JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

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

So, I take it you do not support an attempt by any government to commit censorship? It does not take a psychic to understand why the US and British government came down on the MWkK, but not until the final episode, when Pres. LBJ himself is indicted by so many of his closest associates including "material" evidence of a fingerprint on a box of the TSBD of one of LBJ's most notorious "soldiers."

 

[Tomtomkent]

So the ONLY material evidence Robert has referenced so far is the MacWallace print in the TSBD. So there was a second suspect in the TSBD. Wow...

So how did MacWallace shoot from the grassy gnoll if he was in the TSBD? What? You mean an as yet unaccounted for individual doesn't prove oswald innocent, or the parkland statements correct? We can't even be sure the print was left before the murders? And have good reason,due to the short life span of prints on cardboard, to assume LBJ may have sent an agent to be his eyes and ears on theground?

There remains no material evidence to support Roberts claims. He seems to think anything that does notfit with what he considers the "whitewash" to automatically prove his own case?

When will Robert answer the specifics: what material evidence is there that JFK was shot from the front?

The answer remains: none.

 

[EventHorizon]

He can't even comprehend simple English. There's no way he'll be able to understand the assassination.

 

[HSienzant]

So, I take it you do not support an attempt by any government to commit censorship? It does not take a psychic to understand why the US and British government came down on the MWkK, but not until the final episode, when Pres. LBJ himself is indicted by so many of his closest associates including "material" evidence of a fingerprint on a box of the TSBD of one of LBJ's most notorious "soldiers."

Robert, you aren't a psychic and you don't have any evidence of LBJ's complicity in the assassination, nor do you have any evidence of the Brits or U.S. censoring the program.

Nor do you have any evidence of your original claim, that the British parliament didn't want the video to be viewed:

"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."

The program, in its entirety, was shown in both the U.S. and Britain.

Learn to deal with the facts and the way the world is.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

[CTRobert]
"The backyard photos are faked. This picture of a pee-stained janitor in his pleather jacket trying to hit me with his broomstick handle is proof!"
[/CTRobert]



Bang!

 

[HSienzant]

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.

No, it's very relevant, Robert. First-day statements and notes (when the memory is freshest) is far better than recollections made 29 years later.

That is a simple fact known to all.

The claim by you that her 29-year-later recollection takes primacy over her initial log - presumably created on the day Oswald was shot - is bizarre beyond belief.

Did she log other prank calls? My understanding is yes. But she did not log a call from the President of the United States?

And the fact that you see only two choices - lying or telling the truth - and ignoring the possibility of a false memory (an equally valid option) due solely to the fact you don't like what that option suggests (that witness statements - especially witness statements decades after the fact - are known to be notoriously unreliable) is very telling.

As I said before, all you have are witness statements. None of the hard evidence supports your beloved conspiracy theories. So you throw out the hard evidence (like the phone log) and rely instead on 30-year-later recollections.

So I conclude you are not serious about solving this crime.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

He can't even comprehend simple English. There's no way he'll be able to understand the assassination.

Well, it is a shame he belittled Ramsey in the Fortean Times link all those posts ago, when he mistook somebody talking about the Morningstar web page for somebody supporting said page. As well as missing the entirely valid point about the Tippet photos (despite the person who stumbled onto the two sources of photos being at the quirky end of the Conspiracy Loon spectrum, you can't knock Ramsey's verification, and let's be absolutey honest here: As Robert Cited -regardless of his claims otherwise- photos sourced from the equally whacky Groden, so it is something of a pot/kettle/noir situation if he wishes to put forward whacky nonsense to be validated, but discounts others who do the same) he somewhat distanced himself from one of the few Conspiracy Theory Peddlers who has built an even remotely convincing case for an LBJ centred conspircay. Whoops.

So what would the MacWallace print have suggested conspiracy wise? Well, as Ramsay pointed out in his "Who Shot JFK", which in the UK at least (despite that pesky censorship there is no evidence for) was part of the Pocket Essential range of books, noticed an obscure and often overlooked little memoir, (I don't have it to hand to check, but think it was the one about the "confession" of the brain damaged native american in rehab- oh yes he loves those whacky sources does Rob Ramsay)in which a confessing assassin noted he was approached by an LBJ legman "Mac" to shoot JFK with LHO and others in the TSBD. The book was completely ignored... Until "Mac" had his prints indipendantly identified years after publication.

Why does this ring more true than Robert? For a start as unlikely and stupid as the original story is, it is one supported by a piece of material evidence. For a second it does not contradict material evidence: There is no need for the body to have been altered or for the overwhelming evidence to be discounted: It fits with the wounds we have evidence for. There is no need for wild speculation about snipers in the sewers of fragmentary bullets we have no evidence for.

It does not tally with the ballistics though. Even assuming all three shooters were using the same kind of rifle, all fired shells came from Oswalds. Nor does it fit with the footage of the TSBD having one shooter in the window. Where it hits the water with a belly flop and fails to convince me is by taking the Lee and Harvey Oswalds idea seriously.

So where does it leave us? If there was a conspiracy, if there was MacWallace on site, the rifle remained in the hands of LHO. The shots still came from the TSBD. No way around it, the evidence is too strong to deny. He was not a hero, no way, no how. Even with the ingerprint that is still a giant, chasming, unconfirmed IF.

 

[HSienzant]

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

Not the point, you did dismiss the statements of a legit expert on the JFK assassination because he testified at the Simpson civil trial as an expert for the defendant.

You do remember claiming that, right?

But Groden did testify for the Simpson defense as well. That must mean you must dismiss his JFK-related statements as well - including statements that the backyard photos are forgeries.

And without knuckleheads like Groden and Jack White, you don't have an argument for forgery of the backyard photos.

As I stated and you ignored, all the legit photo experts who have ever examined the original materials have all concluded they are legitimate. All of them. Without exception.

If you have some contrary evidence from a legit expert, produce it now.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

No, it's very relevant, Robert. First-day statements and notes (when the memory is freshest) is far better than recollections made 29 years later.

That is a simple fact known to all.

The claim by you that her 29-year-later recollection takes primacy over her initial log - presumably created on the day Oswald was shot - is bizarre beyond belief.

Did she log other prank calls? My understanding is yes. But she did not log a call from the President of the United States?

And the fact that you see only two choices - lying or telling the truth - and ignoring the possibility of a false memory (an equally valid option) due solely to the fact you don't like what that option suggests (that witness statements - especially witness statements decades after the fact - are known to be notoriously unreliable) is very telling.

As I said before, all you have are witness statements. None of the hard evidence supports your beloved conspiracy theories. So you throw out the hard evidence (like the phone log) and rely instead on 30-year-later recollections.

So I conclude you are not serious about solving this crime.

Hank

Or to summarise: It would consist of documentary evidence, that would in deedbe relevant. It is also something Rob's story about the shots coming from the front seems to be lacking. Of the witnesses he lists, there is surprisingly little documentation that to show their conclusions at the time. Understandable, they were in a hospital saving lives, and you would expect documentary evidence as a secondary priority after the fact.

 

[HSienzant]

...The book was completely ignored... Until "Mac" had his prints indipendantly identified years after publication...

Sez who?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Sez who?

Robin Ramsay in "Who shot JFK? (A Pocket Essential Guide)" can't remember the name of the book he was discussing at the time, as it certainly flew under my radar (and mosth other peoples, though think it may have beed reissued at a later date- I remember the popularity spiking AFTER the Mac print was "confirmed").

 

[HSienzant]

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?

My point is simple.

Conspiracists like you ignore all the hard evidence indicating shots from the TSBD and substitute eyewitness statements - often made decades after the fact - as evidence of a conspiracy.

You yourself did this when you wrote in response to my list:

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.

You claimed the evidence on the was not incontrovertible and in fact, summed it up as "a tissue of lies". You are doing precisely what I claimed conspiracists *always* do - throw out the hard evidence on on pretext or another, and substitute for it witness statements in many cases made decades after the fact (like the telephone operator's statement made nearly 30 years after the assassination).

So controvert the limo bullet fragments.

Establish they are planted or forged or something.

They were on my list that you claimed is not incontrovertible.

Go ahead.

Here's my list again (I've bolded the limo shells statement):

He has to do that, otherwise he (and all JFK conspiracists) have no argument.

- They throw out the shells at the TSBD
- They throw out the rifle at the TSBD
- They throw out Oswald's prints found on that rifle
- They throw out Oswald's prints found on the boxes in the sniper's nest window
- They throw out the nearly whole bullet found at Parkland traceable to Oswald's weapon
- They throw out the two large bullet fragments found in the limo traceable to Oswald's weapon
- They throw out the order form showing Oswald ordered the rifle
- They throw out the Money Order Oswald used to purchase the rifle
- They throw out the shipment of the rifle to Oswald's PO Box
- They throw out the photos of Oswald with that rifle in his Neely Street backyard
- They throw out the autopsy
- They throw out the autopsy x-rays
- They throw out the autopsy photos
- They throw out JFK's body
- They throw out the Zapruder film, the Nix film, and all the other films taken that day.

In the place of all that evidence (and much more), they *always* substitute witness testimony. Depending upon the argument they want to advance they select judiciously from the witness statements to (ahem) 'prove' their case.

Robert Prey is no different.

He claims the doctors at Parkland can't possibly be wrong. He also claims the autopsy photos are forgeries (except when he cites one as evidence of an entry wound in the forehead). He claims there was a shooter on the knoll, and his shot caused the damage evident in Z-313 and in subsequent frames.

Of course, as established above, he cannot even get his wound locations and his knoll shooter to align properly.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Robin Ramsay in "Who shot JFK? (A Pocket Essential Guide)" can't remember the name of the book he was discussing at the time, as it certainly flew under my radar (and mosth other peoples, though think it may have beed reissued at a later date- I remember the popularity spiking AFTER the Mac print was "confirmed").

Not my question. I did a google search and came across this web thread on a conspiracy site:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4966

The bottom line is one expert has concluded it's Mac Wallace's fingerprint, another expert refused to render an opinion, and the FBI concluded it was not Mac Wallace's.

FYI - from the above link, I learned the two experts [other than the FBI] did not look at the original materials, but copies. I presume the FBI had access to the original materials from the archives, but it may be that those original materials are either no longer readable or no longer available.

PS: The majority of the conspiracists in that thread appear to have concluded the print is planted! Talk about eating your young.
If it's planted, of course, it's not evidence of a second shooter or a conspiracy to shoot JFK. Their mindset is so frozen in the hard-evidence is planted thinking that even if the evidence supports a conspiracy, they argue for planting.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Hence the caution i used when calling it "confirmed" in quotations. The whole mess is rather dubious. Thebest argued ct is still a ct, and still falls flat in the face of evidence.

 

[Robert Prey]

My point is simple.

Conspiracists like you ignore all the hard evidence indicating shots from the TSBD and substitute eyewitness statements - often made decades after the fact - as evidence of a conspiracy.

You yourself did this when you wrote in response to my list:



You claimed the evidence on the was not incontrovertible and in fact, summed it up as "a tissue of lies". You are doing precisely what I claimed conspiracists *always* do - throw out the hard evidence on on pretext or another, and substitute for it witness statements in many cases made decades after the fact (like the telephone operator's statement made nearly 30 years after the assassination).

So controvert the limo bullet fragments.

Establish they are planted or forged or something.

They were on my list that you claimed is not incontrovertible.

Go ahead.

Here's my list again (I've bolded the limo shells statement):

So?? What is your Point? What is your point regarding the alleged bullet fragments??? How do you connect them with a fatal shot to the head shot by LHO and how does that prove a Lone Nut and not a conspiracy?

 

[Robert Prey]

Not the point, you did dismiss the statements of a legit expert on the JFK assassination because he testified at the Simpson civil trial as an expert for the defendant.

You do remember claiming that, right?

But Groden did testify for the Simpson defense as well. That must mean you must dismiss his JFK-related statements as well - including statements that the backyard photos are forgeries.

And without knuckleheads like Groden and Jack White, you don't have an argument for forgery of the backyard photos.

As I stated and you ignored, all the legit photo experts who have ever examined the original materials have all concluded they are legitimate. All of them. Without exception.

If you have some contrary evidence from a legit expert, produce it now.

Hank

You must be referring only to the backyard photos, which I have already personally proven to be fake. Even if the b/y photos were real, that proves nothing. regarding the assassination. That they are fake proves a coverup. That the autopsy photos are fake has already been proven by the statements of those who took and developed the originals.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, it's very relevant, Robert. First-day statements and notes (when the memory is freshest) is far better than recollections made 29 years later.

That is a simple fact known to all.

The claim by you that her 29-year-later recollection takes primacy over her initial log - presumably created on the day Oswald was shot - is bizarre beyond belief.

Did she log other prank calls? My understanding is yes. But she did not log a call from the President of the United States?

And the fact that you see only two choices - lying or telling the truth - and ignoring the possibility of a false memory (an equally valid option) due solely to the fact you don't like what that option suggests (that witness statements - especially witness statements decades after the fact - are known to be notoriously unreliable) is very telling.

As I said before, all you have are witness statements. None of the hard evidence supports your beloved conspiracy theories. So you throw out the hard evidence (like the phone log) and rely instead on 30-year-later recollections.

So I conclude you are not serious about solving this crime.

Hank

So " First-day statements and notes (when the memory is freshest) is far better than recollections made 29 years later."???? But you would not apply that logic to first day statements of the Parkland Medical Personnel? No, no, no.

As far as the LBJ call to Crenshaw, this was never disputed till years later so there was no need for Ms. Bartlett to come forward, until she discovered that the highly respected Dr. Crenshaw's integrity was being questioned. Your uptake is biased, tortured and baseless.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, you aren't a psychic and you don't have any evidence of LBJ's complicity in the assassination, nor do you have any evidence of the Brits or U.S. censoring the program.

Nor do you have any evidence of your original claim, that the British parliament didn't want the video to be viewed:


The program, in its entirety, was shown in both the U.S. and Britain.

Learn to deal with the facts and the way the world is.

Hank

The British government censured the series, and in so doing in effect censored it. Ditto in the US where sources close to the government forced an apology from the History Channel and compelled them to stop selling the final 3 episodes and apparently successful in removing these episodes from libraries as well. I call it censorship.

As far as LBJ complicity in the assassination, the statements of witnesses close to LBJ as well as those involved in the plot itself (Jack Ruby and E. Howard Hunt) would carry weight as witness evidence in any criminal court and you know it.

 

[Robert Prey]

So the ONLY material evidence Robert has referenced so far is the MacWallace print in the TSBD. So there was a second suspect in the TSBD. Wow...

So how did MacWallace shoot from the grassy gnoll if he was in the TSBD? What? You mean an as yet unaccounted for individual doesn't prove oswald innocent, or the parkland statements correct? We can't even be sure the print was left before the murders? And have good reason,due to the short life span of prints on cardboard, to assume LBJ may have sent an agent to be his eyes and ears on theground?

There remains no material evidence to support Roberts claims. He seems to think anything that does notfit with what he considers the "whitewash" to automatically prove his own case?

When will Robert answer the specifics: what material evidence is there that JFK was shot from the front?

The answer remains: none.

Except for the wounds themselves as described by all of the medical personnel at Parkland.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You must be referring only to the backyard photos, which I have already personally proven to be fake.

You can't take all the credit. We mustn't forget the pee-stained doofus in the pleather jacket trying to hit you with his broom handle.


LOL.