JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Tomtomkent]

Crenshaw never made any such claim. If you think he did, then document it.

Source already cited. All you have are Ad Homenim attacks against Macadams, whichdoes not change the content of the books, interviews and productions that Crenshaw is credited with.

ETA:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm

 

[Tomtomkent]

And yes if Robert complains about McAdams again I will be pointing out his previous posts about "unchallenged" claims on websites being reliable sources of information. I would hate to think he had differing standards for pro-wilson statements and anti-crenshaw statements.

 

[Robert Prey]

Source already cited. All you have are Ad Homenim attacks against Macadams, whichdoes not change the content of the books, interviews and productions that Crenshaw is credited with.

ETA:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm

Ridiculous. You were challenged to name the source of the quote where Crenshaw ever said or wrote that he had a "central" role. Instead, you slink back into the McAdams sewer for his interpolation of something Crenshaw never said or wrote. So in answering the challenge of where Crenshaw ever made such a statement, you fail. And in failing, you betray your continued devotion to a dishonest slime merchant -- John McAdams. Pathetic.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

All of the above point to support for the phone call, especially the fact that an FBI agent was indeed sent to the ER to take a confession, something an imposter would hardly have thought to suggest. Admit it. LBJ made the call, Crenshaw is an honest man as is Phyllis Bartlett an honest woman. And truth is hard to take to one who has grovelled in brainwash for 50 years.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

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!

Comment:
False.

"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."


"I vividly remember someone said, and I can't say who it was, the White House is calling and President Johnson wants to know what the status of Oswald is."
New York Times of May 26, 1992,

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Comment;
How dramatically? How do you know that? Evidence, please.l

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

Quote:
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)
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.

Comment:
So Crenshaw allegedly told Gary Shaw, who allegedly told Russo. A hearsay Triple Play. And that is your "evidence"??

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

"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)"

Comment:
Re: These reports, which you cannot quote:
The fact that Bartlett may not have mentioned a call from the White House is not evidence that there was no such call. The absence of written evidence is not evidence.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

"Why do you suppose she left out the probably the biggest thing to happen to her that day? It just slipped her mind?"

Comment:
No. More likely, she could not prove that it was not a crank call.


"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..."

Comment:
But of course there was no earlier statement that was contradicted, either by Crenshaw or Bartlett. So you are left to make up more ridiculous speculations. If you want to champion earlier, rather than later statements, then admit that the statements of 40 plus on the scene witnesses as to a blow-out in the back of K's head or shots seen and heard from the knoll are superior to the later conclusions of those who were not on the scene witnesses. But you pick and choose what is reliable and what is not, according to your own pre-conceived brainwash.

 

[Robert Prey]

MOnza posted:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Name one.

Charles Crenshaw:
Quote:
"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."

Charles Crenshaw:

Comment:
First of all, congratulations on focusing in on one specific person -- presumeably your very best choice of a Doctor whose statement you quote is somehow contrary to my assertion that he, as well as all of the others, observed a large blow-out in the back of the head. That is your point, correct?

But then you fail to include the following:

"...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..." --
Dr. Crenshaw from "Conspiracy of Silence." You would be better off actually reading the book rather than deferring to a well known slime merchant for your "facts"

And your next example is?????

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

The word "assertion" refers to a person who is a witness. You have witnessed nothing but simply make sophomoric conclusions of that which you have no clue. You say I am full of falsehoods? I make the same challenge to you as to all others who snipe in the dark and then retreat when it comes to facts. So, name one falsehood, or retreat back into the shadows of darkness and brainwash.

 

[Robert Prey]

Nope, fair turnabout. You've already been Stundied for it, but you can still retract your ludicrous claim that bare assertion is evidence.

The assertion of a witness is evidence. Your claim that it is not is ludicrous.

 

[Robert Prey]

REgnard Kcin worte:

"He's wrong on so many matters of fact and evidence,"

Name one, if you can.

 

[Southwind17]

For goodness sake Rude Robert, if nothing else please learn to use the quote function. It's a simple click of the mouse on the " icon bottom right of the applicable post. Surely you're at least capable of that, aren't you?!

 

[Southwind17]

The fact that Bartlett may not have mentioned a call from the White House is not evidence that there was no such call. The absence of written evidence is not evidence.

Actually, Rude Robert, it IS evidence that there was no such call. In fact, it's very compelling evidence, given its significance.

I think you mean it's not proof. You do understand the fundamental difference between evidence and proof, don't you, Rude Robert?

Maybe this example will help: There's a warm empty coffee cup on the side table right next to where I'm sitting right now. That's evidence that I drink coffee. Certainly not proof, but pretty strong evidence. Get it?

Now, with that in mind, you might care to revisit many of your CT claims. Somehow, though, I don't think you're minded to do that.

 

[Southwind17]

Hank wrote:

"Why do you suppose she left out the probably the biggest thing to happen to her that day? It just slipped her mind?"

Comment:
No. More likely, she could not prove that it was not a crank call.

Oh the joy! So what could we reasonably conclude from that, Rude Robert?

 

[Southwind17]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Name one.

Charles Crenshaw:

Comment:
First of all, congratulations on focusing in on one specific person

Oh joy of joys. Rude Robert's doing all of our work for us now. He doesn't know whether he's coming or going. Perhaps we should just leave him to argue with himself. I'd like to lay a big bet it ends up with this recurring exchange:

Baloney

Baloney

Baloney

Baloney

Baloney

Baloney

Baloney

Baloney

....

 

[Southwind17]

The word "assertion" refers to a person who is a witness.

Er ... wrong. It's simply an unsupported claim made, in this case probably by a witness. Nothing more; nothing less.

"Robert Prey is an intelligent, logical, objective person" is simply an assertion. It's unsupported by factual information available to us, namely this thread. In all likelihood, therefore, it's a false assertion.
"Robert Prey is rude", however, is not an assertion. It's a matter of fact, as demonstrated by this thread.

Get it?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ridiculous. You were challenged to name the source of the quote where Crenshaw ever said or wrote that he had a "central" role. Instead, you slink back into the McAdams sewer for his interpolation of something Crenshaw never said or wrote. So in answering the challenge of where Crenshaw ever made such a statement, you fail. And in failing, you betray your continued devotion to a dishonest slime merchant -- John McAdams. Pathetic.

Yet when the New York Times called up Crenshaw in reponse to his book, he backed away from the book's claims as to how central he was, saying that Hansen and Shaw "took poetic license" on this issue. Crenshaw "admitted . . .that the role he played in Kennedy's case was minor." See the Times of May 26, 1992

So if the claim is not made in his book, why does he have to state the coauthors of his book made the claim? Why say that "Poetic license" was taken and not state, as you now claim: "No such claim is made by my book"?

Let's look at this:

The surgeon, Dr. Charles A. Crenshaw, broke a 28-year silence and was co-author of a book, "J.F.K. Conspiracy of Silence" (Signet). It could have been a valuable contribution to the history of the assassination, as any eyewitness account should be. But Dr. Crenshaw's contribution to history is particularly hard to evaluate, largely because it was written so long after the event and because he now says the book exaggerated his role in Kennedy's care.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/26/h...ory-amid-troubling.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

See that is definately a statement that his role was exagerated. By his own book.

Is this where I demand the apology and retraction for your dishonesty Robert?

 

[Tomtomkent]

All of the above point to support for the phone call, especially the fact that an FBI agent was indeed sent to the ER to take a confession, something an imposter would hardly have thought to suggest. Admit it. LBJ made the call, Crenshaw is an honest man as is Phyllis Bartlett an honest woman. And truth is hard to take to one who has grovelled in brainwash for 50 years.

An FBI man was sent to the ER.
He may have been sent to the ER by LBJ.
But where did you "prove" that was what LBJ saud in the alleged call?

Look at what you wrote:

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.

Nowhere does tht mention LBJ directing the FBI man.

Common sense would dictate the FBI would be wanting to speak to the suspect regardless.

Again, it simply doesn't prove, or support, the assertion you are making Robert.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The word "assertion" refers to a person who is a witness. You have witnessed nothing but simply make sophomoric conclusions of that which you have no clue. You say I am full of falsehoods? I make the same challenge to you as to all others who snipe in the dark and then retreat when it comes to facts. So, name one falsehood, or retreat back into the shadows of darkness and brainwash.

The posts you have made have been cited.
Multiple times.
So I hereby cite this as another falsehood. Especially as like the rest of us this chap is indeed a witness to your posts. Which makes your own statement he has "witnessed nothing" a falsehood.