JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

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.

Stop embarrassing yourself by prattling on about that which you do not and cannot know, such as whether or not there is or is not a hole in the front of K's jacket.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

"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."

Comment:
Why Hank, coming from you I do consider that a high compliment. All of your garbage concerning the on-the-scene witnesses has been hashed and rehashed. Happy to rehash it again -- but one at a time.

 

[Robert Prey]

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?

You claim to be an assassination scholar. Why don't you read the damn book instead of relying on slime merchants to read and interpret it for you???

 

[Robert Prey]

I thank you for your candid account of your journey.

Kind of reminds me of Alice in Wonderland.

 

[Robert Prey]

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

Don't be duped by TomTom's twaddle. I've never stated there was no wound to the right hemisphere.

 

[Robert Prey]

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?

She only claims that it was a man who identified himself as the President. She had no way of knowing if it was or was simply another crank phone call of which she said she got several.

 

[Robert Prey]

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?

Because her statement is corroborated by two other witnesses and she has absolutely no reason to lie about it.

 

[Robert Prey]

Why don't you respond to this:
Originally Posted by Southwind17
What shape do you see, Rude Robert:



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

Why don't you respond to this:

I do not debate children.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You claim to be an assassination scholar. Why don't you read the damn book instead of relying on slime merchants to read and interpret it for you???

Please cite my post where I made a claim to have been an assassination scholar, and where I stated I had not read the book.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Don't be duped by TomTom's twaddle. I've never stated there was no wound to the right hemisphere.

I don't think you understand. I've been reading this thread for a while and I'm well aware of what you said. While it's technically true that you never explicitly said there was no wound to the right hemisphere, you have been spending all your time and effort saying that "the wound" was an exit wound to the back of the head. All of your claims about faked autopsy photos, the 40+ Parkland witnesses who supposedly agree with your theory, etc., all point in the direction that the missing right half of JFK's head is instead supposed to be a blowout wound in the back. Unfortunately for you, I'm smart enough and enough of a critical thinker to see through this crap.

 

[Tomtomkent]

She only claims that it was a man who identified himself as the President. She had no way of knowing if it was or was simply another crank phone call of which she said she got several.

Good. So the only source we have for it being LBJ is Crenshaw. It appears your apology to Walter is over 100 pages overdue.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

So, Johnson wanted a death bed confession before or after the docs were to murder him???

 

[Robert Prey]

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

Oh, come on, Hank. You are not that naive. Of course there was a CIA/Mafia plot to kill Castro. There was also a CIA/Mafia plot to kill Kennedy engineered by many of the very same people.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

"Every person is competent to be a witness unless...rules provide otherwise."

Rule 601, Fed. Rules of Evidence.

 

[RoboTimbo]

She only claims that it was a man who identified himself as the President. She had no way of knowing if it was or was simply another crank phone call of which she said she got several.

Well done on your backpedalling! Do you feel more angry at the web sites that have lied to you or are you more mad about how easily you swallow it all?

 

[HSienzant]

Kind of reminds me of Alice in Wonderland.

It should, Robert.

I was lost in a bizarre world where black was white and up was down, until I actually read the first hand accounts, instead of just the version I was being spoon-fed by conspiracy authors.

I do wish you would actually start reading the first-hand material sometime soon, instead of simply accepting without question what conspiracy authors tell you.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Oh, come on, Hank. You are not that naive. Of course there was a CIA/Mafia plot to kill Castro. There was also a CIA/Mafia plot to kill Kennedy engineered by many of the very same people.

Bobby and his brother Jack were in on this supposed plot to murder JFK?

Please cite some evidence of this supposed plot.

You have innuendo, conjecture, and speculation, but no facts to support it.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

So if Robert is now accepting that there was an exit wound to the right hemisphere ASWELL as the back of the head, does that not mean that his previous posts, in which he claimed the drawings and descriptions given were accurate, are based on negligent observations that failed to notice a second large wound? How many of his "40 plus medical witnessess" failed to observe a missing hemisphere?

 

[Tomtomkent]

So, Johnson wanted a death bed confession before or after the docs were to murder him???

Wtf?

If the only source is Crenshaw, we have no reason to think Johnson wanted the docs to murder anybody, or a deathbed confession.

We have Crenshaw claiming somebody claiming to be LBJ asked for something, and nobody else agreeing with him for 30 years, when somebody else came forwards to defend his name, a motive that does not garuntee truth.

Yet you take the desire for murder and confession as truth, despite only assertions and no documentation?

 

[HSienzant]

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

Hi Robert,

I'm trying to help you out here by suggesting how you can produce some evidence to confirm the unsourced statement by this supposed Dr. Williams you 'quoted'. Asking me to provide the evidence you should be providing is simply another attempt by you to shift the burden of proof.

You need to produce the evidence to support the Earle Williams claim. It's your claim, not mine.

Perhaps you should try to answer some of the below questions.

And one more, what's the source of the original claim? The webpage you cited did not provide anything of that nature.

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?