JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

Now then, of all those items, which would be your one single strongest piece of evidence for One Lone Nutter and no accomplices????

That is easy.

Here it is five decades later, and there is no still no hard evidence of a second shooter nor any hard evidence for Lee Oswald to have had any accomplices.

Lack of evidence of a conspiracy, Robert, is pretty good evidence there was no conspiracy.

And all the hard evidence pointing to Oswald is pretty good evidence he was the shooter. The lone shooter.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Please go down that list and tell me what is wrong with it.

Let's start with the two large fragments of the head shot found in the limo.

How were those faked or altered?

Do you have any evidence to support your claims, or is all you have just suppositions?

Thanks,
Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

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.

You have not shown any photo to be an alteration or fraud. Not a single one. As a matter of fact the copies available of the emperical data are suitable for analysis and data. They are conclusive. We have photos that have not been faked, of JFK in the limo after the shots were fired with no rear exit wound. We have the z film, which shows no ejecta from the rear of the head. We have the autopsy (or pre autopsy… if you insist on calling them that) that conflict directly with your hypothosis, including the original unaltered versions of those you posted yourself. We have the back yeard photos, which not only defy your faulty analysis to prove themselves genuine, are with out need to be faked, because by your own statements the originals you claim were destroyed SHOW THE EXACT SAME GUNS.

But you still avoid the question asked, instead casting assertions on the data that conflicts with your hypothosis is not evidence FOR your hypothosis. I did not ask what data is available to study that suggest the LHO hypothosis, nor your opinion of its validity. I asked what material evidence supports your claim.

One can only assume your failure to answer was to avoid admitting the obvious, that you have none to produce.

So once again Robert; what material evidence supports your claim?

 

[HSienzant]

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.

No photos have be found to be altered or frauds. Not even one way to Tuesday.

All you have are claims that they have been altered - by people who are not photo experts, and whom, in most cases, have been exposed as frauds themselves. Guys like Jack White - who never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like. He was cross-examined by the HSCA in 1978 and it was established beyond all doubt he had no clue what he was talking about in terms of photo fakery. If you haven't read his testimony to congress, I urge you to do so. Today Jack White spends his time claiming the moon landing was faked.

Another conspiracy-theorist favorite is Robert Groden. But Groden's original connection to the case is through stealing a 35-mm copy of the z-film from his employer and then making money off it by showing it on college campuses. He also made money off of selling the JFK autopsy photos to the British trash publication The Globe (the equivalent of the US National Enquirer).

He also testified for the defense at the O.J.Simpson civil case - claiming photos of Simpson with Bruno Magli shoes at a Buffalo Bills football game were altered. Additional photos surfaced later - by another photographer completely - showing Simpson wearing the same shoes. Moreover, one of those photos was published in the Buffalo Bills magazine, months before the murders. If Groden is correct, the conspirators who altered the photos of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes must have done so months before Simpson's estranged wife was murdered, because they planned months earlier to murder her and frame Simpson for it!

Do these claims about the shoes made by Groden make any sense to you?

I sincerely hope you can see through Groden's nonsense.

Whatever real photo experts (like the HSCA photo panel) did examine the original materials have found no problems with them.

Can you cite one legitimate photo expert who examined the original materials and claims the z-film or the famous backyard photos of Oswald holding a rifle is altered?

No, you cannot.

Such an animal does not exist.

Hank

 

[EventHorizon]

No photos have be found to be altered or frauds. Not even one way to Tuesday.

One way to Tuesday. Brilliant!


I think I'm going to have to disagree with this. One photo has been altered, but it's been altered by Robert Prey, that is if you consider cropping to be a form of altering.

 

[LSSBB]

One way to Tuesday. Brilliant!


I think I'm going to have to disagree with this. One photo has been altered, but it's been altered by Robert Prey, that is if you consider cropping to be a form of altering.

In marketing, they call that "framing".

 

[Robert Prey]

No photos have be found to be altered or frauds. Not even one way to Tuesday.

All you have are claims that they have been altered - by people who are not photo experts, and whom, in most cases, have been exposed as frauds themselves.
Can you cite one legitimate photo expert who examined the original materials and claims the z-film or the famous backyard photos of Oswald holding a rifle is altered?

No, you cannot.

Such an animal does not exist.

Hank

"A sworn interview with Saundra Kay Spencer, who developed the JFK autopsy photos, in which she declared that the photos in the Archives are not the ones she developed. Autopsy photographer John Stringer similarly disavowed the supplemental autopsy brain photographs."

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/JFK_Assassination

 

[Robert Prey]

Another conspiracy-theorist favorite is Robert Groden. But Groden's original connection to the case is through stealing a 35-mm copy of the z-film from his employer and then making money off it by showing it on college campuses. He also made money off of selling the JFK autopsy photos to the British trash publication The Globe (the equivalent of the US National Enquirer).

He also testified for the defense at the O.J.Simpson civil case - claiming photos of Simpson with Bruno Magli shoes at a Buffalo Bills football game were altered. Additional photos surfaced later - by another photographer completely - showing Simpson wearing the same shoes. Moreover, one of those photos was published in the Buffalo Bills magazine, months before the murders. If Groden is correct, the conspirators who altered the photos of Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes must have done so months before Simpson's estranged wife was murdered, because they planned months earlier to murder her and frame Simpson for it!

Do these claims about the shoes made by Groden make any sense to you?

I sincerely hope you can see through Groden's nonsense.

Hank

I see your back in your Red Herring mode. But I've never cited Grodon for anything.

 

[Robert Prey]

You have not shown any photo to be an alteration or fraud. Not a single one. As a matter of fact the copies available of the emperical data are suitable for analysis and data. They are conclusive. We have photos that have not been faked, of JFK in the limo after the shots were fired with no rear exit wound. We have the z film, which shows no ejecta from the rear of the head. We have the autopsy (or pre autopsy… if you insist on calling them that) that conflict directly with your hypothosis, including the original unaltered versions of those you posted yourself. We have the back yeard photos, which not only defy your faulty analysis to prove themselves genuine, are with out need to be faked, because by your own statements the originals you claim were destroyed SHOW THE EXACT SAME GUNS.

But you still avoid the question asked, instead casting assertions on the data that conflicts with your hypothosis is not evidence FOR your hypothosis. I did not ask what data is available to study that suggest the LHO hypothosis, nor your opinion of its validity. I asked what material evidence supports your claim.

One can only assume your failure to answer was to avoid admitting the obvious, that you have none to produce.

So once again Robert; what material evidence supports your claim?

I've personally proven the Backyard photos to be fraud. And as to the others:

"A sworn interview with Saundra Kay Spencer, who developed the JFK autopsy photos, in which she declared that the photos in the Archives are not the ones she developed. Autopsy photographer John Stringer similarly disavowed the supplemental autopsy brain photographs."

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/JFK_Assassination

 

[Robert Prey]

Please go down that list and tell me what is wrong with it.

Let's start with the two large fragments of the head shot found in the limo.

How were those faked or altered?

Do you have any evidence to support your claims, or is all you have just suppositions?

Thanks,
Hank

Let's first start by you making a point. What is your point regarding what large fragments of the head shot? And how do you know it was from the head shot?

 

[Robert Prey]

That is easy.

Here it is five decades later, and there is no still no hard evidence of a second shooter nor any hard evidence for Lee Oswald to have had any accomplices.

Lack of evidence of a conspiracy, Robert, is pretty good evidence there was no conspiracy.

And all the hard evidence pointing to Oswald is pretty good evidence he was the shooter. The lone shooter.

Hank

There are about 68 pages of evidence I've repeatedly listed right here, including, but not limited to the first hand observations of all the medical personnel at Parkland of a large blowout in the back of the head, indicating a shot or shots from the front and thus, a conspiracy. But you just can't admit it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I've personally proven the Backyard photos to be fraud.

Are you lying or simply mistaken about that?

What times are it?



LOL.

You failed to answer my previous question, also. Which one is your single best witness for a Conspiracy Loon? I'll assume you were simply unable to understand the question. Ask someone for help if you need, but you should screw up your courage and answer.

 

[Robert Prey]

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

Funny how Lone Nutters have to make excuses for the fact that all the relevant evidence after Parkland, is either altered, missing or destroyed.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

In regards to the bold-faced statement, I don't care about any such reasons you can conjecture or speculate. Do you have any evidence the Brits Parliament was influenced in any way to render the decision they did?

Of course not.

You don't need evidence when conjecture and speculation is available.

Typical CT think.

Moreover, your entire point is erroneous about this. The Brits didn't try to keep the video from being viewed in the U.S. In fact, as mentioned earlier, it was shown here on the History Channel a number of times.

You have nothing here but conjecture. None of the facts are on your side for any of your points.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

Let's first start by you making a point. What is your point regarding what large fragments of the head shot? And how do you know it was from the head shot?

Circle the exit wound in the Zapruder film. You may use your red crayone if you wish. Unless your foot wounds are troubling you, of course.

 

[EventHorizon]

I've personally proven the Backyard photos to be fraud.

How do you find it this easy to lie?

 

[Walter Ego]

The Alleged LBJ Phone Call To Parkland Hospital

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.

Since Robert was having a snit, I did go to the video (The Guilty Men segment of The Men Who Killed Kennedy series) and watched "the live on camera words of Dr. Crenshaw and Phyllis Bartlett." As I suspected, it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

As it turns out, assassination researcher David Perry has already demolished the credibility of Crenshaw, Bartlett and others who appeared "live on camera" in the program here. (All the following quotes are from the page linked.)

In the video [Phyllis Bartlett] indicates she came forward when the media began to question Dr. Crenshaw's veracity... (my italics)

This refers to Bartlett's letter (never published) of July 15, 1992, to the Dallas Morning News.

Perry continues:

The following further damages Bartlett's credibility: [Charles] Jack Price [Parkland Hospital Administrator] asked for and obtained written reports from employees and department heads. I happen to have a copy of the report submitted by Phyllis Bartlett for the period November 22 to 24, 1963. She lists herself as a P.B.X. Supervisor. In the entire four-page report no mention is made of either her on any of her subordinates receiving a call from the new President. The closest her report comes to any similar incident reads:

"Sunday, Nov. 24, 1963 Another woman calling wanted (long distance) to talk to surgery nurse, administrators office or Oswald's Dr.s., we cannot connect her so she wants to talk to the operator, so we finally listen just to get her off the line - she wants to suggest that we put Oswald under hypnosis and get the truth out of him, then let him die ------"

The FBI interviewed Dr. Crenshaw on July 22, 1992.

"Recently, Doctor CRENSHAW has received a statement from a Mrs. PHYLLIS BARTLETT... who indicated that she was the operator who transferred the call from the person identifying himself as President JOHNSON to the Operating Room. In the statement provided to Doctor CRENSHAW, Mrs. BARTLETT stated that she never made note of the call because she believed it may have been a prank, and that she did not think it was anything unusual. BARTLETT indicated that after initially transferring the call to the operating room, she then directed it to a specially designated section of the hospital setup for handling incoming calls regarding the assassination."

[FBI Record 124-10273-10418, FBI interview Dr. Crenshaw, p.6]

Perry:

In her log Bartlett enters detailed notes and refuses to transfer a call from an unknown woman who wants Oswald hypnotized. Twenty nine years later she remembers she did transfer a call she considered a "prank." She transfers the call directly to the very operating room where Crenshaw is located and then to "a specially designated section of the hospital setup for handling incoming calls regarding the assassination."

So Bartlett did not see fit at the time to log a call from the President of the United States but she did log and note this prank call. (And, as I mentioned previously, there was no call to Parkland from LBJ recorded on the White House phone logs in this time frame.)

Charles Jack Price, Parkland Hospital Administrator...

[A]lso believed the Lyndon Johnson phone call did not take place and told Crenshaw so when they discussed it in February of 1992. Price was, in essence, an operations director. The switchboard staff reported to him. He felt there is no way a switchboard operator would get a call from the President of the United States and not tell everyone about it.

So to summarize, Bartlett fails to log a call from the newly sworn in Texas-born president, fails to mention this call to her boss and in a statement given to Crenshaw in 1992 said she considered the person on the phone identifying himself as LBJ to be a prank caller.

Draw your own conclusions. When I said before that I thought Bartlett was being pranked and confabulated a prank call into to an actual call from LBJ, I had not yet read the David Perry page. Looks like my surmise was probably correct. It looks like Crenshaw was doing some confabulating, too.

 

[Tomtomkent]

There are about 68 pages of evidence I've repeatedly listed right here, including, but not limited to the first hand observations of all the medical personnel at Parkland of a large blowout in the back of the head, indicating a shot or shots from the front and thus, a conspiracy. But you just can't admit it.

So where is the MATERIAL EVIDENCE supporting these claims?

 

[Tomtomkent]

How do you find it this easy to lie?

Because he seems to think that a doofus in a mask holding a rifle analogue in an entirely different pose proves the shadows are wrong. The photos that recreated "impossible" shadows are magic...

 

[Robert Prey]

Since Robert was having a snit, I did go to the video (The Guilty Men segment of The Men Who Killed Kennedy series) and watched "the live on camera words of Dr. Crenshaw and Phyllis Bartlett." As I suspected, it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

As it turns out, assassination researcher David Perry has already demolished the credibility of Crenshaw, Bartlett and others who appeared "live on camera" in the program here. (All the following quotes are from the page linked.)




This refers to Bartlett's letter (never published) of July 15, 1992, to the Dallas Morning News.

Perry continues:



The FBI interviewed Dr. Crenshaw on July 22, 1992.



Perry:



So Bartlett did not see fit at the time to log a call from the President of the United States but she did log and note this prank call. (And, as I mentioned previously, there was no call to Parkland from LBJ recorded on the White House phone logs in this time frame.)

Charles Jack Price, Parkland Hospital Administrator...



So to summarize, Bartlett fails to log a call from the newly sworn in Texas-born president, fails to mention this call to her boss and in a statement given to Crenshaw in 1992 said she considered the person on the phone identifying himself as LBJ to be a prank caller.

Draw your own conclusions. When I said before that I thought Bartlett was being pranked and confabulated a prank call into to an actual call from LBJ, I had not yet read the David Perry page. Looks like my surmise was probably correct. It looks like Crenshaw was doing some confabulating, too.

My conclusion is that you have been caught in you own 'confabulation" having accused Dr. Crenshaw of being a 'liar" now refuted by the very operator who took the call. The fact that she did not log the call is irrelevant and subsequently explained by her. The alternative is to believe that she and Crenshaw were both lyinjg. Ludicrous and absurd on its face. Now, in the face of Bartlett's statements, do you still label Crenshaw a liar in your desperate attempt to denigrate him? Or were you merely 'confabulating"????
Also, still waiting for your source for Livinggston and the "kill the sonofabitch" allegation.