JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
The assertion of a witness is evidence. Your claim that it is not is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
You really do need to expand your vocabulary, Rude Robert, and validate your existing.

A witness stating: "I saw the gunman shoot the victim from the front" is very different from the same witness simply asserting: "The vicitim was shot from the front."

Do you see the difference there? You might think it's subtle, but it's not; it's fundamentally different.

BTW - remember that the statement above is no more matter of fact than the assertion, based solely thereupon. It could well be false. Validation of it's truthfulness, and hence its reliability, requires validation by independent, unconflicting, reliable corroboration.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
He's wrong on so many matters of fact and evidence, demonstrably lacking in critical thinking skills, and arrogantly cocky to boot.
Click to expand...

Robert Prey said:
REgnard Kcin worte:

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

Name one, if you can.
Click to expand...

The quotes from your "40 plus" witnesses that contradict your claims.
Your claim that evidence is invalidated by witness memories.
Your assertion that the autopsy photos are "proven" to be faked, while showing no evidence of such.
Your assertion that the BY photos were faked.
Your assertions about "impossible" shadows.
Your inability to validate the expertise of "expert witnesses".
Your insistance the grassy knoll was in front, not to the side, of JFK when the shots were fired.
Your claims that latent prints can be faked with ink.
Your claims the autopsy photos can only be faked because they are not the ones a technician developed, despite her statement showing there were two sets taken.
Your claims the "deathstare" photo were not cropped or rotated, and showed a front entry wound.
Your claims a photo of an exit wound had also not been cropped or rotated.

Whoops. I seem to have offered more than one. Never mind.
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just one? How can we pick just one? I guess my favorite is your claim that there are 40+ witnesses to a shot from the front. It was also quite hypocritical of you to ignore everybody who pointed out that the witnesses quotes were taken out of context by you and don't say what you think they say, but hypocrisy is your M.O. Who has their head in the sand?
 
Robert Prey said:
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."



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?????
Click to expand...

I quoted one person because you asked for only one. Presumably because when my previous post contained counter claims to 20 of your witnesses you were a little overwhelmed.

Here are some quotes direct from Dr. Crenshaw in his book Conspiracy of Silence:
Pg 2: "The entire right hemisphere of President Kennedy's brain was obliterated. . . . "
Pg 78: "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."
Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater, an empty cavity."
Pg 87: (Quoting Kemp Clark): "My God, the whole right side of his head is shot off... We've got nothing to work with."
Pg 89: "... there is still nothing that can save a victim who loses the entire right side of his brain."

Your reply proves the point I am trying to make. Dr. Crenshaw makes conflicting statements. So how do you choose which ones are factual? This is not a rhetorical question. You must have some method for filtering out one statement over another. Especially in this case when the quotes are not from some "slime merchant" but are direct from the book you cite. When Crenshaw later says about his own book that the authors "took poetic license" in overstating his role in the trauma room, one should take pause.

While you consider the answer to my question of how to weigh one conflicting statement over another, I'll give you my answer. The method is by reviewing independent pieces of evidence such as photos and video. I know you claim the photos and videos have been altered, but you have said your reasons are the statements of the Parkland staff. Since people on this board have shown you that their claims are not necessarily what you think they are, it is circular reasoning to use them to impeach the other evidence.

Some witnesses at Dealey Plaza and Parkland claim damage to the back of the head. Some witnesses at Dealey Plaza and Parkland claim damage to the side of the head. The Zapruder film, Mooreman photo, and autopsy photos show no damage to the back of the head. Given this, what is the most likely true state of the President's head wound?
 
Robert Prey said:
The assertion of a witness is evidence. Your claim that it is not is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. I discussed eyewitness testimony at length when you selectively quoted a summary of it written for laymen. Too bad you never actually read the rules of evidence that you tried to say supported your claim.

You remember? When we were discussing expert testimony testimony? You know, that thing you don't know how to substantiate.

I find it quite revealing how you simply ignore gargantuan portions of this debate and then try to accuse everyone else of having his head in the sand.
 
Robert Prey said:
Oh, but the jailers are the conspirators. And why would they put themselves in jail??
Click to expand...

And all their successors as well, everyone it seems for the past 50 years regardless of politics or personal beliefs? The same political machine that couldn't cover up Watergate, keep out Soviet spies, or prevent hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents being handed to Wikileaks managed to keep this a secret that only you and a few dedicated CTs have penetrated? Though of course the CTs can't even agree amongst themselves on the who or the why of the conspiracy can they? And then you wonder why no one takes you seriously?:eek:
 
So yet again, Rude Robert lies low, waiting for the dust to settle, only to return soon thinking we've all forgotten what we've just written, to present some selective responses, whilst ignoring the rest. And so goes the merry-go-round ...
 
Last edited:
Garrison said:
And all their successors as well, everyone it seems for the past 50 years regardless of politics or personal beliefs? The same political machine that couldn't cover up Watergate, keep out Soviet spies, or prevent hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents being handed to Wikileaks managed to keep this a secret that only you and a few dedicated CTs have penetrated? Though of course the CTs can't even agree amongst themselves on the who or the why of the conspiracy can they? And then you wonder why no one takes you seriously?:eek:
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The CIA/Mafia plot is commonly agreed upon and is and has been an open secret amongst those in government.
 
JayUtah said:
Asked and answered. I discussed eyewitness testimony at length when you selectively quoted a summary of it written for laymen. Too bad you never actually read the rules of evidence that you tried to say supported your claim.

You remember? When we were discussing expert testimony testimony? You know, that thing you don't know how to substantiate.

I find it quite revealing how you simply ignore gargantuan portions of this debate and then try to accuse everyone else of having his head in the sand.
Click to expand...

To equate "witness" testimony with "expert" witness testimony illustates the apples and oranges fallacy..
 
Monza said:
I quoted one person because you asked for only one. Presumably because when my previous post contained counter claims to 20 of your witnesses you were a little overwhelmed.

Here are some quotes direct from Dr. Crenshaw in his book Conspiracy of Silence:
Pg 2: "The entire right hemisphere of President Kennedy's brain was obliterated. . . . "
Pg 78: "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."
Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater, an empty cavity."
Pg 87: (Quoting Kemp Clark): "My God, the whole right side of his head is shot off... We've got nothing to work with."
Pg 89: "... there is still nothing that can save a victim who loses the entire right side of his brain."

Your reply proves the point I am trying to make. Dr. Crenshaw makes conflicting statements. So how do you choose which ones are factual? This is not a rhetorical question. You must have some method for filtering out one statement over another. Especially in this case when the quotes are not from some "slime merchant" but are direct from the book you cite. When Crenshaw later says about his own book that the authors "took poetic license" in overstating his role in the trauma room, one should take pause.

While you consider the answer to my question of how to weigh one conflicting statement over another, I'll give you my answer. The method is by reviewing independent pieces of evidence such as photos and video. I know you claim the photos and videos have been altered, but you have said your reasons are the statements of the Parkland staff. Since people on this board have shown you that their claims are not necessarily what you think they are, it is circular reasoning to use them to impeach the other evidence.

Some witnesses at Dealey Plaza and Parkland claim damage to the back of the head. Some witnesses at Dealey Plaza and Parkland claim damage to the side of the head. The Zapruder film, Mooreman photo, and autopsy photos show no damage to the back of the head. Given this, what is the most likely true state of the President's head wound?
Click to expand...

Nonsnse. There is absolutely no conflict in Crenshaw's statements. Yes, the right hemisphere of the head was obliterated, but so was the back of the head. The statements do not conflict; one statement is merely added to another.
 
Tomtomkent said:
The quotes from your "40 plus" witnesses that contradict your claims.
Your claim that evidence is invalidated by witness memories.
Your assertion that the autopsy photos are "proven" to be faked, while showing no evidence of such.
Your assertion that the BY photos were faked.
Your assertions about "impossible" shadows.
Your inability to validate the expertise of "expert witnesses".
Your insistance the grassy knoll was in front, not to the side, of JFK when the shots were fired.
Your claims that latent prints can be faked with ink.
Your claims the autopsy photos can only be faked because they are not the ones a technician developed, despite her statement showing there were two sets taken.
Your claims the "deathstare" photo were not cropped or rotated, and showed a front entry wound.
Your claims a photo of an exit wound had also not been cropped or rotated.

Whoops. I seem to have offered more than one. Never mind.
Click to expand...

Rehashed baloney.
 
Southwind17 said:
You really do need to expand your vocabulary, Rude Robert, and validate your existing.

A witness stating: "I saw the gunman shoot the victim from the front" is very different from the same witness simply asserting: "The vicitim was shot from the front."

Do you see the difference there? You might think it's subtle, but it's not; it's fundamentally different.

BTW - remember that the statement above is no more matter of fact than the assertion, based solely thereupon. It could well be false. Validation of it's truthfulness, and hence its reliability, requires validation by independent, unconflicting, reliable corroboration.
Click to expand...

40 plus witnesses is ample corroboration.
 
Tomtomkent said:
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:

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.
Click to expand...

The challenge that you and your Mentor McAdams makes is that Crenshaw lied about the call and the Bartlett also lied about the call. But there is no need to prove whether the caller was actually LBJ or an imposter, the fact is, there was such a call either way. Admit it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom