The Attack in Dealey Plaza explained
Robert Harris
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-6B61...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
Yes, I finally watched all of that yesterday. Took me ten hours to get
through it, lol. I took nine pages of notes on it. And I must say again
that you did a fine job in putting that together, far better than I could
have done.
Would you like me to post my notes here? Or would you prefer that they be
emailed to you? Or if you don't care to see them at all, that's fine too.
I do have two questions though:
At 31:21 you say of CE 399: "What is far more likely is that the bullet
Tomlinson found was from a different victim who had nothing to do with the
shooting in Dealey Plaza." I watched the remaining 45 minutes of the
video with bated breath waiting to see if you were going to identify this
victim, or at least say more about this victim, but nothing about the
victim was ever mentioned again. Who was this victim?
And also, you're of course proposing a second shot to the head c.323 or
so, or certainly before 330, and saying that much additional damage to the
head was caused by that shot that was not caused at 313. Yet no trace of
any second explosion of bloody matter can be seen at all. One would think
a shot which caused that much damage would have produced a bloody
explosion similar to the one at 313, an explosion which would be quite
obvious even in the blurriest frames anywhere between 313 and 340. But
this issue is not even mentioned in the video, even though it is obviously
crucial to this scenario. Why not?
Thanks.
--
"...the difference between rightwingers and
leftwingers is just which rights they want to ignore."
Michael O'Dell on 7-8-11
Robert Harris
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <bobharris77-6B61...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
>
> Yes, I finally watched all of that yesterday. Took me ten hours to get
> through it, lol. I took nine pages of notes on it. And I must say again
> that you did a fine job in putting that together, far better than I could
> have done.
Thank you.
>
> Would you like me to post my notes here? Or would you prefer that they be
> emailed to you? Or if you don't care to see them at all, that's fine too.
You can post them here or email, and I will definitely look at them,
although I might skip over anything that is not flattering:-)
>
> I do have two questions though:
>
> At 31:21 you say of CE 399: "What is far more likely is that the bullet
> Tomlinson found was from a different victim who had nothing to do with the
> shooting in Dealey Plaza." I watched the remaining 45 minutes of the
> video with bated breath waiting to see if you were going to identify this
> victim, or at least say more about this victim, but nothing about the
> victim was ever mentioned again. Who was this victim?
I have no idea. But Parkland treats thousands of gunshot wounds every
year, so there was undoubtedly, no shortage of candidates.
There are many other issues related to this. I'm surprised that you
chose not to address them.
>
> And also, you're of course proposing a second shot to the head c.323 or
> so, or certainly before 330, and saying that much additional damage to the
> head was caused by that shot that was not caused at 313. Yet no trace of
> any second explosion of bloody matter can be seen at all.
I replied to that question in another thread,
There is no reason to expect a massive explosion like the one at 313. And
the protrusion was not caused by that kind of firepower. It was simply the
result of that piece of skull flipping to the rear.
For a number of reasons, I think that shot came from either a handgun or a
very small caliber weapon, and that the broken skullpiece may have already
been broken or partially broken at 313.
From 318-323, JFK was leaning sharply to his left and the exit point of
that shot was undoubtedly, out of Zapruder's view. There is no more reason
for there to have been visual evidence of that bullet than there was at
223.
If sizable pieces of tissue and bone were blown to the rear at 313, we
should have seen them and we should have seen a hole in the BOH from where
they exited. But since we see neither, the only logical conclusion is that
this happened later.
If they were blown out when the exit point was out of our view, we would
not expect to see them, even though we do see a large damaged area from
which they undoubtedly, did exit.
Go figure.
Robert Harris
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-E36F...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <caeruleo1-BBF7E...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <bobharris77-6B61...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> > Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
> >
> > Yes, I finally watched all of that yesterday. Took me ten hours to get
> > through it, lol. I took nine pages of notes on it. And I must say again
> > that you did a fine job in putting that together, far better than I could
> > have done.
>
> Thank you.
You are most welcome.
> > Would you like me to post my notes here? Or would you prefer that they be
> > emailed to you? Or if you don't care to see them at all, that's fine too.
>
> You can post them here or email, and I will definitely look at them,
> although I might skip over anything that is not flattering:-)
Heh. I understand. I will be plain in advance: I am highly critical of
some of your conclusions in the video, although at a few places in the
notes I do also express agreement with some of your views. Nowhere in
them am I overtly rude, however, and there is nothing close to any ad
hominem attack. I did my best to keep the tone courteous. But I do
believe that throughout I present logical reasons for my own views.
Naturally, even in eight pages of notes (sorry, I had said nine before,
but I looked again and found that it was eight) I could not address every
single detail your raised, and there are some issues I have not studied
extensively enough yet, or it has been a long time since I've done so, so
I would need to refresh my memory by looking through that documentation
again before I can address those things substantively.
So, here or in email is ok...hmmm. Well, if it's posted here, others can
also review it and weigh in. On the other hand, privately would show you
the courtesy reviewing it first, and possibly pointing out to me flaws in
my reasoning. I'm leaning a bit more toward that, at least for now. I do
not agree with all your conclusions, but I would nevertheless prefer to
remain on friendly terms with you.
> > I do have two questions though:
> >
> > At 31:21 you say of CE 399: "What is far more likely is that the bullet
> > Tomlinson found was from a different victim who had nothing to do with the
> > shooting in Dealey Plaza." I watched the remaining 45 minutes of the
> > video with bated breath waiting to see if you were going to identify this
> > victim, or at least say more about this victim, but nothing about the
> > victim was ever mentioned again. Who was this victim?
>
> I have no idea. But Parkland treats thousands of gunshot wounds every
> year, so there was undoubtedly, no shortage of candidates.
I see. Is there a record of anyone else having been brought in that day
with a gunshot wound? Because, if the bullet found by Tomlinson was not
fired from the Carcano, one would think that the victim would have had to
have been brought to the hospital that same day. I'm not sure I would
find it plausible that the bullet was on that stretcher for more than one
day before it was found.
> There are many other issues related to this. I'm surprised that you
> chose not to address them.
I thought I had made it plain that I had already addressed many more
issues in my notes than I have yet posted here. I was trying to show you
the courtesy of asking you if you were ok with me posting all of that
here, or if you preferred to review it privately first, or if you did not
want to see it at all. I'm not sure yet which issues you're referring to
since you didn't name them, but you do realize all or some of them may
already be addressed in my eight pages of notes.
> > And also, you're of course proposing a second shot to the head c.323 or
> > so, or certainly before 330, and saying that much additional damage to the
> > head was caused by that shot that was not caused at 313. Yet no trace of
> > any second explosion of bloody matter can be seen at all.
>
> I replied to that question in another thread,
Oh, I'm sorry, I haven't seen that yet.
> There is no reason to expect a massive explosion like the one at 313. And
> the protrusion was not caused by that kind of firepower. It was simply the
> result of that piece of skull flipping to the rear.
>
> For a number of reasons, I think that shot came from either a handgun or a
> very small caliber weapon, and that the broken skullpiece may have already
> been broken or partially broken at 313.
I believe it was broken at 313. However, in the video you say that it
still required the additional force of the second shot to the head in
order to flip it open, and also to blast at least one piece of his head
out onto the trunk long enough after 313 for Jackie to see it flying out
from his head. But these were not the only effects of the second shot
that you proposed. You also said that some additional damage more toward
the front of his head was caused by that shot, damage that is not yet
visible prior to the 320s. For a shot to cause that much additional
damage to his head added to what was caused by the shot at 313, even with
a small caliber pistol, I would still expect to see an obvious explosion
of more bloody material out of his head. Sure, maybe not as large an
explosion as at 313, but still enough to be obvious. Also, if Jackie is
seeing a piece of his head shoot out onto the trunk, I ought to see it too
if I look closely enough, at least a blur of something shooting out to the
rear. It couldn't have shot out with a very high velocity or it would
have whizzed right off the trunk and Jackie would not have been able to
grab it. After all, in the frames immediately following 313 you can
indeed see a piece of his skull shooting forward out of his head, bouncing
off of the back of the jump seat where Connally had been sitting, and
falling down toward the floorboard. I think it was Paul Seaton who showed
us that years ago by producing an animated gif which repeated those frames
over and over, and it was quite obvious (though I remember at least one
poster at the time claiming it was a rose petal...heh).
> From 318-323, JFK was leaning sharply to his left and the exit point of
> that shot was undoubtedly, out of Zapruder's view.
If it was out of his view then I would expect more of that exit damage to
be in the left hemisphere of JFK's skull, but the autopsy photographs and
x-rays do not seem to support that.
> There is no more reason
> for there to have been visual evidence of that bullet than there was at
> 223.
I'm not sure I follow you here. I watched those very frames in the 220s
Monday over and over and over while typing my notes, and alternating
between that and watching your video, frequently stopping your video and
backing it up and replaying quite a few different segments. According to
my notes, your discussion of the two head shots begins at 50:49 and
continues for quite a few minutes after that. In that section of the
video especially I very frequently stopped your video, backed it up, and
replayed it again. I also have four different versions of the Zapruder
film saved on this computer, and I kept watching those frames over and
over, frequently pausing it on individual frames, and was doing that back
and forth between watching your video. I noticed that 323 is one of the
clearest frames in that sequence. If that is the frame when the second
shot struck his head, and also the frame when she saw that piece shoot out
toward the trunk, I'm seeing nothing like that at all, or in 224 or in
225. However, I think I'm remembering correctly that in the video,
although you did propose 223 as one of the stronger possibilities for when
the shot struck, you did not come down firmly on that as definitely being
the exact frame, but instead did admit a range of frames, but certainly
within less than 10 frames after 223, and perhaps no more than 5 frames.
> If sizable pieces of tissue and bone were blown to the rear at 313, we
> should have seen them and we should have seen a hole in the BOH from where
> they exited. But since we see neither, the only logical conclusion is that
> this happened later.
Are you sure that we can't see even one piece blown to the rear at 313?
After all, I had never noticed the other piece being blown forward until
Paul focused in on it in that animated gif. I admit I haven't yet looked
carefully enough for anything additional going to the rear. But I'm also
not entirely convinced that the opening in the upper right rear of his
head isn't already there immediately after 313. The head is at a very
different angle in the 330s than it is in, say, 314 to 324. It is not
until the 330s, particularly 335-337 as I recall, in which we get our
first clear profile view of his head. There the right side of his head is
facing almost directly toward the camera, and thus the dark protrusion in
the rear can be clearly seen since it contrasts well against a lighter
background which includes, part of the time, one of Jackie's white gloves.
But in 317, one of the clearest frames in the 314-324 range, which you
also show in your video as evidence that the protrusion has not yet
appeared, his head is turned, I would say, approximately 45 degrees away
from the camera. We're seeing the back of his head facing mostly toward
us. All of the back of his head is fairly dark, with little contrast to
show us whether there's a hole already there or not, and since this is a
two-dimensional image without depth, it is also difficult to tell whether
or not there is yet any protrusion sticking out. I will concede to you
that it is possible that it is not yet there, but there are doubts.
> If they were blown out when the exit point was out of our view, we would
> not expect to see them, even though we do see a large damaged area from
> which they undoubtedly, did exit.
Well, but a piece blown out to the rear would come into our view. And
again there's the matter of a lack of bloody explosion. In 313 a lot of
that shoots upward well above the top of the head. Had Zapruder been
filming from the opposite side of Elm at the same distance we'd see that
same obvious explosion, though we wouldn't see much at all of the exit
damage that is forward of his right ear. I still think we ought to see at
least some obvious explosion of bloody material shooting up, even if the
exit is not in view of the camera. Also I seem to recall that it is your
position in the video that this might have come from the sewer. This of
course would mean an upward trajectory to his head, which also ought to
cause an upward exit of bloody material from his head coming into the view
of his camera.
Hank Sienzant
> In article <caeruleo1-BBF7EC.13341013072...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>
> Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <bobharris77-6B615C.04255708072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> > Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
>
> > Yes, I finally watched all of that yesterday. Took me ten hours to get
> > through it, lol. I took nine pages of notes on it. And I must say again
> > that you did a fine job in putting that together, far better than I could
> > have done.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> > Would you like me to post my notes here? Or would you prefer that they be
> > emailed to you? Or if you don't care to see them at all, that's fine too.
>
> You can post them here or email, and I will definitely look at them,
> although I might skip over anything that is not flattering:-)
>
>
>
> > I do have two questions though:
>
> > At 31:21 you say of CE 399: "What is far more likely is that the bullet
> > Tomlinson found was from a different victim who had nothing to do with the
> > shooting in Dealey Plaza." I watched the remaining 45 minutes of the
> > video with bated breath waiting to see if you were going to identify this
> > victim, or at least say more about this victim, but nothing about the
> > victim was ever mentioned again. Who was this victim?
>
> I have no idea. But Parkland treats thousands of gunshot wounds every
> year, so there was undoubtedly, no shortage of candidates.
>
> There are many other issues related to this. I'm surprised that you
> chose not to address them.
I'm pretty certain _Six Seconds in Dallas_ dealt with this extensively and
eliminated any other gunshot victim.
There were none admitted that morning prior to the assassination, to the
best of my recollection.
The best Josiah Thompson could do was to claim the stretcher belonged to a
young boy who was bleeding profusely and admitted shortly before JFK and
Connally arrived - a young kid named Ronald Fuller.
Anthony Marsh
> In article
> <bobharris77-E36F...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris<bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article<caeruleo1-BBF7E...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>> Caeruleo<caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> <bobharris77-6B61...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
>>> Robert Harris<bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
>>>
>>> Yes, I finally watched all of that yesterday. Took me ten hours to get
>>> through it, lol. I took nine pages of notes on it. And I must say again
>>> that you did a fine job in putting that together, far better than I could
>>> have done.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
> You are most welcome.
>
>>> Would you like me to post my notes here? Or would you prefer that they be
>>> emailed to you? Or if you don't care to see them at all, that's fine too.
>>
>> You can post them here or email, and I will definitely look at them,
>> although I might skip over anything that is not flattering:-)
>
> Heh. I understand. I will be plain in advance: I am highly critical of
> some of your conclusions in the video, although at a few places in the
> notes I do also express agreement with some of your views. Nowhere in
I think you are trying too hard to suck up to Harris.
I can't get away with it, but you should call him a conspiracy buff and
point out that his theories are kooky.
Was there every any person treated at Parkland with a gunshot wound? Why
would it have to be at exactly the same time as Kennedy and Connally?
There is plenty of evidence that gunshot wounds from small caliber weapons
were routine, but wounds from rifles were rare.
>> There are many other issues related to this. I'm surprised that you
>> chose not to address them.
>
> I thought I had made it plain that I had already addressed many more
> issues in my notes than I have yet posted here. I was trying to show you
> the courtesy of asking you if you were ok with me posting all of that
> here, or if you preferred to review it privately first, or if you did not
> want to see it at all. I'm not sure yet which issues you're referring to
> since you didn't name them, but you do realize all or some of them may
> already be addressed in my eight pages of notes.
>
Forget what Harris wants. The rest of us want to see you pummel Harris.
>>> And also, you're of course proposing a second shot to the head c.323 or
>>> so, or certainly before 330, and saying that much additional damage to the
>>> head was caused by that shot that was not caused at 313. Yet no trace of
>>> any second explosion of bloody matter can be seen at all.
>>
>> I replied to that question in another thread,
>
> Oh, I'm sorry, I haven't seen that yet.
>
>> There is no reason to expect a massive explosion like the one at 313. And
>> the protrusion was not caused by that kind of firepower. It was simply the
>> result of that piece of skull flipping to the rear.
>>
>> For a number of reasons, I think that shot came from either a handgun or a
>> very small caliber weapon, and that the broken skullpiece may have already
>> been broken or partially broken at 313.
>
> I believe it was broken at 313. However, in the video you say that it
> still required the additional force of the second shot to the head in
> order to flip it open, and also to blast at least one piece of his head
> out onto the trunk long enough after 313 for Jackie to see it flying out
> from his head. But these were not the only effects of the second shot
Have you read Randy Robertson's paper?
> that you proposed. You also said that some additional damage more toward
> the front of his head was caused by that shot, damage that is not yet
> visible prior to the 320s. For a shot to cause that much additional
> damage to his head added to what was caused by the shot at 313, even with
> a small caliber pistol, I would still expect to see an obvious explosion
> of more bloody material out of his head. Sure, maybe not as large an
> explosion as at 313, but still enough to be obvious. Also, if Jackie is
> seeing a piece of his head shoot out onto the trunk, I ought to see it too
> if I look closely enough, at least a blur of something shooting out to the
No, you shouldn't, if you are a WC defender. You are not allowed to see
the obvious.
> rear. It couldn't have shot out with a very high velocity or it would
> have whizzed right off the trunk and Jackie would not have been able to
> grab it. After all, in the frames immediately following 313 you can
Jackie didn't grab anything.
> indeed see a piece of his skull shooting forward out of his head, bouncing
> off of the back of the jump seat where Connally had been sitting, and
> falling down toward the floorboard. I think it was Paul Seaton who showed
No, you can see an optical illusion caused by the roses jiggling around.
That's why we can't trust you to analyze the Zapruder film. You probably
still think that JFK's head moved forward 2.3 inches between Z-312 and
Z-313.
> us that years ago by producing an animated gif which repeated those frames
> over and over, and it was quite obvious (though I remember at least one
> poster at the time claiming it was a rose petal...heh).
>
>> From 318-323, JFK was leaning sharply to his left and the exit point of
>> that shot was undoubtedly, out of Zapruder's view.
>
> If it was out of his view then I would expect more of that exit damage to
> be in the left hemisphere of JFK's skull, but the autopsy photographs and
> x-rays do not seem to support that.
>
I don't know what point you are tying to make. You don't thin k there was
enough damage to the left side of JFK's skull? only 46% and you expected
52%? What?
How many bloody explosions can one head sustain?
> that shoots upward well above the top of the head. Had Zapruder been
> filming from the opposite side of Elm at the same distance we'd see that
> same obvious explosion, though we wouldn't see much at all of the exit
> damage that is forward of his right ear. I still think we ought to see at
> least some obvious explosion of bloody material shooting up, even if the
> exit is not in view of the camera. Also I seem to recall that it is your
> position in the video that this might have come from the sewer. This of
> course would mean an upward trajectory to his head, which also ought to
> cause an upward exit of bloody material from his head coming into the view
> of his camera.
>
Seems to me that I remember that a couple of other people were filming
from the other side. In those films did you see the same explosion of the
head as you can see in the Zapruder film? Was Nix paid $16M for his film?
Muchmore? Babushka Lady?
Robert Harris
<35667193-99e8-4005...@q15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Hank Sienzant <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
Fuller was admitted after JFK and Connally were, and I see nothing in
the book suggesting one way or the other, that there were other gunshot
victims admitted earlier that day.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <bobharris77-E36F...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <caeruleo1-BBF7E...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <bobharris77-6B61...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> > > Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
> > >
> > > Yes, I finally watched all of that yesterday. Took me ten hours to get
> > > through it, lol. I took nine pages of notes on it. And I must say again
> > > that you did a fine job in putting that together, far better than I could
> > > have done.
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> You are most welcome.
>
> > > Would you like me to post my notes here? Or would you prefer that they
> > > be
> > > emailed to you? Or if you don't care to see them at all, that's fine
> > > too.
> >
> > You can post them here or email, and I will definitely look at them,
> > although I might skip over anything that is not flattering:-)
>
> Heh. I understand. I will be plain in advance: I am highly critical of
> some of your conclusions in the video
OHMIGOD! Say it ain't so:-)
Probably. If you can get someone at Parkland to talk to you about pretty
much anything, you'll be doing doing a lot better than I have. But the
number of wound victims they treated back then, was extremely high. I've
heard the number of 1200 per year in forums, though I've never been able
to corroborate that. This is what Dr. McClelland testified,
Mr. SPECTER - And what has provided the opportunity for your experience
here at Parkland in residency training and on the staff with respect to
acquiring knowledge of gunshot wounds?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Largely this has been related to the type of hospital
which Parkland is; namely, City-County Hospital which receives all of
the indigent patients of this county, many of whom are involved
frequently in shooting altercations, so that we do see a large number of
that type patient almost daily.
> Because, if the bullet found by Tomlinson was not
> fired from the Carcano, one would think that the victim would have had to
> have been brought to the hospital that same day. I'm not sure I would
> find it plausible that the bullet was on that stretcher for more than one
> day before it was found.
>
> > There are many other issues related to this. I'm surprised that you
> > chose not to address them.
>
> I thought I had made it plain that I had already addressed many more
> issues in my notes than I have yet posted here. I was trying to show you
> the courtesy of asking you if you were ok with me posting all of that
> here, or if you preferred to review it privately first, or if you did not
> want to see it at all. I'm not sure yet which issues you're referring to
> since you didn't name them, but you do realize all or some of them may
> already be addressed in my eight pages of notes.
Governor Connally stated that a bullet from his leg fell onto his
guerney and then to the floor where it was recovered by a nurse who put
it in her pocket.
Dallas DA Wade said he came to visit Connally and encountered a nurse
who showed him a bullet which she said fell from Connally's gurney.
Texas Hwy Patrolman Bobby Nolan said a nurse gave him an envelope which
she said, contained a bullet that came from Governor Connally's gurney,
and apparently, from his thigh, which is what Nolan told the FBI in the
early morning hours the next day.
Obviously, the bullet found by Tomlinson could not have been the one
that wounded Connally, if those statements are correct.
How do you explain that?
The FBI told the WC that SA Odum interviewed Tomlinson and Wright and
that they said CE-399 looked similar to the stretcher bullet. But, when
Aguilar and Thompson contacted the N.A. there was no record of such an
interview.
They then contacted Odum himself, who said he never conducted such an
interview and never saw CE-399.
Do you find that even slightly disturbing?
>
> > > And also, you're of course proposing a second shot to the head c.323 or
> > > so, or certainly before 330, and saying that much additional damage to
> > > the
> > > head was caused by that shot that was not caused at 313. Yet no trace of
> > > any second explosion of bloody matter can be seen at all.
> >
> > I replied to that question in another thread,
>
> Oh, I'm sorry, I haven't seen that yet.
>
> > There is no reason to expect a massive explosion like the one at 313. And
> > the protrusion was not caused by that kind of firepower. It was simply the
> > result of that piece of skull flipping to the rear.
> >
> > For a number of reasons, I think that shot came from either a handgun or a
> > very small caliber weapon, and that the broken skullpiece may have already
> > been broken or partially broken at 313.
>
> I believe it was broken at 313. However, in the video you say that it
> still required the additional force of the second shot to the head in
> order to flip it open
Of course. The skull piece obviously hadn't flipped, even in frames
after the explosion had completely subsided. There is no doubt that this
happened later.
> and also to blast at least one piece of his head
> out onto the trunk long enough after 313 for Jackie to see it flying out
> from his head. But these were not the only effects of the second shot
> that you proposed. You also said that some additional damage more toward
> the front of his head was caused by that shot, damage that is not yet
> visible prior to the 320s. For a shot to cause that much additional
> damage to his head added to what was caused by the shot at 313, even with
> a small caliber pistol, I would still expect to see an obvious explosion
> of more bloody material out of his head. Sure, maybe not as large an
> explosion as at 313, but still enough to be obvious. Also, if Jackie is
> seeing a piece of his head shoot out onto the trunk, I ought to see it too
> if I look closely enough, at least a blur of something shooting out to the
> rear. It couldn't have shot out with a very high velocity or it would
> have whizzed right off the trunk and Jackie would not have been able to
> grab it. After all, in the frames immediately following 313 you can
> indeed see a piece of his skull shooting forward out of his head, bouncing
> off of the back of the jump seat where Connally had been sitting, and
> falling down toward the floorboard. I think it was Paul Seaton who showed
> us that years ago by producing an animated gif which repeated those frames
> over and over, and it was quite obvious (though I remember at least one
> poster at the time claiming it was a rose petal...heh).
The fallacy of your argument that we should see pieces of tissue and
bone blown out by the second head shot is that we don't see it blown out
ANYTIME. And yet, we know that they were. Even SA Frazier testified that
large pieces of brain tissue were blown out onto the trunk.
Not only do we see no such thing at 313, but we see no place in the rear
of the head through which such large pieces of tissue could have exited.
But we do see a large hole in the upper rear of the head from which that
large piece of skull bone was displaced, which is the only possible
candidate, through which that tissue could have exited.
To put it more clearly, there was no path at 313 through which that
tissue could have been blown directly to the rear.
But there was later, as that skullbone was blown back, creating a large
hole in the upper-rear of the head.
>
> > From 318-323, JFK was leaning sharply to his left and the exit point of
> > that shot was undoubtedly, out of Zapruder's view.
>
> If it was out of his view then I would expect more of that exit damage to
> be in the left hemisphere of JFK's skull, but the autopsy photographs and
> x-rays do not seem to support that.
It doesn't matter what you and I expect. The simple fact is, that we
never see that material blown to the rear.
And that fact is BETTER explained by a low powered gunshot, exiting at a
point out of our view, than at 313, which would have been much easier to
see.
But nothing went to the rear then, which was confirmed even by experts
hired by the HSCA, studying second generation copies of the film.
Yes.
There was no reason to expect an explosion. The 313 explosion was the
exception, not the rule.
A second headshot would have entered into a skull that was already
broken. The pressure of the skull, holding and tightly sealing in the
brain would have been gone.
But at the risk of repeating myself, it doesn't matter what we think
"should" have happened. We know for a fact that we don't see anything of
any serious size, being blown to the rear at any time.
The real question here is this: Was it possible for large pieces of
matter to have been blown to the rear at 313?
And I don't think it was - not just because we don't see anything blown
to the rear then, but because there just wasn't a path for it.
Robert Harris
Caeruleo
<35667193-99e8-4005...@q15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Hank Sienzant <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 10:00 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <caeruleo1-BBF7EC.13341013072...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >
> > Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I do have two questions though:
> >
> > > At 31:21 you say of CE 399: "What is far more likely is that the bullet
> > > Tomlinson found was from a different victim who had nothing to do with the
> > > shooting in Dealey Plaza." I watched the remaining 45 minutes of the
> > > video with bated breath waiting to see if you were going to identify this
> > > victim, or at least say more about this victim, but nothing about the
> > > victim was ever mentioned again. Who was this victim?
> >
> > I have no idea. But Parkland treats thousands of gunshot wounds every
> > year, so there was undoubtedly, no shortage of candidates.
> >
> > There are many other issues related to this. I'm surprised that you
> > chose not to address them.
>
> I'm pretty certain _Six Seconds in Dallas_ dealt with this extensively and
> eliminated any other gunshot victim.
>
> There were none admitted that morning prior to the assassination, to the
> best of my recollection.
Oh? Robert, is this true?
> The best Josiah Thompson could do was to claim the stretcher belonged to a
> young boy who was bleeding profusely and admitted shortly before JFK and
> Connally arrived - a young kid named Ronald Fuller.
Oh yes, I remember something about that. Robert, could you address this
please?
Anthony Marsh
The theory was that CE 399 was planted and whoever planted it picked a
gurney that had bloody sheets on it, thus assuming that it had just been
used for the President. But everything had been cleared off the
President's gurney and even Connally's. The one with the bloody sheet had
been used to bring in little Ronnie Fuller who fell down and scraped his
knee. Thus CE 399 could not be genuinely from either Kennedy or Connally.
Alternatively I tried to goad the kooks into making up a theory that the
missed shot from the WC sailed over Dealey Plaza and hit little Ronnie
Fuller in the knee. That would allow for CE 399 to be genuine and not
planted.
Hank Sienzant
>
Well, I respectfully disagree.
I'm breaking open my copy of Thompson's book for the first in a long while
(maybe five or ten years). I find I recalled the details incorrectly, but
got the import of it correct.
Let me explain.
Thompson says on page 166 of _Six Seconds in Dallas_, quoting Richard
Popkin which sums up the argument nicely in favor of the bullet being
planted: "Bullet 399 plays a most important role in the case since it
firmly links Oswald's rifle with the assassination. At the time when the
planting [of the bullet at Parkland] could have been done, it was not
known if any other ballistics evidence survived the shooting. But,
certainly, the pristine bullet, definitely traceable to Oswald's Carcano,
would have started a chase for and pursuit of Oswald if nothing else had,
and would have made him a prime suspect." (cited as from page 14 of The
New York Review of Books, Vol V11, Number 1 (July 28, 1966); Review of
Popkin's book _The Second Oswald: The Case for a Conspiracy Theory".
Thompson goes on to write, immediately after that quote. "Subsequent
investigation may show the 'plant' theory to be the most satisfactory
explanation of the origin of CE 399; for many months I shared Popkin's
enthusiam for it..."
On page 161 of _Six Seconds in Dallas_ (SSID), Thompson reproduces in his
book the REGISTRATION OF PATIENTS form from Parkland on 11/22/63.I would
think, if Thompson thought the bullet was planted on a stretcher, he would
check into gunshot victims on that day. If he had found another gunshot
victim on that day, I would think he would have mentioned it, as a gunshot
victim's stretcher would be a more likely place to plant a bullet than the
stretcher of a child who is bloody from a fall. Do you not agree?
But Thompson mentions no gunshot victims from that morning or early
afternoon, nor does he suggest there were any around the time of the
Kennedy Assassination. Thus, he is reduced to (because he believes the JFK
and Connally stretchers are eliminated by earlier argument) arguing that
the evidence "...only establishes the likelihood that Ronnie Fuller's
stretcher was the one in question [where CE 399 was found]. As with most
aspects of this case, final certainly again eludes us."
And the REGISTRATION OF PATIENTS form shows only two patients admitted
with gunshot wounds (abbreviated GSW on the form) on page 161 as
reproduced in Thompson's book _SSID_. (At least, to my eyes. But the form
is tiny and my eyes aren't what they once were. So maybe you see something
different. Let me know).
As I noted, Thompson had the registration form. He had the belief at one
time CE399 was a plant. Planting the bullet on a bloody gunshot victim's
stretcher would appear to be more reasonable than planting it on the
stretcher of a child bloody from a fall. But Thompson neither mentions
that possibility nor how he eliminated it.
Conclusion: Thompson saw there was no evidence of a gunshot victim (other
than JFK or Connally) that would put his stretcher in juxtaposition with a
stretcher that would be in the right place at the right time to be the
stretcher where CE399 was found. Etgo, he had to settle for the bloody
stretcher of Ronald Fuller.
Let me know what evidence you have to the contrary. I trust it is
something more than "Parkland treats thousands of gunshot wounds every
year, so there was undoubtedly, no shortage of candidates." To the
contrary, I would say the evidence in _SSID_ establishes there was just
such a shortage at the pertinent time.
Thanks,
Hank
aka Joe Zircon.
Anthony Marsh
And almost never gunshots from rifles. Almost all from handguns.
>
>> Because, if the bullet found by Tomlinson was not
>> fired from the Carcano, one would think that the victim would have had to
>> have been brought to the hospital that same day. I'm not sure I would
>> find it plausible that the bullet was on that stretcher for more than one
>> day before it was found.
>>
>>> There are many other issues related to this. I'm surprised that you
>>> chose not to address them.
>>
>> I thought I had made it plain that I had already addressed many more
>> issues in my notes than I have yet posted here. I was trying to show you
>> the courtesy of asking you if you were ok with me posting all of that
>> here, or if you preferred to review it privately first, or if you did not
>> want to see it at all. I'm not sure yet which issues you're referring to
>> since you didn't name them, but you do realize all or some of them may
>> already be addressed in my eight pages of notes.
>
> Governor Connally stated that a bullet from his leg fell onto his
> guerney and then to the floor where it was recovered by a nurse who put
> it in her pocket.
>
> Dallas DA Wade said he came to visit Connally and encountered a nurse
> who showed him a bullet which she said fell from Connally's gurney.
>
That's nice, but can we be sure she knew that from direct first-hand
experience or just from what someone told her? Did she tel him that SHE
herself picked it up?
> Texas Hwy Patrolman Bobby Nolan said a nurse gave him an envelope which
> she said, contained a bullet that came from Governor Connally's gurney,
> and apparently, from his thigh, which is what Nolan told the FBI in the
> early morning hours the next day.
>
If this at exactly the same time that Dr. Shaw was being interviewed on
TV and saying that there was still a bullet in Connally's thigh and that
they would remove it later?
> Obviously, the bullet found by Tomlinson could not have been the one
> that wounded Connally, if those statements are correct.
>
> How do you explain that?
>
Mass confusion.
>
> The FBI told the WC that SA Odum interviewed Tomlinson and Wright and
> that they said CE-399 looked similar to the stretcher bullet. But, when
> Aguilar and Thompson contacted the N.A. there was no record of such an
> interview.
>
> They then contacted Odum himself, who said he never conducted such an
> interview and never saw CE-399.
>
> Do you find that even slightly disturbing?
>
WC defenders are never disturbed by the WC lies.
We DO see them blown out at Z-314. Now if someone had a theory of a head
shot at Z-312 and then another one at Z-314 it might have some remote
chance of working.
> Not only do we see no such thing at 313, but we see no place in the rear
> of the head through which such large pieces of tissue could have exited.
There does not have to be any exit in the rear of the head.
> But we do see a large hole in the upper rear of the head from which that
> large piece of skull bone was displaced, which is the only possible
> candidate, through which that tissue could have exited.
>
> To put it more clearly, there was no path at 313 through which that
> tissue could have been blown directly to the rear.
>
> But there was later, as that skullbone was blown back, creating a large
> hole in the upper-rear of the head.
>
The back of the skull is severely fractured just after the bullet enters
the head, even before it has time to exit.
>
>
>>
>>> From 318-323, JFK was leaning sharply to his left and the exit point of
>>> that shot was undoubtedly, out of Zapruder's view.
>>
>> If it was out of his view then I would expect more of that exit damage to
>> be in the left hemisphere of JFK's skull, but the autopsy photographs and
>> x-rays do not seem to support that.
>
> It doesn't matter what you and I expect. The simple fact is, that we
> never see that material blown to the rear.
>
Because there is no hole there. But matter can be thrust out of the top
of the head and then be caught by the wind and appear to go backwards as
the limo drives underneath the debris.
> And that fact is BETTER explained by a low powered gunshot, exiting at a
> point out of our view, than at 313, which would have been much easier to
> see.
>
> But nothing went to the rear then, which was confirmed even by experts
> hired by the HSCA, studying second generation copies of the film.
>
Why didn't they study the original print?
Have you read Randy Robertson's paper?
> The real question here is this: Was it possible for large pieces of
> matter to have been blown to the rear at 313?
>
Ok, how about small pieces?
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-75FB...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok, so the question still remains, is there a record of any other
gunshot victim being admitted that day?
Hank Sienzant
> In article <caeruleo1-8AF691.11591014072...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,> > <bobharris77-E36F64.18273913072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> > Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <caeruleo1-BBF7EC.13341013072...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > > Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <bobharris77-6B615C.04255708072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert, when was the last time you looked at frame 313 of the Z-film. I
see a massive quantity of blood and brain matter being blown out the top
of the head by the shot that struck JFK froim behind. You don't see that?
I even see an piece of bone spiralling away from the head upward and
outward, in front of JFK.
If you do see that, why do you say we don't see pieces of tissue and bone
blown out *ANYTIME*? [emphasis by YOU!].
If you don't see it, I respectfully submit you need to get your eyeglass
prescription checked. Perhaps it is time for a new pair.
>And yet, we know that they were. Even SA Frazier testified that
> large pieces of brain tissue were blown out onto the trunk.
>
> Not only do we see no such thing at 313, but we see no place in the rear
> of the head through which such large pieces of tissue could have exited.
> But we do see a large hole in the upper rear of the head from which that
> large piece of skull bone was displaced, which is the only possible
> candidate, through which that tissue could have exited.
>
> To put it more clearly, there was no path at 313 through which that
> tissue could have been blown directly to the rear.
>
> But there was later, as that skullbone was blown back, creating a large
> hole in the upper-rear of the head.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > From 318-323, JFK was leaning sharply to his left and the exit point of
> > > that shot was undoubtedly, out of Zapruder's view.
>
> > If it was out of his view then I would expect more of that exit damage to
> > be in the left hemisphere of JFK's
>
> ...
>
Hank Sienzant
> In article <caeruleo1-BBF7EC.13341013072...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>
> Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <bobharris77-6B615C.04255708072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Hi Bob
Regarding Tomlinson - you circle an area labelled with what looks like a Q
at the 31:50 mark of the video. But if the doctor moved the stretcher
labelled "A" to get into the rest room, that isn't the rest room you
circled. If it was, the doctor would have had to move stretcher B. And
that is your claim.
But in the drawing, the initials RR (rest room) appear adjacent to what
appears to be a door behind stretcher A.
The video appears to offer a further clue. There are stretchers blocking
both doors. One is metal and behind stretcher A, the other is wood and
behind stretcher B. The wood door behind stretcher B has a glass insert
and you can look into the room from the hallway. The Metal door is solid.
Which appears to you to be a door to the toilet facilities? I would say
the solid metal door, not the wood door with the glass insert. I've seen
rest room doors that are solid, but never have I seen one with a glass
insert. Based on what I see in the video, I would say the rest room door
is behind door A, not door B.
Do you disagree with my conclusions? If you do. why do you imagine
Parkland put a glass insert into the rest room door? And if the doctor
pushed the stretcher marked A out of the way to get into the rest room,
and the bullet fell out when the stretcher was pushed back, then the
bullet fell off the stretcher marked A, not B.
Tomlinson's testimony is here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Tomlinson.pdf
Note how unsure he sounds therein about whether the bullet was found
behind A or B. As he himself noted, he wasn't paying much attention, and
wasn't in the vicinity of the stretcher at all times, so he couldn't swear
stretcher A wasn't switched with B at some time he was away from the area.
Tomlinson had previously given a statement to the Secret Service, and he
said about that (page 132 of the above):
Mr. SPECTER. What did you tell the Secret Service man about which
stretcher [A or B] you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I told him that I was not sure, and I am not -- I’m not
sure of it, but as I said, I would be going against the oath which I
took a while ago, because I am definitely not sure.
...
Then, when Specter moved on to his current recollection:
Mr. TOMLINSON. What do you mean?
Mr. SPECTER. You say you can’t really take an oath today to be sure
whether it was stretcher A or stretcher B that you took off the
elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, today or any other day, I’m just not sure of it,
whether it was A or B that I took off.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, has your recollection always been the same about
the situation, that is, today, and when you talked to the Secret
Service man and when you talked to the FBI man?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes; I told him that I wasn’t sure.
Mr. SPECTER. So, what you told the Secret Service man was just about
the same thing as you have told me today?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, sir.
Hank
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-896D...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <caeruleo1-8AF69...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <bobharris77-E36F...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> > Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <caeruleo1-BBF7E...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > > Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I do have two questions though:
> > > >
> > > > At 31:21 you say of CE 399: "What is far more likely is that the bullet
> > > > Tomlinson found was from a different victim who had nothing to do with
> > > > the
> > > > shooting in Dealey Plaza." I watched the remaining 45 minutes of the
> > > > video with bated breath waiting to see if you were going to identify
> > > > this
> > > > victim, or at least say more about this victim, but nothing about the
> > > > victim was ever mentioned again. Who was this victim?
> > >
> > > I have no idea. But Parkland treats thousands of gunshot wounds every
> > > year, so there was undoubtedly, no shortage of candidates.
> >
> > I see. Is there a record of anyone else having been brought in that day
> > with a gunshot wound?
>
> Probably.
Well, I think it is best to make certain of that somehow, if such a thing
can still be done this many years later. But there may already be a
document that I don't know about yet, relating to an investigation which
might have done at the time on this very matter.
> If you can get someone at Parkland to talk to you about pretty
> much anything, you'll be doing doing a lot better than I have. But the
> number of wound victims they treated back then, was extremely high. I've
> heard the number of 1200 per year in forums, though I've never been able
> to corroborate that. This is what Dr. McClelland testified,
>
> Mr. SPECTER - And what has provided the opportunity for your experience
> here at Parkland in residency training and on the staff with respect to
> acquiring knowledge of gunshot wounds?
>
> Dr. McCLELLAND - Largely this has been related to the type of hospital
> which Parkland is; namely, City-County Hospital which receives all of
> the indigent patients of this county, many of whom are involved
> frequently in shooting altercations, so that we do see a large number of
> that type patient almost daily.
"Almost daily." But not necessarily every day. And there were three
gunshot victims admitted that day, JFK, Connally, and Tippit. I'm
including him because I believe I'm correct that J.D. was taken to
Parkland where he was pronounced dead on arrival. What we need to know is
was there a fourth victim admitted earlier in the day.
> > > There are many other issues related to this. I'm surprised that you
> > > chose not to address them.
> >
> > I thought I had made it plain that I had already addressed many more
> > issues in my notes than I have yet posted here. I was trying to show you
> > the courtesy of asking you if you were ok with me posting all of that
> > here, or if you preferred to review it privately first, or if you did not
> > want to see it at all. I'm not sure yet which issues you're referring to
> > since you didn't name them, but you do realize all or some of them may
> > already be addressed in my eight pages of notes.
>
> Governor Connally stated that a bullet from his leg fell onto his
> guerney and then to the floor where it was recovered by a nurse who put
> it in her pocket.
Yes, I discuss that extensively in my notes, which I just sent to you in
email a little while ago. I do not know of Connally making that claim any
earlier than in his autobiography, which was written in collaboration with
Mickey Herskovit, no earlier than the last three years of his life as I
understand it. I have seen that he certainly made no mention of such an
incident in his WC and HSCA testimonies, and in fact the word "nurse"
appears nowhere in those testimonies in any context. If he ever made this
claim earlier than his autobiography I am not aware of it yet. And if he
did not, I wonder about the reliability of his memory that late in his
life. It would be very strange that he never mentioned such a crucial
incident before that, when he gave so much detail about so many other
matters in his extensive testimonies. I also say in my notes, which
should be in your inbox now, that even if this incident did occur (strange
as it might be that he took so long to mention it for the first time), how
would Connally know that it was the bullet that fell out of his thigh that
the nurse picked up off the floor? The quote from the autobiography that
is in your video merely says that he heard the object fall to the floor
"with a 'tink' like a wedding ring," if I'm remembering the words
correctly, and that the nurse picked it up. But in that quote he doesn't
say that she told him what she had picked up, or indeed that she said
anything at all. He just says it was the bullet from his thigh, but
doesn't say that she agreed. He also didn't say that he felt anything
drop out of his thigh. The possibility exists that he heard one of the
fragments from his wrist drop on the floor and mistakenly assumed that it
was from his thigh.
> Dallas DA Wade said he came to visit Connally and encountered a nurse
> who showed him a bullet which she said fell from Connally's gurney.
Hmmm, can you provide a cite for Wade saying in his own words that a nurse
did that? According to my notes the quotation of Wade in your video makes
no mention of a nurse, and instead merely says that the bullet was found
on a "gurney," i.e. stretcher, so that quote would apply just as well to
the Tomlinson bullet.
> Texas Hwy Patrolman Bobby Nolan said a nurse gave him an envelope which
> she said, contained a bullet that came from Governor Connally's gurney,
> and apparently, from his thigh, which is what Nolan told the FBI in the
> early morning hours the next day.
Quoting from your interview with Nolan at 37:13:
"And I don?t know if it was a fragment of a bullet or a whole bullet,
because it was in a little small brown envelope. And it was sealed, and
it was about, I?d say uh 2 by 3 inches. And it was in that envelope when
I got it and I never did look at it or anything."
He said he didn't see what was in the envelope and didn't "know if it was
a fragment of a bullet or a whole bullet."
> Obviously, the bullet found by Tomlinson could not have been the one
> that wounded Connally, if those statements are correct.
If those statements are correct, and some of them are doubtful. And the
one that most needs to be correct is Connally's latter-day claim that it
was the bullet from his thigh which fell onto the floor, because if he was
mistaken about this, then none of the rest of it works to support that
bullet not being the Tomlinson bullet.
> The FBI told the WC that SA Odum interviewed Tomlinson and Wright and
> that they said CE-399 looked similar to the stretcher bullet. But, when
> Aguilar and Thompson contacted the N.A. there was no record of such an
> interview.
>
> They then contacted Odum himself, who said he never conducted such an
> interview and never saw CE-399.
>
> Do you find that even slightly disturbing?
Yes I do, and more than slightly. This whole case was mishandled in many
ways, and this is yet another example of that. However, it still doesn't
definitely mean that CE399 is not the bullet that came out of his thigh.
It might just mean that the chain of evidence regarding that bullet was
handled extremely badly.
> > > There is no reason to expect a massive explosion like the one at 313. And
> > > the protrusion was not caused by that kind of firepower. It was simply
> > > the
> > > result of that piece of skull flipping to the rear.
> > >
> > > For a number of reasons, I think that shot came from either a handgun or
> > > a
> > > very small caliber weapon, and that the broken skullpiece may have
> > > already
> > > been broken or partially broken at 313.
> >
> > I believe it was broken at 313. However, in the video you say that it
> > still required the additional force of the second shot to the head in
> > order to flip it open
>
> Of course. The skull piece obviously hadn't flipped, even in frames
> after the explosion had completely subsided. There is no doubt that this
> happened later.
I am still not convinced that the skull piece hasn't already flipped open
immediately after 313. It may simply be difficult to see that protrusion
until we finally get a clear profile view of his head in the 330s. I do
see what could possibly be the protrusion already present in the Moorman
photo:
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7254/moormanprotuberance.jpg
http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/4580/moormanprotuberance1.jpg
> > and also to blast at least one piece of his head
> > out onto the trunk long enough after 313 for Jackie to see it flying out
> > from his head. But these were not the only effects of the second shot
> > that you proposed. You also said that some additional damage more toward
> > the front of his head was caused by that shot, damage that is not yet
> > visible prior to the 320s. For a shot to cause that much additional
> > damage to his head added to what was caused by the shot at 313, even with
> > a small caliber pistol, I would still expect to see an obvious explosion
> > of more bloody material out of his head. Sure, maybe not as large an
> > explosion as at 313, but still enough to be obvious. Also, if Jackie is
> > seeing a piece of his head shoot out onto the trunk, I ought to see it too
> > if I look closely enough, at least a blur of something shooting out to the
> > rear. It couldn't have shot out with a very high velocity or it would
> > have whizzed right off the trunk and Jackie would not have been able to
> > grab it. After all, in the frames immediately following 313 you can
> > indeed see a piece of his skull shooting forward out of his head, bouncing
> > off of the back of the jump seat where Connally had been sitting, and
> > falling down toward the floorboard. I think it was Paul Seaton who showed
> > us that years ago by producing an animated gif which repeated those frames
> > over and over, and it was quite obvious (though I remember at least one
> > poster at the time claiming it was a rose petal...heh).
>
> The fallacy of your argument that we should see pieces of tissue and
> bone blown out by the second head shot is that we don't see it blown out
> ANYTIME.
That is not true, if you mean in any direction. There is indeed another
piece of the skull which is seen blasting forward out of his head, hitting
the back of the jump seat, bouncing off of it and tumbling in the air for
a few frames, then dropping out of view toward the floorboard. In many
viewings of the film I had never noticed that until a few years ago when
Paul Seaton posted an animated gif of those frames in slow motion which
repeated over and over, I think, and which zoomed in close on that area.
Then it was obvious. I don't know yet whether similar detailed analysis
might reveal another piece blasting to the rear and landing on the trunk.
> And yet, we know that they were. Even SA Frazier testified that
> large pieces of brain tissue were blown out onto the trunk.
That is a good point.
> Not only do we see no such thing at 313, but we see no place in the rear
> of the head through which such large pieces of tissue could have exited.
Well now, as to that, just because the piece went to the rear doesn't
necessarily mean it came from the rear of the head. The top right and
forward right portions of the skull were missing the greatest amount of
bone according to the autopsy materials. I would think those pieces
blasted out in all directions, not only forward. And one possibility is
that the piece Jackie grabbed might have blasted out almost straight up,
maybe quite a few feet, and fell back down, and since the limo was also
moving forward, would not have landed back on JFK but behind him. This
might also explain why it stayed on the trunk long enough for her to grab
it. If it had blasted straight out of his head backwards, one would think
that the velocity might have been so great that it would have shot right
off the back of the trunk. And I don't know why I keep saying "skull."
What she grabbed might have been brain tissue instead. After all, didn't
she say something like, "They've killed my husband; I have his brains in
my hand"? And wasn't it a piece of brain tissue that she handed to that
nurse at Parkland, not a piece of bone? And quite a lot of brain tissue
was blasted out of the right forward part of his head too, but not
necessarily all of it went only forward. Some of it did, obviously, since
Connally saw some of it fall on him, but if even one piece blasted almost
straight up, which is entirely plausible, it almost certainly would have
come back down and landed on the trunk. And since the brain tissue would
be wet and soft I would think it would adhere to the trunk better than
bone, which would be more likely to slide off before she could grab it,
especially since that's about when Greer began accelerating.
Has it ever occurred to you, as it is occurring to me now, that what
Jackie saw c.323 was not anything blasting out of his head at that moment,
but instead as she began turning to the rear, she might have out of the
corner of her eye seen a piece of brain that had shot upward at 313 coming
down and landing on the trunk about then? After all, 323 is barely more
than half a second after 313.
> But we do see a large hole in the upper rear of the head from which that
> large piece of skull bone was displaced, which is the only possible
> candidate, through which that tissue could have exited.
I do not agree. It is just as plausible that it exited from the top
right of his head at 313.
> To put it more clearly, there was no path at 313 through which that
> tissue could have been blown directly to the rear.
Since "directly to the rear" is not the only possible way it got there,
I do not agree with that either.
> But there was later, as that skullbone was blown back, creating a large
> hole in the upper-rear of the head.
That there was a large hole in the upper right posterior of the head I
agree with. I do not agree that that was necessarily caused later than
313, nor do I agree that the piece of brain she grabbed off the trunk
necessarily came from that hole. It could have, but that is hardly the
only possibility.
I just realized that one of the few things I can do well is to calculate
the exact speed that piece of brain would have to exit upward in order to
land on the trunk ten frames later. Let's see, ten frames would =
0.546448087431694 seconds at 18.3 frames per second. Half of that time it
would be flying upward, constantly slowed by gravity at the opposite of
the acceleration of gravity, then half of the time it would be falling at
the acceleration of gravity, which would be 9.80665 meters per second
faster every second. The deceleration as it is going up would be the
reverse, 9.80665 meters per second slower every second So let's see:
0.546448087431694 ? 2 = 0.273224043715847
0.273224043715847 x 9.80665 = 2.679412568306011
2.679412568306011 x .3048 = 8.790723649297936
So that would mean it would have to exit upward at c.2.67941 meters per
second or c.8.79072 feet per second, and again reach that speed while
falling just before it landed on the trunk. Let's see:
2.679412568306011 x 3.6 = 9.64588524590164
8.790723649297936 x 3.6 = 31.64660513747257
31.64660513747257 ? 5.28 = 5.993675215430411
Ok, so that would be c.9.64589 km.p.h. or c.5.99368 m.p.h. Hmmm, not very
fast. But of course that calculation works only for straight up and down.
If at at angle, I'm not sure how to calculate that. But if it was at a
slight angle forward, and exiting at a faster velocity, it would take
longer to fall back down, and it would fall down to the same elevation
farther down the street than where the limo was when it shot upward, but
depending on the angle and velocity, the trunk might have come right under
it as it fell. Dunno.
I also know how to calculate how high it would go before it started
dropping back down, although I haven't done that here.
But actually, there is that streak of something clearly shooting up and
slightly forward from his head in 313. Now one full second later would be
frame 331-332. Jackie still hasn't started to get on the trunk yet, but
her head is turned a little more to her right now than it was at 323, and
she'd have a better possibility of catching sight of that piece landing on
the trunk out of the corner of her right eye. That would involve an exit
velocity of 1.83 times faster than the velocity I gave above, because the
angle wouldn't make any difference to the deceleration upward and the
acceleration downward, because gravity pulls airborne objects downward
with the same force no matter whether they're going straight up, or up at
an angle. I just don't know what that angle would be in this case to land
on the trunk exactly one second after 313.
And you understand, exactly one second is just a hypothetical alternate
possibility I'm using. There are many possibilities, as long as whatever
velocity and angle are right to make it land on the trunk when she would
see it, and obviously before she begins to climb on the trunk.
> > > From 318-323, JFK was leaning sharply to his left and the exit point of
> > > that shot was undoubtedly, out of Zapruder's view.
> >
> > If it was out of his view then I would expect more of that exit damage to
> > be in the left hemisphere of JFK's skull, but the autopsy photographs and
> > x-rays do not seem to support that.
>
> It doesn't matter what you and I expect. The simple fact is, that we
> never see that material blown to the rear.
Since it wasn't necessarily blown to the rear, as in out of the rear of
his head, that may be a moot point. I do see a great deal of stuff
being blown out in 313 that is going more upward than forward.
> And that fact is BETTER explained by a low powered gunshot, exiting at a
> point out of our view, than at 313, which would have been much easier to
> see.
I don't know about "better." Might work too, but my way also could work.
> But nothing went to the rear then, which was confirmed even by experts
> hired by the HSCA, studying second generation copies of the film.
Since it is hardly necessary for the trajectory out of his head to be
rearward for the piece of brain to fall on the trunk, I'm not sure that
is relevant.
> > > If sizable pieces of tissue and bone were blown to the rear at 313, we
> > > should have seen them and we should have seen a hole in the BOH from
> > > where
> > > they exited. But since we see neither, the only logical conclusion is
> > > that
> > > this happened later.
> >
> > Are you sure that we can't see even one piece blown to the rear at 313?
>
> Yes.
I don't see a piece blown to the rear either. I see plenty of stuff
shooting up and slightly forward, however, and depending on the velocity
and angle, entirely possible for one piece of it to come down and land on
the trunk when the limousine has also been traveling forward for one
second or so.
> > > If they were blown out when the exit point was out of our view, we would
> > > not expect to see them, even though we do see a large damaged area from
> > > which they undoubtedly, did exit.
> >
> > Well, but a piece blown out to the rear would come into our view. And
> > again there's the matter of a lack of bloody explosion.
>
> There was no reason to expect an explosion. The 313 explosion was the
> exception, not the rule.
What is your basis for saying that?
> A second headshot would have entered into a skull that was already
> broken. The pressure of the skull, holding and tightly sealing in the
> brain would have been gone.
Maybe so, but I'd still expect to see something a little bit more than
I'm seeing, which is nothing.
> But at the risk of repeating myself, it doesn't matter what we think
> "should" have happened. We know for a fact that we don't see anything of
> any serious size, being blown to the rear at any time.
Or falling back down on the trunk from above either. Yet it got there
somehow, or else she couldn't grab it. Good point.
But remember now, that's not all you've said that was caused by that
second shot. You also said in your video that the second shot caused
additional damage near the front of his head that wasn't there earlier,
and in your video at 54:10 you have a red arrow pointing to that forward
damage in frame 337. So in your scenario as stated in that video the
second shot doesn't merely involve opening up that hinge of skull in the
back that might have already been weakened at 313 anyway, and sending
maybe only one piece of brain back onto the trunk out of that hole for her
to see and grab. You're proposing a much larger amount of damage from the
second shot than that. And yet we're still not seeing a bloody spray in
almost all directions that is even one-tenth as large as at 313? I'm
sorry, but although it is true that cranial pressure would be gone after
313, and even if the weapon was of much lower caliber, there was still
plenty of blood left in his cranium even much later at the hospital. I'm
just finding it hard to swallow that we'd see no explosion of anything
from a shot that caused that much damage, and which is furthermore exiting
at an upward trajectory when fired from the sewer, as I believe you
proposed as the most likely origination.
> The real question here is this: Was it possible for large pieces of
> matter to have been blown to the rear at 313?
>
> And I don't think it was - not just because we don't see anything blown
> to the rear then, but because there just wasn't a path for it.
Lol, I actually don't agree with that either. Sorry. Although it is true
that at 313 the vast majority of the bloody spray goes forward and upward,
I clearly see some of it going upward and backward, a little bit of it
going straight backward, even a little going down and back, and straight
down, and down and forward. In short, the bloody spray blasts out in all
directions, though more of it in some directions than others, naturally.
If part of a spray of blood can be blasted backwards, so can pieces of
brain tissue. That's yet another possibility, Robert, that she didn't see
anything blast out of his head, nor did she see something land on the
trunk. Maybe, as she turned her head to the right, out of the corner of
her eye she saw a piece of brain already on the trunk that had been laying
there since just after 313. It's not necessary for her to actually see
how it got there or see it blasting out of his head or see it landing
there. It could instead be that at the first instant she caught sight of
it, it was just already there. Either way, she'd still scramble out on
the trunk to get it.
Robert Harris
<9ca4895f-e9db-46c6...@a31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
Hank Sienzant <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 9:05?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <35667193-99e8-4005-a9c9-d0adb0057...@q15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > ?Hank Sienzant <hsienz...@Aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 13, 10:00?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <caeruleo1-BBF7EC.13341013072...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >
> > > > ?Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <bobharris77-6B615C.04255708072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> > > > > ?Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
> >
> > > > > Yes, I finally watched all of that yesterday. ?Took me ten hours to
> > > > > get
> > > > > through it, lol. ?I took nine pages of notes on it. ?And I must say
> > > > > again
> > > > > that you did a fine job in putting that together, far better than I
> > > > > could
> > > > > have done.
> >
> > > > Thank you.
> >
> > > > > Would you like me to post my notes here? ?Or would you prefer that
> > > > > they be
> > > > > emailed to you? ?Or if you don't care to see them at all, that's fine
> > > > > too.
> >
> > > > You can post them here or email, and I will definitely look at them,
> > > > although I might skip over anything that is not flattering:-)
> >
> > > > > I do have two questions though:
> >
> > > > > At 31:21 you say of CE 399: "What is far more likely is that the
> > > > > bullet
> > > > > Tomlinson found was from a different victim who had nothing to do
> > > > > with the
> > > > > shooting in Dealey Plaza." ?I watched the remaining 45 minutes of the
> > > > > video with bated breath waiting to see if you were going to identify
> > > > > this
> > > > > victim, or at least say more about this victim, but nothing about the
> > > > > victim was ever mentioned again. ?Who was this victim?
That's all that is shown on that particular page. But there were
undoubtedly, numerous other patients earlier in the day.
>
> As I noted, Thompson had the registration form. He had the belief at one
> time CE399 was a plant. Planting the bullet on a bloody gunshot victim's
> stretcher would appear to be more reasonable than planting it on the
> stretcher of a child bloody from a fall. But Thompson neither mentions
> that possibility nor how he eliminated it.
>
> Conclusion: Thompson saw there was no evidence of a gunshot victim (other
> than JFK or Connally) that would put his stretcher in juxtaposition with a
> stretcher that would be in the right place at the right time to be the
> stretcher where CE399 was found. Etgo, he had to settle for the bloody
> stretcher of Ronald Fuller.
I think that if he had confirmed that there were no earlier gunshot
victims, he would have said so. But he was obviously, interested in
arguing that the bullet was planted, so he had no need to find a victim
who might have been connected to a different bullet.
Parkland processed numerous gunshot victims, on a daily basis. There is a
high probability that JFK and Connally were not the first that day.
>
> Let me know what evidence you have to the contrary.
Like you and everyone else, I have no documentation about how many people
were treated for gunshot wounds that day or when they were treated. That
hardly proves that there were none prior to the assassination.
Demanding evidence that we both know does not exist, is a tactic. It
doesn't bring us any closer to the truth.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
And remember that "Connally" in the same autobiography said that
immediately after the shots all the Secret Service car jumped out and ran
up to the TSBD? Did you see that happen in the Zapruder film or was that
lost in the sprocket hole area?
> did not, I wonder about the reliability of his memory that late in his
> life. It would be very strange that he never mentioned such a crucial
> incident before that, when he gave so much detail about so many other
> matters in his extensive testimonies. I also say in my notes, which
> should be in your inbox now, that even if this incident did occur (strange
> as it might be that he took so long to mention it for the first time), how
> would Connally know that it was the bullet that fell out of his thigh that
> the nurse picked up off the floor? The quote from the autobiography that
> is in your video merely says that he heard the object fall to the floor
> "with a 'tink' like a wedding ring," if I'm remembering the words
> correctly, and that the nurse picked it up. But in that quote he doesn't
> say that she told him what she had picked up, or indeed that she said
> anything at all. He just says it was the bullet from his thigh, but
> doesn't say that she agreed. He also didn't say that he felt anything
> drop out of his thigh. The possibility exists that he heard one of the
> fragments from his wrist drop on the floor and mistakenly assumed that it
> was from his thigh.
>
No, tiny bullet fragment would not make enough noise. It was his
cufflink, which went missing.
>> Dallas DA Wade said he came to visit Connally and encountered a nurse
>> who showed him a bullet which she said fell from Connally's gurney.
>
> Hmmm, can you provide a cite for Wade saying in his own words that a nurse
> did that? According to my notes the quotation of Wade in your video makes
> no mention of a nurse, and instead merely says that the bullet was found
> on a "gurney," i.e. stretcher, so that quote would apply just as well to
> the Tomlinson bullet.
>
How long will you keep ignoring that Dr. Shaw said in a press conference
that he had not yet removed the bullet from Connally's thigh and would do
so later? My question is if he was saying that at the exact second that
the nurse claimed to pick up the bullet.
Why do the local police need to maintain a legal chain of evidence in a
case like this? It wasn't as if it were a Federal case. They didn't need
no damn evidence at all. Just beat a confession from their suspect.
No, there isn't.
> viewings of the film I had never noticed that until a few years ago when
> Paul Seaton posted an animated gif of those frames in slow motion which
> repeated over and over, I think, and which zoomed in close on that area.
> Then it was obvious. I don't know yet whether similar detailed analysis
> might reveal another piece blasting to the rear and landing on the trunk.
>
You are easily fooled by optical illusions.
Now you are starting to get it.
Robert Harris
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Just give me the name of a Parkland employee who is willing to do a
little digging through their archives and I'll be all over this.
On other issues, Parkland's policy has been that they will research
nothing and provide no records about anything, due to "patient privacy"
rules.
>
> > If you can get someone at Parkland to talk to you about pretty
> > much anything, you'll be doing doing a lot better than I have. But the
> > number of wound victims they treated back then, was extremely high. I've
> > heard the number of 1200 per year in forums, though I've never been able
> > to corroborate that. This is what Dr. McClelland testified,
> >
> > Mr. SPECTER - And what has provided the opportunity for your experience
> > here at Parkland in residency training and on the staff with respect to
> > acquiring knowledge of gunshot wounds?
> >
> > Dr. McCLELLAND - Largely this has been related to the type of hospital
> > which Parkland is; namely, City-County Hospital which receives all of
> > the indigent patients of this county, many of whom are involved
> > frequently in shooting altercations, so that we do see a large number of
> > that type patient almost daily.
>
> "Almost daily." But not necessarily every day.
Not necessarily every day that they get a "large number" of victims.
> And there were three
> gunshot victims admitted that day, JFK, Connally, and Tippit.
I don't believe what I'm hearing.
I guess the four others who would have been wounded instead of them,
certainly owe a debt of gratitude:-)
> I'm
> including him because I believe I'm correct that J.D. was taken to
> Parkland where he was pronounced dead on arrival. What we need to know is
> was there a fourth victim admitted earlier in the day.
Mr. Caeruleo, you are more intelligent than this.
Over the years, Connally told associates that he never believed that
Oswald acted alone, but would not say that publicly because he thought
the nation needed closure. It's not surprising that he never revealed
this to the WC or HSCA, because it would have been a bombshell. I posted
a cite in another thread about that. I'll look it up later.
In the meantime, why not consider the wild and crazy theory, that the
man simply told the truth - especially since his recollection matches
so perfectly with Wade and Nolan's?
>
> > Dallas DA Wade said he came to visit Connally and encountered a nurse
> > who showed him a bullet which she said fell from Connally's gurney.
>
> Hmmm, can you provide a cite for Wade saying in his own words that a nurse
> did that? According to my notes the quotation of Wade in your video makes
> no mention of a nurse, and instead merely says that the bullet was found
> on a "gurney," i.e. stretcher, so that quote would apply just as well to
> the Tomlinson bullet.
No mention of a nurse??
I called a number of my assistants together. We went down to the
sheriff's office where they were interviewing some of the witnesses, and
talked with police, sent an assistant up to work with police. At that
time we had no idea who did it. I also went out to see (Gov. John)
Connally, but he was in the operating room. Some nurse had a bullet in
her hand, and said this was on the gurney that Connally was on.
I talked with Nellie Connally a while and then went on home.
Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet
people have talked about?
A: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I
assume that's the pristine bullet.
(unquote)
And she did give that bullet to the police as she was instructed. When
you're a scrub nurse, you don't defy the Dallas District Attorney.
She gave it to officer Nolan, who delivered it to the DPD.
>
> > Texas Hwy Patrolman Bobby Nolan said a nurse gave him an envelope which
> > she said, contained a bullet that came from Governor Connally's gurney,
> > and apparently, from his thigh, which is what Nolan told the FBI in the
> > early morning hours the next day.
>
> Quoting from your interview with Nolan at 37:13:
>
> "And I don?t know if it was a fragment of a bullet or a whole bullet,
> because it was in a little small brown envelope. And it was sealed, and
> it was about, I?d say uh 2 by 3 inches. And it was in that envelope when
> I got it and I never did look at it or anything."
>
> He said he didn't see what was in the envelope and didn't "know if it was
> a fragment of a bullet or a whole bullet."
He said he did not have first hand knowledge of whether it was a bullet
or not, but he also stated that the nurse told him it was a "bullet"
from Connally's gurney. And he told the FBI that it came from
Connallly's "thigh", something he could only have been told by that
same nurse.
The FBI did call it a "fragment" however. My own suspicion is that it
was a somewhat mangled bullet, as we might expect under those conditions.
So we have three witnesses, or four if you count the nurse, who all
corroborate the fact this bullet went from Connally, to the nurse, to
Nolan.
Obviously, the bullet that Tomlinson found had nothing to do with
Connally.
>
> > Obviously, the bullet found by Tomlinson could not have been the one
> > that wounded Connally, if those statements are correct.
>
> If those statements are correct, and some of them are doubtful.
Please be specific about why you think they are doubtful?
The consistency of those statements makes them extremely corroborative
with each other. We might be doubtful about JBC, who after all, was not
in the greatest condition at the time.
But do you really think that three different men and one nurse all
suffered a delusion about a nonexistent bullet that fell from Connally's
gurney??
And isn't it interesting to contrast the 100% corroboration of these
witnesses, with the 100% denial of the four men who originally examined
the stretcher bullet but refused to confirm that it was ce399?
I guess you could say we're both batting 1000:-)
> And the
> one that most needs to be correct is Connally's latter-day claim that it
> was the bullet from his thigh which fell onto the floor, because if he was
> mistaken about this, then none of the rest of it works to support that
> bullet not being the Tomlinson bullet.
Nonsense.
Wade said he talked to the nurse who held the bullet in her hand, that
came from Connally's gurney.
Nolan obviously, talked to that same nurse who also said the bullet came
from his gurney and from his thigh.
Even if Connally had never said a word about it, we still have an
airtight case for THAT bullet being the one that wounded JBC. And you
still have to come up with a lot of excuses for why every man who
handled the Tomlinson bullet, refused to confirm it.
This is NOT a close call.
>
> > The FBI told the WC that SA Odum interviewed Tomlinson and Wright and
> > that they said CE-399 looked similar to the stretcher bullet. But, when
> > Aguilar and Thompson contacted the N.A. there was no record of such an
> > interview.
> >
> > They then contacted Odum himself, who said he never conducted such an
> > interview and never saw CE-399.
> >
> > Do you find that even slightly disturbing?
>
> Yes I do, and more than slightly. This whole case was mishandled in many
> ways, and this is yet another example of that. However, it still doesn't
> definitely mean that CE399 is not the bullet that came out of his thigh.
> It might just mean that the chain of evidence regarding that bullet was
> handled extremely badly.
Perhaps, but of infinitely more importance, it also proves that the FBI
lied to the WC. And they lied for the purpose of making it appear that
ce399 was the bullet that wounded Governor Connally and JFK.
>
> > > > There is no reason to expect a massive explosion like the one at 313.
> > > > And
> > > > the protrusion was not caused by that kind of firepower. It was simply
> > > > the
> > > > result of that piece of skull flipping to the rear.
> > > >
> > > > For a number of reasons, I think that shot came from either a handgun
> > > > or
> > > > a
> > > > very small caliber weapon, and that the broken skullpiece may have
> > > > already
> > > > been broken or partially broken at 313.
> > >
> > > I believe it was broken at 313. However, in the video you say that it
> > > still required the additional force of the second shot to the head in
> > > order to flip it open
> >
> > Of course. The skull piece obviously hadn't flipped, even in frames
> > after the explosion had completely subsided. There is no doubt that this
> > happened later.
>
> I am still not convinced that the skull piece hasn't already flipped open
> immediately after 313. It may simply be difficult to see that protrusion
> until we finally get a clear profile view of his head in the 330s. I do
> see what could possibly be the protrusion already present in the Moorman
> photo:
>
> http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7254/moormanprotuberance.jpg
>
> http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/4580/moormanprotuberance1.jpg
Well, I see a little white slash mark, but there are a zillion of those
in the photo
http://jfkhistory.com/moorman.jpg
But you tell me. Do you see anything even remotely like this?
Obviously, I was talking about matter being blown to the rear. We all
know that things were blown forward.
> There is indeed another
> piece of the skull which is seen blasting forward out of his head, hitting
> the back of the jump seat, bouncing off of it and tumbling in the air for
> a few frames, then dropping out of view toward the floorboard. In many
> viewings of the film I had never noticed that until a few years ago when
> Paul Seaton posted an animated gif of those frames in slow motion which
> repeated over and over, I think, and which zoomed in close on that area.
> Then it was obvious. I don't know yet whether similar detailed analysis
> might reveal another piece blasting to the rear and landing on the trunk.
>
> > And yet, we know that they were. Even SA Frazier testified that
> > large pieces of brain tissue were blown out onto the trunk.
>
> That is a good point.
>
> > Not only do we see no such thing at 313, but we see no place in the rear
> > of the head through which such large pieces of tissue could have exited.
>
> Well now, as to that, just because the piece went to the rear doesn't
> necessarily mean it came from the rear of the head. The top right and
> forward right portions of the skull were missing the greatest amount of
> bone according to the autopsy materials. I would think those pieces
> blasted out in all directions, not only forward. And one possibility is
> that the piece Jackie grabbed might have blasted out almost straight up,
> maybe quite a few feet, and fell back down, and since the limo was also
> moving forward, would not have landed back on JFK but behind him.
You need to study Jackie's movements then. There is absolutely no reason
why she would have turned around and reached back across the trunk, if
she didn't know there was something to retrieve.
And she sure as hell wasn't looking up in the sky for it.
> This
> might also explain why it stayed on the trunk long enough for her to grab
> it. If it had blasted straight out of his head backwards, one would think
> that the velocity might have been so great that it would have shot right
> off the back of the trunk. And I don't know why I keep saying "skull."
> What she grabbed might have been brain tissue instead.
Not "might". Immediately after returning to her seat, she said "I have
his brains in my hand.". She carried that tissue with her all the way to
Parkland and then gave it to Dr. Jenkins.
> After all, didn't
> she say something like, "They've killed my husband; I have his brains in
> my hand"? And wasn't it a piece of brain tissue that she handed to that
> nurse at Parkland, not a piece of bone?
Sigh..
You need to watch the video again, this time remaining conscious:-)
> And quite a lot of brain tissue
> was blasted out of the right forward part of his head too, but not
> necessarily all of it went only forward. Some of it did, obviously, since
> Connally saw some of it fall on him, but if even one piece blasted almost
> straight up, which is entirely plausible, it almost certainly would have
> come back down and landed on the trunk. And since the brain tissue would
> be wet and soft I would think it would adhere to the trunk better than
> bone, which would be more likely to slide off before she could grab it,
> especially since that's about when Greer began accelerating.
Yes, she told told Theodore White that she saw two pieces being ejected.
I think one of them as the large chunk of tissue and the other was the
piece of skull that Clint Hill saw fall from the back of the trunk.
>
> Has it ever occurred to you, as it is occurring to me now, that what
> Jackie saw c.323 was not anything blasting out of his head at that moment,
> but instead as she began turning to the rear, she might have out of the
> corner of her eye seen a piece of brain that had shot upward at 313 coming
> down and landing on the trunk about then? After all, 323 is barely more
> than half a second after 313.
Look at her in the film. You tell me.
>
> > But we do see a large hole in the upper rear of the head from which that
> > large piece of skull bone was displaced, which is the only possible
> > candidate, through which that tissue could have exited.
>
> I do not agree. It is just as plausible that it exited from the top
> right of his head at 313.
Well then, draw us a diagram of the path that you think that tissue took
as it went to the rear.
>
> > To put it more clearly, there was no path at 313 through which that
> > tissue could have been blown directly to the rear.
>
> Since "directly to the rear" is not the only possible way it got there,
> I do not agree with that either.
Well, I'm sorry, but the notion that a chunk of tissue was blasted 40
feet into the air and then landed on the trunk, just doesn't fly with me.
And there is no possible way that Jackie could have seen it prior to
turning back toward the trunk.
I think we have digressed into recreational debate:-)
Jackie told Theodore White what the last thing she saw was, just before
starting to turn around,
"I could see a piece of his skull coming off; It was flesh colored not
white - he was holding out his hand - and I can see this perfectly clean
piece detaching itself from his head - then he slumped in my lap"
And that my friend, is what she saw that provoked her to turn around and
reach back across the trunk.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<7ee5c354-731a-4924...@r9g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Hank Sienzant <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
Of course, I meant, blown to the rear.
RH
Jason Burke
Hey, Harris. The truth, has been, known, for, almost, 48, years, now.
Just because, you, don't want, to believe, it doesn't, mean it's, true.
Jean Davison
> In article <caeruleo1-8AF691.11591014072...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <bobharris77-E36F64.18273913072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
>
> > > In article <caeruleo1-BBF7EC.13341013072...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <bobharris77-6B615C.04255708072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert,
That may be, but Tomlinson told WC critic Raymond Marcus that he
and Wright were shown the bullet by Shanklin and that it looked like the
same one to him. Whether it was really Shanklin or not, I don't know, but
you might want to order a transcript of his 7/25/66 interview from the
Archives, because Tomlinson also told Marcus that he believed the bullet
came off the elevator stretcher. (IMO, Tomlinson never was sure which
stretcher it was, and he wavered back and forth.)
The transcript is HSCA document 180-10088-10206. I don't know the
RIF but it can be found with the NA's JFK search engine:
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/search.html
It's not online anywhere that I know of.
Jean
Robert Harris
<ac7de946-8129-4cba...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 8:06?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article <caeruleo1-8AF691.11591014072...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ?Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <bobharris77-E36F64.18273913072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> > > ?Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > In article <caeruleo1-BBF7EC.13341013072...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > > > ?Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <bobharris77-6B615C.04255708072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> > > > > ?Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
> >
> > > > > Yes, I finally watched all of that yesterday. ?Took me ten hours to
> > > > > get
> > > > > through it, lol. ?I took nine pages of notes on it. ?And I must say
> > > > > again
> > > > > that you did a fine job in putting that together, far better than I
> > > > > could
> > > > > have done.
> >
> > > > Thank you.
> >
> > > You are most welcome.
> >
> > > > > Would you like me to post my notes here? ?Or would you prefer that
> > > > > they
> > > > > be
> > > > > emailed to you? ?Or if you don't care to see them at all, that's fine
> > > > > too.
> >
> > > > You can post them here or email, and I will definitely look at them,
> > > > although I might skip over anything that is not flattering:-)
> >
> > > Heh. ?I understand. ?I will be plain in advance: I am highly critical of
> > > some of your conclusions in the video
> >
> > OHMIGOD! Say it ain't so:-)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > although at a few places in the
> > > notes I do also express agreement with some of your views. ?Nowhere in
> > > them am I overtly rude, however, and there is nothing close to any ad
> > > hominem attack. ?I did my best to keep the tone courteous. ?But I do
> > > believe that throughout I present logical reasons for my own views. ?
> > > Naturally, even in eight pages of notes (sorry, I had said nine before,
> > > but I looked again and found that it was eight) I could not address every
> > > single detail your raised, and there are some issues I have not studied
> > > extensively enough yet, or it has been a long time since I've done so, so
> > > I would need to refresh my memory by looking through that documentation
> > > again before I can address those things substantively.
> >
> > > So, here or in email is ok...hmmm. ?Well, if it's posted here, others can
> > > also review it and weigh in. ?On the other hand, privately would show you
> > > the courtesy reviewing it first, and possibly pointing out to me flaws in
> > > my reasoning. ?I'm leaning a bit more toward that, at least for now. ?I
> > > do
> > > not agree with all your conclusions, but I would nevertheless prefer to
> > > remain on friendly terms with you.
> >
> > > > > I do have two questions though:
> >
> > > > > At 31:21 you say of CE 399: "What is far more likely is that the
> > > > > bullet
> > > > > Tomlinson found was from a different victim who had nothing to do
> > > > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > shooting in Dealey Plaza." ?I watched the remaining 45 minutes of the
> > > > > video with bated breath waiting to see if you were going to identify
> > > > > this
> > > > > victim, or at least say more about this victim, but nothing about the
> > > > > victim was ever mentioned again. ?Who was this victim?
> >
> > > > I have no idea. But Parkland treats thousands of gunshot wounds every
> > > > year, so there was undoubtedly, no shortage of candidates.
> >
> > > I see. ?Is there a record of anyone else having been brought in that day
> > > with a gunshot wound? ?
> >
> > Probably. If you can get someone at Parkland to talk to you about pretty
> > much anything, you'll be doing doing a lot better than I have. But the
> > number of wound victims they treated back then, was extremely high. I've
> > heard the number of 1200 per year in forums, though I've never been able
> > to corroborate that. This is what Dr. McClelland testified,
> >
> > Mr. SPECTER - And what has provided the opportunity for your experience
> > here at Parkland in residency training and on the staff with respect to
> > acquiring knowledge of gunshot wounds?
> >
> > Dr. McCLELLAND - Largely this has been related to the type of hospital
> > which Parkland is; namely, City-County Hospital which receives all of
> > the indigent patients of this county, many of whom are involved
> > frequently in shooting altercations, so that we do see a large number of
> > that type patient almost daily.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Because, if the bullet found by Tomlinson was not
> > > fired from the Carcano, one would think that the victim would have had to
> > > have been brought to the hospital that same day. ?I'm not sure I would
> > > find it plausible that the bullet was on that stretcher for more than one
> > > day before it was found.
> >
> > > > There are many other issues related to this. I'm surprised that you
> > > > chose not to address them.
> >
> > > I thought I had made it plain that I had already addressed many more
> > > issues in my notes than I have yet posted here. ?I was trying to show you
> > > the courtesy of asking you if you were ok with me posting all of that
> > > here, or if you preferred to review it privately first, or if you did not
> > > want to see it at all. ?I'm not sure yet which issues you're referring to
Yes, I know that Tomlinson was a bit wishy washy on this over the years
and may have been talked into changing his story, but we know that his
EARLIEST response was to refuse to confirm CE399.
The bottom line is, that after he took Connally's stretcher from the
elevator, he parked it behind another stretcher that was in front of the
door to the rest room, and then left. When he returned, the bullet fell
from the stretcher that was in front of the restroom door, as he pushed it
back in place.
He did indeed, express uncertainty, but only because he could not confirm
that someone didn't come along and reverse the positions of the two
stretchers.
But doesn't that strike you as a bit improbable?
Robert Harris
Hank Sienzant
Okay, then I agree with you. There is no matter blown to the rear in
the Z-film.
Mostly because there was no shot from the front, the left-front, or
the right front.
Because the only shot that hit JFK in the head came from behind, from
the sniper's nest, from Oswald's rifle.
Once again we see conspiracy claims have no substance in fact.
If JFK was struck from the right front, we should see blood and brain
matter blown out to the left rear. The fact that we don't is mute
evidence to the point that JFK wasn't struck from the right front.
All the best,
Hank
Hank Sienzant
> HankSienzant<hsienz...@Aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 15, 9:05?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <35667193-99e8-4005-a9c9-d0adb0057...@q15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Certainly. But the evidence any of them were gunshot victims is nil, right
now.
>
>
>
> > As I noted, Thompson had the registration form. He had the belief at one
> > time CE399 was a plant. Planting the bullet on a bloody gunshot victim's
> > stretcher would appear to be more reasonable than planting it on the
> > stretcher of a child bloody from a fall. But Thompson neither mentions
> > that possibility nor how he eliminated it.
>
> > Conclusion: Thompson saw there was no evidence of a gunshot victim (other
> > than JFK or Connally) that would put his stretcher in juxtaposition with a
> > stretcher that would be in the right place at the right time to be the
> > stretcher where CE399 was found. Etgo, he had to settle for the bloody
> > stretcher of Ronald Fuller.
>
> I think that if he had confirmed that there were no earlier gunshot
> victims, he would have said so. But he was obviously, interested in
> arguing that the bullet was planted, so he had no need to find a victim
> who might have been connected to a different bullet.
No, and you miss my point: I think Thompson was highly inclined to find a
gunshot wound victim's stretcher, as that would be far more likely to be
where he could argue a bullet was likely to be dropped. He ultimated
decided it was not planted. Instead, all he could find was Ronald Fuller,
a six year old kid bleeding from a fall.
>
> Parkland processed numerous gunshot victims, on a daily basis. There is a
> high probability that JFK and Connally were not the first that day.
>
>
Well, correct me if I am wrong, but the doctor you cited said the Parkland
doctors "saw gunshot wound victims almost daily". That language implies
less than one per shift, if not less than one per day. I don;t know if he
was talking about across the board, or across one shift. How many gunshot
wound victims occurred in Dallas in 1963? Do you know? How many hospitals
were there? Dividing the 1200 gunshot wound victims per year (I think you
mentioned that figure) by just four hospitals would get us to 300 per
hospital per year, or less than one daily - consistent with your quote.
If it is less than one per day, then the odds are against what you claim
happened. From what I know of odds, the race does not always go to the
swift, and the match not always to the strong, but that's the way to bet.
So you need to firm up these odds a bit until they are in your favor.
>
> > Let me know what evidence you have to the contrary.
>
> Like you and everyone else, I have no documentation about how many people
> were treated for gunshot wounds that day or when they were treated. That
> hardly proves that there were none prior to the assassination.
>
> Demanding evidence that we both know does not exist, is a tactic. It
> doesn't bring us any closer to the truth.
I didn't know it doesn't exist. Thompson, for example, who published one
page for 11/22, may have copies of the sheets for the remainder of the
11/22 and 11/21 admissions to the hospital. Have you contacted to find out
if he does and if they show any GSW's? If not, you're not interested in
establishing the truth, just on seeking converts to your cause.
And I think you just admitted you have no evidence to support your belief.
I was raised not to debate religious beliefs, so I think my work is done
here.
If you are interested in the truth, contact Thompson and see what he has
in the way of evidence. Then, regardless of what it shows, post what you
find out here. If you don't do that, you are not interested in getting
closer to the truth.
Carry on.
Caeruleo
<9ca4895f-e9db-46c6...@a31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>,
Hank Sienzant <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
> Let me know what evidence you have to the contrary. I trust it is
> something more than "Parkland treats thousands of gunshot wounds every
> year, so there was undoubtedly, no shortage of candidates." To the
> contrary, I would say the evidence in _SSID_ establishes there was just
> such a shortage at the pertinent time.
Actually there was no shortage that day either. Three gunshot victims
were taken to Parkland that day. One was pronounced dead 22 minutes after
arrival, one recovered, and one was pronounced dead on arrival. Of
course, it is doubtful that the stretcher bullet came from the third one.
Nevertheless, it did occur to me that in the context of an argument that
Parkland received gunshot victims every day, or nearly every day, that
with three being brought in that day that probably already reached the
daily average, so one might not expect to have a fourth one.
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-9EB3...@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Why "undoubtedly," Robert? What was their daily average of gunshot
victims during 1963? They had three gunshot victims as it was on
11-22-63 if you count Tippit, who was brought to Parkland but was
pronounced dead on arrival. If there were already three that day, why
would there necessarily be any more?
> > Let me know what evidence you have to the contrary.
>
> Like you and everyone else, I have no documentation about how many people
> were treated for gunshot wounds that day or when they were treated.
>
> That
> hardly proves that there were none prior to the assassination.
True, but an absence of proof of an earlier gunshot victim that day does
undermine the idea of the stretcher bullet being from such a victim.
Robert Harris
<d0d28446-7ca6-49fe...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Hank Sienzant <hsie...@Aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 9:04?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7ee5c354-731a-4924-80c8-ae031d088...@r9g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> > ?HankSienzant<hsienz...@Aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 15, 9:06?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <caeruleo1-8AF691.11591014072...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> >
> > > > ?Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <bobharris77-E36F64.18273913072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> > > > > ?Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > In article <caeruleo1-BBF7EC.13341013072...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > > > > > ?Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <bobharris77-6B615C.04255708072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>
> > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > ?Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
> >
> > > > > > > Yes, I finally watched all of that yesterday. ?Took me ten hours
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > through it, lol. ?I took nine pages of notes on it. ?And I must
> > > > > > > say
> > > > > > > again
> > > > > > > that you did a fine job in putting that together, far better than
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > have done.
> >
> > > > > > Thank you.
> >
> > > > > You are most welcome.
> >
> > > > > > > Would you like me to post my notes here? ?Or would you prefer
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > emailed to you? ?Or if you don't care to see them at all, that's
> > > > > > > fine
> > > > > > > too.
> >
> > > > > > You can post them here or email, and I will definitely look at
> > > > > > them,
> > > > > > although I might skip over anything that is not flattering:-)
> >
> > > > > Heh. ?I understand. ?I will be plain in advance: I am highly critical
> > > > > of
> > > > > some of your conclusions in the video
> >
> > > > OHMIGOD! Say it ain't so:-)
> >
> > > > > although at a few places in the
> > > > > notes I do also express agreement with some of your views. ?Nowhere
> > > > > in
> > > > > them am I overtly rude, however, and there is nothing close to any ad
> > > > > hominem attack. ?I did my best to keep the tone courteous. ?But I do
> > > > > believe that throughout I present logical reasons for my own views. ?
> > > > > Naturally, even in eight pages of notes (sorry, I had said nine
> > > > > before,
> > > > > but I looked again and found that it was eight) I could not address
> > > > > every
> > > > > single detail your raised, and there are some issues I have not
> > > > > studied
> > > > > extensively enough yet, or it has been a long time since I've done
> > > > > so, so
> > > > > I would need to refresh my memory by looking through that
> > > > > documentation
> > > > > again before I can address those things substantively.
> >
> > > > > So, here or in email is ok...hmmm. ?Well, if it's posted here, others
> > > > > can
> > > > > also review it and weigh in. ?On the other hand, privately would show
> > > > > you
> > > > > the courtesy reviewing it first, and possibly pointing out to me
> > > > > flaws in
> > > > > my reasoning. ?I'm leaning a bit more toward that, at least for now.
> > > > > ?I
> > > > > do
> > > > > not agree with all your conclusions, but I would nevertheless prefer
> > > > > to
> > > > > remain on friendly terms with you.
> >
> > > > > > > I do have two questions though:
> >
> > > > > > > At 31:21 you say of CE 399: "What is far more likely is that the
> > > > > > > bullet
> > > > > > > Tomlinson found was from a different victim who had nothing to do
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > shooting in Dealey Plaza." ?I watched the remaining 45 minutes of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > video with bated breath waiting to see if you were going to
> > > > > > > identify
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > victim, or at least say more about this victim, but nothing about
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > victim was ever mentioned again. ?Who was this victim?
> >
> > > > > > I have no idea. But Parkland treats thousands of gunshot wounds
> > > > > > every
> > > > > > year, so there was undoubtedly, no shortage of candidates.
> >
> > > > > I see. ?Is there a record of anyone else having been brought in that
> > > > > day
> > > > > with a gunshot wound? ?
> >
> > > > Probably. If you can get someone at Parkland to talk to you about
> > > > pretty
> > > > much anything, you'll be doing doing a lot better than I have. But the
> > > > number of wound victims they treated back then, was extremely high.
> > > > I've
> > > > heard the number of 1200 per year in forums, though I've never been
> > > > able
> > > > to corroborate that. This is what Dr. McClelland testified,
> >
> > > > Mr. SPECTER - And what has provided the opportunity for your experience
> > > > here at Parkland in residency training and on the staff with respect to
> > > > acquiring knowledge of gunshot wounds?
> >
> > > > Dr. McCLELLAND - Largely this has been related to the type of hospital
> > > > which Parkland is; namely, City-County Hospital which receives all of
> > > > the indigent patients of this county, many of whom are involved
> > > > frequently in shooting altercations, so that we do see a large number
> > > > of
> > > > that type patient almost daily.
> >
> > > > > Because, if the bullet found by Tomlinson was not
> > > > > fired from the Carcano, one would think that the victim would have
> > > > > had to
> > > > > have been brought to the hospital that same day. ?I'm not sure I
> > > > > would
> > > > > find it plausible that the bullet was on that stretcher for more than
> > > > > one
> > > > > day before it was found.
> >
> > > > > > There are many other issues related to this. I'm surprised that you
> > > > > > chose not to address them.
> >
> > > > > I thought I had made it plain that I had already addressed many more
> > > > > issues in my notes than I have yet posted here. ?I was trying to show
> > > > > you
> > > > > the courtesy of asking you if you were ok with me posting all of that
> > > > > here, or if you preferred to review it privately first, or if you did
> > > > > not
> > > > > want to see it at all. ?I'm not sure yet which issues you're
> > > > > > > head was caused by that shot that was not caused at 313. ?Yet no
> > > > > > > trace of
> > > > > > > any second explosion of bloody matter can be seen at all. ?
> >
> > > > > > I replied to that question in another thread,
> >
> > > > > Oh, I'm sorry, I haven't seen that yet.
> >
> > > > > > There is no reason to expect a massive explosion like the one at
> > > > > > 313.
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > the protrusion was not caused by that kind of firepower. It was
> > > > > > simply
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > result of that piece of skull flipping to the rear.
> >
> > > > > > For a number of reasons, I think that shot came from either a
> > > > > > handgun
> > > > > > or a
> > > > > > very small caliber weapon, and that the broken skullpiece may have
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > been broken or partially broken at 313.
> >
> > > > > I believe it was broken at 313. ?However, in the video you say that
> > > > > it
> > > > > still required the additional force of the second shot to the head in
> > > > > order to flip it open
> >
> > > > Of course. The skull piece obviously hadn't flipped, even in frames
> > > > after the explosion had completely subsided. There is no doubt that
> > > > this
> > > > happened later.
> >
> > > > > and also to blast at least one piece of his head
> > > > > out onto the trunk long enough after 313 for Jackie to see it flying
> > > > > out
> > > > > from his head. ?But these were not the only effects of the second
> > > > > shot
> > > > > that you proposed. ?You also said that some additional damage more
> > > > > toward
> > > > > the front of his head was caused by that shot, damage that is not yet
> > > > > visible prior to the 320s. ?For a shot to cause that much additional
> > > > > damage to his head added to what was caused by the shot at 313, even
> > > > > with
> > > > > a small caliber pistol, I would still expect to see an obvious
> > > > > explosion
> > > > > of more bloody material out of his head. ?Sure, maybe not as large an
> > > > > explosion as at 313, but still enough to be obvious. ?Also, if Jackie
> > > > > is
> > > > > seeing a piece of his head shoot out onto the trunk, I ought to see
> > > > > it
> > > > > too
> > > > > if I look closely enough, at least a blur of something shooting out
> > > > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > rear. ?It couldn't have shot out with a very high velocity or it
> > > > > would
> > > > > have whizzed right off the trunk and Jackie would not have been able
> > > > > to
> > > > > grab it. ?After all, in the frames immediately following 313 you can
> > > > > indeed see a piece of his skull shooting forward out of his head,
> > > > > bouncing
> > > > > off of the back of the jump seat where Connally had been sitting, and
> > > > > falling down toward the floorboard. ?I think it was Paul Seaton who
But that's not the end of the story.
Charles Brehm said a large piece of matter from JFK's head was blown back
to where he was standing. And Clint Hill said a piece of skullbone was
blown to the rear and fell of the back of the trunk.
Jackie retrieved a large piece of brain tissue from the trunk, and even
FBI SA Frazier testified that pieces of brain tissue were found on the
trunk.
So, the question becomes, did that happen at 313, when we could clearly
see that there was no defect through which pieces like that could have
been blown to the rear, or did it happen later - after a large hole was
blown out in the upper rear of the head, which was out of our view much
of the time?
It had to have happened sometime, Hank.
Robert Harris
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-D880...@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ricky Tobias.
> On other issues, Parkland's policy has been that they will research
> nothing and provide no records about anything, due to "patient privacy"
> rules.
Mmm, yeah. Well Ricky would certainly love to go digging on this. I'd
think this would be right up his alley. I assume he's still around and
still working at Parkland. I haven't seen him post here since 2005
though, so I don't know.
> > > If you can get someone at Parkland to talk to you about pretty
> > > much anything, you'll be doing doing a lot better than I have. But the
> > > number of wound victims they treated back then, was extremely high. I've
> > > heard the number of 1200 per year in forums, though I've never been able
> > > to corroborate that. This is what Dr. McClelland testified,
> > >
> > > Mr. SPECTER - And what has provided the opportunity for your experience
> > > here at Parkland in residency training and on the staff with respect to
> > > acquiring knowledge of gunshot wounds?
> > >
> > > Dr. McCLELLAND - Largely this has been related to the type of hospital
> > > which Parkland is; namely, City-County Hospital which receives all of
> > > the indigent patients of this county, many of whom are involved
> > > frequently in shooting altercations, so that we do see a large number of
> > > that type patient almost daily.
> >
> > "Almost daily." But not necessarily every day.
>
> Not necessarily every day that they get a "large number" of victims.
Ok.
> > And there were three
> > gunshot victims admitted that day, JFK, Connally, and Tippit.
>
> I don't believe what I'm hearing.
>
> I guess the four others who would have been wounded instead of them,
> certainly owe a debt of gratitude:-)
Lol. Oh, I was just halfway teasing about that, and in another article
or two that I posted in this thread just now. But of course, of course,
I know there wouldn't necessarily be a "daily quota" of gunshot victims,
and once it's reached you won't have any more that day. Heh. I'd
imagine that the reality is that it's quite random, some days more, some
days less.
> > I'm
> > including him because I believe I'm correct that J.D. was taken to
> > Parkland where he was pronounced dead on arrival. What we need to know is
> > was there a fourth victim admitted earlier in the day.
>
> Mr. Caeruleo, you are more intelligent than this.
Oh, I dunno about that. I've said some extremely stupid things here
many times. But anyway, it is true that we may never know for sure
whether or not there were any other gunshot victims brought in earlier
today. The possibility exists that someone back then got a copy of all
of the pages from that day of the Registration of Patients, not just
that one page that is in the Commission volumes which I think is what's
in the Thompson book. But if so, who knows if that will ever surface?
Still, it is certainly quite possible that there was another, perhaps
several others earlier that day, although morning doesn't seem to me to
be the most likely time for shootings; seems like more of those occur at
night. But there could have been several brought in overnight too.
Entirely possible. And sure, why should we completely rule out a
morning shooting? No reason that I can think of. It's just, as I said
before, the longer the amount of time that stretcher sits there, the
greater the chance the bullet will be found before the assassination has
even happened, so that other shooting victim can't be brought in too
many hours earlier.
Still, the proper researcher considers all possibilities, wouldn't you
agree? What if it's really true, Robert, whether we ever know if for
sure or not, that it just so happened that on that particular day no
other shooting victims had been brought in within the last 12 hours,
let's say, prior to JFK and JBC being brought in? What happens to your
theory then? Since you can't yet confirm it either way, have you
considered another possibility?
The problem I'm having is this whole thing rests on something that
cannot be confirmed to have occurred, or to have not occurred.
Sure, he might have been telling the truth. That's not beyond the realm
of possibility.
> > > Dallas DA Wade said he came to visit Connally and encountered a nurse
> > > who showed him a bullet which she said fell from Connally's gurney.
> >
> > Hmmm, can you provide a cite for Wade saying in his own words that a nurse
> > did that? According to my notes the quotation of Wade in your video makes
> > no mention of a nurse, and instead merely says that the bullet was found
> > on a "gurney," i.e. stretcher, so that quote would apply just as well to
> > the Tomlinson bullet.
>
> No mention of a nurse??
>
> I called a number of my assistants together. We went down to the
> sheriff's office where they were interviewing some of the witnesses, and
> talked with police, sent an assistant up to work with police. At that
> time we had no idea who did it. I also went out to see (Gov. John)
> Connally, but he was in the operating room. Some nurse had a bullet in
> her hand, and said this was on the gurney that Connally was on.
> I talked with Nellie Connally a while and then went on home.
>
> Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet
> people have talked about?
>
> A: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I
> assume that's the pristine bullet.
>
> (unquote)
Duh, now that you quote that I realize I've read that before. Sorry
about that. Now did she actually hold out the bullet and show it to
Wade, or was it in an envelope already?
> And she did give that bullet to the police as she was instructed. When
> you're a scrub nurse, you don't defy the Dallas District Attorney.
>
> She gave it to officer Nolan, who delivered it to the DPD.
Inside an envelope, yes.
> > > Texas Hwy Patrolman Bobby Nolan said a nurse gave him an envelope which
> > > she said, contained a bullet that came from Governor Connally's gurney,
> > > and apparently, from his thigh, which is what Nolan told the FBI in the
> > > early morning hours the next day.
> >
> > Quoting from your interview with Nolan at 37:13:
> >
> > "And I don?t know if it was a fragment of a bullet or a whole bullet,
> > because it was in a little small brown envelope. And it was sealed, and
> > it was about, I?d say uh 2 by 3 inches. And it was in that envelope when
> > I got it and I never did look at it or anything."
> >
> > He said he didn't see what was in the envelope and didn't "know if it was
> > a fragment of a bullet or a whole bullet."
>
> He said he did not have first hand knowledge of whether it was a bullet
> or not, but he also stated that the nurse told him it was a "bullet"
> from Connally's gurney. And he told the FBI that it came from
> Connallly's "thigh", something he could only have been told by that
> same nurse.
>
> The FBI did call it a "fragment" however. My own suspicion is that it
> was a somewhat mangled bullet, as we might expect under those conditions.
>
> So we have three witnesses, or four if you count the nurse, who all
> corroborate the fact this bullet went from Connally, to the nurse, to
> Nolan.
>
> Obviously, the bullet that Tomlinson found had nothing to do with
> Connally.
Well wait now, I'm still seeing a hole in this, and maybe you've already
answered this before, but I can't remember. Or maybe you can clear it
up now. As I recall from the video you went through all this and made
the point that the bullet from his thigh became the fragments from his
wrist, I think after the FBI got hold of than envelope from Nolan, isn't
that correct? Now, what happened to the *real* fragments from his
wrist? If you explained that already I've forgotten it. I am seeing
this though:
**********
Mr. SPECTER - What did you do, Dr. Gregory, with the missile fragments
which you removed from his wrists?
Dr. GREGORY - Those were turned over to the operating room nurse in
attendance with instructions that they should be presented to the
appropriate authorities present, probably a member of the Texas Rangers,
but that is as far as I went with it myself.
**********
Who was this operating room nurse?
> > > Obviously, the bullet found by Tomlinson could not have been the one
> > > that wounded Connally, if those statements are correct.
> >
> > If those statements are correct, and some of them are doubtful.
>
> Please be specific about why you think they are doubtful?
>
> The consistency of those statements makes them extremely corroborative
> with each other. We might be doubtful about JBC, who after all, was not
> in the greatest condition at the time.
>
> But do you really think that three different men and one nurse all
> suffered a delusion about a nonexistent bullet that fell from Connally's
> gurney??
No, I'm merely thinking it's possible they're confusing that with the
fragments from his wrist, especially if none of them saw what was inside
the envelope.
> And isn't it interesting to contrast the 100% corroboration of these
> witnesses, with the 100% denial of the four men who originally examined
> the stretcher bullet but refused to confirm that it was ce399?
>
> I guess you could say we're both batting 1000:-)
Possibly. ;-) But was it exactly a "100%" denial? I know you say that
in the video, but Jean Davidson has said Tomlinson was not exactly
consistent about that, and of course I've already noticed his wavering
about which stretcher it was on.
> > And the
> > one that most needs to be correct is Connally's latter-day claim that it
> > was the bullet from his thigh which fell onto the floor, because if he was
> > mistaken about this, then none of the rest of it works to support that
> > bullet not being the Tomlinson bullet.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Wade said he talked to the nurse who held the bullet in her hand, that
> came from Connally's gurney.
Yes, so then it would rest on her claim being true. If she's mistaken
though, then Wade and Nolan are merely repeating her mistaken claim.
> Nolan obviously, talked to that same nurse who also said the bullet came
> from his gurney and from his thigh.
>
> Even if Connally had never said a word about it, we still have an
> airtight case for THAT bullet being the one that wounded JBC.
If her claim is true, perhaps.
> And you
> still have to come up with a lot of excuses for why every man who
> handled the Tomlinson bullet, refused to confirm it.
I do know that on at least one occasion Tomlinson did admit that it
*might* be the same bullet, so that is not quite a refusal.
> This is NOT a close call.
Maybe not. Others here in the group may weigh in on this and may have
some more information. But who knows? You may be right on target with
this. Now I'm forgetting, who were the other three men besides
Tomlinson?
Do remember though, as I said above, that your theory also depends on
there being another gunshot victim brought to the hospital, and it can't
be too many hours earlier. Even if it is very remote, there is a
possibility that there was none. Without that victim, even with what
appears to confirmation from the nurse (Audrey Bell, right?), Connally,
Wade, and Nolan, this is still problematic.
> > > The FBI told the WC that SA Odum interviewed Tomlinson and Wright and
> > > that they said CE-399 looked similar to the stretcher bullet. But, when
> > > Aguilar and Thompson contacted the N.A. there was no record of such an
> > > interview.
> > >
> > > They then contacted Odum himself, who said he never conducted such an
> > > interview and never saw CE-399.
> > >
> > > Do you find that even slightly disturbing?
> >
> > Yes I do, and more than slightly. This whole case was mishandled in many
> > ways, and this is yet another example of that. However, it still doesn't
> > definitely mean that CE399 is not the bullet that came out of his thigh.
> > It might just mean that the chain of evidence regarding that bullet was
> > handled extremely badly.
>
> Perhaps, but of infinitely more importance, it also proves that the FBI
> lied to the WC. And they lied for the purpose of making it appear that
> ce399 was the bullet that wounded Governor Connally and JFK.
Maybe so.
That's an awfully poor copy, but what's on the back of his head doesn't
look quite like a random streak to me.
> But you tell me. Do you see anything even remotely like this?
>
> jfkhistory.com/337.jpg
We've already talked about that. That is a profile view, which neither
the Moorman photo or the frames before the 330s are. Naturally it will
be seen more clearly in profile.
> > > Not only do we see no such thing at 313, but we see no place in the rear
> > > of the head through which such large pieces of tissue could have exited.
> >
> > Well now, as to that, just because the piece went to the rear doesn't
> > necessarily mean it came from the rear of the head. The top right and
> > forward right portions of the skull were missing the greatest amount of
> > bone according to the autopsy materials. I would think those pieces
> > blasted out in all directions, not only forward. And one possibility is
> > that the piece Jackie grabbed might have blasted out almost straight up,
> > maybe quite a few feet, and fell back down, and since the limo was also
> > moving forward, would not have landed back on JFK but behind him.
>
> You need to study Jackie's movements then. There is absolutely no reason
> why she would have turned around and reached back across the trunk, if
> she didn't know there was something to retrieve.
>
> And she sure as hell wasn't looking up in the sky for it.
Well, that's a bit of a strawman, since I never said she'd be looking up
in the sky. ;-) I believe my original point was that out of the corner
of her eye she might see it fall on the trunk. But that's hardly
necessary either. You've already quoted testimony to me to the effect
that there was matter all over the trunk, not one piece of brain only.
> > This
> > might also explain why it stayed on the trunk long enough for her to grab
> > it. If it had blasted straight out of his head backwards, one would think
> > that the velocity might have been so great that it would have shot right
> > off the back of the trunk. And I don't know why I keep saying "skull."
> > What she grabbed might have been brain tissue instead.
>
> Not "might". Immediately after returning to her seat, she said "I have
> his brains in my hand.". She carried that tissue with her all the way to
> Parkland and then gave it to Dr. Jenkins.
Agreed.
> > After all, didn't
> > she say something like, "They've killed my husband; I have his brains in
> > my hand"? And wasn't it a piece of brain tissue that she handed to that
> > nurse at Parkland, not a piece of bone?
>
> Sigh..
>
> You need to watch the video again, this time remaining conscious:-)
Oh har har. :P
Ugh, I need to snip some of this, Robert, I'm sorry, I'm getting tired.
I'm going to skip over my nonsensical calculations and get to the end.
> > And quite a lot of brain tissue
> > was blasted out of the right forward part of his head too, but not
> > necessarily all of it went only forward. Some of it did, obviously, since
> > Connally saw some of it fall on him, but if even one piece blasted almost
> > straight up, which is entirely plausible, it almost certainly would have
> > come back down and landed on the trunk. And since the brain tissue would
> > be wet and soft I would think it would adhere to the trunk better than
> > bone, which would be more likely to slide off before she could grab it,
> > especially since that's about when Greer began accelerating.
>
> Yes, she told told Theodore White that she saw two pieces being ejected.
> I think one of them as the large chunk of tissue and the other was the
> piece of skull that Clint Hill saw fall from the back of the trunk.
Two pieces? In the quote below it seems to be only one. I'll skip to
that now.
> Jackie told Theodore White what the last thing she saw was, just before
> starting to turn around,
>
> "I could see a piece of his skull coming off; It was flesh colored not
> white - he was holding out his hand - and I can see this perfectly clean
> piece detaching itself from his head - then he slumped in my lap"
That seems to me that she's talking about the same piece. And since
she's looking downward at 313, as you've noted, that could be the piece
I told you about. Look at Paul Seaton's animation. It's going right in
front of her face:
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/frags/anim.htm
> And that my friend, is what she saw that provoked her to turn around and
> reach back across the trunk.
And that, my friend, is not necessarily so. She did not remember
climbing on the trunk. The piece she told White about seems quite
obviously to be the same piece in Paul's animation. If it's even
visible in the film, it would be extremely visible to her. But that
didn't go out onto the trunk. Still doesn't rule out what I said
earlier, that as she then raised her head she saw *other* pieces of his
head already there on the trunk and that's why she climbed out to snatch
one.
Jean Davison
"Refused to confirm" is putting it too strongly, I think.
Since he didn't mark it, he couldn't ID it positively. But
he did tell Marcus that it looked like the one he saw, which is what
the FBI claimed he said. That was my point.
>
> The bottom line is, that after he took Connally's stretcher from the
> elevator, he parked it behind another stretcher that was in front of the
> door to the rest room, and then left. When he returned, the bullet fell
> from the stretcher that was in front of the restroom door, as he pushed it
> back in place.
Not that it matters, but Tomlinson denied that the bullet fell
off the stretcher.
>
> He did indeed, express uncertainty, but only because he could not confirm
> that someone didn't come along and reverse the positions of the two
> stretchers.
He wasn't sure which stretcher he took off the elevator:
QUOTE:
Mr. SPECTER. Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher
"A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be perfectly
honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really didn't pay that
much attention to it.
***
Mr. SPECTER. You say you can't really take an oath today to be sure
whether it was stretcher A or stretcher B that you took off the
elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of it,
whether it was A or B that I took off.
UNQUOTE
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htm
Jean
>
> But doesn't that strike you as a bit improbable?
>
> Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Robert Harris
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Can you email me contact info?
This is a bit like asking, "Can you prove that OJ was not fast asleep
in his truck while those murders were being committed? I mean, do you
have photos of an empty front seat then? Or do you have witnesses who
looked into the truck and saw that OJ wasn't in there, snoring??
Well gosh, I guess we will never know if he did it or not - right?"
In most cases, it is possible to find SOMETHING that cannot be proven
and then declare the issue unresolved because that one issue is unknown.
But as in the OJ case, we have a mountain of OTHER evidence which is
more than adequate to tell us what happened.
Nonetheless, I will certainly try to contact Mr. Tobias. There are a
couple other things I'm hoping he could help with as well.
Undoubtedly, she held it behind her back and in a sealed envelope in
order to conceal her deceit.
Look - he didn't say she was holding an envelope. He said she was
holding a "bullet". And SHE said she was holding a bullet.
I know it's another wild and crazy theory, but do you suppose she just
might have really been holding a bullet?
>
> > And she did give that bullet to the police as she was instructed. When
> > you're a scrub nurse, you don't defy the Dallas District Attorney.
> >
> > She gave it to officer Nolan, who delivered it to the DPD.
>
> Inside an envelope, yes.
Yes, it was inside an envelope but trust me, it's going to get worse:-)
Yes
> Now, what happened to the *real* fragments from his
> wrist? If you explained that already I've forgotten it. I am seeing
> this though:
>
> **********
>
> Mr. SPECTER - What did you do, Dr. Gregory, with the missile fragments
> which you removed from his wrists?
> Dr. GREGORY - Those were turned over to the operating room nurse in
> attendance with instructions that they should be presented to the
> appropriate authorities present, probably a member of the Texas Rangers,
> but that is as far as I went with it myself.
>
> **********
>
> Who was this operating room nurse?
That is the $64 dollar question.
The FBI claims that Nolan received an envelope labelled by the WC as
CE-842, which contained four tiny particles from Governor Connally's
wrist. The nurse who dealt with those particles was supervisor, Audrey
M. Bell.
Bell was interviewed by both the HSCA and the ARRB. You should have
heard some of that interview during my presentation.
Bell stated that her recollection was that she removed "four to five"
fragments from a container on the scrub nurses table and placed them in
an envelope which she filled out and initialed.
She gave them to plain clothed agents who came into her office and
signed off for them as is required by hospital policy. She signed off
too. She was uncertain whether they were FBI or Secret Service agents,
but was adamant that they were not in uniform and were not members of
the DP or Texas rangers. Bobby Nolan was in full uniform that day.
This is CE-842
If we believe the official story, we then have supervisor Bell,
retrieving 4 nearly microscopic particles from a container and placing
them in an envelope which she labelled as containing multiple fragments
from the "Right Arm". She would have also known that they were the
product of Dr. Gregory's surgery.
She then marched up to DA Wade and told him she held a single bullet
that came from Connally's gurney.
She then took that envelope, plainly labelled as containing fragments
from his right arm, and told officer Nolan that it contained a single
bullet from Connally's gurney and thigh.
And despite her many years as a supervisor, Ms. Bell forgot to initial
that envelope as hospital procedures required. And the receipt that she
and the plain clothed agent signed off on has evaporated. The ARRB
people told Bell, who was adamantly disputing claims by the FBI, that
they would try to get her a copy of that receipt and mail it to her. But
according to the N.A. no such thing is in the records, as I confirmed
myself.
There's quite a bit more to this. I think I have enough to write a
pretty complete article on the subject, which I'll start on this
afternoon and eventually post at my website.
>
> > > > Obviously, the bullet found by Tomlinson could not have been the one
> > > > that wounded Connally, if those statements are correct.
> > >
> > > If those statements are correct, and some of them are doubtful.
> >
> > Please be specific about why you think they are doubtful?
Take your time:-)
> >
> > The consistency of those statements makes them extremely corroborative
> > with each other. We might be doubtful about JBC, who after all, was not
> > in the greatest condition at the time.
> >
> > But do you really think that three different men and one nurse all
> > suffered a delusion about a nonexistent bullet that fell from Connally's
> > gurney??
>
> No, I'm merely thinking it's possible they're confusing that with the
> fragments from his wrist, especially if none of them saw what was inside
> the envelope.
Do you suppose they were just suffering from the same delusion that
Connally was, or do you think the nurse was delusional and had forgotten
what she had just written on the envelope?
We aren't talking about a little old lady, hitting the wine a bit much.
We're talking about a big city district attorney and a law enforcement
professional who was on duty at the time.
These are guys who deal with criminal evidence all the time and have to
be meticulous about the forensic evidence. Do you REALLY think that they
just misunderstood the nurse?
And do you really think that neither of them even bothered to read
"Bullet fragments" from the "Right Arm" on that envelope? Nolan carried
the envelope with him the rest of the day and delivered it during the
wee morning hours that night.
How could he have told the FBI agents Saturday morning that the envelope
contained a bullet or fragment from the "thigh"?????
I think the bullet from Connally's leg was retrieved by a young nurse
who must have been new and not up to speed on hospital procedures. She
picked the bullet up from the floor, but was unnoticed by the doctors
and other nurses, who were totally focused on keeping JBC alive.
Afterward, she came out of the operating room and ran into DA Wade, who
instructed her to give the bullet to the police. Looking around, she saw
Stinson talking with officer Nolan so she promptly placed the bullet in
an envelope and gave it to him (Nolan).
Meanwhile, supervisor Bell did exactly what she said she did and placed
the wrist fragments into an envelope and gave them to an FBI agent.
During that weekend, the FBI discovered that they had too many bullets
from Connally's body and much worse, neither of them matched Oswald's
rifle. So, they fired a bullet into water or cotton wading which became
CE399. Then, they went to work to make it appear that the envelope Nolan
delivered, contained the fragments from Connally's wrist.
I suppose that all sounds a bit over the top, until we consider that we
already know the FBI lied about what Tomlinson and Wright said, and
fabricated a nonexistent interview.
I also think that when Mr. Hoover said "the public must be convinced"
that Oswald acted alone, he really meant it.
>
> > And isn't it interesting to contrast the 100% corroboration of these
> > witnesses, with the 100% denial of the four men who originally examined
> > the stretcher bullet but refused to confirm that it was ce399?
> >
> > I guess you could say we're both batting 1000:-)
>
> Possibly. ;-) But was it exactly a "100%" denial? I know you say that
> in the video, but Jean Davidson has said Tomlinson was not exactly
> consistent about that, and of course I've already noticed his wavering
> about which stretcher it was on.
Look at my reply to Ms. Davidson. Always, always, always go with
earliest recollections, especially when in later years, the govt is
obviously trying to get the guy to change his story.
And consider that the ONLY reason Tomlinson expressed doubt before the
WC, was that he couldn't be certain that someone didn't come along and
reversed the positions of the stretchers - not an extremely probable
event, don't you agree?
>
> > > And the
> > > one that most needs to be correct is Connally's latter-day claim that it
> > > was the bullet from his thigh which fell onto the floor, because if he
> > > was
> > > mistaken about this, then none of the rest of it works to support that
> > > bullet not being the Tomlinson bullet.
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > Wade said he talked to the nurse who held the bullet in her hand, that
> > came from Connally's gurney.
>
> Yes, so then it would rest on her claim being true. If she's mistaken
> though, then Wade and Nolan are merely repeating her mistaken claim.
If you buy the FBI's version of events, you must believe that not only
was nurse Bell F.O.S. but that she had just labelled that envelope as
containing "fragments" from Connally's "right arm".
What do you think? LSD? Peyote??
>
> > Nolan obviously, talked to that same nurse who also said the bullet came
> > from his gurney and from his thigh.
> >
> > Even if Connally had never said a word about it, we still have an
> > airtight case for THAT bullet being the one that wounded JBC.
>
> If her claim is true, perhaps.
Have I fulfilled my prophecy that it will get worse:-)
>
> > And you
> > still have to come up with a lot of excuses for why every man who
> > handled the Tomlinson bullet, refused to confirm it.
>
> I do know that on at least one occasion Tomlinson did admit that it
> *might* be the same bullet, so that is not quite a refusal.
Do I detect a sense of desperation here?
>
> > This is NOT a close call.
>
> Maybe not. Others here in the group may weigh in on this and may have
> some more information. But who knows? You may be right on target with
> this. Now I'm forgetting, who were the other three men besides
> Tomlinson?
Parkland supervisor O.P.Wright, SS agents Richard Johnson and SAIC James
Rowley.
I don't think so.
>
> > Jackie told Theodore White what the last thing she saw was, just before
> > starting to turn around,
> >
> > "I could see a piece of his skull coming off; It was flesh colored not
> > white - he was holding out his hand - and I can see this perfectly clean
> > piece detaching itself from his head - then he slumped in my lap"
>
> That seems to me that she's talking about the same piece.
"and" is a very important conjunction, as in "I saw a dog gnawing on a
bone and a dog sleeping. How many dogs?
Jackie saw a flesh colored piece of skull and a "perfectly clean piece".
In her WC testimony and her interview with White, she never once used
the term "tissue" or brain tissue, in spite of the fact that she carried
brain tissue all the way to Parkland and talked about it repeatedly.
Instead, she labelled it as "flesh colored" bone or skull. Based on a
number of reasons, I think she made a commitment to never mention that
tissue, which is why she had to substitute the "flesh colored"
terminology.
> And since
> she's looking downward at 313, as you've noted, that could be the piece
> I told you about.
She could have been looking anywhere, except for the minor detail that
if she was looking down at the floorboard, she wouldn't have seen
anything flying to the rear, would she?
Since that tissue was the last thing she saw before getting up and
turning around, don't you think it is likely, that THAT is what provoked
her actions then??
BTW, remember her saying "he was holding out his hand"? Take another
look at 223.
>Look at Paul Seaton's animation. It's going right in
> front of her face:
>
> http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/frags/anim.htm
>
> > And that my friend, is what she saw that provoked her to turn around and
> > reach back across the trunk.
>
> And that, my friend, is not necessarily so. She did not remember
> climbing on the trunk.
I think she did, but that's another can of worms which we can explore
later.
In the meantime, can you get me any contact info on this Parkland guy?
Later,
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Look - he said he parked Connally's stretcher behind another one that
was in front of the rest room door. He came back later and the bullet
fell from a stretcher that was in front of the rest room door.
He not only explained all of that but he demonstrated what happened for
CBS and Cronkite (not exactly conspiracy fanatics:-)
This thing is very simple, despite these efforts to make it appear
otherwise.
Robert Harris
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-30EB...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The bottom line is, that after he took Connally's stretcher from the
> elevator, he parked it behind another stretcher that was in front of the
> door to the rest room, and then left.
I am still waiting for a verbatim quote of Tomlinson in his own words
saying that the stretcher that was on the elevator when he first saw it,
and which he then took off the elevator, was the stretcher that had been
used for Connally. I once again have his WC testimony in front of me as I
type these words, as I also did when watching your video last Tuesday when
it got to the discussion of him, and I plainly see that nowhere in the
entire testimony does he say that the stretcher on the elevator had been
used for Connally, nor does he voice any opinion that I'm able to find
about knowing the identity of any person who had last been on that
stretcher, and in fact makes it quite obvious that he naturally would have
had no idea who had last been on that stretcher, since when he first saw
it it was already inside the elevator. Additionally he described that
stretcher as clean. Of the other stretcher, the one that wasn't on the
elevator, the one that was already in the corridor, he said that one had
bloody sheets on it. I would think a stretcher with bloody sheets on it
would be a bit more likely to be the stretcher that had been used for
Connally, since he was after all bleeding profusely when brought to
Parkland.
Then, as is clearly stated in my notes on your video, at 30:30 you begin
showing a clip of Tomlinson demonstrating how he took the first stretcher
off the elevator, brought it over near the second stretcher that was
already in the corridor, and found the bullet on that second stretcher,
and nowhere in that entire clip did I hear Tomlinson say that the
stretcher on the elevator had been used for Connally. I only hear the
NARRATOR say that in a voiceover. I can tell that Tomlinson is still
speaking during each of the narrator's voiceovers, but I can make out
nothing he is saying while the narrator is speaking. In all of the
portions when the narrator is not speaking I can understand Tomlinson, and
he never says anything remotely like claiming that the stretcher on the
elevator had been used for Connally. If I'm wrong, and you can hear
Tomlinson say that independently of the narrator, please tell me exactly
to the minute and second in your video where that is.
Thanks.
Anthony Marsh
But they did not yet have a SBT, so the bullet SHOULD have come from
JFK's stretcher, not Connally's.
Anthony Marsh
Unfortunately that is one annoying thing that the kooks do all the time in
the JFK case. They create an artificial discrepancy and then claim it
proves Oswald couldn't have done it. Like assuming that Markham got on her
bus at 1:14, but Tippit was shot at 1:16 so she did not see Oswald shoot
Tippit. False premises lead to false conclusions.
Is it possible that more fragments were also removed from another part
of the body not already admitted? Why shouldn't there have been
fragments in the torso?
Remember that FBI memo were they scratched out the name of the body part
where other fragments did not match the ones they tested.
> How could he have told the FBI agents Saturday morning that the envelope
> contained a bullet or fragment from the "thigh"?????
>
> I think the bullet from Connally's leg was retrieved by a young nurse
> who must have been new and not up to speed on hospital procedures. She
> picked the bullet up from the floor, but was unnoticed by the doctors
> and other nurses, who were totally focused on keeping JBC alive.
>
> Afterward, she came out of the operating room and ran into DA Wade, who
> instructed her to give the bullet to the police. Looking around, she saw
> Stinson talking with officer Nolan so she promptly placed the bullet in
> an envelope and gave it to him (Nolan).
>
So, where is that bullet?
> Meanwhile, supervisor Bell did exactly what she said she did and placed
> the wrist fragments into an envelope and gave them to an FBI agent.
>
> During that weekend, the FBI discovered that they had too many bullets
> from Connally's body and much worse, neither of them matched Oswald's
> rifle. So, they fired a bullet into water or cotton wading which became
> CE399. Then, they went to work to make it appear that the envelope Nolan
> delivered, contained the fragments from Connally's wrist.
>
Well, that's a even more conspiratorial theory. Where did they get the
ammo to fire this test bullet and when did they have the rifle to do this?
And how could they do it all quickly enough for Frazier to log it in as
the first piece of evidence recovered after midnight? And you have a lot
of memos to alter.
> I suppose that all sounds a bit over the top, until we consider that we
> already know the FBI lied about what Tomlinson and Wright said, and
> fabricated a nonexistent interview.
>
The things involved in your scenario would require a massively
coordinated conspiracy.
> I also think that when Mr. Hoover said "the public must be convinced"
> that Oswald acted alone, he really meant it.
>
To prevent WWIII. Hoover thought Castro did it.
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. Jackie didn't pick up anything from the trunk.
Anthony Marsh
> In article
> <bobharris77-30EB...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris<bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The bottom line is, that after he took Connally's stretcher from the
>> elevator, he parked it behind another stretcher that was in front of the
>> door to the rest room, and then left.
>
> I am still waiting for a verbatim quote of Tomlinson in his own words
> saying that the stretcher that was on the elevator when he first saw it,
> and which he then took off the elevator, was the stretcher that had been
> used for Connally. I once again have his WC testimony in front of me as I
Maybe I missed part of this thread, but I fail to see your point. Why do
you want someone to post a verbatim quote of Tomlinson? Why don't you just
listen to him explain it in his own words and figure out what he meant?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ1ecDXbkRs&feature=player_embedded
Jean Davison
> The guy was obviously being pressured to change his story.
Not obvious at all. Jean Hill's story changed. Was she
pressured? Many witnesses changed their stories as the years went
by.
>
> Look - he said he parked Connally's stretcher behind another one that
> was in front of the rest room door. He came back later and the bullet
> fell from a stretcher that was in front of the rest room door.
>
> He not only explained all of that but he demonstrated what happened for
> CBS and Cronkite (not exactly conspiracy fanatics:-)
No, Robert, Tomlinson told CBS that he found the bullet on
the stretcher that he took off the elevator:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1026334
This is similar to what he told Marcus.
>
> This thing is very simple, despite these efforts to make it appear
> otherwise.
I'm doing no such thing. Tomlinson said contradictory
things.
I thought you might be interested to know that he had said
the FBI showed him the bullet and that it looked like the one he
found. My mistake.
Jean
>
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
someone tried to get him to change his story. But look at his very FIRST
statement, before Specter started to work him over, in which he actually
drew a diagram which made it quite clear, where each of those stretchers
were located and which one the bullet fell from.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, you have just pointed to a drawing which you have made
of this situation, have you not, while we were talking a few minutes
before the court reporter started to take down your testimony?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, would you mark in ink with my pen the stretcher which
you pushed off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I think that it was this one right here (indicating).
Mr. SPECTER. Will you draw the outline of it in ink and mark an "A"
right in the center of that?
(LOOK - this is Tomlinson's own drawing
http://jfkhistory.com/stretcher.jpg )
Mr. SPECTER. Now, would you mark in ink the position of the stretcher
which was already on the first floor?
Mr. TOMLINSON. This was the ground floor.
Mr. SPECTER. Pardon me, on the ground floor? Is there a different
designation for the first floor?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Where is the first floor?
Mr. TOMLINSON. One above the ground. We have basement, ground, first,
second, and third on that elevator.
Mr. SPECTER. What floor was Governor Connally taken to, if you know?
Mr. TOMLINSON. He was on two, he was in the operating rooms up on two.
That's our surgical suites up there.
Mr. SPECTER. And what level is the emergency entrance of the hospital
on?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, it's the ground floor---it's there at the back of
the hospital, you see, it's built on the incline there.
Mr. SPECTER. And the elevator which you found in this area was on the
ground floor?
Mr. TOMLINSON. The elevator?
Mr. SPECTER. The stretcher.
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Will you mark with a "B" the stretcher which was present at
the time you pushed stretcher "A" off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. (Witness complied with the request of Counsel Specter.) I
believe that's it.
(Look at it again http://jfkhistory.com/stretcher.jpg )
Mr. SPECTER. That's fine. What happened when that gentleman came to use
the men's room?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, he pushed the stretcher out from the wall to get
in, and then when he came out he just walked off and didn't push the
stretcher back up against the wall, so I pushed it out of the way where
we would have clear area in front of the elevator.
Mr. SPECTER. And where did you push it to?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I pushed it back up against the wall.
Mr. SPECTER. What, if anything, happened then?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I bumped the wall and a spent cartridge or bullet rolled
out that apparently had been lodged under the edge of the mat.
Mr. SPECTER. And that was from which stretcher?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I believe that it was "B".
Mr. SPECTER. And what was on "B", if you recall; if anything?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, at one end they had one or two sheets rolled up; I
didn't examine them. They were bloody. They were rolled up on the east
end of it and there were a few surgical instruments on, the opposite end
and a sterile pack or so.
(unquote)
This is from the CBS/Cronkite documentary. Move the timeline to about
1:12 and listen closely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKwqhf0MYio&feature=channel_video_title
Robert Harris
In article
<42249f8d-07ae-4afe...@u26g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-A607...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The guy was obviously being pressured to change his story.
>
> Look - he said he parked Connally's stretcher behind another one that
> was in front of the rest room door.
Robert, I'm sorry, but I need to stand firm on this. I have still not
seen or heard a verbatim quote of Tomlinson in his words claiming that the
stretcher he took off the elevator, or indeed the other stretcher in the
corridor, had last been used for Connally. Once again, I do not hear him
saying any such thing in that clip of him that starts at 30:30 in your
video. I hear the narrator only saying that. I do not hear Tomlinson
saying that. He certainly said no such thing to the WC. In fact he made
it quite plain that he would have had no idea who had last been on the
stretcher that was in the elevator, because it was already in the elevator
when he first saw it, and he would have no possible way of knowing how
long it had been in the elevator or what patient had last been on it.
The only possible way he would know such a thing would be if the patient's
chart with the patient's name on it was still on the stretcher, but it
obviously wasn't. He also said the stretcher was clean, as in it had only
the basic sheets and padding on it, or whatever, so there was no obvious
sign of how long before that the last patient had been on it. And as I've
already said several times, including in my notes on the video, he
specifically told the WC that bloody sheets were on the other stretcher,
the one that was already in the corridor, not the one he took off the
elevator. The stretcher with the bloody sheets would quite obviously be
far more likely to be a stretcher that had last been used for a patient
with severe bleeding, such as a gunshot victim, whether that victim was
Connally or some other person.
And you know what? Even if at some point I do finally see or hear
Tomlinson in his own words specifically saying that the stretcher on the
elevator was last used for Connally, it makes no difference. No human who
ever walked the face of this earth would have any idea who had last been
on that stretcher without some clear sign of the identity of that patient,
such as the patient's chart.
Now, over the past 24 hours my thoughts have still been evolving, and I am
starting to think you may be onto something after all with this
Connally/nurse/Wade/Nolan connection, and I want to explore that further.
But I strongly feel you need to abandon any further claims of the
stretcher on the elevator was last used for Connally. Continue to say
that the other stretcher, the one with the bloody sheets on it, the one on
which Tomlinson, in at least some of his statements (:P) said he found the
bullet, might have last been used for a different shooting victim.
That's fine. We can go with that for now. But there is no way you or I
or anyone else can come within a million light-years of establishing who
had last been on the stretcher from the elevator.
> He came back later and the bullet
> fell from a stretcher that was in front of the rest room door.
Yes, although at other times he said he found the bullet on the one he
took off the elevator. ;-)
> He not only explained all of that but he demonstrated what happened for
> CBS and Cronkite (not exactly conspiracy fanatics:-)
Yes, and for CBS did you notice that when asked about the stretcher on the
elevator, his exact words were, "I just don't know if he was on that
stretcher," meaning the Governor? And did you also notice that he
specifically said he found the bullet on the stretcher that was in the
elevator, not the one that was already in the corridor?
**********
BARKER: Well, now, as you think back, is there any doubt in your mind
today that the stretcher on which you found that bullet, was the
stretcher that came off the elevator?
TOMLINSON: Well, I know that. That I know. I just don't know if he was
on that stretcher.
BARKER: But the stretcher was on the elevator?
TOMLINSON: Right.
BARKER: And this was the elevator that Connally would have taken?
TOMLINSON: Yes, sir, that's - that's the one he went up on.
**********
I'm in an ornery mood today, so I'm just going to come right out and say
it: I'm getting pretty damned tired of Darrell Tomlinson. He told the WC
that the bullet was on the stretcher that was already in the corridor, not
the stretcher that was on the elevator. He told CBS that the bullet was
on the stretcher that was on the elevator, not the stretcher in the
corridor. In the clip that is in your video, Robert, he said that the
bullet was on the stretcher in the corridor, not the stretcher on the
elevator. In that other Youtube video I saw of him, he said that the
bullet was on the stretcher in the elevator, not the stretcher in the
corridor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ1ecDXbkRs
So, on these four occasions he said on two of them that the bullet was on
the stretcher that was in the corridor, and on the other two he said the
bullet was on the stretcher that he found inside the elevator.
Which damned stretcher was the damned thing on?
I'm starting to find this man severely lacking in credibility. I'm not
sure I trust anything he said anymore, not even regarding whether or not
CE399 was the bullet he found. I'm not sure I'd trust him either way,
whether he did recognize it as the same bullet, or if he didn't.
So I'm going to instead pursue an avenue which I think might be much more
fruitful: the Connally/nurse/Wade/Nolan business. Let me be plain though:
as much as I want to get to the bottom of that (and oh boy, do I want to
get to the bottom of that) my top priority right now regarding
assassination research is definitively establishing the Parkland/Bethesda
"discrepancy" as a myth, and to do it so powerfully that any LN or CT who
disagrees will look like a blatant fool. That is an issue which has
concerned me greatly since 1988. I don't know if you've noticed yet,
Robert, but I have been posting extensively in the thread "For David von
Pein" about this issue and have started a new thread, "Questionaire on the
Parkland/Bethesda 'discrepancy' myth." CE399 I have not devoted as much
study to, so I want that to take second place for now. An important
second place, yes, but still second. And with this recent spate of
frequent posting I've been doing here, as well as elsewhere, and those
notes and so forth, I have been seriously neglecting some things in my
personal life that I've been putting off and putting off, and I badly need
to attend to those as well, so unfortunately I may need to post much less
frequently soon, though hopefully I won't have to disappear from here for
months at a time as I have every year since September, 2005.
> This thing is very simple, despite these efforts to make it appear
> otherwise.
If that statement relates in any way to that man, if I would have
previously agreed with that I don't today. That man was a buffoon, pure
and simple. Sorry, but that's what I now think.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 17, 12:51 pm, Robert Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The guy was obviously being pressured to change his story.
>
> Not obvious at all. Jean Hill's story changed. Was she
> pressured? Many witnesses changed their stories as the years went
> by.
>
More likely she was influenced by hearing all the stories and reading
all the books from the conspiracy authors. That's what happened to Marina.
>>
>> Look - he said he parked Connally's stretcher behind another one that
>> was in front of the rest room door. He came back later and the bullet
>> fell from a stretcher that was in front of the rest room door.
>>
>> He not only explained all of that but he demonstrated what happened for
>> CBS and Cronkite (not exactly conspiracy fanatics:-)
>
> No, Robert, Tomlinson told CBS that he found the bullet on
> the stretcher that he took off the elevator:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1026334
>
> This is similar to what he told Marcus.
>
>>
>> This thing is very simple, despite these efforts to make it appear
>> otherwise.
>
> I'm doing no such thing. Tomlinson said contradictory
> things.
>
So do you, so what?
Anthony Marsh
> In article
> <bobharris77-A607...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris<bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The guy was obviously being pressured to change his story.
>>
>> Look - he said he parked Connally's stretcher behind another one that
>> was in front of the rest room door.
>
> Robert, I'm sorry, but I need to stand firm on this. I have still not
> seen or heard a verbatim quote of Tomlinson in his words claiming that the
Again, why do you need a verbatim quote? Just go onto YouTube and listen
to him describe what he did.
Caeruleo
I'm very sorry, but I'm going to have to address only a small amount of
what you said for these reasons:
1. As I just posted in another reply to you in this thread, during the
past 24 hours my thinking has still been evolving, just as it has ever
since I watched your video last Tuesday (a couple of times I said
"Monday" to you but I realized later that was incorrect; I know I
watched it on the 12th and that was Tuesday). As of today my thinking
is that you just might be onto something with this
Connally/nurse/Wade/Nolan connection, and I want to explore that
further. Part of the problem I've been having is keeping all these
nurses straight, but I think, I think I've got that resolved now. More
of that below. For the time being I want to leave that damned Darrell
Tomlinson, his damned bullet, and those damned stretchers out of this.
I'm sick and tired of that man. Read my other reply from today and
you'll see why.
2. As much as I'd like to get to the bottom of this
Connally/nurse/Wade/Nolan business, very much so, as I said in the other
article my top priority right now in posting about the JFK assassination
is resolving this Parkland/Bethesda "discrepancy" myth in a more
conclusive fashion than it has ever been resolved before. This is
something that has concerned me greatly for more than two decades. I
have not done nearly as much study on problems with the chain of
evidence with CE399. If you haven't already done so, look at the thread
"For David von Pein" and you'll see that I've been posting more
extensively there about the Parkland/Bethesda business than I have in
these other threads with you, and I have also begun a new thread,
"Questionnaire on the Parkland/Bethesda 'discrepancy' myth" which I am
hoping will bear fruitful results. Another problem is that with all
these many articles I've been posting over the past month, plus all the
time I've taken with your video and discussion of it, I have been badly
neglecting some things in my personal life that I've been putting off
for weeks, and if I don't attend to those soon there will be some
serious consequences. Because of that I may have to slow down a bit on
my posting frequency at least for the remainder of this week, maybe
longer, much as I hate to do that when things here are more interesting
to me than they've been for a long time.
Now, let me devote some time to you in this article. After that, for
the remainder of today I'm going to deal only with the Parkland/Bethesda
threads.
Here is my train of thought as it has now come to be as of today, and
maybe you can help me clarify some issues; I need particularly to know
if I've finally got my nurses straight, lol.
First let me deal with the fragments from Connally's wrist. I believe I
have quoted here Dr. Gregory to the WC saying he gave the fragments to
the "operating nurse" or whatever the words were with the instructions
to give them to the authorities, but he didn't say that nurse's name. I
was confused yesterday (nothing new for me) because I said I didn't
remember who that nurses was. Ugh. It was Audrey Bell, of course,
correct? All right, so she took those to someone who, according to her
description was definitely not Nolan. And to the ARRB she said she did
not see her signature (or initials, or whatever, on that envelope, the
one that was CE842, the one that is shown in your video and is also on
your website. You've also made the point that what are purported to be
her initials seem to have been written over something else that was
partially erased.
However, I'm still confused about something, and I can't remember if you
clarified this in your video, and I don't have time today to go back and
watch it. On the envelope, CE842, I see the initials "B.M.N." and I
remember you saying in the video that those are Bobby Nolan's initials,
but don't remember you suggesting any fakery of that, only the Audrey
Bell initials. Are those his genuine initials as originally written on
that envelope? And if so, did the envelope not say "Bullet Fragments"
at the time he wrote his initials? I remember you suggesting that the
handwriting was different on one of those lines, but my recollection was
that it was on the line that says "Right Arm," not the line that says
"Bullet Fragments." Is this correct?
Now, let me see if I can trace the other issue correctly, finally, lol.
Connally made a claim for the first time very late in his life, perhaps
less than a year before he died, and which was not published for the
first time until five months after his death, that he heard something
metallic drop to the floor, that a nurse picked it up and put it in her
pocket, and that was the bullet from his thigh. Before today I have
expressed reservations about the veracity of his claim, but now I would
like to go with that as being a truthful claim, at least for
hypothetical purposes. And I'm thinking the only time this could have
happened would have been before he was taken to the operating room, when
he was still in Trauma Room 2, the first room he was taken to, where his
clothes were removed in preparation for the operation. Also Drs.
Gregory and Shaw never said anything about finding a bullet in the
operating room, and of course Shaw was clear that when he first looked
at the thigh wound the bullet had already fallen out and was nowhere to
be seen. Much more likely it fell out in Trauma Room 2 while his
clothes were being removed, since it was barely lodged in his thigh
anyway. I've quoted head nurse Standridge as saying she didn't hear
anything fall to the floor during all of this, but that doesn't mean
that another nurse present noticed what Standridge didn't notice,
although it could be problematic that Standridge also didn't recall
another nurse saying something like, "Hey, look at this!" I'm going to
continue past that hurdle for right now, though I may have to come back
to it soon. But let's just say that another nurse did see or hear it
fall, did pick it up, and did put it in her pocket just as he said. Now
THIS nurse is NOT Audrey Bell, correct? Furthermore, THIS nurse is
still unidentified, correct? I've already got some names as
possibilities if so, but I'm not ready to propose those yet.
All right, so at least for the remainder of this article I'm going to
call this lady Nurse Ratched just for grins. So Nurse Ratched first
takes this bullet to Henry Wade, whom she apparently knows is the
District Attorney, or at least knows is an important official. I can't
remember now, and you've probably explained this before, but I've got so
many different things on my mind right now that I can't remember, sorry.
So if you wouldn't mind explaining it again: Wade said this occurred at
Parkland, right? How quickly did he get to Parkland after the
assassination?
Ok, so, I'm thinking it's best to say that Nurse Ratched didn't bring
this thing to Wade in an envelope. She held out her hand and showed
Wade a whole bullet, plain as day, plain and simple. She took it right
out of the pocket Connally said she put it in and showed it to Wade.
She additionally told him that this bullet was from Connally's gurney or
stretcher. There. He then told her to give it to the police. But she
didn't exactly give it to the "police," she gave it to a Texas Ranger,
Bobby Nolan, though one might forgive her for what is, after all, a
fairly trivial error, since he was still law enforcement. Nurse Ratched
told Nolan that it was a whole bullet which came from Connally's thigh,
as Nolan later confirmed to you in person, correct? Am I correct in
tracing this so far? Is it your opinion also that this is the same
nurse, whom I'm calling "Ratched," who picked the bullet up off the
floor in Connally's presence, showed it to Wade, and finally gave it to
Nolan? We're talking about the same woman through this entire trail,
right?
Ok, now I'm confused about something though. When she showed it to Wade
she held it out in her hand. But when she brought it to Nolan it was
already inside an envelope, as he also confirmed to you, right? Why did
she show it to Wade in her hand, but not bring it to Nolan that way?
Did she put it inside an envelope first? Did someone else instruct her
to do that before taking it to Nolan? Why didn't she just take the
bullet by itself to Nolan as she did to Wade?
Now, then this of course relates to CE842. Do you believe that CE842 is
the envelope Nurse Ratched handed to Nolan?
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 7/17/2011 3:36 PM, Caeruleo wrote:
> > In article
> > <bobharris77-30EB...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> > Robert Harris<bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The bottom line is, that after he took Connally's stretcher from the
> >> elevator, he parked it behind another stretcher that was in front of the
> >> door to the rest room, and then left.
> >
> > I am still waiting for a verbatim quote of Tomlinson in his own words
> > saying that the stretcher that was on the elevator when he first saw it,
> > and which he then took off the elevator, was the stretcher that had been
> > used for Connally. I once again have his WC testimony in front of me as I
>
> Maybe I missed part of this thread, but I fail to see your point. Why do
> you want someone to post a verbatim quote of Tomlinson? Why don't you just
> listen to him explain it in his own words and figure out what he meant?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ1ecDXbkRs&feature=player_embedded
This is an excellent point Tony, and as you know, I have never failed to
respond to anything you've had to say that was even remotely significant.
But that video confirms that Tomlinson totally reversed the story he told
to the WC. Below, I have reposted my reply to Jean, which includes his
very first statements to the WC on the subject as well as his own drawing
in which he specifically diagrammed the positions of the stretchers and
pointed out which one the bullet came from.
To get witnesses to change their stories, does not require them being
dragged into a back room and beaten with a rubber hose. It only requires
the application of a bit of misguided logic and common sense.
Charles Brehm for example, repeatedly stated on 11/22/63 that he heard
three shots fired, beginning when the limo was about 15-20 feet from him
(exactly where it was at frame 285, btw). He also said the limo only moved
about 10-12 feet as all three shots were fired.
But over the years, he was undoubtedly shown that JFK reacted much earlier
than that, and Brehm changed story, and in interviews decades later,
stated that the limo was nearly 70 feet from him when the first shot was
fired.
Likewise, Tomlinson had been told that CE399 was proven to be the bullet
that wounded Connally, therefore it HAD to have been found on his
stretcher. How could he argue otherwise??
This is why good researchers ALWAYS go with the earliest and most
uncontaminated recollections of the witnesses. We need to know that THEY
perceived - not the people who pressured them to change their stories.
This is a repost of my reply to Jean. Look closely at his testimony and
his illustration. This is what he actually perceived, without anyone's
assistance.
Robert Harris
<42249f8d-07ae-4afe...@u26g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
FBI Airtel dated 6/20/1964
"Neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON (sic), who found bullet at Parkland
Hospital, Dallas, nor O.P. Wright, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital,
who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at
Dallas 11/22/53, can identify bullet."
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> I'm very sorry, but I'm going to have to address only a small amount of
> what you said for these reasons:
>
> 1. As I just posted in another reply to you in this thread, during the
> past 24 hours my thinking has still been evolving, just as it has ever
> since I watched your video last Tuesday (a couple of times I said
> "Monday" to you but I realized later that was incorrect; I know I
> watched it on the 12th and that was Tuesday). As of today my thinking
> is that you just might be onto something with this
> Connally/nurse/Wade/Nolan connection, and I want to explore that
> further. Part of the problem I've been having is keeping all these
> nurses straight, but I think, I think I've got that resolved now. More
> of that below. For the time being I want to leave that damned Darrell
> Tomlinson, his damned bullet, and those damned stretchers out of this.
> I'm sick and tired of that man. Read my other reply from today and
> you'll see why.
All that IMO, is important to know about this witness, is what is
original, uncontaminated recollection was. He was very clear about that.
I think it was one of the scrub nurses. If memory serves, Bell said she
took the wrist particles from a container on the scrub nurse's table and
put them in an envelope.
> All right, so she took those to someone who, according to her
> description was definitely not Nolan.
Actually, she said the agents came into her office where she turned over
her envelope.
> And to the ARRB she said she did
> not see her signature (or initials, or whatever, on that envelope, the
> one that was CE842, the one that is shown in your video and is also on
> your website.
Well, I have been corrected on that. If you flip over what appears to be a
crudely written "AMB" (for Audrey M. Bell), it actually looks like Will
Fritz's initials. This could only happen in the JFK case:-)
> You've also made the point that what are purported to be
> her initials seem to have been written over something else that was
> partially erased.
It does appear that there have been erasures and character fragments that
have been overwritten. This is an image in which I have upped the contrast
and brightness a bit.
http://jfkhistory.com/ce842x.jpg
>
> However, I'm still confused about something, and I can't remember if you
> clarified this in your video, and I don't have time today to go back and
> watch it. On the envelope, CE842, I see the initials "B.M.N." and I
> remember you saying in the video that those are Bobby Nolan's initials,
> but don't remember you suggesting any fakery of that, only the Audrey
> Bell initials. Are those his genuine initials as originally written on
> that envelope?
I don't know.
Nolan said the initials looked like his and in her ARRB interview, Bell
said that the writing was hers. But look at the handwriting.. er
printing.
http://jfkhistory.com/ce842.jpg
Many years ago as a teenager, hard writing analysis was one of my hobbies
and I read a very good book on the subject. I believe "Bullet fragments"
was written in a different hand than "Right Arm". But Bell was adamant
that she filled out the entire envelope by herself.
In all honesty, I cannot put together a coherent, reasonable explanation
that would satisfy either side of this debate. I do know however, that it
is much easier to forge printing than cursive writing and easier yet, to
forge the capital letters in initials.
And I feel quite certain, that the printing in the upper part of the
envelope was written by more than one person.
> And if so, did the envelope not say "Bullet Fragments"
> at the time he wrote his initials?
Supposedly, it was labelled as bullet fragments from the "right arm".
> I remember you suggesting that the
> handwriting was different on one of those lines, but my recollection was
> that it was on the line that says "Right Arm," not the line that says
> "Bullet Fragments." Is this correct?
>
> Now, let me see if I can trace the other issue correctly, finally, lol.
>
> Connally made a claim for the first time very late in his life, perhaps
> less than a year before he died,
The claim was made in his autobiography, written in the early 80's and
more than a decade before he died in 1993.
> and which was not published for the
> first time until five months after his death, that he heard something
> metallic drop to the floor, that a nurse picked it up and put it in her
> pocket, and that was the bullet from his thigh. Before today I have
> expressed reservations about the veracity of his claim, but now I would
> like to go with that as being a truthful claim, at least for
> hypothetical purposes. And I'm thinking the only time this could have
> happened would have been before he was taken to the operating room, when
> he was still in Trauma Room 2, the first room he was taken to, where his
> clothes were removed in preparation for the operation. Also Drs.
> Gregory and Shaw never said anything about finding a bullet in the
> operating room, and of course Shaw was clear that when he first looked
> at the thigh wound the bullet had already fallen out and was nowhere to
> be seen. Much more likely it fell out in Trauma Room 2 while his
> clothes were being removed, since it was barely lodged in his thigh
> anyway. I've quoted head nurse Standridge as saying she didn't hear
> anything fall to the floor during all of this, but that doesn't mean
> that another nurse present noticed what Standridge didn't notice,
> although it could be problematic that Standridge also didn't recall
> another nurse saying something like, "Hey, look at this!"
I think they had other priorities then and nobody would have been too
interested in a mangled chunk of lead on the floor.
Perhaps, it might be helpful to turn down the spin generator a tad:-)
> I'm going to
> continue past that hurdle for right now, though I may have to come back
> to it soon. But let's just say that another nurse did see or hear it
> fall, did pick it up, and did put it in her pocket just as he said. Now
> THIS nurse is NOT Audrey Bell, correct? Furthermore, THIS nurse is
> still unidentified, correct? I've already got some names as
> possibilities if so, but I'm not ready to propose those yet.
I'm way ahead of you. See my thread in the forum wittily entitled,
"Looking for a woman".
So far, no replies though.
>
> All right, so at least for the remainder of this article I'm going to
> call this lady Nurse Ratched just for grins. So Nurse Ratched first
> takes this bullet to Henry Wade, whom she apparently knows is the
> District Attorney, or at least knows is an important official.
Or perhaps Wade ran into her. He was quite eager to find out how his old
friend Connally was doing and that nurse probably looked like she had
been in surgery.
> I can't
> remember now, and you've probably explained this before, but I've got so
> many different things on my mind right now that I can't remember, sorry.
> So if you wouldn't mind explaining it again: Wade said this occurred at
> Parkland, right? How quickly did he get to Parkland after the
> assassination?
I believe he said he stopped briefly at the DPD at about 3PM and then
went to Parkland. He didn't mention the exact time he arrived at
Parkland or at least I am unaware of it if he did.
>
> Ok, so, I'm thinking it's best to say that Nurse Ratched didn't bring
> this thing to Wade in an envelope. She held out her hand and showed
> Wade a whole bullet, plain as day, plain and simple.
I have no idea. All I have to go on is Wade's statement which we have
both read.
> She took it right
> out of the pocket Connally said she put it in and showed it to Wade.
> She additionally told him that this bullet was from Connally's gurney or
> stretcher. There. He then told her to give it to the police. But she
> didn't exactly give it to the "police," she gave it to a Texas Ranger,
> Bobby Nolan,
The Texas Rangers/Hwy Patrol were and I suppose are, under the control
of the DPD when in their jurisdiction. As such, Nolan was as much of a
Dallas cop as any other DPD officer.
> though one might forgive her for what is, after all, a
> fairly trivial error, since he was still law enforcement. Nurse Ratched
> told Nolan that it was a whole bullet which came from Connally's thigh,
> as Nolan later confirmed to you in person, correct?
I believe he heard her say that to Stinson who was standing next to him,
and I doubt that she said "whole bullet". Nolan said she described it as a
"bullet" as you heard him say in his interview.
He did NOT tell me that the nurse said it came from Connally's "thigh".
That was in the FBI report of the FBI's interview of Nolan.
"Bobby M. Nolan, Texas highway patrolman, Tyler district, was interviewed
relative to a fragment removed from the left thigh of Governor Connally,
which was turned over to him at Parkland Hospital in Dallas for delivery
to the FBI."
> Am I correct in
> tracing this so far?
Not really, but that's why I'm here:-)
> Is it your opinion also that this is the same
> nurse, whom I'm calling "Ratched," who picked the bullet up off the
> floor in Connally's presence, showed it to Wade, and finally gave it to
> Nolan? We're talking about the same woman through this entire trail,
> right?
Look - you have the same data I have. My best guess would be that this
was the same nurse, but I certainly can't prove it.
>
> Ok, now I'm confused about something though. When she showed it to Wade
> she held it out in her hand.
> But when she brought it to Nolan it was
> already inside an envelope, as he also confirmed to you, right? Why did
> she show it to Wade in her hand, but not bring it to Nolan that way?
We don't know that it was not in an envelope when she showed it to Wade.
But if that is what happened, she probably put it in an envelope for
Nolan, because that is what she was supposed to do before turning it over
to the police.
> Did she put it inside an envelope first?
> Did someone else instruct her
> to do that before taking it to Nolan?
I think all the nurses knew that forensic evidence was to be placed in an
envelope before it was turned over to the police. But only supervisors
were trained to fill them out properly and do the other paperwork involved
in processing criminal evidence.
> Why didn't she just take the
> bullet by itself to Nolan as she did to Wade?
I'm trying to remember where I heard that question before:-)
>
> Now, then this of course relates to CE842. Do you believe that CE842 is
> the envelope Nurse Ratched handed to Nolan?
I don't know if it is or not.
Robert Harris
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-0AC1...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ack, I forgot to address this part in my other reply today. Sorry.
Unfortunately I don't think I got a phone number for him back in 2003, so
the only way I can think of is to try the posting address he used here
through 2005 in the hope that it is still valid and he still checks it.
Jean Davison
> Tomlinson was not a very strong willed type and he caved in every time
> someone tried to get him to change his story. But look at his very FIRST
> statement, before Specter started to work him over, in which he actually
> drew a diagram which made it quite clear, where each of those stretchers
> were located and which one the bullet fell from.
Tomlinson's story kept changing but not necessarily because he
was pressured. Marcus certainly didn't pressure him -- Marcus was a WC
critic, and he told Marcus the bullet was on the stretcher he took off the
elevator.
His very FIRST statements were to the FBI and the SS, according
to his testimony. Here's part of what he said about that.
QUOTE:
Mr. SPECTER. So, would it be a fair summary to say that when I first
started to talk to you about it, your first view was that the
stretcher you took off of the elevator was stretcher A, and then I
told you that the Secret Service man said it was---that you had said
the stretcher you took off of the elevator was the one that you found
the bullet off, and when we talked about the whole matter and talked
over the entire situation, you really can't be completely sure about
which stretcher you took off of the elevator, because you didn't push
the stretcher that you took off of the elevator right against the wall
at first?
Mr. TOMLINSON. That's right.
Mr. SPECTER. And, there was a lot of confusion that day, which is what
you told me before?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Absolutely. And now, honestly, I don't remember telling
him definitely-I know we talked about it, and I told him that it could
have been. Now, he might have drawed his own conclusion on that.
Mr. SPECTER. You told the Secret Service agent that you didn't know
where---
Mr. TOMLINSON. (interrupting). He asked me if it could have been
brought down from the second floor.
Mr. SPECTER. You got the stretcher from where the bullet came from,
whether it was brought down from the second floor?
Mr. TOMLINSON. It could have been--I'm not sure whether it was A I
took off.
Mr. SPECTER. But did you tell the Secret Service man which one you
thought it was you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I'm not clear on that---whether I absolutely made a
positive statement to that effect.
Mr. SPECTER. You told him that it could have been B you took off of
the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. That's right.
UNQUOTE
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htm
And where did he ever say that the bullet *fell* from the
stretcher? He told Thompson and Marcus that he saw it ON the stretcher.
The noise he heard was the bullet clinking against a metal railing.
Yes, and he said seven times that he wasn't sure which stretcher
he took off the elevator. His diagram means bupkes if he's not sure about
that.
>
> This is from the CBS/Cronkite documentary. Move the timeline to about
> 1:12 and listen closely.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKwqhf0MYio&feature=channel_video_title
Tomlinson told CBS two different stories, if this transcript is
correct:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1026334
You said there that Tomlinson has "always been adamant that the
stretcher he found it on was not Connally's." Not so, Robert. At times he
was adamant that it *was* Connally's. He was all over the place.
It's fascinating to me that you won't comment on his statement
about being shown the bullet. I guess that's all I have to say.
Jean
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-4E97...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is from the CBS/Cronkite documentary. Move the timeline to about
> 1:12 and listen closely.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKwqhf0MYio&feature=channel_video_title
Yes, that's the one where Walter Cronkite says the elevator on the
stretcher was Connally's, but Darrell Tomlinson doesn't. So I don't have
the foggiest idea why on earth Cronkite says the Commission decided he was
mistaken about which stretcher he found the bullet on. Tomlinson did NOT
tell the Commission that the stretcher in the elevator was Connally's.
Nor apparently did he tell CBS that, as far as I can tell.
Jean Davison
> In article
> <42249f8d-07ae-4afe-b13b-6de7499b6...@u26g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
There's no contradiction there, Robert. He could not IDENTIFY
the bullet (i.e., he couldn't say, "Yes, that is the very same bullet")
because he put no mark on it. He didn't even examine it closely,
according to his testimony. Saying that it LOOKED LIKE the bullet he
found is not the same thing as saying that it WAS the same bullet he
found.
Jean
David Von Pein
>>> "Tomlinson did NOT tell the Commission that the stretcher in the elevator was Connally's." <<<
Of course he didn't. How would Tomlinson know for certain who had
occupied that stretcher last? Connally wasn't lying on the stretcher
when Darrell took it off the elevator. Nobody was lying on it.
But if Tomlinson found Bullet CE399 on ANY stretcher that had come off
of that elevator, then we KNOW that John Connally HAD to have been on
that stretcher very recently--because CE399 came out of a gun that was
being fired at Connally and Kennedy just a short time earlier that
day.
Of course, it's also my opinion that if Tomlinson found Bullet CE399
on ANY STRETCHER AT ALL on Nov. 22 in Parkland Hospital (and he did,
of course), regardless of whether we know with 100% certainty which
stretcher Tomlinson took off the elevator, this HAS to mean (by sheer
logic and common sense) that the stretcher in question HAD to be
Connally's, since only two people on Earth were struck by bullets from
Lee Harve Oswald's rifle on 11/22/63, and one of those persons (JFK)
is automatically eliminated in this "stretcher" discussion, since we
know that Kennedy's stretcher was never in that area of Parkland prior
to the bullet being found.
David Von Pein
Darrell Tomlinson has gone through various changes in his story--from
1964 to 1988:
1964 --- He told the Warren Commission (no less than six separate
times) that he was "not sure" which of the two stretchers he had taken
off of the elevator.
1967 --- He told CBS News that he was absolutely positive that the
stretcher on which he found the bullet was the stretcher that had come
off of the elevator.
1988 --- Tomlinson now completely contradicts his 1967 statement by
telling PBS-TV that he is certain that the bullet he found came off of
a stretcher that definitely HAD NOT been taken by him off of the
elevator.
IMO, Tomlinson's first (1964) statements are the best and carry the
most weight.
In other words, he simply was "not sure" at all which of those two
stretchers had come off of that elevator on Nov. 22.
Robert Harris
<b067c356-1e10-4378...@s17g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 1:05 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Tomlinson was not a very strong willed type and he caved in every time
> > someone tried to get him to change his story. But look at his very FIRST
> > statement, before Specter started to work him over, in which he actually
> > drew a diagram which made it quite clear, where each of those stretchers
> > were located and which one the bullet fell from.
>
> Tomlinson's story kept changing but not necessarily because he
> was pressured. Marcus certainly didn't pressure him -- Marcus was a WC
> critic, and he told Marcus the bullet was on the stretcher he took off the
> elevator.
>
> His very FIRST statements were to the FBI and the SS, according
> to his testimony. Here's part of what he said about that.
>
> QUOTE:
>
> Mr. SPECTER. So, would it be a fair summary to say that when I first
> started to talk to you about it, your first view was that the
> stretcher you took off of the elevator was stretcher A, and then I
> told you that the Secret Service man said it was---that you had said
> the stretcher you took off of the elevator was the one that you found
> the bullet off, and when we talked about the whole matter and talked
> over the entire situation, you really can't be completely sure about
> which stretcher you took off of the elevator, because you didn't push
> the stretcher that you took off of the elevator right against the wall
> at first?
What a pile of crap!! Read that last paragraph again. Specter was doing
everything in his power to get this guy to change his story, or at the
very least, get him to say that he was not "completely sure".
Why did Specter have to go into this tedious explanation of what he told
him and what the Secret Service said? Undoubtedly, he got Tomlinson to
say whatever he wanted him to in their private conversations.
And why did the Secret Service have to ask him again, three years later?
Didn't they have access to his testimony??
Tomlinson answered the question and diagrammed the positions of the
stretchers. That should have been it, whether the WC liked it or not.
That's how honest research is conducted. Leading witnesses and arguing
with them to make them change their stories is despicable.
If I remember correctly, you were equally elated that the Parkland
doctors were conned into changing their recollections about the BOH
damage, by showing them photos of the head after the autopsists had
covered up the damage by pulling the scalp up and over the damaged area.
Boswell confirmed that in his ARRB testimony.
This gets old, Jean, but sadly it still works with people who know
nothing about the case.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Irrelevant. I only pointed out that video to show people that we do not
have to wait around for verbatim quotes. Just look at what the person
says. And the point of contention was whether the stretcher came from the
elevator and whether Tomlinson believed that stretcher was Connally's. The
video makes it clear what Tomlinson thought.
> To get witnesses to change their stories, does not require them being
> dragged into a back room and beaten with a rubber hose. It only requires
> the application of a bit of misguided logic and common sense.
>
> Charles Brehm for example, repeatedly stated on 11/22/63 that he heard
> three shots fired, beginning when the limo was about 15-20 feet from him
> (exactly where it was at frame 285, btw). He also said the limo only moved
> about 10-12 feet as all three shots were fired.
>
Silly. Witnesses are notorious for making bad estimates.
> But over the years, he was undoubtedly shown that JFK reacted much earlier
> than that, and Brehm changed story, and in interviews decades later,
> stated that the limo was nearly 70 feet from him when the first shot was
> fired.
>
> Likewise, Tomlinson had been told that CE399 was proven to be the bullet
> that wounded Connally, therefore it HAD to have been found on his
> stretcher. How could he argue otherwise??
>
I don't think so. I don't think that you can automatically claim that
someone made him change his story. People naturally change their stories
when they tell them over and over. And sometimes the changes are very
minor things or clarifications.
> This is why good researchers ALWAYS go with the earliest and most
> uncontaminated recollections of the witnesses. We need to know that THEY
> perceived - not the people who pressured them to change their stories.
>
Not ALWAYS. USUALLY.
See Loftus.
> This is a repost of my reply to Jean. Look closely at his testimony and
> his illustration. This is what he actually perceived, without anyone's
> assistance.
>
>
> Tomlinson was not a very strong willed type and he caved in every time
> someone tried to get him to change his story. But look at his very FIRST
> statement, before Specter started to work him over, in which he actually
> drew a diagram which made it quite clear, where each of those stretchers
> were located and which one the bullet fell from.
>
That was not the point of contention this time.
His first statement is indeed that he found the stretcher on the
elevator. That did not change over the years.
Jean Davison
You're not getting it. Specter was referring to
Tomlinson's 12/63 interview with the Secret Service, in which he had
said that the bullet could've been on the elevator stretcher. IOW,
Tomlinson had *already* changed his story.
You snipped the part where Tomlinson conceded that he had told the SS
this. Let me put that back in:
QUOTE:
UNQUOTE
So Tomlinson conceded that he'd told the SS it could've
been B. Then he testified it was A. No wonder Specter questioned him
about it.
Please quote from his testimony anywhere that Tomlinson was
*adamant* that the bullet wasn't on Connally's stretcher.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htm
>
> If I remember correctly, you were equally elated that the Parkland
> doctors were conned into changing their recollections about the BOH
> damage, by showing them photos of the head after the autopsists had
> covered up the damage by pulling the scalp up and over the damaged area.
> Boswell confirmed that in his ARRB testimony.
I'm not elated. I don't recall saying anything like
that. If you want to provide a direct quote, go ahead.
>
> This gets old, Jean, but sadly it still works with people who know
> nothing about the case.
Right back at ya, Robert.
Jean
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-4C53...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <caeruleo1-5A84F...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Robert,
> >
> > I'm very sorry, but I'm going to have to address only a small amount of
> > what you said for these reasons:
> >
> > 1. As I just posted in another reply to you in this thread, during the
> > past 24 hours my thinking has still been evolving, just as it has ever
> > since I watched your video last Tuesday (a couple of times I said
> > "Monday" to you but I realized later that was incorrect; I know I
> > watched it on the 12th and that was Tuesday). As of today my thinking
> > is that you just might be onto something with this
> > Connally/nurse/Wade/Nolan connection, and I want to explore that
> > further. Part of the problem I've been having is keeping all these
> > nurses straight, but I think, I think I've got that resolved now. More
> > of that below. For the time being I want to leave that damned Darrell
> > Tomlinson, his damned bullet, and those damned stretchers out of this.
> > I'm sick and tired of that man. Read my other reply from today and
> > you'll see why.
>
> All that IMO, is important to know about this witness, is what is
> original, uncontaminated recollection was. He was very clear about that.
Ugh, and again overnight my thinking has "evolved" (if I don't stop this
evolution soon I'm going to wake up some morning and find that I've
become a new species), and I realize that I've GOT to get this
Tomlinson/stretcher nonsense clarified too. Now Robert, I addressed
this in my notes that I sent you and have also brought it up several
times in replies to you in this newsgroup and if you have addressed it
at all I cannot at this moment remember you doing so. We really need to
get this resolved:
In your video on the single bullet that I just watched yesterday, you
say that Tomlinson was "always adamant" that the stretcher he found on
the elevator was the stretcher that had just been used for Connally.
You also said something very similar in the video that I watched a week
ago.
Why do you say this? When on earth was he "adamant" about any such
thing? In both of those videos you play the same CBS clip in which it
is only Walter Cronkite who says that the stretcher on the elevator was
Connally's. Darrell Tomlinson cannot be heard to say any such thing.
In his WC testimony he didn't say any such thing either, nor did he say
any such thing in the Youtube video that I've posted here and is shown
in my notes, nor in fact in any quote I've yet been able to find from
him. To the WC he plainly stated that he did not have the foggiest idea
who had last been on the stretcher in the elevator. All he did was
admit to the WC that that was the elevator that Connally had been taken
up from Trauma Room 2 on the ground floor to the operating room on the
second floor. Do you have a verbatim quote of Tomlinson at any time
saying that he believed that the stretcher on the elevator was the one
used for Connally? I am 99% certain you have never posted such a quote
in any of your articles that I've replied to in the past 2 weeks.
In addition, I made the case in my notes that the stretcher on the
elevator was almost certainly NOT the stretcher that had been used for
Connally. First of all, when Tomlinson first saw that stretcher it was
already inside the elevator, which means it could have come from any
floor. He had been called to "key" the elevator so that it would stop
only on the ground floor and the second floor, and interestingly Audrey
Bell's name crops up again in connection with this (I am bound and
determined to get all these NURSES straight) because there's a document
from administrator Price saying that she went to one of the hospital
administrators (I'm not clear if it was Price) and asked for that very
elevator to be "keyed" in exactly the way that Tomlinson described.
This means that before he arrived at the elevator, it was stopping on
every floor. This proves beyond all possible doubt that that stretcher
could have come from any floor.
But even more important is Tomlinson's description of the two
stretchers, and also what time he said he arrived at the elevator, which
was 1:00 p.m. This is also the time given in CE392 for the beginning of
the anesthesia for Connally, administered by Dr. Giesecke (who had been
with JFK earlier) in the operating room. If the anesthesia is already
beginning at 1:00 then Connally would have had to arrived in the
operating room several minutes earlier, and this is supported by Head
Nurse Standridge in her descriptions of his clothing being taken off in
Trauma Room 2 in preparation for him being taken up to the operating
room. While she did not give an exact time for his departure from the
trauma room, her description gives me the impression that his clothes
were removed quite rapidly (he was in a very life-threatening condition
and needed to be gotten to the operating room as quickly as possible)
and I cannot imagine that this took longer than five minutes. The
official time of admittance for both Kennedy and Connally is 12:43 p.m.,
and I'm doubting that Connally was on his way to the operating room any
later than 12:50. This would be a full ten minutes before Tomlinson
said he got to the elevator and found that stretcher already on it, a
full ten minutes after Connally might have been taken up the elevator,
and a full ten minutes when the elevator was still stopping at any
floor. Plenty of time for another stretcher from any floor to be left
on the elevator.
Tomlinson specifically said that the stretcher in the elevator was
clean. Not a spot of blood on it, or he certainly didn't mention that.
Are we to believe that a stretcher that had just had a profusely
bleeding Connally on it wouldn't have any blood on it? I don't buy it.
But the other stretcher, the one that was already in the corridor
partially blocking a men's restroom, the one he didn't take off the
elevator, he said had bloody sheets on it. Now which stretcher is the
more likely to have just been used to transport Connally? The one with
the bloody sheets? Or the one without a spot of blood?
I mean, really.
Now, I've seen a suggestion that the one with the bloody sheets was used
for a boy named Ronnie Fuller, who had indeed been brought in shortly
before JFK and JBC and had been bleeding as well. And maybe it was. Or
maybe that was the blood of the other shooting victim you've proposed
whose identity we're unable to determine. Could be. But I don't
believe for a moment that the one on the elevator was Connally's. No
way. He was taken up only a few minutes before Tomlinson found that
stretcher. Not a spot of blood on it, even though blood was *pouring*
out of Connally's torso.
The Warren Commission concluded that Tomlinson was simply mistaken, that
he must have found the bullet on the stretcher that was in the elevator.
No. It was the Warren Commission that was mistaken. They jumped to
that conclusion merely because that stretcher was on the same elevator
that Connally had been taken up a few minutes earlier, but overlooked
the fact that the elevator was still stopping at any floor when someone
pushed any of those buttons, and had not yet been keyed to stop at only
two floors. They also ignored Tomlinson's testimony that bloody sheets
were only on stretcher B, the one that wasn't on the elevator. In the
CBS documentary, Walter Cronkite (or whoever wrote that script for him)
is simply mindlessly parroting the WC's mistake when claiming that the
stretcher on the elevator was definitely Connally's. The WC claimed
that. Tomlinson didn't, as far as I know. I sure don't hear him
claiming that in the CBS documentary. I only hear Walter Cronkite
claiming it.
Goody, I've identified another nurse. That would have been Nurse
Rutherford. I don't know her first name. Yet.
> If memory serves, Bell said she
> took the wrist particles from a container on the scrub nurse's table and
> put them in an envelope.
Ok, I'll see if I can confirm that if I have time.
> > All right, so she took those to someone who, according to her
> > description was definitely not Nolan.
>
> Actually, she said the agents came into her office where she turned over
> her envelope.
Ok.
> > And to the ARRB she said she did
> > not see her signature (or initials, or whatever, on that envelope, the
> > one that was CE842, the one that is shown in your video and is also on
> > your website.
>
> Well, I have been corrected on that. If you flip over what appears to be a
> crudely written "AMB" (for Audrey M. Bell), it actually looks like Will
> Fritz's initials. This could only happen in the JFK case:-)
Hmmm, interesting.
> > You've also made the point that what are purported to be
> > her initials seem to have been written over something else that was
> > partially erased.
>
> It does appear that there have been erasures and character fragments that
> have been overwritten. This is an image in which I have upped the contrast
> and brightness a bit.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/ce842x.jpg
Yeah, could be.
> > However, I'm still confused about something, and I can't remember if you
> > clarified this in your video, and I don't have time today to go back and
> > watch it. On the envelope, CE842, I see the initials "B.M.N." and I
> > remember you saying in the video that those are Bobby Nolan's initials,
> > but don't remember you suggesting any fakery of that, only the Audrey
> > Bell initials. Are those his genuine initials as originally written on
> > that envelope?
>
> I don't know.
>
> Nolan said the initials looked like his and in her ARRB interview, Bell
> said that the writing was hers. But look at the handwriting.. er
> printing.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/ce842.jpg
>
> Many years ago as a teenager, hard writing analysis was one of my hobbies
> and I read a very good book on the subject. I believe "Bullet fragments"
> was written in a different hand than "Right Arm". But Bell was adamant
> that she filled out the entire envelope by herself.
>
> In all honesty, I cannot put together a coherent, reasonable explanation
> that would satisfy either side of this debate. I do know however, that it
> is much easier to forge printing than cursive writing and easier yet, to
> forge the capital letters in initials.
>
> And I feel quite certain, that the printing in the upper part of the
> envelope was written by more than one person.
Could be, although that in and of itself does not necessarily indicate
that there's any hanky-panky with this envelope and its contents. It
depends on how many hands this envelope passed through before it was
given to...well...Nolan? If those are indeed his initials...
Is it possible that there are simply some errors in recollection here?
I believe it's true that Audrey Bell is not known to have claimed for
the first time that she gave the envelope to someone who was definitely
*not* in the uniform of a Texas Ranger until more than 30 years after
the assassination, or is there documentation of her claiming this well
before she said it to the ARRB? Also I'm guessing that you did not
interview Nolan until, at the earliest, sometime in the 1990s? More
than 30 years after the assassination? 1993 or later? Is it possible
that he is mistaken in his recollection that the nurse who handed him
that envelope had said that it contained the bullet from Connally's
"thigh"? I'm having a problem with Nolan initialing an envelope that
may or may not have already had the words "Bullet Fragments" written on
it before he initialed it. Or is it possible that the nurse herself had
gotten mixed up about that, just assuming that the envelope contained
the bullet from his thigh when it actually contained the fragments from
his wrist? And is this the same nurse who supposedly showed Wade a
whole bullet?
If that nurse was not Audrey Bell then I need to know that nurse's name.
If there is any truth to Connally's very late claim that a nurse picked
up that bullet and put it in her pocket (and I find that in and of
itself strange) then that nurse had to have been one of those who were
in Trauma Room 2 when his clothes were being removed. It wasn't head
nurse Standridge, because she didn't hear anything drop to the floor and
didn't seem to recall anything about another nurse picking up a bullet,
although she did admit that something might have dropped to the floor
and she didn't hear it since there was some degree of noise in the room
involved in the process of removing the Governor's clothing. So, if it
happened, it had to have been one of the other "nurses." And it was a
woman, because Connally said "she" picked it up and put it in "her"
pocket, isn't that correct.
And I've got her name. Her FULL name.
:P
There was only one other woman in the room at the time, according to
Standridge, except for Nellie Connally. All others in the room who were
helping remove JBC's clothes were men. And this woman was not a
"nurse," per se, she was a nurse's aide, Rosa Majors.
And I'm having a severe problem with the scenario Connally claimed.
Are we to believe Rosa Majors saw a whole bullet drop on the floor and
didn't immediately exclaim to everyone something like, "Hey, look, it's
a bullet!"
?
I am finding that EXTREMELY hard to swallow.
In the portion of his autobiography that you quote in your video,
Connally does not claim that the "nurse" said anything. He says she
picked up the bullet and put it in her pocket. He makes no mention
there of her speaking at all.
Rosa Majors picked up a bullet off the floor, a bullet that would
obviously have been directly related to a shocking assassination that
had just occurred (although of course at that moment Kennedy had not yet
been pronounced dead, but it was obvious from the moment people first
saw him at Parkland that he wasn't going to survive) and without saying
a word to several other people present, she just PUT IT IN HER POCKET??
Was this woman so incredibly ignorant as to not realize that she'd be
tampering with crucial evidence badly needed by law enforcement? That
she would, among other things, be contaminating that evidence with her
fingerprints? Or did she have gloves on? And even so, she still
doesn't utter a single exclamation as she's picking up this bullet?
And I know nothing about her yet except for her identity. I don't know
her age at the time, how long she lived after this, whether she is still
alive, etc. But if she did live, at the very least, to several years
after the assassination, are we to find it plausible that she never once
came forward to say that she picked up a bullet from the floor that had
just fallen from Connally's stretcher? That she would never have spoken
of this to any of her friends and relatives, even though this was the
most high-profile murder case in all of U.S. history? That not one of
those friends or relatives would come forward in later years to even
make an uncorroborated claim that she had done this?
This scenario is extremely, extremely shaky for these reasons alone.
Now I want to examine Henry Wade again. The other day you quoted a
newspaper interview with him. I have just found the complete interview
online, in an article posted by...you.
May I ask, when you quoted that interview to me the other day, why did
you not also mention that it dates from 11-21-93?
Thirty years minus one day after the assassination?
This "corroboration" you talk about, Connally being corroborated by Wade
and both being corroborated by Nolan. Every bit of that dates from 1993
or later, correct?
In a co-written autobiography published in November, 1993 (although you
say below that it was actually written a decade earlier) John Connally
makes his earliest documented claim that a "nurse" picked up a bullet
that had fallen out of his thigh and put it in her pocket.
In an interview published the same month and year as Connally's
autobiography, Henry Wade makes his earliest documented claim (as far as
I know at this moment) that "some nurse had a bullet in her hand."
In your interview with Bobby Nolan which I'm guessing that you conducted
no earlier than this same year, 1993, and possibly several years later,
Nolan makes his earliest documented claim (that I know of at this
moment) that a "nurse," whom he did not name, handed that envelope to
him while telling him that it contained the bullet from Connally's thigh.
In 1997 Audrey Bell makes her earliest documented claim (as far as I
know at this moment) that she did not hand the envelope supposedly
containing fragments from Connally's wrist to anyone who would fit
Nolan's description.
If you don't see the problem here, I sure do. Yes, yes, yes, Connally,
Wade, and Nolan SEEM to be corroborating each other that a "nurse" was
in possession of a bullet from his thigh. But every bit of this
"corroboration" seems to be from an absolute minimum of nearly three
decades after the event, except Connally's if it's true that that
particular passage was first written a decade earlier, but that's still
a minimum of about two decades after the assassination. And if even one
of them is mistaken, then the other two may be merely corroborating a
mistaken statement. Nolan told you plainly that he did not see what was
inside the envelope.
And have you noticed by now the gargantuan hole in this "corroboration"?
Where is the corroboration from Rosa Majors, the only possible female
"nurse" Connally could have seen picking up the bullet and putting it in
"her" pocket? I know of no such thing from 1993, 1983, 1973, 1963, or
any other year. Unless Standridge was mistaken and there was another
woman in the room besides Majors. But that's not a latter-day
recollection; Standridge said that on March 21, 1964:
**********
Mr. SPECTER - And who assisted you in the process of undressing him?
Miss STANDRIDGE - Well, David Sanders was helping, he was my orderly
that was in the room, and also an aid, Rosa Majors, and she took the
money out of his pants, and Dr. Fueishier.
Mr. SPECTER - How do you spell that?
Miss STANDRIDGE - F-u-e-i-s-h-i-e-r (spelling), and Dr. Duke, and there
was a couple of other doctors--I don't remember who they were, but they
were up at the head, Dr. Fueishier and Dr. Duke, and Dr. Shaw came in
before they got the Governor's clothes off.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any object in Governor Connally's clothing?
Miss STANDRIDGE - Not unusual.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice a bullet, specifically?
Miss STANDRIDGE - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you hear the sound of anything fall?
Miss STANDRIDGE - I didn't.
Mr. SPECTER Were there other noises going on, in the room at that time?
Miss STANDRIDGE - Yes, there were.
**********
She named no other persons in the entire testimony who were present in
Trauma Room 2 when Connally's clothing was being removed except for the
persons named in the passage I quoted above, and Rosa Majors is the only
woman named, unless Dr. Fueishier was female. Strangely the only
matches I'm able to find for "Fueishier" in any connection with the
assassination do not give that person's first name. But I'm suspecting
that's a man. And of course this is where Standridge said that she
didn't hear anything fall to the floor, but admitted there were "other
noises going on" that might have prevented her from noticing.
But oh boy...do you see what Standridge said the only other woman in the
room was doing? That woman, Rosa Majors, was taking "the money out of
his pants."
Could that "money" have included at least one coin, Robert? If a coin
had fallen to the floor, would it not have made exactly the sort of
sound Connally described in his biography? And would Connally have been
a reliable witness at this time anyway? Even if he had mentioned this
incident when he was recovering in the hospital in 1963 instead of
waiting almost three decades to mention it for the first time ever?
Look at what Nellie wrote in "From Love Field," p.14:
"They tried next to remove his trousers, but caused so much pain that
John finally told them, 'Cut the damn things off!' then passed out."
(On the following page Nellie also corroborates Standridge that Red Duke
was one of the doctors in the room.)
Now this is certainly a latter-day claim also, this time published FORTY
years after the event, so this might be suspect too. But do you see
what she's saying here? She said he passed out BEFORE his clothes were
removed. When is the only time a bullet could have fallen to the floor?
At the earliest, during the process of removing his pants, since before
that, even if the bullet had worked its way loose from his thigh by
then, it almost certainly would still be rolling around inside his pants.
So John Connally "heard" something fall to the floor and "saw" a "nurse"
pick it up WHEN HE WAS UNCONSCIOUS?
But still, I'm looking for an earlier claim by Nellie that he passed out
before his clothes were removed. I'm not seeing anything like that in
her WC testimony or her joint testimony with him to the HSCA. So that
might be a mistaken latter-day recollection too.
But do you see that she also represents a gargantuan hole in the
corroboration? In all those years afterward never once did she mention
Rosa Majors picking up a bullet. Neither did orderly David Sanders,
neither did Dr. Red Duke, neither did Dr. Fueishier, neither did Dr.
Shaw who "came in before they got the Governor's clothes off. Neither
did the "couple of other doctors" who Standridge couldn't recall
specifically ever mention it.
And neither did Rosa Majors herself ever mention it.
The one and only person who was in that room at that time who ever, ever
said a bullet fell out of his thigh and was picked up by a "nurse" who
put it in "her" pocket was John Connally, and he mentioned it for the
first time nearly three decades after the assassination. And he would
obviously be by far, by far, the most unreliable witnesses to that
incident. Not one of these other people was seriously injured. Not one
of these other people even *might* have been in and out of
consciousness. Not one of these other people were distracted and dazed
by extreme pain.
Is it just barely possible, Robert, that if Connally was at least awake
enough to have heard something metallic drop to the floor, he was simply
hearing change from his pocket drop to the floor? Is it possible that
that's what Rosa Majors picked up and put in her pocket, since we
already know that she was taking "money" out of his pocket? Is it
because, instead of a bullet, it was a much more mundane and benign
thing that she picked up that naturally none of the other people in the
room would later recall such a trivial and insignificant incident? Is
it just barely possible that Connally many years later had a dim
recollection of such a thing and accidentally conflated his dazed
recollection with Rosa Majors picking up a bullet?
I would be astonished that, even if you still don't agree with me, you
wouldn't at least admit that I am quite obviously giving perfectly
logical, rational, sensible, and sound reasons for finding Connally's
claim to be extremely problematic, to put it mildly.
> > And if so, did the envelope not say "Bullet Fragments"
> > at the time he wrote his initials?
>
> Supposedly, it was labelled as bullet fragments from the "right arm".
Yes.
> > I remember you suggesting that the
> > handwriting was different on one of those lines, but my recollection was
> > that it was on the line that says "Right Arm," not the line that says
> > "Bullet Fragments." Is this correct?
> >
> > Now, let me see if I can trace the other issue correctly, finally, lol.
> >
> > Connally made a claim for the first time very late in his life, perhaps
> > less than a year before he died,
>
> The claim was made in his autobiography, written in the early 80's and
> more than a decade before he died in 1993.
Which still makes it very much a latter-day claim. Even later, Wade did
NOT corroborate Connally's EXACT claim that a "nurse" picked up a bullet
in Trauma Room 2 and put it in her pocket. He only APPEARS to
indirectly do that by claiming a "nurse" had a bullet in "her" hand, but
he does NOT corroborate where and under what circumstances she picked up
that bullet. Nolan did NOT corroborate that exact claim either. He
only corroborated that a "nurse" told him it was the bullet from JBC's
thigh, but Nolan did not say that the nurse also told him how the bullet
was acquired. This whole thing is very shaky, most especially because
we're lacking the far more crucial corroboration of anyone else in that
room besides Connally, including his own wife and the only woman who
could have possibly picked up that bullet, Rosa Majors, the same woman
who was taking money out of his pocket, and if there was even one coin
there and she dropped it, it would be the sound of something metallic
hitting the floor.
And Nellie Connally never mentioned Rosa Majors exclaiming, "Oh my God,
it's a bullet" or anything remotely similar either. Nellie Connally
never mentioned Rosa Majors speaking at all.
Neither did John Connally.
Do I need to name yet again the five other people in that room who
didn't hear Rosa say anything either, or if they did they never breathed
a word of it, at least in any statement that has been documented for
posterity?
> > and which was not published for the
> > first time until five months after his death, that he heard something
> > metallic drop to the floor, that a nurse picked it up and put it in her
> > pocket, and that was the bullet from his thigh. Before today I have
> > expressed reservations about the veracity of his claim, but now I would
> > like to go with that as being a truthful claim, at least for
> > hypothetical purposes. And I'm thinking the only time this could have
> > happened would have been before he was taken to the operating room, when
> > he was still in Trauma Room 2, the first room he was taken to, where his
> > clothes were removed in preparation for the operation. Also Drs.
> > Gregory and Shaw never said anything about finding a bullet in the
> > operating room, and of course Shaw was clear that when he first looked
> > at the thigh wound the bullet had already fallen out and was nowhere to
> > be seen. Much more likely it fell out in Trauma Room 2 while his
> > clothes were being removed, since it was barely lodged in his thigh
> > anyway. I've quoted head nurse Standridge as saying she didn't hear
> > anything fall to the floor during all of this, but that doesn't mean
> > that another nurse present noticed what Standridge didn't notice,
> > although it could be problematic that Standridge also didn't recall
> > another nurse saying something like, "Hey, look at this!"
>
> I think they had other priorities then and nobody would have been too
> interested in a mangled chunk of lead on the floor.
Oh? But apparently someone would have eventually noticed that that
"mangled chunk of lead" was in fact a bullet, because otherwise how
could a "nurse" take what she was calling a "bullet" to Henry Wade if
she didn't know it was a bullet? And yet this "nurse" never
corroborates anything even remotely like this incident, and Wade
neglects to mention it for the first time ever (I guess) until three
decades later.
> Perhaps, it might be helpful to turn down the spin generator a tad:-)
I would like to keep these discussions as cordial as possible, Robert.
But even with the smiley after that I'm taking a bit of offense at that.
Do you see any place in any of my recent replies to you that I even
jokingly accuse you of such a thing? I have been quite forceful, yes,
in some passages, because there are certain things that I obviously
should stand firm on, but I have not been even slightly rude to you,
Robert, not even slightly. "Spin"? I am posting "spin"? How, exactly,
is that? I didn't know Ms. Majors's identity when I posted that, but it
seems perfectly reasonable to me that whatever woman picked that up she
would be far more likely than not to have said something aloud at the
time to the others present. And I now know that she was Rosa Majors,
and she was taking money out of his pocket. How are any of my problems
with this scenario even slightly unreasonable? How are they even
slightly illogical? How are they "spin"? That seems to be a rather
novel usage of that word when applied to what I posted.
I guess I should have read through your entire article before I started
replying, because I didn't notice the "spin" until I got to this point
in my reply. I think because of that I will stop here. It is time for
me to address other issues.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Robert Harris
<c80d61d7-32f1-4636...@ei5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
LOL!!
Well, post your citation.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Which one was the YouTube video I posted here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ1ecDXbkRs&feature=player_embedded
You've posted millions of videos on YouTube, why not this one?
What are you trying to hide? What difference does it make which
stretcher it was? It wasn't Connally's. It was Ronnie Fuller's.
Robert Harris
<bobharris77-F53A...@earthlink.us.supernews.com>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Duh... meant to say, that's NOT how honest research is conducted.
Robert Harris
<b6c95c46-cf85-4f3e...@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Tomlinson did NOT tell the Commission that the stretcher in the elevator
> >>> was Connally's." <<<
>
> Of course he didn't. How would Tomlinson know for certain who had
> occupied that stretcher last? Connally wasn't lying on the stretcher
> when Darrell took it off the elevator. Nobody was lying on it.
>
> But if Tomlinson found Bullet CE399 on ANY stretcher that had come off
> of that elevator, then we KNOW that John Connally HAD to have been on
> that stretcher very recently
Yes, but he DIDN'T find CE399 on that stretcher, did he:-)
That's why every one of the four men who examined the stretcher bullet
refused to verify that CE399 was the same one.
And that's why FBI SA Todd's initials are nowhere to be found on CE399.
And that's why Connally, DA Wade, and officer Nolan all confirmed that the
bullet that wounded JBC was recovered by a nurse on the second floor and
passed to officer Nolan.
Odd that you didn't mention ANY of that in the BS article at your website
- you know, the one where you pretended that finding what was apparently
Fritz's upside down initials settled everything.
> --because CE399 came out of a gun that was
> being fired at Connally and Kennedy just a short time earlier that
> day.
Absolute nonsense. There is ZERO evidence to support that claim and a
mountain of evidence proving that the real bullet was delivered to Nolan.
>
> Of course, it's also my opinion
How are we supposed to be impressed by the "opinion" of anyone who
evades every relevant fact related to this issue, by running every time
he is challenged on it?
And how can we be impressed by someone who posts a ridiculous article on
the subject which totally misrepresents what this is all about?
As usual, this last post contains ZERO material content and nothing but
worthless, unsupportable assertions.
Your buds in this thread might not be doing too well, but at least they
have the guts to address the actual issues.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
What EXACTLY was there in his story that Specter wanted to change?
> Why did Specter have to go into this tedious explanation of what he told
> him and what the Secret Service said? Undoubtedly, he got Tomlinson to
> say whatever he wanted him to in their private conversations.
>
You do realize I assume that while taking testimony the WC several times
had off the record discussions with witnesses.
> And why did the Secret Service have to ask him again, three years later?
> Didn't they have access to his testimony??
>
Maybe they didn't like his testimony. Why did the HSCA question exactly
the same WC witnesses 15 years later?
> Tomlinson answered the question and diagrammed the positions of the
> stretchers. That should have been it, whether the WC liked it or not.
> That's how honest research is conducted. Leading witnesses and arguing
> with them to make them change their stories is despicable.
>
It's what prosecutors are trained to do.
> If I remember correctly, you were equally elated that the Parkland
> doctors were conned into changing their recollections about the BOH
> damage, by showing them photos of the head after the autopsists had
> covered up the damage by pulling the scalp up and over the damaged area.
> Boswell confirmed that in his ARRB testimony.
>
Jean is one of those absolutists who doesn't realize that two people can
see exactly the same object and perceive it differently, and that the same
object can change in appearance over time.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "Tomlinson did NOT tell the Commission that the stretcher in the
elevator was Connally's."<<<
>
> Of course he didn't. How would Tomlinson know for certain who had
> occupied that stretcher last? Connally wasn't lying on the stretcher
> when Darrell took it off the elevator. Nobody was lying on it.
>
> But if Tomlinson found Bullet CE399 on ANY stretcher that had come off
> of that elevator, then we KNOW that John Connally HAD to have been on
> that stretcher very recently--because CE399 came out of a gun that was
> being fired at Connally and Kennedy just a short time earlier that
> day.
>
Excuse me but Tomlison NEVER said he found any bullet ON any stretcher.
You are misrepresenting the historical facts for political advantage. And
you are ASSUMING that it has been proved that CE 399 came out of the rifle
fired during the assassination. It may have been, but you did not prove
that. It could just as easily been fired the day or weeks before to plant
it.
> Of course, it's also my opinion that if Tomlinson found Bullet CE399
> on ANY STRETCHER AT ALL on Nov. 22 in Parkland Hospital (and he did,
> of course), regardless of whether we know with 100% certainty which
> stretcher Tomlinson took off the elevator, this HAS to mean (by sheer
> logic and common sense) that the stretcher in question HAD to be
> Connally's, since only two people on Earth were struck by bullets from
> Lee Harve Oswald's rifle on 11/22/63, and one of those persons (JFK)
> is automatically eliminated in this "stretcher" discussion, since we
> know that Kennedy's stretcher was never in that area of Parkland prior
> to the bullet being found.
>
No, because again Tomlinson did not find it on any stretcher. It fell
off one of the stretchers. Ronnie Fuller's stretcher.
Anthony Marsh
You can't get the right answers if you ask the wrong questions. Loaded
questions full of your misinformed presumptions.
> In your video on the single bullet that I just watched yesterday, you
> say that Tomlinson was "always adamant" that the stretcher he found on
> the elevator was the stretcher that had just been used for Connally.
> You also said something very similar in the video that I watched a week
> ago.
>
> Why do you say this? When on earth was he "adamant" about any such
> thing? In both of those videos you play the same CBS clip in which it
> is only Walter Cronkite who says that the stretcher on the elevator was
> Connally's. Darrell Tomlinson cannot be heard to say any such thing.
Walter Cronkite was a professional disinformation agent working for the
CIA. His job was to distort history and confuse the public. Why not just
ignore his coaching and listen to what Tomlinson himself said sans CIA?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ1ecDXbkRs&feature=player_embedded
Does the interviewer here look like Walter Cronkite?
> In his WC testimony he didn't say any such thing either, nor did he say
> any such thing in the Youtube video that I've posted here and is shown
Selection bias. You only show the evidence YOU want to show, to prop up
your wacky theory of the day.
> in my notes, nor in fact in any quote I've yet been able to find from
> him. To the WC he plainly stated that he did not have the foggiest idea
> who had last been on the stretcher in the elevator. All he did was
Maybe he was worried about being under oath and trying to be careful to
not overstate his opinion.
> admit to the WC that that was the elevator that Connally had been taken
> up from Trauma Room 2 on the ground floor to the operating room on the
> second floor. Do you have a verbatim quote of Tomlinson at any time
> saying that he believed that the stretcher on the elevator was the one
> used for Connally? I am 99% certain you have never posted such a quote
> in any of your articles that I've replied to in the past 2 weeks.
>
Yes, look at the damn video.
> In addition, I made the case in my notes that the stretcher on the
> elevator was almost certainly NOT the stretcher that had been used for
> Connally. First of all, when Tomlinson first saw that stretcher it was
> already inside the elevator, which means it could have come from any
That means no such thing. It could have just come from another floor.
That's how they moved the stretchers.
Again you are injecting your beliefs into the interpretation. That is
not proper research method.
> But the other stretcher, the one that was already in the corridor
> partially blocking a men's restroom, the one he didn't take off the
> elevator, he said had bloody sheets on it. Now which stretcher is the
> more likely to have just been used to transport Connally? The one with
> the bloody sheets? Or the one without a spot of blood?
>
That is your fatal error. It doesn't matter which one was Connally's
stretcher. For two reasons. First he never SAW the bullet on a stretcher.
He heard it fall and picked it up off the floor. It could have fallen off
either stretcher. Second, it is much more likely that the bloody sheets
came from little Ronnie Fuller.
> I mean, really.
>
> Now, I've seen a suggestion that the one with the bloody sheets was used
> for a boy named Ronnie Fuller, who had indeed been brought in shortly
> before JFK and JBC and had been bleeding as well. And maybe it was. Or
> maybe that was the blood of the other shooting victim you've proposed
> whose identity we're unable to determine. Could be. But I don't
There is no other shooting victim that early besides Kennedy and Connally.
> believe for a moment that the one on the elevator was Connally's. No
> way. He was taken up only a few minutes before Tomlinson found that
> stretcher. Not a spot of blood on it, even though blood was *pouring*
> out of Connally's torso.
>
Blood pouring out of Connally being soaked up by his clothing. And he
was lying on his back and there was only a tiny pool of blood on the
back of his jacket at the site of the entrance wound.
> The Warren Commission concluded that Tomlinson was simply mistaken, that
> he must have found the bullet on the stretcher that was in the elevator.
He did not find any bullet in the stretcher. He found it on the floor in
front of the elevator.
> No. It was the Warren Commission that was mistaken. They jumped to
> that conclusion merely because that stretcher was on the same elevator
> that Connally had been taken up a few minutes earlier, but overlooked
> the fact that the elevator was still stopping at any floor when someone
> pushed any of those buttons, and had not yet been keyed to stop at only
> two floors. They also ignored Tomlinson's testimony that bloody sheets
> were only on stretcher B, the one that wasn't on the elevator. In the
> CBS documentary, Walter Cronkite (or whoever wrote that script for him)
> is simply mindlessly parroting the WC's mistake when claiming that the
> stretcher on the elevator was definitely Connally's. The WC claimed
> that. Tomlinson didn't, as far as I know. I sure don't hear him
> claiming that in the CBS documentary. I only hear Walter Cronkite
> claiming it.
>
He didn't claim it. He said he thought it might be. He said he couldn't
be sure whose stretcher it was.
http://www.jfkballistics.com/images/842_altered/a1.jpg
Where exactly on this envelope do you see Fritz's initials?
I see Bell spelled out. What are the other nurses names?
One new thing I learned about from John Hunt that shocked me was that
the FBI agents did not always initial evidence with their real names.
Is that really Connally's claim or is it just something that his
ghostwriter made up?
> nurse Standridge, because she didn't hear anything drop to the floor and
> didn't seem to recall anything about another nurse picking up a bullet,
> although she did admit that something might have dropped to the floor
> and she didn't hear it since there was some degree of noise in the room
> involved in the process of removing the Governor's clothing. So, if it
> happened, it had to have been one of the other "nurses." And it was a
> woman, because Connally said "she" picked it up and put it in "her"
> pocket, isn't that correct.
>
What happened to Connally's other cuff link?
And yet you exonerate Tomlinson when he merely picked up a bullet from
the floor and put it in his pocket.
Did Tomlinson have gloves on? Why didn't he have an evidence bag handy?
What did he yell out when he found it? Eureka?
You think they were EXPECTING a Presidential assassination and had
everything prepared before hand?
They didn't even have the Cortisone ready to go and Burkley had to
provide it.
And supposedly Papa Joe Kennedy had placed stashes of Cortisol all
across the country as a precaution.
> And I know nothing about her yet except for her identity. I don't know
> her age at the time, how long she lived after this, whether she is still
> alive, etc. But if she did live, at the very least, to several years
> after the assassination, are we to find it plausible that she never once
> came forward to say that she picked up a bullet from the floor that had
> just fallen from Connally's stretcher? That she would never have spoken
> of this to any of her friends and relatives, even though this was the
> most high-profile murder case in all of U.S. history? That not one of
> those friends or relatives would come forward in later years to even
> make an uncorroborated claim that she had done this?
>
> This scenario is extremely, extremely shaky for these reasons alone.
>
> Now I want to examine Henry Wade again. The other day you quoted a
> newspaper interview with him. I have just found the complete interview
> online, in an article posted by...you.
>
> May I ask, when you quoted that interview to me the other day, why did
> you not also mention that it dates from 11-21-93?
>
> Thirty years minus one day after the assassination?
>
> This "corroboration" you talk about, Connally being corroborated by Wade
> and both being corroborated by Nolan. Every bit of that dates from 1993
> or later, correct?
>
Point?
What did she say about the cuff links?
Did she explain that she picked up the cuff link which fell to the floor
and put it in her pocket, but then forget it was there?
> Could that "money" have included at least one coin, Robert? If a coin
> had fallen to the floor, would it not have made exactly the sort of
> sound Connally described in his biography? And would Connally have been
The peso.
Slightly different sound.
Anthony Marsh
He said he found the bullet on the floor. He wasn't sure whose stretcher
it fell from.
Anthony Marsh
> In article
> <b6c95c46-cf85-4f3e...@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> "Tomlinson did NOT tell the Commission that the stretcher in the elevator
>>>>> was Connally's."<<<
>>
>> Of course he didn't. How would Tomlinson know for certain who had
>> occupied that stretcher last? Connally wasn't lying on the stretcher
>> when Darrell took it off the elevator. Nobody was lying on it.
>>
>> But if Tomlinson found Bullet CE399 on ANY stretcher that had come off
>> of that elevator, then we KNOW that John Connally HAD to have been on
>> that stretcher very recently
>
> Yes, but he DIDN'T find CE399 on that stretcher, did he:-)
>
He didn't find ANY bullet ON any stretcher. He found a bullet on the
floor.
> That's why every one of the four men who examined the stretcher bullet
> refused to verify that CE399 was the same one.
>
> And that's why FBI SA Todd's initials are nowhere to be found on CE399.
>
Have you read John Hunt's articles?
Robert Harris
<98b49825-eba8-4bed...@g16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
Read your own citation. It is ridiculously obvious that the SS guy was
doing the same thing Specter did. He WANTED Tomlinson to say the bullet
fell from Connally's stretcher, and when he refused, he tried to get him
to say that "it could have been".
> Mr. SPECTER. You told the Secret Service agent that you didn't know
> where---
> Mr. TOMLINSON. (interrupting). He asked me if it could have been
> brought down from the second floor.
> Mr. SPECTER. You got the stretcher from where the bullet came from,
> whether it was brought down from the second floor?
> Mr. TOMLINSON. It could have been--I'm not sure whether it was A I
> took off.
> Mr. SPECTER. But did you tell the Secret Service man which one you
> thought it was you took off of the elevator?
> Mr. TOMLINSON. I'm not clear on that---whether I absolutely made a
> positive statement to that effect.
Uh huh, after getting thoroughly worked over, of course he was no longer
clear.
Look - the FBI airtel I cited, stated that Tomlinson would NOT confirm
CE399. And in his WC testimony, BEFORE HE WAS BADGERED, he made it
crystal clear that the bullet fell from the stretcher that was already
in front of the rest room door, when he brought the stretcher down.
EVERYTHING you have cited, has been the result of one govt person or
another, pressuring the man to change his story. How many times did
Specter say, "are you sure?"?
Listen to your buddy, Mr. Posner, and ALWAYS go with the earliest
documented, uncontaminated statements.
In a situation like that, a LOT of people would cave in to pressure to
change their story, especially from high level govt people supposedly
investigating the greatest crime of that century.
And BTW, I didn't snip anything. The moderators here delete text below
the signature. Complain to them.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't recall saying that. Please cite me verbatim.
> You also said something very similar in the video that I watched a week
> ago.
Let's continue this discussion after we resolve this issue.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "He DIDN'T find CE399 on that stretcher, did he[?]" <<<
Yes, of course he did.
David Von Pein
>>> "He said he found the bullet on the floor." <<<
When did Tomlinson ever say that?
Here's what he told the WC in '64. Is he lying here, Tony?:
Mr. TOMLINSON -- "I bumped the wall and a spent cartridge or bullet
rolled out that apparently had been lodged under the edge of the mat."
Sure doesn't sound like he found the bullet on the floor to me.
Caeruleo
<89a053f5-34ca-413f...@a11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> Darrell Tomlinson has gone through various changes in his story--from
> 1964 to 1988:
>
> 1964 --- He told the Warren Commission (no less than six separate
> times) that he was "not sure" which of the two stretchers he had taken
> off of the elevator.
>
> 1967 --- He told CBS News that he was absolutely positive that the
> stretcher on which he found the bullet was the stretcher that had come
> off of the elevator.
Wait, if that's the one that Robert has starting 01:29 into his video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKwqhf0MYio
then you are incorrect: Tomlinson clearly says there that he found the
bullet on the other stretcher, NOT the one he took off the elevator.
I'm assuming that's CBS, since Walter Cronkite is narrating.
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-B00F...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is from the CBS/Cronkite documentary. Move the timeline to about
> 1:12 and listen closely.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKwqhf0MYio&feature=channel_video_title
Yes, that's the one where right before the CBS clip starts you say, "he
has always been adamant that the stretcher he found it on was not
Connally's." But in that very clip Tomlinson never says that the
stretcher he took off the elevator was Connally's. Only Walter Cronkite
says that. I have additionally still not seen a verbatim quote of
Tomlinson ever saying that the stretcher on the elevator was Connally's.
I have brought this up several times and I still haven't seen you address
it in any article that was a reply to me. If you have posted such an
article, it must have been less than 24 hours ago because I haven't seen
it. Thanks.
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-A7B1...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You are right. I am sorry. It's kind of similar though. At 01:19 in
this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKwqhf0MYio
you say, "Tomlinson did indeed find a bullet on a stretcher that day, but
he has always been adamant that the stretcher he found it on was not
Connally's."
But I'm not understanding that statement either. In that clip I do not
hear Tomlinson say that the stretcher he found the bullet on was not
Connally's stretcher. I only hear Walter Cronkite saying that "The
stretcher he took off the elevator was Connally's." I do not recall
Tomlinson on any occasion saying that the stretcher he took off the
elevator was Connally's, therefore, although I got the wrong sense of what
you said originally (and again my apologies), it still seems misleading to
say that Tomlinson was adamant that the stretcher he found the bullet on
was not Connally's, when he never said that *either* stretcher was
Connally's, not in any quote that I've yet seen anyway, and certainly not
in that CBS clip.
> > You also said something very similar in the video that I watched a week
> > ago.
>
> Let's continue this discussion after we resolve this issue.
I hope it has been resolved now, and again my apologies for
misrepresenting what you said. And we definitely need to address a good
deal of what is said below.
--
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-29E3...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And that's why Connally, DA Wade, and officer Nolan all confirmed that the
> bullet that wounded JBC was recovered by a nurse on the second floor and
> passed to officer Nolan.
Now wait, a nurse on the SECOND floor? If you have specifically said that
to me before I do not recall it. I guess I had always assumed that if a
bullet did indeed drop to the floor at a time Connally could witness it,
it would have been in Trauma Room 2 on the ground floor when they were
getting his clothes off. Let me be clear on your position: where,
exactly, did this happen? In the operating room on the 2nd floor?
Thanks.
Caeruleo
<98b49825-eba8-4bed...@g16g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You're not getting it. Specter was referring to
> Tomlinson's 12/63 interview with the Secret Service, in which he had
> said that the bullet could've been on the elevator stretcher.
Hmmm. I think the most important thing to establish is which stretcher
was most likely to have been the one that had just been used for Connally
and which wasn't. He said that one stretcher was clean and the other had
bloody sheets on it. Quite obviously, the one with the bloody sheets was
tremendously more likely to have been the one used for Connally. He was
bleeding profusely, and there's no possible way the blood could have been
cleaned off that stretcher quickly enough that Tomlinson wouldn't see it,
and if time was being taken to clean up Connally's stretcher, replacing
the padding and sheets and so forth, that would have still been happening
at the time Tomlinson got to the elevator and thus he would not have seen
Connally's stretcher at all, or if he did, he would have been seeing
someone cleaning it up. I know Tomlinson waffled about which stretcher he
found the bullet on. But did he ever waver regarding which stretcher had
the bloody sheets on it? I only know of him saying that the stretcher
that was already on the elevator was clean and the stretcher that was
already in the corridor had the bloody sheets. Did he ever reverse
himself on that?
Anthony Marsh
He says he did not see it until he had walked away and then walked back
and then he first saw it on the floor. He only assumed it was on one of
the stretchers and fell off. A logical assumption.
Robert Harris
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <bobharris77-29E3...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > And that's why Connally, DA Wade, and officer Nolan all confirmed that the
> > bullet that wounded JBC was recovered by a nurse on the second floor and
> > passed to officer Nolan.
>
> Now wait, a nurse on the SECOND floor? If you have specifically said that
> to me before I do not recall it. I guess I had always assumed that if a
> bullet did indeed drop to the floor at a time Connally could witness it,
> it would have been in Trauma Room 2 on the ground floor when they were
> getting his clothes off. Let me be clear on your position: where,
> exactly, did this happen? In the operating room on the 2nd floor?
>
> Thanks.
The second floor, as I just told you.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I believe that if you do your homework and study the relevant WC
testimonies, you will see what every other researcher on the planet
sees, which is that that was a given. To explain it all would require me
to do a lot of writing and cut n' pasting that I really do not feel up
to right now.
Please research the issue and let me know if you still dispute that
Tomlinson moved Connally's stretcher.
But even if you were correct, the problem doesn't go away, because if
that was not Connnally's stretcher and since we know for sure that it
wasn't JFK's, we would have just one more corroboration that CE399 was
not the bullet that Tomlinson recovered.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
> In article
> <89a053f5-34ca-413f...@a11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Darrell Tomlinson has gone through various changes in his story--from
>> 1964 to 1988:
>>
>> 1964 --- He told the Warren Commission (no less than six separate
>> times) that he was "not sure" which of the two stretchers he had taken
>> off of the elevator.
>>
>> 1967 --- He told CBS News that he was absolutely positive that the
>> stretcher on which he found the bullet was the stretcher that had come
>> off of the elevator.
>
> Wait, if that's the one that Robert has starting 01:29 into his video,
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKwqhf0MYio
>
> then you are incorrect: Tomlinson clearly says there that he found the
> bullet on the other stretcher, NOT the one he took off the elevator.
> I'm assuming that's CBS, since Walter Cronkite is narrating.
>
You are incorrect. Tomlinson never said he found a bullet on a
stretcher. He said he found it on the floor.
Please stop misstating the historical evidence for political gain.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Tony, in the NOVA documentary, Tomlinson showed on camera how the
bullet was found between the mat and the metal rim of the gurney.
Not on the floor.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> Yes, of course he did.
>
No, he saw it on the floor and assumed it fell off a stretcher.
Please try to be specific in your language so that you don't
misrepresent the evidence in this case.
David Von Pein
>>> "Tomlinson clearly says there that he found the bullet on the other
stretcher, NOT the one he took off the elevator. I'm assuming that's CBS,
since Walter Cronkite is narrating." <<<
You've got the programs confused. Cronkite is involved in both shows,
that's true. The 1967 one is CBS; the one in '88 is a PBS show ("NOVA"),
with Cronkite serving as narrator and host.
And Tomlinson definitely contradicts himself when you watch both programs.
In '67, he's positive that he found the bullet on a stretcher which HAD
come off of the elevator. In '88, he's positive that the bullet was found
on a stretcher that had definitely NOT come off of the elevator.
Anthony Marsh
You are imagining things in your mind and then claiming they MUST have
happened. Illogical.
Anthony Marsh
Hey, why did you post that video? Don't you know that Torture is illegal.
They may get away with showing that video at Abu Grabe, but please don't
show it here.
> you say, "Tomlinson did indeed find a bullet on a stretcher that day, but
> he has always been adamant that the stretcher he found it on was not
> Connally's."
>
> But I'm not understanding that statement either. In that clip I do not
> hear Tomlinson say that the stretcher he found the bullet on was not
> Connally's stretcher. I only hear Walter Cronkite saying that "The
And why the Hell should anyone even listen to anything Cronkite says? He
was a professional liar.
Robert Harris
> You also said something very similar in the video that I watched a week
> ago.
>
This argument is not worthy of a response.
> This whole thing is very shaky, most especially because
> we're lacking the far more crucial corroboration of anyone else in that
> room besides Connally, including his own wife and the only woman who
> could have possibly picked up that bullet, Rosa Majors, the same woman
> who was taking money out of his pocket, and if there was even one coin
> there and she dropped it, it would be the sound of something metallic
> hitting the floor.
He was transported on a stretcher from the trauma room to the elevator
and taken to the second floor. It was when he was transferred from the
stretcher onto what he called the "examining table" that the bullet came
loose and fell to the floor.
>
> And Nellie Connally never mentioned Rosa Majors exclaiming, "Oh my God,
> it's a bullet" or anything remotely similar either. Nellie Connally
> never mentioned Rosa Majors speaking at all.
>
> Neither did John Connally.
Rosa Majors had nothing to do with it.
>
> Do I need to name yet again the five other people in that room who
> didn't hear Rosa say anything either, or if they did they never breathed
> a word of it, at least in any statement that has been documented for
> posterity?
Has Tony been helping you out with this:-)
How much corroboration does one need to confirm that a bullet shaped
piece of lead that fell from a gunshot victim is a bullet??
>
> > Perhaps, it might be helpful to turn down the spin generator a tad:-)
>
> I would like to keep these discussions as cordial as possible, Robert.
> But even with the smiley after that I'm taking a bit of offense at that.
> Do you see any place in any of my recent replies to you that I even
> jokingly accuse you of such a thing?
I take offense at any form of blind advocacy. And you are raising
arguments that are simply ridiculous and in most cases, based on a total
misrepresentation of what happened.
Robert Harris
Jean Davison
Forget the mindreading, just read what Tomlinson actually said,
for instance when Specter brought up the Secret Service interview:
QUOTE:
Mr. SPECTER. What did you tell the Secret Service man about which
stretcher you took off of the elevator?
***Mr. TOMLINSON. I told him that I was not sure, and I am not--I'm not
sure of it, but as I said, I would be going against the oath which I took
a while ago, because I am definitely not sure. ***
UNQUOTE
>
> > Mr. SPECTER. You told the Secret Service agent that you didn't know
> > where---
> > Mr. TOMLINSON. (interrupting). He asked me if it could have been
> > brought down from the second floor.
> > Mr. SPECTER. You got the stretcher from where the bullet came from,
> > whether it was brought down from the second floor?
> > Mr. TOMLINSON. It could have been--I'm not sure whether it was A I
> > took off.
> > Mr. SPECTER. But did you tell the Secret Service man which one you
> > thought it was you took off of the elevator?
> > Mr. TOMLINSON. I'm not clear on that---whether I absolutely made a
> > positive statement to that effect.
>
> Uh huh, after getting thoroughly worked over, of course he was no longer
> clear.
>
> Look - the FBI airtel I cited, stated that Tomlinson would NOT confirm
> CE399.
You seem to think that means that he *denied* it was the bullet
he saw, but that's not what it says. He told Marcus it resembled the
bullet he saw. You think he lied to Marcus?
Besides, it wasn't necessary that he positively ID the bullet,
so long as there were careful records about the chain of possession.
That's how it's done today. The FBI Lab now tells law enforcement people
NOT to mark the bullets that they send to them for examination.
>And in his WC testimony, BEFORE HE WAS BADGERED, he made it
> crystal clear that the bullet fell from the stretcher that was already
> in front of the rest room door, when he brought the stretcher down.
Quote it then. I think you'll find that he always said "I
believe" it was this stretcher or "I think" it was. That doesn't indicate
certainty, imo.
Even if he swore up and down that it wasn't Connally's
stretcher, he *still* could have been wrong. Witnesses are often wrong
about things that they paid very little attention to at the time.
>
> EVERYTHING you have cited, has been the result of one govt person or
> another, pressuring the man to change his story. How many times did
> Specter say, "are you sure?"?
Those exact words? Once.
>
> Listen to your buddy, Mr. Posner, and ALWAYS go with the earliest
> documented, uncontaminated statements.
Buddy? I've never met Mr. Posner.
> In a situation like that, a LOT of people would cave in to pressure to
> change their story, especially from high level govt people supposedly
> investigating the greatest crime of that century.
Tomlinson didn't cave. According to you, Specter tried to
get him to say it was Connally's stretcher. He didn't.
>
> And BTW, I didn't snip anything. The moderators here delete text below
> the signature. Complain to them.
You are correct, the moderators delete old material below
the signature. My error, sorry.
Jean
k
Caeruleo
<143c2481-341e-4148...@y24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "He DIDN'T find CE399 on that stretcher, did he[?]" <<<
>
> Yes, of course he did.
We're still working that out, actually. There's an alternate trail that I
didn't know about until Robert told me about it recently, and I am very
interested in exploring this trail to the fullest possible extent.
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-B1D9...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Read your own citation. It is ridiculously obvious that the SS guy was
> doing the same thing Specter did. He WANTED Tomlinson to say the bullet
> fell from Connally's stretcher, and when he refused, he tried to get him
> to say that "it could have been".
What I am still trying to resolve is which stretcher was Connally's
stretcher. The clean one? Or the one with bloody sheets? I am still
waiting for someone besides me to address this. If someone has, I have
not noticed it in any article that I have replied to. The SS apparently
made the same mistake that the WC did in assuming that the stretcher that
was already on the elevator was the one that was just used for Connally,
merely because he had been taken up that elevator a few minutes earlier
and for no other reason. It seems to me that some of you are coming to
that mistaken conclusion too.
It may well be that Tomlinson wavered under pressure, on some occasions
saying that the bullet was on the stretcher that was already in the
corridor, and on other occasions expressing less certainty. What he never
wavered on, however, as far as I know, was which stretcher was clean and
which stretcher had bloody sheets on it.
Before Tomlinson got to the elevator, the elevator was stopping at any
floor that was selected by people getting on and off the elevator.
That's why he was called, to key the elevator to stop only at the ground
floor and the second floor, and none other than Audrey Bell was connected
with the request for him to do so since documentation shows her going to
one of the hospital administrators with this request. This means that the
stretcher from the elevator could have come from any floor. That was the
stretcher that he never said on any occasion that I know of had any bloody
sheets on it, or indeed even a single spot of blood.
That would be the other stretcher, the one with the bloody sheets, the one
he didn't take off the elevator. That's far more likely to be the one
used for a recent shooting victim who was bleeding profusely, and if even
as short a time as three minutes had passed between Connally being taken
up that elevator to the operating room and Tomlinson reaching that
elevator, that's enough time for someone to have brought that stretcher
down again from the second floor and leave it in the corridor on the
ground floor, but not necessarily enough time to clean it off. There
almost certainly would not have been enough time to clean off the other
stretcher, the one that was in the elevator, of all blood, replacing the
sheets, replacing the padding, so that stretcher almost certainly was last
used for a patient other than Connally, a patient who was not bleeding
profusely, and perhaps not bleeding at all.
Some have suggested that the stretcher with the bloody sheets, the one
that wasn't on the elevator, had just been used for Ronnie Fuller, a boy
who had indeed been badly bleeding. But while that's possible, there is
no proof that he was the last person on that stretcher before Tomlinson
saw it, and since Fuller was brought in *before* Connally (isn't that
correct) that would mean the bloody sheets would have been left on that
stretcher longer, and I'm having a bit of trouble with that.
Anthony Marsh
He demonstrated how he thinks the bullet was resting on the stretcher.
Then it fell onto the floor and he picked it up off the floor.
> Not on the floor.
>
Did you even bother looking at the video I uploaded?
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> In article
> <bobharris77-B1D9...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris<bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Read your own citation. It is ridiculously obvious that the SS guy was
>> doing the same thing Specter did. He WANTED Tomlinson to say the bullet
>> fell from Connally's stretcher, and when he refused, he tried to get him
>> to say that "it could have been".
>
> What I am still trying to resolve is which stretcher was Connally's
> stretcher. The clean one? Or the one with bloody sheets? I am still
> waiting for someone besides me to address this. If someone has, I have
> not noticed it in any article that I have replied to. The SS apparently
I believe other authors have addressed it. Maybe even WC defenders.
Ronnie Fuller was admitted to the ER at 12:54 and treated there.
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-8B92...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <caeruleo1-9259E...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <bobharris77-29E3...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> > Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > And that's why Connally, DA Wade, and officer Nolan all confirmed that
> > > the
> > > bullet that wounded JBC was recovered by a nurse on the second floor and
> > > passed to officer Nolan.
> >
> > Now wait, a nurse on the SECOND floor? If you have specifically said that
> > to me before I do not recall it. I guess I had always assumed that if a
> > bullet did indeed drop to the floor at a time Connally could witness it,
> > it would have been in Trauma Room 2 on the ground floor when they were
> > getting his clothes off. Let me be clear on your position: where,
> > exactly, did this happen? In the operating room on the 2nd floor?
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> The second floor, as I just told you.
Ok, and what is your reasoning there? In his autobiography Connally
mentioned nothing about where in the hospital this happened or when. He
did not say whether it was in Trauma Room 2 on the ground floor as his
clothing was being removed or afterward in the operating room on the 2nd
floor. If it happened, it seems to me to be far more likely to be as his
clothing was being removed, since we know that the bullet was barely
lodged in his thigh anyway. The operating room on the 2nd is less likely
for two reasons: 1. he has to be conscious to recall this event, and he
was administered anesthesia by Giesecke at 1:00, giving a very short
interval for him to still be conscious, and 2. the additional problem of
Drs. Giesecke and Shaw being present and not apparently recalling such an
incident.
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-8B92...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <caeruleo1-9259E...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <bobharris77-29E3...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> > Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > And that's why Connally, DA Wade, and officer Nolan all confirmed that
> > > the
> > > bullet that wounded JBC was recovered by a nurse on the second floor and
> > > passed to officer Nolan.
> >
> > Now wait, a nurse on the SECOND floor? If you have specifically said that
> > to me before I do not recall it. I guess I had always assumed that if a
> > bullet did indeed drop to the floor at a time Connally could witness it,
> > it would have been in Trauma Room 2 on the ground floor when they were
> > getting his clothes off. Let me be clear on your position: where,
> > exactly, did this happen? In the operating room on the 2nd floor?
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> The second floor, as I just told you.
Robert, I am an idiot. Please ignore my previous response to this. It's
been right under my nose the whole time:
"But the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off
the stretcher, and onto the examining table."
Ugh, and here I've been acting as if he didn't mention where this
happened. How many times have I read this in the past week and not
noticed that part? A "number" of times.
Apparently I need remedial English lessons.
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-23F6...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, true, at least in the sense that I was laboring under a delusion
that was caused by my inability to read the English language. For an
entire week, at least, my eyes have darted right past this sentence in
that passage from his autobiography without even one of my brain cells
taking in the meaning:
"But the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off
the stretcher, and onto the examining table."
Less than an hour ago one of my brain cells finally noticed the meaning of
that sentence and belatedly told the other brain cells about it.
Sigh...
I have been a fool, going on and on and on with the mistaken assumption
that he didn't mention where in the hospital this happened.
I just sent you an email to head you off before you saw any of the other
stupid articles I posted in this thread earlier today.
I am contemplating a complete cessation of any further activity in this
newsgroup on my part for a year, while I go back and take remedial
English. Then we could resume this discussion in July of next year.
I would not blame you if you put me in your killfile for now.
> > This whole thing is very shaky, most especially because
> > we're lacking the far more crucial corroboration of anyone else in that
> > room besides Connally, including his own wife and the only woman who
> > could have possibly picked up that bullet, Rosa Majors, the same woman
> > who was taking money out of his pocket, and if there was even one coin
> > there and she dropped it, it would be the sound of something metallic
> > hitting the floor.
>
> He was transported on a stretcher from the trauma room to the elevator
> and taken to the second floor. It was when he was transferred from the
> stretcher onto what he called the "examining table" that the bullet came
> loose and fell to the floor.
Yes, I think at least three of my brain cells have finally noticed that.
> > And Nellie Connally never mentioned Rosa Majors exclaiming, "Oh my God,
> > it's a bullet" or anything remotely similar either. Nellie Connally
> > never mentioned Rosa Majors speaking at all.
> >
> > Neither did John Connally.
>
> Rosa Majors had nothing to do with it.
Four of my brain cells are now agreeing that she certainly didn't.
> > Do I need to name yet again the five other people in that room who
> > didn't hear Rosa say anything either, or if they did they never breathed
> > a word of it, at least in any statement that has been documented for
> > posterity?
>
> Has Tony been helping you out with this:-)
No, because I can't see his articles, but it sure looks that way,
doesn't it.
Well now, as to that, five of my brain cells are now suggesting that, if
you are willing to give me one more chance before you killfile me,
something of the same approach can be used as was used back when 100% of
my brain cells were operating on the imbecilic assumption that was based
on the WRONG ROOM AND THE WRONG FLOOR AND THE WRONG SET OF PEOPLE IN THAT
DAMNED HOSPITAL.
Ugh...
Now that I think I've got the right location, finally, at last (after how
long, a week, more?) of darting right past the crucial sentence, one
element of my previous argument still applies here: we are lacking any
corroboration whatsoever from anyone else who was in that room,
contemporaneous or latter-day corroboration, most especially from the
actual nurse who picked up the bullet.
Not Rosa Majors. Wrong room, wrong floor, wrong time. (Maybe if I chant
that to myself at least 100 times it will finally sink in.)
But I still want that nurse's name, her identity. That part of the close
examination of this scenario has not changed. Obviously that is crucial
to determine, if at all possible.
> > > Perhaps, it might be helpful to turn down the spin generator a tad:-)
> >
> > I would like to keep these discussions as cordial as possible, Robert.
> > But even with the smiley after that I'm taking a bit of offense at that.
> > Do you see any place in any of my recent replies to you that I even
> > jokingly accuse you of such a thing?
>
> I take offense at any form of blind advocacy. And you are raising
> arguments that are simply ridiculous and in most cases, based on a total
> misrepresentation of what happened.
Seven of my brain cells are now saying maybe that is it, with "blind"
being the operative word. Eight other brain cells are now saying that
maybe it is my eyesight that was the problem, not the comprehension
capabilities of the brain cells themselves. Nine other brain cells are
now agreeing that passing the buck is a good way to evade their
responsibility for this.
The remaining brain cells, numbering several million I think, are
declining to comment.
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-9AEC...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, I was unaware of R.J. Jimison's testimony until yesterday after I
posted that article. I probably read his testimony years ago, but had
forgotten all about that if so. He said he was virtually certain that no
other stretcher was put on that elevator.
> But even if you were correct, the problem doesn't go away, because if
> that was not Connnally's stretcher and since we know for sure that it
> wasn't JFK's, we would have just one more corroboration that CE399 was
> not the bullet that Tomlinson recovered.
Possibly so, but that still depends on Tomlinson not being confused
regarding which stretcher he took off the elevator, and maybe he wasn't
confused - maybe at times he was merely caving in to his questioners, just
as you've suggested. Could very well be. I won't deny it. And less than
an hour ago I finally realized my incredible stupidity in exploring Rosa
Majors et al. Ugh. It took my brain cells more than a week to notice
this sentence in Connnally's autobiography:
"But the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off
the stretcher, and onto the examining table."
I shall look momentarily on the Internet to see where the nearest summer
classes for remedial English are being held.
Anthony Marsh
Your logic was fine until you tried to state something as a fact which we
do not know was a fact. We have no proof that a bullet barely lodged into
his thigh. It could have been just a fragment. Don't assume something just
because you can't prove it.
Jean Davison
Thanks for clearing that up for me, David. Earlier I'd said
that Tomlinson gave CBS two different stories but the second one was the
PBS program narrated by Cronkite. And he did definitely contradict
himself, as you say.
Jean
Robert Harris
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
We know no such thing. And that is not what he said. He said the bullet
came out as he was being transferred from a stretcher to an examining
table.
And I really don't see why it makes a difference. Your argument that the
nurse who picked up the bullet had to have shouted out "Look what I
found!", or something like that is just silly and ridiculously contrived
to support a hopelesslly weak argument.
But if you have somehow convinced yourself that it was impossible that it
happened in the trauma room, then just accept that it occurred on the
second floor. I really don't want to spend the next week, bickering about
a totally irrelevant issue.
What is INFINITELY more important is that Connally's claim that the bullet
fell to the floor from his gurney, was totally corroborated by DA Wade,
who was told by what had to have been that same nurse, that the bullet
came from his gurney, and by officer Nolan, who said exactly the same
thing.
Nolan further corroborated that fact when he told the FBI that the bullet
came from the gurney and from Connally's "thigh". He could ONLY have heard
that from that same nurse.
And that nurse was NOT Audrey Bell. That's important, because the FBI
falsified a great deal of information to make it appear that Nolan was
handed an envelope that contained tiny particles from Connally's wrist,
instead of the bullet that came from his leg.
Not only was CE842 falsified, but the FBI lied in its report of their
interview of Bell on 11/23/63. You can see it here:
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/fbireportbell.jpg
Bell was shown that report during her ARRB interview and she denied not
only their claim that she talked about a singular fragment but remained
adamant that she did not give the envelope to anyone in uniform, or that
Nolan signed a receipt for it. Interestingly, Nolan also told me that he
never signed a receipt and was never asked to.
That receipt should have been critical to the FBI and the DPD, because it
was needed to establish a legitimate chain of custody for what was very
likely, the most important single piece of evidence in the case.
But there is no trace of it. Bell asked the ARRB interviewers to mail her
a copy of it and they promised to do so if they could find it. But
according to the N.A. there is no record of them finding such a thing and
no record of it anywhere in their archives.
What it all boils down to is that somebody is full of poop up to their
eyebrows. If that was Bell, then she not only forgot that she gave those
fragments to a fully uniformed officer but she forgot that she told the
FBI the next day, that she gave them to that officer.
And she forgot that she was dealing with four tiny fragments the next day,
when she told the FBI that there was only one.
And just minutes after writing on the envelope that it contained
"fragments" from the "right arm", she told DA Wade and officer Nolan that
it contained a single bullet that came from Connally's gurney, rather than
being recovered during the surgery that she had just witnessed.
How did this woman ever rise to the level of supervisor?
Now, let's look at the FBI and consider the other alternative.
Throughout that entire report, they refer to a SINGLE fragment. Does it
make sense to you that that is what Bell told them?
Also notice that Bell told them that a receipt was filled out and signed.
Shouldn't they have immediately confiscated it and logged it into
evidence? Odd, that the one item that would have settled this entire
issue, just evaporated, eh?
Bell said that she was indeed, interviewed on 11/23/63, by the FBI, but
she denied much of what was on that report.
This is important. This is the dealbreaker. If the FBI report is truthful,
then this issue is settled. Unfortunately, I don't believe there is any
rational way that we can come to that conclusion.
This is what we need to talk about, rather than these pathetic attempts to
change the subject to trivial issues that have no bearing on anything.
Robert Harris
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-98B1...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I know that now, and I can see that you posted that several hours after
my other reply was posted immediately above this in which I admitted my
colossal blunder in missing that crucial sentence in Connally's
biography, and several hours after I had also sent you an email
unequivocally admitting that blunder.
> And I really don't see why it makes a difference. Your argument that the
> nurse who picked up the bullet had to have shouted out "Look what I
> found!", or something like that is just silly and ridiculously contrived
> to support a hopelesslly weak argument.
I strongly disagree. And I think most people would disagree. A bullet
suddenly dropping on the floor in such a high profile case is a very
notable event. What is silly is to suggest that little notice would be
taken of it, and obviously for Connally to have been aware enough of it
in spite of extreme pain and dazed consciousness to recall it later it
would have had to have been notable, and I do not see any way he could
be aware of what had dropped on the floor unless someone had said
something at the time. You are relying on much later claims which you
characterize as corroboration but dismissing the lack of contemporaneous
corroboration from a single person who was in the room when Connally
said this happened. Henry Wade was not in that operating room when the
bullet fell to the floor, nor was Bobby Nolan. R.J. Jimison was in the
room, however, because he helped move Connally from the stretcher onto
the operating table, so he would have been present at the very moment
that Connally said this occurred, yet to the WC he not only said he
didn't notice a bullet on the stretcher, but didn't notice any bullets
at all. Red Duke himself also apparently helped to get Connally and the
stretcher from Trauma Room 2 up the elevator to the operating room,
according to Standridge, and presumably helped get Connally off the
stretcher onto the table too, and he has never mentioned an incident of
a bullet falling to the floor either. Nurses Ross and Wester were
helping with the stretcher part of the time too, and one of them might
have been the one to pick up the bullet and put it in her pocket, but
there is no documentation of either of them ever mentioning such an
incident either. Three other nurses were in the room for Connally's
operation, King, Burkett, and Johnson, and there is no documentation of
them recalling such an incident either, and if none of them were the
nurse who picked up the bullet and put it in her pocket then we've run
out of nurses who could have done that, unless there's one I haven't
tracked down yet. And yes, I see Drs. Boland and Duke listed as
assistants, which further confirms the presence of Duke as I mentioned
above, and we have no recollection of such an incident either. Dr.
Giesecke was present at some point, either at this time or shortly
afterward, since he administered Connally's anesthesia, yet he
apparently did not recall such an incident occurring, nor did he recall
anyone mentioning to him that such an incident had occurred just before
he came in. Dr. Shaw, as I've already said before, was not only the
doctor who performed the thoracic surgery for Connally but also came to
Trauma Room 2 as Connally's clothes were removed, may well have
accompanied the stretcher to the operating room and been there as
Connally was being moved from the stretcher to the operating table, but
he seems to not have recalled an incident with a bullet falling to the
floor either. Surely this nurse would not take it upon her own
authority to just put the bullet in her pocket and then later take it
out of the room and show it to Henry Wade without asking Dr. Shaw about
it first?
I am very sorry about my earlier stupid delusion about Trauma Room 2,
when all the time, right under my nose, Connally's autobiography says it
happened in the operating room. But whichever room it was, the same
problem persists: lack of anyone else who was present corroborating such
an incident. I was wrong in which room it was; but I was obviously
right from the beginning on this general principal. I cannot believe
that you do not instantly and unhesitatingly agree that this issue
should be explored to its fullest, that all possibilities should be
considered, that it is crucially important to track down independent
corroboration beyond Connally's latter-day claim (which he apparently
meant not to be published until after his death) that this incident with
the bullet and the nurse really happened, and the most crucial issue of
all,
to track down the identity of the exact nurse who picked up this bullet
and put it in her pocket.
If you think for a moment that I am "hoping" never to find some
documentation of her somewhere, maybe from a very obscure source, saying
that she really did pick up this bullet at the time, you are sorely
mistaken. I hope that is not what you are thinking. In actuality,
nothing would please me more than to find a statement from her,
verbatim, to this effect. I've really been thinking you might be onto
something here, and I am being totally honest in saying that. I wish
you would believe me. I am committed to exploring this to the fullest.
As I have demonstrated many times in this newsgroup, although it is true
that I have rejected the vast majority of conspiracy theories as lacking
credibility, I am still open to some possibilities. Do you not remember
in 2005, when I took Clark Wilkins quite seriously regarding problems
with the bag that supposedly contained the rifle?
I do not, and will not ever agree, that exploring this issue to the
fullest is trivial. If it did happen, it needs to be established more
firmly than these latter-day recollections which do not corroborate
enough elements of it.
Hank Sienzant
> In article
> <d0d28446-7ca6-49fe-9599-7b2db04db...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> HankSienzant<hsienz...@Aol.com> wrote:> > > <7ee5c354-731a-4924-80c8-ae031d088...@r9g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> > > ?HankSienzant<hsienz...@Aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 15, 9:06?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article <caeruleo1-8AF691.11591014072...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
>
> > > > > ?Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <bobharris77-E36F64.18273913072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> > > > > > ?Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > In article <caeruleo1-BBF7EC.13341013072...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > > > > > > ?Caeruleo <caerul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <bobharris77-6B615C.04255708072...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>
> > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > ?Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE
>
> > > > > > > > Yes, I finally watched all of that yesterday. ?Took me ten hours
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > through it, lol. ?I took nine pages of notes on it. ?And I must
> > > > > > > > say
> > > > > > > > again
> > > > > > > > that you did a fine job in putting that together, far better than
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > have done.
>
> > > > > > > Thank you.
>
> > > > > > You are most welcome.
>
> > > > > > > > Would you like me to post my notes here? ?Or would you prefer
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > emailed to you? ?Or if you don't care to see them at all, that's
> > > > > > > > fine
> > > > > > > > too.
>
> > > > > > > You can post them here or email, and I will definitely look at
> > > > > > > them,
> > > > > > > although I might skip over anything that is not flattering:-)
>
> > > > > > Heh. ?I understand. ?I will be plain in advance: I am highly critical
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > some of your conclusions in the video
>
> > > > > OHMIGOD! Say it ain't so:-)
>
> > > > > > although at a few places in the
> > > > > > notes I do also express agreement with some of your views. ?Nowhere
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > them am I overtly rude, however, and there is nothing close to any ad
> > > > > > hominem attack. ?I did my best to keep the tone courteous. ?But I do
> > > > > > believe that throughout I present logical reasons for my own views. ?
> > > > > > Naturally, even in eight pages of notes (sorry, I had said nine
> > > > > > before,
> > > > > > but I looked again and found that it was eight) I could not address
> > > > > > every
> > > > > > single detail your raised, and there are some issues I have not
> > > > > > studied
> > > > > > extensively enough yet, or it has been a long time since I've done
> > > > > > so, so
> > > > > > I would need to refresh my memory by looking through that
> > > > > > documentation
> > > > > > again before I can address those things substantively.
>
> > > > > > So, here or in email is ok...hmmm. ?Well, if it's posted here, others
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > also review it and weigh in. ?On the other hand, privately would show
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > the courtesy reviewing it first, and possibly pointing out to me
> > > > > > flaws in
> > > > > > my reasoning. ?I'm leaning a bit more toward that, at least for now.
> > > > > > ?I
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > not agree with all your conclusions, but I would nevertheless prefer
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > remain on friendly terms with you.
>
> > > > > > > > I do have two questions though:
>
> > > > > > > > At 31:21 you say of CE 399: "What is far more likely is that the
> > > > > > > > bullet
> > > > > > > > Tomlinson found was from a different victim who had nothing to do
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > shooting in Dealey Plaza." ?I watched the remaining 45 minutes of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > video with bated breath waiting to see if you were going to
> > > > > > > > identify
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > victim, or at least say more about this victim, but nothing about
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > victim was ever mentioned again. ?Who was this victim?
>
> > > > > > > I have no idea. But Parkland treats thousands of gunshot wounds
> > > > > > > every
> > > > > > > year, so there was undoubtedly, no shortage of candidates.
>
> > > > > > I see. ?Is there a record of anyone else having been brought in that
> > > > > > day
> > > > > > with a gunshot wound? ?
>
> > > > > Probably. If you can get someone at Parkland to talk to you about
> > > > > pretty
> > > > > much anything, you'll be doing doing a lot better than I have. But the
> > > > > number of wound victims they treated back then, was extremely high.
> > > > > I've
> > > > > heard the number of 1200 per year in forums, though I've never been
> > > > > able
> > > > > to corroborate that. This is what Dr. McClelland testified,
>
> > > > > Mr. SPECTER - And what has provided the opportunity for your experience
> > > > > here at Parkland in residency training and on the staff with respect to
> > > > > acquiring knowledge of gunshot wounds?
>
> > > > > Dr. McCLELLAND - Largely this has been related to the type of hospital
> > > > > which Parkland is; namely, City-County Hospital which receives all of
> > > > > the indigent patients of this county, many of whom are involved
> > > > > frequently in shooting altercations, so that we do see a large number
> > > > > of
> > > > > that type patient almost daily.
>
> > > > > > Because, if the bullet found by Tomlinson was not
> > > > > > fired from the Carcano, one would think that the victim would have
> > > > > > had to
> > > > > > have been brought to the hospital that same day. ?I'm not sure I
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > find it plausible that the bullet was on that stretcher for more than
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > day before it was found.
>
> > > > > > > There are many other issues related to this. I'm surprised that you
> > > > > > > chose not to address them.
>
> > > > > > I thought I had made it plain that I had already addressed many more
> > > > > > issues in my notes than I have yet posted here. ?I was trying to show
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > the courtesy of asking you if you were ok with me posting all of that
> > > > > > here, or if you preferred to review it privately first, or if you did
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > want to see it at all. ?I'm not sure yet which issues you're
> > > > > > referring to
> > > > > > since you didn't name them, but you do realize all or some of them
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > already be addressed in my eight pages of notes.
>
> > > > > Governor Connally stated that a bullet from his leg fell onto his
> > > > > guerney and then to the floor where it was recovered by a nurse who put
> > > > > it in her pocket.
>
> > > > > Dallas DA Wade said he came to visit Connally and encountered a nurse
> > > > > who showed him a bullet which she said fell from Connally's gurney.
>
> > > > > Texas Hwy Patrolman Bobby Nolan said a nurse gave him an envelope which
> > > > > she said, contained a bullet that came from Governor Connally's gurney,
> > > > > and apparently, from his thigh, which is what Nolan told the FBI in the
> > > > > early morning hours the next day.
>
> > > > > Obviously, the bullet found by Tomlinson could not have been the one
> > > > > that wounded Connally, if those statements are correct.
>
> > > > > How do you explain that?
>
> > > > > The FBI told the WC that SA Odum interviewed Tomlinson and Wright and
> > > > > that they said CE-399 looked similar to the stretcher bullet. But, when
> > > > > Aguilar and Thompson contacted the N.A. there was no record of such an
> > > > > interview.
>
> > > > > They then contacted Odum himself, who said he never conducted such an
> > > > > interview and never saw CE-399.
>
> > > > > Do you find that even slightly disturbing?
>
> > > > > > > > And also, you're of course proposing a second shot to the head
> > > > > > > > c.323
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > so, or certainly before 330, and saying that much additional
> > > > > > > > damage
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > head was caused by that shot that was not caused at 313. ?Yet no
> > > > > > > > trace of
> > > > > > > > any second explosion of bloody matter can be seen at all. ?
>
> > > > > > > I replied to that question in another thread,
>
> > > > > > Oh, I'm sorry, I haven't seen that yet.
>
> > > > > > > There is no reason to expect a massive explosion like the one at
> > > > > > > 313.
> > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > the protrusion was not caused by that kind of firepower. It was
> > > > > > > simply
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > result of that piece of skull flipping to the rear.
>
> > > > > > > For a number of reasons, I think that shot came from either a
> > > > > > > handgun
> > > > > > > or a
> > > > > > > very small caliber weapon, and that the broken skullpiece may have
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > been broken or partially broken at 313.
>
> > > > > > I believe it was broken at 313. ?However, in the video you say that
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > still required the additional force of the second shot to the head in
> > > > > > order to flip it open
>
> > > > > Of course. The skull piece obviously hadn't flipped, even in frames
> > > > > after the explosion had completely subsided. There is no doubt that
> > > > > this
> > > > > happened later.
>
> > > > > > and also to blast at least one piece of his head
> > > > > > out onto the trunk long enough after 313 for Jackie to see it flying
> > > > > > out
> > > > > > from his head. ?But these were not the only effects of the second
> > > > > > shot
> > > > > > that you proposed. ?You also said that some additional damage more
> > > > > > toward
> > > > > > the front of his head was caused by that shot, damage that is not yet
> > > > > > visible prior to the 320s. ?For a shot to cause that much additional
> > > > > > damage to his head added to what was caused by the shot at 313, even
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > a small caliber pistol, I would still expect to see an obvious
> > > > > > explosion
> > > > > > of more bloody material out of his head. ?Sure, maybe not as large an
> > > > > > explosion as at 313, but still enough to be obvious. ?Also, if Jackie
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > seeing a piece of his head shoot out onto the trunk, I ought to see
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > too
> > > > > > if I look closely enough, at least a blur of something shooting out
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > rear. ?It couldn't have shot out with a very high velocity or it
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > have whizzed right off the trunk and Jackie would not have been able
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > grab it. ?After all, in the frames immediately following 313 you can
> > > > > > indeed see a piece of his skull shooting forward out of his head,
> > > > > > bouncing
> > > > > > off of the back of the jump seat where Connally had been sitting, and
> > > > > > falling down toward the floorboard. ?I think it was Paul Seaton who
> > > > > > showed
> > > > > > us that years ago by producing an animated gif which repeated those
> > > > > > frames
> > > > > > over and over, and it was quite obvious (though I remember at least
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > poster at the time claiming it was a rose petal...heh).
>
> > > > > The fallacy of your argument that we should see pieces of tissue and
> > > > > bone blown out by the second head shot is that we don't see it blown
> > > > > out
> > > > > ANYTIME.
>
> > > > Robert, when was the last time you looked at frame 313 of the Z-film. I
> > > > see a massive quantity of blood and brain matter being blown out the top
> > > > of the head by the shot that struck JFK froim behind.
>
> > > Yes, yes, yes, yes.
>
> > > Of course, I meant, blown to the rear.
>
> > > RH
>
> > Okay, then I agree with you. There is no matter blown to the rear in
> > the Z-film.
> > Mostly because there was no shot from the front, the left-front, or
> > the right front.
> > Because the only shot that hit JFK in the head came from behind, from
> > the sniper's nest, from Oswald's rifle.
>
> > Once again we see conspiracy claims have no substance in fact.
> > If JFK was struck from the right front, we should see blood and brain
> > matter blown out to the left rear. The fact that we don't is mute
> > evidence to the point that JFK wasn't struck from the right front.
>
> > All the best,
> > Hank
>
> But that's not the end of the story.
>
> Charles Brehm said a large piece of matter from JFK's head was blown back
> to where he was standing. And Clint Hill said a piece of skullbone was
> blown to the rear and fell of the back of the trunk.
Where was Hill at this time? Is this relative to the moving car? Where
did this piece land relative to the president at the time of the head
shot?
>
> Jackie retrieved a large piece of brain tissue from the trunk, and even
> FBI SA Frazier testified that pieces of brain tissue were found on the
> trunk.
>
> So, the question becomes, did that happen at 313, when we could clearly
> see that there was no defect through which pieces like that could have
> been blown to the rear, or did it happen later - after a large hole was
> blown out in the upper rear of the head, which was out of our view much
> of the time?
>
> It had to have happened sometime, Hank.
>
> Robert Harris
Is the Z-film altered? It shows no such developments to support your
claims at any time, does it?
Now, why is that, given it was able to capture the flight of the large
Harper fragment rotating multiple times in z313?
Did it actually happen as you claim?
If it happened as you claim, then, as I said, and you ignored, "If JFK
was struck from the right front, we should see blood and brain matter
blown out to the left rear. The fact that we don't is mute evidence to
the point that JFK wasn't struck from the right front."
I see no evidence in the z-film or the last Altgens photo or any
other photos to support your theory.If it happened sometime, there
should be some photographic evidence to support it, shouldn't there?
Hank
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-54CB...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jackie retrieved a large piece of brain tissue from the trunk, and even
> FBI SA Frazier testified that pieces of brain tissue were found on the
> trunk.
I hope I am not having a reading comprehension problem again. You said
that to me about Frazier saying that too, I think. But what I see in
his WC testimony is this:
"There were blood and particles of flesh scattered all over the hood,
the windshield, in the front seat and all over the rear floor rugs, the
jump seats, and over the rear seat, and down both sides of the side
rails or tops of the doors of the car."
On and in quite a lot of the vehicle, but nothing about the trunk there.
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-896D...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The fallacy of your argument that we should see pieces of tissue and
> bone blown out by the second head shot is that we don't see it blown out
> ANYTIME. And yet, we know that they were. Even SA Frazier testified that
> large pieces of brain tissue were blown out onto the trunk.
Mr. FRAZIER - There were blood and particles of flesh scattered all over
the hood, the windshield, in the front seat and all over the rear floor
rugs, the jump seats, and over the rear seat, and down both sides of the
side rails or tops of the doors of the car.
This time there is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. There
is not a thing about the trunk there.