JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[RoboTimbo]

Glad to. Very simple. But just one at a time.

No. Pull your head out, go back and explain. Your cowardly dodging isn't showing you in a very good light.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

k, this is all from memory:
Nobody else in the emergency room remembers that call. (referring to Phyllisy Bartlett)

Comment:
How do you know that? More McAdams twaddle?

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

Comment;
How dramatically? How do you know that? Evidence, please.l

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).

Mixing absurd, unproven, abusurd hyperbole does not help your position. The fact that Johnson or someone with a very good imitation of his voice did call is documented by Phyllis Bartlett, and all you and Slime Merchant McAdams have left is to denigrate her integrity as well. Pathetic. I suggest you would be much better off leaving McAdams in the sewer where he belongs and raise the level of your argument to that which does not smear and trash adverse witnesses.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

No. I never claimed he was an expert. Only that his bio as published by diverse sources including Nigle Turner, Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble and Lancer claimed he was an expert and over 20 years, no one has ever questioned it. Now if you have other evidence,... but of course you do not.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No. I never claimed he was an expert. Only that his bio as published by diverse sources including Nigle Turner, Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble and Lancer claimed he was an expert and over 20 years, no one has ever questioned it. Now if you have other evidence,... but of course you do not.

Has this inept attempt at switching the burden of proof ever paid off for you?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Baloney.

Too much processed meat is no good for the diet. Try chicken.

I throw out the autopsy photos because they have been proven to be fake.

No. You have shown assertions. You oft cited claims that there arre 40+ witnessess are assertions. They are also unfounded and considerably less than 40 say what you claim. Your often repeated claim they are NOT the photos a technician developed just means they are photos SOMEBODY ELSE developed. They are the UNALTERED photos.

I throw out the rifle because there is no evidence that Oswald fired it, or even took delivery of it.

Except for the rifle being delivered to his PO Box, paid for by his alter-ego, pesky photographs of him holding the rifle, that he signed and distributed BEFORE his attack on JFK, his palmprint found in parts of the rifle only exposed when he pieced it together... None of which you have successfully discredited.

I do not throw out the shells "found" on the 6th floor which proves nothing.

Other than a rifle was fired from the possition LHO happened to be. With a rifle. They also had latent prints on them. Despite your childish claims, those prints are not ink Robert.

In short, the purpose of a frame-up and a cover-up is to delude people like you and you fell for it.

And what is the purpose of those CT books? Did you fall for them?

 

[Robert Prey]

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

An assertion most certainly is evidence. Do we have to educate you all over again as to what constitutes evidence???

 

[Robert Prey]

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

Crenshaw did help or (fight) to save JFK. The word "central" is a word parroted by you from his critics.

 

[RoboTimbo]

An assertion most certainly is evidence. Do we have to educate you all over again as to what constitutes evidence???

You're becoming much more randam as you get hammered more and more and you shoot yourself in the foot.

Slow down, take a breath, and go back and explain. Pull your head out and put on your big boy pants.

 

[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?

The assertion of a witness is a prime piece of evidence. The assertion of more than one witness is a very prime piece of evidence. Obviously. If that were not the case, then such a view would impeach nearly a thousand or so years of jurisprudence and put in place what other methods previously used such as Trail by Ordeal. Obviously.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. I never claimed he was an expert. Only that his bio as published by diverse sources including Nigle Turner, Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble and Lancer claimed he was an expert and over 20 years, no one has ever questioned it. Now if you have other evidence,... but of course you do not.

So you didn't write this post then:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Computer expert Tom Wilson explains it all for you in Living Color in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy."



Tom Wilson spent 30 years with US steel developing his computer imaging process to discover product imperfections. He has been recognized as an expert witness in Federal Court murder cases involving gunshot wounds.Infocsinc's definition of "crackpot" -- Anyone who has an opinion that differs from Infocsinc.

Your claim is not "This is what other people say", you state it as the truth, while citing a source. You then make a snarky comment that he IS an expert, but Infosinc wont recognise him as such for the wrong reason.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The assertion of a witness is a prime piece of evidence. The assertion of more than one witness is a very prime piece of evidence. Obviously. If that were not the case, then such a view would impeach nearly a thousand or so years of jurisprudence and put in place what other methods previously used such as Trail by Ordeal. Obviously.

No. They are assertions. Obviously.

This is a critical thinkers website, populated by crititcal thinkers. Our methodology states that assertions only become evidence when validated by material evidence.

This not a "Trail by Ordeal", or any kind of Trial. This is not a court. They have their standards, historians have theirs, we have ours.

 

[Robert Prey]

Too much processed meat is no good for the diet. Try chicken.


No. You have shown assertions. You oft cited claims that there arre 40+ witnessess are assertions. They are also unfounded and considerably less than 40 say what you claim. Your often repeated claim they are NOT the photos a technician developed just means they are photos SOMEBODY ELSE developed. They are the UNALTERED photos.


Except for the rifle being delivered to his PO Box, paid for by his alter-ego, pesky photographs of him holding the rifle, that he signed and distributed BEFORE his attack on JFK, his palmprint found in parts of the rifle only exposed when he pieced it together... None of which you have successfully discredited.


Other than a rifle was fired from the possition LHO happened to be. With a rifle. They also had latent prints on them. Despite your childish claims, those prints are not ink Robert.


And what is the purpose of those CT books? Did you fall for them?

Baloney.All of that is old ground that has been roundly debunked, but you just refuse to let go of it.

 

[JayUtah]

No. I never claimed he was an expert.

Yes you did, and I have cited twice the post in which you did so.

Only that his bio as published by diverse sources including Nigle Turner, Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble and Lancer claimed he was an expert...

No, you backpedaled to that position when you were asked to substantiate your claims to Wilson's expertise. We've been over this a dozen times, Robert. Kindly pay attention.

and over 20 years, no one has ever questioned it.

That doesn't make it true. That only shows apathy on the part of believers -- apathy that you yourself have demonstrated.

Further, Jack White later disavowed Wilson's claims and methods -- an historical fact you still have not addressed. Whose head is in the sand?

Now if you have other evidence,... but of course you do not.

As previously discussed, you have the burden of proof.

Regarding the court cases, you admit to having no knowledge of whether Wilson actually testified as claimed. You simply believe it implicitly because a book jacket told you to. "I testified in court" is an affirmative claim that incurs the burden of proof.

Regarding the U.S. Steel claim, I have indeed provided evidence. You ignored it. The system at U.S. Steel was in fact developed and operated by someone else, and Wilson's name is not mentioned. Based on that evidence, why do you continue to assert that Wilson was considered an expert by U.S. Steel?

 

[Robert Prey]

How are steel product defects relatable to photography?
What evidence do you have Wilson ever worked fot the company?

It's in his obituary.

 

[EventHorizon]

No. They are assertions. Obviously.

This is a critical thinkers website, populated by crititcal thinkers. Our methodology states that assertions only become evidence when validated by material evidence.

This not a "Trail by Ordeal", or any kind of Trial. This is not a court. They have their standards, historians have theirs, we have ours.

I can think of at least one member of that population who isn't.

Baloney.All of that is old ground that has been roundly debunked, but you just refuse to let go of it.

If by debunked you mean 'it's not true because Robert Prey says so' then yeah, it's been debunked. But this is not the definition of debunked that the rest of the English speaking world uses.

 

[Tomtomkent]

An assertion most certainly is evidence. Do we have to educate you all over again as to what constitutes evidence???

You realise that different groups have different standards and definitions?

Those of the Critical Thinking methodology was explained. The clue you should have is that people keep telling you over and again they don't accept assertions as evidence. If you are here to have a discussion, and want to sound like you are actually interested in convincing people of your point of view instead of patronising them with insults about their head being in sand, or the need to "educate" them, you might want to consider accepting that your "evidence" is not measured by the same standard. As your source is a guideline for medical professionals who will have to transfer their skills to criminal law, I fail to see what relevence it is you think it has: This is not a court. You keep quoting "The most basic that needs no prerequisite", which is absolutely your problem: What people thought they saw is simple evidence, but it is not the best or most reliable and has no prerequisite controls. So critical thinking requires validation.

 

[HSienzant]

Baloney. I throw out the autopsy photos because they have been proven to be fake.

No they haven't. You cited over 40 people you claimed proved the autopsy photos were fake because they had differing recollections than what the autopsy photos showed. When we examine many of the those witnesses, we find your statements are not accurate about what they stated. So if the witnesses you rely on don't support your claims - and they don't - they don't support your conclusion either, that the autopsy photos are fakes.​

I throw out the rifle because there is no evidence that Oswald fired it, or even took delivery of it.

1. It was shipped to his PO Box.
2. His prints are on it.
3. He was photographed with it.
4. His wife confirmed he owned a rifle.
5. The DeMohrenschildts (Jean and George) both saw Oswald's rifle.

Yeah, no evidence.
Robert, that's *overwhelming* evidence he owned it.

But regardless - let's assume for the sake of argument that someone else intercepted it and took possession of it and everything else listed above is part of a frame up -- why would you throw out the rifle? If somebody else took delivery of it, could not they have fired the weapon from the sixth floor of the TSBD? Wouldn't that rifle lead to the real shooter if you could support that with solid evidence? Why aren't you interested in pursuing this line of argument? Why are you throwing out the rifle when it could lead to the solution of the crime (indeed, according to you, it is among the strongest evidence of a frame up, yet you don't even do anything with this evidence other than "throw it out".​

I do not throw out the shells "found" on the 6th floor which proves nothing.

Sorry, no. The shells establish, along with the fragments found in the limo, and the bullet found at Parkland, that the rifle was fired that day. Again, more evidence that you should not be throwing out the rifle, especially if somebody else possessed it and used it to shoot JFK. Don't you agree the rifle, the shells, and the fragments is strong evidence either of Oswald's guilt or of a frame up? As such, should we throwing out all that evidence?​

In short, the purpose of a frame-up and a cover-up is to delude people like you and you fell for it.

Absolutely! The only problem is, you are only assuming the existence of the frame-up, instead of proving it. Once you prove it, then you have an argument that I am deluded. Until then, you have no case.​

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

It's in his obituary.

That believes the author of the obituary believed it to be true. But they probably used his book and self promotional material as their source. Why does his name not appear in the project he claims to have worked on?

 

[Robert Prey]

Yes. She asserts that NOW. But her initial statements don't mention the call at all.

Nonsense. She only decided to step forward when a man of impeccable integrity was being bashed by the Slime Merchants you so adore. She explains why she finally did come forward in this letter:


July 15,1992
Letters from Readers
Dallas Morning News
Dallas, Texas

People who have never been to Texas have been writing articles and books for years, (making lots of money) on what happened in Dallas and Parkland Hospital November 2, 1963. Now we have a man who writes the facts as he witnessed them, and some writers, who do not have enough initiative to do their research thoroughly, want to call it a pack of lies.

I refer to the review by Larry Sutherland, Dallas Morning News, June 28th, of Dr. Crenshaw's book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence.

There are still people who have not come forward yet, that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts straight had he bothered to check.

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

 

[Tomtomkent]

Nonsense. She only decided to step forward when a man of impeccable integrity was being bashed by the Slime Merchants you so adore. She explains why she finally did come forward in this letter:


July 15,1992
Letters from Readers
Dallas Morning News
Dallas, Texas

People who have never been to Texas have been writing articles and books for years, (making lots of money) on what happened in Dallas and Parkland Hospital November 2, 1963. Now we have a man who writes the facts as he witnessed them, and some writers, who do not have enough initiative to do their research thoroughly, want to call it a pack of lies.

I refer to the review by Larry Sutherland, Dallas Morning News, June 28th, of Dr. Crenshaw's book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence.

There are still people who have not come forward yet, that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts straight had he bothered to check.

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

But that confirms she only asserts it now, and there remains no evidence of it in her original testemony.

So in what way HS talking nonsense if you just confirmed his statement?