JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

How can you lie like that? Posted earlier:

Still can't name one. Do you know what the word means?

 

[EventHorizon]

Still can't name one. Do you know what the word means?

They're named in the links. Do you know how to click on a link on the internet? Stop being intentionally obtuse.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Still can't name one. Do you know what the word means?

What does this mean?



LOL.

 

[Southwind17]

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

Wrong. What part(s) of these previous posts set your mind spinning?:

Er ... wrong. It's simply an unsupported claim made, in this case probably by a witness. Nothing more; nothing less.

"Robert Prey is an intelligent, logical, objective person" is simply an assertion. It's unsupported by factual information available to us, namely this thread. In all likelihood, therefore, it's a false assertion.
"Robert Prey is rude", however, is not an assertion. It's a matter of fact, as demonstrated by this thread.

Get it?

You really do need to expand your vocabulary, Rude Robert, and validate your existing.

A witness stating: "I saw the gunman shoot the victim from the front" is very different from the same witness simply asserting: "The vicitim was shot from the front."

Do you see the difference there? You might think it's subtle, but it's not; it's fundamentally different.

BTW - remember that the statement above is no more matter of fact than the assertion, based solely thereupon. It could well be false. Validation of it's truthfulness, and hence its reliability, requires validation by independent, unconflicting, reliable corroboration.

 

[Southwind17]

Rude Robert, please try to answer this, would you:

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.

 

[Rich_C]

Still can't name one. Do you know what the word means?

He did. You are lying.

 

[HSienzant]

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."

Well, I see you at least cited a source. But that was only one of the pertinent questions.

Here's what I asked again.

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.

Hi Robert,

When was the first time Earle Williams made this assertion? [apparently in 1992, the date of the Times story - Hank]
Is it mentioned in his memorandum for the record asked of all Parkland personnel that weekend? [apparently not, as you don't mention that - Hank]
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? [apparently not, as you don't mention anything - Hank]
Is there any evidence other than his word that he's been telling people of the call for years? [apparently not, as you don't mention anything - Hank]

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

Thanks?

And one more, what's the source of the original claim? The webpage you cited did not provide anything of that nature. [This is the only thing you provided, and it's from nearly three decades after the fact - Hank]

 

[HSienzant]

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

Ehh?

What statement in here do you dispute as non-factual or Hearsay? I've numbered them for ease of reference:

1. Yet she [Bartlett] didn't mention it [the phone call from the President] for nearly 30 years.

2. And she has no way of knowing if the man was actually LBJ or just a crank call (as you have explained previously).

3. 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.

 

[HSienzant]

Still can't name one. Do you know what the word means?

Yes, we can't name one. You are correct. At this time about 15 or so have been named. You have failed to rebut even one of those.

Hank.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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

Are you sure? As that sure looks like a drawing that shows a chin, the shape of an eye and an ear. Features I dont remember being in the back of my head. You know the difference between "viewed from behind" and "of the back of" dont you Robert?

 

[Tomtomkent]

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.

You seem to be using the word "prove" wrong. For two reasons:
1) witnesses are invalidated by material evidence. The only thing that you could say to have proven is that the winessess conflict with the photos.
2) the number of witnessess who disagree with the photos are considerably less than 40. As has already been shown.

You have produced no evidence, beyond an expert who falls into your description of a "shaman" that the autopsy photos have been altered , or depict a fake and/or reconstructed body. You have failed to give an addequate explanation of how the fakery was achieved, or offered any photoartefact or other physical evidence of fakery.

One of your 40 witnessess states these are the unaltered photos she didnt develope.


There really is no point trying to claim something is fact when it is nothing more than your own assumption.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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

Hs won his wager.

Sentences remain coherent when in groups of more than one.
I see nothing that prevents Robert ANSWERING questions one at a time if he so wishes. The questions do not vanish anywhere if answered one at a time.


Robert, why do you not just answer questions one at a time?

 

[Tomtomkent]

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."

So somebody from the whitehouse called. To ask for an update on key events for the president?

This is not unexpected.

It is also not LBJ himself demanding that LHO be murdered, or a deathbed confession taken.

Tell you what Robert, why not choose which version of the call Crenshaw ACTUALLY took, then prove it happened, instead of proving other stuff that sounds simaler happened.

 

[Tomtomkent]

And again:

If Crenshaws output, not least his book, do not portray his role as one we could interpret as central (as described by Roberts admission on the cover). If his role described in the book was modest, but this was exagerated (now Robert is citing the same source of the statement as kosher), then how little was Crenshaws actual role once the "poetic license" is removed?


Well Robert?

 

[Robert Prey]

And again:

If Crenshaws output, not least his book, do not portray his role as one we could interpret as central (as described by Roberts admission on the cover). If his role described in the book was modest, but this was exagerated (now Robert is citing the same source of the statement as kosher), then how little was Crenshaws actual role once the "poetic license" is removed?


Well Robert?

There was no poetic license. Crenshaw helped in trying to save the President. Read the damn book.

 

[Robert Prey]

You seem to be using the word "prove" wrong. For two reasons:
1) witnesses are invalidated by material evidence. The only thing that you could say to have proven is that the winessess conflict with the photos.
2) the number of witnessess who disagree with the photos are considerably less than 40. As has already been shown.

You have produced no evidence, beyond an expert who falls into your description of a "shaman" that the autopsy photos have been altered , or depict a fake and/or reconstructed body. You have failed to give an addequate explanation of how the fakery was achieved, or offered any photoartefact or other physical evidence of fakery.

One of your 40 witnessess states these are the unaltered photos she didnt develope.


There really is no point trying to claim something is fact when it is nothing more than your own assumption.

Baloney.

 

[Robert Prey]

Ehh?

What statement in here do you dispute as non-factual or Hearsay? I've numbered them for ease of reference:

It confirms that someone who claimed to be LBJ did was indeed connected to the ER and thus supports Crenshaw's account. Obviously.

 

[Robert Prey]

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

And you are full of baloney.

 

[Robert Prey]

What part of the below did you not understand?




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.

The purpose of listing 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the head, is to point out that logically the fatal shot came from the right front -- the grassy knoll. In the Case of Newman, while he did not say he observed a large blow-out in the back of the head, he is not a medical witness, but a Dealey Plaza witness who did not need to see the large blow-out in the back of the head to prove the shot came from the knoll, His testimony is that the shot did indeed come from the knoll, thus there is no need for him to have observed the back of the head.

From the mock trial:

Bill Newman: I was standing on the curb, in front of the grassy knoll....just as he was in front of me, about 15 feet away, boom the side of his ear fell off,

Spence: Where'd you think the shots were coming from?

BN: Sir, I thought the shots were coming from directly behind.

Spence: Where would that be on this exhibit?

BN: It would be somewhere back in this general area.
(Points to an area on the grassy knoll.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4NbiOihaCs

 

[Southwind17]

Rude Robert, please try to answer this would you:

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.