JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
HSienzant said:
Yes. She asserts that NOW. But her initial statements don't mention the call at all.
Click to expand...

Robert Prey said:
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
Click to expand...

You've done an excellent job here. Good work. It appears Hank was correct.
 
Tomtomkent said:
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?
Click to expand...

So, you would imply that she is a liar just like Crenshaw is a liar to add to the ever increasing list of Liars you must have to keep your ridiculous delusions in tact.
 
Robert Prey said:
It's in his obituary.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that he worked for U.S. Steel. I dispute that he had the role there that you claim on the basis of book jackets and conference bios. I've given you the basis for my suspicion. Why have you consistently avoided it, all the while claiming Wilson's expertise has gone unchallenged?
 
Robert Prey said:
So, you would imply that she is a liar just like Crenshaw is a liar to add to the ever increasing list of Liars you must have to keep your ridiculous delusions in tact.
Click to expand...

No. But I do state that nothing in your post made the statement you were commenting on incorrect.
 
EventHorizon said:
False choice fallacy.
Click to expand...

And a rather odd interpretation of the burden of proof. We must accept every assertion by everybody as true, with out confirmation? Nope.

There is a significant difference between pointing out that somebody contradicted themselves, or neglected to mention something for decades, or even that we have no reason to assume their statement is remembered correctly, and the alternative of suggesting that MUST infer deliberate dishonesty. This has of course been discussed at length in the past with Robert trying to force the false choice "were they lying or mistaken" as though those are the only possibilities.
 
Robert Prey said:
Perhaps US Steel kept someone on its payroll doing computer imaging for product defects for the hell of it.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps Tom Wilson had little or nothing to do with the process.

Patent 4561104 describes the system built by Honeywell for U.S. Steel for the purpose of identifying surface defects in steel products. The inventor is listed as Ronald J. Martin, whom I've been able to verify as an engineer who worked for Honeywell in the 1980s. Wilson is not mentioned. In the patent, Martin cites the work of H. Baier, E. Pfeffer, H. Roesch, and M. Schneiderhan as prior art -- they are Germans writing for an IBM technical journal. Martin further refers to a number of prior patents, none of which is authored by Wilson or mentions Wilson.

The development of this system and its installation and testing at U.S. Steel is described in G. Whittaker et al., Technology Advances in Engineering and Their Impact on Detection, Diagnosis and Prognosis methods (pp. 45ff) in a paper delivered by the previously-mentioned Waters and Tromborg, each of whom has prior stature in the field.

In other words, I find a wealth of information for how this system was designed and a wealth of other information for how it was installed and operated at U.S. Steel. But in all of this I find no mention of Tom Wilson. Nor do I find anything that says such methods are useful for determining whether photographs have been doctored.

In short, I find Robert Prey's claim that "Tom Wilson spent 30 years with US steel developing his computer imaging process to discover product imperfections," to be entirely without substance, and contraindicated by the available fact.
 
JayUtah said:
Or perhaps Tom Wilson had little or nothing to do with the process.

Patent 4561104 describes the system built by Honeywell for U.S. Steel for the purpose of identifying surface defects in steel products. The inventor is listed as Ronald J. Martin, whom I've been able to verify as an engineer who worked for Honeywell in the 1980s. Wilson is not mentioned. In the patent, Martin cites the work of H. Baier, E. Pfeffer, H. Roesch, and M. Schneiderhan as prior art -- they are Germans writing for an IBM technical journal. Martin further refers to a number of prior patents, none of which is authored by Wilson or mentions Wilson.

The development of this system and its installation and testing at U.S. Steel is described in G. Whittaker et al., Technology Advances in Engineering and Their Impact on Detection, Diagnosis and Prognosis methods (pp. 45ff) in a paper delivered by the previously-mentioned Waters and Tromborg, each of whom has prior stature in the field.

In other words, I find a wealth of information for how this system was designed and a wealth of other information for how it was installed and operated at U.S. Steel. But in all of this I find no mention of Tom Wilson. Nor do I find anything that says such methods are useful for determining whether photographs have been doctored.

In short, I find Robert Prey's claim that "Tom Wilson spent 30 years with US steel developing his computer imaging process to discover product imperfections," to be entirely without substance, and contraindicated by the available fact.
Click to expand...

Correction: Wilson never made any such claims.
 
Tomtomkent said:
And a rather odd interpretation of the burden of proof. We must accept every assertion by everybody as true, with out confirmation? Nope.

There is a significant difference between pointing out that somebody contradicted themselves, or neglected to mention something for decades, or even that we have no reason to assume their statement is remembered correctly, and the alternative of suggesting that MUST infer deliberate dishonesty. This has of course been discussed at length in the past with Robert trying to force the false choice "were they lying or mistaken" as though those are the only possibilities.
Click to expand...

So put on your Big Boy Pants and take a stand.

1. Is Crenshaw a liar???

2. Is Bartlett a liar???

It's a simple question, Can you answer directly or just do another dance???
 
Robert Prey said:
So put on your Big Boy Pants and take a stand.

1. Is Crenshaw a liar???

2. Is Bartlett a liar???

It's a simple question, Can you answer directly or just do another dance???
Click to expand...

Their statements are unsupported by evidence. What is so hard to grasp with that? Why do you feel the need to demand I drop to your level. I made my statement before, I'm sticking by it:
Tomtomkent said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you, or Crenshaw want to clarify any of those points so I reconsider my opinion, feel free. Why, for example, nobody else mentioned the LBJ phonecall at the time, or why it was not recorded in any documentation, and why others thought it was a prank?
If Crenshaw was correct to say he took a central role, or if "poetic license" was used?
Why he claimed to remember in detail an article the DMP never published?
Etc.
 
Robert Prey said:
Correction: Wilson never made any such claims.
Click to expand...

No but YOU made them about Wilson.

Which is what was being shown to be false.

Hence the final line:

In short, I find Robert Prey's claim that "Tom Wilson spent 30 years with US steel developing his computer imaging process to discover product imperfections," to be entirely without substance, and contraindicated by the available fact.
Click to expand...
 
Robert Prey said:
Baloney.
Click to expand...


Wow, you really have no clue, do you? Most of the information there are quotes directly from the witnesses you cited. The simple fact is that they don't necessarily make the statements you claim they did. Or at least some have conflicting stories. This means that the conclusions you have drawn based on what you think they said may not be valid. Don't be afraid of the truth, Robert. You can't change history and there is no shame in admitting that you were wrong about something. It's called learning.

I'd like to thank the members of the Baloney Club (of which I am now a proud member) for their contributions to this thread. I have learned a lot from Hank, Jay, and others.
 
Robert Prey said:
So put on your Big Boy Pants and take a stand.

1. Is Crenshaw a liar???

2. Is Bartlett a liar???

It's a simple question, Can you answer directly or just do another dance???
Click to expand...

One question mark at a time or no dialogue. LOL.

Have you put on your big boy pants to explain yet????

If not, why not????

Answer the questions, Robert. Pull your head out.

 
So to Summarize Robert's theory is still essentially that:

LHO was set up as a patsy who would appear to have killed the president from the sixth floor window, and then the conspirators actually shoot Kennedy from a completely different direction creating all manner of problems.
They faked the backyard pictures, which they didn't need to convict Oswald, and did so in manner which is 'obvious', well it is to Robert, to everyone else they just look like perfectly ordinary photos.
Having shot Kennedy in an entirely inconsistent direction they then let a small army of people examine the wound closely enough that they could contradict the official story, oh and then apparently swapped out the autopsy photos after letting someone who wasn't part of the conspiracy develop them.

All of this and yet somehow the conspirators have stayed out of jail for 50 years? Yeah, Robert I think you need to find yourself a new hobby because this one is a bust.
 
Monza said:
Wow, you really have no clue, do you? Most of the information there are quotes directly from the witnesses you cited. The simple fact is that they don't necessarily make the statements you claim they did. Or at least some have conflicting stories. This means that the conclusions you have drawn based on what you think they said may not be valid. Don't be afraid of the truth, Robert. You can't change history and there is no shame in admitting that you were wrong about something. It's called learning.

I'd like to thank the members of the Baloney Club (of which I am now a proud member) for their contributions to this thread. I have learned a lot from Hank, Jay, and others.
Click to expand...

A lesson in self-delusion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom