JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
So, Johnson wanted a death bed confession before or after the docs were to murder him???
Click to expand...


This question should be directed to Crenshaw. They are both his varying allegations of what Johnson said.

Perhaps he will be able answer questions concerning his various allegations.


Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Because her statement is corroborated by two other witnesses and she has absolutely no reason to lie about it.
Click to expand...


Yet she didn't mention it for nearly 30 years. And she has no way of knowing if the man was actually LBJ or just a crank call (as you have explained previously). And she cannot vouch for what this supposed person said to anyone in the ER. So how does this confirm Crenshaw's account that LBJ wanted a deathbed confession and/or Oswald murdered (Crenshaw's two varying accounts)?

It doesn't.
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...


I will wager you will avoid answering these questions below.

Did she make a habit of putting through all the calls she thought were crank calls or did she exercise some judgment?

And if she suspected/thought/felt this might be a crank call, did she actually put it through to the E/R anyway?

And if she thought this was a crank call and put it through anyway, how did Crenshaw determine it was actually LBJ and not a crank caller?

Oh, yeah, And why did she wait 29 years to mention it anywhere? She did mention getting several crank calls, but made no mention of getting one from the President.

And if she thought it was a crank call in 1963, what happened to change her mind by 1992?

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
"Every person is competent to be a witness unless...rules provide otherwise."

Rule 601, Fed. Rules of Evidence.
Click to expand...

And the "rules provide otherwise" under what kinds of conditions?

Is a lay witness who hears an explosion competent to determine whether it was a bomb or a steam explosion?

Is an expert witness competent to give his opinion on matters outside his expertise?

As I said, Robert: just because something comes out of a witness's mouth does not make that thing evidence. You need to read all the rules of evidence, not just the cherry-picked, edited quote you've posted here. And now that you've found the FRE, please evaluate Tom Wilson's expertise according to them as I asked you to do many days ago.
 
Robert Prey said:
I do not debate children.
Click to expand...

Insult noted.

It's a fair question. You assert in one case that shade and shadow are irrelevant to determining the actual shape of a depicted object. You say it "looks like" a square chin, therefore it must be.

It's a fair question to ask you why, if what you say is true in the case of the backyard photos, shade is somehow now relevant. What shape is the Moon in this picture, Robert? Is there a shaded portion of the Moon that is blending in with another part of the picture? Is contour and feature extraction a slightly more involved problem than you're making it?
 
Robert Prey said:
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???
Click to expand...

You say you don't debate children, yet you've stooped to name-calling and profanity. Who's the child here, Robert?

You claim to be one of the few people who has allegedly seen through the nonsense and discovered that Oswald was not the real assassin. You say this is due in part to photographic evidence. Why don't you interpret your own photographs instead of relying on people like Tom Wilson and Jack White to do it for you? Or is it perhaps because you've demonstrated here in front of all these people how inept you are at interpreting photos? Maybe you're the one who is just blindly following pied-pipers.
 
JayUtah said:
You say you don't debate children, yet you've stooped to name-calling and profanity. Who's the child here, Robert?

You claim to be one of the few people who has allegedly seen through the nonsense and discovered that Oswald was not the real assassin. You say this is due in part to photographic evidence. Why don't you interpret your own photographs instead of relying on people like Tom Wilson and Jack White to do it for you? Or is it perhaps because you've demonstrated here in front of all these people how inept you are at interpreting photos? Maybe you're the one who is just blindly following pied-pipers.
Click to expand...


I don't think the qualifier in the last sentence is called for.
Robert simply regurgitates here the conspiracy arguments he reads in books and online.

Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...


Robert,

Per your rules, here is one question for you. Which of the following accounts is incorrect and should be rejected?

A) Crenshaw's statements

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."


B) McClellan's approved drawing

picture.php
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...


If you think there is a hole in the front of JFK's jacket that he was wearing during the assassination, please provide an image of that. Or a quote from someone who examined the jacket who mentioned a hole in the front.

Otherwise, the numerous people who have examined that jacket and mentioned only the entry hole in the back (consistent with a shot hitting him from behind in the upper back / neck) and never once mentioned a hole in the front of the jacket will just have to suffice. Wilson's claim that he can see a bullet entry hole in the front of the jacket is at odds with the account of everyone who has ever examined the actual jacket, to my knoweldge.

And of course, unless and until you provide such photo (which you will never do), Wilson is wrong about a bullet hole in the front of the jacket. And his whole methodology is thereby proven wrong because it yields false positives.

Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't feel the least embarrassed. Why are you so bent out of shape over it? The available evidence shows that there is no hole in the front of Kennedy's jacket. Jackets typically come without holes. Therefore if you say there is one, that's an affirmative claim for which you bear the burden of proof. Do you have it? No, you don't.

So stop babbling about what you "cannot know." You don't have firsthand access to any of the relevant evidence, but you seem to be fine drawing conclusions about the assassination despite that apparently serious handicap. Frantic handwaving makes you look so very desperate.

If Wilson's method predicts that there should be a hole in the front of Kennedy's jacket, and none of the examinations or photographs succeed in revealing a hole, then that undermines the credibility of Wilson's method. You are unable to show that Wilson's method has ever been useful, or ever tested for its reliability and correctness. You are unable to describe how Wilson somehow became such an expert in bullet holes and trajectories, working for 30 years for a steel company. Further, you are unable to discuss an expert evaluation of his method, which shows that it has serious flaws.

Given all that, is it more likely that the lack of evidence for a bullet hole in the front of Kennedy's jacket is due to some switcheroo at the archives, some massive coverup, some completely inept failure to discover the predicted bullet hole? Or is it more likely that Tom Wilson doesn't know what he's talking about?

Please dazzle us with your critical thinking on this point.
 
Monza said:
Robert,

Per your rules, here is one question for you. Which of the following accounts is incorrect and should be rejected?

A) Crenshaw's statements

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."


B) McClellan's approved drawing

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=826&pictureid=5905[/qimg]
Click to expand...


I predict Robert will either:

  • "Baloney" the above;
  • Say there's no conflict or;
  • Ignore the question entirely.

This is typical for Robert.

For example, I posted a number of different posts explaining why certain 'witnesses' on his 40+ list don't belong; he ignored it. He then replied only to the summary post, where I listed those questionable witnesses and said Robert needed to respond. His response consisted of telling me [falsely] that all I did was strike some names from his list with no explanation. I then posted this, pointing out all the posts he ignored.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8221707&postcount=6190

Of course, he ignored that one too, other than to respond as you see in the following post. But he has failed to rebut one iota of witness testimony provided by me.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
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.
Click to expand...


Typical conspiracy thinking by Robert. All the evidence indicates I'm calling him dishonest for a good reason, and he considers it a *compliment*
Robert, here's what you ignore in claiming my calling you dishonest is a compliment.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8221707&postcount=6190

When I posted them one at a time, you ignored them all.
You then falsely claimed I struck them out for no reason.
So I went to the trouble of putting them all together in one post.
Now you tell me you will only debate them one at a time.
Why should I believe you won't simply ignore them all again, as you did the first time?

Just click on one of the links and rebut that.
If you want me to pick one, rebut the quotes by one of the closest eyewitnesses to the assassination in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting - Bill Newman. When we last discussed this, you tried to move Newman, move the limo, and denied that Newman saw what he said he saw.

Otherwise, my "compliment" stands.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Typical conspiracy thinking by Robert. All the evidence indicates I'm calling him dishonest for a good reason, and he considers it a *compliment*
Robert, here's what you ignore in claiming my calling you dishonest is a compliment.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8221707&postcount=6190

When I posted them one at a time, you ignored them all.
You then falsely claimed I struck them out for no reason.
So I went to the trouble of putting them all together in one post.
Now you tell me you will only debate them one at a time.
Why should I believe you won't simply ignore them all again, as you did the first time?

Just click on one of the links and rebut that.
If you want me to pick one, rebut the quotes by one of the closest eyewitnesses to the assassination in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting - Bill Newman. When we last discussed this, you tried to move Newman, move the limo, and denied that Newman saw what he said he saw.

Otherwise, my "compliment" stands.

Hank
Click to expand...

No. One at a time means one at a time.
 
HSienzant said:
I predict Robert will either:

  • "Baloney" the above;
  • Say there's no conflict or;
  • Ignore the question entirely.

This is typical for Robert.
Click to expand...

McCelland's dictated drawing is a 2 dimensional image which only purports to show the back, not the side. or the front. Obviously.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
You say you don't debate children, yet you've stooped to name-calling and profanity. Who's the child here, Robert?

You claim to be one of the few people who has allegedly seen through the nonsense and discovered that Oswald was not the real assassin. You say this is due in part to photographic evidence. Why don't you interpret your own photographs instead of relying on people like Tom Wilson and Jack White to do it for you? Or is it perhaps because you've demonstrated here in front of all these people how inept you are at interpreting photos? Maybe you're the one who is just blindly following pied-pipers.
Click to expand...

There really is no point in interpreting fake photographs except to acknowledge the fact that they are fake and no one needs Wilson or White when there are 40 plus on-the-scene witnesses that prove they are fake.
 
JayUtah said:
And the "rules provide otherwise" under what kinds of conditions?

Is a lay witness who hears an explosion competent to determine whether it was a bomb or a steam explosion?

Is an expert witness competent to give his opinion on matters outside his expertise?

As I said, Robert: just because something comes out of a witness's mouth does not make that thing evidence. You need to read all the rules of evidence, not just the cherry-picked, edited quote you've posted here. And now that you've found the FRE, please evaluate Tom Wilson's expertise according to them as I asked you to do many days ago.
Click to expand...

The assertions of a witness is evidence. It is up to judge and/or jury to decide if it is valid evidence. Obviously.
 
HSienzant said:
I will wager you will avoid answering these questions below.

Did she make a habit of putting through all the calls she thought were crank calls or did she exercise some judgment?

And if she suspected/thought/felt this might be a crank call, did she actually put it through to the E/R anyway?

And if she thought this was a crank call and put it through anyway, how did Crenshaw determine it was actually LBJ and not a crank caller?

Oh, yeah, And why did she wait 29 years to mention it anywhere? She did mention getting several crank calls, but made no mention of getting one from the President.

And if she thought it was a crank call in 1963, what happened to change her mind by 1992?

Hank
Click to expand...

For the sake of coherence, one question at a time, please.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom