JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

Robert do you understand what sceptics mean by "material evidence"?

That is not the first time you have suggested a list of claimants and/or witnesses as material evidence.

 

[Walter Ego]

Lone Nutters like Walter and McAdams have a great deal of trouble with first hand witnesses like Crenshaw, and try every Goebbles type trick in the book to discredit. The difficulty is, when when you try to get at any proof of such discrediting, it isn't there. Overlooking the inconsequential minutia in McAdams rant, the one item he centers on is what he claims to be a non-existent phone call form LBJ to the Trauma room which Crenshaw claims he took. But there is no evidence that Crenshaw made this up. And the story that LBJ told Crenshaw to "kill the sonofabitch" is 3rd hand hearsay, first from McAdams then from the mouth Gus Russo and then to others. Walter cites Russo's book which takes you to a tract that mentions nothing at all about anything concerning such a phone call. So what we have here is another typical tale of McAdams sourced to nothing which Walter repeats and sources to nothing.

The "kill the SOB" is directly from Russo as quoted by McAdams. Congradulations for actually reading the link but you missed this part.

Gary Mack (curator of the 6th Floor Museums in Dallas):

It has always been known that there was a call from Washington, but apparently not from LBJ as Crenshaw's book claims. My own research, conducted at the request of KXAS-TV, the NBC affiliate in Dallas, found that LBJ was in his limo at the very moment Crenshaw's book indicates the call came in. There is no record of any such radiotelephone call which, according to the procedures in place, would have to have been routed to Dallas through the White House switchboard where all calls were logged. Nor is there an account from any of the people in the car that LBJ said "Excuse me, I have to call the hospital." And there would certainly be no need to keep such an event, if it happened, secret...

Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities that weekend, and they are here in our collection [at the Sixth Floor Museum] and in the documents we duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, [Phyllis Bartlett, Telephone Operator at Parkland Hospital] or anyone else mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from Washington. They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm

I guess that call from LBJ just slipped their minds when they gave their recollections.

There very definitely was a phone call from a man with a loud voice, who identified himself as Lyndon Johnson, and he was connected to the operating. room phone during Oswald's surgery."

Phyllis Bartlett(s) Chief Telephone Operator at
Parkland Hospital, 1954- 1968

Sounds like a prank call to me or more likely Barlett was confabulating. Parkland is a world class hospital and the switchboard will connect you to a operating room during surgery if you talk in a loud voice and claim to be the President of the United States?

 

[Robert Prey]

Which one of those is your single best witness for a Conspiracy Loon?

Uh, uh, another as hominem attack. You didn't read nor understand the very first sentence??? Observations of large posterior head wound??? That is the strongest piece of evidence. All the names below are witnesses to that evidence, each one bearing corroboration with the other. Get it now?

Nah!

 

[Robert Prey]

The "kill the SOB" is directly from Russo as quoted by McAdams. Congradulations for actually reading the link but you missed this part.

I don't think you took the trouble to really read your own "source"

"As wild as Crenshaw's most recent story is, it appears to have been toned down compared to the original. Harrison Livingstone, for example, has claimed that the first version of Crenshaw's manuscript had Johnson calling and demanding, not that Oswald be gotten to confess, but that Oswald be killed. The Kennedy Assassination Home Page has been unable to confirm the existence of that manuscript, but the early version of the story was as Livingstone describes.
One of the researchers who was privy to this early version was Gus Russo, author of Live By The Sword. As Russo describes it:

When Oliver Stone was in Dallas prepping for JFK, a number of us were around as "technical advisors," which was a bit of a joke, since Stone only listened to people with crazy conspiracy info.

One night at the Stoneleigh [Hotel], Stone was having a slew of top secret meetings in his suite with people like Ricky White, whom Stone paid $80,000 for his fraudulent story, and the positively goofy Beverly Oliver. That night, Stone ushered Gary Shaw, [Robert] Groden and Crenshaw into his room; I was not invited, but I pressed Shaw (Crenshaw's and Oliver's advisor) for info in the lobby. He was the first to tell me that LBJ ordered Oswald killed. Later, Crenshaw came down, and we happened to be in the Stoneleigh men's room at the same time, standing at adjacent urinals. It was there that he told me that Johnson had ordered the Parkland staff to "kill the son-of-a-bitch." It was decided to "drown Oswald in his own blood," i.e. transfuse him until his lungs collapsed. (E-mail to the author dated August 25, 2003) "

So it's Livingston taking the story from Gus Russo (not invited to the meeting), who took it from Shaw who got it from who? Crenshaw?

Not hearsay, eh?. I'd say hearsay via four different sources, not that I believe a word of it -- the part, that is, where Johnson tells the docs to commit murder. Not even LBJ is that dumb.
Morever, "Her reason for never having spoken of the incident was twofold. One, she had not considered the call unusual under the circumstances, and, secondly, because she felt that there was a possibility that the call might be a prank, she had remained on the line for a short period after connecting the call-an act which was against hospital policy."
"Ms. Bartlett also explains why the line went dead as Dr. Crenshaw describes. She had disconnected the call in an attempt to transfer the call to a newly set-up public relations [office], feeling upon reflection that that office might be in a better position to handle such a call."
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/13th_Issue/copa_medical.html

I really think the honorable thing for you to now do is issue yet another retraction and an apology for calling Dr. Crenshaw a "liar" and that would also mean an another apology for calling Ms. Bartlett a "confabulator" which of course means a "liar." I guess by your estimate and McAdams estimate, all the doctors and nurses at Parkland got together with the teleophone operator to create the biggest lie ever known. Shameful accusations. Dishonest research.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Uh, uh, another as hominem attack. You didn't read nor understand the very first sentence??? Observations of large posterior head wound??? That is the strongest piece of evidence. All the names below are witnesses to that evidence, each one bearing corroboration with the other. Get it now?

Nah!

Read for comprehension and give your answer some thought this time. You claim those are people who observed a large posterior head wound. Here's the question again. Which one is the single best witness for a Conspiracy Loon?

We'd hate to see another hole in your foot from your self-inflicted gunshots.

Bang!



LOL.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So... do you have any material evidence at all? Or just claims by witnesses?

 

[EventHorizon]

Its funny that we see the Holocaust deniers use the exact same tactic. Since the vast preponderance of evidence is against them, they narrow the battle to one nitpick at a time in order to be able to evince some kind of victory.

So those who don't believe the Warren Report fairy tale are the equivalent of Holocaust Deniers? Or just like Climate change deniers, or so says Al Gore. Doesn't this thread seem to attract some of the most profoundly Deep Thinkers.

Where on earth do you see that he said that people who don't believe in the Warren Report are the equivalent of Holocaust Deniers?! All he said was that the two groups use the same tactics. Nothing more. Is English not your first language or do you just have a serious reading comprehension problem (or are you being intentionally dense)?

Robert do you understand what sceptics mean by "material evidence"?

That is not the first time you have suggested a list of claimants and/or witnesses as material evidence.

I'm putting that in bold because I would really like to hear your answer to this one. Because in response to a request for material evidence earlier you posted this (a number of times actually):

Quite a lot. Here is just a small portion:

There are thirty well qualified witnesses to JFK's skull wound from Parkland to Bethesda. Their earliest, unrehearsed, specific descriptions, written, verbal or both, place a major skull defect unambiguously posteriorly.

l. KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland

2, ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD:

3, MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD:

4. CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD

5. MALCOLM PERRY, MD:

6. RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician

7. GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland

8. PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician

9. CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician

10. CHARLES RUFUS BAXTER, MD: a resident physician

11. ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD

12. RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident

13. ADOLPH GIESECKE, MD: an assistant professor of anesthesiology

14. FOUAD BASHOUR, MD: an associate professor of medicine

15. KENNETH EVERETT SALYER, MD: was an intern

16 PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse

17. SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL

18. NURSE DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON

Witnesses at Bethesda

1. GODFREY McHUGH: was President Kennedy's Air Force Aid,

2. JOHN STRINGER: was the autopsy photographer.

3. MORTICIAN TOM ROBINSON

4. ROBERT FREDERICK KARNEI, MD: Bethesda pathologist,

5. PAUL KELLY O'CONNOR

6. JAMES CURTIS JENKINS

7. RICHARD A. LIPSEY: an aide to General Wehle

8. EDWARD REED: one of two X-ray technicians

9. JERROL CUSTER: the other X-ray technician

10. JAN GAIL RUDNICKI: Dr. Boswell's lab assistant

11. JAMES E. METZLER: was a hospital corpsman

12. JOHN EBERSOLE, MD: was Assistant Chief of Radiology

But that is a list of witnesses. You were asked for material evidence, not witnesses. Do you understand that those are not the same thing? I'll ask the question one more time; the only question I really want you to answer (since you only answer one at a time anyway):

Robert do you understand what sceptics mean by "material evidence"?

Which one of those is your single best witness for a Conspiracy Loon?

Uh, uh, another as hominem attack. You didn't read nor understand the very first sentence??? Observations of large posterior head wound??? That is the strongest piece of evidence. All the names below are witnesses to that evidence, each one bearing corroboration with the other. Get it now?

Nah!

Where do you see an ad hominem attack here? Or is that something else that you simply do not understand? And yet again you say that 'observations of a large head wound is the strongest piece of evidence'. But of course those of us who live in the real world understand that observations are not material evidence.

Would you please answer the question in bold?

 

[Walter Ego]

So it's Livingston taking the story from Gus Russo (not invited to the meeting), who took it from Shaw who got it from who? Crenshaw? .

You're still having problems with this whole reading comprehension thing. Let's quote the relevant passage from Russo's email to McAdams again, shall we?

One night at the Stoneleigh [Hotel], [Oliver] Stone was having a slew of top secret meetings in his suite with people like Ricky White, whom Stone paid $80,000 for his fraudulent story, and the positively goofy Beverly Oliver. That night, Stone ushered Gary Shaw, [Robert] Groden and Crenshaw into his room; I was not invited, but I pressed Shaw (Crenshaw's and Oliver's advisor) for info in the lobby. He was the first to tell me that LBJ ordered Oswald killed. Later, Crenshaw came down, and we happened to be in the Stoneleigh men's room at the same time, standing at adjacent urinals. It was there that he told me that Johnson had ordered the Parkland staff to "kill the son-of-a-bitch." It was decided to "drown Oswald in his own blood," i.e. transfuse him until his lungs collapsed.

Take your time to read that quote, especially the bolded part. To anyone who can read and comprehend the English language, it's obvious that Russo heard the "kill the son-of-a-bitch" and "drown Oswald in his own blood" quotes directly from Crenshaw.

I really think the honorable thing for you to now do is issue yet another retraction and an apology for calling Dr. Crenshaw a "liar" and that would also mean an another apology for calling Ms. Bartlett a "confabulator" which of course means a "liar." I guess by your estimate and McAdams estimate, all the doctors and nurses at Parkland got together with the teleophone operator to create the biggest lie ever known. Shameful accusations. Dishonest research.

Let's add "confabulate" to the list of words you don't know the meaning of. "Confabulator" is not synomous with "liar."

con·fab·u·late

1. To talk casually; chat.

2. Psychology: To fill in gaps in one's memory with fabrications that one believes to be facts.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/confabulator

A liar knows he is being unfactual. If Bartlett honestly believed she put through a call from LBJ, she was not lying though she may have been confabulating.

Let's also quote that statement from Gary Mack again. Mack, who tends towards the conspiratorial view of the assassination, is an honest researcher respected by conspiratorialists and skeptics alike.

It has always been known that there was a call from Washington [to Parkland], but apparently not from LBJ as Crenshaw's book claims. My own research, conducted at the request of KXAS-TV, the NBC affiliate in Dallas, found that LBJ was in his limo at the very moment Crenshaw's book indicates the call came in. There is no record of any such radiotelephone call which, according to the procedures in place, would have to have been routed to Dallas through the White House switchboard where all calls were logged. Nor is there an account from any of the people in the car that LBJ said "Excuse me, I have to call the hospital." And there would certainly be no need to keep such an event, if it happened, secret.

Also this, again from Mack.

Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities that weekend, and they are here in our collection [at the Sixth Floor Museum] and in the documents we duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from Washington. They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.

If Crenshaw said he spoke to LBJ while treating Oswald and LBJ told him to "kill the son-of-a-bitch," he was lying. If Bartett said she put through a call from LBJ to the operating room, she was either was being pranked, was mistaken or confabulated the recollection. No apologies are due in either case.

 

[Robert Prey]

Quote:
One night at the Stoneleigh [Hotel], [Oliver] Stone was having a slew of top secret meetings in his suite with people like Ricky White, whom Stone paid $80,000 for his fraudulent story, and the positively goofy Beverly Oliver. That night, Stone ushered Gary Shaw, [Robert] Groden and Crenshaw into his room; I was not invited, but I pressed Shaw (Crenshaw's and Oliver's advisor) for info in the lobby. He was the first to tell me that LBJ ordered Oswald killed. Later, Crenshaw came down, and we happened to be in the Stoneleigh men's room at the same time, standing at adjacent urinals. It was there that he told me that Johnson had ordered the Parkland staff to "kill the son-of-a-bitch." It was decided to "drown Oswald in his own blood," i.e. transfuse him until his lungs collapsed.
Take your time to read that quote, especially the bolded part. To anyone who can read and comprehend the English language, it's obvious that Russo heard the "kill the son-of-a-bitch" and "drown Oswald in his own blood" quotes directly from Crenshaw.

So you say McAdams (thats one) got a letter from Russo (that's two) who says he heard some hearsay from Crenshaw who heard it from LBJ. So that's four. Ever play the game of telephone? But you have now other primary source for this but who? McAdams? I'd say, considering the source, this is just more McAdams McCaca but definitely, hearsay four times over.
But wait, you initially stuck this in there first:
"Quote:
Harrison Livingstone, for example, has claimed that the first version of Crenshaw's manuscript had Johnson calling and demanding, not that Oswald be gotten to confess, but that Oswald be killed."
So that makes hearsay over 5 fold? And just what is your source for this Livingston Claim???? McAdams???

 

[Robert Prey]

Let's also quote that statement from Gary Mack again. Mack, who tends towards the conspiratorial view of the assassination, is an honest researcher respected by conspiratorialists and skeptics alike.
Also this, again from Mack.

If Crenshaw said he spoke to LBJ while treating Oswald and LBJ told him to "kill the son-of-a-bitch," he was lying. If Bartett said she put through a call from LBJ to the operating room, she was either was being pranked, was mistaken or confabulated the recollection. No apologies are due in either case.

Gary Mack is in no way a conspiritorialist. But leaving that aside, if Bartlet was as you say only confabulating, then your assertion that Bartlett was lying is false as is your assertion that Crenshaw was liar when he claims to have taken a phone call from LBJ or someone who claimed to be LBJ. Either way, a retraction is due. Apparently, you have no other source for this nonsense but McAdams. I suggest you go to youtube to hear the words live on tape from both Crenshaw and Bartlett and then make your necessary apology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgNfQYpS1gQ

(about 30 minutes in)

 

[Robert Prey]

Let's also quote that statement from Gary Mack again. Mack, who tends towards the conspiratorial view of the assassination, is an honest researcher respected by conspiratorialists and skeptics alike.

Quote:
It has always been known that there was a call from Washington [to Parkland], but apparently not from LBJ as Crenshaw's book claims. My own research, conducted at the request of KXAS-TV, the NBC affiliate in Dallas, found that LBJ was in his limo at the very moment Crenshaw's book indicates the call came in. There is no record of any such radiotelephone call which, according to the procedures in place, would have to have been routed to Dallas through the White House switchboard where all calls were logged. Nor is there an account from any of the people in the car that LBJ said "Excuse me, I have to call the hospital." And there would certainly be no need to keep such an event, if it happened, secret.

And if such a call was made from wherever, we can expect there would be a record of it? Nonsense. The record is from Bartlett and Crenshaw's own mouth. See the youtube video and then come back on this board and claim they were both lying.
Ludicrous.

 

[Robert Prey]

Where on earth do you see that he said that people who don't believe in the Warren Report are the equivalent of Holocaust Deniers?! All he said was that the two groups use the same tactics. Nothing more. Is English not your first language or do you just have a serious reading comprehension problem (or are you being intentionally dense)?



I'm putting that in bold because I would really like to hear your answer to this one. Because in response to a request for material evidence earlier you posted this (a number of times actually):



But that is a list of witnesses. You were asked for material evidence, not witnesses. Do you understand that those are not the same thing? I'll ask the question one more time; the only question I really want you to answer (since you only answer one at a time anyway):






Where do you see an ad hominem attack here? Or is that something else that you simply do not understand? And yet again you say that 'observations of a large head wound is the strongest piece of evidence'. But of course those of us who live in the real world understand that observations are not material evidence.

Would you please answer the question in bold?

Actually, just out of curiosity, what exactly do you or TOmTom mean by 'material evidence". A nice simple definition will do. Thanks.

 

[Robert Prey]

So... do you have any material evidence at all? Or just claims by witnesses?

Kindly educate me on just what you mean by "material evidence." A nice, simple definition will do.

Thanks.

 

[Robert Prey]

You still don't understand how investigations work do you? There is no "one single strongest piece of evidence". All of the evidence has to be looked at together to tell the whole story. That's why your theories utterly fall apart under close scrutiny. You take one piece of evidence that may seem suspicious. Then you take a second piece that also might seem suspicious but the problem is it doesn't work with the first piece. Instead of being honest and admitting you may have been mistaken you either point out the first piece of evidence again and this time ignore the second piece of evidence, or you simply ignore the existence of the first piece of evidence and hope everybody forgot you even brought it up.

There is solid evidence, and not so solid evidence and evidence that has been faked. The routine list of "evidence" that Hank has listed is in no case incontrovertable. What a list of not-so-solid evidence combined with that which is faked or planted amounts to is a tissue of lies.

 

[Robert Prey]

Walter wrote:

"I was being polite by calling Crenshaw a fibber. He was actually a bald-faced liar."

Do you still hold to that?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Kindly educate me on just what you mean by "material evidence." A nice, simple definition will do.

Thanks.

So you don't understand the term.

Material evidence is emperical data that allows for objective study.

A photo is material, a body is material, witness statements and memories are not.

So again: where is the material evidence to support your witness claims?

 

[Walter Ego]

Gary Mack is in no way a conspiritorialist. But leaving that aside, if Bartlet was as you say only confabulating, then your assertion that Bartlett was lying is false as is your assertion that Crenshaw was liar when he claims to have taken a phone call from LBJ or someone who claimed to be LBJ. Either way, a retraction is due.)

You are twisting my words but that is standard operating procedure so lets "leave that aside." I never said Bartlett was lying though maybe she was. And you still don't understand what "confabulate" means.

Apparently, you have no other source for this nonsense but McAdams. I suggest you go to youtube to hear the words live on tape from both Crenshaw and Bartlett and then make your necessary apology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgNfQYpS1gQ

(about 30 minutes in)

Of course I do have other sources for the validity of the alleged phone call from LBJ to Parkland which I will reference in a separate post later today but in the meantime let's have a look at your source, the You Tube video linked above.

The video is an episode of Nigel Turner’s The Men Who Killed Kennedy, a mendacious, slanderous tabloid TV show that was so bad that that when it was shown in the UK the producer was censored by parliament.

Independent producer-director Nigel Turner was censured by members of the British Parliament, and there was an attempt to revoke Central Television’s franchise based on the penalty for making inaccurate broadcasts in British law. Although that ultimate sanction was not applied, the Independent Broadcasting Authority, the British regulatory agency, did compel Central Television to commission another program devoted entirely to exposing Turner’s research ethics. This “studio crucifixion” of Turner, as it was called, was duly broadcast on 16 November 1988, marking the first time British regulators had ever forced such action.

http://hnn.us/articles/4487.html

When it was shown in the US in 2003 by the History Channel, the network later had to apologise to it's viewers for foisting that piece of mind-numbing craopola on a gullible American public, among whom numbered Parkland doctor Robert McClelland who, predictably, lapped it up.

In an hourlong program to be broadcast tonight, the History Channel will engage in an unusual mea culpa, presenting an evaluation of one of its own programs that concludes that it and the channel were irresponsible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/07/arts/history-channel-apologizes.html

That's the video I'm supposed to watch and then apologize (to whom, btw)? No thanks.

 

[Robert Prey]

You are twisting my words but that is standard operating procedure so lets "leave that aside." I never said Bartlett was lying though maybe she was. And you still don't understand what "confabulate" means.



Of course I do have other sources for the validity of the alleged phone call from LBJ to Parkland which I will reference in a separate post later today but in the meantime let's have a look at your source, the You Tube video linked above.

The video is an episode of Nigel Turner’s The Men Who Killed Kennedy, a mendacious, slanderous tabloid TV show that was so bad that that when it was shown in the UK the producer was censored by parliament.



When it was shown in the US in 2003 by the History Channel, the network later had to apologise to it's viewers for foisting that piece of mind-numbing craopola on a gullible American public, among whom numbered Parkland doctor Robert McClelland who, predictably, lapped it up.


That's the video I'm supposed to watch and then apologize (to whom, btw)? No thanks.

Ah, well now you are guilty of "poisoning the well." A way of avoiding the truth. I certainly have no use for a liar like Posner, but I did read his book. All you are directed to do is to listen and view the live on camera words of Dr. Crenshaw and Phyllis Bartlett, but you decline for fear of having to face the truth. I certainly can think of a lot of reasons why the Brits in deference to the US would not want this video to be viewed. But in the land of the free, all points of view are supposed to be welcome, and let truth be the answer to falsehood -- not censorship. But just as you can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink, you can lead a person believing in falsehood to the truth, but you can't make him even face it, much less believe it. Thus, you have now lost all intellectual credibility.

 

[Robert Prey]

So you don't understand the term.

Material evidence is emperical data that allows for objective study.

A photo is material, a body is material, witness statements and memories are not.

So again: where is the material evidence to support your witness claims?

So do you have a photo??? Do you have a body???? No. You have no body to examine, only statements from others. And photos such as they exist, have been shown to be alterations or frauds 9 ways to Sunday. You cannot even emperically study the Z film, for neither is that in your hands. You must assume what you see is truthful. So you have no emperical evidence by your own definition. Nothing in hand. Nothing at all.

 

[HSienzant]

So those who don't believe the Warren Report fairy tale are the equivalent of Holocaust Deniers? Or just like Climate change deniers, or so says Al Gore. Doesn't this thread seem to attract some of the most profoundly Deep Thinkers.

I would vote yes on your first question above.

Both groups ignore the hard evidence and focus on isolated discrepancies in the record.

Here's another few groups I find the WC critics fit well with:

UFO believers
Alien visitation believers
Big Foot believers

All rely on eyewitnesses for their evidence and none have any hard evidence to support their beliefs.

Funny how that works, huh?

Hank