Obama will be assassinated if he wins...

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Wow Burninator, you solved the Kennedy assassination using an episode of Penn & Teller's Bull$hit. I'm convinced. Screw the years of research and simulation... Penn & Teller have had the final say.

I know it's not the best source, but it's better than anything that's been posted to the contrary. Oswald may have been a bad shot isn't much in the way of evidence.

[Calgaryborn]

Roe verses Wade should be overturned because the Constitution doesn't define when a unborn child becomes a person. It doesn't address it at all. It talks about citizenship but, not when a human life begins. Without that information they couldn't judge between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child. It isn't a Supreme Court judges place to decide what the Constitution should define as the point when a human life begins. They are to interpret the Constitution not write additions to it.

These Judges would have been just as wrong if they had declared that human life began at conception. The Constitution doesn't say that either. What they should have done is refused to make a judgement either way because the Constitution doesn't address the issue directly or indirectly.

The burden to define the beginning of a human life should be in the hands of the elected legislators in each State until such a time that there is a consensus which would allow a constitutional amendment.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Yet the last three assassination attempts on Presidents have been:

1) a wacko disciple of Charles Manson

2) a wacko trying to impress radical friends and

3) a wacko trying to impress Jody Foster

What's far less wacko is that a Communist would want to shoot up JFK at the height of the Cold War. That's actually a story you can believe compared to the others.



Cowperson

I'm not saying Oswald wasn't just a wacko, but if true, why the withholding of evidence and treating the public like children. A lot of public trust in government was lost while everything was dealt with behind closed doors. I'm not saying they were liars like the Bush and Nixon administrations but when they figuratively plead the fifth, doubts arise.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Roe verses Wade should be overturned because the Constitution doesn't define when a unborn child becomes a person. It doesn't address it at all. It talks about citizenship but, not when a human life begins. Without that information they couldn't judge between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child. It isn't a Supreme Court judges place to decide what the Constitution should define as the point when a human life begins. They are to interpret the Constitution not write additions to it.

These Judges would have been just as wrong if they had declared that human life began at conception. The Constitution doesn't say that either. What they should have done is refused to make a judgement either way because the Constitution doesn't address the issue directly or indirectly.

The burden to define the beginning of a human life should be in the hands of the elected legislators in each State until such a time that there is a consensus which would allow a constitutional amendment.

That information has no place in the constitution. What you are refering to is a specific moral imperative which has nothing to do with structuring of personal rights and freedoms that apply to all people, regardless of gender, age, race or sexual orientation. The constitution frames basic freedoms available to all individuals, not specific ones for specific groups.

You want to play that game, then how about if they push for a constitutional amendment that states homosexuals have special protections against hate mongers who think they will burn in hell because of their sexual orientation and lifestyle, and they have the right to engage in marriage if they so desire (why should straight people hog all the misery?).

Think that deserves to be in the constitution?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not saying Oswald wasn't just a wacko, but if true, why the withholding of evidence and treating the public like children.

That's the thing.

Oswald did it. Fine. That's the official story and let's say I believe it.

But why is so much stuff about this subject still not public? Whatever they have can't tell us anything we don't already know because we know exactly what happened. Oswald did it. The kook with the grudge and the rifle did it all by himself. Case closed.

What could they possibly have to keep under wraps now? What colour underwear he was wearing? It's been more than 40 years and still they haven't released everything. What possible reason could they have for that, if we all know that Oswald killed Kennedy and no one else was involved?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

That information has no place in the constitution. What you are refering to is a specific moral imperative which has nothing to do with structuring of personal rights and freedoms that apply to all people, regardless of gender, age, race or sexual orientation. The constitution frames basic freedoms available to all individuals, not specific ones for specific groups.

The question of when human life begins is not a moral imperative. It's a necessary question that must be answered before a judge can act in a case that pits a mother against an unborn child. I don't see much difference between this and a time when blacks were considered sub-human. It took courageous law makers to identify a black man/women as an equal under the law.

I watched a interview on Fox a while back with a black man who lived in Florida. He and a long time friend went fishing in the gulf and had there boat swamped and sink. They were floating on a piece of foam treading water when a boat came by, took a look at them and sped off. A while later another boat seen them and came near to them only to turn and motor away. By the time they were spotted a third time the older friend had died from a heart attack. The third boat rescued him gladly.

This story illustrates a moral dilemma: How much do we have to go out of our way in a life and death situation to help our neighbor? Should there be a law requiring such assistance? These moral questions only exist because the question of whether a black man is fully human has been resolved.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

You want to play that game, then how about if they push for a constitutional amendment that states homosexuals have special protections against hate mongers who think they will burn in hell because of their sexual orientation and lifestyle, and they have the right to engage in marriage if they so desire (why should straight people hog all the misery?).

Think that deserves to be in the constitution?

So you would make it illegal for a person to think or I assume express a thought that differs from what you believe to be true. Furthermore, you would award special status to one group of people above all others. I mean it would still be legal for you to spread your bile against fundamental Christians but a negative though against a homosexual would be a crime. Wow! I suppose you would have to rescind the conflicting portions within the constitution. You know the ones that offer equality to all and religious freedom. Not to mention that annoying section on free speech. What a wonderful game Lanny.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The question of when human life begins is not a moral imperative. It's a necessary question that must be answered before a judge can act in a case that pits a mother against an unborn child. I don't see much difference between this and a time when blacks were considered sub-human. It took courageous law makers to identify a black man/women as an equal under the law.

WTF??? The question of when life begins is NOT a moral imperative??? A moral imperative is a principle originating inside a person's mind that compels that person to act. If that question is NOT a moral imperative then what the hell is it???

Again, it is not a constitutional issue. I have to ask you if you have read the constitution or have any idea what the document says.

Now you're saying the unborn fetus should be considered no different than black slaves and vice versa? Holy crap. A microscopic gob of goo is on the same level as living and breathing human being that is actually self-aware and capable of sustaining itself outside the womb.

I watched a interview on Fox a while back with a black man who lived in Florida. He and a long time friend went fishing in the gulf and had there boat swamped and sink. They were floating on a piece of foam treading water when a boat came by, took a look at them and sped off. A while later another boat seen them and came near to them only to turn and motor away. By the time they were spotted a third time the older friend had died from a heart attack. The third boat rescued him gladly.

This story illustrates a moral dilemma: How much do we have to go out of our way in a life and death situation to help our neighbor? Should there be a law requiring such assistance? These moral questions only exist because the question of whether a black man is fully human has been resolved.

What is your point with this garbage? What does this have to do with the constitution or with abortion? Obfuscate much?

So you would make it illegal for a person to think or I assume express a thought that differs from what you believe to be true. Furthermore, you would award special status to one group of people above all others. I mean it would still be legal for you to spread your bile against fundamental Christians but a negative though against a homosexual would be a crime. Wow! I suppose you would have to rescind the conflicting portions within the constitution. You know the ones that offer equality to all and religious freedom. Not to mention that annoying section on free speech. What a wonderful game Lanny.

No, I don't want my constitution changed, thank you very much. I don't want special status for anyone or anything. It's YOU that wants that in the constitution, not me. You're the genius that wants a constitutional amendment representing your moral and religious views, a view not universally shared, nor even endorsed by the majority of Americans. Your Evangelical Christian values would be rammed down the throats of ever single citizen in the United States, regardless of their beliefs or religious affiliation. YOU expect people to accept YOUR beliefs, and have it ratified as an amendment that impacts everyone in the country, but YOU cry long and hard about my similar proposition that conflicts with your beliefs.

The constitution is framework of universal rights that extend to all citizens. That framework must speak to general rights, and the status of a fetus is NOT something that applies to all individuals (conversely, and ironically, marriage and civil union is a construct that can apply to all individuals). Issues that apply to select groups have no place in the constitution.

Using your example of the plight of the "black man" you can quickly see how your logic falls a part.

It was the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves, not the 13th amendment. The constitutional amendment abolished slavery, which was a practice that applied to more than just africans. The amendment was a braod piece of legislation that applied to all individuals, regardless of race, sex, age or sexual orientation.

The 13th constitutional amendment reads:

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

You'll notice that the language speaks in the broadest scope possible. Nothing specific to Africans, or Chinese, or Indians. Nothing specific to any group. That is why the constitution is such a great piece of legislation, because the framework is applied universally in every way. No special status at all. That's the way the constitution was designed, the way it was written and the way it is interpretted. The day they add some assinine amendment that identifies special rights to one group or a religious belief is the day America stops being the example of freedom to the rest of the world.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Now you're saying the unborn fetus should be considered no different than black slaves and vice versa? Holy crap. A microscopic gob of goo is on the same level as living and breathing human being that is actually self-aware and capable of sustaining itself outside the womb.

Yes well I don't think much of you either.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

No, I don't want my constitution changed, thank you very much.

Untrue. You applaud and support the Supreme Court deciding for every American what the Constitution would say regarding when a life begins.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I don't want special status for anyone or anything. It's YOU that wants that in the constitution, not me. You're the genius that wants a constitutional amendment representing your moral and religious views, a view not universally shared, nor even endorsed by the majority of Americans.

I said it was wrong for the Supreme Court to go beyond the Constitution. I also said it was rightfully the job of the law makers to define when a human life begins. That is what your Constitution says. It's not the job of the courts to make law.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

It was the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves, not the 13th amendment. The constitutional amendment abolished slavery, which was a practice that applied to more than just africans. The amendment was a braod piece of legislation that applied to all individuals, regardless of race, sex, age or sexual orientation.

The 13th constitutional amendment reads:

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

You'll notice that the language speaks in the broadest scope possible. Nothing specific to Africans, or Chinese, or Indians. Nothing specific to any group. That is why the constitution is such a great piece of legislation, because the framework is applied universally in every way. No special status at all. That's the way the constitution was designed, the way it was written and the way it is interpreted. The day they add some assinine amendment that identifies special rights to one group or a religious belief is the day America stops being the example of freedom to the rest of the world.

Yes and this was done by law makers. The Supreme Court didn't decide that a black man was a human being. They would rightly interpret the intent of both the law and the amendment to include black men if someone tried to exclude them.

Again it's you who are suggesting a constitutional amendment for gays. I'm suggesting that until the constitution says when life begins it is a matter for the law-makers to define it; Not some activist judges.

It's hypocritical of you to say you embrace the constitution and yet applaud when the Supreme Court supersedes there mandate. I guess your commitment to abortion trumps your commitment to the constitution.

[flamey_mcflame]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes well I don't think much of you either.





Untrue. You applaud and support the Supreme Court deciding for every American what the Constitution would say regarding when a life begins.



I said it was wrong for the Supreme Court to go beyond the Constitution. I also said it was rightfully the job of the law makers to define when a human life begins. That is what your Constitution says. It's not the job of the courts to make law.



Yes and this was done by law makers. The Supreme Court didn't decide that a black man was a human being. They would rightly interpret the intent of both the law and the amendment to include black men if someone tried to exclude them.

Again it's you who are suggesting a constitutional amendment for gays. I'm suggesting that until the constitution says when life begins it is a matter for the law-makers to define it; Not some activist judges.

It's hypocritical of you to say you embrace the constitution and yet applaud when the Supreme Court supersedes there mandate. I guess your commitment to abortion trumps your commitment to the constitution.

Shouldn't you be reading the intelligent design textbook. That young earth theory is absolutely brilliant. I have this strange feeling that if you had it your way Calgaryborn, the bible would be our constitution. Don't hide your true feelings. Jesus needs you to speak freely, so you can put us his heathens in to our proper place.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes well I don't think much of you either.

Well, I'm really broken up about that, really I am.

It's people with a mindset like yours that is preventing our society from moving forward. Your divisive and hateful stance on everything makes me want to puke. Your religious views supercede everything, including the individual's right to think and act for themselves. Anyone who is not aligned with your religious doctrine you consider beneath you and you display much distain for them. Unless someone lives up to YOUR moral beliefs, they are not even worthy of of your time. Man, I can't wait for the rapture, just to see you and your group of religious zealots disappear.

Untrue. You applaud and support the Supreme Court deciding for every American what the Constitution would say regarding when a life begins.

You really like making crap up, don't you. I have said no such thing. On the contrary, YOU are saying that the constitution should have an amendment that defines when life begins. YOU have been saying that repeatedly in this thread and others. I have been preaching, to steal a term from your garbage religion, that the constitution is just fine the way it is and does NOT require any such stipulation. The moment when human life begins is NOT a political issue. It's a scientific issue. Its a theologic issue. It is NOT a political issue. Those who wish to make it a political issue do not have the ability nor the resources to argue the other two positions, and that's why they have to try and turn it into a political issue.

I said it was wrong for the Supreme Court to go beyond the Constitution. I also said it was rightfully the job of the law makers to define when a human life begins. That is what your Constitution says. It's not the job of the courts to make law.

The Supreme Court did not go beyond the constitution in making the decision of Roe v. Wade. They used the constitution to frame their decision and make the correct interpretation. Unlike you, they knew that they could not allow their own personal morals decide the issue and instead used the framework of universality to make the decision for them. They knew they could not enforce a subjective moral decision onto a diverse population, the majority of which did not hold that same moral position. The constitution guarantees the right to make personal decisions, and Roe v. Wade was about the woman's right to choose. To support Roe v. Wade was to up hold the constitution and the individual's right to make choices that impact their well being.

Now, if you disagree with this position, please point out the section in the constitution that the Supreme Court was in conflict with. This is your chance to shine.

As for lawmakers establishing the definition of when human life begins, they are not qualified and have no authority to do any such thing. Again, this is not a legal matter. This is a scientific matter and a theological mater. Politics has nothing to do with this, except for trying to win a fight that a bunch of uneducated bible thumpers can't win for themselves. It's Intelligent Design all over again.

Yes and this was done by law makers. The Supreme Court didn't decide that a black man was a human being. They would rightly interpret the intent of both the law and the amendment to include black men if someone tried to exclude them.

It's like taking to a wall.

Again it's you who are suggesting a constitutional amendment for gays. I'm suggesting that until the constitution says when life begins it is a matter for the law-makers to define it; Not some activist judges.

More making stuff up. I have repeatedly stated that I want NO special protection for anyone. I used the homosexual issue as an example that might get through the religious fog that your head is locked in. It was an attempt to show how ridiculous your position on this issue was by using an equal ridiculous issue that has people of your persuasion all up in arms. That was completely lost on you, like most things are.

Changing gears and speaking of "gays", have ever consider that your mythical lord and savior traveled about the countryside with 12 men and no women for years? In the prime of his life? When his hormones were at the peak and his desire to spread more than his ministry was at an all time high? Gee, the potential for them to be a bunch of Joan Crawford loving over the rainbow rump rangers wasn't high.

It's hypocritical of you to say you embrace the constitution and yet applaud when the Supreme Court supersedes there mandate. I guess your commitment to abortion trumps your commitment to the constitution.

How is that hypocritical? The Supreme Court did their job by making their ruling based on the framework that is the constitution.

YOU want the constitution changed so it is very specific on one issue. You want "lawmakers" to pass a law and then have it entrenched into the constitution. I want it to remain as it is, speaking geneally to all issues. Hypocritical? That's all you and the way you are on pretty well every single issue discussed on this board. Your religiosity makes you that way.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That's the thing.

Oswald did it. Fine. That's the official story and let's say I believe it.

But why is so much stuff about this subject still not public? Whatever they have can't tell us anything we don't already know because we know exactly what happened. Oswald did it. The kook with the grudge and the rifle did it all by himself. Case closed.

What could they possibly have to keep under wraps now? What colour underwear he was wearing? It's been more than 40 years and still they haven't released everything. What possible reason could they have for that, if we all know that Oswald killed Kennedy and no one else was involved?

Why keep secrets from WWII?

For all I know, there are secrets from the Boer War and Spanish American war locked in some vault somewhere.

And, of course, the government certainly isn't telling us everything "they" know about alien contact either. Forty per cent of Americans say so.

If a disaster unfolds and Saint Obama is actually elected President, I'm sure he'll unlock all these mysterious vaults for our general amusement.

That's the one reason I'd vote for him, although I wouldn't hold my breath.

Cowperson

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

EDIT: The oddity is that, theoretically, this shouldn't be a particularly difficult task for a trained sniper of the type you could find in the closeted Idaho/Michigan Disturbed Members Club . . . . most of these attempts on Presidents seem to be handguns at close range, not a particularly smart way to go.

My guess is that sniping would be pretty close to the most difficult way of killing a US president these days. Simply put, there's always a limited number of spots where you could theoretically take that shot, and secret service is not in any shortage of people who know where those spots would be.

It's like the prior theoretical argument of why people don't strap explosives on themselves and blow up a C-Train in Calgary? What prevents people from doing that if they were really determined? Not much. But it never happens.

Explosives are actually rather hard to obtain in significant amounts without attracting attention, and selfmade explosives are notoriously difficult to control. Unlike popular fiction tends to portrait, lunatics are also generally speaking not highly intelligent (nor speak with a foreign accent), but often borderline ######s.

Intelligent people with strong convictions usually find some more constructive way to get their word out, and they also tend to understand that assassinating any one person doesn't really affect much in a democratic society.

We can probably conclude that up to this point, smart and motivated people - as opposed to the klutz's before them - who might want to take out a President perhaps don't exist.

Want to? Oh I'm sure there's plenty of people in shooting ranges around the country who fantasize about it daily. But really, what would killing for example Bush have achieved? Just a change in figurehead. Western democracies are run by groups of people, with large amounts of supporters. Only in very special cases would killing a single government representative make any significant difference. Pretty much anyone will realize that, should they seriously start thinking about it.

Will they exist in the case of Obama?

Is he a special case, enough so that murdering him might actually affect something? I think he might be. Most people agree that he seems to be something else in the political scene, but there's really very little about his political stands that are in any way new or radical, so I think we have to say that it's his personality, by definition unique, that really stands out. It's entirely possible that even after his hypothetical presidency, it will be a very long time before another coloured candidate will appear with even a shot at presidency. You have to remember how few people actually are ever considered top runners for presidency. Also, most Americans are white, and people are inclined to vote for those they most easily identify with.

Of course, it's wholly another question whether there actually exists a group of people smart and resourceful enough to pull it off, but stupid enough to think that race really matters that much. Somehow I doubt that. That would really only leave the small but existing chance that there happens to be a fanatical racist in the right branch of Secret Service.

(Personally I hope he wins by the way. Not because I think it matters, although I think there's a chance it might, but because I would just so much like to see his style of campaigning to win. Hope and unity instead of hate and fear.)

[badnarik]

Changing gears and speaking of "gays", have ever consider that your mythical lord and savior traveled about the countryside with 12 men and no women for years? In the prime of his life? When his hormones were at the peak and his desire to spread more than his ministry was at an all time high? Gee, the potential for them to be a bunch of Joan Crawford loving over the rainbow rump rangers wasn't high.

Sounds like what NHL teams do.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Why keep secrets from WWII?

I don't know. Do they?

This Kennedy thing -- there can't be any secrets. We know exactly what happened. We know that this lone nut shot the President and nobody else had anything to do with it. There can't be any secrets because this is the complete story.

But still...

[burn_baby_burn]

One piece of evidence that really brings doubt to the lone gunman explanation. Is the Zapruder film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film

If there was a plot to kill Kennedy by the Mafia, LBJ, CIA, the Pentagon, Soviet Union, Castro or a combination of any of these groups. The one thing they didn't count on, was the fatal shot being filmed from a pristine view.

[Flames89]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

...
YOU want the constitution changed so it is very specific on one issue. You want "lawmakers" to pass a law and then have it entrenched into the constitution. I want it to remain as it is, speaking geneally to all issues. Hypocritical? That's all you and the way you are on pretty well every single issue discussed on this board. Your religiosity makes you that way ...

While I don't have the authority, I request a red square for Mr. MacDonald here. His posts in this thread have been extremely well written and positioned.

'Lot of words, but worth the read.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know. Do they?

This Kennedy thing -- there can't be any secrets. We know exactly what happened. We know that this lone nut shot the President and nobody else had anything to do with it. There can't be any secrets because this is the complete story.

But still...

Missing information lets the imaginations of people run wild and get creative with possible explainations. Every complex event in life has 'missing information.' Not satisfied with the most logical explanation ie "Occam's razor" these alternative 'explainations' get pursued by the individual and they search for evidence supporting their thoughts. All of a sudden otherwise random occurances independent of the simplest explaination get interpreted by the individual as support for their version of the 'explaination.' These little random occurances then get pieced together and lines are drawn to connect them in whatever pattern seems interesting to the individual's subconscious mind to form a 'theory.'

Back in JFK's day these people were usually harmless because A) Without modern forms of communication it was difficult to even get random pieces of information about occurances not in said individual's immediate area, and B) The wild and creative conclusions of one person or group of people were limited in reach, also due to a lack of modern communication. In the internet age both points A and B are easier to overcome and those 'random occurances' from part A can easily be based on fabricated information. Hence more conspiracy theories/explainations for events past/present/or future and a greater probability that some of these theories can grow into a movement.

Now going back to JFK, either details surrounding the assasination attempt are kept secret because of some mundane detail that might expose ignorance/stupidity on the part of the secret service, or that it's simply just protocol to keep things classified, or Oswald was working with rouge government officials who didn't like Kennedy in the White House due to their affiliation with the Bildeberg group, Illuminati or World Banker Group who secretly shape all major world events towards a New World Order where they will reign supreme over all aspects of human life on Earth or it could be something else completely.

1)Which one's (Not specific to my top of the head explainations but rather of all the explainations out there) easiest to believe?
2)Which one's the most creative/interesting one to believe?
3)Which one is actually more likely to be true?
4)Does it even matter?

Of course the answer to #3 might not be the real explanation, but in light of missing information it's the most logical. With each deviation from the most logical explaination comes an exponential drop in probability of it actually being true. So I'm not saying that those wacky theories about anything are 100% false, but their likelihood of being true is exceptionally small.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Now going back to JFK, either details surrounding the assasination attempt are kept secret because of some mundane detail that might expose ignorance/stupidity on the part of the secret service, or that it's simply just protocol to keep things classified,

Okay now those make sense, but really, the guy got his head blown off in the middle of the freeway so I think the cat is out of the bag on the whole stupidity/ignorance thing on behalf of the secret service. Although it would make sense for them to try to cover their own asses a little bit.

As for protocol to keep things classified, well that apparently wasn't the protocol. We know everything that happened -- they've told us the whole story. They didn't keep it classified, it's all out there. There is nothing else to it.

And I know it's fun to bring in the Illuminati and space aliens and whatnot but it's not exactly a wild theory to think the government might not always tell the truth. Recent events certainly can attest to that. If we apply Occam's Razor to, say, the Iraq war, the simplest explanation is that they aren't above lying about some pretty serious things.

[black rubber disc bunny]

[quote=Claeren;1184841]
Apparently he has been receiving a LOT of treats, many of which are fearfully quite legitimate.
[quote]

Really? What kind of treats? I quite legitimately fear the hash brownies.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Recent events certainly can attest to that. If we apply Occam's Razor to, say, the Iraq war, the simplest explanation is that they aren't above lying about some pretty serious things.

Actually, the simplest explanation is they were idiots and morons, which is what I've said all along and the answer I continue to view as the likely truth. The complicated answer is the lying liars were clever enough to arrange a duplicitous story but inexplicably not clever enough to plant evidence to cover up something they knew to be false.

Anyhoo . . . . that'll all come out in the wash somewhere down the road, as it always does.

Meanwhile, look what just got "unclassified" today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7243500.stm

So . . . . why keep that a secret? And yes, there are classified events, materials, etc, that are occasionally dribbled out in similar fashion from WWII.

Cowperson