Customer Discussions > History forum

What Does the Medical EVIDENCE Reveal About the Kennedy Assassination When Compared to Conspiracy Theories?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 36 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 5:10:13 PM PST
We are approaching the motive issue from different directions. All I pointed out was that the prosecution has no burden to establish motive in any case under the rules of American jurisprudence--any first semester law students has already been taught this. Does the prosecution often bring it up? Of course they do (when it is known and provable), but under the American legal system they don't need to. The reason? Often we never know why someone commits a crime. Oswald is a perfect example. After 49 years of studying Oswald and his possible motives for murdering Kennedy the formost scholars of Oswald's life still don't agree. Why? Oswald never said. For that reason motive is not required under the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding. Of course I agree that it helps when motive CAN be established and whenever there is clear and convincing proof of a suspect's motive it is included in the courtroom proceedings but it is not required legally.

Concerning motive and murder. Of course motive is important as to determining whether the suspect is going to be charged with first, second, or third degree murder and this is all part of the case, but if a motive cannot be established (possibly because the suspect is dead as in Oswald's case or in the case of John Wilkes Booth,) the lack of a clear motive does NOT imply innocence. It merely means we don't know WHY the suspect did what they did. And as I point out to my students every semester, Oswald is NOT presumed innocent until proven guilty. We are NOT in a court of law now that Oswald is dead. We are under no obligation to assume innocence of a dead person as we are with an individual currently on trial while living.

I also love the argument the conspiracy cult uses that we must assume Oswald was innocent since he never had a fair trial and therefore is not technically guilty of any offense. I hear this ALL the time. To that I ask if they also presume Hitler never committed any crimes either--remember he never had a trial. What about Jack the Ripper or Charles Whiteman who shot people from the University of Texas clock tower in 1966? And Al Capone was only charged with tax evasion--is that the only crime he committed as well?

It never ends with the conspiracy cultists.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 11, 2012 2:52:28 PM PST
IGS says:
SV

As always, interesting.

Motive "To me, THIS is the irrelevant question.l As with ANY murder murder, motive is irrelevant."

Au contraire. It is frequently dispositive. It can be used to identify those who may be guilty (implication through factual mode of causation) it can confirm whether such determination makes sense. It can be used to provide other evidence. And it is typically the dispositive factor in determining malice aforethought.

"As I'm sure you are aware the prosecution in a criminal prosecutioin has no burden to reveal (or determine) motive."

But they all do it. Why? There is a reason. I have identified some of the many reasons this may be done.

"If the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that a person committed a particular crime, then their motive makes no difference."

It makes a big difference. If you were trying to rape my wife and I shot you four times with a pistol. I could walk despite committing a rather bloody murder. Whereas if shot you four times and walked away with your wallet leaving you to die it the mud. I have got a serious problem with the legal system. Same act, different motive. The result is very different in view of the criminal justice system.

"This is where many Kennedy assassination conspiracy cultists stray off the tracks---vainly trying to figure out Oswald's motive. While motive IS interesting and it DOES help convict many a guilty person it is entirely superfluous to the investigation into a crime.

That is where we agree, he was every bit a nut case as Charles J. Guiteau, Richard Lawrence, Leon Czolgosz, John Schrank, Arthur Bremer and probably two dozen others. What the JFK nuts don't get is that as a president, your odds of being shot are massively more common than might be readily appreciated. About 10% of all presidents have been assassinated while in office and several wounded and about 2/3rd have had attempts made on them. The JFK bit is merely a successful attempt. Sorry, he can join the club.

"My main interest ... in attempting to show Oswald sole guilt ... done more harm ... one single event (the Kennedy assassination) ... ."

I do agree that many believe the fallacy, but what difference does it make. The reality is immutable. The gullible are always going to believe what the get sold. So it is with the conspiracy nuts and the ignorant.

I would say that the JFK business is a good deal less harmful than the "anti-Founding Fathers ... anti-Civil Rights ... Holocaust revisionists." And all of this is nothing compared to what goes on in Japan, where the crimes of an entire era (30's and 40's) are simply treated as if they never happened.

"I see this EVERY single day in my classes I teach. I have students spouting the most ridiculous claims every single semester about the Kennedy assassination"

Really?

Had no idea. Perhaps you could give a list of all the presidential assassination attempts. Point out that it isn't anything particularly novel. And then remind them how little power the president really has and how little anyone assassinating a president (especially one as ineffectual as JFK) has to gain.

"and sadly the American people know very little of the actual, tangible, forensic evidence proving beyond any and all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, murder President Kennedy."

But, so what, they believe it is a conspiracy. It really ends there. No conspirators were ever found, no conspiratory after-effects have been discovered, and so it is rather a non-event.

Although my favorite bit is the JFK would have got us out of Vietnam crap. As if the President didn't send us there in the first place. I do believe that a waffling ineffectual JFK could have changed his mind, it was that same lack of backbone that emboldened the USSR to act during the Missile Crisis and cost us bases in Turkey as a result. But the real killer is the mistake understanding of how governmental power works in the US. The president cannot do anything to stop if congress wants it otherwise.

"That is why I post on this and numerous other sites."

Fair enough. I say let the conspiracy nuts have at it. So it allows them to sell a few books. Capitalism at its best. Selling very little, for too much, to people to gullible to realize it. What could be more American than that/

LOL

Posted on Nov 11, 2012 10:29:35 AM PST
Sock Puppet says:
LBJ's one time friends and partners in crime, Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker, swear to it. A partner in LBJ's Texas law firm, that represented him throughout his political career, and the same firm whose senior partner's brother-in-law represented Jack Ruby, wrote a book saying LBJ was complicit. As soon as Prescott Bush protege Tricky Dick, lost the election to outsider upstart JFK, wheels started turning. Devoted personal secretary to JFK, Evelyn Lincoln ask JFK why he chose LBJ as a running mate, when she knew JFK disliked LBJ. He replied that he was blackmailed into it. Others have repeated the same thing. When LBJ adviser and bag man, Bobby Baker asked LBJ why he was giving up his power to be in a subservient position, LBJ stated, " 20% of presidents have died in office." Noted author, Theodore White, said that when he started doing research for his book, " The Making of A President 1964 ", that he thought LBJ was a great man. He interviewed every person he could find from LBJ's Texas boyhood. He learned that LBJ was not the man he was thought to be. BS Johnson as his high school classmates called him, in no way matched his political PR write up. LBJ didn't have a skeleton in his closet, he had a graveyard full of skeletons in his closet.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 7:30:23 PM PST
Debunker says:
"There is no evidence that he did".

Do you get the feeling that Medearis doesn't care about evidence? He "thinks" that's what happened, therefore pesky little things like facts and evidence become meaningless.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 7:28:44 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 10, 2012 7:29:24 PM PST
Debunker says:
Medearis,

I asked you last week to back up your claim that the so-called magic bullet was "pristine". Other than spouting more idiocy about a non-existent "coup d'etat" (obviously one of your favorite expressions, since you repeat it endlessly) you didn't respond to my question.

Why's that? Can't back up your claim with any evidence?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 7:18:08 PM PST
As usual David Medearis has managed to entire miss the point of yet another post. I was never singing the praises of LBJ as a person I simply stated that LBJ accomplished a great deal while president. I teach my 1960s students that LBJ accomplished more of his programs during his presidency than any twentieth century president save only FDR. He was a politician through and through. Did he mishandle the Vietnam War? Derrr....yup. When it came to leading a nation in war he was no Lincoln but his social programs (many of which I disagree with by the way) were pushed through and became active thanks to his leadership. No sane person can argue otherwise. Was he unpopular to many Americans? Derrrr....yup. So what? Popularity means very little in regards to presidential leadership. Barak Obama is immensly popular and he hasn't accomplished ANYTHING in four years, yet he handily won reelection. Unless things change greatly in his second term (and NO president has ever had a better second term than first term...none) Obama will be remembered by historians as a leader who arguably accomplished less than any Chief Execcutive in recent memory. So the fact that LBJ was unpopular means very little concerning how much he accomplished. But YOUR subtle claim that he was behind the Kennedy assassination is totally without evidentiary support or logical basis. YOU certainly have yet to produce one speck of hard evidence LBJ was involved in the "coup d'etat" you've chosen to believe in.

THAT was point of my post. By the way, clearly you havebn't read Doris Kearns Goodwin's biography of Lyndon Johnson. Even Robert Caro, the man who knows more about Lyndon Johnson than any man to ever live doesn't believe Johnson had anything to do with the Kennedy assassination. Why would he? There is no evidence that he did. Only the historical illiterate and conspiratorial superstitious would believe such nonsense.

Posted on Nov 10, 2012 6:56:02 PM PST
Sock Puppet says:
SVA and his little man debugger. I agree with you wholeheartedly. JFK's assassination was not a conspiracy. It was a coup d'etat. As for LBJ, you need to catch up on your reading. Nothing good has ever been written about him by anyone. The closer and more knowledgeable people were, the worse the things said. While you are singing his praises, explain how beneficial the Vietnam War was to anyone other than war contractors. The defeat of the US by a 3rd world nation isn't a high mark in history.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 6:43:12 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 10, 2012 7:06:29 PM PST
Your points clearly demonstrate that we disagree to the interpretation of the roles of Kennedy and LBJ--welcome to studying history.

Your concluding remark: "My real question is why would anyone want the guy dead..."

To me, THIS is the irrelevant question.l As with ANY murder murder, motive is irrelevant. As I'm sure you are aware the prosecution in a criminal prosecutioin has no burden to reveal (or determine) motive. If the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that a person committed a particular crime, then their motive makes no difference. This is where many Kennedy assassination conspiracy cultists stray off the tracks---vainly trying to figure out Oswald's motive. While motive IS interesting and it DOES help convict many a guilty person it is entirely superfluous to the investigation into a crime.

My main interest in the Kennedy assassination and in attempting to show Oswald sole guilt is that the conspiracy cultists have arguably done more harm to the historical record of one single event (the Kennedy assassination) than ANY group of people have had in history. More than the anti-Founding Fathers revisioinists, more than the anti-Civil Rights revisioinists, more than the Holocaust revisionists. Sadly much of the America today (as much as 75%) believe there was a massive conspiratorial plot to murder President Kennedy, all because of the tireless promotion and speculation of a group of over zealous, but misguided, activisits that have bamboozled, hoodwinked, and lied to the American public. I see this EVERY single day in my classes I teach. I have students spouting the most ridiculous claims every single semester about the Kennedy assassination and sadly the American people know very little of the actual, tangible, forensic evidence proving beyond any and all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, murder President Kennedy.

That is why I post on this and numerous other sites.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 5:49:43 PM PST
IGS says:
SV

1. Then I would be correct, 40 is inclusive of 40+ years

2. He pushed it through? LBJ was the most powerful man in the senate for 10 years before that and many years after he had more favors to call in than virtually any senator in a generation. That legislation passed because he willed it so.

The whole Cuba business would not have occurred, at all, had Nixon won or while LBJ was in office. He was perceived as weak and of no intellectual weight. I am not sure either were strictly correct, but perception is generally more important than reality in such cases.

3. --

4. Whether you care or not is irrelevant. He is dead. The why of it is not even important at this time. The effect is the thing. An ineffectual nonentity was replace with a legislative master. Although I do not agree with much of what LBJ did, he got things done. As for books on war ... it depends on the book and the war. Since the history of mankind is war so it is somewhat fundamental to any understanding of history. But it is the people behind it that can be fascinating. I find the Revolutionary War ... not particularly interesting. But Washington is absolutely first rate as a character study and the back blast from that war have been felt to this day, especially due to its much more amplified cousin the French Revolution.

Your points, as always, are nothing less than true and frankly you caught me in a petulant mood.

My real question is why would anyone want the guy dead and what earth shaking difference would it make?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 3:43:41 PM PST
Debunker says:
Timothy,

If you do enough reading about the JFK assassination, with an open, inquisitive mind, you'll come to the conclusion you arrived at. The devoted conspiracy nuts do not do that. They go in already convinced of a "conspiracy", and dismiss the overwhelming amount of evidence that shows LHO was the lone gunman.

Posted on Nov 10, 2012 12:07:47 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 4, 2012 7:33:15 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 11:46:54 AM PST
Interesting take on the study of history there IGS. A few comments are in order:

1. First of all you are a bit loose with your math; Kennedy was not assassinated in 1972 but in 1963.
2. I agree that in large measure Kennedy was ineffedtual as president although he did push through the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which LBJ received credit for since it was signed after the assassination) which was arguably the most piece of civil rights legislation since the Civil War Amendments (13, 14 and 15). He also took a firm stance against the USSR in Cuba which possibly saved the United States from a possible Soviet attack at a later date. But over all, I agree he did not accomplish a great deal in his thousand days in office.
3. I also agree that Johnson was a much better president and accomplished a great deal more than did Kennedy in his time in office.
4. Concerning your blanket claim that "no one cares"...this comes across as a bit egocentric since clearly you assume that since YOU don't care therefore it is logical that NO ONE cares--you apparently being the standard by which all actions should be judged. I disagree with that point. As a historian I am forced to study a LOT of topics I don't care about, but that doesn't make those events less important or trivial in any way. I have never been a big Civil War nut. Most historians are--I'm not. I find most books on the war to be boring and they rarely hold my interest. So what? I still am expected to teach courses on the Civil War and like it or not it was perhaps the most important single event in our nation's history. So while YOU don't care much for the study of the Kennedy assassination, that certainly doesn't mean that NO ONE cares.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Posted on Nov 10, 2012 10:41:30 AM PST
IGS says:
Yawn

The dude's been dead for 40 years and no one cares. He was an ineffectual president who was no great loss. I do not like LBJ, but for good or worse he got a good deal more accomplished than JFK could ever dream of. Let's face it, the country is far better off than we would have otherwise have been. After getting his boat run over while sleeping on duty in a combat zone ... I'm not thinking this is a guy who should have ever been elected in the first place. A pretty face can only get you so far. His got him to Dallas.

Posted on Nov 10, 2012 9:51:43 AM PST
When I was a kid, in the 1970's, I was really into the JFK conspiracy. Over the years I've read dozens of books about the assassination. Every single theory presented in one is completely contradicted by another. I finally came to the inescapable conclusion. Since every theory for a conspiracy has been proven wrong, Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone shooter. He may indeed have had help, but, no other shooter was involved.

Posted on Nov 10, 2012 6:47:54 AM PST
Debunker says:
Not sure what Marzano's angle is. The statement "there is no reliable evidence for the Kennedy assassination, medical or otherwise, that was provided by the government" is (a) a lie, and (b) the height of stupidity.

Medearis has proven he's a joke unable to back up any assertion with actual evidence nor answer a question directed towards him.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 10, 2012 12:05:10 AM PST
Reading the above two quotes by Jeff Marzano and David Medearis gives any new readers a glimpse inside the minds of two of the wackiest conspiracy cultists currently posting.

They ARE kind of fun to have around, though.

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 10:49:56 PM PST
Sock Puppet says:
In Oswald's day, Carcanos could be bought in lots of 25, for 3 dollars each, and ammo was really cheap. The owner of the Carcano suspected to be Oswalds, went to a lot of trouble to furnish it with a paper trail. When buying them at discount stores or other outlets, a person could buy any number of them and ammo, with no record whatsoever. Oswald supposedly picked up his rifle at a shipping collection point some distance from his abode under the name Alek Hidell. Of course he didn't need an official ID to get his package, and no one remembers him picking it up. As usual. No proof, just assumptions. But this is proof to the Lone Nut Theorists. Want them on your jury?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 9:44:19 PM PST
Jeff Marzano says:
What Does the Medical EVIDENCE Reveal About the Kennedy Assassination When Compared to Conspiracy Theories ?

Nothing Anderson. Because as I've told you about 100 times there is no reliable evidence for the Kennedy assassination, medical or otherwise, that was provided by the government.

This was a conspiracy. The very agencies you look to for your evidence were part of that conspiracy.

You swallowed the government line and let it lead you into a quagmire of lies and disinformation where you have become mired and hopelessly lost forever.

Perhaps you yourself are beginning to realize this somewhere in the recesses of your deluded mind. This is causing you to flood these discussions with the boundless sea of useless information that has drowned your mind over the many years. Your gigantic messages are a desperate attempt to avoid the horrible truth that you have wasted your life.

The kids at Kent State knew the truth. They tried to stand up against the Military Industrial Complex. They didn't make it. But they are not forgotten even now.

Nixon was president by then. Another hypocrite like Johnson before him and Clinton after.

Sixty thousand Americans dead in that Hell hole Viet Nam and countless others injured in so many ways. Millions of innocent Vietnamese civilians.

"Everything pertaining to what's happening has never come to the surface. The world will never know the true facts of what occurred, my motives. The people who had so much to gain, and had such an ulterior motive for putting me in the position I'm in, will never let the true facts come above board to the world."
- Jack Ruby (March 1965)

Those are the words of Jack Ruby who, like Pontius Pilate, sold his soul to the dark forces of his day and was unable to get out of the bargain.

"He without an ideal is sorry indeed; he with an ideal and lacking courage to live it is sorrier still. Know that." - Edgar Cayce

Jeff Marzano

The Men Who Killed Kennedy

The Essential Edgar Cayce

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 9:10:16 PM PST
i did not see any secrets
there was nothing secret anyway

i saw what they were doing
so i know it was altered and not believable

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 7:31:29 PM PST
Debunker says:
It's true you've posted garbage. It's also true you haven't presented a shred of evidence to back up your conspiracy claims.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 7:30:35 PM PST
Debunker says:
So you saw all the secrets! Wow. Why haven't they killed you to keep you from spilling the beans?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 2:40:08 PM PST
i was at the house of reps during the investigation
they kept all their data on our computers where i worked
the idjuts found out that we could see their comms in our network control gear

the solution was: they made us promise not to look at their data
what a super secure solution that was

i researched this subject in depth in the 60s
with original source documents

you are going with secondary sources 50 years laters
that include too much speculation and too little facts

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 2:32:34 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Mar 20, 2013 12:00:20 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 2:08:55 PM PST
all i post is true

sorry you are so confused

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 8:42:29 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Dec 4, 2012 7:33:34 AM PST]
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  8
Total posts:  36
Initial post:  Nov 8, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 11, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions