Lyft Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited Get 10% cashback on thousands of musical instruments with your Store Credit Card Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Transparent Transparent Transparent  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Wonder Woman now available on Blu-ray, 3D, and 4K Tailgating PSFF17_gno
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
Initial post: Nov 8, 2012, 9:08:27 PM PST
(Due to the length of this post, I am forced to divide it into two installments. This is part one.)

No murder in world history--NONE--has received more critical scrutiny than the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. And no area of study has been more thoroughly examined than the medical evidence accumulated in Trauma Room One at Parkland Memorial Hospital where docters frantically attempted to save the president's life in Dallas and at the Bethesda Medical Center in Maryland later that night where three trained medical professionals conducted the most talked about post-mortem in the history of mankind. Conspiracy theories are filled with misinformation concerning these two events and what many Americans believe the medical evidence revealed is actually false. There is an old saying that one only knows when they are being lied to if they already know the truth--sadly with the factual information surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy, the plain and simple truth is that very few Americans know ANYTHING about the actual medical evidence in this case. Totally fictional accounts of the assassination such as Oliver Stone's "JFK" (or as I re-named it, 'Dallas in Wonderland') fill the minds of viewers with misrepresentations, ommissions, and outright lies in order to sensationalize and overly complicate a relatively simple murder.

Let's take a brief journey through what the actual medical evidence reveals about President Kennedy's death and let's see what recognized, trained medical professionals have to say about the cause of death to learn how much weight we should give to the endless stream of conspiracy theorists that plague the Internet and media today. I will start by quoting a typical conspiracy claim, ALL of which I have heard hundreds and hundreds of times over the years and then I will show what the ACTUAL medical evidence says in regards to each claim.

1. Claim: "All of the Dallas doctors were in agreement that the first shot to strike Kennedy originated from in FRONT of the motorcade and the throat wound was one of entrance. Since Oswald was located BEHIND the motorcade this establishes a two-assassin scenerio."

Facts: This statement IS partially true. SOME of the attending staff at Parkland Hospital DID think the wound to Kennedy's throat was one of entrance but we learned later that they were mistaken. Other doctors, seeing the SAME wound thought it was one of exit. Here is what EVERY doctor to see the throat wound said about its appearance:
Dr. Charles Baxter: "We...did not determine at that time whether this represented an entry or an exit wound. Judging from the caliber of the rifle that [was] later found...this would more resemble a wound of entry. However...depending upon what a bullet of such caliber would pass through, the tissues it would pass through on the way to the [throat], I think that the wound could well represent EITHER an exit or entry wound." (Capitals mine)
Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I thought this was a wound of EXIT because it was not a clean one, and by 'clean' [I mean] clearly demarcated-- round." (Capitals mine)
Dr. Ronald Jones: "[The] small hole in [the] anterior midline of neck [was] thought to be a bullet entrance wound."
Dr. Gene Akin: "[The wound] was slightly ragged around the edges...The thought flashed through my mind that this might have been an entrance wound. I immediately thought it could also have been an exit wound."
D. Malcom Perry: Initially identified the wound as one of entrance but later backed off that preliminary assumption and admitted that "whether the wounds were entrance or exit wounds really made very little difference [to us]. Some things must take precedence and priority and in this instance the airway and the bleeding [had to] be controlled...We were trying to save a life, not worrying about entry and exit wounds."

What the Parkland Hospital doctors did NOT know at the time was that there was another bullet hole in Kennedy's upper back. But since the President was NEVER turned over while in Dallas no one knew of this other bullet hole which would have helped them realize that the rear wound was one of entrance and the throat wound was one of exit.

So how do we know the throat wound was one of exit? What does the medical and clothing evidence reveal?

1. The wound to Kennedy's upper back, when examined during the autopsy, revealed four proofs as to the direction of the shot:
a. The skin and muscle tissue around the opening of the back wound was pushed INWARD. This alone--with NO further evidence would establish beyond any and all doubt as to the direction of the missile.
b. The back wound contained an abrasion collar--visible to the naked eye--which is similar to a halo-patterned bruising around the hole. Abrassion collars are ALWAYS found surrounding entrance wounds and are NEVER found surrounding exit wounds.
c. The back wound also contained further evidence only visible under a microscope. When a bullet enters a body it burns the skin causing microscopic changes to occur with the tissue. This burning is known to forensic pathologists as coagulation necrosis of the tissues. This change is ALWAYS found in entrance wounds--EVERY SINGLE TIME WITH NO EXCEPTIONS. None. Ever. Even Dr. Cyril Wecht, the most vocal of the conspiracy medical professionals admitted that the back wound--based on the medical evidence--HAD to be one of entrance.
d. Additional evidence was found on Kennedy's clothing. When the president's clothing was examined later that night in Washington D.C. it was clearly evidence that his suit jacket and shirt showed that the rear holes contained fibers that were pushed INWARD. While the front of Kennedy's shirt and his necktie showed fibers that were pushed OUTWARD. Again, if this were the ONLY evidence we had it would establish, not beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond ALL doubt that Kennedy was struck from the rear and those doctors in Dallas that assumed the throat wound to be a wound of entrance were simply mistaken.

Of course conspiracy cultists choose to ignore all of the hard, forensic medical evidence, and opt instead to embrace the frantic, unqualified (none of the Dallas staffers were trained in determining origin of bullets--and ALL Dallas doctors admitted later their initial impressions were totally speculation and not qualified in any way) views of the medical team NONE of whom carefully examined the president's wounds during their hurried attempts to save his life (why would they?)

2. Claim: Kennedy was shot twice, before his head shot, once from the back, causing the wound to his upper back and then almost at the same time from the front causing the wound to his throat.

Facts: We have already discussed the medical evidence proving beyond ANY doubt that the back wound was one of entrance and the front wound was one of exit. But conspiracy cultists rarely let medical evidence stand in the way of accepting a new, fanciful theory. This claim has several logical flaws and missing evidence.
a. Conspiracy cultists never clearly locate just esactly WHERE this frontal gunman was supposedly hiding at this time. Their favorite location is the grassy knoll, but at the time of the first shot the president wasn't visible to a gunman located on the grassy knoll therefore to avoid the risk of embarassment, most conspiracy cultists never state specifically WHERE this invisible gunman was allegedly firing from and instead they leave it up to their gullible devotees to fill in such gaps in their own mind.
b. IF there were two nearly simultaneous shots then that raises two very important questions:
i. If the back wound did NOT pass through Kennedy's body... then what happened to that bullet? No intact bullet was found in the limousine, none were removed from Kennedy at Parkland Hospital, and none were in his body during the autopsy (Kennedy underwent a FULL body X-ray in Maryland and NO bullets were revealed.)
ii. Also, if the throat wound bullet didn't pass through the president, then what happened to THAT bullet as well? It is tragically comical to hear conspiracy cultists talk of what they have labeled the "Magic bullet" passing through Kennedy and later Connally, when in reality they believe in TWO bullets that don't just zig and zag, they enter bodies, mysteriously stop without striking ANY bones, and then promptly disappear. Now THAT is a magic bullet.

3. Claim: The president received his fatal head shot from the right-front and NOT from Oswald's location in the TSBD to the right, elevated rear.
Facts: There are multiple problems with this theory.
a. On 11/22/63 there was not one single eyewitness who said they saw a gunman or a rifle located to the right-front of the president. Not one. Nearly 400 people were in or near the assassination site, many facing the stockade fence atop the grassy knoll and there was even one eyewitness located behind the stockade fence (Lee Bowers) yet NOT ONE SINGLE witness said they saw a rifle or an assassin firing from the right-front area when they were questioned on 11/22/63. Not one.
b. The Zapruder film reveals ALL damage to the president's head to be located right where the autopsy later revealed it to be--the right side above his ear. NO damage is seen in ANY of the frames of the Zapruder film to the left rear of the president's head.
c. The autopsy photographs and X-rays do not reveal ANY damage to the left hemisphere of the president's head. None. And more specifically, the autopsy X-rays reveal a spray of metallic matter eminating from the right rear to the left and right-front of the brain--exactly what one would expect from a shot located from above and behind--exactly where we know Oswald and his rifle were at the time of the assassination.
d. ALL bullet fragments were located in FRONT of Kennedy after the assassination. Had any shots originated from the right-front of the president one would logically expect to find fragments to the left rear--but such is not the case. NO bullet fragments were located to the left rear of the president's head.
e. The Zapruder film reveals the president's head being driven violently FORWARD at the moment of impact from the final bullet. A moment later Kennedy fell back and to the left into the rear of the seat, but this was AFTER the initial impact of the head shot was experienced.
f. ALL bullet fragments recovered form the limousine matched Oswald's rifle and NO OTHER. There were no large, unidentified bullet fragments that could have originated from a rifle other than Oswald's rifle. Therefore IF a gunman fired from the right-front and hit Kennedy in the head...what happened to all of the bullet fragments from that rifle?
g. The back of Kennedy's head had ONE hole that also had an abrasion collar and showed evidence of coagulation necrosis of the tissue. Additionally the inside of Kennedy's skull was beveled INWARD, this was proof positive that the bullet originated from the back of the president's head and NOT in front. Even Dr. Cyril Wecht, the darling of the conspiracy cultists admitted in 1972 and again in 1978 that, BASED ON THE EVIDENCDE, he had to concur--Kennedy was struck ONLY once in the head, from a location behind and to the above-right.
h. Conspiracy cultists are fond of quoting the final report of the HSCA which determined that there was a 95% probability that a shot was fired from the right-front in addition to the shots fired from the right rear--hence a conspiracy, but they rarely go ont to state just exactly WHAT the HSCA stated about the shooting. The HSCA said that while there was acoustical evidence of a fourth shot (evidence which was later proven to be erroneous), this shot apparently MISSED the limousine since there was no evidence anyone in the limousine was struck with any bullets. Simply stated, the conspiracy cult would have us believe that a conspiracy existed with Oswald firing from above and behind and another rifleman was firing from a closer location from the right front of the president. But this second gunman (based on the HSCA's own findings) missed the president, the first lady, the governor or Texas, the first lady of Texas, two secret service agents, the limousine itself, and EVERYONE standing on the south side of Elm street watching the motorcade pass by.

Quite the assassin the conspiracy hired wouldn't you have to agree? And to think that the conspiracy cult criticizes OSWALD'S shooting abilities. Their would-be assassin missed every thing in Dealey Plaza.

And there are logical problems with the right-front gunman theory also:
a. If the conspirators were plotting to assassinate President Kennedy one could only logically assume they would want to keep such a conspiracy a secret. Of course it is comical to claim that some nefarious group of hitmen would plan the murder of the century and then advertise to the world that there were multiple gunmen firing, thus opening the most extensive manhunt in world history. But if one gunman is located to the right rear (as we already know with 100% certainty thanks to the medical evidence proving beyond ALL doubt that shots entered the President from the rear) and the conspirators place another gunman to the right front aren't they then, in effect, announcing to the world that there are TWO gunmen firing and hence revealing the conspiracy to everyone? Common sense and basic logic would demand that IF two gunmen were hired to kill the president, they would be firing from the EXACT same location at the same time, thus hiding the multiple shooters. (Of course the different bullets would be traced to different rifles anyway, so in any event, multiple gunmen would announce the conspiracy in no time.)

(part two follows)

Posted on Nov 8, 2012, 9:09:02 PM PST
(part two)
4. Claim: The Dallas doctors were "in" on the assassination conspiracy and that explains why bullets allegedly found inside the president managed to "disappear" due to the fact that Parkland staffers agreed to help cover-up evidence of the conspiracy.

Facts: Aside from the fact that this theory is almost too dumb to warrant a serious response it is illogical on the surface for multiple reasons.
a. What possible motive would this team of doctors--many young interns or residents--have to agree on the spur of the moment (remember no one knew if Kennedy would survive the assassination attempt or not) to cover-up evidence of a plot to murder the chief executive? These are family men, with homes, wives, children, obligations, and careers that (according to some conspiracy cultists) were willing on the turn of a dime to give all of that up and risk execution if caught participating in a murder. Remember that conspiratorial associations in a murder--even when it only involves framing an innocent person--carries the death penalty if discovered. These doctors after having spent ten, twelve, sixteen years in university-level courses and after spending hundreds and in some cases thousands of hours in preparation for their careers were willing in a heartbeat to sacrifice all of that so that they could be involved in the assassination of their president.
b. IF these doctors were involved in some sort of conspiratorial plot, then how does one explain those doctors that opined that the shot to Kennedy's throat was an entrance wound? Isn't that EXACTLY the opposite of what they WOULD have said? To say a shot came from the front would be to reveal the very conspiracy they were allegedly a part of.

5. Claim: The entire photographic record of the assassination is subject to doubt since it is clear that the Zapruder film as well as the autopsy photographs and X-rays have been altered to conceal the real injuries sustained by the President.

Facts: This claim, which incidentally is believed by millions and millions of individuals within the conspiracy cult, may be the wackiest and easiest to disprove of all conspiracy claims.

1. This allegation demonstrates how cultists respond to contradictory evidence. Real scholars and real scientists ammend their theories whenever contradictory evidence proves them wrong. If scientists theorize that rainwater is the instigator of photosynthesis and they attempt to raise plants devoid of sunlight but rich with rainwater and as a result they die, they don't claim that nature is a part of an elaborate conspiracy and the laws of nature need to be revised--they simply alter their initial theory to fit the known facts. But within the conspiracyu cult the OPPOSITE takes place. Once a theory is embraced--no matter how ridiculous, how outlandish, or how stupid, it must NEVER be abandoned. Any hard evidence that flatly contradicts the theory must be ignored or declared tainted. The theory must stand supreme, trumping any and all opposing evidence. If one theorizes that Kennedy was shot from the right front but NO witnessess corroborated this theory on 11/22/63 then they must have been intimidated by police (co-conspirators) or by the Secret Service (also co-conspirators) or by the FBI (also co-conspirators.) If the Zapruder film flatly reveals evidence that disproves the front gunman theory then the Zapruder film must be faked in some way. Nevermind the fact that the Zapruder film frames match perfectly with the Nix film frames (taken from the opposite direction) or the Muchmore film frames or other movies and still photographs. They must ALL have been located, stolen, altered, returned, and synchronized so that all agree with one another. Of course such a galactically complicated plot is laughable.
b. If the autopsy photographs do not reveal damage to the back of the president's head then they have been faked also.
c. If the autopsy X-rays do not reveal damage to the back of the president's head then they have been faked also.
d. If the autopsy surgeons write a report that disagrees with a conspiracy theory then they must be a part of the conspiracy also.
e. The HSCA addressed the cultist's claims that the Zapruder film and the autopsy photographs and X-rays were faked or altered in some way. A team of recognized photographic experts from around the country were assembled to carefully make use of the latest technology (circa 1978) to ascertain the authenticity of the photographic record. This team had a combined history of hundreds and hundreds of years of photographic experience and training (between all members) and after conducting a battery of tests using microscopic examination of the dot content, stereoscopic comparison, photo grammerty and other universally accepted forgery detection methods determined that ALL photographs in question were authentic and NONE showed no evidence of tampering, alterations, or forgery. Of course this did not dissuade the conspiracy cultists. They simply trotted out their own "experts" (not one of whom had ANY formal or recognized training in photographic forgery detection) to dispute the findings of the team of professionals. Their "evidence" of forgery (none of which is legitimate within recognized photographic circles) is still routinely referred today by conspiracy cultists.

It never ends. All comnmon sense, all logic, all evidence must be sacrificed so that the theory can march onward.

Just imagine the state of the medical profession if the conspiracy cult's methodologies were employed in the understanding the causes of diseases, the cause of pregnancy, or the causes of death? Theories would NEVER be altered to fit proven evidence, but evidence would be altered to fit their theories.

So we see from these five examples that in EVERY instance the conspiracy cult's claims are at odds with common sense, at odds with the evidence, and at odds with logic. I don't anticipate this changing any time soon.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012, 9:55:36 PM PST

the doctors reports were adjusted to cover up the truth

they add no value

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012, 5:20:58 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 9, 2012, 5:34:51 AM PST appears the conspiracy cult is alive and well and keeping its grip firm on its adherants.

But educated readers will have a few questions for you horse:

1. Please explain, if it was the REPORTS that were adjusted, why was it that the doctors maintained the same account of the injuries up to today's date? Wouldn't their original statements be at odds with the reports they wrote if it were the reports that were adjusted? And secondly, why in 49 years hadn't one single doctor ever pointed out that what THEY wrote isn't the same as what is in the medical reports today?

2. Why, if the medical reports were adjusted to cover up the truth, do the autopsy photographs agree PERFECTLY with the injuries visible in the Zapruder film? Remember that the autopsy photographs were taken 11/22/63 but the Zapruder film wasn't developed and shown at a time they could be harmonized. Is it simply a lucky coincidence that the injuries depicted in both of these photographic records just "happened" to match perfectly?

Do these incontrovertible facts cause you any consternation or have you decided to simply abandon all evidence and embrace instead your theory IN SPITE of all contradictory evidence? If that is the case, then educated posters are under no obligation to resond to any of your posts since you have clearly checked out of reality and are no longer operating in the real world.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012, 6:14:31 AM PST
Debunker says:
Can't take this clown seriously. He's a joke.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012, 7:29:18 AM PST
i was there
watched what was going on in the investigation

there were too many funny things going on to be seriously looking for the truth.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012, 7:29:55 AM PST
the truth is hard for some people to deal with
keep trying maybe you too will be able to do it someday

Posted on Nov 9, 2012, 8:16:12 AM PST
[Deleted by the author on Mar 20, 2013, 12:00:13 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012, 8:30:17 AM PST
I haven't run into horse boy in the past. I mistakeningly thought he was a serious poster. Is he always as moronic as his last few posts make him out to be? Does anyone besides me have this waste of time on ignore?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012, 8:38:17 AM PST
Debunker says:
"Is he always as moronic as his last few posts make him out to be".


In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012, 8:39:07 AM PST
Debunker says:
I keep waiting for you to post some truth. Hasn't happened yet.

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]

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

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, 2:40:08 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

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, 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, 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, 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

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 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 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.

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, 10:41:30 AM PST

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.

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.
‹ 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

Recent discussions in the History forum


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