JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

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"??

No. Russo, a conspiracy author, said he heard it from CRENSHAW himself, at the urinal in the men's room. Did you not read that?

So it's your claim that Gus Russo, a conspiracy author, is lying about the below?

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.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

It is indeed evidence that it never occurred as she remembers it now. Please explain why she would fail to mention such an important thing as a call from the President of the United States.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

lol. So what happened between her memorandum for the record and 1992 when she wrote the letter in support of Dr. Crenshaw to change her mind, Robert?

If she initially thought it a crank call, why is she not still calling it a crank call in 1992?

"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...

Of course there was. Crenshaw's own statement and Bartlett's own statement about their activities that weekend both fail to mention any such call. That contradicts their 20 or 30 year later recollections. Guess which one gets primacy, Robert? Guess which one a good lawyer could use to impeach the credibility of these two people, if any opposing lawyer ever was stupid enough to call them to the stand (as you did by bringing them up).

The 40+ witnesses exist only in your imagination. It's been established that you have taken numerous quotes out of context and calling people back of head witnesses whose statements don't say that.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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?????

Robert, you can shout it from the rooftops, or make it an even bigger font, but it doesn't overturn the description above that. Right side of the head, starting at the hairline and going back behind the right ear.

"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."

Sorta sounds a lot like this picture:

 

[HSienzant]

Nonsense. The CIA/Mafia plot is commonly agreed upon and is and has been an open secret amongst those in government.

The CIA / MAFIA plot was a conspiracy to kill Castro, not Kennedy. Not sure what you intend to be proving by citing that.

It was run out of the White House, with both the President and his brother as active participants in the planning - primarily Robert, but the President was certainly being kept in the loop by his brother.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

No. Russo, a conspiracy author, said he heard it from CRENSHAW himself, at the urinal in the men's room. Did you not read that?

So it's your claim that Gus Russo, a conspiracy author, is lying about the below?

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.

None of which is new to Robert. This has been covered in depth, along with the claimed conversation stemming from Crenshaw, not validating Crenshaw, in previous posts.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It is indeed evidence that it never occurred as she remembers it now. Please explain why she would fail to mention such an important thing as a call from the President of the United States.

At the very least it is enough to question the validity of the claims (made years later by somebody Robert himself claimed to have comeforwards to defend Crenshaws name). If she forgot to mention them at the time, why should we consider her memories thirty years later to be accurate?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Robert, you can shout it from the rooftops, or make it an even bigger font, but it doesn't overturn the description above that. Right side of the head, starting at the hairline and going back behind the right ear.

"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."

Sorta sounds a lot like this picture:

[qimg]http://simfootball.net/JFK/aut10_HI.jpg[/qimg]

And if both the right hemisphere AND back of the head were blown away that leaves a number of questions:
1) Why were they not in the drawing.
2) What exactly of the head was left? Not much it sounds.
3) How if both the rear and side of the head are missing, can two wounds be distinguished from each other, let alone offer enough evidence for the direction of the bullets to be accurately determined?
4) Why did Robert spend so much time arguing there was no wound to the right hemisphere, and the wound WAS to the back of the head?

 

[thedopefishlives]

4) Why did Robert spend so much time arguing there was no wound to the right hemisphere, and the wound WAS to the back of the head?

He's trying hard to avoid any evidence that there was a wound to the right hemisphere because it's inconvenient to his fantasy.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank,

What did you believe and what changed your mind?

You want the short answer or the long one? I'll give you both and you decide which one you want to read.

Short Answer: I believed there was a conspiracy to assassinate the President, Oswald was framed, and that Clay Shaw was part of that conspiracy. What changed my mind was going back to the actual testimony and reading that in its entirety, rather than the short snippets out of context presented in conspiracy books.

Long Answer: I started my reading on the assassination with the first book published in the US on a conspiracy, Thomas Buchanon's WHO KILLED KENNEDY? It was actually published prior to the release of the Warren Commission volumes of evidence or the Warren Report proper. It was based entirely on newspaper reports and was entirely garbage (it had Jack Ruby shooting from the overpass, among other assertions). Of course, it overlooked the numerous witnesses on the overpass that would have noticed such a thing.

The first books on the assassination I read that actually used the Warren Commission volumes of evidence to try to decipher the crime (or so I thought at the time, but of course were just books written to make money off the tragedy) were books like Mark Lane's RUSH TO JUDGMENT and Harold Weisberg's WHITEWASH. I followed the pronouncements of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison avidly through the newspaper articles as I grew up in New Jersey. In the 1970's, there were more books on the subject which I avidly consumed. By the late 1970's the HSCA had concluded its investigation and announced there was "a probable conspiracy" based on the dictabelt recording, but reached no conclusion as to what persons or group was behind the shooting.

I decided to start over from the top, but instead of just re-reading everything I owned, I went out and started to read the Warren Commission volumes of evidence page by page at my local college library. That was unsatisfying because it meant a separate trip daily after work to get the reading in, so I eventually splurged and bought the WC volumes (used) from the PRESIDENTS BOX BOOKSHOP for a tidy figure of $2500 - that was real money back in the early 1980's, or at least, it was to me. The HSCA volumes were a lot cheaper from the GPO (Government Printing Office).

Starting over and re-reading everything, I began to see a pattern emerge where the conspiracy authors took stuff out of context repeatedly, and did not tell the whole story. The quotes were exact, but stopped or started just as the statement would be clarified.

Over time, I began to realize most of what I believed about the assassination of JFK was a lie, and that the evidence of Oswald's guilt in the shooting was overwhelming and beyond reproach (indeed, this is what every investigation into the crime concluded, the HSCA included).

What was the one specific thing that flipped me over? I don't know that there was one thing in particular, but I do recall the HSCA investigatory panels (forensic, medical, and photographic) conclusions having a big impact, as they pretty much confronted all of the conspiracy claims made by that time and proved they were meritless.

Another thing was a careful reading of the witnesses testimony. By reading it in full, I could actually see a coherent story of what happened emerge, by disregarding the outliers and keeping only the stuff that was mentioned repeatedly (like three shots - very few witnesses ever mentioned a number greater than three).

One particular thing stood out in one witness' testimony. Governor Connally's statement that the shots were so close together that "there had to be multiple shooters or an automatic weapon used" (I am paraphrasing) I was of course already familiar with as numerous conspiracy books quoted him saying that.

I was floored when I saw what he said a few moments later, that none of the conspiracy books had ever bothered to mention, and gave a completely differing view: Connally had gone on to estimate the time of the shooting (and the three shots) as between ten to twelve seconds!

This of course completely undermines the early quote by Connally of his impression of the shooting being by multiple gunmen, and to me, was an important part of my discarding the conspiracy viewpoint, as I knew then and there the conspiracy books weren't levelling with me.

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

You want the short answer or the long one? I'll give you both and you decide which one you want to read.

Thank you for sharing that story. The Apollo hoax theory is the one I'm most familiar with, in terms of debunking. In 12 years or so of debate I think only 2-3 people who started out as hoax believers eventually changed their minds.

I've discovered that the people who won't budge an inch, however, are not likely candidates for that. They are the ones whose belief is founded more upon ideology -- you know, social and political factors, "don't trust authority," etc. They didn't arrive at their belief by a rational evaluation of the facts, therefore they can't have their minds changed by facts.

The people who may change their minds tend to be more like you: people who exercise a rational thought process, but simply don't have all the facts. They've been led astray, just as you were, by authors who selectively quoted the facts and who stirred up suspicion on little evidence. Since space engineering and astrophysics are highly specialized subjects, it's easy for charlatan authors to offer simplifications and misconceptions that seem plausible but which are actually quite inaccurate.

So I can certainly endorse your rationale that conspiracist belief can at times arise rationally as the result of cherry-picked evidence and strategically placed innuendo. It's often easy to write off believers as irrational when a select number of them are simply laboring under misconceptions.

Tom Wilson would, however, fall under the category of "dazzle with ... nonsense." A lot of people see the pretty colors and all the equipment and think that Wilson's claims to some special insight are true. It (wrongly) portrays the image of a dogged, highly skilled researcher picking away at the evidence. Most laymen, I guess, would be fairly impressed by that.

 

[abaddon]

You want the short answer or the long one? I'll give you both and you decide which one you want to read.

Short Answer: I believed there was a conspiracy to assassinate the President, Oswald was framed, and that Clay Shaw was part of that conspiracy. What changed my mind was going back to the actual testimony and reading that in its entirety, rather than the short snippets out of context presented in conspiracy books.

Long Answer: I started my reading on the assassination with the first book published in the US on a conspiracy, Thomas Buchanon's WHO KILLED KENNEDY? It was actually published prior to the release of the Warren Commission volumes of evidence or the Warren Report proper. It was based entirely on newspaper reports and was entirely garbage (it had Jack Ruby shooting from the overpass, among other assertions). Of course, it overlooked the numerous witnesses on the overpass that would have noticed such a thing.

The first books on the assassination I read that actually used the Warren Commission volumes of evidence to try to decipher the crime (or so I thought at the time, but of course were just books written to make money off the tragedy) were books like Mark Lane's RUSH TO JUDGMENT and Harold Weisberg's WHITEWASH. I followed the pronouncements of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison avidly through the newspaper articles as I grew up in New Jersey. In the 1970's, there were more books on the subject which I avidly consumed. By the late 1970's the HSCA had concluded its investigation and announced there was "a probable conspiracy" based on the dictabelt recording, but reached no conclusion as to what persons or group was behind the shooting.

I decided to start over from the top, but instead of just re-reading everything I owned, I went out and started to read the Warren Commission volumes of evidence page by page at my local college library. That was unsatisfying because it meant a separate trip daily after work to get the reading in, so I eventually splurged and bought the WC volumes (used) from the PRESIDENTS BOX BOOKSHOP for a tidy figure of $2500 - that was real money back in the early 1980's, or at least, it was to me. The HSCA volumes were a lot cheaper from the GPO (Government Printing Office).

Starting over and re-reading everything, I began to see a pattern emerge where the conspiracy authors took stuff out of context repeatedly, and did not tell the whole story. The quotes were exact, but stopped or started just as the statement would be clarified.

Over time, I began to realize most of what I believed about the assassination of JFK was a lie, and that the evidence of Oswald's guilt in the shooting was overwhelming and beyond reproach (indeed, this is what every investigation into the crime concluded, the HSCA included).

What was the one specific thing that flipped me over? I don't know that there was one thing in particular, but I do recall the HSCA investigatory panels (forensic, medical, and photographic) conclusions having a big impact, as they pretty much confronted all of the conspiracy claims made by that time and proved they were meritless.

Another thing was a careful reading of the witnesses testimony. By reading it in full, I could actually see a coherent story of what happened emerge, by disregarding the outliers and keeping only the stuff that was mentioned repeatedly (like three shots - very few witnesses ever mentioned a number greater than three).

One particular thing stood out in one witness' testimony. Governor Connally's statement that the shots were so close together that "there had to be multiple shooters or an automatic weapon used" (I am paraphrasing) I was of course already familiar with as numerous conspiracy books quoted him saying that.

I was floored when I saw what he said a few moments later, that none of the conspiracy books had ever bothered to mention, and gave a completely differing view: Connally had gone on to estimate the time of the shooting (and the three shots) as between ten to twelve seconds!

This of course completely undermines the early quote by Connally of his impression of the shooting being by multiple gunmen, and to me, was an important part of my discarding the conspiracy viewpoint, as I knew then and there the conspiracy books weren't levelling with me.

Hank

I thank you for your candid account of your journey.

 

[pakeha]

...I believed there was a conspiracy to assassinate the President, Oswald was framed,...Over time, I began to realize most of what I believed about the assassination of JFK was a lie, and that the evidence of Oswald's guilt in the shooting was overwhelming and beyond reproach (indeed, this is what every investigation into the crime concluded, the HSCA included).

What was the one specific thing that flipped me over? I don't know that there was one thing in particular

I've brutally snipped your excellent post to highlight the points which reflect my own reality.
As you say, over time and seeing how CTs distorted occurences with which I WAS familiar, I came to see the Kennedy assassination CT was simply a repetition of the same process.

It was staggering to see how thoroughly I'd been 'charmed' into believing this particular CT.

...So I can certainly endorse your rationale that conspiracist belief can at times arise rationally as the result of cherry-picked evidence and strategically placed innuendo. It's often easy to write off believers as irrational when a select number of them are simply laboring under misconceptions. ...

This is why threads like this are so important to people who read here.
A big thank you to all who have had the patience to post and repost here.

 

[Robert Prey]

lol. So what happened between her memorandum for the record and 1992 when she wrote the letter in support of Dr. Crenshaw to change her mind, Robert?

If she initially thought it a crank call, why is she not still calling it a crank call in 1992?







Of course there was. Crenshaw's own statement and Bartlett's own statement about their activities that weekend both fail to mention any such call. That contradicts their 20 or 30 year later recollections. Guess which one gets primacy, Robert? Guess which one a good lawyer could use to impeach the credibility of these two people, if any opposing lawyer ever was stupid enough to call them to the stand (as you did by bringing them up).

The 40+ witnesses exist only in your imagination. It's been established that you have taken numerous quotes out of context and calling people back of head witnesses whose statements don't say that.

Hank

Incorrect. Nether Crenshaw nor Bartlett made any contemporaneous statements after the assassination that would contradict anything..

 

[Southwind17]

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.

Why do you only assert what they confirm, Rude Robert, instead of presenting compelling evidence?
It is your opinion that it was indeed from LBJ. You do realise how much an opinion counts for, don't you, Rude Robert?

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?

... and if Rude Robert got it wrong (for whatever reason) it will be just another example of his careless attention to detail. It's a no win, Rude Robert.

 

[Southwind17]

What shape do you see, Rude Robert:



So by your theory the Moon is probably what shape?!

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert, you can shout it from the rooftops, or make it an even bigger font, but it doesn't overturn the description above that. Right side of the head, starting at the hairline and going back behind the right ear.

"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."

Sorta sounds a lot like this picture:

[qimg]http://simfootball.net/JFK/aut10_HI.jpg[/qimg]

Except that fake picture doesn't show the back of the head. Nor does "right side" contradict the word "occipital".

The bullet traveled through the right temple, tore off the right side of the head and proceeded to blast the right side back of the head as confirmed by Crenshaw's statements and corroborated by the 40 plus on the scene witnesses..

 

[Robert Prey]

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?

Why don't you produce that alleged memorandum you keep referring to???

 

[Southwind17]

The bullet traveled through the right temple, tore off the right side of the head ...

Rude Robert, please explain the physics by which a bullet travels through the temple then tears off the side of the head. Alternatively, please cite your source for asserting this.

 

[Southwind17]

Why don't you produce that alleged memorandum you keep referring to???

Why don't you respond to this:

What shape do you see, Rude Robert:



So by your theory the Moon is probably what shape?!