JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert Prey said:
It's still a hearsay Triple Play.
Click to expand...


lol.

No, Robert. Apparently you don't understand what hearsay is.
And since when are you opposed to hearsay?
A good portion of your 'citations' are truly hearsay in any case.
Clearly, you don't like the info below because it speaks to the credibility of your witness (Crenshaw), so you are floundering about for a reason to exclude it and think characterizing it as hearsay will do so.

It doesn't.

Gus Russo heard Crenshaw say it, and Gus Russo is the source of the statement that Crenshaw said it. It is not hearsay.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8230586&postcount=6391

HSienzant said:
There was no hearsay quoted. The witness spoke of what he heard from Crenshaw's own lips.

Are you claiming that if Oswald confessed, the police could not testify to that because it would be hearsay?

Like most of your claims, that one makes no sense.

Here's the statement by Russo again:
It references conspiracy author Gus Russo directly, who relates:

One night at the Stoneleigh [Hotel], Stone was having a slew of top secret meetings in his suite with people like Ricky White, whom Stone paid $80,000 for his fraudulent story, and the positively goofy Beverly Oliver. That night, Stone ushered Gary Shaw, [Robert] Groden and Crenshaw into his room; I was not invited, but I pressed Shaw (Crenshaw's and Oliver's advisor) for info in the lobby. He was the first to tell me that LBJ ordered Oswald killed. Later, Crenshaw came down, and we happened to be in the Stoneleigh men's room at the same time, standing at adjacent urinals. It was there that he told me that Johnson had ordered the Parkland staff to "kill the son-of-a-bitch." It was decided to "drown Oswald in his own blood," i.e. transfuse him until his lungs collapsed. (E-mail to the author dated August 25, 2003)
Click to expand...

Hank
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
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...


Hi Robert,

Pardon me if you answered all this before. If you did, can you point me to the post?
If you didn't, can you answer it now?

Thanks much!

All I could find was this response contained in the below, where you asked me to ask all five questions one-at-a-time, which is, of course, not a response to any of the points I made:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8225381&postcount=6276

Do you have any response to the points I made?


Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Hi Robert,

Pardon me if you answered all this before. If you did, can you point me to the post?
If you didn't, can you answer it now?

Thanks much!

All I could find was this response contained in the below, where you asked me to ask all five questions one-at-a-time, which is, of course, not a response to any of the points I made:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8225381&postcount=6276

Do you have any response to the points I made?
Hank
Click to expand...

One question at a time.
 
HSienzant said:
No, that is just a continuing falsehood on your part.
If you disagree, please point to where you responded to the below.
As far as I can see, you've never responded.

Note further that the below post contains links to a number of individual posts. When I posted the individual ones - to fit your 'one-at-a-time' mantra - you ignored them all.

You now continue to ignore the below one.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8221707&postcount=6190
This has been pointed out to you previously. On several occasions.

Most recently here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8230123&postcount=6364

and here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8224651&postcount=6254

For you to then claim that you've answered all the challenges to your list of 40+ medical witnesses (many of whom weren't medical witnesses at all) is not the most honest thing you could do.
Click to expand...

All these have been answered and debunked. I'll do it once more, but only one challenge at a time.
 
HSienzant said:
I find your answer above non-responsive to my points, Robert. Instead of telling us why we should believe a two-decade later statement instead of his WC testimony or his Clay Shaw trial testimony, you simply quote some more from his two-decade later statement.

That doesn't begin to answer the points I made.

Here they are again.
Click to expand...

You can see the man in the flesh, live on tape in TMWKK. The alternative is to rely on the selected, edited version of the WC. The key to that testimony and the clue to it I believe are the words (closed session). In other words, testimony the WC chose to not publish. The interview on TMWKK is emphatic and supported by his wife and daughter.
 
HSienzant said:
No, that is just a continuing falsehood on your part.
If you disagree, please point to where you responded to the below.
As far as I can see, you've never responded.

Note further that the below post contains links to a number of individual posts. When I posted the individual ones - to fit your 'one-at-a-time' mantra - you ignored them all.

You now continue to ignore the below one.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8221707&postcount=6190
This has been pointed out to you previously. On several occasions.

Most recently here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8230123&postcount=6364

and here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8224651&postcount=6254

For you to then claim that you've answered all the challenges to your list of 40+ medical witnesses (many of whom weren't medical witnesses at all) is not the most honest thing you could do.
Click to expand...

For the sake of coherence, one at a time, or forget it.
 
For the sake of coherence, one at a time, or forget it.
Click to expand...
You could write a separate post for each response like you normally do, but as an alternative twist try and actually answer something when you do.
 
Robert Prey said:
For the sake of coherence, one at a time, or forget it.
Click to expand...


Just respond to the points one at a time, if you choose, or choose to respond to all of them in the same post, Robert.

It matters not to me.

But if you choose not to respond at all with anything except 'one at a time', then we both know why - it's because you have no legitimate rebuttal.

But you don't get to tell me how to post. Especially not with these silly and artificial one-point-at-a-time restrictions.

Especially since I posted them once before one-point-at-a-time, and you ignored them all when I did.

The links to the individual posts are in the post you keep ignoring here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8221707&postcount=6190

Hank
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
You can see the man in the flesh, live on tape in TMWKK. The alternative is to rely on the selected, edited version of the WC. The key to that testimony and the clue to it I believe are the words (closed session). In other words, testimony the WC chose to not publish. The interview on TMWKK is emphatic and supported by his wife and daughter.
Click to expand...
You've shown no proof that any of the WC testimony was edited out, and you chose not to address the Clay Shaw trial testimony at all. Or do you think that was edited as well??
 
Robert Prey said:
You can see the man in the flesh, live on tape in TMWKK. The alternative is to rely on the selected, edited version of the WC. The key to that testimony and the clue to it I believe are the words (closed session). In other words, testimony the WC chose to not publish. The interview on TMWKK is emphatic and supported by his wife and daughter.
Click to expand...


Or the alternative is to rely on the unaltered transcript of the Shaw trial, where he testified to the same points as he did to the Warren Commission. Or are you going to claim the Shaw trial transcript is altered too?

His testimony at the Shaw trial confirms the accuracy of the Warren Commission transcript, and proves his two-decade later recollection to be false.

Which is why you rely on it.

As I characterized it at the time, it's the least reliable of the three.

I quoted all three. I asked you why you relied on the last of the three, especially since we know memory is malleable and fallible.

You never did answer. You simply cite his last recollection yet a third time, as if it's meaningful.

It's not.

Especially since it's contradicted by his earlier statements to the Warren Commission and at the Shaw trial, and by all the physical evidence.

Quite clearly, you continue to use the later false memories (google Loftus if you have no clue what I am talking about) to attempt to impeach the earlier recollections. But it doesn't work that way, except in conspiracy-ville where you live. The earliest recollections impeach the later ones.

Happens all the time in trials. You know what those are, right?

Where the prosecutor or defense attorney confronts a witness with an earlier statement on the record and says, "you expect us to believe X because you are testifying to that today, but isn't it a matter of record you gave the police a statement previously where you said Y?"

That is unfamiliar to you? You've never seen or heard of that before?


Hank
 
Robert Prey said:
How do you know that?
Click to expand...


Numerous people have examined the photos and the x-rays, including conspiracists like Mantik.

None of them noted any differences between the photos in the archives and the ones in the public domain. The ones in the public domain were first sold to a British tabloid by Robert Groden for $50,000. He acquired his set from Secret Service Agent Fox, who possessed his photos since shortly after the assassination.

There are no differences. If you believe there is any difference between the Archives set and the public domain set, publish them side by side and let us see the evidence.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
No, depending on the caliber of the bullet, the bullet can do quite a number of different things. One man was shot in the head with a small-caliber bullet, and the bullet entered the head and richocheted back and forth in the skull a number of times, effectively turning his brain into something resembling swiss cheese.

Oswald's bullets were tested against human skulls and the damage to the skulls was quite consistent with the damage suffered by President Kennedy.

The pertinent part of the WR starts here:
http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0305a.htm

Images of the skull in question:
http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0440b.htm
Click to expand...
Thank you.

Now, Mr. Prey, once again I ask. And I'd like a response:

Pease give a definition for your term "blow out."
 
Robert Prey said:
All these have been answered and debunked. I'll do it once more, but only one challenge at a time.
Click to expand...


No, they haven't, Robert.

You've made weak attempts to debunk some, but certainly not all.

And your attempts to debunk amounted to little. Especially since all you do is highlight or supersize the word "occipital" wherever it occurs and think that answers the questions.

Hank
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom