Discussion:
Reasonable Doubt Description Link
Add Reply
BT George
2018-11-22 01:38:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Patrick Collins in another group posted this. It can come in handy in
these debates, since it gives a good layman's idea of the different legal
standards necessary for conviction:

https://www.brudviklaw.com/blog/2016/04/proof-beyond-a-resonable-doubt-what-does-that-mean.shtml
Anthony Marsh
2018-11-23 01:32:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BT George
Patrick Collins in another group posted this. It can come in handy in
these debates, since it gives a good layman's idea of the different legal
https://www.brudviklaw.com/blog/2016/04/proof-beyond-a-resonable-doubt-what-does-that-mean.shtml
Cute, but not related to the JFK Assassination. OFF TOPIC. Another reason
for reasonable doubt is when the government tampers with and/or destroys
evidence as we saw happen in the OJ Simpson case and also the JFK
assassination.

And there is a vast difference between being able to prove a case in a
court of law and convincing the public. They knew that they couldn't let
Oswald come to trial so they had to kill him.

What if he accidentally blurted out the code word to start WWIII as
Penkovsky did? The major reasson for the cover-up was to prevent WWIII.
Intelligence agencies can get away with assassinations when there is no
one in authority brave enough to hold them accountable, as in Trump giving
the Saudis free reign to assassinate anyone they want.

The next assassination they pull off will be on US soil and Trump won't do
anything about it. Maybe with a Democratic majority finally the US House
of representatives will finally solve these assassinations.
BT George
2018-11-27 20:56:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Patrick Collins in another group posted this. It can come in handy in
these debates, since it gives a good layman's idea of the different legal
https://www.brudviklaw.com/blog/2016/04/proof-beyond-a-resonable-doubt-what-does-that-mean.shtml
Cute, but not related to the JFK Assassination. OFF TOPIC.
Hardly. It seems every-other-day, someone is spouting off that LHO would
never have been found guilty to this standard if he had, had his day in
court. Of course, that's silly, since people are convicted on far less
evidence every day.


Another reason
Post by Anthony Marsh
for reasonable doubt is when the government tampers with and/or destroys
evidence as we saw happen in the OJ Simpson case and also the JFK
assassination.
There is not a piece of *important* evidence against Oswald that can be
proven to have been destroyed or "tampered with" in such a way as to
compromise its validity, though CT's throw out those allegations daily.
(Same with Simpson.) Also, even if you throw out most of the hard
evidence, Oswald's own behaviors, before and after, make a *powerful*
circumstantial case. (...And remember, the case of Oswald's guilt as
Kennedy's killer, is a separate question, as to the case that he acted
alone in doing so.)
Post by Anthony Marsh
And there is a vast difference between being able to prove a case in a
court of law and convincing the public. They knew that they couldn't let
Oswald come to trial so they had to kill him.
Sounds like you have it all solved. Define "they" more specifically
please.
Post by Anthony Marsh
What if he accidentally blurted out the code word to start WWIII as
Penkovsky did? The major reasson for the cover-up was to prevent WWIII.
Intelligence agencies can get away with assassinations when there is no
one in authority brave enough to hold them accountable, as in Trump giving
the Saudis free reign to assassinate anyone they want.
So you believe LBJ was in on it? Because if he wasn't, why would he have
no concern that the same rogue intelligence agencies that killed JFK,
would be turned on him?
Post by Anthony Marsh
The next assassination they pull off will be on US soil and Trump won't do
anything about it. Maybe with a Democratic majority finally the US House
of representatives will finally solve these assassinations.
Speculation, and without adequate reason IMO.
Anthony Marsh
2018-11-28 14:19:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Patrick Collins in another group posted this. It can come in handy in
these debates, since it gives a good layman's idea of the different legal
https://www.brudviklaw.com/blog/2016/04/proof-beyond-a-resonable-doubt-what-does-that-mean.shtml
Cute, but not related to the JFK Assassination. OFF TOPIC.
Hardly. It seems every-other-day, someone is spouting off that LHO would
never have been found guilty to this standard if he had, had his day in
court. Of course, that's silly, since people are convicted on far less
evidence every day.
Not I. I have always said that Oswald would have been easily convicted.
In Texas. Then the case would have been vacated on appeal.
Yes, you are right, people are framed every day.
Post by BT George
Another reason
Post by Anthony Marsh
for reasonable doubt is when the government tampers with and/or destroys
evidence as we saw happen in the OJ Simpson case and also the JFK
assassination.
There is not a piece of *important* evidence against Oswald that can be
proven to have been destroyed or "tampered with" in such a way as to
The limo. The medical evidence. The ballistics evidence.
Post by BT George
compromise its validity, though CT's throw out those allegations daily.
(Same with Simpson.) Also, even if you throw out most of the hard
evidence, Oswald's own behaviors, before and after, make a *powerful*
circumstantial case. (...And remember, the case of Oswald's guilt as
So you would say that when he pleads not guilty that is evidence of guilt?
Post by BT George
Kennedy's killer, is a separate question, as to the case that he acted
alone in doing so.)
Post by Anthony Marsh
And there is a vast difference between being able to prove a case in a
court of law and convincing the public. They knew that they couldn't let
Oswald come to trial so they had to kill him.
Sounds like you have it all solved. Define "they" more specifically
please.
Nope. There is still a lot to uncover. So stop the cover-up.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
What if he accidentally blurted out the code word to start WWIII as
Penkovsky did? The major reasson for the cover-up was to prevent WWIII.
Intelligence agencies can get away with assassinations when there is no
one in authority brave enough to hold them accountable, as in Trump giving
the Saudis free reign to assassinate anyone they want.
So you believe LBJ was in on it? Because if he wasn't, why would he have
no concern that the same rogue intelligence agencies that killed JFK,
would be turned on him?
No. LBJ did not order the assassination. H ordered the cover-up. To
prevent WWIII.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
The next assassination they pull off will be on US soil and Trump won't do
anything about it. Maybe with a Democratic majority finally the US House
of representatives will finally solve these assassinations.
Speculation, and without adequate reason IMO.
Prediction. Trump has given them the green light.
BT George
2018-11-29 05:37:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Patrick Collins in another group posted this. It can come in handy in
these debates, since it gives a good layman's idea of the different legal
https://www.brudviklaw.com/blog/2016/04/proof-beyond-a-resonable-doubt-what-does-that-mean.shtml
Cute, but not related to the JFK Assassination. OFF TOPIC.
Hardly. It seems every-other-day, someone is spouting off that LHO would
never have been found guilty to this standard if he had, had his day in
court. Of course, that's silly, since people are convicted on far less
evidence every day.
Not I. I have always said that Oswald would have been easily convicted.
In Texas. Then the case would have been vacated on appeal.
Yes, you are right, people are framed every day.
Oswald would have been convicted on the Moon in 1963/64. And even if the
death sentence---which he richly deserved and got unlawfully anyway---was
overturned, he would have spent the rest of his infamous life in prison.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Another reason
Post by Anthony Marsh
for reasonable doubt is when the government tampers with and/or destroys
evidence as we saw happen in the OJ Simpson case and also the JFK
assassination.
There is not a piece of *important* evidence against Oswald that can be
proven to have been destroyed or "tampered with" in such a way as to
The limo. The medical evidence. The ballistics evidence.
Prove it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
compromise its validity, though CT's throw out those allegations daily.
(Same with Simpson.) Also, even if you throw out most of the hard
evidence, Oswald's own behaviors, before and after, make a *powerful*
circumstantial case. (...And remember, the case of Oswald's guilt as
So you would say that when he pleads not guilty that is evidence of guilt?
No wonder you like the Democrats so much Tony. You think we ought to give
the accused so much leeway that if they declare they are innocent, they
are to be believed. (Sort of like the "Me Too" movement for accused
felons.) I guess his declarations should be more compelling than leaving
the scene immediately without a word to anyone that he was going, killing
a cop, and resisting arrest, to name just a few of the suspicious things
he did that would have come out in a decent trial.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Kennedy's killer, is a separate question, as to the case that he acted
alone in doing so.)
Post by Anthony Marsh
And there is a vast difference between being able to prove a case in a
court of law and convincing the public. They knew that they couldn't let
Oswald come to trial so they had to kill him.
The historical evidence is exactly the opposite. Once someone is
convicted, the public usually is hard to convince that they are innocent.
Ruby may have given Oz what he deserved and saved us from sustaining his
miserable life with 3 squares a day, plus clothing, and shelter, but he
likely helped fuel 55 years of CT nonsense by his act.

BTW, who exactly did Ruby work for, and why shouldn't his pleas of not
being part of a conspiracy be as implicitly believed as Oswald's
statements of innocence?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Sounds like you have it all solved. Define "they" more specifically
please.
Nope. There is still a lot to uncover. So stop the cover-up.
I.e., you still know really know nothing useful after 55 years, and like
to blame people who insist on names and details for your futility.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
What if he accidentally blurted out the code word to start WWIII as
Penkovsky did? The major reasson for the cover-up was to prevent WWIII.
Intelligence agencies can get away with assassinations when there is no
one in authority brave enough to hold them accountable, as in Trump giving
the Saudis free reign to assassinate anyone they want.
So you believe LBJ was in on it? Because if he wasn't, why would he have
no concern that the same rogue intelligence agencies that killed JFK,
would be turned on him?
No. LBJ did not order the assassination. H ordered the cover-up. To
prevent WWIII.
One again, your statement could only make sense if you willing to define
who "they" are. If a rogue CIA, why would cracking down on them start
WWIII?

If the Communists, you have a whole different ball of wax if you think he
was willing to tell them going in "under no circumstances are you to look
in that direction". Since not even looking would show the Soviets and
Cubans it was open season on US leaders, and embolden them on every front.

...Though I *do* believe he and the rest of the WC heads knew very well it
would be wisest to only dig so far in that direction. Better to have
looked and missed it (so the Communists think they got lucky or you were
just stupid) than to not look at all, and have them conclude you would pay
*any* price to avoid the threat of nuclear war.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
The next assassination they pull off will be on US soil and Trump won't do
anything about it. Maybe with a Democratic majority finally the US House
of representatives will finally solve these assassinations.
Speculation, and without adequate reason IMO.
Prediction. Trump has given them the green light.
Prediction. You will prove no better looking forward and making detailed
predictions than you have done so futilely looking into the details of
this case and drawing proper conclusions the last 55 years.
Anthony Marsh
2018-11-30 01:17:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Patrick Collins in another group posted this. It can come in handy in
these debates, since it gives a good layman's idea of the different legal
https://www.brudviklaw.com/blog/2016/04/proof-beyond-a-resonable-doubt-what-does-that-mean.shtml
Cute, but not related to the JFK Assassination. OFF TOPIC.
Hardly. It seems every-other-day, someone is spouting off that LHO would
never have been found guilty to this standard if he had, had his day in
court. Of course, that's silly, since people are convicted on far less
evidence every day.
Not I. I have always said that Oswald would have been easily convicted.
In Texas. Then the case would have been vacated on appeal.
Yes, you are right, people are framed every day.
Oswald would have been convicted on the Moon in 1963/64. And even if the
death sentence---which he richly deserved and got unlawfully anyway---was
overturned, he would have spent the rest of his infamous life in prison.
You ASSuME what you can't prove.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Another reason
Post by Anthony Marsh
for reasonable doubt is when the government tampers with and/or destroys
evidence as we saw happen in the OJ Simpson case and also the JFK
assassination.
There is not a piece of *important* evidence against Oswald that can be
proven to have been destroyed or "tampered with" in such a way as to
The limo. The medical evidence. The ballistics evidence.
Prove it.
I did. Many times. Pay atttenion. Best Witness, JFK's Limousine.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
compromise its validity, though CT's throw out those allegations daily.
(Same with Simpson.) Also, even if you throw out most of the hard
evidence, Oswald's own behaviors, before and after, make a *powerful*
circumstantial case. (...And remember, the case of Oswald's guilt as
So you would say that when he pleads not guilty that is evidence of guilt?
No wonder you like the Democrats so much Tony. You think we ought to give
the accused so much leeway that if they declare they are innocent, they
are to be believed. (Sort of like the "Me Too" movement for accused
The burden of proof is on the government.
The accused has the presumption of innocence. If you don't like our
country, move to Russia.
Post by BT George
felons.) I guess his declarations should be more compelling than leaving
the scene immediately without a word to anyone that he was going, killing
Other people left without checking in with anyone. You make up a
fictious burden of alibi. Givens didn't tell everyone where he was going
so you have to call him a shooter too!
Post by BT George
a cop, and resisting arrest, to name just a few of the suspicious things
he did that would have come out in a decent trial.
Oswald would have killed Tippit even if he had not killed JFK.
When some criminal is stopped for a trafffic violation and comes out
shooting, does that prove that he just assassinated the President?
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Kennedy's killer, is a separate question, as to the case that he acted
alone in doing so.)
Post by Anthony Marsh
And there is a vast difference between being able to prove a case in a
court of law and convincing the public. They knew that they couldn't let
Oswald come to trial so they had to kill him.
The historical evidence is exactly the opposite. Once someone is
convicted, the public usually is hard to convince that they are innocent.
Yeah. ever hear of The Innocence Project?
Post by BT George
Ruby may have given Oz what he deserved and saved us from sustaining his
miserable life with 3 squares a day, plus clothing, and shelter, but he
likely helped fuel 55 years of CT nonsense by his act.
Would Oswald have been given free WiFi like Mannafort?
Post by BT George
BTW, who exactly did Ruby work for, and why shouldn't his pleas of not
being part of a conspiracy be as implicitly believed as Oswald's
statements of innocence?
The Mafia, but it was a favor for the CIA.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Sounds like you have it all solved. Define "they" more specifically
please.
Nope. There is still a lot to uncover. So stop the cover-up.
I.e., you still know really know nothing useful after 55 years, and like
So, you claim that it was YOU who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic? All you have are personal insults, never any actual research.
Post by BT George
to blame people who insist on names and details for your futility.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
What if he accidentally blurted out the code word to start WWIII as
Penkovsky did? The major reasson for the cover-up was to prevent WWIII.
Intelligence agencies can get away with assassinations when there is no
one in authority brave enough to hold them accountable, as in Trump giving
the Saudis free reign to assassinate anyone they want.
So you believe LBJ was in on it? Because if he wasn't, why would he have
no concern that the same rogue intelligence agencies that killed JFK,
would be turned on him?
No. LBJ did not order the assassination. H ordered the cover-up. To
prevent WWIII.
One again, your statement could only make sense if you willing to define
who "they" are. If a rogue CIA, why would cracking down on them start
WWIII?
Pay attention. the Rogue element of the CIA spread the story that the
Russians or Cubans were behind it and that could spark WWIII. That was
the reason for the cover-up.
Post by BT George
If the Communists, you have a whole different ball of wax if you think he
was willing to tell them going in "under no circumstances are you to look
in that direction". Since not even looking would show the Soviets and
Cubans it was open season on US leaders, and embolden them on every front.
That makes no sense.
Post by BT George
...Though I *do* believe he and the rest of the WC heads knew very well it
would be wisest to only dig so far in that direction. Better to have
looked and missed it (so the Communists think they got lucky or you were
just stupid) than to not look at all, and have them conclude you would pay
*any* price to avoid the threat of nuclear war.
So you think nuclear war is fun?
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
The next assassination they pull off will be on US soil and Trump won't do
anything about it. Maybe with a Democratic majority finally the US House
of representatives will finally solve these assassinations.
Speculation, and without adequate reason IMO.
Prediction. Trump has given them the green light.
Prediction. You will prove no better looking forward and making detailed
predictions than you have done so futilely looking into the details of
this case and drawing proper conclusions the last 55 years.
We won't have to wait 55 years for the next assassination.
And already you are preparing to cover it up.
BT George
2018-12-01 00:52:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Patrick Collins in another group posted this. It can come in handy in
these debates, since it gives a good layman's idea of the different legal
https://www.brudviklaw.com/blog/2016/04/proof-beyond-a-resonable-doubt-what-does-that-mean.shtml
Cute, but not related to the JFK Assassination. OFF TOPIC.
Hardly. It seems every-other-day, someone is spouting off that LHO would
never have been found guilty to this standard if he had, had his day in
court. Of course, that's silly, since people are convicted on far less
evidence every day.
Not I. I have always said that Oswald would have been easily convicted.
In Texas. Then the case would have been vacated on appeal.
Yes, you are right, people are framed every day.
Oswald would have been convicted on the Moon in 1963/64. And even if the
death sentence---which he richly deserved and got unlawfully anyway---was
overturned, he would have spent the rest of his infamous life in prison.
You ASSuME what you can't prove.
I can prove men went to prison or death on *far* less than what existed
against Oswald. Your assumption is that a group of people in the Federal
Government got together and worked with the Mob to order a hit unlike any
ever done before or since in US history. This you do without any real
evidence or considering why having gotten away with such shenanigans once,
they have never tried it again.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Another reason
Post by Anthony Marsh
for reasonable doubt is when the government tampers with and/or destroys
evidence as we saw happen in the OJ Simpson case and also the JFK
assassination.
There is not a piece of *important* evidence against Oswald that can be
proven to have been destroyed or "tampered with" in such a way as to
The limo. The medical evidence. The ballistics evidence.
Prove it.
I did. Many times. Pay atttenion. Best Witness, JFK's Limousine.
Tell me exactly what tampering of the Limo. disproves the case against
Oswald? Are you now including the Secret Service in your plot?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
compromise its validity, though CT's throw out those allegations daily.
(Same with Simpson.) Also, even if you throw out most of the hard
evidence, Oswald's own behaviors, before and after, make a *powerful*
circumstantial case. (...And remember, the case of Oswald's guilt as
So you would say that when he pleads not guilty that is evidence of guilt?
No wonder you like the Democrats so much Tony. You think we ought to give
the accused so much leeway that if they declare they are innocent, they
are to be believed. (Sort of like the "Me Too" movement for accused
The burden of proof is on the government.
The accused has the presumption of innocence. If you don't like our
country, move to Russia.
You should move to Russia, where they like the idea that right wing plot
was afoot to kill Kennedy, because it deflects attention from everyone's
favorite Marxist would-be defector and "Patsy". Also, a court of law may
apply a presumption of innocence, but that is *not* the way the
investigation of a *historical* event works.

For history, to have any chance of being true to life, all that matters is
rendering judgments in such matters based on the *best* evidence
available. Nothing better than the hard evidence against LHO and the
*clear* pattern of his own oh-so-innocent behavior before and after the
deed.

And besides, your point is invalid anyway. The presumption of innocence
does *not* extend to automatic acceptance of the an innocent claim or even
official plea. If it did, there would only be trials of people who pled
guilty!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
felons.) I guess his declarations should be more compelling than leaving
the scene immediately without a word to anyone that he was going, killing
Other people left without checking in with anyone. You make up a
fictious burden of alibi. Givens didn't tell everyone where he was going
so you have to call him a shooter too!
Did Givens bring "curtain rods" to work that morning, when he apparently
didn't need any? Was he unaccounted for during the shooting? Did they
find his rifle on the Sixth floor with shells, and fragments in the limo
and a bullet at Parkland that were ballistically matched to it? Did
Givens go home, get a gun before wandering his neighborhood, kill a cop
who stopped him, sneak into a theater in an apparent attempt to hide,
resist arrest, and then tell several provable lies while in custody? Did
Givens have any known past behaviors, political, or personal interests
that would make him a likely suspect to kill JFK?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
a cop, and resisting arrest, to name just a few of the suspicious things
he did that would have come out in a decent trial.
Oswald would have killed Tippit even if he had not killed JFK.
When some criminal is stopped for a trafffic violation and comes out
shooting, does that prove that he just assassinated the President?
Wow the bad luck! First the POTUS gets shot in front of your workplace
with a ton of "staged" evidence against you, then as you run home to grab
your gun for a Friday afternoon stroll, you happen to get stopped by a cop
who you "coincidentally" decide to off---on this of all days---when you've
never done such a thing before in your life. :-)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Kennedy's killer, is a separate question, as to the case that he acted
alone in doing so.)
Post by Anthony Marsh
And there is a vast difference between being able to prove a case in a
court of law and convincing the public. They knew that they couldn't let
Oswald come to trial so they had to kill him.
The historical evidence is exactly the opposite. Once someone is
convicted, the public usually is hard to convince that they are innocent.
Yeah. ever hear of The Innocence Project?
Non sequitur. I never said the *entire* public was hard to convince. My
comment clearly addresses the fact that the *majority* of people assume
that a conviction is usually correct.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Ruby may have given Oz what he deserved and saved us from sustaining his
miserable life with 3 squares a day, plus clothing, and shelter, but he
likely helped fuel 55 years of CT nonsense by his act.
Would Oswald have been given free WiFi like Mannafort?
If they had it, and bleeding heart Liberals had anything to do with it, he
would have been!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
BTW, who exactly did Ruby work for, and why shouldn't his pleas of not
being part of a conspiracy be as implicitly believed as Oswald's
statements of innocence?
The Mafia, but it was a favor for the CIA.
LOL! I love it. The CIA and the Mob---two organizations dedicated to
perpetuating their existence---hatch a plot to off the POTUS and frame a
former Soviet defector with a Russian wife, who loves Fidel Castro, thus
risking Thermonuclear war!!! What a *great* idea! I mean, why would you
ever think to frame a right winger or someone totally unconnected to a
hostile nuclear power, when you can do something brainless instead!?!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Sounds like you have it all solved. Define "they" more specifically
please.
Nope. There is still a lot to uncover. So stop the cover-up.
I.e., you still know really know nothing useful after 55 years, and like
So, you claim that it was YOU who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic? All you have are personal insults, never any actual research.
Nice dodge. All I claim is after 55 years you guys oughtta' be able to
name some names and produce a scintilla of believable and verifiable
evidence to support it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
to blame people who insist on names and details for your futility.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
What if he accidentally blurted out the code word to start WWIII as
Penkovsky did? The major reasson for the cover-up was to prevent WWIII.
Intelligence agencies can get away with assassinations when there is no
one in authority brave enough to hold them accountable, as in Trump giving
the Saudis free reign to assassinate anyone they want.
So you believe LBJ was in on it? Because if he wasn't, why would he have
no concern that the same rogue intelligence agencies that killed JFK,
would be turned on him?
No. LBJ did not order the assassination. H ordered the cover-up. To
prevent WWIII.
I'll address this nonsense below.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
One again, your statement could only make sense if you willing to define
who "they" are. If a rogue CIA, why would cracking down on them start
WWIII?
Pay attention. the Rogue element of the CIA spread the story that the
Russians or Cubans were behind it and that could spark WWIII. That was
the reason for the cover-up.
Post by BT George
If the Communists, you have a whole different ball of wax if you think he
was willing to tell them going in "under no circumstances are you to look
in that direction". Since not even looking would show the Soviets and
Cubans it was open season on US leaders, and embolden them on every front.
That makes no sense.
Your answer is what makes no sense. Do you *seriously* believe that we
could let the Soviets or Cubans kill as sitting POTUS and make no effort
at all to detect that, so we could show our weakness and invite more such
attacks or other provocations since they now had called our nuclear bluff?
No sir. We might have been wise not to search all of Heaven and Earth to
find out such a connection, but it would have been foolishly to *refuse*
to know it, or not even *look* at all. (See below comments.)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
...Though I *do* believe he and the rest of the WC heads knew very well it
would be wisest to only dig so far in that direction. Better to have
looked and missed it (so the Communists think they got lucky or you were
just stupid) than to not look at all, and have them conclude you would pay
*any* price to avoid the threat of nuclear war.
So you think nuclear war is fun?
So you think losing the Cold War and living under Communism is fun?
Because what you are ascribing to Johnson could have caused that result,
or ultimately led to that very nuclear exchange when it became clear the
Soviets no longer had any fear we would *ever* actually do it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
The next assassination they pull off will be on US soil and Trump won't do
anything about it. Maybe with a Democratic majority finally the US House
of representatives will finally solve these assassinations.
Speculation, and without adequate reason IMO.
Prediction. Trump has given them the green light.
Prediction. You will prove no better looking forward and making detailed
predictions than you have done so futilely looking into the details of
this case and drawing proper conclusions the last 55 years.
We won't have to wait 55 years for the next assassination.
And already you are preparing to cover it up.
Let's see about that Nostradamus.
Anthony Marsh
2018-12-02 04:37:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Patrick Collins in another group posted this. It can come in handy in
these debates, since it gives a good layman's idea of the different legal
https://www.brudviklaw.com/blog/2016/04/proof-beyond-a-resonable-doubt-what-does-that-mean.shtml
Cute, but not related to the JFK Assassination. OFF TOPIC.
Hardly. It seems every-other-day, someone is spouting off that LHO would
never have been found guilty to this standard if he had, had his day in
court. Of course, that's silly, since people are convicted on far less
evidence every day.
Not I. I have always said that Oswald would have been easily convicted.
In Texas. Then the case would have been vacated on appeal.
Yes, you are right, people are framed every day.
Oswald would have been convicted on the Moon in 1963/64. And even if the
death sentence---which he richly deserved and got unlawfully anyway---was
overturned, he would have spent the rest of his infamous life in prison.
You ASSuME what you can't prove.
I can prove men went to prison or death on *far* less than what existed
Yesw, that was my point.
Post by BT George
against Oswald. Your assumption is that a group of people in the Federal
Government got together and worked with the Mob to order a hit unlike any
Not an assumption. A habit. The CIA had been using the Mafia in its
assassination attempts on Castro. It was merely a matter of changing the
target.
Post by BT George
ever done before or since in US history. This you do without any real
evidence or considering why having gotten away with such shenanigans once,
Campisi. Trafficante.
Post by BT George
they have never tried it again.
When was there a comparable situation? YOU wouldn't even know of any
other cases where they got away with killing someone.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Another reason
Post by Anthony Marsh
for reasonable doubt is when the government tampers with and/or destroys
evidence as we saw happen in the OJ Simpson case and also the JFK
assassination.
There is not a piece of *important* evidence against Oswald that can be
proven to have been destroyed or "tampered with" in such a way as to
The limo. The medical evidence. The ballistics evidence.
Prove it.
I did. Many times. Pay atttenion. Best Witness, JFK's Limousine.
Tell me exactly what tampering of the Limo. disproves the case against
Oswald? Are you now including the Secret Service in your plot?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
compromise its validity, though CT's throw out those allegations daily.
(Same with Simpson.) Also, even if you throw out most of the hard
evidence, Oswald's own behaviors, before and after, make a *powerful*
circumstantial case. (...And remember, the case of Oswald's guilt as
So you would say that when he pleads not guilty that is evidence of guilt?
No wonder you like the Democrats so much Tony. You think we ought to give
the accused so much leeway that if they declare they are innocent, they
are to be believed. (Sort of like the "Me Too" movement for accused
The burden of proof is on the government.
The accused has the presumption of innocence. If you don't like our
country, move to Russia.
You should move to Russia, where they like the idea that right wing plot
was afoot to kill Kennedy, because it deflects attention from everyone's
They ddidn't really think that. It was just disinformation.
Post by BT George
favorite Marxist would-be defector and "Patsy". Also, a court of law may
apply a presumption of innocence, but that is *not* the way the
investigation of a *historical* event works.
We were talking about a trial. Do you want to now talk about public
opinion or are you too scared? Like the idiot in the Travel Channel
special who said that 1/3 of the American public believes it was a
conspiracy. Whom did he poll? His camera crew?
Post by BT George
For history, to have any chance of being true to life, all that matters is
rendering judgments in such matters based on the *best* evidence
The Best Evidence was destroyed? Didn't you read my essay?
And why do you think Lifton called his book Best Evidence?
Because it had been withheld from the public.
Post by BT George
available. Nothing better than the hard evidence against LHO and the
*clear* pattern of his own oh-so-innocent behavior before and after the
deed.
You have some circumstantial evidence, but it could have been planted.
Post by BT George
And besides, your point is invalid anyway. The presumption of innocence
does *not* extend to automatic acceptance of the an innocent claim or even
official plea. If it did, there would only be trials of people who pled
guilty!
No silly. You can't try someone who pled guilty. Michael Cohen just
demonstrated that. He pleaded guilty so that he wouldn't have to go
through a trial.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
felons.) I guess his declarations should be more compelling than leaving
the scene immediately without a word to anyone that he was going, killing
Other people left without checking in with anyone. You make up a
fictious burden of alibi. Givens didn't tell everyone where he was going
so you have to call him a shooter too!
Did Givens bring "curtain rods" to work that morning, when he apparently
Oh, so now you agree that Oswald brought curtiain rods? Where are they?
Post by BT George
didn't need any? Was he unaccounted for during the shooting? Did they
Oswald needed curtain rods because the ones in his rooming house were
too cheap and broke easily and could not hold heavy curtains to keep the
light out. We've discussed this here thousands of times, but you never
pay attention.
Post by BT George
find his rifle on the Sixth floor with shells, and fragments in the limo
and a bullet at Parkland that were ballistically matched to it? Did
Please explain in detail how you think CE 399 got onto the floor in the
hospital.

<crickets>
Post by BT George
Givens go home, get a gun before wandering his neighborhood, kill a cop
One crime does not prove the other.
Post by BT George
who stopped him, sneak into a theater in an apparent attempt to hide,
resist arrest, and then tell several provable lies while in custody? Did
Which lies? You ASSuME what you can't prove.
Do you know what happens when you always ASSuME?
Ask Benny Hill.
Post by BT George
Givens have any known past behaviors, political, or personal interests
that would make him a likely suspect to kill JFK?
Inadmissible. Why didn't the DPD arrest Oswald for shooting at Walker?
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
a cop, and resisting arrest, to name just a few of the suspicious things
he did that would have come out in a decent trial.
Oswald would have killed Tippit even if he had not killed JFK.
When some criminal is stopped for a trafffic violation and comes out
shooting, does that prove that he just assassinated the President?
Wow the bad luck! First the POTUS gets shot in front of your workplace
with a ton of "staged" evidence against you, then as you run home to grab
your gun for a Friday afternoon stroll, you happen to get stopped by a cop
who you "coincidentally" decide to off---on this of all days---when you've
never done such a thing before in your life. :-)
Oswald was paranoid. He said that he always carried around his revolver
for protection.

You know how those boys down in Texas are about their guns.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Kennedy's killer, is a separate question, as to the case that he acted
alone in doing so.)
Post by Anthony Marsh
And there is a vast difference between being able to prove a case in a
court of law and convincing the public. They knew that they couldn't let
Oswald come to trial so they had to kill him.
The historical evidence is exactly the opposite. Once someone is
convicted, the public usually is hard to convince that they are innocent.
Yeah. ever hear of The Innocence Project?
Non sequitur. I never said the *entire* public was hard to convince. My
No, right on point. So you are afraid to answer.
People are framed all the time.
Post by BT George
comment clearly addresses the fact that the *majority* of people assume
that a conviction is usually correct.
The majority meaning the biased.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Ruby may have given Oz what he deserved and saved us from sustaining his
miserable life with 3 squares a day, plus clothing, and shelter, but he
likely helped fuel 55 years of CT nonsense by his act.
Would Oswald have been given free WiFi like Mannafort?
If they had it, and bleeding heart Liberals had anything to do with it, he
would have been!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
BTW, who exactly did Ruby work for, and why shouldn't his pleas of not
being part of a conspiracy be as implicitly believed as Oswald's
statements of innocence?
The Mafia, but it was a favor for the CIA.
LOL! I love it. The CIA and the Mob---two organizations dedicated to
perpetuating their existence---hatch a plot to off the POTUS and frame a
former Soviet defector with a Russian wife, who loves Fidel Castro, thus
risking Thermonuclear war!!! What a *great* idea! I mean, why would you
ever think to frame a right winger or someone totally unconnected to a
hostile nuclear power, when you can do something brainless instead!?!
Maybe you weren't around then, but the CIA was partnering with the Mafia
way back to WWII and trying to assassinate Castro.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Sounds like you have it all solved. Define "they" more specifically
please.
Nope. There is still a lot to uncover. So stop the cover-up.
I.e., you still know really know nothing useful after 55 years, and like
So, you claim that it was YOU who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic? All you have are personal insults, never any actual research.
Nice dodge. All I claim is after 55 years you guys oughtta' be able to
name some names and produce a scintilla of believable and verifiable
evidence to support it.
I did, but you refuse to look at the evidence to prove that you are a WC
defender.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
to blame people who insist on names and details for your futility.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
What if he accidentally blurted out the code word to start WWIII as
Penkovsky did? The major reasson for the cover-up was to prevent WWIII.
Intelligence agencies can get away with assassinations when there is no
one in authority brave enough to hold them accountable, as in Trump giving
the Saudis free reign to assassinate anyone they want.
So you believe LBJ was in on it? Because if he wasn't, why would he have
no concern that the same rogue intelligence agencies that killed JFK,
would be turned on him?
No. LBJ did not order the assassination. H ordered the cover-up. To
prevent WWIII.
I'll address this nonsense below.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
One again, your statement could only make sense if you willing to define
who "they" are. If a rogue CIA, why would cracking down on them start
WWIII?
Pay attention. the Rogue element of the CIA spread the story that the
Russians or Cubans were behind it and that could spark WWIII. That was
the reason for the cover-up.
Post by BT George
If the Communists, you have a whole different ball of wax if you think he
was willing to tell them going in "under no circumstances are you to look
in that direction". Since not even looking would show the Soviets and
Cubans it was open season on US leaders, and embolden them on every front.
That makes no sense.
Your answer is what makes no sense. Do you *seriously* believe that we
could let the Soviets or Cubans kill as sitting POTUS and make no effort
LBJ really thought that Castro had paid Oswald to kill JFK, but he
ordered the cover-up because if the public found out they would push him
to retaliate and that might lead to WWWIII.
Post by BT George
at all to detect that, so we could show our weakness and invite more such
attacks or other provocations since they now had called our nuclear bluff?
What more attacks worse than assassinating our President?
Post by BT George
No sir. We might have been wise not to search all of Heaven and Earth to
find out such a connection, but it would have been foolishly to *refuse*
to know it, or not even *look* at all. (See below comments.)
So that is why you support the cover-up, to prevent WWWIII.
How patriotic of you!
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
...Though I *do* believe he and the rest of the WC heads knew very well it
would be wisest to only dig so far in that direction. Better to have
looked and missed it (so the Communists think they got lucky or you were
just stupid) than to not look at all, and have them conclude you would pay
*any* price to avoid the threat of nuclear war.
So you think nuclear war is fun?
So you think losing the Cold War and living under Communism is fun?
Never. And this was not about the Cold War. We won that.
This was about WWIII.
Post by BT George
Because what you are ascribing to Johnson could have caused that result,
No, never. Impossible.
Post by BT George
or ultimately led to that very nuclear exchange when it became clear the
Soviets no longer had any fear we would *ever* actually do it.
We have come very close to nuclear war more times than you know about.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
The next assassination they pull off will be on US soil and Trump won't do
anything about it. Maybe with a Democratic majority finally the US House
of representatives will finally solve these assassinations.
Speculation, and without adequate reason IMO.
Prediction. Trump has given them the green light.
Prediction. You will prove no better looking forward and making detailed
predictions than you have done so futilely looking into the details of
this case and drawing proper conclusions the last 55 years.
We won't have to wait 55 years for the next assassination.
And already you are preparing to cover it up.
Let's see about that Nostradamus.
BT George
2018-12-04 01:42:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
TOP POST:

Oh my goodness! There are so many non sequiturs and refusals to interact
with my real point that I am not even going to get into the morass of
answering point by point. The one I will mention is the nonsense about
what kind of attack could be worse than assassinating our President.
*IF* Johnson was so scared it was the Soviets or Cubans that he said do
not even *look* in that direction during your investigation, that only
needed to become known by the Soviets to change *everything* in the
balance of power.

Knowing this, did the thought that they would now feel free to consider
invading all or part of Western Europe or other countries in the Americas
to test our (lack) or resolve ever once occur to your brain?

Or even worse, now realizing our rank cowardice that we would *knowingly*
let them get away unmolested for killing our POTUS, they might have been
tempted to set a deadline for us to surrender to them lest they start a
nuclear exchange. (...After all, if we *refused* to even look in the
direction of the *obvious* potential that Oswald was working for them,
then we have clearly shown we might do *anything* to avoid nuclear
Armageddon.)

Put the shoe on the other foot. Do you think the Soviets could/would have
allowed us or one of our allies to assassinate Khrushchev, via a Russian
defector who had returned to the Soviet Union from here and simply chose
to ignore *completely* any evidence that pointed in that *obvious*
direction? Would they not be signaling that they might be willing to do
*anything* to avoid a nuclear showdown?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Patrick Collins in another group posted this. It can come in handy in
these debates, since it gives a good layman's idea of the different legal
https://www.brudviklaw.com/blog/2016/04/proof-beyond-a-resonable-doubt-what-does-that-mean.shtml
Cute, but not related to the JFK Assassination. OFF TOPIC.
Hardly. It seems every-other-day, someone is spouting off that LHO would
never have been found guilty to this standard if he had, had his day in
court. Of course, that's silly, since people are convicted on far less
evidence every day.
Not I. I have always said that Oswald would have been easily convicted.
In Texas. Then the case would have been vacated on appeal.
Yes, you are right, people are framed every day.
Oswald would have been convicted on the Moon in 1963/64. And even if the
death sentence---which he richly deserved and got unlawfully anyway---was
overturned, he would have spent the rest of his infamous life in prison.
You ASSuME what you can't prove.
I can prove men went to prison or death on *far* less than what existed
Yesw, that was my point.
Post by BT George
against Oswald. Your assumption is that a group of people in the Federal
Government got together and worked with the Mob to order a hit unlike any
Not an assumption. A habit. The CIA had been using the Mafia in its
assassination attempts on Castro. It was merely a matter of changing the
target.
Post by BT George
ever done before or since in US history. This you do without any real
evidence or considering why having gotten away with such shenanigans once,
Campisi. Trafficante.
Post by BT George
they have never tried it again.
When was there a comparable situation? YOU wouldn't even know of any
other cases where they got away with killing someone.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Another reason
Post by Anthony Marsh
for reasonable doubt is when the government tampers with and/or destroys
evidence as we saw happen in the OJ Simpson case and also the JFK
assassination.
There is not a piece of *important* evidence against Oswald that can be
proven to have been destroyed or "tampered with" in such a way as to
The limo. The medical evidence. The ballistics evidence.
Prove it.
I did. Many times. Pay atttenion. Best Witness, JFK's Limousine.
Tell me exactly what tampering of the Limo. disproves the case against
Oswald? Are you now including the Secret Service in your plot?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
compromise its validity, though CT's throw out those allegations daily.
(Same with Simpson.) Also, even if you throw out most of the hard
evidence, Oswald's own behaviors, before and after, make a *powerful*
circumstantial case. (...And remember, the case of Oswald's guilt as
So you would say that when he pleads not guilty that is evidence of guilt?
No wonder you like the Democrats so much Tony. You think we ought to give
the accused so much leeway that if they declare they are innocent, they
are to be believed. (Sort of like the "Me Too" movement for accused
The burden of proof is on the government.
The accused has the presumption of innocence. If you don't like our
country, move to Russia.
You should move to Russia, where they like the idea that right wing plot
was afoot to kill Kennedy, because it deflects attention from everyone's
They ddidn't really think that. It was just disinformation.
Post by BT George
favorite Marxist would-be defector and "Patsy". Also, a court of law may
apply a presumption of innocence, but that is *not* the way the
investigation of a *historical* event works.
We were talking about a trial. Do you want to now talk about public
opinion or are you too scared? Like the idiot in the Travel Channel
special who said that 1/3 of the American public believes it was a
conspiracy. Whom did he poll? His camera crew?
Post by BT George
For history, to have any chance of being true to life, all that matters is
rendering judgments in such matters based on the *best* evidence
The Best Evidence was destroyed? Didn't you read my essay?
And why do you think Lifton called his book Best Evidence?
Because it had been withheld from the public.
Post by BT George
available. Nothing better than the hard evidence against LHO and the
*clear* pattern of his own oh-so-innocent behavior before and after the
deed.
You have some circumstantial evidence, but it could have been planted.
Post by BT George
And besides, your point is invalid anyway. The presumption of innocence
does *not* extend to automatic acceptance of the an innocent claim or even
official plea. If it did, there would only be trials of people who pled
guilty!
No silly. You can't try someone who pled guilty. Michael Cohen just
demonstrated that. He pleaded guilty so that he wouldn't have to go
through a trial.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
felons.) I guess his declarations should be more compelling than leaving
the scene immediately without a word to anyone that he was going, killing
Other people left without checking in with anyone. You make up a
fictious burden of alibi. Givens didn't tell everyone where he was going
so you have to call him a shooter too!
Did Givens bring "curtain rods" to work that morning, when he apparently
Oh, so now you agree that Oswald brought curtiain rods? Where are they?
Post by BT George
didn't need any? Was he unaccounted for during the shooting? Did they
Oswald needed curtain rods because the ones in his rooming house were
too cheap and broke easily and could not hold heavy curtains to keep the
light out. We've discussed this here thousands of times, but you never
pay attention.
Post by BT George
find his rifle on the Sixth floor with shells, and fragments in the limo
and a bullet at Parkland that were ballistically matched to it? Did
Please explain in detail how you think CE 399 got onto the floor in the
hospital.
<crickets>
Post by BT George
Givens go home, get a gun before wandering his neighborhood, kill a cop
One crime does not prove the other.
Post by BT George
who stopped him, sneak into a theater in an apparent attempt to hide,
resist arrest, and then tell several provable lies while in custody? Did
Which lies? You ASSuME what you can't prove.
Do you know what happens when you always ASSuME?
Ask Benny Hill.
Post by BT George
Givens have any known past behaviors, political, or personal interests
that would make him a likely suspect to kill JFK?
Inadmissible. Why didn't the DPD arrest Oswald for shooting at Walker?
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
a cop, and resisting arrest, to name just a few of the suspicious things
he did that would have come out in a decent trial.
Oswald would have killed Tippit even if he had not killed JFK.
When some criminal is stopped for a trafffic violation and comes out
shooting, does that prove that he just assassinated the President?
Wow the bad luck! First the POTUS gets shot in front of your workplace
with a ton of "staged" evidence against you, then as you run home to grab
your gun for a Friday afternoon stroll, you happen to get stopped by a cop
who you "coincidentally" decide to off---on this of all days---when you've
never done such a thing before in your life. :-)
Oswald was paranoid. He said that he always carried around his revolver
for protection.
You know how those boys down in Texas are about their guns.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Kennedy's killer, is a separate question, as to the case that he acted
alone in doing so.)
Post by Anthony Marsh
And there is a vast difference between being able to prove a case in a
court of law and convincing the public. They knew that they couldn't let
Oswald come to trial so they had to kill him.
The historical evidence is exactly the opposite. Once someone is
convicted, the public usually is hard to convince that they are innocent.
Yeah. ever hear of The Innocence Project?
Non sequitur. I never said the *entire* public was hard to convince. My
No, right on point. So you are afraid to answer.
People are framed all the time.
Post by BT George
comment clearly addresses the fact that the *majority* of people assume
that a conviction is usually correct.
The majority meaning the biased.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Ruby may have given Oz what he deserved and saved us from sustaining his
miserable life with 3 squares a day, plus clothing, and shelter, but he
likely helped fuel 55 years of CT nonsense by his act.
Would Oswald have been given free WiFi like Mannafort?
If they had it, and bleeding heart Liberals had anything to do with it, he
would have been!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
BTW, who exactly did Ruby work for, and why shouldn't his pleas of not
being part of a conspiracy be as implicitly believed as Oswald's
statements of innocence?
The Mafia, but it was a favor for the CIA.
LOL! I love it. The CIA and the Mob---two organizations dedicated to
perpetuating their existence---hatch a plot to off the POTUS and frame a
former Soviet defector with a Russian wife, who loves Fidel Castro, thus
risking Thermonuclear war!!! What a *great* idea! I mean, why would you
ever think to frame a right winger or someone totally unconnected to a
hostile nuclear power, when you can do something brainless instead!?!
Maybe you weren't around then, but the CIA was partnering with the Mafia
way back to WWII and trying to assassinate Castro.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Sounds like you have it all solved. Define "they" more specifically
please.
Nope. There is still a lot to uncover. So stop the cover-up.
I.e., you still know really know nothing useful after 55 years, and like
So, you claim that it was YOU who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic? All you have are personal insults, never any actual research.
Nice dodge. All I claim is after 55 years you guys oughtta' be able to
name some names and produce a scintilla of believable and verifiable
evidence to support it.
I did, but you refuse to look at the evidence to prove that you are a WC
defender.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
to blame people who insist on names and details for your futility.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
What if he accidentally blurted out the code word to start WWIII as
Penkovsky did? The major reasson for the cover-up was to prevent WWIII.
Intelligence agencies can get away with assassinations when there is no
one in authority brave enough to hold them accountable, as in Trump giving
the Saudis free reign to assassinate anyone they want.
So you believe LBJ was in on it? Because if he wasn't, why would he have
no concern that the same rogue intelligence agencies that killed JFK,
would be turned on him?
No. LBJ did not order the assassination. H ordered the cover-up. To
prevent WWIII.
I'll address this nonsense below.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
One again, your statement could only make sense if you willing to define
who "they" are. If a rogue CIA, why would cracking down on them start
WWIII?
Pay attention. the Rogue element of the CIA spread the story that the
Russians or Cubans were behind it and that could spark WWIII. That was
the reason for the cover-up.
Post by BT George
If the Communists, you have a whole different ball of wax if you think he
was willing to tell them going in "under no circumstances are you to look
in that direction". Since not even looking would show the Soviets and
Cubans it was open season on US leaders, and embolden them on every front.
That makes no sense.
Your answer is what makes no sense. Do you *seriously* believe that we
could let the Soviets or Cubans kill as sitting POTUS and make no effort
LBJ really thought that Castro had paid Oswald to kill JFK, but he
ordered the cover-up because if the public found out they would push him
to retaliate and that might lead to WWWIII.
Post by BT George
at all to detect that, so we could show our weakness and invite more such
attacks or other provocations since they now had called our nuclear bluff?
What more attacks worse than assassinating our President?
Post by BT George
No sir. We might have been wise not to search all of Heaven and Earth to
find out such a connection, but it would have been foolishly to *refuse*
to know it, or not even *look* at all. (See below comments.)
So that is why you support the cover-up, to prevent WWWIII.
How patriotic of you!
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
...Though I *do* believe he and the rest of the WC heads knew very well it
would be wisest to only dig so far in that direction. Better to have
looked and missed it (so the Communists think they got lucky or you were
just stupid) than to not look at all, and have them conclude you would pay
*any* price to avoid the threat of nuclear war.
So you think nuclear war is fun?
So you think losing the Cold War and living under Communism is fun?
Never. And this was not about the Cold War. We won that.
This was about WWIII.
Post by BT George
Because what you are ascribing to Johnson could have caused that result,
No, never. Impossible.
Post by BT George
or ultimately led to that very nuclear exchange when it became clear the
Soviets no longer had any fear we would *ever* actually do it.
We have come very close to nuclear war more times than you know about.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
The next assassination they pull off will be on US soil and Trump won't do
anything about it. Maybe with a Democratic majority finally the US House
of representatives will finally solve these assassinations.
Speculation, and without adequate reason IMO.
Prediction. Trump has given them the green light.
Prediction. You will prove no better looking forward and making detailed
predictions than you have done so futilely looking into the details of
this case and drawing proper conclusions the last 55 years.
We won't have to wait 55 years for the next assassination.
And already you are preparing to cover it up.
Let's see about that Nostradamus.
Anthony Marsh
2018-12-05 15:26:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BT George
Oh my goodness! There are so many non sequiturs and refusals to interact
with my real point that I am not even going to get into the morass of
answering point by point. The one I will mention is the nonsense about
what kind of attack could be worse than assassinating our President.
*IF* Johnson was so scared it was the Soviets or Cubans that he said do
not even *look* in that direction during your investigation, that only
needed to become known by the Soviets to change *everything* in the
balance of power.
Knowing this, did the thought that they would now feel free to consider
invading all or part of Western Europe or other countries in the Americas
to test our (lack) or resolve ever once occur to your brain?
Or even worse, now realizing our rank cowardice that we would *knowingly*
let them get away unmolested for killing our POTUS, they might have been
tempted to set a deadline for us to surrender to them lest they start a
nuclear exchange. (...After all, if we *refused* to even look in the
direction of the *obvious* potential that Oswald was working for them,
then we have clearly shown we might do *anything* to avoid nuclear
Armageddon.)
Put the shoe on the other foot. Do you think the Soviets could/would have
allowed us or one of our allies to assassinate Khrushchev, via a Russian
defector who had returned to the Soviet Union from here and simply chose
to ignore *completely* any evidence that pointed in that *obvious*
direction? Would they not be signaling that they might be willing to do
*anything* to avoid a nuclear showdown?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Patrick Collins in another group posted this. It can come in handy in
these debates, since it gives a good layman's idea of the different legal
https://www.brudviklaw.com/blog/2016/04/proof-beyond-a-resonable-doubt-what-does-that-mean.shtml
Cute, but not related to the JFK Assassination. OFF TOPIC.
Hardly. It seems every-other-day, someone is spouting off that LHO would
never have been found guilty to this standard if he had, had his day in
court. Of course, that's silly, since people are convicted on far less
evidence every day.
Not I. I have always said that Oswald would have been easily convicted.
In Texas. Then the case would have been vacated on appeal.
Yes, you are right, people are framed every day.
Oswald would have been convicted on the Moon in 1963/64. And even if the
death sentence---which he richly deserved and got unlawfully anyway---was
overturned, he would have spent the rest of his infamous life in prison.
You ASSuME what you can't prove.
I can prove men went to prison or death on *far* less than what existed
Yesw, that was my point.
Post by BT George
against Oswald. Your assumption is that a group of people in the Federal
Government got together and worked with the Mob to order a hit unlike any
Not an assumption. A habit. The CIA had been using the Mafia in its
assassination attempts on Castro. It was merely a matter of changing the
target.
Post by BT George
ever done before or since in US history. This you do without any real
evidence or considering why having gotten away with such shenanigans once,
Campisi. Trafficante.
Post by BT George
they have never tried it again.
When was there a comparable situation? YOU wouldn't even know of any
other cases where they got away with killing someone.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Another reason
Post by Anthony Marsh
for reasonable doubt is when the government tampers with and/or destroys
evidence as we saw happen in the OJ Simpson case and also the JFK
assassination.
There is not a piece of *important* evidence against Oswald that can be
proven to have been destroyed or "tampered with" in such a way as to
The limo. The medical evidence. The ballistics evidence.
Prove it.
I did. Many times. Pay atttenion. Best Witness, JFK's Limousine.
Tell me exactly what tampering of the Limo. disproves the case against
Oswald? Are you now including the Secret Service in your plot?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
compromise its validity, though CT's throw out those allegations daily.
(Same with Simpson.) Also, even if you throw out most of the hard
evidence, Oswald's own behaviors, before and after, make a *powerful*
circumstantial case. (...And remember, the case of Oswald's guilt as
So you would say that when he pleads not guilty that is evidence of guilt?
No wonder you like the Democrats so much Tony. You think we ought to give
the accused so much leeway that if they declare they are innocent, they
are to be believed. (Sort of like the "Me Too" movement for accused
The burden of proof is on the government.
The accused has the presumption of innocence. If you don't like our
country, move to Russia.
You should move to Russia, where they like the idea that right wing plot
was afoot to kill Kennedy, because it deflects attention from everyone's
They ddidn't really think that. It was just disinformation.
Post by BT George
favorite Marxist would-be defector and "Patsy". Also, a court of law may
apply a presumption of innocence, but that is *not* the way the
investigation of a *historical* event works.
We were talking about a trial. Do you want to now talk about public
opinion or are you too scared? Like the idiot in the Travel Channel
special who said that 1/3 of the American public believes it was a
conspiracy. Whom did he poll? His camera crew?
Post by BT George
For history, to have any chance of being true to life, all that matters is
rendering judgments in such matters based on the *best* evidence
The Best Evidence was destroyed? Didn't you read my essay?
And why do you think Lifton called his book Best Evidence?
Because it had been withheld from the public.
Post by BT George
available. Nothing better than the hard evidence against LHO and the
*clear* pattern of his own oh-so-innocent behavior before and after the
deed.
You have some circumstantial evidence, but it could have been planted.
Post by BT George
And besides, your point is invalid anyway. The presumption of innocence
does *not* extend to automatic acceptance of the an innocent claim or even
official plea. If it did, there would only be trials of people who pled
guilty!
No silly. You can't try someone who pled guilty. Michael Cohen just
demonstrated that. He pleaded guilty so that he wouldn't have to go
through a trial.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
felons.) I guess his declarations should be more compelling than leaving
the scene immediately without a word to anyone that he was going, killing
Other people left without checking in with anyone. You make up a
fictious burden of alibi. Givens didn't tell everyone where he was going
so you have to call him a shooter too!
Did Givens bring "curtain rods" to work that morning, when he apparently
Oh, so now you agree that Oswald brought curtiain rods? Where are they?
Post by BT George
didn't need any? Was he unaccounted for during the shooting? Did they
Oswald needed curtain rods because the ones in his rooming house were
too cheap and broke easily and could not hold heavy curtains to keep the
light out. We've discussed this here thousands of times, but you never
pay attention.
Post by BT George
find his rifle on the Sixth floor with shells, and fragments in the limo
and a bullet at Parkland that were ballistically matched to it? Did
Please explain in detail how you think CE 399 got onto the floor in the
hospital.
<crickets>
Post by BT George
Givens go home, get a gun before wandering his neighborhood, kill a cop
One crime does not prove the other.
Post by BT George
who stopped him, sneak into a theater in an apparent attempt to hide,
resist arrest, and then tell several provable lies while in custody? Did
Which lies? You ASSuME what you can't prove.
Do you know what happens when you always ASSuME?
Ask Benny Hill.
Post by BT George
Givens have any known past behaviors, political, or personal interests
that would make him a likely suspect to kill JFK?
Inadmissible. Why didn't the DPD arrest Oswald for shooting at Walker?
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
a cop, and resisting arrest, to name just a few of the suspicious things
he did that would have come out in a decent trial.
Oswald would have killed Tippit even if he had not killed JFK.
When some criminal is stopped for a trafffic violation and comes out
shooting, does that prove that he just assassinated the President?
Wow the bad luck! First the POTUS gets shot in front of your workplace
with a ton of "staged" evidence against you, then as you run home to grab
your gun for a Friday afternoon stroll, you happen to get stopped by a cop
who you "coincidentally" decide to off---on this of all days---when you've
never done such a thing before in your life. :-)
Oswald was paranoid. He said that he always carried around his revolver
for protection.
You know how those boys down in Texas are about their guns.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Kennedy's killer, is a separate question, as to the case that he acted
alone in doing so.)
Post by Anthony Marsh
And there is a vast difference between being able to prove a case in a
court of law and convincing the public. They knew that they couldn't let
Oswald come to trial so they had to kill him.
The historical evidence is exactly the opposite. Once someone is
convicted, the public usually is hard to convince that they are innocent.
Yeah. ever hear of The Innocence Project?
Non sequitur. I never said the *entire* public was hard to convince. My
No, right on point. So you are afraid to answer.
People are framed all the time.
Post by BT George
comment clearly addresses the fact that the *majority* of people assume
that a conviction is usually correct.
The majority meaning the biased.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Ruby may have given Oz what he deserved and saved us from sustaining his
miserable life with 3 squares a day, plus clothing, and shelter, but he
likely helped fuel 55 years of CT nonsense by his act.
Would Oswald have been given free WiFi like Mannafort?
If they had it, and bleeding heart Liberals had anything to do with it, he
would have been!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
BTW, who exactly did Ruby work for, and why shouldn't his pleas of not
being part of a conspiracy be as implicitly believed as Oswald's
statements of innocence?
The Mafia, but it was a favor for the CIA.
LOL! I love it. The CIA and the Mob---two organizations dedicated to
perpetuating their existence---hatch a plot to off the POTUS and frame a
former Soviet defector with a Russian wife, who loves Fidel Castro, thus
risking Thermonuclear war!!! What a *great* idea! I mean, why would you
ever think to frame a right winger or someone totally unconnected to a
hostile nuclear power, when you can do something brainless instead!?!
Maybe you weren't around then, but the CIA was partnering with the Mafia
way back to WWII and trying to assassinate Castro.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Sounds like you have it all solved. Define "they" more specifically
please.
Nope. There is still a lot to uncover. So stop the cover-up.
I.e., you still know really know nothing useful after 55 years, and like
So, you claim that it was YOU who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic? All you have are personal insults, never any actual research.
Nice dodge. All I claim is after 55 years you guys oughtta' be able to
name some names and produce a scintilla of believable and verifiable
evidence to support it.
I did, but you refuse to look at the evidence to prove that you are a WC
defender.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
to blame people who insist on names and details for your futility.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
What if he accidentally blurted out the code word to start WWIII as
Penkovsky did? The major reasson for the cover-up was to prevent WWIII.
Intelligence agencies can get away with assassinations when there is no
one in authority brave enough to hold them accountable, as in Trump giving
the Saudis free reign to assassinate anyone they want.
So you believe LBJ was in on it? Because if he wasn't, why would he have
no concern that the same rogue intelligence agencies that killed JFK,
would be turned on him?
No. LBJ did not order the assassination. H ordered the cover-up. To
prevent WWIII.
I'll address this nonsense below.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
One again, your statement could only make sense if you willing to define
who "they" are. If a rogue CIA, why would cracking down on them start
WWIII?
Pay attention. the Rogue element of the CIA spread the story that the
Russians or Cubans were behind it and that could spark WWIII. That was
the reason for the cover-up.
Post by BT George
If the Communists, you have a whole different ball of wax if you think he
was willing to tell them going in "under no circumstances are you to look
in that direction". Since not even looking would show the Soviets and
Cubans it was open season on US leaders, and embolden them on every front.
That makes no sense.
Your answer is what makes no sense. Do you *seriously* believe that we
could let the Soviets or Cubans kill as sitting POTUS and make no effort
LBJ really thought that Castro had paid Oswald to kill JFK, but he
ordered the cover-up because if the public found out they would push him
to retaliate and that might lead to WWWIII.
Post by BT George
at all to detect that, so we could show our weakness and invite more such
attacks or other provocations since they now had called our nuclear bluff?
What more attacks worse than assassinating our President?
Post by BT George
No sir. We might have been wise not to search all of Heaven and Earth to
find out such a connection, but it would have been foolishly to *refuse*
to know it, or not even *look* at all. (See below comments.)
So that is why you support the cover-up, to prevent WWWIII.
How patriotic of you!
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
...Though I *do* believe he and the rest of the WC heads knew very well it
would be wisest to only dig so far in that direction. Better to have
looked and missed it (so the Communists think they got lucky or you were
just stupid) than to not look at all, and have them conclude you would pay
*any* price to avoid the threat of nuclear war.
So you think nuclear war is fun?
So you think losing the Cold War and living under Communism is fun?
Never. And this was not about the Cold War. We won that.
This was about WWIII.
Post by BT George
Because what you are ascribing to Johnson could have caused that result,
No, never. Impossible.
Post by BT George
or ultimately led to that very nuclear exchange when it became clear the
Soviets no longer had any fear we would *ever* actually do it.
We have come very close to nuclear war more times than you know about.
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
The next assassination they pull off will be on US soil and Trump won't do
anything about it. Maybe with a Democratic majority finally the US House
of representatives will finally solve these assassinations.
Speculation, and without adequate reason IMO.
Prediction. Trump has given them the green light.
Prediction. You will prove no better looking forward and making detailed
predictions than you have done so futilely looking into the details of
this case and drawing proper conclusions the last 55 years.
We won't have to wait 55 years for the next assassination.
And already you are preparing to cover it up.
Let's see about that Nostradamus.
So you think nuclear war is fun?

Bud
2018-11-29 05:45:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Patrick Collins in another group posted this. It can come in handy in
these debates, since it gives a good layman's idea of the different legal
https://www.brudviklaw.com/blog/2016/04/proof-beyond-a-resonable-doubt-what-does-that-mean.shtml
Cute, but not related to the JFK Assassination. OFF TOPIC.
Hardly. It seems every-other-day, someone is spouting off that LHO would
never have been found guilty to this standard if he had, had his day in
court. Of course, that's silly, since people are convicted on far less
evidence every day.
Not I. I have always said that Oswald would have been easily convicted.
Are you saying this means he was innocent?
Post by Anthony Marsh
In Texas. Then the case would have been vacated on appeal.
Yes, you are right, people are framed every day.
Are you saying that everyone who is convicted is framed?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Another reason
Post by Anthony Marsh
for reasonable doubt is when the government tampers with and/or destroys
evidence as we saw happen in the OJ Simpson case and also the JFK
assassination.
There is not a piece of *important* evidence against Oswald that can be
proven to have been destroyed or "tampered with" in such a way as to
The limo. The medical evidence. The ballistics evidence.
Are you saying that processing evidence is tampering with it?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
compromise its validity, though CT's throw out those allegations daily.
(Same with Simpson.) Also, even if you throw out most of the hard
evidence, Oswald's own behaviors, before and after, make a *powerful*
circumstantial case. (...And remember, the case of Oswald's guilt as
So you would say that when he pleads not guilty that is evidence of guilt?
Are you saying that if someones says they are not guilty that means they
are innocent?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Kennedy's killer, is a separate question, as to the case that he acted
alone in doing so.)
Post by Anthony Marsh
And there is a vast difference between being able to prove a case in a
court of law and convincing the public. They knew that they couldn't let
Oswald come to trial so they had to kill him.
Sounds like you have it all solved. Define "they" more specifically
please.
Nope. There is still a lot to uncover. So stop the cover-up.
Are you saying that you plan to vaguely allude to unidentified people
forever?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
What if he accidentally blurted out the code word to start WWIII as
Penkovsky did? The major reasson for the cover-up was to prevent WWIII.
Intelligence agencies can get away with assassinations when there is no
one in authority brave enough to hold them accountable, as in Trump giving
the Saudis free reign to assassinate anyone they want.
So you believe LBJ was in on it? Because if he wasn't, why would he have
no concern that the same rogue intelligence agencies that killed JFK,
would be turned on him?
No. LBJ did not order the assassination. H ordered the cover-up. To
prevent WWIII.
Are you saying that LBJ covered up for the actions of some rogue members
of the CIA because we would attack ourselves if those actions were found
out?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
The next assassination they pull off will be on US soil and Trump won't do
anything about it. Maybe with a Democratic majority finally the US House
of representatives will finally solve these assassinations.
Speculation, and without adequate reason IMO.
Prediction. Trump has given them the green light.
Are you saying it was fine for Kennedy to order assassinations as long
as it was overseas?
Anthony Marsh
2018-11-30 01:18:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Patrick Collins in another group posted this. It can come in handy in
these debates, since it gives a good layman's idea of the different legal
https://www.brudviklaw.com/blog/2016/04/proof-beyond-a-resonable-doubt-what-does-that-mean.shtml
Cute, but not related to the JFK Assassination. OFF TOPIC.
Hardly. It seems every-other-day, someone is spouting off that LHO would
never have been found guilty to this standard if he had, had his day in
court. Of course, that's silly, since people are convicted on far less
evidence every day.
Not I. I have always said that Oswald would have been easily convicted.
Are you saying this means he was innocent?
I can't say that for sure. Stop the cover-up.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
In Texas. Then the case would have been vacated on appeal.
Yes, you are right, people are framed every day.
Are you saying that everyone who is convicted is framed?
Not everyone. Just most people in Texas.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Another reason
Post by Anthony Marsh
for reasonable doubt is when the government tampers with and/or destroys
evidence as we saw happen in the OJ Simpson case and also the JFK
assassination.
There is not a piece of *important* evidence against Oswald that can be
proven to have been destroyed or "tampered with" in such a way as to
The limo. The medical evidence. The ballistics evidence.
Are you saying that processing evidence is tampering with it?
Sometimes it is when you are not careful.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
compromise its validity, though CT's throw out those allegations daily.
(Same with Simpson.) Also, even if you throw out most of the hard
evidence, Oswald's own behaviors, before and after, make a *powerful*
circumstantial case. (...And remember, the case of Oswald's guilt as
So you would say that when he pleads not guilty that is evidence of guilt?
Are you saying that if someones says they are not guilty that means they
are innocent?
Not prove. Everyone in this country has the presumption of innocence.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Kennedy's killer, is a separate question, as to the case that he acted
alone in doing so.)
Post by Anthony Marsh
And there is a vast difference between being able to prove a case in a
court of law and convincing the public. They knew that they couldn't let
Oswald come to trial so they had to kill him.
Sounds like you have it all solved. Define "they" more specifically
please.
Nope. There is still a lot to uncover. So stop the cover-up.
Are you saying that you plan to vaguely allude to unidentified people
forever?
Not vaguely. I've named names.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
What if he accidentally blurted out the code word to start WWIII as
Penkovsky did? The major reasson for the cover-up was to prevent WWIII.
Intelligence agencies can get away with assassinations when there is no
one in authority brave enough to hold them accountable, as in Trump giving
the Saudis free reign to assassinate anyone they want.
So you believe LBJ was in on it? Because if he wasn't, why would he have
no concern that the same rogue intelligence agencies that killed JFK,
would be turned on him?
No. LBJ did not order the assassination. H ordered the cover-up. To
prevent WWIII.
Are you saying that LBJ covered up for the actions of some rogue members
of the CIA because we would attack ourselves if those actions were found
out?
No, silly. LBJ had no idea who did it, but thought that Castro had paid
Oswald to do it.
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BT George
Post by Anthony Marsh
The next assassination they pull off will be on US soil and Trump won't do
anything about it. Maybe with a Democratic majority finally the US House
of representatives will finally solve these assassinations.
Speculation, and without adequate reason IMO.
Prediction. Trump has given them the green light.
Are you saying it was fine for Kennedy to order assassinations as long
as it was overseas?
Tell me what assassinations you think JFK ordered? Helms took it upon
himself to order the assasination of Castro without asking JFK.
Diem was supposed to be exiled.
Loading...