JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Duncan MacRae on September 04, 2023, 11:03:34 AM
-
-
Imagine if the JFK CTer/contrarians applied their usual standard of proof to this situation.
1) No one '"saw" Booth shoot Lincoln. They merely heard a gunshot and turned to see a man resembling Booth holding a smoking gun at Lincoln's head. That doesn't mean they saw him shoot Lincoln. It's possible Lincoln committed suicide, Booth picked up the gun, and realized it looked bad and made a run for it.
2) There is nothing incriminating about Booth being there since he "worked" in Ford's Theatre.
3) There is a chain of custody issue with the gun since different people claimed to have found it after the shooting.
4) There are no documents, photos, or prints that link Booth to that gun.
5) Why would Booth, who was wealthy, use such a weapon? Surely, he would have brought a better gun.
6) There are some witnesses among the crowd who were off in their description of Booth's appearance. They got some details about his manner of dress, weight, and age wrong. Therefore, we must entertain doubt that it was him.
7) Booth's diary and other written materials could have been forged since handwriting analysis is not a science.
8) There were powerful forces that wanted Lincoln dead during the Civil War.
9) Booth's motive can't be proven with certainty. The war was effectively over. So killing Lincoln was not going to accomplish anything at that point.
As a result, we can never conclude that Booth was guilty of the assassination. It is only our "assumption" or "opinion" based upon acceptance of the official story.
-
Imagine if the JFK CTer/contrarians applied their usual standard of proof to this situation.
Booth never denied responsibility for killing Lincoln. He didn't claim to be a "patsy". The national security state of the 1860s was not keeping close tabs on Booth up until the point when he killed Lincoln. Booth's co-conspirators were held accountable.
I could go on but you get the point. There are few similarities between Lincoln's assassination and JFK's.
-
Booth never denied responsibility for killing Lincoln. He didn't claim to be a "patsy". The national security state of the 1860s was not keeping close tabs on Booth up until the point when he killed Lincoln. Booth's co-conspirators were held accountable.
I could go on but you get the point. There are few similarities between Lincoln's assassination and JFK's.
Booth was shot and mortally wounded after the soldiers involved were specifically ordered to take him alive. He never made any verbal statement to authorities as to his guilt. That is what JFK CTers would characterize as "being silenced." It would be deemed suspicious evidencing a plot to frame Booth. Of course, there is no doubt that Booth was guilty. Just as the evidence proves Oswald is guilty. My point is that if you apply the same type of "logic" to the Lincoln assassination (or any event in history) as the CTers apply to the JFK assassination, then you go down endless rabbit holes. They are conjuring false doubt to suit their desired narrative. There is actually less evidence against Booth than Oswald when you compare the cases using JFK CTer standards of proof.
-
Booth was shot and mortally wounded after the soldiers involved were specifically ordered to take him alive. He never made any verbal statement to authorities as to his guilt. That is what JFK CTers would characterize as "being silenced." It would be deemed suspicious evidencing a plot to frame Booth.
You're ignoring the obvious, which is that Booth clearly hated Lincoln. He tried to kidnap him before the opportunity to kill him fell in his lap. If he survived to stand trial, he likely wouldn't have denied responsibility for killing Lincoln.
In contrast, Lee Oswald had no clear motive or animosity towards JFK, there's holes in the forensic evidence and witness statements, and he denied responsibility for shooting JFK.
So while one can look at all the evidence in the JFK assassination and reach the conclusion that Oswald likely did it alone, there's still room for doubts and we will never be able to resolve some of the problems with the forensic evidence due to poor evidence handling by the Dallas PD and destruction of evidence by several Federal government agencies.
It's apples to oranges to compare the Lincoln assassination to the JFK assassination...
-
You're ignoring the obvious, which is that Booth clearly hated Lincoln. He tried to kidnap him before the opportunity to kill him fell in his lap. If he survived to stand trial, he likely wouldn't have denied responsibility for killing Lincoln.
In contrast, Lee Oswald had no clear motive or animosity towards JFK, there's holes in the forensic evidence and witness statements, and he denied responsibility for shooting JFK.
So while one can look at all the evidence in the JFK assassination and reach the conclusion that Oswald likely did it alone, there's still room for doubts and we will never be able to resolve some of the problems with the forensic evidence due to poor evidence handling by the Dallas PD and destruction of evidence by several Federal government agencies.
It's apples to oranges to compare the Lincoln assassination to the JFK assassination...
A contrarian JFK CTer would argue that the war was effectively over. It did no good to assassinate Lincoln and replace him with a less sympathetic president. How do we know that Booth hated Lincoln? That is just the "official" story. Perhaps he was an agent of the government infiltrating the Rebel spy rings in DC and pretending to hate Lincoln. Stanton and Andrew Johnson could have set him up as a patsy. No one can disprove it with absolute certainty.
-
Literally no one argues that Booth didn’t kill Lincoln. Refer to my previous post for an explanation of why that is.
In contrast, even people who believed Lee Oswald was guilty suspected that there was a conspiracy. Including Lyndon Johnson, who requested the Warren Commission. If people with inside knowledge of the event like President Johnson and Robert Kennedy Sr suspected a conspiracy, it’s perfectly reasonable for anyone else to suspect a conspiracy in JFK’s assassination.
-
Literally no one argues that Booth didn’t kill Lincoln. Refer to my previous post for an explanation of why that is.
In contrast, even people who believed Lee Oswald was guilty suspected that there was a conspiracy. Including Lyndon Johnson, who requested the Warren Commission. If people with inside knowledge of the event like President Johnson and Robert Kennedy Sr suspected a conspiracy, it’s perfectly reasonable for anyone else to suspect a conspiracy in JFK’s assassination.
Of course Booth killed Lincoln. That is the point. If the same standard of proof were applied to that case as in the JFK context, however, there would be "doubt." No one can show that Booth pulled the trigger. No one can link Booth to the murder weapon. No one can link the bullet to the gun found at the scene. No one knows for sure who found the gun (chain of custody). Some witness were off as to description of Booth. He "worked" in the theatre. So his presence is not evidence of guilt. No one can know his motive with certainty. There can only be "speculation" and "assumptions." And on and on. The point is that the standard applied by CTers to Oswald is absurd.
-
Of course Booth killed Lincoln. That is the point. If the same standard of proof were applied to that case as in the JFK context, however, there would be "doubt." No one can show that Booth pulled the trigger. No one can link Booth to the murder weapon. No one can link the bullet to the gun found at the scene. No one knows for sure who found the gun (chain of custody). Some witness were off as to description of Booth. He "worked" in the theatre. So his presence is not evidence of guilt. No one can know his motive with certainty. There can only be "speculation" and "assumptions." And on and on. The point is that the standard applied by CTers to Oswald is absurd.
With all due respect, you’re full of BS on this :D
There’s no doubt about Booth’s motive and his co-conspirators were caught.
In contrast, we can only speculate about Oswald’s motive and/or whether or not there was a conspiracy. There’s not enough hard evidence to resolve all the remaining questions about the JFK assassination.
-
With all due respect, you’re full of BS on this :D
There’s no doubt about Booth’s motive and his co-conspirators were caught.
In contrast, we can only speculate about Oswald’s motive and/or whether or not there was a conspiracy. There’s not enough hard evidence to resolve all the remaining questions about the JFK assassination.
That's because you are not understanding the point. I'm not arguing that there is any doubt of Booth's guilt or motive. He did it. He hated Lincoln etc. There is no doubt about it. What I trying to demonstrate is that if you apply the looney standards CTers apply to Oswald in the JFK case to Booth's situation or to any fact in human history, you could claim there was doubt. The irony is that CTers appear to agree that Booth is guilty of assassinating Lincoln based on the evidence in that case. But, for some inexplicable reason, can't grasp that there is as much or even more evidence that links Oswald to the JFK assassination. It's humorous. I've rebutted all your evidence of Booth's guilt using the CTer JFK standards. As a result, if I were a loon, I could claim that there is doubt even though we know he was guilty.
-
That's because you are not understanding the point. I'm not arguing that there is any doubt of Booth's guilt or motive. He did it. He hated Lincoln etc. There is no doubt about it. What I trying to demonstrate is that if you apply the looney standards CTers apply to Oswald in the JFK case to Booth's situation or to any fact in human history, you could claim there was doubt. The irony is that CTers appear to agree that Booth is guilty of assassinating Lincoln based on the evidence in that case. But, for some inexplicable reason, can't grasp that there is as much or even more evidence that links Oswald to the JFK assassination. It's humorous. I've rebutted all your evidence of Booth's guilt using the CTer JFK standards. As a result, if I were a loon, I could claim that there is doubt even though we know he was guilty.
The standards of evidence in the JFK assassination are the same as any other murder case.
What you refuse to acknowledge or accept is that there are one too many problems with evidence and witness statements in the Kennedy assassination. Most people understandably aren’t satisfied with the conclusion that Oswald acted alone due to the conflicts with the evidence and unresolved questions.
I personally don’t consider myself a “Conspiracy Theorist”. I’m skeptical of most conspiracy theories. But at the same time, I acknowledge that conspiracies do happen and based on the evidence in the Kennedy assassination, I believe it’s plausible that others were involved.
-
The standards of evidence in the JFK assassination are the same as any other murder case.
What you refuse to acknowledge or accept is that there are one too many problems with evidence and witness statements in the Kennedy assassination. Most people understandably aren’t satisfied with the conclusion that Oswald acted alone due to the conflicts with the evidence and unresolved questions.
I personally don’t consider myself a “Conspiracy Theorist”. I’m skeptical of most conspiracy theories. But at the same time, I acknowledge that conspiracies do happen and based on the evidence in the Kennedy assassination, I believe it’s plausible that others were involved.
Those "problems" only exist due to the laughable standard of proof applied by CTers to the JFK case. That case was solved within a few hours of the crime being committed. The evidence is rock solid. There is no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else. Most CTers no longer even bother to try to explain what happened. They instead try to create doubt by any means as to Oswald's guilt. And failed even in that. Imagine the outlandish alternative narrative that must have occurred for Oswald to be a patsy in this case. Among other things he must have been in agreement with the conspirators to frame himself for the crime. This is like Bigfoot. True believers can never be unconvinced by facts or reason.
-
Those "problems" only exist due to the laughable standard of proof applied by CTers to the JFK case.
The root of the conflicts with the evidence stem from either incompetent or malicious handling of the evidence by the Dallas PD followed by a bad autopsy conducted by the military, and destruction or suppression of evidence by other Federal government agencies.
It's possible that in spite of all the problems with the evidence, Oswald did act alone, but we'll never know for certain.
That case was solved within a few hours of the crime being committed. The evidence is rock solid.
That's absolutely wrong.
"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand." - Jesse Curry
There is no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else.
There's evidence that suggests others were involved but no conclusive proof.
It's perfectly reasonable to speculate about conspiracy given the many unresolved questions about the Kennedy assassination.
They instead try to create doubt by any means as to Oswald's guilt. And failed even in that. Imagine the outlandish alternative narrative that must have occurred for Oswald to be a patsy in this case. Among other things he must have been in agreement with the conspirators to frame himself for the crime. This is like Bigfoot. True believers can never be unconvinced by facts or reason.
You get hung up on the question of Oswald's guilt. There are many Americans who believe Oswald was guilty but others were involved.
RFK Sr. and LBJ believed Oswald was guilty but others were involved.
-
The root of the conflicts with the evidence stem from either incompetent or malicious handling of the evidence by the Dallas PD followed by a bad autopsy conducted by the military, and destruction or suppression of evidence by other Federal government agencies.
It's possible that in spite of all the problems with the evidence, Oswald did act alone, but we'll never know for certain.
That's absolutely wrong.
"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand." - Jesse Curry
There's evidence that suggests others were involved but no conclusive proof.
It's perfectly reasonable to speculate about conspiracy given the many unresolved questions about the Kennedy assassination.
You get hung up on the question of Oswald's guilt. There are many Americans who believe Oswald was guilty but others were involved.
RFK Sr. and LBJ believed Oswald was guilty but others were involved.
Oswald is linked to the rifle and the rifle is linked to the assassination. That alone means Oswald is guilty absent some explanation for how his rifle came to be left on the 6th floor. The floor from which witnesses confirm the shots were fired. Bullet casings from Oswald's rifle are found by the window. Oswald's prints are on the SN boxes. That leaves only two ways to avoid concluding that Oswald was not the shooter. 1) He has a credible alibi. He does not. 2) He can explain the presence of his rifle at the crime scene. He did not. Instead he lied and denied he owned any rifle. Instead he fled the scene and killed a police officer. It is difficult to understand how there could be any more evidence than exists to prove his guilt. It is stone cold. Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible evidence that he was working with anyone. Oswald was a strange guy. There are some loony things in his background because of that like defecting to the USSR. That is not evidence that he was involved with anyone. Rather it is evidence that he was a few bricks short of a load.
-
Oswald is linked to the rifle and the rifle is linked to the assassination. That alone means Oswald is guilty absent some explanation for how his rifle came to be left on the 6th floor. The floor from which witnesses confirm the shots were fired. Bullet casings from Oswald's rifle are found by the window. Oswald's prints are on the SN boxes. That leaves only two ways to avoid concluding that Oswald was not the shooter. 1) He has a credible alibi. He does not. 2) He can explain the presence of his rifle at the crime scene. He did not. Instead he lied and denied he owned any rifle. Instead he fled the scene and killed a police officer. It is difficult to understand how there could be any more evidence than exists to prove his guilt. It is stone cold. Oswald was the assassin. There is zero credible evidence that he was working with anyone. Oswald was a strange guy. There are some loony things in his background because of that like defecting to the USSR. That is not evidence that he was involved with anyone. Rather it is evidence that he was a few bricks short of a load.
Oswald is linked to the rifle and the rifle is linked to the assassination.
You really need to stop with this pathetically superficial BS.
Oswald is "linked" to a rifle by virtue of the opinion of an FBI handwriting expert and three photos, taken 8 months prior to the assassination, in which he is holding a rifle.
The rifle found at the TSBB is only "linked" to the assassination because it was discovered on the 6th floor. There is no evidence that rifle was even fired or that the shells found at the sniper's nest were fired by that rifle on that day.
There is no credible evidence whatsoever that "links" the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photos and the rifle found at the TSBD.
That alone means Oswald is guilty absent some explanation for how his rifle came to be left on the 6th floor.
This is just about the most stupid comment I have seen you make for months and that say a lot. First of all, there is no evidence that the rifle found at the TSBD was "his rifle" and secondly, even if Oswald did own a rifle in March 1963, it still doesn't mean that he must have still owned it in November 1963. But even more stupidly, it is completely idiotic to argue that ownership of a rifle used in a crime automatically makes the owner guilty of that crime.
Oswald's prints are on the SN boxes
In his oral history interview for the Sixth Floor Museum, Lt Day stated that he wasn't greatly interested in any prints that could be on the boxes, because Oswald worked in the building and part of his job was to handle boxes on the 6th floor. According to Day the prints on the boxes had no real evidentiary value at all.
Instead he lied and denied he owned any rifle.
You have not a shred of evidence to justify the conclusion that Oswald lied about anything. It is just your narrowminded opinion!
It is difficult to understand how there could be any more evidence than exists to prove his guilt. It is stone cold. Oswald was the assassin.
Only in your delusional mind. Assumptions and leaps of faith are not evidence! Take those away and you end up with a weak circumstantial case based on superficial evidence that would not be enough to convince an honest prosecutor to take the case to trial.
-
Oswald is linked to the rifle and the rifle is linked to the assassination.
You really need to stop with this pathetically superficial BS.
Oswald is "linked" to a rifle by virtue of the opinion of an FBI handwriting expert and three photos, taken 8 months prior to the assassination, in which he is holding a rifle.
The rifle found at the TSBB is only "linked" to the assassination because it was discovered on the 6th floor. There is no evidence that rifle was even fired or that the shells found at the sniper's nest were fired by that rifle on that day.
There is no credible evidence whatsoever that "links" the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photos and the rifle found at the TSBD.
That alone means Oswald is guilty absent some explanation for how his rifle came to be left on the 6th floor.
This is just about the most stupid comment I have seen you make for months and that say a lot. First of all, there is no evidence that the rifle found at the TSBD was "his rifle" and secondly, even if Oswald did own a rifle in March 1963, it still doesn't mean that he must have still owned it in November 1963. But even more stupidly, it is completely idiotic to argue that ownership of a rifle used in a crime automatically makes the owner guilty of that crime.
You think Oswald is linked to the rifle only by the "opinion" of the FBI. What does that even mean? LOL. Of course there is a mountain of evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to a specific rifle with a specific serial number. That same rifle is left at the scene of the crime with fired bullet casings from that same rifle found by the window from which several witnesses confirm the shots were fired. Imagine that at the scene of a shooting that a gun is found that can be linked to an individual. That individual has no alibi. That individual instead flees and shoots a police officer and then lies about ownership of the gun. That's a slam dunk of guilt. But we have gone over your insane contrarian standard of proof in the JFK case a million times. The point in this thread is to apply that looney standard to the Lincoln assassination. There is no evidence that links Booth to the gun or the gun to the assassination. Multiple different people claimed to have found the gun after the assassination. No one can prove it was fired that day. LOL. No one saw Booth pull the trigger per your pedantic analysis of what that means. They just heard a gunshot and turned to see Booth pointing a gun at Lincoln's head. Some of the witnesses were off their description of Booth's height, weight, manner of dress. So there must be doubt according to you.
-
You think Oswald is linked to the rifle only by the "opinion" of the FBI. What does that even mean? LOL. Of course there is a mountain of evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to a specific rifle with a specific serial number. That same rifle is left at the scene of the crime with fired bullet casings from that same rifle found by the window from which several witnesses confirm the shots were fired. Imagine that at the scene of a shooting that a gun is found that can be linked to an individual. That individual has no alibi. That individual instead flees and shoots a police officer and then lies about ownership of the gun. That's a slam dunk of guilt. But we have gone over your insane contrarian standard of proof in the JFK case a million times. The point in this thread is to apply that looney standard to the Lincoln assassination. There is no evidence that links Booth to the gun or the gun to the assassination. Multiple different people claimed to have found the gun after the assassination. No one can prove it was fired that day. LOL. No one saw Booth pull the trigger per your pedantic analysis of what that means. They just heard a gunshot and turned to see Booth pointing a gun at Lincoln's head. Some of the witnesses were off their description of Booth's height, weight, manner of dress. So there must be doubt according to you.
You think Oswald is linked to the rifle only by the "opinion" of the FBI. What does that even mean? LOL.
Apparently you enjoy laughing at your own ignorance.
Of course there is a mountain of evidence and circumstances that link Oswald to a specific rifle with a specific serial number.
So, you keep saying, but somehow you are never able to present that "mountain of evidence", which is of course understandable as it only exists in your mind.
That same rifle is left at the scene of the crime with fired bullet casings from that same rifle found by the window from which several witnesses confirm the shots were fired.
And here is your superficiality on full display. Even if it is the same rifle (something for which you have no credible evidence), this still does not mean that the rifle was fired that day or that the shells were fired on that day. There, again, is no evidence for that. It may well be that witnesses confirm that shots were fired from the 6th floor, but there were also witnesses who said the shots came from elsewhere, and even if those witnesses you rely on are right, that still does not provide evidence that the rifle found at the TSBD was the one that was actually fired. All you are doing is making assumptions that are not supported by the evidence.
Imagine that at the scene of a shooting that a gun is found that can be linked to an individual. That individual has no alibi. That individual instead flees and shoots a police officer and then lies about ownership of the gun. That's a slam dunk of guilt.
Bla bla bla.... more assumptions. There is no way to know if Oswald had an alibi or not. We don't know what he actually told Fritz and his ilk and their reports are contradictory. Besides, Oswald was killed within 48 hours after the assassination and never had an opportunity to get any kind of detailed explanation about anything. There is also no evidence that Oswald "fleed" the building and it was never conclusively proven that he killed Tippit. All you are doing is making up stuff that sounds bad for Oswald but is in reality nothing more than hot air. Just like your foolish claim that Oswald lied about owning a gun. That's the most idiotic claim of them all. You first have decided that Oswald did own a gun and that it was the one found at the TSBD and then, when he denies owning a rifle, you claim he lied, when in fact it may well be that he didn't. But your massive bias will never allow you to understand that!
But we have gone over your insane contrarian standard of proof in the JFK case a million times.
My "insane contrarian standard of proof" is nothing more than asking you to present the evidence for all the flawed, misleading and untrue claims you have made over the years. Since you don't have any evidence to present that backs up your foolish claims you can only resort to complain about my standard of proof. You sound like Donald Trump and his gang of idiots more and more every day.
The point in this thread is to apply that looney standard to the Lincoln assassination. There is no evidence that links Booth to the gun or the gun to the assassination. Multiple different people claimed to have found the gun after the assassination. No one can prove it was fired that day. LOL. No one saw Booth pull the trigger per your pedantic analysis of what that means. They just heard a gunshot and turned to see Booth pointing a gun at Lincoln's head. Some of the witnesses were off their description of Booth's height, weight, manner of dress. So there must be doubt according to you.
Apples and oranges... A walk through strawman alley, if ever I saw one. This kind of idiotic argument only puts your desperation on full display.
-
Literally no one argues that Booth didn’t kill Lincoln. Refer to my previous post for an explanation of why that is.
In contrast, even people who believed Lee Oswald was guilty suspected that there was a conspiracy. Including Lyndon Johnson, who requested the Warren Commission. If people with inside knowledge of the event like President Johnson and Robert Kennedy Sr suspected a conspiracy, it’s perfectly reasonable for anyone else to suspect a conspiracy in JFK’s assassination.
It was argued that the fatal shot could not have been fired by Booth, or by whoever was standing behind Mr. Lincoln, but, based on the location of the entry wound, must have been fired from elsewhere in the theater.
In the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth century, it was common to argue that Booth didn't kill Lincoln. That it was actually a U. S. government conspiracy, by Secretary of War Stanton, that resulted in Lincoln being killed. There are even "Two Booths" theories with the real Booth surviving for many years after 1865. Quite similar to the "Two Oswalds" theories. The same nonsense that worked in the 1800's also worked in the 1900's.
There are a lot of parallels between the Lincoln conspiracy theories and the JFK conspiracy theories.
-
There are a lot of parallels between the Lincoln conspiracy theories and the JFK conspiracy theories.
No there aren’t.
You guys are grasping at straws with this one. 8)
-
Free Booth!