Reply #51: Pathological

[H2O Man]

means Nixon lied when he didn't need to, and lied when he was harmed by his lies. Lying was as much a part of his nature as breathing. Nixon was not, however, dumb. Thus, within an hour of the killing, he was certain to have had a very clear idea who had been behind the killing. Lying would be his natural reaction, regardless of the fact that he had nothing to do with the killing. His lying was without question to try to distance himself from the event.

People are not pathological for the fun of it. They are pathological, because it is their nature. It is no more their choice than is their heighth. It is simply their nature.

Nixons lying about Dallas is not particularly different than his lying about things from his early adulthood, through his early political life, to being VP, then marginalized by the 1960 election, or at any time during his presidency, or his final years. He lied about everything. Everything. In a strange way, it makes him a fascinating character study. The Dallas event only sticks out because it involved the public murder of the president. But Nixon did nothing different than at any time in his adult life.

As Prouty noted, "...Richard Nixon was in Dallas during those fateful moments, attending a meeting with executives of the Pepsi-Cola Company. According to the general counsel of that company, Nixon and others in the room knelt in a brief prayer when they heard of Kennedy's death. Despite this, there were many stories in which Nixon denied he was in Dallas at the time of the assassination. Why did Nixon tell so many different, false stories about his whereabouts at that time -- all placing him outside of Dallas?

"Although Nixon may not have heard those guns of Dallas, there can be no question that they were never far from his mind, especially during the hectic years of his own presidency. Some people say Nixon became paranoid. That would be understandable." (JFK; page 310)

There is no evidence -- zero -- that he played any role in JFK's death. I think what you are doing is the very definition of insinuating, which would be fine if there was any evidence that he did anything out of character, or if there was any evidence to connect him to the murder. But there's not. Why are his lies about this any different than the multitude of lies he told?