The FBI's phone call to Tomlinson

[Robert Harris]

This call was made after midnight on the night of the assassination,
undoubtedly after Frazier had tested the stretcher bullet to see if it was
a match with Oswald's rifle. This is from Ray Marcus's interview of Daryl
Tomlinson:

Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock - uh, excuse me,
that's Saturday morning - after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on
the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut.

Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?

Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found?

Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's
pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there any
particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you to talk
about it period?

Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it period.


I'm sure David and Jean will have all kinds of creative excuses to explain
this, but I cannot imagine how any sane person could possibly fail to get
it. This article explains much more:

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html



Robert Harris

[Jean Davison]

On Dec 14, 11:03 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This call was made after midnight on the night of the assassination,
> undoubtedly after Frazier had tested the stretcher bullet to see if it was
> a match with Oswald's rifle.

As I recall, Frazier didn't get the rifle until around 7
a.m. the next day. So much for "undoubtedly."

> This is from Ray Marcus's interview of Daryl
> Tomlinson:
>
> Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock - uh, excuse me,
> that's Saturday morning - after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on
> the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut.
>
> Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?
>
> Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found?
>
> Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's
> pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there any
> particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you to talk
> about it period?
>
> Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it period.

When CTs quote the Marcus interview, this is the passage
they quote -- Lifton in Best Evidence, e.g.

Lawmen often tell witnesses not to discuss the case with
anyone.

>
> I'm sure David and Jean will have all kinds of creative excuses to explain
> this, but I cannot imagine how any sane person could possibly fail to get
> it. This article explains much more:
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Suspicion will always tell you what you want to hear.

Jean

[bigdog]

No excuse needed. It is common practice for investigators to ask
witnesses not to make information public while an investigation is
underway. It is also common practice for CTs to look for something
sinister in every mundane event.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Dec 14, 11:03 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Robert Harris

Folks will probably say that you are in the stamp collecting business,
Bob. :-)

-Ramon

[David Von Pein]

The following is a post I wrote earlier concerning this topic. And I
apologize to Bob Harris in advance for this post (which he will
undoubtedly consider a cop-out and/or a weak-sister effort to explain
away obvious sinister activity on the part of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation)....but since I obviously hold the opinion that the FBI
did not lie and/or cover-up anything regarding Bullet Three-Niner-
Niner (and that's because there was absolutely NO NEED to cover-up
anything re that bullet in the first place), this is the best I can do
given that prerequisite:

"It's possible, I suppose, that the authorities might have
called up Tomlinson and asked him to keep what he knew about the
stretcher bullet under his hat, so to speak, until Oswald's trial.
After all, on the night of Nov. 22nd, Oswald was still alive, and he
had just officially been charged with JFK's murder at 11:26 PM CST on
11/22/63. Thus, everyone at that time expected him to go to trial. And
perhaps the FBI didn't want Tomlinson to say very much to anyone about
the specific evidence in the case until the trial. But that type of
situation, if it did occur, would certainly not be an indication of an
FBI "cover-up" or of a conspiracy of any kind. [James] DiEugenio [to
whom I was mainly directing this post], as always, fails to evaluate
ANY possible "non-conspiratorial" explanations for ANYTHING in this
case. Everything ALWAYS leads to conspiracy, per Jimbo. Always." -- DVP

[Robert Harris]

In article
<fa890991-a0de-4128...@r6g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,

Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 14, 11:03 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > This call was made after midnight on the night of the assassination,
> > undoubtedly after Frazier had tested the stretcher bullet to see if it was
> > a match with Oswald's rifle.
>
> As I recall, Frazier didn't get the rifle until around 7
> a.m. the next day. So much for "undoubtedly."

Wrong again m'dear.

Try 7:30 PM 11/22/63.






Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<ac801de6-a2f8-4613...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:

> The following is a post I wrote earlier concerning this topic. And I
> apologize to Bob Harris in advance for this post (which he will
> undoubtedly consider a cop-out and/or a weak-sister effort to explain
> away obvious sinister activity on the part of the Federal Bureau of
> Investigation)....but since I obviously hold the opinion that the FBI
> did not lie and/or cover-up anything regarding Bullet Three-Niner-
> Niner (and that's because there was absolutely NO NEED to cover-up
> anything re that bullet in the first place), this is the best I can do
> given that prerequisite:

But there was a "need" David. All relevant evidence supports the fact that
an entirely different bullet was the one that was recovered from
Connally's leg.

And Hoover's documented agenda was that the public must be convinced that
Oswald acted alone - in spite of his own belief that Connally was actually
hit from the front.

So both the known facts and the FBI's motive for covering up a nonOswald
bullet are beyond any rational dispute.

>
> "It's possible, I suppose, that the authorities might have
> called up Tomlinson and asked him to keep what he knew about the
> stretcher bullet under his hat, so to speak, until Oswald's trial.
> After all, on the night of Nov. 22nd, Oswald was still alive, and he
> had just officially been charged with JFK's murder at 11:26 PM CST on
> 11/22/63. Thus, everyone at that time expected him to go to trial. And
> perhaps the FBI didn't want Tomlinson to say very much to anyone about
> the specific evidence in the case until the trial.

Why would they need witnesses to keep quiet David? They were required to
make ALL evidence available to the defense lawyers, long before the trial
would have begun.

And every other piece of evidence against Oswald was reported in the
press, almost immediately.


I think Tomlinson was lucky that the FBI found another way to take care of
this little problem, don't you?



Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

OK, thanks for the clarification. So your claim is now that of course
there was a cover-up and suborning of perjury but it was benign, as Hosty
claims, to prevent WWIII. Lying for the good of the country. Well, aren't
we lucky to live in a country which constantly lies to us to protect us?
That's what you love about America.

[Jean Davison]

On Dec 15, 5:24 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <fa890991-a0de-4128-b80a-54693ad86...@r6g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,

>  Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 11:03 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > This call was made after midnight on the night of the assassination,
> > > undoubtedly after Frazier had tested the stretcher bullet to see if it was
> > > a match with Oswald's rifle.
>
> >           As I recall, Frazier didn't get the rifle until around 7
> > a.m. the next day.  So much for "undoubtedly."
>
> Wrong again m'dear.
>
> Try 7:30 PM 11/22/63.

I believe you're mistaken.

QUOTE:

Mr. BELIN. At what time, if you know, did you release the rifle to the
FBI?
Mr. DAY. 11:45 p.m. the rifle was released or picked up by them and
taken from the office.
Mr. BELIN. Was that on November 22?
Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963.

UNQUOTE

QUOTE:

Mr. McCLOY - How soon after the assassination did you examine this
rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - We received the rifle the following morning.
Mr. McCLOY - Received it in Washington?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

UNQUOTE

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/15/2011 9:48 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On Dec 14, 11:03 pm, Robert Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> This call was made after midnight on the night of the assassination,
>> undoubtedly after Frazier had tested the stretcher bullet to see if it was
>> a match with Oswald's rifle.
>
> As I recall, Frazier didn't get the rifle until around 7
> a.m. the next day. So much for "undoubtedly."
>
>> This is from Ray Marcus's interview of Daryl
>> Tomlinson:
>>
>> Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock - uh, excuse me,
>> that's Saturday morning - after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on
>> the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut.
>>
>> Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?
>>
>> Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found?
>>
>> Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's
>> pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there any
>> particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you to talk
>> about it period?
>>
>> Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it period.
>
> When CTs quote the Marcus interview, this is the passage
> they quote -- Lifton in Best Evidence, e.g.
>
> Lawmen often tell witnesses not to discuss the case with
> anyone.
>

What case? Case? You're talking about a case going to trial. There was
no trial pending.

[David Von Pein]

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

This call [from the FBI to Darrell Tomlinson] was made after midnight
on the night of the assassination, undoubtedly after [Robert] Frazier

had tested the stretcher bullet to see if it was a match with Oswald's
rifle.

JEAN DAVISON SAID:

As I recall, Frazier didn't get the rifle until around 7 a.m. the next
day.

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

Wrong again m'dear. Try 7:30 PM 11/22/63.

DAVID VON PEIN NOW SAYS:

Why in the world are you claiming that Robert Frazier had possession
of the rifle at 7:30 PM on the 22nd? That's positively wrong, because
we know the rifle (C2766) was still in Dallas until about 11:45 PM
Dallas time on November 22nd.

Therefore, Jean (as usual) is correct -- Bob Frazier couldn't possibly
have had Rifle C2766 in his hands until the morning of Saturday,
November 23.

You're mixing up the "rifle" with "Bullet CE399", Bob. Frazier
received 399 on Friday night; but the rifle didn't get to Washington
until Saturday morning.

There are even multiple films showing the rifle still in Dallas on the
evening of the 22nd, including the film at the DPD showing J.C. Day
holding the rifle above his head for the newsmen, and there's a clock
on the wall in the background behind Lt. Day. The clock shows the time
to be exactly 6:16 PM. (Go to the 9:07 mark in Part 4 of the video
series below.)

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/11/jfk-3-shots-that-changed-america.html

[Robert Harris]

You are correct. I meant to say that Q1 (the stretcher bullet) was
received at 7:30 pm on 11/22. The rifle was not received until the next
morning.

But Q2 and Q3 - sizable fragments from the limo, were received at 11:50 pm
(10:50 Tomlinson's time).

And it was undoubtedly, easy to see that they didn't match with the
stretcher bullet. It was shortly after that, that they called Tomlinson
and told him to keep his mouth shut.


Robert Harris


In article
<6b398f39-b64c-41e3...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 15, 5:24?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <fa890991-a0de-4128-b80a-54693ad86...@r6g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,

> > ?Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > > On Dec 14, 11:03?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > This call was made after midnight on the night of the assassination,
> > > > undoubtedly after Frazier had tested the stretcher bullet to see if it
> > > > was
> > > > a match with Oswald's rifle.
> >

> > > ? ? ? ? ? As I recall, Frazier didn't get the rifle until around 7
> > > a.m. the next day. ?So much for "undoubtedly."

[Anthony Marsh]

Geesh! Bob already knew about this. Do you also enjoy beating up
kindergarteners in your spare time?

[Anthony Marsh]

Trivia question. Assuming that Frazier did not use the live round found in
Oswald's rifle to test fire to create a sample bullet to compare
ballistically, which bullet did he use and how did he obtain it? Did the
FBI already have the WCC ammo in stock as samples? How many boxes from
what lots?

[burgundy]

The FBI is "unreliable," as has been proven and therefore any FBI
evidence must be excluded. McAdams rule of logic.

[bigdog]

On Dec 15, 9:31 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are correct. I meant to say that Q1 (the stretcher bullet) was
> received at 7:30 pm on 11/22. The rifle was not received until the next
> morning.
>

> (10:50 Tomlinson's time).
>
> And it was undoubtedly, easy to see that they didn't match with the
> stretcher bullet. It was shortly after that, that they called Tomlinson
> and told him to keep his mouth shut.
>
> Robert Harris
>

Do you ever get tired of making baseless assumptions? Apparently not. You
have zero evidence that the fragments did not match the Tomlinson bullet
but you spew out that claim because it fits the story you made up. You
were first to switch horses once it was pointed out to you that the bullet
could not have been tested against the rifle prior to the phone call to
Tomlinson. Should we call this version of your theory Harris 5.03?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/15/2011 9:56 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Dec 15, 9:31 pm, Robert Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You are correct. I meant to say that Q1 (the stretcher bullet) was
>> received at 7:30 pm on 11/22. The rifle was not received until the next
>> morning.
>>
>> (10:50 Tomlinson's time).
>>
>> And it was undoubtedly, easy to see that they didn't match with the
>> stretcher bullet. It was shortly after that, that they called Tomlinson
>> and told him to keep his mouth shut.
>>
>> Robert Harris
>>
>
> Do you ever get tired of making baseless assumptions? Apparently not. You
> have zero evidence that the fragments did not match the Tomlinson bullet

You seem to have snipped out the context. What fragments?
If you mean the two large fragments found in the front seat they did not
match CE399. They were fired from the same rifle that fired CE399,
Oswald's rifle, but there was no place on CE399 where such a large
fragment could come off.
What fragments do you have which match CE399?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/15/2011 9:31 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> You are correct. I meant to say that Q1 (the stretcher bullet) was
> received at 7:30 pm on 11/22. The rifle was not received until the next
> morning.
>
> But Q2 and Q3 - sizable fragments from the limo, were received at 11:50 pm
> (10:50 Tomlinson's time).
>
> And it was undoubtedly, easy to see that they didn't match with the
> stretcher bullet. It was shortly after that, that they called Tomlinson
> and told him to keep his mouth shut.
>

You are assuming what you need to prove, that the stretcher bullet was a
completely different type of bullet than the WCC ammo.

[Jean Davison]

On Dec 15, 8:31 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are correct. I meant to say that Q1 (the stretcher bullet) was
> received at 7:30 pm on 11/22. The rifle was not received until the next
> morning.
>
> But Q2 and Q3 - sizable fragments from the limo, were received at 11:50 pm
> (10:50 Tomlinson's time).
>
> And it was undoubtedly, easy to see that they didn't match with the
> stretcher bullet. It was shortly after that, that they called Tomlinson
> and told him to keep his mouth shut.

Did you notice that this "undoubtedly" has no more evidence to
support it than your first "undoubtedly"?

>
> Robert Harris
>
> In article
> <6b398f39-b64c-41e3-8d43-c2937b787...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

[Robert Harris]

In article
<d49995a3-506c-4c26...@j10g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

John, I'm sorry this makes you so angry. It must be frustrating, having to
debate an issue in which every relevant piece of evidence and witness
statement proves you are wrong.

As for my error, I think that is a major difference between you and I.
When I'm wrong, I admit it.

But in this case, I knew there had to be some way that the FBI could
discover that the bullet was not a match. Otherwise, there would have been
no reason to tell Tomlinson to keep his mouth shut.


Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article
<82ce0e38-d12b-4f99...@x7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 15, 8:31?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You are correct. I meant to say that Q1 (the stretcher bullet) was
> > received at 7:30 pm on 11/22. The rifle was not received until the next
> > morning.
> >
> > But Q2 and Q3 - sizable fragments from the limo, were received at 11:50 pm
> > (10:50 Tomlinson's time).
> >
> > And it was undoubtedly, easy to see that they didn't match with the
> > stretcher bullet. It was shortly after that, that they called Tomlinson
> > and told him to keep his mouth shut.
>
> Did you notice that this "undoubtedly" has no more evidence to
> support it than your first "undoubtedly"?

Jean, I don't think you understand how this stuff works, or that you have
read the descriptions of those fragments. They were intact enough, to make
that determination, especially if the bullets were significantly
different.


Robert Harris

[Jean Davison]

On Dec 16, 3:27 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <82ce0e38-d12b-4f99-9388-ae64d1a17...@x7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

No, you don't understand. There's no evidence whatsoever that
the stretcher bullet and limo fragments didn't match, or that this was
the reason the FBI told Tomlinson not to talk. Yet you say,
"undoubtedly."

Your "undoubtedly" seems to mean, "I suspect this; therefore,
it's a fact."


Jean

[Robert Harris]

In article
<d2c9f146-ff45-463e...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 16, 3:27?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <82ce0e38-d12b-4f99-9388-ae64d1a17...@x7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,

> > ?Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 15, 8:31?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > You are correct. I meant to say that Q1 (the stretcher bullet) was
> > > > received at 7:30 pm on 11/22. The rifle was not received until the next
> > > > morning.
> >
> > > > But Q2 and Q3 - sizable fragments from the limo, were received at 11:50
> > > > pm
> > > > (10:50 Tomlinson's time).
> >
> > > > And it was undoubtedly, easy to see that they didn't match with the
> > > > stretcher bullet. It was shortly after that, that they called Tomlinson
> > > > and told him to keep his mouth shut.
> >

> > > ? ? ? ?Did you notice that this "undoubtedly" has no more evidence to

> > > support it than your first "undoubtedly"?
> >
> > Jean, I don't think you understand how this stuff works, or that you have
> > read the descriptions of those fragments. They were intact enough, to make
> > that determination, especially if the bullets were significantly
> > different.
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> No, you don't understand. There's no evidence whatsoever that
> the stretcher bullet and limo fragments didn't match, or that this was
> the reason the FBI told Tomlinson not to talk. Yet you say,
> "undoubtedly."
>
> Your "undoubtedly" seems to mean, "I suspect this; therefore,
> it's a fact."

Jean, the absence of any alternative explanations for that phone call,
make this about as certain as anything gets in this case.

90 minutes after they were able to compare the stretcher bullet with large
fragments from DP, they called Tomlinson and told him to keep his mouth
shut about the bullet.

Can you think of any other conceivable explanation for that phone call?



Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong terminology. CE399 and the limo fragments do not match each other.
They were all fired from Oswald's rifle.

They could have even been different brands of bullets, but still fired
from Oswald's rifle, but they were all WCC bullets.

[Bud]

On Dec 17, 5:06 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <d2c9f146-ff45-463e-84b0-10b8b9674...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

What`s yours?

> Robert Harris

[Pamela Brown]

There is no provenance to CE399 no matter what words are used.

[Jean Davison]

On Dec 17, 4:06 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <d2c9f146-ff45-463e-84b0-10b8b9674...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

Very poor logic. The fact that you can't think of an
alternative explanation means that you can't think of an alternative
explanation.

What was the alternative explanation for the umbrella man
before Witt came forward?

> 90 minutes after they were able to compare the stretcher bullet with large
> fragments from DP, they called Tomlinson and told him to keep his mouth
> shut about the bullet.

So you think someone from the FBI Lab in Washington called
Tomlinson? There's no evidence that this is what happened.

>
> Can you think of any other conceivable explanation for that phone call?

I've already said -- it's not unusual for lawmen to ask
witnesses not to discuss their experiences with the media or with
other witnesses. And as Bud said, we don't know what the FBI said to
Tomlinson, exactly.

What would've been unusual, I think, is for the FBI to
start throwing out evidence before they knew what Oswald might say, or
what other evidence might turn up. Were they insane or just stupid?
What if a photographer in Dealey developed a photo clearly showing a
second gunman, for instance, after they'd made the evidence matching
his gun disappear. Oops!

Jean





>
> Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[bigdog]

On Dec 18, 8:14 am, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 17, 4:06 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Can you think of any other conceivable explanation for that phone call?
>
>             I've already said -- it's not unusual for lawmen to ask
> witnesses not to discuss their experiences with the media or with
> other witnesses.

Exactly. The most famous example I can think of is actor James Woods who
flew on one of the flights that would a few weeks later be hijacked on
9/11. He noticed several middle eastern men acting strangely and alerted
the flight attendant the he thought they might be planning to hijack the
plane, and she agreed with him. After landing safely, Woods notified the
FBI. It is believed now that his flight was a dry run for the hijackers.
Woods went public with his story following the attacks but the FBI
strongly urged him not to discuss any of the details and to the best of my
knowledge he has adhered to that. The conspiratorial mindset would
immediately leap to the conclusion the FBI is trying to cover something
up, but the more logical explaination is that this is SOP.

[Robert Harris]

In article
<97668497-c589-4376...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 17, 4:06?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <d2c9f146-ff45-463e-84b0-10b8b9674...@32g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

> > > ? ? ? ?No, you don't understand. ?There's no evidence whatsoever that

> > > the stretcher bullet and limo fragments didn't match, or that this was

> > > the reason the FBI told Tomlinson not to talk. ?Yet you say,
> > > "undoubtedly."
> >
> > > ? ? ? ? Your "undoubtedly" seems to mean, "I suspect this; therefore,

> > > it's a fact."
> >
> > Jean, the absence of any alternative explanations for that phone call,
> > make this about as certain as anything gets in this case.
>
> Very poor logic.

I don't think sir Arthur Conan Doyle would agree with you:-)

> The fact that you can't think of an
> alternative explanation means that you can't think of an alternative
> explanation.

And neither can you, or you would have told us about it by now.

If some jealous husband murdered his wife 90 minutes after getting DNA
results that her child wasn't his, do you think anyone would doubt what
precipitated his actions?

Jean, there is no one better than you, at contriving goofy theories to
'splain away little problems like this. The fact that EVEN YOU can't
produce a plausible alternative explanation, speaks volumes.

>
> What was the alternative explanation for the umbrella man
> before Witt came forward?

A bad weather report?

>
>
> > 90 minutes after they were able to compare the stretcher bullet with large
> > fragments from DP, they called Tomlinson and told him to keep his mouth
> > shut about the bullet.
>
> So you think someone from the FBI Lab in Washington called
> Tomlinson? There's no evidence that this is what happened.

LOL!! Other than the fact that Tomlinson stated that they did.

Is he your next victim, Jean? What will it be this time? Was he a liar, or
just deluded? This was in 1967, so you can't do your old age routine.

>
> >
> > Can you think of any other conceivable explanation for that phone call?
>
> I've already said -- it's not unusual for lawmen to ask
> witnesses not to discuss their experiences with the media or with
> other witnesses. And as Bud said, we don't know what the FBI said to
> Tomlinson, exactly.

Yes we do Jean. They told him to keep his mouth shut.

I'm still waiting for team nutter to show us that it was perfectly natural
for the FBI to call up witnesses after midnight to tell them to shut up
about important evidence.

How many others did they do that to, Jean?

Give me a few names, please.

>
> What would've been unusual, I think, is for the FBI to
> start throwing out evidence before they knew what Oswald might say,

At 12:30 AM, they were not throwing anything out. They were just buying a
little time. They used that time to figure out how they were going to deal
with this problem.

And we know exactly what they decided to do, don't we Jean:-)

> or
> what other evidence might turn up. Were they insane or just stupid?

Of course not. They just did exactly what we should expect them to have
done. Hoover was crystal clear that his agenda was to "convince" the
public that Oswald acted alone.

What you don't seem to get is, that he really meant it.

> What if a photographer in Dealey developed a photo clearly showing a
> second gunman,

Then you would finally have had another example of a call similar to the
one Tomlinson got, as well as one missing photograph.




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Of course the FBI is covering up something. They always do. In many of
these cases the FBI has already infiltrated the plots and is providing
monetary support and supplies to the terrorists. They may wait months or
even years before breaking up the plot. Out of 10 conspirators they may
arrest only 6 because the other 4 are informants or agents. In one local
case the FBI was the one providing materials to a wouldbe terrorist to see
how far he would go and if he had any real connections to terrorists. When
it was clear that he didn't they arrested him. In other case they watched
one guy for almost two years and in the last few months filmed his every
activity, even inside his own home thanks to a Comcast installer. They
waited until they actually had proof on film of his preparing to create a
bomb before they arrested him.

The FBI knew the 9/11 hijackers. They had files on all of them and had
been tracking them. They knew that some of them had come to the US to
learn how to control jumbo jets, but never to take off or land. One brave
FBI urged his bosses to do something about it, but they told him to stand
down.

So maybe 9/11 was a fundraiser, that is a real terrorist attack which the
intelligence community allows to happen so that Congress will give them
more money to fight terrorism.

And where does that extra money go? Into someone's pocket and into drug
running operations. Afghanistan is again the leader producer of opium and
the CIA is raking in trillions of dollars in the drug business.

[Anthony Marsh]

She didn't say that. Why do you create straw man arguments?

>>
>> Can you think of any other conceivable explanation for that phone call?
>
> I've already said -- it's not unusual for lawmen to ask
> witnesses not to discuss their experiences with the media or with
> other witnesses. And as Bud said, we don't know what the FBI said to
> Tomlinson, exactly.
>
> What would've been unusual, I think, is for the FBI to
> start throwing out evidence before they knew what Oswald might say, or
> what other evidence might turn up. Were they insane or just stupid?

Just stupid. SOP.

> What if a photographer in Dealey developed a photo clearly showing a
> second gunman, for instance, after they'd made the evidence matching
> his gun disappear. Oops!
>

And maybe he did and maybe they made it disappear.

[Jean Davison]

On Dec 18, 3:31 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article

> <97668497-c589-4376-95c0-4b0843a5b...@k10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

That's poor logic, too. ;-) One problem with Doyle's
famous quote is that we can almost never be sure that we've thought of
and eliminated all the "other possibilities." It's sometimes called
the Sherlock Holmes fallacy.

>
> > The fact that you can't think of an
> > alternative explanation means that you can't think of an alternative
> > explanation.
>
> And neither can you, or you would have told us about it by now.

Hello? I've already suggested an alternative explanation
-- twice.

>
> If some jealous husband murdered his wife 90 minutes after getting DNA
> results that her child wasn't his, do you think anyone would doubt what
> precipitated his actions?

There's no DNA evidence here.

> Jean, there is no one better than you, at contriving goofy theories to
> 'splain away little problems like this. The fact that EVEN YOU can't
> produce a plausible alternative explanation, speaks volumes.
>
>
> >            What was the alternative explanation for the umbrella man
> > before Witt came forward?
>
> A bad weather report?

But it wasn't raining. Some CTs eliminated the weather
explanation and decided that the only possible explanation remaining
was that umbrella man was part of the plot. They were wrong.

>
>
>
> > > 90 minutes after they were able to compare the stretcher bullet with large
> > > fragments from DP, they called Tomlinson and told him to keep his mouth
> > > shut about the bullet.
>
> >            So you think someone from the FBI Lab in Washington called
> > Tomlinson?  There's no evidence that this is what happened.
>
> LOL!! Other than the fact that Tomlinson stated that they did.
>
> Is he your next victim, Jean? What will it be this time? Was he a liar, or
> just deluded? This was in 1967, so you can't do your old age routine.
>

Tomlinson didn't say the call came from the FBI Lab in
Washington. That's your assumption, I believe.

Please quote me calling anyone a liar or deluded -- or
stop claiming that's what I said. Thanks!

By "old age routine," are you saying that memories
typically stay stable and accurate for 20 or 30 years? Or what?

>
> > > Can you think of any other conceivable explanation for that phone call?
>
> >             I've already said -- it's not unusual for lawmen to ask
> > witnesses not to discuss their experiences with the media or with
> > other witnesses.

So how did you eliminate this possibility?

> And as Bud said, we don't know what the FBI said to
> > Tomlinson, exactly.
>
> Yes we do Jean. They told him to keep his mouth shut.

And yet we know about it.

>
> I'm still waiting for team nutter to show us that it was perfectly natural
> for the FBI to call up witnesses after midnight to tell them to shut up
> about important evidence.
>
> How many others did they do that to, Jean?
>
> Give me a few names, please.

I don't know of any, but shouldn't you be looking up these
witnesses yourself? Seems to me that your theory requires the FBI to
silence a whole lot of people -- the nurse who supposedly picked up a
bullet and all the witnesses to that, for starters. No midnight calls
to them?

>
>
>
> >             What would've been unusual, I think, is for the FBI to
> > start throwing out evidence before they knew what Oswald might say,
>
> At 12:30 AM, they were not throwing anything out. They were just buying a
> little time. They used that time to figure out how they were going to deal
> with this problem.
>
> And we know exactly what they decided to do, don't we Jean:-)

No, Robert, I honestly think your theory isn't supported by
the evidence and doesn't ring true.

>
> > or
> > what other evidence might turn up.  Were they insane or just stupid?
>
> Of course not. They just did exactly what we should expect them to have
> done. Hoover was crystal clear that his agenda was to "convince" the
> public that Oswald acted alone.
>
> What you don't seem to get is, that he really meant it.

Hoover said that, after Oswald was killed and there would be
no trial. What you don't seem to get is that Hoover told LBJ that
Oswald was a lone gunman, that he fired all the shots -- and he really

meant it.

>
> > What if a photographer in Dealey developed a photo clearly showing a
> > second gunman,
>
> Then you would finally have had another example of a call similar to the
> one Tomlinson got, as well as one missing photograph.

Not if the photo was published right away, as Altgens' was.
Suppose it *had* been Oswald in the Altgens, or a gunman had been seen
in a Dal-Tex window. Too late for phone calls!

[Anthony Marsh]

Why do you need to drag the FBI into this? Just to create a straw man
argument? Why not also drag in the CIA and the UN for special effect? You
know that Baxter had already gathered them into a room and threatened to
destroy their careers if the spoke out. And you endorsed that.

>>
>>
>>
>>> What would've been unusual, I think, is for the FBI to
>>> start throwing out evidence before they knew what Oswald might say,
>>
>> At 12:30 AM, they were not throwing anything out. They were just buying a
>> little time. They used that time to figure out how they were going to deal
>> with this problem.
>>
>> And we know exactly what they decided to do, don't we Jean:-)
>
> No, Robert, I honestly think your theory isn't supported by
> the evidence and doesn't ring true.
>
>>
>>> or
>>> what other evidence might turn up. Were they insane or just stupid?
>>
>> Of course not. They just did exactly what we should expect them to have
>> done. Hoover was crystal clear that his agenda was to "convince" the
>> public that Oswald acted alone.
>>
>> What you don't seem to get is, that he really meant it.
>
> Hoover said that, after Oswald was killed and there would be
> no trial. What you don't seem to get is that Hoover told LBJ that

No. Hoover said that BEFORE Oswald was killed.
He squashed the conspiracy language from the murder charge.

> Oswald was a lone gunman, that he fired all the shots -- and he really
> meant it.
>

And that Oswald was paid $6,500 by Castro to kill Kennedy. But you gloss
over that.

>>
>>> What if a photographer in Dealey developed a photo clearly showing a
>>> second gunman,
>>
>> Then you would finally have had another example of a call similar to the
>> one Tomlinson got, as well as one missing photograph.
>
> Not if the photo was published right away, as Altgens' was.
> Suppose it *had* been Oswald in the Altgens, or a gunman had been seen
> in a Dal-Tex window. Too late for phone calls!
>

Suppose a gunman is seen in the Moorman photo? Then what could they do
when that was sent out over the wires within hours? The CIA could hire
professional disinformation agents to claim that it is not a person it is
a tree. You won't even admit that there is an object there above the
fence.

What did they do when the doctors said the throat wound was an entrance?
They had professional disinformation agents ready to claim that JFK
exposed his throat to the shooter when he turned to look back at the TSBD.
The old tricks are the best tricks.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Langley29.gif

[Bud]

They`ve been talking about the FBI for a week now, do try to keep
up, Tony.

> Why not also drag in the CIA and the UN for special effect? You
> know that Baxter had already gathered them into a room and threatened to
> destroy their careers if the spoke out. And you endorsed that.

The smart money is that you are making up that Jean endorsed that.
Aren`t you afraid what effect making false claims will have on your
credibility? Oh, thats right...

> >>>              What would've been unusual, I think, is for the FBI to
> >>> start throwing out evidence before they knew what Oswald might say,
>
> >> At 12:30 AM, they were not throwing anything out. They were just buying a
> >> little time. They used that time to figure out how they were going to deal
> >> with this problem.
>
> >> And we know exactly what they decided to do, don't we Jean:-)
>
> >           No, Robert, I honestly think your theory isn't supported by
> > the evidence and doesn't ring true.
>
> >>> or
> >>> what other evidence might turn up.  Were they insane or just stupid?
>
> >> Of course not. They just did exactly what we should expect them to have
> >> done. Hoover was crystal clear that his agenda was to "convince" the
> >> public that Oswald acted alone.
>
> >> What you don't seem to get is, that he really meant it.
>
> >           Hoover said that, after Oswald was killed and there would be
> > no trial.  What you don't seem to get is that Hoover told LBJ that
>
> No. Hoover said that BEFORE Oswald was killed.
> He squashed the conspiracy language from the murder charge.

Because there was no conspiracy.

> > Oswald was a lone gunman, that he fired all the shots -- and he really
> > meant it.
>
> And that Oswald was paid $6,500 by Castro to kill Kennedy. But you gloss
> over that.

By all means, show Oswald was paid $6,500 by Castro to kill Kennedy.

> >>> What if a photographer in Dealey developed a photo clearly showing a
> >>> second gunman,
>
> >> Then you would finally have had another example of a call similar to the
> >> one Tomlinson got, as well as one missing photograph.
>
> >           Not if the photo was published right away, as Altgens' was.
> > Suppose it *had* been Oswald in the Altgens, or a gunman had been seen
> > in a Dal-Tex window.   Too late for phone calls!
>
> Suppose a gunman is seen in the Moorman photo? Then what could they do
> when that was sent out over the wires within hours? The CIA could hire
> professional disinformation agents to claim that it is not a person it is
> a tree.

If you could actually show a gunman it would be undeniable. But
you can`t, and this frustrates the hell out of you.

> You won't even admit that there is an object there above the
> fence.

You think an "object" is good enough to establish a gunman?

> What did they do when the doctors said the throat wound was an entrance?

Point out that no real effort was made to determine whether it was
an entrance or exit.

> They had professional disinformation agents ready to claim that JFK
> exposed his throat to the shooter when he turned to look back at the TSBD.
> The old tricks are the best tricks.

Plenty of erroneous information in this case. Much of it is clung to
and cherished by CTers. Like the idea that Kennedy was driven back by
a shot from the knoll.

[Jean Davison]

You're zero for three: I didn't drag the FBI into it, Baxter
didn't say what you claim, and I endorsed nothing.

Baxter warned the doctors not to try to make money from their
experiences. The doctors started "speaking out" on 11/22 at a news
conference and have talked to many CT researchers over the years. You
ought to know that, Tony.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>              What would've been unusual, I think, is for the FBI to
> >>> start throwing out evidence before they knew what Oswald might say,
>
> >> At 12:30 AM, they were not throwing anything out. They were just buying a
> >> little time. They used that time to figure out how they were going to deal
> >> with this problem.
>
> >> And we know exactly what they decided to do, don't we Jean:-)
>
> >           No, Robert, I honestly think your theory isn't supported by
> > the evidence and doesn't ring true.
>
> >>> or
> >>> what other evidence might turn up.  Were they insane or just stupid?
>
> >> Of course not. They just did exactly what we should expect them to have
> >> done. Hoover was crystal clear that his agenda was to "convince" the
> >> public that Oswald acted alone.
>
> >> What you don't seem to get is, that he really meant it.
>
> >           Hoover said that, after Oswald was killed and there would be
> > no trial.  What you don't seem to get is that Hoover told LBJ that
>
> No. Hoover said that BEFORE Oswald was killed.

Zero for four.

The Hoover statement Robert referred to was made on Nov. 24
after Oswald was killed.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/conspiracy/doc11a.html

> He squashed the conspiracy language from the murder charge.

So what? The DPD had no evidence of a conspiracy.

>
> > Oswald was a lone gunman, that he fired all the shots -- and he really
> > meant it.
>
> And that Oswald was paid $6,500 by Castro to kill Kennedy. But you gloss
> over that.
>

Hoover told LBJ about this claim, but he didn't say he *believed*
it. It was investigated and found to be false. As you know.

>
>
> >>> What if a photographer in Dealey developed a photo clearly showing a
> >>> second gunman,
>
> >> Then you would finally have had another example of a call similar to the
> >> one Tomlinson got, as well as one missing photograph.
>
> >           Not if the photo was published right away, as Altgens' was.
> > Suppose it *had* been Oswald in the Altgens, or a gunman had been seen
> > in a Dal-Tex window.   Too late for phone calls!
>
> Suppose a gunman is seen in the Moorman photo? Then what could they do
> when that was sent out over the wires within hours? The CIA could hire
> professional disinformation agents to claim that it is not a person it is
> a tree. You won't even admit that there is an object there above the
> fence.

No one has to tell me that I don't see a gunman behind the fence.
Even you don't claim you see a gun -- or do you?

If only you'd visit Dealey Plaza, Anthony. It's surprising how
small the place is and how easily someone on the south side of Elm can see
a person standing across the street where you think the "gunman" was.

>
> What did they do when the doctors said the throat wound was an entrance?
> They had professional disinformation agents ready to claim that JFK
> exposed his throat to the shooter when he turned to look back at the TSBD.
> The old tricks are the best tricks.

It was a wild guess and soon forgotten -- except by CTs who
see disinformation agents everywhere.


Jean