Earlier this week we
reported about the release of 2,800 government documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It now turns out that not all documents, which were supposed to be released, have been released.
George Friedman, a geopolitical expert, says this in his recent article
"Kennedy's Death and the World of Conspiracy Theories" in the Huffington Post about this partial release:
"The intelligence agencies claimed that the files contained highly sensitive material that would damage national security and that they needed time to review and remove this information. Given that they had known from the beginning that the files would be released someday, and that they had known for years when that day was coming, the request was doubly extraordinary: First, that more than half a century after the assassination there was still material so sensitive it had to be withheld, and second, that they hadn’t yet identified all the critical information. This is the point at which a reasonable person would assume that there is something amiss....................Starting with the handling of the Kennedy assassination, the intelligence community has done substantial damage to the stability of the U.S. It has systematically created the sense that it knows more than it is telling about the assassination, one of the most traumatic events in American history." Friedman then ends by stating that this decision by the intelligence community is linked to the present environment of distrust in government and politicians among the American people. He says: "The trail of distrust that began in 1963 and mushroomed into a political culture of fear and loathing is at the root of the problem."
In order to circumvent this political culture of fear, the only way for citizens to know what is really happening is following independ media and reading relevant books. One of those books, related to the assassination of President Kennedy is
Trauma Room One:The JFK Medical Coverup Exposed by Dr. Crenshaw, one of the trauma doctors who treated President John F. Kennedy, offers the credible story about how he was shot. Oliver Stone, director of the Academy Award-winning docudrama
JFK, wrote a foreword to this book showing his appreciation of Dr. Crenshaw expert opinion as witness of one of the most important historical events in U.S. 20th century political history. Read here what Stone wrote in his foreword:
"I have obviously offered my perspective on controversial issues through the medium of film. One such effort was the movie, JFK, which hypothesized that there was a conspiracy behind the assassination of President John Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The movie depicted actual evidence in a way that supported a controversial conspiracy theory.
Dr. Charles Crenshaw is a true eyewitness to the historical event that was the subject of my movie. Unlike many conspiracy theorists, he was actually in a position to know critical facts when he participated on the Parkland Hospital trauma teams that endeavored to save the lives of President Kennedy and his accused assassin. When Dr. Crenshaw's book was first published in April of 1992 (shortly after release of my movie JFK, for which he served as a technical consultant), he made a significant contribution to the historical record pertaining to the JFK assassination. It seems incredible that the awesome power of the media, including Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and those that reported on its New York City press conference in May 1992, could be employed so irresponsibly in an attempt to damage Dr. Crenshaw in the eyes and minds of millions of people-damage which can never be totally undone. Most private individuals obviously do not have the power or resources to adequately respond to attacks in the mass media. The legal system only provides a partial remedy. Because of the freedom provided to the media by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, no court can legally order publication of a correction or apology; but consider the chilling effect on an individual's exercise of free speech about a controversial subject that vilification in the mass media (or fear of same) can have. As philosopher Joseph Hall once said: "A reputation once broken may possibly be repaired, but the world will always keep their eyes on the spot where the crack was."
One wonders whether JAMA and its former editor and writer really believe that their handling of this matter served to dignify that allegedly prestigious, scientific medical journal. Do they really think that trying to destroy the reputation of a distinguished and honorable medical professional who merely offered his opinions on a controversial subject was appreciated by its readers? The potentially devastating power of a free press requires that it be responsibly exercised, a notion that JAMA apparently either failed to learn or merely decided to ignore and abandon in the case of the JFK assassination."
