JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
Another TomTom remark that is factually incorrect. In other words a lie. Find the post where I ever claimed his WC statement included the words "blow out" or emit an apology and a retraction.
Click to expand...

Gosh. His WC testemony doesn't include the words blow out?

Yet when I asked what validation there was he ever said those words you answered that he signed the WC...

But now those words aren't in the WC? I ask again what validation you have Kemp ever described a "blow out"?

LMAO.

Or explain how a signiature on the WC validates another alleged interview.
 
Robert Prey said:
You have questioned the veracity of each and every medical witness I have posted. If that is not true, then name just one you have not questioned.
Click to expand...

Questioning if their statements are validated by actual physical evidence is not the same as calling somebody a liar.

Questioning YOUR interpretation of a statement is not the same as calling somebody a liar.

Questioning why statements contradict each other is not the same as calling somebody a liar.


Do you assume a deliberate lie is the only weason witnesses can be faliable?
 
Tomtomkent said:
How about naming sources for this settlement? Sources that prove there would have been substance to a court case and it wasnt a convenience settlement of course.
Click to expand...

"Trauma Room One" By Dr.Charles Crenshaw

Amazon.Com Book Description

"The wounds to Kennedy's head and throat that I examined were caused by bullets that struck him from the front, not the back, as the public has been led to believe," says Crenshaw. When the first edition of this book was published in 1992, under the title JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, Crenshaw revealed what he never had to opportunity to tell the Warren Commission. In the aftermath, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) called Crenshaw's book "a fabrication." But JAMA's claim did not hold up in court and Crenshaw subsequently prevailed in a defamation suit against JAMA. "

http://www.amazon.com/Trauma-Room-O...id=1343944703&sr=1-1&keywords=trauma+room+one
 
Tomtomkent said:
Questioning if their statements are validated by actual physical evidence is not the same as calling somebody a liar.

Questioning YOUR interpretation of a statement is not the same as calling somebody a liar.

Questioning why statements contradict each other is not the same as calling somebody a liar.


Do you assume a deliberate lie is the only weason witnesses can be faliable?
Click to expand...


NO, but you do.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Gosh. His WC testemony doesn't include the words blow out?

Yet when I asked what validation there was he ever said those words you answered that he signed the WC...

But now those words aren't in the WC? I ask again what validation you have Kemp ever described a "blow out"?

LMAO.

Or explain how a signiature on the WC validates another alleged interview.
Click to expand...


It doesn't. But that does not stop you from continuing to engage in sophomoric twaddle.
 
Robert Prey said:
"Trauma Room One" By Dr.Charles Crenshaw

Amazon.Com Book Description

"The wounds to Kennedy's head and throat that I examined were caused by bullets that struck him from the front, not the back, as the public has been led to believe," says Crenshaw. When the first edition of this book was published in 1992, under the title JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, Crenshaw revealed what he never had to opportunity to tell the Warren Commission. In the aftermath, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) called Crenshaw's book "a fabrication." But JAMA's claim did not hold up in court and Crenshaw subsequently prevailed in a defamation suit against JAMA. "

http://www.amazon.com/Trauma-Room-O...id=1343944703&sr=1-1&keywords=trauma+room+one
Click to expand...

Why did Crenshaw have a go at them for misrepresentation?
 
Robert Prey said:
There was no poetic license. Crenshaw helped in trying to save the President. Read the damn book.
Click to expand...

So even back when this was first discussed there was no creative license and Crenshaw did everything he described in the book, which amounts to a central role...but describing himselfin a central role isn't the same as claiming one?


Lets make it real easy and reiterate the same question Robert dodged then:


How central was Crenshaws role?

Describe in your own words the part he played Robert. As right now you want it bothways: You want Crenshaw in the heart of the action where he can be a fine witness, but you donltwant him in a central role, claiming poetic license.

Was Crenshaw playing a central role where he could get a good look at the wound?

Given there was no poetic license, and the role his book describes seems every bit as central as his blurb describes....


On the other hand if his role was more modest, and he didnt get time or oppertunity to study the wound in detail, how does this not detract from the accuracy and plausibility?


Rock. Hard place. Time to choose.
 
Robert Prey said:
It doesn't. But that does not stop you from continuing to engage in sophomoric twaddle.
Click to expand...

So..... when I asked if you had any validation he had ever said those words (ie, the blow out statement you quoted more than once), why did you respond stating the page he signed the WC?

Was that sophomoric twaddle?

When somebody "validates" a statement with a citation that doesn't validate the statement, is it sophomoric to "not let them off the hook"?

Want to state now what validation you have Kemp ever described a blow out, given thedubious source of the interview? With something that does validate it this time please.


Lmao,
 
Robert Prey said:
Google it. Among other things, the false suggestion that Crenshaw wasn't even present in the ER.
Click to expand...

So to be clear: we arent meant to believe the advertising blurb on the book itself, butyou offer the blurb from Amazon as evidence?


Lmao.

Double standard.
 
By the way, even with the JAMA settlement, there is still the previously cited newspaper article where crenshaw contacted a columnist to admit to poetic license.


Still arguing against Crenshaw himself Robert?
 
Tomtomkent said:
So if the claim is not made in his book, why does he have to state the coauthors of his book made the claim? Why say that "Poetic license" was taken and not state, as you now claim: "No such claim is made by my book"?

Let's look at this:

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

See that is definately a statement that his role was exagerated. By his own book.

Is this where I demand the apology and retraction for your dishonesty Robert?
Click to expand...

Did Crenshaw lie to the New York Times?

Got an amazon sales blurb about that Robert?
 
Tomtomkent said:
So to be clear: we arent meant to believe the advertising blurb on the book itself, butyou offer the blurb from Amazon as evidence?
Click to expand...

Remember a few months ago when Robert was vociferously trying to tell us that the advertising blurbs on the back of a book were valid documentary evidence of the author's qualifications and authority?

You gotta laugh at someone so utterly awash in pseudo-scholarship.
 
JayUtah said:
Remember a few months ago when Robert was vociferously trying to tell us that the advertising blurbs on the back of a book were valid documentary evidence of the author's qualifications and authority?

You gotta laugh at someone so utterly awash in pseudo-scholarship.
Click to expand...

Similar to "reviewed" by "peers" is as good as, or better than, publication in a real peer-reviewed journal.
 
I just cant help wondering why Robert can't keep up with his own argument.

Robert posts a second hand statement by somebody claiming Kemp Clark described a blowout.

I ask how he verified that Kemp Clark said "blow out".

Robert answers with the signing of the WC.

I ask where the words "blow out" appear in the WC.

Robert tells me he never claimed they did and calls me sophomoric.

Now if Robert has a even a freshman, 101 education in any research discipline that requires sources to be undergo basic quality control right he can see who is making the mistake. For a start I didn't say the words "blow out" were said by Kemp Clark in the WC either, but for roberts vertification to be of any use they would have to be there. They aren't. So I called Robert on his bad, less than sophomoric, citation.

What Robert could have done, again if he had any sense of scholarship was retract his earlier statement and admit that the Kemp Clark signing the WC did not in any way confirm he had ever described the wound as a "blow out" in the alleged, unvarified, interview.

Then Robert could have either offered evidence the interview took place, and some information on why this sudden change of character took place with Kemp discussing with some seemingly random stranger stuff he had a history of not discussing.

Or Robert could have admitted he has his head in the sand and can offer no evidence to verify the statements but chooses to believe them because they support his preconcieved conclusions.

This can join the long list of things Robert could have sensibly done to make his arguments look reasonable. Like supplying a list of citations for his 40+Medical witnesses instead of wasting time arguing each misunderstood statement in turn. Or answering questions one at time if he wishes with out expecting them to be asked one at a time.


But in the spirit of fair play, here is a simple question for Robert: what is your qualification level?
 
HI, new to the forum.

Have followed this thread as a lurker for a while, and have studied the JFK shooting quite a bit over the years.
One thing that has always bugged me is the chain of custody oddities that involve Oswalds rifle. If have been unable to find any compelling evidence that ties Oswald to the rifle, and in fact have found a number of things that appear to say that it wasnt his rifle at all.
Any experts on this thread aware of ownership discrepancies that exist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom