JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomtomkent said:
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:


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.
Click to expand...

Crenshaw never made any such claim. If you think he did, then document it.
 
Tomtomkent said:
T
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?
Click to expand...

If the caller was an imposter, that would not make Crenshaw and Bartlett liars. And if you claim that "others" thought it was a prank, that would contradict your contention that no one else mentioned it. Try to make your ridiculous arguments, at least a little more consistent.
 
Garrison said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, but the jailers are the conspirators. And why would they put themselves in jail??
 
TomTom wrote:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
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???

TomTom
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:

Comment: Oh, but their statements are supported by the evidence and corroborating witnesses:

ABC-TV examined Johnson's log and found that he conferred with Attorney General Robert Kennedy just after Oswald was shot. Historian William Manchester writes that Johnson said, "We've got to get involved; we've got to do something."

Dallas neurosurgeon Phillip Earle Williams, who was also present in the operating room while Oswald was there, says there was a White House phone call, whether from the President or an aide. Williams says he has told people of the call for years.

FBI Statement: 11/24/63 - 12:18 C.S.T. - Rose to Belmont, 11-24-63, 1:18 E.S.T., number 62-10960 Rosen ordered by Hoover to get a man to Parkland to get a statement from the accused assassin. Rosen states he contacted Sorrels who said an agent was already there for that purpose. Document available from Paul Hoch.

Dr. Shires refuses to confirm or deny. (Dallas Morning News, 4/9/92)

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/13th_Issue/copa_medical.html
 
Robert Prey said:
An assertion most certainly is evidence. Do we have to educate you all over again as to what constitutes evidence???
Click to expand...

Robert Prey said:
No., that would not be an assertion, but a conclusion, unsupported by any fact. Obviously.
Click to expand...
Guess again, Bob.

Do you hear the squeak as you move the goalposts yet again?

You stated that an assertion is a form of evidence. My assertion is that your are replete with falsehoods.

Therefore, by your reckoning, that constitutes evidence that you are full of falsehoods. BY YOUR OWN RECKONING.

Do not attempt to back away now. I have my own eyewitness testimony of seeing your falsehoods in this very thread. Will you deny it? Will you defy all the others who have also seen it?

Either withdraw your claim or fail.
 
Robert Prey said:
Hank wrote
Click to expand...

Robert's statements in bold:

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

Robert Prey said:
Comment:
How do you know that? More McAdams twaddle?
Click to expand...


Yes and no. I have other resources, ya know. In fact, you might want to check the McAdams page on Crenshaw and see who he cites for some of the info on that page.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm

If you disagree that no one else in that ER remembers a call from Johnson, cite a source for the counter claim. You cannot. That's because NO ONE EXCEPT CRENSHAW FROM THE ER EVER MENTIONED IT!

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

Robert Prey said:
Comment;
How dramatically? How do you know that? Evidence, please.l
Click to expand...


See the page cited above. It references Gus Russo, who relates:

One night at the Stoneleigh [Hotel], Stone was having a slew of top secret meetings in his suite with people like Ricky White, whom Stone paid $80,000 for his fraudulent story, and the positively goofy Beverly Oliver. That night, Stone ushered Gary Shaw, [Robert] Groden and Crenshaw into his room; I was not invited, but I pressed Shaw (Crenshaw's and Oliver's advisor) for info in the lobby. He was the first to tell me that LBJ ordered Oswald killed. Later, Crenshaw came down, and we happened to be in the Stoneleigh men's room at the same time, standing at adjacent urinals. It was there that he told me that Johnson had ordered the Parkland staff to "kill the son-of-a-bitch." It was decided to "drown Oswald in his own blood," i.e. transfuse him until his lungs collapsed. (E-mail to the author dated August 25, 2003)
Click to expand...

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).

So Crenshaw has gone from claiming LBJ ordered Oswald killed, to LBJ wanted a confession.

Robert Prey said:
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,
Click to expand...


No. actually it's Not Documented:

"Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities that weekend, and they are here in our collection [at the Sixth Floor Museum] and in the documents we duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from Washington. They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though. (Newsgroup post on alt.assassination.jfk, 10/15/98)"


Robert Prey said:
and all you and Slime Merchant McAdams have left is to denigrate her integrity as well.
Click to expand...


All you have left, with your conspiracy evidence crumbling to ashes around you, is ad hominems! Bravo, Robert, we knew you would sink to this level sooner or later! All conspiracy addicts must eventually.

No one has denigrated her integrity. We have pointed out that the evidence does disagree with the story she is telling. I have no way of knowing whether she is deliberately lying, honestly mistaken, or has created a false memory of something that never occurred.

Robert Prey said:
Pathetic. I suggest you would be much better off leaving McAdams in the sewer where he belongs
Click to expand...


ANOTHER ad hominem!

Robert Prey said:
and raise the level of your argument to that which does not smear and trash adverse witnesses.
Click to expand...


Been there, done that. There's no evidence Bartlett took a call from Johnson, as her own memorandum for the record prepared to memorialize her actions that day (asked of all Parkland staff) DOES NOT MENTION A CALL FROM LBJ!

Why do you suppose she left out the probably the biggest thing to happen to her that day? It just slipped her mind? The problem you got is you are relying on, in many cases, statements witnesses made 20, 30, or even 40 years after the fact, but those statements are very often contradicted by earlier statements made when the witnesses memory was fresher. You choose to believe the much later provably false memory rather than the fresh one. Because without those false memories, you got nothing else.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin said:
It may be a commentary on my general level of cynicism, but I don't see our friend budging a millimeter. Ever. When the 100th anniversary of the assassination comes around (assuming RP is alive), he'll still be clinging to, and promoting the fiction of, a conspiracy. Heck, science could find a way to reanimate Oswald, to have him proclaim in no uncertain terms, "I did it!" and the CTs wouldn't miss a beat explaining it away.

"All lies and jest. Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
Click to expand...

HSienzant said:
I speak of converting Robert because I know it can be done - and that may be a commentary on my personal history in this area. I was once a conspiracy theorist myself. I know of several others like myself (Dr. Bob Artwohl among them) who started out on the CT side of the fence and flipped from the dark side once they actually started doing research into the subject by going back to the primary sources instead of relying on Conspiracy books.

I also successfully converted my brother from a CT. I kept hammering away on "Yeah, that's what the book says, but here's the truth" and eventually he came around. I remember asking him about a year later if there was a final straw, and if so, what it was.

He told me it concerned the jacket that Oswald abandoned after shooting Tippit. One conspiracy book, in discussing the jacket, said the jacket was manufactured and sold only in California, and Oswald had never been in California as a civilian (trying to make the point that Oswald had no opportunity to purchase the jacket found after the Tippit shooting under a parked car in a parking lot near the shooting scene - so ergo, the jacket wasn't Oswald's, and therefore Oswald wasn't the killer of Tippit). I pointed out that Oswald was stationed in California AS A MARINE, and had plenty of opportunity to purchase the jacket when on leave. I also pointed out that he could have purchased the jacket not new in California, but used from a thrift store (which would fit his penurious ways), and that he could have come across that used jacket in California, Texas or even Louisiana. The dry cleaning tag in the jacket couldn't be traced to any establishment in the Dallas area, which fits with the theory that Oswald wasn't the original owner (Oswald wasn't known to use dry-cleaning - too expensive). After reading my rebuttal about the jacket, he realized the conspiracy books were slanting everything one way, and weren't trying to be straight with their readers.

So I still have confidence that Robert can find the truth if he really wants to. The question is, of course, can he handle the truth?

A punk stuck a rifle out a window and killed the president. Maybe in 1963 that was hard to fathom, but today? With Columbine, The Texas Tower shootings, the DC Sniper, the Norway shootings by Breivik, the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords, not to mention the attempts on the lives of Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and the murder of John Lennon - I really don't understand what's so hard to fathom that a lone nut could accomplish this.

Hank
Click to expand...
It's to your great credit that you challenged your prior convictions, educated yourself, and modified your conclusion(s). It's a wild guess, but I would wager you were already a generally reasonable person interested in accuracy with regard to such matters great and small.

In comparison, by evidence of this thread, our little friend demonstrates zero flexibility in his beliefs. Also zero-level humility. He's wrong on so many matters of fact and evidence, demonstrably lacking in critical thinking skills, and arrogantly cocky to boot.

I see a diseased tree with roots so numerous and deep that it's liable to remain so despite any efforts save it. That's because the wood is barely alive. That's because the wood is pretty much petrified.

I appreciate your optimism. Would that I didn't have such pessimism.
 
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin said:
It's to your great credit that you challenged your prior convictions, educated yourself, and modified your conclusion(s). It's a wild guess, but I would wager you were already a generally reasonable person interested in accuracy with regard to such matters great and small.

In comparison, by evidence of this thread, our little friend demonstrates zero flexibility in his beliefs. Also zero-level humility. He's wrong on so many matters of fact and evidence, demonstrably lacking in critical thinking skills, and arrogantly cocky to boot.

I see a diseased tree with roots so numerous and deep that it's liable to remain so despite any efforts save it. That's because the wood is barely alive. That's because the wood is pretty much petrified.

I appreciate your optimism. Would that I didn't have such pessimism.
Click to expand...

A baloney tree?
 
Robert Prey said:
TomTom wrote:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
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???

TomTom
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:

Comment: Oh, but their statements are supported by the evidence and corroborating witnesses:

ABC-TV examined Johnson's log and found that he conferred with Attorney General Robert Kennedy just after Oswald was shot. Historian William Manchester writes that Johnson said, "We've got to get involved; we've got to do something."

Dallas neurosurgeon Phillip Earle Williams, who was also present in the operating room while Oswald was there, says there was a White House phone call, whether from the President or an aide. Williams says he has told people of the call for years.

FBI Statement: 11/24/63 - 12:18 C.S.T. - Rose to Belmont, 11-24-63, 1:18 E.S.T., number 62-10960 Rosen ordered by Hoover to get a man to Parkland to get a statement from the accused assassin. Rosen states he contacted Sorrels who said an agent was already there for that purpose. Document available from Paul Hoch.

Dr. Shires refuses to confirm or deny. (Dallas Morning News, 4/9/92)

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/13th_Issue/copa_medical.html
Click to expand...

LBJ confering with RFK is not evidence the call was made to the ER.
Documentary evidence of an FBI agent being sent to site doesn't evidence the call was made.
Assertions a call was made to the hospital does not evidence LBJ called the operating theatre.

You said you have evidence of something. You have evidence of other things. Oh dear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom