes in the technical aspects of the 26 volumes. However, I would council you to begin by reading and digesting Julian Hatcher's definitive work on Internal, External, and Terminal Ballistics as well as John Thomson's work and throw in a bit of Helson and Barnes. Afterwards, you may find we haven't so much to discuss after all since you may very well gain a clear understanding of the subject matter I am dealing with. Unless/Until you accomplish that, I must confess that I will have difficulties relating to you the more intricate details of my work and would kindly request that you, for the time being, accept or not as you choose, my nearly 40 years experience in this field.

With respect to your definition of [AXIOM], according to my Websters, that definition applies only to math & logic with the number 1 definition being, " A Self-Evident or Universally Recognized Truth; Established Rule, Principal or Law."

Finally, with respect to your remark about my spelling [Definition] as [Defination], it was so obvious that I would have been suprised that you hadn't caught that one. Simply put, it was a [Friendly] play on the typo "Whay" that you wrote in your comment in lieu of [What]. Hey Guy, we all make typos on occasion but as long as the meaning remains clear it shouldn't be a big deal, whay_I mean What?

With All Dew Respect:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hello John,

You have my utmost respect for your service in Nam and pulling duty during the Tet Offensive. Interestingly, we both were in the Army in '69. I was drafted, went to Fort Sill, had orders cut for Nam, but they kept me at Sill and made a Drill Sergeant out of me. I volunteered for Nam, helicopter flight, Airborne, the works, but my battery commander, Captain Tommy Franks (yep, the same) decided I was better off training guys rather than going myself. I made E-6 by the time I got out in '71. Trained guys that are on The Wall. Anyhow, a little bio.

So you really think there's something more to the Kennedy stuff, huh?

PT

Oh thats far too dark and doomy.

The Cray supercomputers xxxxx through this stuff, but no

analyst spends much time on this particular forum,

we are really just old crusty blowhards,

spouting back theories that thirty years of underground

and alternative journalism has spawned.

Even John with his exhaustive database, biographies on SPARTACUS

and Tosh, a minor participant, or James Richards, a

crusading photo historian,

I don't think all of us together rate a raised eyebrow.

We go on a list and nothing happens.

This is just what it is -- a speculative educational history forum

and the only reasons the great ECHELON and FT MEADE

computers pick us up is because it is all overseas.

We ain't spit on the windshield at the agencies, a remote pinprick of public criticism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

___________________________

So well said Shanet.

I think this is interesting: Paul professes "no conspiracy", yet he comes back here regularily. Why? Is he trying to convince us or himself. Hard being a Bushie and believing any of this truth. It goes against the Rush like- conditioned mentality mindset, and boggles, instead.

At least you are wonderig, Paul.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Dawn and Shanet:

As I have said in the other strings and often, this is supposed to be a debate. At least that's the title of this string in this "Education" forum. And what, pray tell, does Bush have to do with this discussion? Or is he involved too?

I will bet my bottom dollar and you can bet your tail-feathers that the NSA's Signal Intercept people at Ft. Huachuka AZ. are quite interested in what you and every other researcher in this case is up to.

Might I inquire just whay you mean by "research?" So far, as I read much of the input on this site, "research" means watching assassination movies (JFK, Executive Action, Day of the Jackal. Line of Fire), listening to a lot of other speculators and hypothesizers, quoting rock bands, and generally spreading sanctimony and pretension. There is much available that has substance--contemporaneous interviews with witnesses, published in 26 volumes of testimony taken in 1964 plus information available under the Freedom of Information Act, but very few of you are any sort of "researcher." Too bad, considering the weight you give this event.

PT

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Greetings:

My defination of [RESEARCH] is exactly the same defination that is contained in my Websters 2nd Edition_ergo_1. Scholarly [OR] Scientific Investigation [OR] Inquiry._2. Close and Careful [sTUDY].

Question?

Are you suggesting that such does not occure on this forum?

Respectfully:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi again,

I am not suggesting that none of that goes on. Check the work of Jim Root and others on the string "Why Assassination Necesssary." But look at your definition again. Do you see a lot of scientific inquiry or closed and careful study going on? It seems to me the word that best applies to much of this site is not research, but axiom: a statement or premise accepted as true without proof.

Paul

PS: I mean no disrespect, but check your spelling. After all, if such obvious detail is wrong, what else may be in error?

Well, thank you for the many compliments, I appreciate it.

The most I've gone through because of the JFK research is being ruthlessly teased by my peers, and thought of as insane by my family - the odd thing is, even if the government WAS out to get me ( hahah, imagine that ), they'd find that nobody off of this forum and two friends takes me seriously anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nic:

I will bet my bottom dollar and you can bet your tail-feathers that the NSA's Signal Intercept people at Ft. Huachuka AZ. are quite interested in what you and every other researcher in this case is up to.

I think the ONLY reason we are not recieving more overt concideration by these LUNATICS is that since 9/11 they have bigger fish to fry as it were. However, with some 15 acres of Cray Supercomputers, and the situation as fluid as it is, it is only a matter of time that they will most certainly get around to everyone involved in this case in one respect or another.

There is no need to get paranoid over this, but is is also important not to become too complacent simply because you might think yourself relatively unimportant in the larger scheme of things.

I would council you to be prepared for a certain amount of harassment which usually begins with denigration and escalates as you get closer to the raw nerve as it were. You will know when that happens by the [FUNNY] and [uNUSUAL] events that start to occure as you progress in your investigation.

Nic, if you have not figured it out yet and I think you may very well have; the JFK case represents the [NEXUS] around which the current world situation revolves, and since you represent the next generation of researchers, it is my belief that the powers that be will stop at nothing to prevent you and others like you from evolving into the kind of thinkers which may pose a threat to their agenda which is and has always been nothing short of [WORLD] domination, and the concept that people are more important than property; cooperation is superior to competition, and the highest state humans may aspire to is community, not empire, is antithema and deadly to that agenda.

[it Riles Them To Believe That You Percieve The Web They Weave, and Keep On Thinking Free.] The Moody Blues.

Respectfully:

I will bet my bottom dollar and you can bet your tail-feathers that the NSA's Signal Intercept people at Ft. Huachuka AZ. are quite interested in what you and every other researcher in this case is up to.

Might I inquire just whay you mean by "research?" So far, as I read much of the input on this site, "research" means watching assassination movies (JFK, Executive Action, Day of the Jackal. Line of Fire), listening to a lot of other speculators and hypothesizers, quoting rock bands, and generally spreading sanctimony and pretension. There is much available that has substance--contemporaneous interviews with witnesses, published in 26 volumes of testimony taken in 1964 plus information available under the Freedom of Information Act, but very few of you are any sort of "researcher." Too bad, considering the weight you give this event.

PT

But you are wrong in an important point.  The House Select Committee on Assassinations did conclude there was more than one shooter because of the famous motorcycle dictabelt recording.  But as you know, that conclusion was debunked after an amateur investigator proved the recording was not done at the time of the assassination.

I don't "know" that at all. I've been reading quite a bit on the acoustic evidence, though it's hard to get through it because some of the argument gets very technical and is over my head. I think Bowles and McLain have certainly posed a problem for those who believe the acoustic evidence. When I get through reading all the material (as much as I can understand), maybe I can form a final opinion, but I still don't think I will "know."

There are just too many theories.

That may be true, but there is at least one theory we know we can eliminate (there's that word "know" again, but here I use it confidently), and that's the lone gunman theory. When a lone nutter explains to me how Oswald gave JFK that large hole in the right rear of his head, the hole seen by a long list of credible witnesses who not only viewed but handled the body, I will sit up and take note. That would be some kind of feat. In the meantime I will continue to feel confident that someone shot JFK through the head from the front.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Ron,

I agree with you about the technical detail of much of the scientific evidence. It is hard to understand and I "know" the devil is in the details, but let's forget about that evidence for the moment. Look at the more blunt stuff. Kennedy's autopsy pictures are on the internet. His face is whole. As he was falling forward from the shot to the neck, the final shot hit him in the right rear and exited the top front Brain matter and bullet fragments went forward. People on the 5th floor of the Depository heard the shell casings hit the floor. The bullets were proven to have come from the rifle found on the 6th floor. Numerous recreations have confirmed the shot from above and behind. Add to that the behavior of Oswald immediately after the assassination and you have a pretty solid case for his guilt. I can't dismiss the lone assassin theory. Evolution is a theory, too, but overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.

Let mer ask you this: In your view, did Oswald kill anybody on Nov 22, 1963?

This discussion kind of reminds me of the hypochondriac's tombstone in the Key West cemetery with the engraving:  "See, I told you I was sick."

Or how about the Garrison witness who insisted on fingerprinting his daughter to verify it was really her?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great response Tim!

Or as George Castanza said on Seinfeld: It's not a lie if you believe it.

Paul Troglia

Question: Are conspiracy theorists paranoid of the entire cabal of murderers that killed Kennedy or are you just worried about the faction you've exposed, i.e., the Dallas cops, anti-Castro Cubans, Texas oilmen, CIA moles, the KGB, FBI, Lyndon Johnson's ghost, pro-Castro Cubans, right wing extremists, the military industrial complex, Halliburton, the real Oswald (not the patsy silenced in 1963) or, my God, the Mafia. Better get your bios off this website. If they start surfing this forum, the jig is up. Joe Louis said it best. "You can run, but you can't hide."

Hi Tim,

The Kennedy family couldn't even cover up a single death at Chappaquiddick for crying out loud. How could their agreeing to a cover up to prevent mass death be worth anything?

So the CIA did not kill Kennedy, but blame them in some way because they're bad guys. Now who's acting like a conspirator?

But I digress, sorry. This is supposed to be an analysis of why we care.

Part of the problem in identifying culprits and bringing them to justice is that apathy is abroad in the land. It's been that way for a while (the movie JFK causing only a brief blip of interest but at least getting a records law passed).

When the HSCA concluded that JFK died probably as the result of a conspiracy, all that I recall happening was a gigantic yawn in America. I remember Oglesby writing briefly on this somewhere, something about how he couldn't figure out the American people, but I've been unable to find the passage.

Polls say that most Americans believe there was a conspiracy, but at the same time it's obvious that those same people don't care. That's why I see working on this case as mainly an academic exercise. I don't see it leading to justice. But I hope I'm wrong.

Ron

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Ron,

You're right when you sat apathy is abroad in the land, although you (conspiracy theorists) are certainly winning the battle. Most people believe there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

But you are wrong in an important point. The House Select Committee on Assassinations did conclude there was more than one shooter because of the famous motorcycle dictabelt recording. But as you know, that conclusion was debunked after an amateur investigator proved the recording was not done at the time of the assassination. But even that information didn't change many people's minds. There are just too many theories. Kind of like Dr. Seuss' story, "The 500 Hats of Bartholemew Cubbins." Every time he took off his hat for the king, another hat appeared. PT

To Dawn and Al,

I do believe in conspiracies. Watergate was a conspiracy. Lincoln's assasination was a conspiracy. Julius Ceasar and the Ides of March was a conspiracy (if you believe Shakespeare). But guys, there was proof in all of those. Conjecture, suppositions, theories, are all just that -- impassioned, yes, but without proof. I saw Executive Action when it came out, saw JFK, saw lots of movies. What is seeing movies supposed to mean? You really don't use them as proof, do you? Certainly not you Dawn, you're a lawyer, for Pete's sake.

The evidence against Oswald as the sole shooter is overwhelming. In court, I guess they'd call it the preponderance--beyond a reasonable doubt. If you want to question his motive, okay, you have lots of wiggle-room there, and I commend any effort to figure that demented pipsqueak out. But don't give him something as sublime as a conspiracy. He doesn't rate it.

Al-- JFK was going to pull out of Nam. He knew the South Vietnamese would have to carry the battle themselves. But if you're looking for a culprit , don't look at Kennedy. It is no secret who the must carry the burden of Vietnam, and it isn't just Johnson. Robert Macnamara was the bright, shining lie of Vietnam. Blame him.

In my opinion the assassination of JFK put our nation into what I refer to as a sort of national post traumatic stress syndorme.

Where the perfect world that we were taught that we lived in no longer existed.

Jim Root

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Jim,

Good to hear from you in this string, too. I think you're right about the lost innocence thing--but we add to the loss when, perhaps, we make the event into something it never was.

Paul

Tom, thank you, I appreciate your perspective.  If you can stand one and a half more questions, here goes: Does every conspiracy theory have more believability for you than the lone assassin conclusion?  If not, which is most implausible to you?  (one or two points about the theory will be enough.)

Thanks again, Tom. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmmm....hope I've understood correctly....so I'll be brief.

I'm not real hot on Greens and Grey's....much better chance LHO did it on his own, lol....

However, nothing humans do or might have done would surprise me.

Particularly in the pursuit of power.

A question for you, if I may?

If I'm reading right, you support the LN conclusion....that's ok, I can see that side as well...although I don't believe it....so..

What do make of Eisenhower's heads up on the MIC...or MICC if you prefer?

a cranky old man.....or a warning to America?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi again,

Military Industrial Complex--definitely a warning from a guy who knew. But I don't see it as the carte blanche answer to the assassination. By the way, MICs are not always bad. Did pretty good from 1941-45.

Tom, thank you, I appreciate your perspective. If you can stand one and a half more questions, here goes: Does every conspiracy theory have more believability for you than the lone assassin conclusion? If not, which is most implausible to you? (one or two points about the theory will be enough.)

Thanks again, Tom.

simple....

Because if LHO didn't do it alone....everything else is a lie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your answer, Tom. One thing more: In your view, if Oswald did it alone, would everything else be the truth?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not entirely...a wise young lady once told me "you can't know everything"....however....IMO, IF....if....if there was a cover-up, and the events after JFK's death were stage managed...not according to JFK's script.....i.e. Viet Nam, the Fed,etc....what else in this "land of Freedom" are we being lied to about?.....or not told "for reasons of National Security"....Iraq, OBL, 9-11....Haliburton.....the list is bigger than my endurance over a keyboard....and it goes against all we learn about our particular form of democracy.....

"for the people, by the people" suddenly lacks meaning, doesn't it.....

" you can't trust freedom when it's not in your hands."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks again Tom. Your responses are helpful to me. Another question: In your view, is National Security ever a legitimate reason to deny information to the public?