JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

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:

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?

You still have not been able to document anything Crenshaw wrote or said bout having a "central" role. Nor does the NY Times bother to document any alleged "interview" where Crenshaw "admitted" to anything. Explaining that the book's cover puffery was not of his authorship is not any kind of "admission." Face it. Crenshaw bears strong witness to the actual wounds of the President pointing to a shot from the right front and conspiracy. Deal with it.

 

[Southwind17]

Yes, the right hemisphere of the head was obliterated, but so was the back of the head.

What, by a single bullet from the front?!

 

[Tomtomkent]

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.

Wrong.

Your assertion is LBJ called, and made the statements Crenshaw describes.
Any differention from this description is dishonest. It may be he was fooled by the hoax, that the call never happened,or "poetic license", but it remains different from your previous assertion.

Dont slip a disc yanking on those goal posts.

 

[Southwind17]

Rehashed baloney.

Yep ... that's one way of describing tomtomkent's listing of your quotes!

 

[Southwind17]

40 plus witnesses is ample corroboration.

It might be, if there were 40 plus witnesses all saying the same thing and none, and nothing, indicating something different. Trouble is ...

 

[Tomtomkent]

You still have not been able to document anything Crenshaw wrote or said bout having a "central" role. Nor does the NY Times bother to document any alleged "interview" where Crenshaw "admitted" to anything. Explaining that the book's cover puffery was not of his authorship is not any kind of "admission." Face it. Crenshaw bears strong witness to the actual wounds of the President pointing to a shot from the right front and conspiracy. Deal with it.

So let me see if I have this straight. Your argument is now that Crenshaws book does not describe his role in a way that might be considered "central" by the lay reader? It presumably describes his role as minor and unimportant instead? That the cover blurb of his own book is not a part of his book and he did not agree it?

So this non-central role described in the book was inflated by poetic license?


Sure. Ok. I accept that. How small was his role?

 

[Robert Prey]

Wrong.

Your assertion is LBJ called, and made the statements Crenshaw describes.
Any differention from this description is dishonest. It may be he was fooled by the hoax, that the call never happened,or "poetic license", but it remains different from your previous assertion.

Dont slip a disc yanking on those goal posts.

NO. My assertion is that the 3 witnesses (Crenshaw, Bartlett and Williams) confirm that there was indeed a call from the White House. That the two witnesses claim it was from LBJ. And it is my opinion that it was indeed from LBJ and not an imposter based on the un-impeached integrity of the two witnesses and the fact that an FBI man was indeed summoned to take a confession, just as Crenshaw claimed.That was not Poetic license but fact.

 

[Robert Prey]

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

The Times quotes the following:

"Dr. Crenshaw said in an interview that he stood by his charges but was concerned about the book's exaggerations, like the description of his race to Kennedy's side in the emergency room.

The alleged "interview" is not documented nor was there any documented admission of "exaggerations." But as to evidence of Crenshaw's self-inflated role the Times extracts this quote:

"The President of the United States was waiting for me."

But fails to provided the necessary context. He and Dr. McCelland had just heard the call and were fearful that they were the only doctors around who would be in charge at first. They were running to the ER room when a man in a suit (FBI Agent) was smashed with a sub-machine gun by another man (Secret Service Agent) across his face and chest. "When I heard that gun slam against his face, I just knew that man's jaw was broken. Normally, I would have rushed over and treated the poor guy, but the President of the United States was waiting for me, and his condition was worse than broken bones."

Thus, in context, Crenshaw was simply comparing the two wounded men, and simply judging that the President was more important. Hardly, an example of self-aggrandizement that the Times seeks to portray.

Thus, both you and McAdams and the NY Times fail in attempting to denigrate this honest, dedicated doctor. Shame.

 

[HSienzant]

Oh, another diversion. I've never discussed K's jacket, but fact is, I don't know if there is damage to the front, and neither do you.

Wilson discussed the jacket. And that makes it fair game in rebutting Wilson's claims.

The jacket is in national archives, Robert.

There is no damage to it. It has been photographed a number of times, and inspected by numerous people, none of whom found a bullet hoile in the jacket. Wilson diagnoses a jacket entry hole from the 8mm Zapruder film, a hole that doesn't exist. That should tell you all you need to know about Wilson's methodology. It's flim-flam, it's hocus-pocus. It doesn't work, and he's a shaman.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

You cannot list one person so you simply cross out several names without explanation. Typical.

You have not been able to cite, with evidence, a single name that does not belong.

I crossed out names without explanation? No, that's a flat-out lie, Robert.
I haven't cited with evidence a name that doesn't belong? Another lie.

Below is the list I struck names from, along with the posts where the reasons for striking each are given. You ignored it all, and then responded to the summary post as if the previous posts never happened.

You are dishonest.

You are so blatantly dishonest it amazes me. And I've debated the JFK assassination for about 20 years online now, in a variety of forums. You are by far the worst of the bunch. You are not interested in the truth. You are interested in pushing your version of events. Sooner or later you will wise up and realize that pushing lies isn't the best approach.
If you had the truth on your side, you would not need to lie.

Here's my summary post where I struck a number of names.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8210399&postcount=6022


Here's the list. I've taken the liberty of adding the original rebuttal posts to the list -- posts you pretend never happened when you write that I "simply cross out several names without explanation" and "You have not been able to cite, with evidence, a single name that does not belong".

Forty Plus On-the-Scene Witnesses, including, but not limited to:
3, MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD:
Said wound was on right side, said brain matter from the occipital lobe was protruding from the right side wound:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8207484&postcount=6003
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8031386&postcount=3257


7. GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland
Admitted he never saw the back of the head proper:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208208&postcount=6006


9. CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician
Put damage on right side of head in numerous descriptions:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8210347&postcount=6021


13. ADOLPH GIESECKE, MD: an assistant professor of anesthesiology
Description consistent with HSCA drawing and autopsy photos:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8210210&postcount=6018
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8110502&postcount=4038


31. SAUNDRA KAY SPENCER
No evidence she worked on JFK autopsy photos except her recollection:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208174&postcount=6005
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8213915&postcount=6061


41. BEVERLY OLIVER
No evidence she was in Dealey Plaza:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208591&postcount=6008


42. ED HOFFMAN
No evidence he was an assassination witness:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208591&postcount=6008


43. BILL NEWMAN
Put wound on right side of head:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208591&postcount=6008


44. GAYLE NEWMAN
Put wound on right side of head:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208591&postcount=6008

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Oh, another diversion. I've never discussed K's jacket, but fact is, I don't know if there is damage to the front, and neither do you.

There you go again trying to limit the examination of Wilson's work to the things you think his method might have got right. Whether you discussed it or not is irrelevant. Whether Wilson discussed it or not -- and whether his discussion is supported by evidence -- is very much relevant to whether his method is reliable.

Despite careful examination, no bullet damage is found on Kennedy's jacket. Therefore an analytical method that infers damage must have occurred is simply wrong.

You are completely unequipped to deal with the massive failures in Wilson's method. So please stop embarrassing yourself by trying to cite him as an expert.

 

[JayUtah]

Rehashed baloney.

So you have no answer for any of that? I'd call that a pretty clear evasion of points in argument that you asked specifically to be produced.

 

[JayUtah]

To equate "witness" testimony with "expert" witness testimony illustates the apples and oranges fallacy..

Then it's a good thing I didn't equate the two.

As I described at length previously, there are two kinds of witnesses -- lay witnesses and expert witnesses. They differ in the degree to which their assertions can be considered evidence. But in neither case does a witness assertion automatically become evidence simply by the witness having uttered it.

If you're going to cite these definitions and pretend that they support your point, you should at least read them.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The Times quotes the following:

"Dr. Crenshaw said in an interview that he stood by his charges but was concerned about the book's exaggerations, like the description of his race to Kennedy's side in the emergency room.

The alleged "interview" is not documented nor was there any documented admission of "exaggerations." But as to evidence of Crenshaw's self-inflated role the Times extracts this quote:

"The President of the United States was waiting for me."

But fails to provided the necessary context. He and Dr. McCelland had just heard the call and were fearful that they were the only doctors around who would be in charge at first. They were running to the ER room when a man in a suit (FBI Agent) was smashed with a sub-machine gun by another man (Secret Service Agent) across his face and chest. "When I heard that gun slam against his face, I just knew that man's jaw was broken. Normally, I would have rushed over and treated the poor guy, but the President of the United States was waiting for me, and his condition was worse than broken bones."

Thus, in context, Crenshaw was simply comparing the two wounded men, and simply judging that the President was more important. Hardly, an example of self-aggrandizement that the Times seeks to portray.

Thus, both you and McAdams and the NY Times fail in attempting to denigrate this honest, dedicated doctor. Shame.

So... Are you going to retract your previous statements about the content of websites to be correct and true (made re: Wilsons bio) and therefore admit that any claims of Wilsons credentials are suspect?

Or are you going to retract this claim, as by your previous statement you have no evidence that there is no record of an interview, or of Crenshaw giving a statement, only that you are unaware of it?

Damned if you do,damned if you don't Robert. But its your standard, you either acceptallevidence by it, or retract it. You don't get to pick or choose.

 

[Tomtomkent]

NO. My assertion is that the 3 witnesses (Crenshaw, Bartlett and Williams) confirm that there was indeed a call from the White House. That the two witnesses claim it was from LBJ. And it is my opinion that it was indeed from LBJ and not an imposter based on the un-impeached integrity of the two witnesses and the fact that an FBI man was indeed summoned to take a confession, just as Crenshaw claimed.That was not Poetic license but fact.

Wait, so you say No, then confirm that YES your assertion is that things happen just as Crenshaw claims. Or are you now pretending that something "just like" Crenshaw claims didn't include LBJ saying what Crenshaw claimed?

Hmmm...

NO. The evidence is that Bartlett asserts that she did indeed receive a phone call from someone who identified himself as Pres.Johnson and transferred it to the ER. Try not to interpolate that which is not there.

So assuming there even was a call, you are doing what you warned others not to do. This should be a very good reminder of why witnessess don't make good sources of evidence. But let's see what assertions Robert has made:

As far as the LBJ call to Crenshaw, this was never disputed till years later so there was no need for Ms. Bartlett to come forward, until she discovered that the highly respected Dr. Crenshaw's integrity was being questioned. Your uptake is biased, tortured and baseless.

It probably wasn't disputed for years, untill anybody claimed it happened. What you did in this post Robert was give us a motive other than being truthful why Ms. Bartlett felt the need to add her voice to the discussion. Youa re clearly stating things happened as Crenshaw described. That is an assertion.

My conclusion is that you have been caught in you own 'confabulation" having accused Dr. Crenshaw of being a 'liar" now refuted by the very operator who took the call. The fact that she did not log the call is irrelevant and subsequently explained by her. The alternative is to believe that she and Crenshaw were both lyinjg. Ludicrous and absurd on its face. Now, in the face of Bartlett's statements, do you still label Crenshaw a liar in your desperate attempt to denigrate him?

Again, you argue that things happened exactly as Crenshaw described, or he is liar. No room for misinterpretation, your assertion is that LBJ called the hospital, LBJ spoke to Crenshaw, LBJ told Crenshaw to commit murder.

By now that "No" is looking like a pretty strong "Yes", and aall because Robert assumes nobody knows what he typed before in this very thread.



Oh and by the way:

The physical evidence, other than the worm food, you claim still stands is locked away in the cover-uppers closet. You don't get to trump 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses with photographs hidden away in a locked closet.

40 MEDICAL Wintnessess? When you finally gave us the list, it was 40+ total witnessess... And not all of them said what you claimed.

 

[HSienzant]

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

Funny she did not mention any of this in her original memorandum for the record of her activities on the weekend of the assassination. PS: Kindly clarify whether Bartlett did indeed write that the assassination occurred on 11/2/63, or if this is just a typo by you.

If she got the date wrong, it wouldn't speak well of her ability to recall things accurately, would it?

Thanks.

 

[HSienzant]

There was no original "testimony".

Straw argument.

I said "original statements". Don't misquote me to disprove my point. That only proves you are wrong. I mentioned testimony NOT AT ALL.

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

Her original statement is her memorandum for the record of her activities that weekend. She mentions receiving a number of crank calls, but mentions nothing of receiving a call from the President of the United States.

In a memorandum for the record, I would think that would belong.

Did she forget to mention it?
Did she think it was only a crank call?
Or did it never happen?

Those are the three ways I can explain this omission. Perhaps you have a another explanation that sheds a better light on her failure to mention a call from the President of the United States?

If not, which of the above do you think best explains her failure to mention that call for nearly 30 years?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Hi Robert,

When was the first time Earle Williams made this assertion?
Is it mentioned in his memorandum for the record asked of all Parkland personnel that weekend?
Is there any documentary evidence (his memo for the record will suffice) that he was in the ER on 11/24/63 when the call came through?
Is there any evidence other than his word that he's been telling people of the call for years?

In short, please provide the evidence, or links to the evidence, so we can determine for ourselves whether the claims above are true.

Thanks?

 

[HSienzant]

There you go again trying to limit the examination of Wilson's work to the things you think his method might have got right. Whether you discussed it or not is irrelevant. Whether Wilson discussed it or not -- and whether his discussion is supported by evidence -- is very much relevant to whether his method is reliable.

Despite careful examination, no bullet damage is found on Kennedy's jacket. Therefore an analytical method that infers damage must have occurred is simply wrong.

You are completely unequipped to deal with the massive failures in Wilson's method. So please stop embarrassing yourself by trying to cite him as an expert.

Clarification - on the front of JFK's jacket. Where Wilson claimed to have seen it. There is of course a bullet entry wound hole in the back, and nobody needs Wilson to see that, as the Warren Commission published photos showing the hole in the back of the jacket.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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 has no problem with his double standard. He chides me regularly for citing anything on McAdams site, but of course quotes conspiracy sites with abandon. For example:

.... 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

The above cites conspiracist Gary Aguilar's article.

Hank