CIA: Aiding Warren Comission was "passive, reactive, selective" on JFK Assassination

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB493/docs/intell_ebb_026.PDF

Can't believe this isn't on the first page.

The CIA outright admits that it didn't offer information to the Warren Comission, but that it reacted to their requests for information only when prompted. Under sworn testimony, Helms stated "...instructed to reply to inquiries from the Warren Comission for information from the Agency. I was not asked to initiate any particular thing."

When prompted to respond by the House, "In other words, if you weren't asked for anything, you didn't give it?"

Helms replied "That's right."

Smoking gun, the CIA witheld information regarding the death of Kennedy, and allowed, by way of passive and reactive aid, the WH to steer the discussion away from domestic possibilities, and toward Cuba and the USSR, as befit his agenda.

For 50 years, this is something alot of folks already knew. But now, finally, they admit it. Outright, in black and white, for all to see.

The government covered up one of the most pinnacle moments in American History.


-WHY.-

 

Shame on the CIA!

 

This is not evidence of a specific cover up.

Merely a general cover up of the cias inner workings which is normal for an intelligence agency.

It does not prove a cover up of government involvement or a cover-up of a conspiracy.

The evidence still proves oswald killed jfk alone.

Still no evidence of any one else involved

 

Believe it or not...I think it was a benign cover up...that Bobby Kennedy was as guilty of as anyone. There was real fear that Cubans (in the Castro government) who were about to stage a coup would have been exposed or that this could result in a nuclear war. The perpetrators played on both those possibilities. There were absolutely people ion the CIA who were involved , but probably only at lower levels. Those who had close ties to the Mafia via Cuba.

After the fact the entire thing became an embarrassment so of course the cover up continued.

 

Despite ballistics proving the magic bullet theory is bull(*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

It's bull (*)(*)(*)(*) because it was manufactured by conspiracy theorists.

There is nothing magical or abnormal about Oswald's second shot which hit both Kennedy and connally.

No ballistic evidence proves another shooter.

 

Well except for the fact that when attempts were made to recreate that shot...the bullet was severely deformed...

Or that a supposedly identical bullet that only pierced the relatively thin bone of Kennedy's head splintered into fragments.

The "magic bullet" of course was almost completely undamaged despite all that it supposedly hit.

 

Actually quite wrong the attempts to repeat that shot ended up with similar results.

The bullet which hit kennedys head hit hard home First.

The second shot hit bone after passing through a lot of soft tissue which slowed it down and caused it to tumble.

This means nothing was identical and calling them identical is false.

It was damaged and deformed in a manner typical with such bullets.

Once again no ballistics of any kind proves your claim

 

And no scientific evidence proves that Oswald fired the shots that killed him. Moreover, how do you explain the movement of kennedys head. The spray of brain matter went backwards vlearly indicating a shot from the front. The missing car. Etc.

 

By all means let's see links to these claims.

I doubt we'll see anything because you never follow through on your claims.

 

It is all well documented in the WC which you never read.

You never provideinks either so pot meet kettle.

 

Wrong.

A massive amount of evidence proves he fired the shots including prints, fibers, his gun, recovered cartridges, recovered bullets and fragments.

The head movement is simply movement and not proof of anything.

 

well EVERYBODY here knows that add to that refusing to watch videos as well.lol

 

That is a bald facdd lie much like the endless claims of paid shills

The problem is that all of your videos are fictional entertainment without evidence.

 

Get back to us when you can document even ONE of your claims

 

I have but you need to watch the flying class from the stones you are throwing.

 

Actually "well the Warren Commission says" is not documenting anything...and you never have EVER that I have seen

 

The Warren commission did document it and you have never read it.

 

Actually I have...and it doesn't add up to much.

 

No you never have and unlike any of your claims their conclusion is supported by evidence.

 

^ This guy.

 

So your whole position about the JFK assassination is based on the Warren Commission and nothing else.

PFFFFFTTTTT

 

It is based on evidence which is completly missing from any of your claims.

 

That's pretty interesting considering the fact that I have posted numerous links...as opposed to your "read the Warren Report" nonsense.

That's the sum total of your "evidence".

 

Your links only lead to fictional videos without evidence and opinions without evidence.

The warren commission has enormous evidence supporting it hence your constant evasion of it