JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Regnad Kcin]

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..

No.

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

It doesn't. All we have on that is your own Hearsay Triple Play.

 

[RoboTimbo]

For the sake of coherence, one question at a time, please.

For the sake of Robert's cowardly dodging.

 

[Robert Prey]

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

First hand material? You mean like the 40 plus on-the scene witnesses who observed a large blow-out to the back of K's head?????

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

There are no fake photographs. There's a reason for this, by the way. Do you what it is?

 

[EventHorizon]

First hand material? You mean like the 40 plus on-the scene witnesses who observed a large blow-out to the back of K's head?????

What 40 plus on the scene witnesses? The ones that others in this thread have shown do not say what you think they're saying or do you have a new list?


I know, one question at a time so this will be ignored just like you ignored the fact that your list of 40 plus has been blown to pieces.

 

[JayUtah]

The assertions of a witness is evidence. It is up to judge and/or jury to decide if it is valid evidence. Obviously.

Equivocation -- argument rejected.

Certain assertions made by a witness (lay or expert) are categorically objectionable. That means they are ruled admissible or inadmissible on the spot by the judge (not the jury). If inadmissible, they are ruled as such because they are not evidence but rather conjecture or conclusion. "Invalid" evidence is not evidence, Robert, no more than an invalid driver's license is a license to drive. You're frantically trying to toss a word salad that gets you out of a blatantly nonsensical position.

Why are those assertions ruled inadmissible? Because they fall outside the scope of the witness's reasonable testimony. A witness who hears an explosion cannot speculation on the cause of the explosion and have that speculative assertion be considered evidence of the cause. A witness who sees a dead body but not the murder does not get to speculate as evidence about who may have done it. An expert type-certified airline pilot may give as evidence his opinion that a Boeing 747 that has lost all hydraulic pressure is not likely to be flyable, but he may not give as evidence his opinion that the Lockerbie bomber was framed.

For heaven's sake, Robert, read the rules of evidence. Don't just sit there and spout your nonsensical guesswork.

 

[JayUtah]

There really is no point in interpreting fake photographs...

Declaring them to be fake is a form of interpretation.

...except to acknowledge the fact that they are fake...

Begging the question. That isn't a fact, but rather a conclusion drawn by you and others on the basis of attempts to interpret and analyze the photographs.

Do you deny that you introduced Jack White and Tom Wilson as alleged experts whose supposedly expert testimony was to be considered evidence that the photos in question were fake? Do we need to post links to your statements?

and no one needs Wilson or White...

Then why your almost fanatical reluctance to concede that they are not experts? If their testimony is irrelevant to your belief, then why not simply say, "I agree that Tom Wilson and Jack White are not the experts they claim to be."

You're equivocating to a ludicrous extent, Robert.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

First hand material? You mean like the 40 plus on-the scene witnesses who observed a large blow-out to the back of K's head?????

Just a friendly word of advice: Your going on and on about this "large blow-out [sic]" does very little to advance your claim, insofar as it reveals a very clear lack of understanding of the subject of ballistic impacts.

 

[Robert Prey]

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'..

THE DOCTOR'S WORLD; 28 Years After Dallas, A Doctor Tells His Story Amid Troubling Doubts
By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN, M.D
Published: May 26, 1992
New York Times

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


Indeed, another doctor has confirmed such a call, although the details and who made it are not clear.

The doctor, Phillip E. Williams, now a brain surgeon in Dallas, was an intern pumping blood into Oswald's right leg. In an interview, Dr. Williams said he had long remembered reports of two White House telephone calls to the operating room.

"I vividly remember someone said, and I can't say who it was, the White House is calling and President Johnson wants to know what the status of Oswald is," Dr. Williams said, adding, "I heard the statement in the operating room, and it was not Dr. Crenshaw's book or anyone else who revived my thoughts about this because I have said this for years."

 

[Robert Prey]

What 40 plus on the scene witnesses? The ones that others in this thread have shown do not say what you think they're saying or do you have a new list?


I know, one question at a time so this will be ignored just like you ignored the fact that your list of 40 plus has been blown to pieces.

Really? But you can't even name one.

 

[Robert Prey]

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]

Easy question, already answered. All of the above.

 

[HSienzant]

McCelland's dictated drawing is a 2 dimensional image which only purports to show the back, not the side. or the front. Obviously.

It shows the side, obviously. Why no damage to the side?

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

Is this forum a judicial court or a lay court?????

 

[HSienzant]

No. One at a time means one at a time.

What part of the below did you not understand?

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

Here's Newman's statements, ignore them some more:

Here's Bill's first statement, given at approximately 12:45 P.M., within 15 minutes of Kennedy's being shot, assassination witness William Newman told Jay Watson on TV station WFAA: “And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.”
From the website: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18b:reasontobelieve

In his affadavit signed later that day, he put the President's wound in the side of his head: "By this time he was directly in front of us and I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head."
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/wnewman.htm

In an affadavit he signed for the FBI on Sunday, 11/24/63, the FBI noted "He said the president was hit on the right side of the head with the third shot and he heard the thud when the bullet struck the President."
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce1432.htm

In his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial, he testified, "that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear..."

Quite simply, Bill Newman never put the large wound in the back of the head.
That is a falsehood by you.

 

[HSienzant]

For the sake of coherence, one question at a time, please.

It's pretty coherent to me.

If the below questions are not coherent to you, I fail to understand what asking them one at a time will accomplish.

Here's the questions again.
Dodge them some more - just like I predicted you would.

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?

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

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.


Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

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.

But not smart enough to perceive that a bullet that travels from the right temple, to the right side back of the head (Occupit), must travel through the side of the head (Parietal and Temporal lobes) to get there.

 

[JayUtah]

Is this forum a judicial court or a lay court?????

You tell me. You're the one consistently referring to judicial definitions of evidence and witnesses. I simply require you to use the referred material correctly and consistently. You're cherry-picking it.

 

[EventHorizon]

Really? But you can't even name one.

How can you lie like that? Posted earlier:

You may want to re-read the following posts:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8207484&postcount=6003
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208208&postcount=6006
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208591&postcount=6008
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8208977&postcount=6009
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8210347&postcount=6021

I know you ignored those posts because they blow holes in your fantasy but for the rest of us can see those posts. They prove that you are being dishonest when you say there are 40+ witnesses. If you're trying to convince fence-sitters that you are correct you should understand that they can also see these posts. As long as they remain unaddressed by you, you won't convince anybody that you are right. So do you want to retract that statement about 40+ witnesses yet?

 

[HSienzant]

First hand material? You mean like the 40 plus on-the scene witnesses who observed a large blow-out to the back of K's head?????

Certainly. How come every time I want to discuss one of those witnesses, you punt and pretend you never saw the post?

Then, when I post it all, you tell me one at a time?

Here's the post again.

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

Pretend you never saw it again. Or tell me one at a time. Those are simply tactics to avoid responding, because you have no legitimate response.

You don't have 40+ on the scene witnesses who observed large blow out to the back of Kennedy's head. You have quotes out of context, you have outright lies, and you have mis-interpretations of the evidence.

Hank