JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

"Then you cited Wilson, who never explains anywhere how his process works, and says he can see stuff in the images "

Comment:
Of course he describes the process. Broken down to the essentials, his program translates the 30 shades of gray visible to the human eye, and turns them into 256 shades of grey, and then assigns a color to each.

 

[Robert Prey]

Don't get snippy. You tried to establish Wilson as an expert, failed, and are now backpedaling away from him. I suppose the backpedaling is the closest we're ever going to get to a concession from you.

You tried to establish that Wilson' bio was false, and failed to do so.

 

[Robert Prey]

* * *

 

[Southwind17]

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.

So let's get this clear, rude Robert. The evidence we have here is that Bartlett asserted that Crenshaw asserted something. Rude Robert, do you appreciate the meaning of 'asserted', and how conclusive an assertion is as a piece of evidence of its subject matter being true?

 

[Tomtomkent]

You tried to establish that Wilson' bio was false, and failed to do so.

Or for those who understand a burden of proof, Robert stated the bio as fact, and failed to show it was true.

 

[Southwind17]

"Then you cited Wilson, who never explains anywhere how his process works, and says he can see stuff in the images "

Comment:
Of course he describes the process. Broken down to the essentials, his program translates the 30 shades of gray visible to the human eye, and turns them into 256 shades of grey, and then assigns a color to each.

Well that clears that up, then. Who could possibly argue with that - case proven!

 

[Robert Prey]

I vote for a lie of monstrous proportions.

Not by the witnesses.

But by the conspiracy theorists from whom you get your nonsense. It's pretty clear the witness statements we've examined don't support the story you allege.
Hank

Name one.

 

[jargon buster]

Broken down to the essentials, his program translates the 30 shades of gray visible to the human eye

The human eye is capable of distinguishing far more than 30 shades of grey.

It took me less than 2 minutes to find that out.

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert,

Other than her recollection (more than three decades after the fact) that she developed some post-mortem photos of JFK, what evidence is there that she had anything to do with any autopsy photos of JFK?

Is there anything that supports her recollection, or is the sole evidence of these photos Spencer's recollection, and only her recollection?

Is there a work log, for example, that shows that on the night of 11/29 (or whatever) she was at work, and developed JFK autopsy photos? Is there a contemporaneous record of any sort (even a personal diary notation made back in November of 1963) that shows she developed JFK autopsy photos? Did she mention this to friends, co-workers, relatives? Anything?

Or does this whole issue stand - and fall - on her three-decade-plus recollection?

Thanks,
Hank

Another absurd challenge. How do you think the ARRB chose to call her to testify? Do you think they just pulled her name out of the phone book?????

 

[jargon buster]

Do you think they just pulled her name out of the phone book?????

maybe they pulled her name out of their back passage?

 

[Robert Prey]

So let's get this clear, rude Robert. The evidence we have here is that Bartlett asserted that Crenshaw asserted something. Rude Robert, do you appreciate the meaning of 'asserted', and how conclusive an assertion is as a piece of evidence of its subject matter being true?

NO. The evidence is that Bartlett asserts that she did indeed receive a phone call from someone who identified himself as Pres.Johnson and transferred it to the ER. Try not to interpolate that which is not there.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Hank wrote:

"Then you cited Wilson, who never explains anywhere how his process works, and says he can see stuff in the images "

Comment:
Of course he describes the process. Broken down to the essentials, his program translates the 30 shades of gray visible to the human eye, and turns them into 256 shades of grey, and then assigns a color to each.

No that is proposed outcome. For 30 shades to be extrapolated to a multitude of shades. How does the programme do this? Through what kind of calculation based upon what data? Where was it replicated, and through what indipendant verification?

 

[Southwind17]

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.

But, rude Robert, surely we're entitled to rely on what publishers write about people, aren't we?:

When a book, or a video, or a book seller or other publisher makes a statment about the author's background it stands unless refuted. You have not been able to refute it, nor has anyone else.

 

[Tomtomkent]

NO. The evidence is that Bartlett asserts that she did indeed receive a phone call from someone who identified himself as Pres.Johnson and transferred it to the ER. Try not to interpolate that which is not there.

Ok. So you shouldn't interpolate "asserts" to "evidence". That is an assertion, not evidence.

 

[Southwind17]

So let's get this clear, rude Robert. The evidence we have here is that Bartlett asserted that Crenshaw asserted something. Rude Robert, do you appreciate the meaning of 'asserted', and how conclusive an assertion is as a piece of evidence of its subject matter being true?

NO.

Thank you. Next please ...

 

[EventHorizon]

I vote for a lie of monstrous proportions.

Not by the witnesses.

But by the conspiracy theorists from whom you get your nonsense. It's pretty clear the witness statements we've examined don't support the story you allege. That is not a coincidence -- that is because the story you allege is a complete fabrication.

Hank

Name one.

You may want to re-read the following posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8207484&postcount=6003
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208208&postcount=6006
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208591&postcount=6008
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208977&postcount=6009
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8210347&postcount=6021

I know you ignored those posts because they blow holes in your fantasy but for the rest of us can see those posts. They prove that you are being dishonest when you say there are 40+ witnesses. If you're trying to convince fence-sitters that you are correct you should understand that they can also see these posts. As long as they remain unaddressed by you, you won't convince anybody that you are right. So do you want to retract that statement about 40+ witnesses yet?

 

[JayUtah]

You tried to establish that Wilson' bio was false, and failed to do so.

Failed according to whom? You have the burden to prove that the claims made in the bio are true.

Regarding the court cases, you were unable to provide any information whatsoever to show that Wilson had testified as an expert in any court.

Regarding his alleged computer system, I showed that the system developed at U.S. Steel was actually built by someone else for a purpose utterly unrelated to the analysis of photographs. Can you explain why no one at U.S. Steel has heard of Tom Wilson?

There's a homeless guy who walks up and down my street looking for recyclables. Do you realize I can substitute his name in Wilson's bio and there would be exactly as much evidence in favor of that version as there is for Wilson's claims?

You have utterly failed to establish Tom Wilson as the expert he claims to be. And you're backing away from him. The only thing you're lacking at this point is the intellectual honesty to admit that you are withdrawing him as an expert.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank wrote:

"Then you cited Wilson, who never explains anywhere how his process works, and says he can see stuff in the images "

Comment:
Of course he describes the process. Broken down to the essentials, his program translates the 30 shades of gray visible to the human eye, and turns them into 256 shades of grey, and then assigns a color to each.

And that allows him to determine the eyeglass prescription of the grassy knoll shooter, or see the damage to the front of JFK's jacket, or determine the source of the shot is the sewer drain how?

You seem to be missing a step (or ten) in your understanding of Wilson's process.

Like I said, Wilson never explained how his process works.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

And this proves what?

I said it was for amusement purposes only. I take it you are not amused.

I stated that already -- The conspiracy theorist had too much time on his hands and / or too much suspicion for one person.

His conclusion - based on the "evidence" he saw - was that Robert Artwohl was a pseudonym and it stood for (backwards):

ARTWOHL = Lee Harvey Oswald Was The Real Assassin

I think it goes a long way to showing how conspiracy theorists think, and what passes for evidence amongst them.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Ok, this is all from memory:

Nobody else in the emergency room remembers that call.

And Crenshaw's account of that call has changed dramatically over the years.

And it makes no sense that Johnson would call the operating room to order the doctors to either wring a confession out of Oswald (one of Crenshaw's accounts) or deliberately kill him (another of Crenshaw's accounts).

And Bartlett's initial statements on her activities that day includes NO MENTION of receiving a call from the NEW PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. An interesting thing to forget to mention.​

Hank