JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

9. CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician

Crenshaw was covered previously.

Have you actually *read* the book by Crenshaw?

He himself offers a number of descriptions of what he saw in his own book.

Here they are:

Pg 2: "The entire right hemisphere of President Kennedy's brain was obliterated. . . . "
Pg 78: "Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear."
Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater, an empty cavity."
Pg 87: (Quoting Kemp Clark): "My God, the whole right side of his head is shot off... We've got nothing to work with."
Pg 89: "... there is still nothing that can save a victim who loses the entire right side of his brain."

Do ANY of those descriptions *from his book* sound like the back of the head was blown out?

Note the description on page 78 (highlighted above) sounds a whole like what we see in the Z-film and the extant autopsy photos. If Crenshaw is a witness for you, you got some re-thinking to do.

Here's the original post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7848344&postcount=2062

 

[HSienzant]

Forty Plus On-the-Scene Witnesses, including, but not limited to:
3, MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD:

7. GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland

9. CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician

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

31. SAUNDRA KAY SPENCER

41. BEVERLY OLIVER

42. ED HOFFMAN

43. BILL NEWMAN

44. GAYLE NEWMAN

I think we've struck quite a few from your list in only a few days. You need to step up your game, Robert. At this rate you won't have anyone on the list by the weekend.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Crenshaw was covered previously.

Have you actually *read* the book by Crenshaw?

He himself offers a number of descriptions of what he saw in his own book.

Here they are:

Pg 2: "The entire right hemisphere of President Kennedy's brain was obliterated. . . . "
Pg 78: "Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear."
Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater, an empty cavity."
Pg 87: (Quoting Kemp Clark): "My God, the whole right side of his head is shot off... We've got nothing to work with."
Pg 89: "... there is still nothing that can save a victim who loses the entire right side of his brain."

Do ANY of those descriptions *from his book* sound like the back of the head was blown out?

Note the description on page 78 sounds a whole like what we see in the Z-film and the extant autopsy photos. If Crenshaw is a witness for you, you got some re-thinking to do.
[qimg]http://simfootball.net/JFK/aut10_HI.jpg[/qimg]

Here's the original post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7848344&postcount=2062

Like I pointed out, Crenshaws duplicity and dishonesty has been covered at length in this thread. So I'm not going to retract, or appologise for a statement I feel to be true. Nor am I going to waste time wallowing on subjects long since covered because Robert disagrees. He failed to convince anyboody in the past, he wont face the facts, not my problem. The thread hasn't gone anywhere, he can read it all again at his leisure.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Of course if Robert is able to supply independant documentary or physical evidence that LBJ called the hospital (despite records showing differently), that a small wound to the throat was an entry wound for a shot fired from the grassy knoll, that the body of JFK was altered to change the wounds to appear like a shot from behind, if Crenshaw did take a central role, or as he later claimed the book took poetic license, if he deliberately lied about the Dallas Morning Post featuring an editorial he disliked, that was certainly not in the paper (there was a handbill however, but the book names the DMP), along with other falsehoods either of his own or lifted from Lifton, are by some remote chance proven, I may reconsider my opinion.

This however seems unlikely.

 

[HSienzant]

Like I pointed out, Crenshaws duplicity and dishonesty has been covered at length in this thread. So I'm not going to retract, or appologise for a statement I feel to be true. Nor am I going to waste time wallowing on subjects long since covered because Robert disagrees. He failed to convince anyboody in the past, he wont face the facts, not my problem. The thread hasn't gone anywhere, he can read it all again at his leisure.

I am treating all this as simply review for the late-arriving lurkers who haven't bothered to read the whole thread. Yes, it's clear that Robert never retracts anything, and furthermore, always insists his interpretation of the evidence is the only valid one - even when other interpretations are shown as possible and more consistent with the other evidence. Robert also insists that his views are correct, even when exposed as having no foundation in fact.

That's okay. It's my firm belief that someday Robert will come around to re-assessing the evidence, and then come to realize that he was lied to - repeatedly and without cause - by the authors of conspiracy books whose only motive was to make a buck.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

"It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left hand side of the head..."

If by "to the occiput" he means to the border of the occipital bone, then it would not be consistent with "the back of the head blown out" in my opinion. The occipital bone extends as far to the side of the skull as the mastoid process (the bony lump behind your earlobe). Many people have a small protrusion at the apex of the occiput, which can be felt just above the neck where the bony part of the head begins. The occiput extends no higher than this, anatomically speaking.

Yes, I fully expect JREF readers to be prodding their own skulls at this point. It happens in osteology classes the world over when you study the cranium.

 

[EventHorizon]

Yes, I fully expect JREF readers to be prodding their own skulls at this point. It happens in osteology classes the world over when you study the cranium.

Yep, you got me.

 

[JayUtah]

Yep, you got me.

We all do it. FYI, before Robert asks, I studied physical anthropology with Dr. Michael Finnegan at Kans. State University, if only to get out of the dreaded Biology 101. It was so fascinating, and Mike Finnegan (Wikipedia) was such an oustanding professor, that I went on to take his more advanced osteology lab courses just for the heck of it.

If anything it has greatly enhanced my appreciation of Bones, which turn came in handy at an impromptu Sunday brunch at the Blue Plate with David Boreanaz (he's shorter than he looks on TV).

Anyway, back to osteology: Dr. Finnegan was for a time the Kansas state medical examiner, so his labs consisted not only of basic skeletal anatomy, but also of forensic anthropology. But groping around one's body to understand how the skeleton works is all part of the learning experience. Of course getting to the ethmoid is a little difficult...

 

[HSienzant]

He also sees - according to Cyril Wecht - that JFK was shot from the front and the fibers of his jacket as seen in the Zapruder film reveal that, when subjected to his process. The problem is, as pointed out by Dr. Bob Artwohl, that JFK's suit jacket is in the National Archives and has no damage in the front (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/twilson.txt).
Hank

Total aside for amusement purposes only:

Robert Artwohl is a real person and he's a real emergency room doctor (or at least, he was). Robert Artwohl is his real name, not a pseudonym. He used to post extensively on the AOL boards devoted to the JFK assassination in the early 1990's. At one point during a debate there, one conspiracy theorist, obviously with too much time on his hands and too much suspicion than is healthy for one person, claimed Artwohl wasn't his real name, it was made up, and he even divined what it stood for. He assured us (much as Robert assures us of his "facts") that ARTWOHL spelled backwards stood for "Lee Harvey Oswald Was The Real Assassin"!

Yes, he did.

Hank

 

[pakeha]

... someday Robert will come around to re-assessing the evidence, and then come to realize that he was lied to - repeatedly and without cause - by the authors of conspiracy books whose only motive was to make a buck. ...

That's pretty much my take on the subject.
I've never put in the time or study so many of the posters have dedicated to this subject, but it's very clear that misdirection and lies form the basis for any claims to a conspiracy.

 

[LSSBB]

The list is incomplete. There were more than 40 witnesses.

Dodge noted.

 

[Robert Prey]

That's pretty much my take on the subject.
I've never put in the time or study so many of the posters have dedicated to this subject, but it's very clear that misdirection and lies form the basis for any claims to a conspiracy.

Obvioulsy, neither you nor your fellow Lone Nutters on this board have put much time or study on this subject with the exception of Hank and TomTom who have swallowed the entire fable whole and cannot regurgitate it.

 

[Robert Prey]

Total aside for amusement purposes only:

Robert Artwohl is a real person and he's a real emergency room doctor (or at least, he was). Robert Artwohl is his real name, not a pseudonym. He used to post extensively on the AOL boards devoted to the JFK assassination in the early 1990's. At one point during a debate there, one conspiracy theorist, obviously with too much time on his hands and too much suspicion than is healthy for one person, claimed Artwohl wasn't his real name, it was made up, and he even divined what it stood for. He assured us (much as Robert assures us of his "facts") that ARTWOHL spelled backwards stood for "Lee Harvey Oswald Was The Real Assassin"!

Yes, he did.

Hank

And this proves what?

 

[Robert Prey]

I am treating all this as simply review for the late-arriving lurkers who haven't bothered to read the whole thread. Yes, it's clear that Robert never retracts anything, and furthermore, always insists his interpretation of the evidence is the only valid one - even when other interpretations are shown as possible and more consistent with the other evidence. Robert also insists that his views are correct, even when exposed as having no foundation in fact.

That's okay. It's my firm belief that someday Robert will come around to re-assessing the evidence, and then come to realize that he was lied to - repeatedly and without cause - by the authors of conspiracy books whose only motive was to make a buck.

Hank

Unsupported blather.

 

[Robert Prey]

Like I pointed out, Crenshaws duplicity and dishonesty has been covered at length in this thread. So I'm not going to retract, or appologise for a statement I feel to be true. Nor am I going to waste time wallowing on subjects long since covered because Robert disagrees. He failed to convince anyboody in the past, he wont face the facts, not my problem. The thread hasn't gone anywhere, he can read it all again at his leisure.

It is the duplicity and dishonesty shown by John McAdams which you alluded to, which has previously been exposed to you that requires you to make a retraction and an apology. Neither you nor McAdams can point to a single quote from Crenshaw that he was "backing away" from. But he only alluded to Crenshaw claiming that he had a central role in attempting to save K's life. Crenshaw did indeed have a role, but the word "central" is only derived by Crenshae's pooh-poohers from the book's cover, which is not Crenshaw but the publisher's words. And what were those wholly disingenuous words??? Neither you nor McAdams bother to point them out, so I point them our for your again. The back cover of the book asserts the following:

"I have wantd to shout to the world that the wounds that I examined were caused by bullets that struck him from the front, not the back as the public has been led to believe..." 'Speaking is Charles A.Crenshaw, the Dallas surgeon who fought to save JFK...'

It is only those words in bold, that you and McAdams extrapolate to slander Crenshaw as a dishonest liar -- words that he never even wrote. You have been previously corrected on this, yet still parrot McAdams lies. Time to put on you own big boy pants and admit you made a mistake.

 

[Robert Prey]

[/STRIKE]
I think we've struck quite a few from your list in only a few days. You need to step up your game, Robert. At this rate you won't have anyone on the list by the weekend.

You cannot list one person so you simply cross out several names without explanation. Typical.

 

[Robert Prey]

Crenshaw was covered previously.

Have you actually *read* the book by Crenshaw?

He himself offers a number of descriptions of what he saw in his own book.

Here they are:

Pg 2: "The entire right hemisphere of President Kennedy's brain was obliterated. . . . "
Pg 78: "Then I noticed that the entire right hemisphere of his brain was missing, beginning at his hairline and extending all the way behind his right ear."
Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater, an empty cavity."
Pg 87: (Quoting Kemp Clark): "My God, the whole right side of his head is shot off... We've got nothing to work with."
Pg 89: "... there is still nothing that can save a victim who loses the entire right side of his brain."

Do ANY of those descriptions *from his book* sound like the back of the head was blown out?

Note the description on page 78 (highlighted above) sounds a whole like what we see in the Z-film and the extant autopsy photos. If Crenshaw is a witness for you, you got some re-thinking to do.
[qimg]http://simfootball.net/JFK/aut10_HI.jpg[/qimg]

Here's the original post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7848344&postcount=2062

Funny, how you and McAdams would leave this out:

"From the damage I saw there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium the missle obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum..."

Looks like you've got some re-re-re-thinking to do.

 

[Robert Prey]

Of course if Robert is able to supply independant documentary or physical evidence that LBJ called the hospital

Naturally, for you and your mentor, McAdams, the actual live testimony of the Parkland Telephone Operator, Phyllis Bartlett, is not mentioned in your crusade to denigrate Crenshaw. But anyone can go to YouTube and find "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", Episode 9, at 32.05 to hear as see Bartlett assert that what Crenshaw asserted was true. She took the call and transferred it. Of course, all you have left is to assert that she is lying too. How desperate are the Lone Nutters, so much so that when hearing and seeing evidence of the actual truth, they cower in fear, very much akin to holding up a silver cross in the face of a bunch of vampires.

 

[Robert Prey]

Yeah, so? He said "so far..."

If we establish that ten of those names are quotes out of context, or merely *interpretations* of their statements by you that have other interpretations, including being wholly consistent with the HSCA findings, it establishes that your vaunted 40+ witnesses is a load of malarkey and that a lot of the names on the list are merely on the list to inflate it, and to make the listing sound more impressive than it really is.

Once we get to 20 names not belonging on the list, your listing and you, and your sources, have lost all credibility. We don't need to impeach all 40+ before your credibility is sunk.

How credible is any listing where half the names on the list don't belong? It's a coin flip - that's not science, and that's not the way to get to the truth.
But I've told you that before. Your sources are out to sell books, not to get after the truth.

Hank

You have not been able to cite, with evidence, a single name that does not belong.

 

[Robert Prey]

Not too long before citing Wilson, you told us this:




Then you cited Wilson, who never explains anywhere how his process works, and says he can see stuff in the images - like being able to prescribe an eyeglass prescription to the Grassy Knoll Shooter supposedly seen in the Moorman photo - that nobody else can see.

He also sees - according to Cyril Wecht - that JFK was shot from the front and the fibers of his jacket as seen in the Zapruder film reveal that, when subjected to his process. The problem is, as pointed out by Dr. Bob Artwohl, that JFK's suit jacket is in the National Archives and has no damage in the front (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/twilson.txt).


Curious, isn't it?

Tell me how Wilson doesn't fit YOUR definition of a shaman.

Hank

Oh, another diversion. I've never discussed K's jacket, but fact is, I don't know if there is damage to the front, and neither do you.