info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
David's evasions in the Ed forum #1
31 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
Dec 9, 2011, 10:58:36 PM12/9/11
to
I have had to repost the following message, THREE times in the Education
forum, and David still refuses to respond. Of course, that doesn't stop
him from coming here and proudly declaring victory:-)
Since .john has been on a bit of a rampage, censoring messages which
suggest that he and David are evasive, I did edit the post in the hope of
removing anything that would provide an excuse for him to block these
messages too.
Please read it carefully. This is why David can only respond with personal
insults and silence.
(from the Ed forum)
David, you have absolutely ZERO evidence validating CE399 and a mountain
of evidence proving it is not the bullet that wounded Connally - most of
which, you continue to evade.
You presume that the FBI accurately cited Wright, without so much as a
trace of corroboration, and every reason to believe that he thought the
two bullets were much different.
And we all know that the FBI lied when Todd claimed his initials are on
CE399 - because you can see as well as I can, that they are nowhere to be
found on that bullet. And yet, you prance around, proudly declaring
victory.
And we know that both of the Secret Service agents who refused to verify
CE399 were REQUIRED to initial forensic evidence, whenever possible. The
fact that the FBI made the FD302's disappear, tells us that they weren't
very enthused about telling anyone why those guys would not corroborate
CE399. It was more than awkward, having to tell the WC that all these
people would not verify their bullet. Don't you think they would have been
delighted to have been able to state that they just didn't initial the
bullet??
As for why they didn't just lie about what they said, a small army of SS
agents were testifying before the WC, including Rowley. Obviously, they
couldn't risk one of them contradicting their lies.
Claiming that Connally never saw the bullet because he didn't specifically
use some form of the verb, "see" is just looney tunes. MOST witness
statements which describe visible events don't include that term. They
simply describe the event and no one ever considers asking them if they
really saw it, because the description of what happened confirms that it
was seen.
Had he not seen it, Connally wouldn't even have known whether it was his
or not. Maybe the nurse dropped a piece of her own jewelry, or a surgical
instrument fell to the floor or any of a zillion other things. Connally
did not say, "I think" it was a bullet or "maybe" it was a bullet. He
stated very directly and unequivocally, what it was.
More importantly, he was corroborated by both Wade and Nolan who said the
nurse told them that the bullet in her hand came from Connally's "gurney".
And BTW, I asked Nolan if he knew either Wade or Connally personally and
he said he did not, nor did he talk to them. Nor, had he ever heard of
Tomlinson. Nolan was no conspiracy buff. His recollection of that nurse
stating that her envelope contained a bullet from Connally's gurney was
totally independent and unconnected to Connally's and Wade's opinions.
And this was not a cuff link. You need to read Nellie's testimony,
"l knew no one in the hospital and I was alone. Twice I got up and opened
the door into the emergency room, and 1 could hear John and I could see
him moving, and I knew then that he was still alive. I guess that time was
short, too. It seemed endless. Somebody rushed out, I thought it was a
nurse, and handed me one cuff link. I later read that it was a lady
doctor.They took him out of there very soon up to surgery, and I just left
with him and waited in an office."
The nurse gave her the cuff link before he was taken to the second floor,
where the bullet fell from his gurney. Obviously, the cuff link was
recovered when his clothing was removed.
And your theory that the nurse stole the other cuff link is just too
insane to justify a reply.
David, I can't wait to hear your excuse for Wade's statements.
"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."
Oh wait! I know! He said she had a bullet in her hand, but he didn't say
he SAW a bullet in her hand!!
Not only that but he never said he heard her say it came from Connally's
gurney! He only said that was what she stated!:-)
David, I'm beginning to get it! I'm beginning to understand how nutters
think! Are you guys recruiting? Can we talk about a signing bonus?? I
wouldn't need much training :-)
Anyway, getting back to reality, this is what officer Nolan told me,
"I was talking to a man who was one of governor Connally's aides. His name
was - I think it was either Stinton or Stimmons (Bill Stinson). And he was
an aide to the Governor. And she came up and told him that she had the
bullet that came off of the gurney."
Three men said this nurse had a "bullet" that came from Connally's
"gurney" - Connally, Wade and Nolan. And I think we both know that if
Stinson was asked the right question when he was interviewed, he would
have said exactly the same thing - he was standing next to Nolan, but
presumed that the bullet was recovered during surgery. This is what he
told Ramparts magazine,
"'The last thing they did,' said Stinson, 'was to remove the bullet from
the governor's thigh---because that was the least thing that was wrong
with him.'"
The ONLY way he could have come to that belief, was by what that nurse
told him.
How do you explain that David?
And how do you explain the fact that Bell was adamant that the FBI
misrepresented her when they claimed she told them she gave the wrist
fragments to Nolan??
Bell explained how she carefully placed those four tiny fragments into a
plastic container and then put the container into an envelope. It is
impossible that she would have told those men that it was a whole bullet
from Connally's thigh.
The nurse who talked to Wade, Stinson and Nolan was NOT Bell. You can take
that to the bank David.
Robert Harris
forum, and David still refuses to respond. Of course, that doesn't stop
him from coming here and proudly declaring victory:-)
Since .john has been on a bit of a rampage, censoring messages which
suggest that he and David are evasive, I did edit the post in the hope of
removing anything that would provide an excuse for him to block these
messages too.
Please read it carefully. This is why David can only respond with personal
insults and silence.
(from the Ed forum)
David, you have absolutely ZERO evidence validating CE399 and a mountain
of evidence proving it is not the bullet that wounded Connally - most of
which, you continue to evade.
You presume that the FBI accurately cited Wright, without so much as a
trace of corroboration, and every reason to believe that he thought the
two bullets were much different.
And we all know that the FBI lied when Todd claimed his initials are on
CE399 - because you can see as well as I can, that they are nowhere to be
found on that bullet. And yet, you prance around, proudly declaring
victory.
And we know that both of the Secret Service agents who refused to verify
CE399 were REQUIRED to initial forensic evidence, whenever possible. The
fact that the FBI made the FD302's disappear, tells us that they weren't
very enthused about telling anyone why those guys would not corroborate
CE399. It was more than awkward, having to tell the WC that all these
people would not verify their bullet. Don't you think they would have been
delighted to have been able to state that they just didn't initial the
bullet??
As for why they didn't just lie about what they said, a small army of SS
agents were testifying before the WC, including Rowley. Obviously, they
couldn't risk one of them contradicting their lies.
Claiming that Connally never saw the bullet because he didn't specifically
use some form of the verb, "see" is just looney tunes. MOST witness
statements which describe visible events don't include that term. They
simply describe the event and no one ever considers asking them if they
really saw it, because the description of what happened confirms that it
was seen.
Had he not seen it, Connally wouldn't even have known whether it was his
or not. Maybe the nurse dropped a piece of her own jewelry, or a surgical
instrument fell to the floor or any of a zillion other things. Connally
did not say, "I think" it was a bullet or "maybe" it was a bullet. He
stated very directly and unequivocally, what it was.
More importantly, he was corroborated by both Wade and Nolan who said the
nurse told them that the bullet in her hand came from Connally's "gurney".
And BTW, I asked Nolan if he knew either Wade or Connally personally and
he said he did not, nor did he talk to them. Nor, had he ever heard of
Tomlinson. Nolan was no conspiracy buff. His recollection of that nurse
stating that her envelope contained a bullet from Connally's gurney was
totally independent and unconnected to Connally's and Wade's opinions.
And this was not a cuff link. You need to read Nellie's testimony,
"l knew no one in the hospital and I was alone. Twice I got up and opened
the door into the emergency room, and 1 could hear John and I could see
him moving, and I knew then that he was still alive. I guess that time was
short, too. It seemed endless. Somebody rushed out, I thought it was a
nurse, and handed me one cuff link. I later read that it was a lady
doctor.They took him out of there very soon up to surgery, and I just left
with him and waited in an office."
The nurse gave her the cuff link before he was taken to the second floor,
where the bullet fell from his gurney. Obviously, the cuff link was
recovered when his clothing was removed.
And your theory that the nurse stole the other cuff link is just too
insane to justify a reply.
David, I can't wait to hear your excuse for Wade's statements.
"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."
Oh wait! I know! He said she had a bullet in her hand, but he didn't say
he SAW a bullet in her hand!!
Not only that but he never said he heard her say it came from Connally's
gurney! He only said that was what she stated!:-)
David, I'm beginning to get it! I'm beginning to understand how nutters
think! Are you guys recruiting? Can we talk about a signing bonus?? I
wouldn't need much training :-)
Anyway, getting back to reality, this is what officer Nolan told me,
"I was talking to a man who was one of governor Connally's aides. His name
was - I think it was either Stinton or Stimmons (Bill Stinson). And he was
an aide to the Governor. And she came up and told him that she had the
bullet that came off of the gurney."
Three men said this nurse had a "bullet" that came from Connally's
"gurney" - Connally, Wade and Nolan. And I think we both know that if
Stinson was asked the right question when he was interviewed, he would
have said exactly the same thing - he was standing next to Nolan, but
presumed that the bullet was recovered during surgery. This is what he
told Ramparts magazine,
"'The last thing they did,' said Stinson, 'was to remove the bullet from
the governor's thigh---because that was the least thing that was wrong
with him.'"
The ONLY way he could have come to that belief, was by what that nurse
told him.
How do you explain that David?
And how do you explain the fact that Bell was adamant that the FBI
misrepresented her when they claimed she told them she gave the wrist
fragments to Nolan??
Bell explained how she carefully placed those four tiny fragments into a
plastic container and then put the container into an envelope. It is
impossible that she would have told those men that it was a whole bullet
from Connally's thigh.
The nurse who talked to Wade, Stinson and Nolan was NOT Bell. You can take
that to the bank David.
Robert Harris
Jean Davison
Dec 10, 2011, 1:37:14 PM12/10/11
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
on this matter was in his testimony. In response to the question, "Do
you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet fragments, that
remained in your body or in your clothing as you were placed on the
emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?" Connally stated directly
and unequivocally, "No."
You're quoting a ghostwriter who made numerous wacky
statements in a book published months after Connally died.
Jean
pdoherty76
Dec 10, 2011, 1:43:20 PM12/10/11
to
Anthony Marsh
Dec 10, 2011, 5:20:30 PM12/10/11
to
Connally's thigh and that it would be removed later? How many people
actually use the correct word whether it is really a bullet or really a
fragment? Like the Corpsman who typed the receipt for a "Missle" when it
was not a bullet as some people claim, but two tiny fragments. I also hear
people say shards or shrapnel or slug.
Robert Harris
Dec 10, 2011, 5:24:40 PM12/10/11
to
In article
<c1022c6a-4a01-4651...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
Really?
Would you mind post the evidence which convinced you that Connally's
ghostwriter was permitted to make up lies? Was it in his contract?
When Doug Thompson asked him if he believed the LN theory, Connally
replied,
"Absolutely not, I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the
Warren Commission." Thompson asked why he had not spoken out about this.
Connally replied: "Because I love this country and we needed closure at
the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe."
If Connally had told the WC about that bullet, it would have directly
contradicted the FBI. It would have been headline news and the WC would
have been virtually forced to track down this nurse and interview her.
You and David should be extremely grateful to Connally and his "don't rock
the boat" attitude:-)
What is infinitely more important and beyond dispute, is that DA Wade,
officer Nolan and Bill Stinson all corroborated Connally's story.
I think the oft repeated term, "gurney" is the deal breaker, Jean. If
those guys were just guessing or recalling false memories, they would
never have conjured up a nurse getting that bullet from Connally's
"gurney". They would have all presumed it was recovered in surgery, as
Stinson did.
Robert Harris
<c1022c6a-4a01-4651...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
Would you mind post the evidence which convinced you that Connally's
ghostwriter was permitted to make up lies? Was it in his contract?
When Doug Thompson asked him if he believed the LN theory, Connally
replied,
"Absolutely not, I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the
Warren Commission." Thompson asked why he had not spoken out about this.
Connally replied: "Because I love this country and we needed closure at
the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe."
If Connally had told the WC about that bullet, it would have directly
contradicted the FBI. It would have been headline news and the WC would
have been virtually forced to track down this nurse and interview her.
You and David should be extremely grateful to Connally and his "don't rock
the boat" attitude:-)
What is infinitely more important and beyond dispute, is that DA Wade,
officer Nolan and Bill Stinson all corroborated Connally's story.
I think the oft repeated term, "gurney" is the deal breaker, Jean. If
those guys were just guessing or recalling false memories, they would
never have conjured up a nurse getting that bullet from Connally's
"gurney". They would have all presumed it was recovered in surgery, as
Stinson did.
Robert Harris
Jean Davison
Dec 10, 2011, 8:21:40 PM12/10/11
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Dec 10, 4:24 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <c1022c6a-4a01-4651-962f-4921652f5...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
The book is inaccurate. As I've said before, the author claimed
that federal agents jumped out of the Queen Mary and rushed to the TSBD
entrance. That never happened. He wrote that Oswald's "landlord"
complained about the rifle being kept in the garage "wrapped in a rug."
He claimed the limo's bubble top was bulletproof. I didn't read the whole
thing, just flipped through it at the library and found those and other
bloopers.
All I'm saying is, Connally's testimony is a direct statement
from Connally. Something in a ghost-written book isn't.
>
> When Doug Thompson asked him if he believed the LN theory, Connally
> replied,
>
> "Absolutely not, I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the
> Warren Commission." Thompson asked why he had not spoken out about this.
> Connally replied: "Because I love this country and we needed closure at
> the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe."
Apparently Thompson and Connally had a conversation on a plane
after having "multiple" drinks, according to Thompson. Supposedly Connally
told him he didn't think Oswald fired the gun that killed JFK. I doubt
Connally said that, but let's suppose he did. So what? Unless he had
some evidence to back that up, his opinion on that issue has no more
weight than yours or mine.
> If Connally had told the WC about that bullet, it would have directly
> contradicted the FBI. It would have been headline news and the WC would
> have been virtually forced to track down this nurse and interview her.
So Connally wasn't interested in the truth, he'd rather go down
in history as being part of the cover-up. Uh-huh.
>
> You and David should be extremely grateful to Connally and his "don't rock
> the boat" attitude:-)
>
> What is infinitely more important and beyond dispute, is that DA Wade,
> officer Nolan and Bill Stinson all corroborated Connally's story.
Connally's ghostwriter's story.
>
> I think the oft repeated term, "gurney" is the deal breaker, Jean. If
> those guys were just guessing or recalling false memories, they would
> never have conjured up a nurse getting that bullet from Connally's
> "gurney". They would have all presumed it was recovered in surgery, as
> Stinson did.
Stinson said "gurney"? The story I recall is that Stinson
said he was in sterile garb in the OR while Connally was being operated
on. IOW, he was right there. And yet he told Ramparts, "The last thing
they did was to remove the bullet from the governor's thigh."
You know as well as I do that no bullet was removed from
Connally's thigh. That alone ought to tell you something about eyewitness
memory, Robert.
Jean
> In article
> <c1022c6a-4a01-4651-962f-4921652f5...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
that federal agents jumped out of the Queen Mary and rushed to the TSBD
entrance. That never happened. He wrote that Oswald's "landlord"
complained about the rifle being kept in the garage "wrapped in a rug."
He claimed the limo's bubble top was bulletproof. I didn't read the whole
thing, just flipped through it at the library and found those and other
bloopers.
All I'm saying is, Connally's testimony is a direct statement
from Connally. Something in a ghost-written book isn't.
>
> When Doug Thompson asked him if he believed the LN theory, Connally
> replied,
>
> "Absolutely not, I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the
> Warren Commission." Thompson asked why he had not spoken out about this.
> Connally replied: "Because I love this country and we needed closure at
> the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe."
after having "multiple" drinks, according to Thompson. Supposedly Connally
told him he didn't think Oswald fired the gun that killed JFK. I doubt
Connally said that, but let's suppose he did. So what? Unless he had
some evidence to back that up, his opinion on that issue has no more
weight than yours or mine.
> If Connally had told the WC about that bullet, it would have directly
> contradicted the FBI. It would have been headline news and the WC would
> have been virtually forced to track down this nurse and interview her.
in history as being part of the cover-up. Uh-huh.
>
> You and David should be extremely grateful to Connally and his "don't rock
> the boat" attitude:-)
>
> What is infinitely more important and beyond dispute, is that DA Wade,
> officer Nolan and Bill Stinson all corroborated Connally's story.
>
> I think the oft repeated term, "gurney" is the deal breaker, Jean. If
> those guys were just guessing or recalling false memories, they would
> never have conjured up a nurse getting that bullet from Connally's
> "gurney". They would have all presumed it was recovered in surgery, as
> Stinson did.
said he was in sterile garb in the OR while Connally was being operated
on. IOW, he was right there. And yet he told Ramparts, "The last thing
they did was to remove the bullet from the governor's thigh."
You know as well as I do that no bullet was removed from
Connally's thigh. That alone ought to tell you something about eyewitness
memory, Robert.
Jean
Robert Harris
Dec 11, 2011, 12:11:45 PM12/11/11
to
In article
<47656602-6ac7-4200...@r6g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 4:24?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c1022c6a-4a01-4651-962f-4921652f5...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > ? ? ? ? ?Again I'll point that the only direct statement from Connally
in the best position to determine what was going on at the time. Any
ghostwriter who was even remotely competent and had a telephone would have
gotten the parts you mentioned, right.
But the part we are bickering about is Connally's first hand, first person
experience. This could not have been the result of misreading of a
newspaper article, or a sloppy memory like the others were. It would have
been a deliberate, calculated lie.
And for what? It didn't make him look heroic. There is absolutely no
reason on Earth to believe that a ghostwriter made this up or that
Connally lied, except for your rather desperate need to make this go away.
And why aren't you interested in the corroborations by the other witnesses
I cited??
Why did the nurse tell them, essentially the same thing that Connally told
us?
Wade said she was holding the bullet in her hand when she told him it came
from Connally's gurney.
She told Nolan the same thing, although she had put it in an envelope by
then. But she was very clear that the envelope held a single, bullet that
came from the "gurney".
Why don't you want to talk about that Jean??
> It is a direct statement
You know very well that I am not saying that Connally's opinion proves the
existence of conspiracy.
The rather obvious point is, that he did not want to rock the boat or say
anything that challenged the governments LN theory, because he thought the
nation needed "closure".
>
> > If Connally had told the WC about that bullet, it would have directly
> > contradicted the FBI. It would have been headline news and the WC would
> > have been virtually forced to track down this nurse and interview her.
>
> So Connally wasn't interested in the truth, he'd rather go down
> in history as being part of the cover-up. Uh-huh.
You don't have to ask me Jean. You only have to read his own words, but
without your embellishments of course.
>
> >
> > You and David should be extremely grateful to Connally and his "don't rock
> > the boat" attitude:-)
> >
> > What is infinitely more important and beyond dispute, is that DA Wade,
> > officer Nolan and Bill Stinson all corroborated Connally's story.
>
> Connally's ghostwriter's story.
Jean, I don't want to accuse you of making things up, but this is the
second time I've had to ask you to document that claim.
And please don't insult people's intelligence by claiming that Connally's
errors prove they were fabricated by his ghost writer. There is not even
the slightest reason to think that JBC wasn't capable of making those
kinds of errors without anyone's help.
Any ghost writer who was known to fabricate deliberate lies without the
approval of the principle would never get work again and would have made
himself vulnerable to a nasty lawsuit.
The fact that you want this ridiculous accusation to be true, doesn't
justify it, Jean.
If you can't prove this BS, then you need to admit it.
Robert Harris
<47656602-6ac7-4200...@r6g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 10, 4:24?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <c1022c6a-4a01-4651-962f-4921652f5...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > on this matter was in his testimony. In response to the question, "Do
> > > you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet fragments, that
> > > remained in your body or in your clothing as you were placed on the
> > > emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?" Connally stated directly
> > > and unequivocally, "No."
> >
> > > ? ? ? ? ? You're quoting a ghostwriter who made numerous wacky
> > > you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet fragments, that
> > > remained in your body or in your clothing as you were placed on the
> > > emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?" Connally stated directly
> > > and unequivocally, "No."
> >
> > > statements in a book published months after Connally died.
> > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Jean
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > Would you mind post the evidence which convinced you that Connally's
> > ghostwriter was permitted to make up lies? Was it in his contract?
>
> The book is inaccurate. As I've said before, the author claimed
> that federal agents jumped out of the Queen Mary and rushed to the TSBD
> entrance. That never happened. He wrote that Oswald's "landlord"
> complained about the rifle being kept in the garage "wrapped in a rug."
> He claimed the limo's bubble top was bulletproof. I didn't read the whole
> thing, just flipped through it at the library and found those and other
> bloopers.
I don't know how to break this to you Jean, but Connally was not exactly
> > Really?
> >
> > Would you mind post the evidence which convinced you that Connally's
> > ghostwriter was permitted to make up lies? Was it in his contract?
>
> The book is inaccurate. As I've said before, the author claimed
> that federal agents jumped out of the Queen Mary and rushed to the TSBD
> entrance. That never happened. He wrote that Oswald's "landlord"
> complained about the rifle being kept in the garage "wrapped in a rug."
> He claimed the limo's bubble top was bulletproof. I didn't read the whole
> thing, just flipped through it at the library and found those and other
> bloopers.
in the best position to determine what was going on at the time. Any
ghostwriter who was even remotely competent and had a telephone would have
gotten the parts you mentioned, right.
But the part we are bickering about is Connally's first hand, first person
experience. This could not have been the result of misreading of a
newspaper article, or a sloppy memory like the others were. It would have
been a deliberate, calculated lie.
And for what? It didn't make him look heroic. There is absolutely no
reason on Earth to believe that a ghostwriter made this up or that
Connally lied, except for your rather desperate need to make this go away.
And why aren't you interested in the corroborations by the other witnesses
I cited??
Why did the nurse tell them, essentially the same thing that Connally told
us?
Wade said she was holding the bullet in her hand when she told him it came
from Connally's gurney.
She told Nolan the same thing, although she had put it in an envelope by
then. But she was very clear that the envelope held a single, bullet that
came from the "gurney".
Why don't you want to talk about that Jean??
> It is a direct statement
> from Connally. Something in a ghost-written book isn't.
>
> >
> > When Doug Thompson asked him if he believed the LN theory, Connally
> > replied,
> >
> > "Absolutely not, I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the
> > Warren Commission." Thompson asked why he had not spoken out about this.
> > Connally replied: "Because I love this country and we needed closure at
> > the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe."
>
> Apparently Thompson and Connally had a conversation on a plane
> after having "multiple" drinks, according to Thompson. Supposedly Connally
> told him he didn't think Oswald fired the gun that killed JFK. I doubt
> Connally said that, but let's suppose he did. So what? Unless he had
> some evidence to back that up, his opinion on that issue has no more
> weight than yours or mine.
Jean why are you pretending that you don't get it?
>
> >
> > When Doug Thompson asked him if he believed the LN theory, Connally
> > replied,
> >
> > "Absolutely not, I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the
> > Warren Commission." Thompson asked why he had not spoken out about this.
> > Connally replied: "Because I love this country and we needed closure at
> > the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe."
>
> Apparently Thompson and Connally had a conversation on a plane
> after having "multiple" drinks, according to Thompson. Supposedly Connally
> told him he didn't think Oswald fired the gun that killed JFK. I doubt
> Connally said that, but let's suppose he did. So what? Unless he had
> some evidence to back that up, his opinion on that issue has no more
> weight than yours or mine.
You know very well that I am not saying that Connally's opinion proves the
existence of conspiracy.
The rather obvious point is, that he did not want to rock the boat or say
anything that challenged the governments LN theory, because he thought the
nation needed "closure".
>
> > If Connally had told the WC about that bullet, it would have directly
> > contradicted the FBI. It would have been headline news and the WC would
> > have been virtually forced to track down this nurse and interview her.
>
> So Connally wasn't interested in the truth, he'd rather go down
> in history as being part of the cover-up. Uh-huh.
without your embellishments of course.
>
> >
> > You and David should be extremely grateful to Connally and his "don't rock
> > the boat" attitude:-)
> >
> > What is infinitely more important and beyond dispute, is that DA Wade,
> > officer Nolan and Bill Stinson all corroborated Connally's story.
>
> Connally's ghostwriter's story.
second time I've had to ask you to document that claim.
And please don't insult people's intelligence by claiming that Connally's
errors prove they were fabricated by his ghost writer. There is not even
the slightest reason to think that JBC wasn't capable of making those
kinds of errors without anyone's help.
Any ghost writer who was known to fabricate deliberate lies without the
approval of the principle would never get work again and would have made
himself vulnerable to a nasty lawsuit.
The fact that you want this ridiculous accusation to be true, doesn't
justify it, Jean.
If you can't prove this BS, then you need to admit it.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Dec 11, 2011, 6:45:48 PM12/11/11
to
keep getting chosen.
David Von Pein
Dec 11, 2011, 7:49:08 PM12/11/11
to
>>> "The rather obvious point is, that he [John Connally] did not want to
rock the boat or say anything that challenged the government's LN theory,
because he thought the nation needed "closure"." <<<
Yeah, sure Bob. That must be why Connally was always willing to go on TV
and say the SBT was untrue. Because he didn't want to "rock the boat".
Right?
Try again, Bob.
Robert Harris
Dec 11, 2011, 8:41:45 PM12/11/11
to
In article
<894bf3f0-701d-4067...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
I could be wrong but I don't recall him publicly stating that the SBT
was untrue, at least not during the WC days.
Got a cite?
And when will you be up for talking about Wade, Nolan, Stinson and Bell?
Robert Harris
<894bf3f0-701d-4067...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
was untrue, at least not during the WC days.
Got a cite?
And when will you be up for talking about Wade, Nolan, Stinson and Bell?
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Dec 12, 2011, 9:03:49 AM12/12/11
to
>>> "I could be wrong but I don't recall him publicly stating that the SBT was untrue, at least not during the WC days. Got a cite?" <<<
SBT on June 22, 1964:
"I don't believe it [the SBT]; and never will believe it."
It's the first video on this page (fast forward the video to 3:55):
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/john-and-nellie-connally.html
David Von Pein
Dec 12, 2011, 9:06:21 AM12/12/11
to
>>> "And when will you be up for talking about Wade, Nolan, Stinson and Bell?" <<<
it, Bob. He was talking about FRAGMENTS. If the word "bullet" was used
to describe the fragments, it's exactly the same type of semantics
error that was made by Sibert & O'Neill in their FBI report concerning
the supposed "missile" that they saw during JFK's autopsy. But Sibert
later admitted that "No large bullet of any kind...was found" during
the President's autopsy. (That's a verbatim quote from James Sibert on
June 30, 2005; listen to him say it at the link below. And yes, I know
I changed the subject a bit there, but only to demonstrate how easily
that SAME type of "bullet"/"fragment" mistake can occur, and DID occur
elsewhere in the very same murder investigation.)
Sibert Interview:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html
#2 (Nolan) -- Bobby Nolan, like Wade, never saw any WHOLE BULLET at
Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63. And even HE admitted that very fact to
YOU, didn't he, Bob (in a telephone interview you had with him)?
Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but didn't Nolan say he NEVER
OPENED THE ENVELOPE that he took to the DPD and gave to Will Fritz?
Therefore, how can he know for certain WHAT was inside that envelope
(CE842)?
#3 (Stinson) -- I'm going to need a refresher on Stinson's
observations concerning this supposed "extra bullet" matter, Bob.
Frankly, I just plain forgot what his role is in this. Did Stinson
supposedly see an extra whole bullet too?
#4 (Bell) -- Nurse Audrey Bell is ON TAPE telling the world that the
handwriting we see on the envelope in CE842 (which is clearly and
plainly marked "Bullet fragments" from Connally's "Right arm") is
Audrey Bell's own handwriting. She said she positively recognized her
own writing on that foreign body envelope. And I think she also stated
that she did not handle (and write on) more than ONE such envelope on
11/22/63. So your theory about Bell is moribund on that basis alone.
Naturally, you have other ideas. But, as usual, you can't PROVE that
any hanky-panky was going on with any "erased" initials on CE842. And
I think Mike Williams did a fairly decent job of debunking your
"erased initials" theory many months ago at another forum.
Sum total --- Bob Harris cannot prove that ANYONE actually SAW an
extra "whole bullet" at Parkland Memorial Hospital on November 22,
1963.
And, of course, the only "official" evidence in the case indicates
that the only whole "bullet" that was found at Parkland that day that
was in any way connected to the wounding of JFK and/or John B.Connally
was CE399. And nobody has been able to PROVE that that bullet was
planted or used as a substitute for any other bullet. CTers can
pretend that they've "proven" that CE399 is a fraudulent bullet, but
even Bob Harris knows that nobody has truly PROVEN that 399 is phony.
Let's face it -- the CTers of the world just flat-out WANT CE399 to be
fraudulent. Therefore, in their eyes, it is.
But the chain of possession of a WHOLE BULLET going from the hands of
Tomlinson, to Wright, to Johnsen, to Rowley, to Todd, to Frazier IS
INTACT -- and it always has been intact. None of those men ever said
anything that breaks that consistent chain. Each man received a whole
bullet from the previous man in the chain. That establishes a CHAIN OF
POSSESSION for the stretcher bullet.
Yes, most conspiracists think that the lack of Johnsen's and Rowley's
initials on CE399 constitutes a break in the chain. But, as John
McAdams has pointed out numerous times in the past, that just simply
is not so. The chain isn't broken due to a lack of marking the
evidence. There are other ways to establish the chain of possession,
and that's been done by the FBI, in asking each man in the "chain" if
they did, in fact, receive a bullet from the previous person in the
chain. And that chain is, indeed, intact. Whether the conspiracy
theorists like it or not.
And Elmer Todd DID mark Bullet CE399. We know he marked it, because
there's FBI documentation that tells us he marked it. And, no, I'm not
willing to concede that the FBI was playing fast and loose with the
words we find in CE2011. And my recent battles with Jim DiEugenio
regarding Darrell Tomlinson and his role in CE2011 should prove
something to at least a few CTers -- that being: the FBI did not lie
about Tomlinson when the FBI said in CE2011 that Tomlinson said that
CE399 resembled the stretcher bullet. And even Robert Harris has now
acknowledged the fact that the FBI did not lie about that.
Therefore, why should anyone really think that CE2011 contains ANY
lies at all (including the section in that document which reveals that
Elmer Todd positively identified his own initials on Bullet CE399)?
The initials that are visible on CE399 (even via the NARA's high-
quality color photos) are very difficult to discern (IMO). I can
hardly make out anyone's initials on that bullet. I can see some faint
markings, but they ARE hard to see. That's a fact. So why is it so
hard to believe that perhaps Todd put his mark on the bullet in such a
way where his initials are even MORE difficult to find than are Bob
Frazier's or Cunningham's or Killion's? Perhaps Todd didn't mark it as
"deeply" into the surface of the bullet as those other men did. Who
can know for sure?
But one thing I do know (because this fact exists in the written
record of this case) -- On June 24, 1964, Elmer Todd said he SAW HIS
OWN INITIALS on CE399. And before you're willing to claim that the
"Todd" portion of CE2011 is a complete lie, Bob, you might want to
think about what you were forced to admit on December 9, 2011 -- you
admitted on that date that the FBI actually told the TRUTH about
Darrell Tomlinson. That admission should make you pause at least for a
few extra seconds before you make any further claims of FBI misconduct
concerning that SAME document known as Commission Exhibit #2011.
Jean Davison
Dec 12, 2011, 9:10:53 AM12/12/11
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
> <47656602-6ac7-4200-a390-b211c3706...@r6g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
Then evidently this ghostwriter wasn't competent, since he
didn't get those parts right, did he?
>
> But the part we are bickering about is Connally's first hand, first person
> experience. This could not have been the result of misreading of a
> newspaper article, or a sloppy memory like the others were. It would have
> been a deliberate, calculated lie.
If this were a book Connally actually wrote it would be his
firsthand experience, but in that case Mickey Hershowitz's name
wouldn't be on the cover. This is Hershowitz's version of Connally's
story, which he wrote in the first person (because that's what
"ghostwriters" do!).
>
> And for what? It didn't make him look heroic. There is absolutely no
> reason on Earth to believe that a ghostwriter made this up or that
> Connally lied, except for your rather desperate need to make this go away.
So you think Connally actually believed that, e.g., Oswald's
landlord complained about the rifle in his garage? Sounds to me more
like a writer who misread something when he was doing research in a
hurry.
>
> And why aren't you interested in the corroborations by the other witnesses
> I cited??
Yeah, what about your witness Stinson? You seem to have
made my comments on him disappear.
> Why did the nurse tell them, essentially the same thing that Connally told
> us?
Many years later her memory disagreed with the contemporary
record. Big whoop.
>
> Wade said she was holding the bullet in her hand when she told him it came
> from Connally's gurney.
I've never seen the context of Wade's statement or the date
he made it.
>
> She told Nolan the same thing, although she had put it in an envelope by
> then. But she was very clear that the envelope held a single, bullet that
> came from the "gurney".
That's from your conversation with him how many years
later? About 35?
>
> Why don't you want to talk about that Jean??
Done that, as recently as last summer.
>
>
>
>
>
> > It is a direct statement
> > from Connally. Something in a ghost-written book isn't.
>
> > > When Doug Thompson asked him if he believed the LN theory, Connally
> > > replied,
>
> > > "Absolutely not, I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the
> > > Warren Commission." Thompson asked why he had not spoken out about this.
> > > Connally replied: "Because I love this country and we needed closure at
> > > the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe."
>
> > Apparently Thompson and Connally had a conversation on a plane
> > after having "multiple" drinks, according to Thompson. Supposedly Connally
> > told him he didn't think Oswald fired the gun that killed JFK. I doubt
> > Connally said that, but let's suppose he did. So what? Unless he had
> > some evidence to back that up, his opinion on that issue has no more
> > weight than yours or mine.
>
> Jean why are you pretending that you don't get it?
>
> You know very well that I am not saying that Connally's opinion proves the
> existence of conspiracy.
Who said it did? Seems to me that you don't get it.
>
> The rather obvious point is, that he did not want to rock the boat or say
> anything that challenged the governments LN theory, because he thought the
> nation needed "closure".
Connally disputed the SBT from the beginning -- in his
testimony, for instance.
>
>
>
> > > If Connally had told the WC about that bullet, it would have directly
> > > contradicted the FBI. It would have been headline news and the WC would
> > > have been virtually forced to track down this nurse and interview her.
>
> > So Connally wasn't interested in the truth, he'd rather go down
> > in history as being part of the cover-up. Uh-huh.
>
> You don't have to ask me Jean. You only have to read his own words, but
> without your embellishments of course.
Do you really think that because this ghostwritten book is
written in the first person, it is Conally's "own words"? I hope
not.
The writer, Mickey Hershowitz, also wrote a book with
Nellie Connally. A reviewer at Amazon said:
QUOTE:
More disappointing than its brevity are the blatant factual errors
that appear in the book. Mrs. Connally's ghostwriter, her editor(s),
and her fact checkers have let her down. [....]
Near the end of Chapter 6, the book states "After three years in the
service [Oswald ...] had been court-martialed twice and, eventually,
received a dishonorable discharge, signed by President Kennedy's
Secretary of the Navy, John B. Connally." [....]
In fact, Oswald never received a dishonorable discharge. He received
an early dependency discharge in September of 1959 and an undesirable
discharge in 1960. Connally could not have been involved with either
of these events.
UNQUOTE
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Field-Final-President-Kennedy/product-reviews/1590710142/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addTwoStar
Connally couldn't have signed Oswald's discharge because he
wasn't Secretary of the Navy when it was issued in August 1960.
Actually, I don't think *any* Secretary of the Navy signed it:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10487&relPageId=91
Do you think Nellie made this error? I don't. I doubt she
knew or gave a flip what kind of discharge Oswald got or who signed
it.
>
>
> > > You and David should be extremely grateful to Connally and his "don't rock
> > > the boat" attitude:-)
>
> > > What is infinitely more important and beyond dispute, is that DA Wade,
> > > officer Nolan and Bill Stinson all corroborated Connally's story.
>
> > Connally's ghostwriter's story.
>
> Jean, I don't want to accuse you of making things up, but this is the
> second time I've had to ask you to document that claim.
It's obviously a ghostwritten book, Robert. Look at the
cover.
>
> And please don't insult people's intelligence by claiming that Connally's
> errors prove they were fabricated by his ghost writer. There is not even
> the slightest reason to think that JBC wasn't capable of making those
> kinds of errors without anyone's help.
So do you think Connally told his wife that he signed
Oswald's "dishonorable discharge"?
Jean
>
> Any ghost writer who was known to fabricate deliberate lies without the
> approval of the principle would never get work again and would have made
> himself vulnerable to a nasty lawsuit.
>
> The fact that you want this ridiculous accusation to be true, doesn't
> justify it, Jean.
>
> If you can't prove this BS, then you need to admit it.
>
> Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
didn't get those parts right, did he?
>
> But the part we are bickering about is Connally's first hand, first person
> experience. This could not have been the result of misreading of a
> newspaper article, or a sloppy memory like the others were. It would have
> been a deliberate, calculated lie.
firsthand experience, but in that case Mickey Hershowitz's name
wouldn't be on the cover. This is Hershowitz's version of Connally's
story, which he wrote in the first person (because that's what
"ghostwriters" do!).
>
> And for what? It didn't make him look heroic. There is absolutely no
> reason on Earth to believe that a ghostwriter made this up or that
> Connally lied, except for your rather desperate need to make this go away.
landlord complained about the rifle in his garage? Sounds to me more
like a writer who misread something when he was doing research in a
hurry.
>
> And why aren't you interested in the corroborations by the other witnesses
> I cited??
made my comments on him disappear.
> Why did the nurse tell them, essentially the same thing that Connally told
> us?
record. Big whoop.
>
> Wade said she was holding the bullet in her hand when she told him it came
> from Connally's gurney.
he made it.
>
> She told Nolan the same thing, although she had put it in an envelope by
> then. But she was very clear that the envelope held a single, bullet that
> came from the "gurney".
later? About 35?
>
> Why don't you want to talk about that Jean??
>
>
>
>
>
> > It is a direct statement
> > from Connally. Something in a ghost-written book isn't.
>
> > > When Doug Thompson asked him if he believed the LN theory, Connally
> > > replied,
>
> > > "Absolutely not, I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the
> > > Warren Commission." Thompson asked why he had not spoken out about this.
> > > Connally replied: "Because I love this country and we needed closure at
> > > the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe."
>
> > Apparently Thompson and Connally had a conversation on a plane
> > after having "multiple" drinks, according to Thompson. Supposedly Connally
> > told him he didn't think Oswald fired the gun that killed JFK. I doubt
> > Connally said that, but let's suppose he did. So what? Unless he had
> > some evidence to back that up, his opinion on that issue has no more
> > weight than yours or mine.
>
> Jean why are you pretending that you don't get it?
>
> You know very well that I am not saying that Connally's opinion proves the
> existence of conspiracy.
>
> The rather obvious point is, that he did not want to rock the boat or say
> anything that challenged the governments LN theory, because he thought the
> nation needed "closure".
testimony, for instance.
>
>
>
> > > If Connally had told the WC about that bullet, it would have directly
> > > contradicted the FBI. It would have been headline news and the WC would
> > > have been virtually forced to track down this nurse and interview her.
>
> > So Connally wasn't interested in the truth, he'd rather go down
> > in history as being part of the cover-up. Uh-huh.
>
> You don't have to ask me Jean. You only have to read his own words, but
> without your embellishments of course.
written in the first person, it is Conally's "own words"? I hope
not.
The writer, Mickey Hershowitz, also wrote a book with
Nellie Connally. A reviewer at Amazon said:
QUOTE:
More disappointing than its brevity are the blatant factual errors
that appear in the book. Mrs. Connally's ghostwriter, her editor(s),
and her fact checkers have let her down. [....]
Near the end of Chapter 6, the book states "After three years in the
service [Oswald ...] had been court-martialed twice and, eventually,
received a dishonorable discharge, signed by President Kennedy's
Secretary of the Navy, John B. Connally." [....]
In fact, Oswald never received a dishonorable discharge. He received
an early dependency discharge in September of 1959 and an undesirable
discharge in 1960. Connally could not have been involved with either
of these events.
UNQUOTE
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Field-Final-President-Kennedy/product-reviews/1590710142/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addTwoStar
Connally couldn't have signed Oswald's discharge because he
wasn't Secretary of the Navy when it was issued in August 1960.
Actually, I don't think *any* Secretary of the Navy signed it:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10487&relPageId=91
Do you think Nellie made this error? I don't. I doubt she
knew or gave a flip what kind of discharge Oswald got or who signed
it.
>
>
> > > You and David should be extremely grateful to Connally and his "don't rock
> > > the boat" attitude:-)
>
> > > What is infinitely more important and beyond dispute, is that DA Wade,
> > > officer Nolan and Bill Stinson all corroborated Connally's story.
>
> > Connally's ghostwriter's story.
>
> Jean, I don't want to accuse you of making things up, but this is the
> second time I've had to ask you to document that claim.
cover.
>
> And please don't insult people's intelligence by claiming that Connally's
> errors prove they were fabricated by his ghost writer. There is not even
> the slightest reason to think that JBC wasn't capable of making those
> kinds of errors without anyone's help.
Oswald's "dishonorable discharge"?
Jean
>
> Any ghost writer who was known to fabricate deliberate lies without the
> approval of the principle would never get work again and would have made
> himself vulnerable to a nasty lawsuit.
>
> The fact that you want this ridiculous accusation to be true, doesn't
> justify it, Jean.
>
> If you can't prove this BS, then you need to admit it.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Robert Harris
Dec 12, 2011, 9:57:00 PM12/12/11
to
In article
<db4ab163-10c6-447e...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
or the nurse knew it either:-)
> He was talking about FRAGMENTS.
Well that certainly is strange. Do you suppose he didn't know the
difference between a fragment and a bullet? It's a bit scary to think that
District Attorney would call a fragment a whole bullet, don't you think?
> If the word "bullet" was used
> to describe the fragments, it's exactly the same type of semantics
> error that was made by Sibert & O'Neill in their FBI report concerning
> the supposed "missile" that they saw during JFK's autopsy. But Sibert
> later admitted that "No large bullet of any kind...was found" during
> the President's autopsy.
Yes David - lots of stories got changed in those days - especially when
FBI agents were involved.
Admiral Osborne who held that bullet in his hand, never changed his story
though, did he? What is your excuse for his sworn testimony? Drugs?
Hallucinations?
> (That's a verbatim quote from James Sibert on
> June 30, 2005; listen to him say it at the link below. And yes, I know
> I changed the subject a bit there, but only to demonstrate how easily
> that SAME type of "bullet"/"fragment" mistake can occur, and DID occur
> elsewhere in the very same murder investigation.)
>
> Sibert Interview:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html
>
> #2 (Nolan) -- Bobby Nolan, like Wade, never saw any WHOLE BULLET at
> Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63.
For once, you got something right:-)
As we all know, the bullet had been put into an envelope by then, but the
nurse was very specific that it was a "bullet" and not a fragment.
Stinson, who was standing right next to him, also stated that it was a
"bullet", which came from Connally's "thigh".
And in the FBI on Nolan's interview with the FBI, it specifically states
that the object was from Connally's "thigh", although thanks to the FBI
agent, we see the very first reference to the term, "fragment".
> And even HE admitted that very fact to
> YOU, didn't he, Bob (in a telephone interview you had with him)?
> Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but didn't Nolan say he NEVER
> OPENED THE ENVELOPE that he took to the DPD and gave to Will Fritz?
> Therefore, how can he know for certain WHAT was inside that envelope
> (CE842)?
Yes, David that is quite correct.
But the issue that you don't want to talk about, is that the nurse
obviously told Wade (who could see the bullet), Nolan and Stinson that
this was a whole bullet which came from the gurney that Connally was on.
And by some very strange coincidence, that is EXACTLY what Connally said!
Connally and Wade actually saw the bullet. Nolan and Stinson had to rely
on what the nurse told them. But all roads lead to Rome, David. All four
of those very credible witnesses confirmed that this was a whole bullet
from Connally's gurney and from his thigh.
>
> #3 (Stinson) -- I'm going to need a refresher on Stinson's
> observations concerning this supposed "extra bullet" matter, Bob.
> Frankly, I just plain forgot what his role is in this. Did Stinson
> supposedly see an extra whole bullet too?
I cited him in my article, which you can read here,
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
The relevant part,
(quoting)
Bill Stinson further corroborated the other witnesses, when he was
interviewed by the now defunct, Ramparts magazine.
"..Stinson told us he was in the operating room, wearing a sterile
uniform, when the doctors operated on Connally at Parkland Hospital. 'The
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/09th_Issue/ramparts.html
Stinson was mistaken about the bullet being removed during surgery. He had
been permitted to stand in the operating room then, but it is unlikely
that they would have let him get close enough to examine the fragments as
they were being removed. However, it makes perfect sense that he would
assume that it came from surgery, when shortly afterward, the nurse came
out, in scrubs, and told him and Nolan that she had an envelope containing
a bullet from Connally's thigh.
(unquote)
I'm sure you will be eager to jump on his apparent misconception that the
bullet was recovered during surgery. But without knowing exactly how it
was recovered, the nurse's statement that it came from the "gurney" must
have seemed confusing. Perhaps, he thought that someone placed it on a
gurney after it was removed during surgery.
But unless you want to argue that he really did see a bullet recovered
from the thigh during surgery, I don't think there is any doubt that his
recollection reflected what the nurse told him and Nolan, who were
standing next to each other when she brought the bullet to them.
>
> #4 (Bell) -- Nurse Audrey Bell is ON TAPE telling the world that the
> handwriting we see on the envelope in CE842 (which is clearly and
> plainly marked "Bullet fragments" from Connally's "Right arm") is
> Audrey Bell's own handwriting. She said she positively recognized her
> own writing on that foreign body envelope. And I think she also stated
> that she did not handle (and write on) more than ONE such envelope on
> 11/22/63.
What in hell are you talking about?
The point is that Bell was NOT the nurse who handled the bullet from
Connally's gurney and thigh.
Yes, of course she placed four tiny fragments from Connall's wrist, into a
plastic container, and labeled the envelope as containing fragments from
Connally's "right arm" exactly as she said she did. She then gave them to
two plain clothed agents, probably from the FBI, in her office.
The problem is, that it is ridiculously obvious that she was NOT the nurse
who handled the bullet that fell from Connally's gurney.
There is no way that Bell would have told three people that her envelope
contained a single bullet from Connally's gurney, that originated from his
thigh.
And Bell's sworn statements to the HSCA and ARRB, flatly deny what the FBI
claimed she said.
> So your theory about Bell is moribund on that basis alone.
David, this is not my "theory". It is another one of those "theories" you
make up and falsely attribute to an adversary when you cannot refute what
they really said:-)
> Naturally, you have other ideas. But, as usual, you can't PROVE that
> any hanky-panky was going on with any "erased" initials on CE842. And
> I think Mike Williams did a fairly decent job of debunking your
> "erased initials" theory many months ago at another forum.
LOL!!
Sorry David. I'll talk with you about that later. But for now, let's not
change the subject.
>
> Sum total --- Bob Harris cannot prove that ANYONE actually SAW an
> extra "whole bullet" at Parkland Memorial Hospital on November 22,
> 1963.
Yes of course, the minor detail that Connally saw the "bullet", Wade saw
the "bullet" and that nurse told everyone she ran into, that it was a
"bullet", just doesn't prove anything at all:-)
Just because you desperately wish that no one saw a whole "bullet", does
not make it go away.
>
> And, of course, the only "official" evidence in the case indicates
> that the only whole "bullet" that was found at Parkland that day that
> was in any way connected to the wounding of JFK and/or John B.Connally
> was CE399.
Really?
And what exactly is that "official evidence" - SA Todd's claim that he saw
his initials on CE399, that no one else can see, even in a highly
magnified, enhanced image?
http://jfkhistory.com/initials.png
Or is it all the missing FD302's which would have explained why the two
Secret Service agents refused to verify CE399?
And please don't insult everyone's intelligence by stating that CE399 was
fired from Oswald's rifle. That is a given. The problem is, that the
stretcher bullet was very obviously, not the same one.
> And nobody has been able to PROVE that that bullet was
> planted or used as a substitute for any other bullet.
Of course it wasn't planted. I only told you that three or four times so
far, each time you have tried to imply or claim that that was my argument.
> CTers can
> pretend that they've "proven" that CE399 is a fraudulent bullet, but
> even Bob Harris knows that nobody has truly PROVEN that 399 is phony.
That's utter nonsense. Robert Harris KNOWS that CE399 was a fraudulent
bullet. Besides the statements by every relevant witness, proving that the
Connally bullet was recovered on the second floor and given to officer
Nolan, there is the FACT that Oswald could not have fired any of the shots
prior to frame 285. That's another one of those issues that you've been
evading.
Would you care to finally talk about that David?
> Let's face it -- the CTers of the world just flat-out WANT CE399 to be
> fraudulent. Therefore, in their eyes, it is.
What an outrageously insulting comment.
I don't doubt that there are people in this world who think that way, but
you are talking to a guy who once got a "Best of Web" award from john
mcadams for my article supporting the SBT.
And I have posted videos debunking some very popular beliefs by conspiracy
theorist, such as "the driver did it", and Palamara's idiotic "Secret
Service stand down".
My conclusions about CE399 come from a mountain of evidence, versus the
total absence of evidence supporting it as the one that wounded Connally.
David, I don't have to call my adversaries "kooks" to support my analysis.
I rely totally and 100%, on the evidence and known facts. THAT is why you
cannot refute this stuff. And it's rather pathetic that you have to resort
to insults when you cannot produce a rational response.
>
> But the chain of possession of a WHOLE BULLET going from the hands of
> Tomlinson, to Wright, to Johnsen, to Rowley, to Todd, to Frazier IS
> INTACT
LOL!!
That's called a non sequitar, David. Of course, the stretcher bullet was
passed through those men. The problem is, that a different bullet made the
return trip:-)
> -- and it always has been intact. None of those men ever said
> anything that breaks that consistent chain. Each man received a whole
> bullet from the previous man in the chain. That establishes a CHAIN OF
> POSSESSION for the stretcher bullet.
Yep, no doubt about it.
But what is your point?? The chain of possession from Tomlinson to Frazier
is not in dispute. Why are you trying to make it sound like this proves
your case:-)
>
> Yes, most conspiracists think that the lack of Johnsen's and Rowley's
> initials on CE399 constitutes a break in the chain.
And it does. But now you are changing gears and talking about the bullet
that came back from the FBI labs. That bullet was rejected by everyone
outside of the FBI.
> But, as John
> McAdams has pointed out numerous times in the past, that just simply
> is not so. The chain isn't broken due to a lack of marking the
> evidence. There are other ways to establish the chain of possession,
Yep, there sure is. Sometimes a fragment is too mangled to write on. But
that's not a likely explanation for CE399, is it?
And what is the "other way" that CE399 was confirmed?
> and that's been done by the FBI, in asking each man in the "chain" if
> they did, in fact, receive a bullet from the previous person in the
> chain.
Yes David, they did indeed, receive "A" bullet. The problem is, that on
the return trip, thet did not receive the same bullet they originally
handled.
Those Secret Service agents were required to initial the stretcher bullet,
if it was possible. And for some strange reason, the FBI lost the FD302
forms which would have explained *WHY* they rejected CE399.
Had they stated that they just forgot to initial it, don't you think the
FBI would have been eager to tell the WC that?
Do you think they would have been equally eager to tell the WC that those
guys refused because their initials were NOT on CE399?
> And that chain is, indeed, intact. Whether the conspiracy
> theorists like it or not.
Sigh... the minor detail that NO ONE outside of the FBI would confirm
that bullet, just doesn't phase you at all, does it David?
Nor do you care that the evidence for the Connally bullet being the one
that Nolan received, is about a thousand times stronger.
>
> And Elmer Todd DID mark Bullet CE399. We know he marked it, because
> there's FBI documentation that tells us he marked it.
Wow!! That sure settles the issue!
We should believe the FBI, because the FBI said so! I'm sure there's a
better example of circular reasoning that's appeared around here, but I
haven't seen it.
And we certainly shouldn't trust our lying eyes, eh David:-)
http://jfkhistory.com/initials.png
> And, no, I'm not
> willing to concede that the FBI was playing fast and loose with the
> words we find in CE2011.
Of course you aren't :-)
You make the same mistake that the worst of the CT's make. You have one
theory burned into your brain and no amount of evidence and reason will
make you let go of it.
You don't examine the evidence and facts for the purpose of learning what
happened. You only look at it, searching for debate weapons.
The reason you've done so poorly in our debates is, that my research has
been solely for the purpose of getting this stuff right. I DON'T CARE
which way the chips fall.
When you actually respond, you do so with distortions, misrepresentations
and attempts to change the subject. And most of all, you rely on evasions
of the most important issues.
Why won't you talk about whether it was possible for the early shots to
have been fired from a high powered rifle?
That is fundamental to your theory David. You need to prove that it was
even possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots. You not only cannot
do that but you evade the question entirely.
And 223 was NOT an audible shot. No one heard it, not even John Connally
and no one was startled by it. Only one of the early shots was even
noticed by most witnesses, and that was the one at 160.
Feel free to ask me to prove that.
And yes David, the citation you posted, makes it clear that Tomlinson
stated that at some point in time, he told the FBI that the two bullets
were similar. Have you confirmed however, that he was not thinking of an
interview with Shanklin back in November of '63?
BTW, you have not replied to my request in the Ed forum that you post the
entire interview. I can help you with that if you need me to.
Robert Harris
<db4ab163-10c6-447e...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> "And when will you be up for talking about Wade, Nolan, Stinson and
> >>> Bell?" <<<
>
> #1 (Wade) -- He never saw a WHOLE BULLET at the hospital, and you know
> it, Bob.
I didn't know that David. I don't think Wade, Nolan, Stinson, Connally
> >>> Bell?" <<<
>
> #1 (Wade) -- He never saw a WHOLE BULLET at the hospital, and you know
> it, Bob.
or the nurse knew it either:-)
> He was talking about FRAGMENTS.
difference between a fragment and a bullet? It's a bit scary to think that
District Attorney would call a fragment a whole bullet, don't you think?
> If the word "bullet" was used
> to describe the fragments, it's exactly the same type of semantics
> error that was made by Sibert & O'Neill in their FBI report concerning
> the supposed "missile" that they saw during JFK's autopsy. But Sibert
> later admitted that "No large bullet of any kind...was found" during
> the President's autopsy.
FBI agents were involved.
Admiral Osborne who held that bullet in his hand, never changed his story
though, did he? What is your excuse for his sworn testimony? Drugs?
Hallucinations?
> (That's a verbatim quote from James Sibert on
> June 30, 2005; listen to him say it at the link below. And yes, I know
> I changed the subject a bit there, but only to demonstrate how easily
> that SAME type of "bullet"/"fragment" mistake can occur, and DID occur
> elsewhere in the very same murder investigation.)
>
> Sibert Interview:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html
>
> #2 (Nolan) -- Bobby Nolan, like Wade, never saw any WHOLE BULLET at
> Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63.
As we all know, the bullet had been put into an envelope by then, but the
nurse was very specific that it was a "bullet" and not a fragment.
Stinson, who was standing right next to him, also stated that it was a
"bullet", which came from Connally's "thigh".
And in the FBI on Nolan's interview with the FBI, it specifically states
that the object was from Connally's "thigh", although thanks to the FBI
agent, we see the very first reference to the term, "fragment".
> And even HE admitted that very fact to
> YOU, didn't he, Bob (in a telephone interview you had with him)?
> Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but didn't Nolan say he NEVER
> OPENED THE ENVELOPE that he took to the DPD and gave to Will Fritz?
> Therefore, how can he know for certain WHAT was inside that envelope
> (CE842)?
But the issue that you don't want to talk about, is that the nurse
obviously told Wade (who could see the bullet), Nolan and Stinson that
this was a whole bullet which came from the gurney that Connally was on.
And by some very strange coincidence, that is EXACTLY what Connally said!
Connally and Wade actually saw the bullet. Nolan and Stinson had to rely
on what the nurse told them. But all roads lead to Rome, David. All four
of those very credible witnesses confirmed that this was a whole bullet
from Connally's gurney and from his thigh.
>
> #3 (Stinson) -- I'm going to need a refresher on Stinson's
> observations concerning this supposed "extra bullet" matter, Bob.
> Frankly, I just plain forgot what his role is in this. Did Stinson
> supposedly see an extra whole bullet too?
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
The relevant part,
(quoting)
Bill Stinson further corroborated the other witnesses, when he was
interviewed by the now defunct, Ramparts magazine.
"..Stinson told us he was in the operating room, wearing a sterile
uniform, when the doctors operated on Connally at Parkland Hospital. 'The
last thing they did,' said Stinson, 'was to remove the bullet from the
governor's thigh---because that was the least thing that was wrong with
him.'". The entire article can be seen here,
governor's thigh---because that was the least thing that was wrong with
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/09th_Issue/ramparts.html
Stinson was mistaken about the bullet being removed during surgery. He had
been permitted to stand in the operating room then, but it is unlikely
that they would have let him get close enough to examine the fragments as
they were being removed. However, it makes perfect sense that he would
assume that it came from surgery, when shortly afterward, the nurse came
out, in scrubs, and told him and Nolan that she had an envelope containing
a bullet from Connally's thigh.
(unquote)
I'm sure you will be eager to jump on his apparent misconception that the
bullet was recovered during surgery. But without knowing exactly how it
was recovered, the nurse's statement that it came from the "gurney" must
have seemed confusing. Perhaps, he thought that someone placed it on a
gurney after it was removed during surgery.
But unless you want to argue that he really did see a bullet recovered
from the thigh during surgery, I don't think there is any doubt that his
recollection reflected what the nurse told him and Nolan, who were
standing next to each other when she brought the bullet to them.
>
> #4 (Bell) -- Nurse Audrey Bell is ON TAPE telling the world that the
> handwriting we see on the envelope in CE842 (which is clearly and
> plainly marked "Bullet fragments" from Connally's "Right arm") is
> Audrey Bell's own handwriting. She said she positively recognized her
> own writing on that foreign body envelope. And I think she also stated
> that she did not handle (and write on) more than ONE such envelope on
> 11/22/63.
The point is that Bell was NOT the nurse who handled the bullet from
Connally's gurney and thigh.
Yes, of course she placed four tiny fragments from Connall's wrist, into a
plastic container, and labeled the envelope as containing fragments from
Connally's "right arm" exactly as she said she did. She then gave them to
two plain clothed agents, probably from the FBI, in her office.
The problem is, that it is ridiculously obvious that she was NOT the nurse
who handled the bullet that fell from Connally's gurney.
There is no way that Bell would have told three people that her envelope
contained a single bullet from Connally's gurney, that originated from his
thigh.
And Bell's sworn statements to the HSCA and ARRB, flatly deny what the FBI
claimed she said.
> So your theory about Bell is moribund on that basis alone.
make up and falsely attribute to an adversary when you cannot refute what
they really said:-)
> Naturally, you have other ideas. But, as usual, you can't PROVE that
> any hanky-panky was going on with any "erased" initials on CE842. And
> I think Mike Williams did a fairly decent job of debunking your
> "erased initials" theory many months ago at another forum.
Sorry David. I'll talk with you about that later. But for now, let's not
change the subject.
>
> Sum total --- Bob Harris cannot prove that ANYONE actually SAW an
> extra "whole bullet" at Parkland Memorial Hospital on November 22,
> 1963.
the "bullet" and that nurse told everyone she ran into, that it was a
"bullet", just doesn't prove anything at all:-)
Just because you desperately wish that no one saw a whole "bullet", does
not make it go away.
>
> And, of course, the only "official" evidence in the case indicates
> that the only whole "bullet" that was found at Parkland that day that
> was in any way connected to the wounding of JFK and/or John B.Connally
> was CE399.
And what exactly is that "official evidence" - SA Todd's claim that he saw
his initials on CE399, that no one else can see, even in a highly
magnified, enhanced image?
http://jfkhistory.com/initials.png
Or is it all the missing FD302's which would have explained why the two
Secret Service agents refused to verify CE399?
And please don't insult everyone's intelligence by stating that CE399 was
fired from Oswald's rifle. That is a given. The problem is, that the
stretcher bullet was very obviously, not the same one.
> And nobody has been able to PROVE that that bullet was
> planted or used as a substitute for any other bullet.
far, each time you have tried to imply or claim that that was my argument.
> CTers can
> pretend that they've "proven" that CE399 is a fraudulent bullet, but
> even Bob Harris knows that nobody has truly PROVEN that 399 is phony.
bullet. Besides the statements by every relevant witness, proving that the
Connally bullet was recovered on the second floor and given to officer
Nolan, there is the FACT that Oswald could not have fired any of the shots
prior to frame 285. That's another one of those issues that you've been
evading.
Would you care to finally talk about that David?
> Let's face it -- the CTers of the world just flat-out WANT CE399 to be
> fraudulent. Therefore, in their eyes, it is.
I don't doubt that there are people in this world who think that way, but
you are talking to a guy who once got a "Best of Web" award from john
mcadams for my article supporting the SBT.
And I have posted videos debunking some very popular beliefs by conspiracy
theorist, such as "the driver did it", and Palamara's idiotic "Secret
Service stand down".
My conclusions about CE399 come from a mountain of evidence, versus the
total absence of evidence supporting it as the one that wounded Connally.
David, I don't have to call my adversaries "kooks" to support my analysis.
I rely totally and 100%, on the evidence and known facts. THAT is why you
cannot refute this stuff. And it's rather pathetic that you have to resort
to insults when you cannot produce a rational response.
>
> But the chain of possession of a WHOLE BULLET going from the hands of
> Tomlinson, to Wright, to Johnsen, to Rowley, to Todd, to Frazier IS
> INTACT
That's called a non sequitar, David. Of course, the stretcher bullet was
passed through those men. The problem is, that a different bullet made the
return trip:-)
> -- and it always has been intact. None of those men ever said
> anything that breaks that consistent chain. Each man received a whole
> bullet from the previous man in the chain. That establishes a CHAIN OF
> POSSESSION for the stretcher bullet.
But what is your point?? The chain of possession from Tomlinson to Frazier
is not in dispute. Why are you trying to make it sound like this proves
your case:-)
>
> Yes, most conspiracists think that the lack of Johnsen's and Rowley's
> initials on CE399 constitutes a break in the chain.
that came back from the FBI labs. That bullet was rejected by everyone
outside of the FBI.
> But, as John
> McAdams has pointed out numerous times in the past, that just simply
> is not so. The chain isn't broken due to a lack of marking the
> evidence. There are other ways to establish the chain of possession,
that's not a likely explanation for CE399, is it?
And what is the "other way" that CE399 was confirmed?
> and that's been done by the FBI, in asking each man in the "chain" if
> they did, in fact, receive a bullet from the previous person in the
> chain.
the return trip, thet did not receive the same bullet they originally
handled.
Those Secret Service agents were required to initial the stretcher bullet,
if it was possible. And for some strange reason, the FBI lost the FD302
forms which would have explained *WHY* they rejected CE399.
Had they stated that they just forgot to initial it, don't you think the
FBI would have been eager to tell the WC that?
Do you think they would have been equally eager to tell the WC that those
guys refused because their initials were NOT on CE399?
> And that chain is, indeed, intact. Whether the conspiracy
> theorists like it or not.
that bullet, just doesn't phase you at all, does it David?
Nor do you care that the evidence for the Connally bullet being the one
that Nolan received, is about a thousand times stronger.
>
> And Elmer Todd DID mark Bullet CE399. We know he marked it, because
> there's FBI documentation that tells us he marked it.
We should believe the FBI, because the FBI said so! I'm sure there's a
better example of circular reasoning that's appeared around here, but I
haven't seen it.
And we certainly shouldn't trust our lying eyes, eh David:-)
http://jfkhistory.com/initials.png
> And, no, I'm not
> willing to concede that the FBI was playing fast and loose with the
> words we find in CE2011.
You make the same mistake that the worst of the CT's make. You have one
theory burned into your brain and no amount of evidence and reason will
make you let go of it.
You don't examine the evidence and facts for the purpose of learning what
happened. You only look at it, searching for debate weapons.
The reason you've done so poorly in our debates is, that my research has
been solely for the purpose of getting this stuff right. I DON'T CARE
which way the chips fall.
When you actually respond, you do so with distortions, misrepresentations
and attempts to change the subject. And most of all, you rely on evasions
of the most important issues.
Why won't you talk about whether it was possible for the early shots to
have been fired from a high powered rifle?
That is fundamental to your theory David. You need to prove that it was
even possible for Oswald to have fired all the shots. You not only cannot
do that but you evade the question entirely.
And 223 was NOT an audible shot. No one heard it, not even John Connally
and no one was startled by it. Only one of the early shots was even
noticed by most witnesses, and that was the one at 160.
Feel free to ask me to prove that.
And yes David, the citation you posted, makes it clear that Tomlinson
stated that at some point in time, he told the FBI that the two bullets
were similar. Have you confirmed however, that he was not thinking of an
interview with Shanklin back in November of '63?
BTW, you have not replied to my request in the Ed forum that you post the
entire interview. I can help you with that if you need me to.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Dec 12, 2011, 9:58:00 PM12/12/11
to
In article
<667dd69e-ec4e-4d92...@f5g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Fair enough. He did say that he didn't believe he and JFK were hit by
the same bullet.
But he never publicly stated that this was a conspiracy or that Oswald
was not the only shooter. The WC originally theorized that JFK and
Connally were hit by separate shots (by Oswald of course), and even
today, Clint Hill believes that.
So his position on the SBT was not a deal breaker. He was still not
rocking the boat, as he would have been if he had disclosed what he
stated in his book.
Robert Harris
<667dd69e-ec4e-4d92...@f5g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
the same bullet.
But he never publicly stated that this was a conspiracy or that Oswald
was not the only shooter. The WC originally theorized that JFK and
Connally were hit by separate shots (by Oswald of course), and even
today, Clint Hill believes that.
So his position on the SBT was not a deal breaker. He was still not
rocking the boat, as he would have been if he had disclosed what he
stated in his book.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Dec 12, 2011, 10:02:17 PM12/12/11
to
In article
<737c1854-db87-409c...@l29g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 11:11?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <47656602-6ac7-4200-a390-b211c3706...@r6g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
> > > ? ? ? ? ? The book is inaccurate. ?As I've said before, the author
write what their clients tell them to write?
Your endless fantasy that this guy just made things up without Connally's
approval, is ridiculous.
>
> >
> > But the part we are bickering about is Connally's first hand, first person
> > experience. This could not have been the result of misreading of a
> > newspaper article, or a sloppy memory like the others were. It would have
> > been a deliberate, calculated lie.
>
> If this were a book Connally actually wrote it would be his
> firsthand experience, but in that case Mickey Hershowitz's name
> wouldn't be on the cover. This is Hershowitz's version of Connally's
> story, which he wrote in the first person (because that's what
> "ghostwriters" do!).
At Google books, it is listed as by "John Connally with Mickey
Hershowitz".
That means, they worked together on it, just like a zillion other books
written by ghost writers. But it is unheard of for a writer to just make
up deliberate lies in an autobiography.
Most people are pretty fanatical about their biographies. This is their
legacy, which will remain long after they are dead. It's understandable
that Connally would make a few honest errors. He was not an enthusiast.
But it makes no sense that he would make up lies or permit a writer to
make them up for him.
That's a really nasty accusation and you don't have shred of evidence to
support it
>
> >
> > And for what? It didn't make him look heroic. There is absolutely no
> > reason on Earth to believe that a ghostwriter made this up or that
> > Connally lied, except for your rather desperate need to make this go away.
>
> So you think Connally actually believed that, e.g., Oswald's
> landlord complained about the rifle in his garage? Sounds to me more
> like a writer who misread something when he was doing research in a
> hurry.
Yes, Connally made mistakes.
What in holy hell does that have to do with your accusation that he
permitted a writer to make up deliberate lies about what happened to him
at Parkland?
There is no logical connection between the two statements.
>
> >
> > And why aren't you interested in the corroborations by the other witnesses
> > I cited??
>
> Yeah, what about your witness Stinson? You seem to have
> made my comments on him disappear.
I did not delete your comment, the mods did. And your reply was NWR.
The fact that Stinson did not happen to use the word "gurney", like
Connally, Wade and Nolan did, is just not relevant to anything.
Of course he assumed that the bullet that this nurse brought out right
after the surgery, was recovered during surgery. That presumption was
quite natural. If Wade had been pinned down, he probably would have said
that he assumed the same thing. The "gurney" statement doesn't make much
sense, without knowing what Connally explained in his book.
This is NOT proof that witnesses are unreliable. It is proof that they
form conclusions which seem reasonable, based on the circumstances.
But why do you ONLY talk about the one witness who was wrong about an
issue unrelated to the gist of all this??
Why is it more important to you that one witness didn't happen to mention
the "gurney", than that three witnesses did?
It is not likely that anyone just guessed that the bullet was recovered
from a "gurney". That could only have come from that nurse. And that
nurse, could not have been Audrey Bell.
>
> > Why did the nurse tell them, essentially the same thing that Connally told
> > us?
>
> Many years later her memory disagreed with the contemporary
> record. Big whoop.
Jean, there is a thing in science, called proof by prediction (or
something like that). If a Einstein was right, then particles accelerated
to nearly the speed of light, will gain mass. Since they do exactly that,
we know that Albert had it right.
If Nolan, Connally, Wade and Stinson were correct, then a nurse other than
Bell was the one who gave her envelope to Nolan. Therefore, we can predict
that Bell would deny giving her envelope to Nolan.
And of course, that is exactly what she did.
>
> >
> > Wade said she was holding the bullet in her hand when she told him it came
> > from Connally's gurney.
>
> I've never seen the context of Wade's statement or the date
> he made it.
You haven't even bothered to read the article??? This is from an interview
with the Dallas Morning News, November 1993.
"I also went out to see Connally, but he was in the operating room. Some
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Robert Harris
<737c1854-db87-409c...@l29g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 11:11?am, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <47656602-6ac7-4200-a390-b211c3706...@r6g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
> > > claimed
> > > that federal agents jumped out of the Queen Mary and rushed to the TSBD
> > > entrance. That never happened. ?He wrote that Oswald's "landlord"
> > > that federal agents jumped out of the Queen Mary and rushed to the TSBD
> > > complained about the rifle being kept in the garage "wrapped in a rug."
> > > He claimed the limo's bubble top was bulletproof. ?I didn't read the
> > > whole
> > > thing, just flipped through it at the library and found those and other
> > > bloopers.
> >
> > I don't know how to break this to you Jean, but Connally was not exactly
> > in the best position to determine what was going on at the time. Any
> > ghostwriter who was even remotely competent and had a telephone would have
> > gotten the parts you mentioned, right.
>
> Then evidently this ghostwriter wasn't competent, since he
> didn't get those parts right, did he?
As a writer yourself, is it not possible that know that ghost writers
> > > thing, just flipped through it at the library and found those and other
> > > bloopers.
> >
> > I don't know how to break this to you Jean, but Connally was not exactly
> > in the best position to determine what was going on at the time. Any
> > ghostwriter who was even remotely competent and had a telephone would have
> > gotten the parts you mentioned, right.
>
> Then evidently this ghostwriter wasn't competent, since he
> didn't get those parts right, did he?
write what their clients tell them to write?
Your endless fantasy that this guy just made things up without Connally's
approval, is ridiculous.
>
> >
> > But the part we are bickering about is Connally's first hand, first person
> > experience. This could not have been the result of misreading of a
> > newspaper article, or a sloppy memory like the others were. It would have
> > been a deliberate, calculated lie.
>
> If this were a book Connally actually wrote it would be his
> firsthand experience, but in that case Mickey Hershowitz's name
> wouldn't be on the cover. This is Hershowitz's version of Connally's
> story, which he wrote in the first person (because that's what
> "ghostwriters" do!).
Hershowitz".
That means, they worked together on it, just like a zillion other books
written by ghost writers. But it is unheard of for a writer to just make
up deliberate lies in an autobiography.
Most people are pretty fanatical about their biographies. This is their
legacy, which will remain long after they are dead. It's understandable
that Connally would make a few honest errors. He was not an enthusiast.
But it makes no sense that he would make up lies or permit a writer to
make them up for him.
That's a really nasty accusation and you don't have shred of evidence to
support it
>
> >
> > And for what? It didn't make him look heroic. There is absolutely no
> > reason on Earth to believe that a ghostwriter made this up or that
> > Connally lied, except for your rather desperate need to make this go away.
>
> So you think Connally actually believed that, e.g., Oswald's
> landlord complained about the rifle in his garage? Sounds to me more
> like a writer who misread something when he was doing research in a
> hurry.
What in holy hell does that have to do with your accusation that he
permitted a writer to make up deliberate lies about what happened to him
at Parkland?
There is no logical connection between the two statements.
>
> >
> > And why aren't you interested in the corroborations by the other witnesses
> > I cited??
>
> Yeah, what about your witness Stinson? You seem to have
> made my comments on him disappear.
The fact that Stinson did not happen to use the word "gurney", like
Connally, Wade and Nolan did, is just not relevant to anything.
Of course he assumed that the bullet that this nurse brought out right
after the surgery, was recovered during surgery. That presumption was
quite natural. If Wade had been pinned down, he probably would have said
that he assumed the same thing. The "gurney" statement doesn't make much
sense, without knowing what Connally explained in his book.
This is NOT proof that witnesses are unreliable. It is proof that they
form conclusions which seem reasonable, based on the circumstances.
But why do you ONLY talk about the one witness who was wrong about an
issue unrelated to the gist of all this??
Why is it more important to you that one witness didn't happen to mention
the "gurney", than that three witnesses did?
It is not likely that anyone just guessed that the bullet was recovered
from a "gurney". That could only have come from that nurse. And that
nurse, could not have been Audrey Bell.
>
> > Why did the nurse tell them, essentially the same thing that Connally told
> > us?
>
> Many years later her memory disagreed with the contemporary
> record. Big whoop.
something like that). If a Einstein was right, then particles accelerated
to nearly the speed of light, will gain mass. Since they do exactly that,
we know that Albert had it right.
If Nolan, Connally, Wade and Stinson were correct, then a nurse other than
Bell was the one who gave her envelope to Nolan. Therefore, we can predict
that Bell would deny giving her envelope to Nolan.
And of course, that is exactly what she did.
>
> >
> > Wade said she was holding the bullet in her hand when she told him it came
> > from Connally's gurney.
>
> I've never seen the context of Wade's statement or the date
> he made it.
with the Dallas Morning News, November 1993.
"I also went out to see 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. "
You really ought to read that article, Jean.
Connally was on. "
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Robert Harris
Jean Davison
Dec 13, 2011, 10:20:22 PM12/13/11
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
> <737c1854-db87-409c-b693-f4b8b78ff...@l29g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
The word "with" is a standard way to credit a ghostwriter.
Sometimes their names appear only in the acknowledgments, sometimes they
aren't mentioned at all.
Ghostwriters don't always work as closely with their subjects as
you seem to think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwriter
Connally was ill toward the end of his life, and the book came out
several months after his death. The book contains many errors (not
"deliberate lies") that you think were Connally's. I don't agree with
you. End of story.
>
> Most people are pretty fanatical about their biographies. This is their
> legacy, which will remain long after they are dead. It's understandable
> that Connally would make a few honest errors. He was not an enthusiast.
> But it makes no sense that he would make up lies or permit a writer to
> make them up for him.
>
> That's a really nasty accusation and you don't have shred of evidence to
> support it
>
>
>
> > > And for what? It didn't make him look heroic. There is absolutely no
> > > reason on Earth to believe that a ghostwriter made this up or that
> > > Connally lied, except for your rather desperate need to make this go away.
>
> > So you think Connally actually believed that, e.g., Oswald's
> > landlord complained about the rifle in his garage? Sounds to me more
> > like a writer who misread something when he was doing research in a
> > hurry.
>
> Yes, Connally made mistakes.
Or Hershowitz made mistakes.
>
> What in holy hell does that have to do with your accusation that he
> permitted a writer to make up deliberate lies about what happened to him
> at Parkland?
>
> There is no logical connection between the two statements.
>
>
> > > And why aren't you interested in the corroborations by the other witnesses
> > > I cited??
>
> > Yeah, what about your witness Stinson? You seem to have
> > made my comments on him disappear.
>
> I did not delete your comment, the mods did. And your reply was NWR.
Forgive me, but IMO this whole theory is NWR. It's ironic that
you've started a thread about someone's "evasions" in which you've
"evaded" some things yourself. But never mind...
> The fact that Stinson did not happen to use the word "gurney", like
> Connally, Wade and Nolan did, is just not relevant to anything.
>
> Of course he assumed that the bullet that this nurse brought out right
> after the surgery, was recovered during surgery. That presumption was
> quite natural. If Wade had been pinned down, he probably would have said
> that he assumed the same thing. The "gurney" statement doesn't make much
> sense, without knowing what Connally explained in his book.
>
> This is NOT proof that witnesses are unreliable. It is proof that they
> form conclusions which seem reasonable, based on the circumstances.
>
> But why do you ONLY talk about the one witness who was wrong about an
> issue unrelated to the gist of all this??
I've talked about the other witnesses, Robert, you just have a
short memory for these things. We discuss and discuss with you, and later
it's as though it never happened.
>
> Why is it more important to you that one witness didn't happen to mention
> the "gurney", than that three witnesses did?
The evidence on this is weak -- secondhand, or comments made
years later, when memories are unreliable.
>
> It is not likely that anyone just guessed that the bullet was recovered
> from a "gurney". That could only have come from that nurse. And that
> nurse, could not have been Audrey Bell.
So you say. IMO, a theory has to have good evidence to support
it and has to make sense. It makes no sense to me that the feds would
toss out a bullet found on Connally's gurney and substitute a bullet from
a different stretcher downstairs, instead of the other way around, which
would've been much simpler and less likely to fall apart. I just don't
see a plausible scenario there.
>
>
>
> > > Why did the nurse tell them, essentially the same thing that Connally told
> > > us?
>
> > Many years later her memory disagreed with the contemporary
> > record. Big whoop.
>
> Jean, there is a thing in science, called proof by prediction (or
> something like that). If a Einstein was right, then particles accelerated
> to nearly the speed of light, will gain mass. Since they do exactly that,
> we know that Albert had it right.
>
> If Nolan, Connally, Wade and Stinson were correct, then a nurse other than
> Bell was the one who gave her envelope to Nolan. Therefore, we can predict
> that Bell would deny giving her envelope to Nolan.
>
> And of course, that is exactly what she did.
NWR. <g>
I'm putting the rest in a separate post and then I'm
done. Happy holidays!
Jean
Sometimes their names appear only in the acknowledgments, sometimes they
aren't mentioned at all.
Ghostwriters don't always work as closely with their subjects as
you seem to think:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwriter
Connally was ill toward the end of his life, and the book came out
several months after his death. The book contains many errors (not
"deliberate lies") that you think were Connally's. I don't agree with
you. End of story.
>
> Most people are pretty fanatical about their biographies. This is their
> legacy, which will remain long after they are dead. It's understandable
> that Connally would make a few honest errors. He was not an enthusiast.
> But it makes no sense that he would make up lies or permit a writer to
> make them up for him.
>
> That's a really nasty accusation and you don't have shred of evidence to
> support it
>
>
>
> > > And for what? It didn't make him look heroic. There is absolutely no
> > > reason on Earth to believe that a ghostwriter made this up or that
> > > Connally lied, except for your rather desperate need to make this go away.
>
> > So you think Connally actually believed that, e.g., Oswald's
> > landlord complained about the rifle in his garage? Sounds to me more
> > like a writer who misread something when he was doing research in a
> > hurry.
>
> Yes, Connally made mistakes.
>
> What in holy hell does that have to do with your accusation that he
> permitted a writer to make up deliberate lies about what happened to him
> at Parkland?
>
> There is no logical connection between the two statements.
>
>
> > > And why aren't you interested in the corroborations by the other witnesses
> > > I cited??
>
> > Yeah, what about your witness Stinson? You seem to have
> > made my comments on him disappear.
>
> I did not delete your comment, the mods did. And your reply was NWR.
you've started a thread about someone's "evasions" in which you've
"evaded" some things yourself. But never mind...
> The fact that Stinson did not happen to use the word "gurney", like
> Connally, Wade and Nolan did, is just not relevant to anything.
>
> Of course he assumed that the bullet that this nurse brought out right
> after the surgery, was recovered during surgery. That presumption was
> quite natural. If Wade had been pinned down, he probably would have said
> that he assumed the same thing. The "gurney" statement doesn't make much
> sense, without knowing what Connally explained in his book.
>
> This is NOT proof that witnesses are unreliable. It is proof that they
> form conclusions which seem reasonable, based on the circumstances.
>
> But why do you ONLY talk about the one witness who was wrong about an
> issue unrelated to the gist of all this??
short memory for these things. We discuss and discuss with you, and later
it's as though it never happened.
>
> Why is it more important to you that one witness didn't happen to mention
> the "gurney", than that three witnesses did?
years later, when memories are unreliable.
>
> It is not likely that anyone just guessed that the bullet was recovered
> from a "gurney". That could only have come from that nurse. And that
> nurse, could not have been Audrey Bell.
it and has to make sense. It makes no sense to me that the feds would
toss out a bullet found on Connally's gurney and substitute a bullet from
a different stretcher downstairs, instead of the other way around, which
would've been much simpler and less likely to fall apart. I just don't
see a plausible scenario there.
>
>
>
> > > Why did the nurse tell them, essentially the same thing that Connally told
> > > us?
>
> > Many years later her memory disagreed with the contemporary
> > record. Big whoop.
>
> Jean, there is a thing in science, called proof by prediction (or
> something like that). If a Einstein was right, then particles accelerated
> to nearly the speed of light, will gain mass. Since they do exactly that,
> we know that Albert had it right.
>
> If Nolan, Connally, Wade and Stinson were correct, then a nurse other than
> Bell was the one who gave her envelope to Nolan. Therefore, we can predict
> that Bell would deny giving her envelope to Nolan.
>
> And of course, that is exactly what she did.
I'm putting the rest in a separate post and then I'm
done. Happy holidays!
Jean
Robert Harris
Dec 14, 2011, 12:03:04 AM12/14/11
to
In article
<6f96f54a-bfa3-4dbb...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 9:02?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <737c1854-db87-409c-b693-f4b8b78ff...@l29g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > ? ? ? ? Then evidently this ghostwriter wasn't competent, since he
hint of justification for this accusation?
Your reasoning is that because the book contained errors that were totally
consistent with the recollections of a dying man, that this is *proof*
that the writer is a liar who made up stories out of whole cloth, without
Connally's approval???
Wow!!
Jean, I cannot think of even the craziest conspiracy buff who made an
accusation that was more ridiculous and unsupportable.
>
> >
> > Most people are pretty fanatical about their biographies. This is their
> > legacy, which will remain long after they are dead. It's understandable
> > that Connally would make a few honest errors. He was not an enthusiast.
> > But it makes no sense that he would make up lies or permit a writer to
> > make them up for him.
> >
> > That's a really nasty accusation and you don't have shred of evidence to
> > support it
Well, at least we got that settled.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > And for what? It didn't make him look heroic. There is absolutely no
> > > > reason on Earth to believe that a ghostwriter made this up or that
> > > > Connally lied, except for your rather desperate need to make this go
> > > > away.
> >
> > > ? ? ? ? ? So you think Connally actually believed that, e.g., Oswald's
> > > landlord complained about the rifle in his garage? ?Sounds to me more
reputation? Has he been nailed for plagiarism or for false citations or
sources?
Ok, I just googled Hershowitz. Correct me if I'm wrong but this guy is at
the very top of his profession. He's written for Dan Rather, George W Bush
and Howard Cosell - and probably a lot of others, but I'm too lazy to go
look them all up.
How do you become the ghost writer for the POTUS if you are a chronic
liar, Jean??
Your accusation is reckless and totally without justification. I would say
a lot more about it if this wasn't a moderated forum.
>
> >
> > What in holy hell does that have to do with your accusation that he
> > permitted a writer to make up deliberate lies about what happened to him
> > at Parkland?
> >
> > There is no logical connection between the two statements.
> >
> >
> > > > And why aren't you interested in the corroborations by the other
> > > > witnesses
> > > > I cited??
> >
> > > ? ? ? ? ? Yeah, what about your witness Stinson? ?You seem to have
Tell us about my evasions.
>
> > The fact that Stinson did not happen to use the word "gurney", like
> > Connally, Wade and Nolan did, is just not relevant to anything.
> >
> > Of course he assumed that the bullet that this nurse brought out right
> > after the surgery, was recovered during surgery. That presumption was
> > quite natural. If Wade had been pinned down, he probably would have said
> > that he assumed the same thing. The "gurney" statement doesn't make much
> > sense, without knowing what Connally explained in his book.
> >
> > This is NOT proof that witnesses are unreliable. It is proof that they
> > form conclusions which seem reasonable, based on the circumstances.
> >
> > But why do you ONLY talk about the one witness who was wrong about an
> > issue unrelated to the gist of all this??
>
> I've talked about the other witnesses, Robert, you just have a
> short memory for these things. We discuss and discuss with you, and later
> it's as though it never happened.
Then refresh my memory Jean. You previously said they were delusional
and you later denied that you said that.
So, what is your claim today?
>
> >
> > Why is it more important to you that one witness didn't happen to mention
> > the "gurney", than that three witnesses did?
>
> The evidence on this is weak -- secondhand, or comments made
> years later, when memories are unreliable.
Jean, you and your buds have worn this one out, long ago.
First of all, when memories fail, one forgets things - he doesn't
fabricate new ones. Nolan for example, didn't remember that the nurse said
anything about the "thigh". But she obviously did, since that was in the
FBI on him, and Stinson also said the bullet came from the thigh.
That much was confirmed in 1963 and 1967.
And as I'm sure you recall, the DPD originally documented Nolan's envelope
as containing a single object. That's a strange thing to do, when the
envelope was labeled "bullet fragments", eh?
And the plastic container in Bell's envelope contained fragments that were
tiny but were certainly, visible. How could anyone look at that and then
label is as a single fragment?
That's why the FBI lied when they claimed that Bell told them her envelope
contained a single fragment from the wrist. At that time, they needed to
make Nolan's envelope go away.
>
> >
> > It is not likely that anyone just guessed that the bullet was recovered
> > from a "gurney". That could only have come from that nurse. And that
> > nurse, could not have been Audrey Bell.
>
> So you say. IMO, a theory has to have good evidence to support
> it and has to make sense. It makes no sense to me that the feds would
> toss out a bullet found on Connally's gurney and substitute a bullet from
> a different stretcher downstairs,
That doesn't make any sense to me either.
Jean, we have discussed this stuff enough, that I have a hard time
believing that you don't know what I've been saying.
I believe they took the stretcher bullet back to their labs and discovered
that it wasn't a match with Oswald's rifle. So, at some point in time,
they fired a bullet from his rifle, into a barrel of water or cotton
wading, and that was CE399.
That's why the bullet was relatively undamaged and why it contained no
blood or tissue. That's also why no one would verify it and why Wright was
adamant that it was shaped much differently from the stretcher bullet.
That solved that problem.
The Connally bullet was taken care of by making it appear that it was
actually the wrist fragments that Bell gave to the FBI.
) instead of the other way around, which
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Why did the nurse tell them, essentially the same thing that Connally
> > > > told
> > > > us?
> >
> > > ? ? ? ? Many years later her memory disagreed with the contemporary
> > > record. ?Big whoop.
I will take your silence as a compliment:-)
Robert Harris
<6f96f54a-bfa3-4dbb...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 9:02?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <737c1854-db87-409c-b693-f4b8b78ff...@l29g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > didn't get those parts right, did he?
> >
> > As a writer yourself, is it not possible that know that ghost writers
> > write what their clients tell them to write?
> >
> > Your endless fantasy that this guy just made things up without Connally's
> > approval, is ridiculous.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > But the part we are bickering about is Connally's first hand, first
> > > > person
> > > > experience. This could not have been the result of misreading of a
> > > > newspaper article, or a sloppy memory like the others were. It would
> > > > have
> > > > been a deliberate, calculated lie.
> >
> > > ? ? ? ?If this were a book Connally actually wrote it would be his
> >
> > As a writer yourself, is it not possible that know that ghost writers
> > write what their clients tell them to write?
> >
> > Your endless fantasy that this guy just made things up without Connally's
> > approval, is ridiculous.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > But the part we are bickering about is Connally's first hand, first
> > > > person
> > > > experience. This could not have been the result of misreading of a
> > > > newspaper article, or a sloppy memory like the others were. It would
> > > > have
> > > > been a deliberate, calculated lie.
> >
> > > firsthand experience, but in that case Mickey Hershowitz's name
> > > wouldn't be on the cover. ?This is Hershowitz's version of Connally's
> > > story, which he wrote in the first person (because that's what
> > > "ghostwriters" do!).
> >
> > At Google books, it is listed as by "John Connally with Mickey
> > Hershowitz".
> >
> > That means, they worked together on it, just like a zillion other books
> > written by ghost writers. But it is unheard of for a writer to just make
> > up deliberate lies in an autobiography.
>
> The word "with" is a standard way to credit a ghostwriter.
> Sometimes their names appear only in the acknowledgments, sometimes they
> aren't mentioned at all.
>
> Ghostwriters don't always work as closely with their subjects as
> you seem to think:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwriter
>
> Connally was ill toward the end of his life, and the book came out
> several months after his death. The book contains many errors (not
> "deliberate lies") that you think were Connally's. I don't agree with
> you. End of story.
So, is it fair to say that you have absolutely NO documentation or even a
> > > "ghostwriters" do!).
> >
> > At Google books, it is listed as by "John Connally with Mickey
> > Hershowitz".
> >
> > That means, they worked together on it, just like a zillion other books
> > written by ghost writers. But it is unheard of for a writer to just make
> > up deliberate lies in an autobiography.
>
> The word "with" is a standard way to credit a ghostwriter.
> Sometimes their names appear only in the acknowledgments, sometimes they
> aren't mentioned at all.
>
> Ghostwriters don't always work as closely with their subjects as
> you seem to think:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwriter
>
> Connally was ill toward the end of his life, and the book came out
> several months after his death. The book contains many errors (not
> "deliberate lies") that you think were Connally's. I don't agree with
> you. End of story.
hint of justification for this accusation?
Your reasoning is that because the book contained errors that were totally
consistent with the recollections of a dying man, that this is *proof*
that the writer is a liar who made up stories out of whole cloth, without
Connally's approval???
Wow!!
Jean, I cannot think of even the craziest conspiracy buff who made an
accusation that was more ridiculous and unsupportable.
>
> >
> > Most people are pretty fanatical about their biographies. This is their
> > legacy, which will remain long after they are dead. It's understandable
> > that Connally would make a few honest errors. He was not an enthusiast.
> > But it makes no sense that he would make up lies or permit a writer to
> > make them up for him.
> >
> > That's a really nasty accusation and you don't have shred of evidence to
> > support it
> >
> >
> >
> > > > And for what? It didn't make him look heroic. There is absolutely no
> > > > reason on Earth to believe that a ghostwriter made this up or that
> > > > Connally lied, except for your rather desperate need to make this go
> > > > away.
> >
> > > landlord complained about the rifle in his garage? ?Sounds to me more
> > > like a writer who misread something when he was doing research in a
> > > hurry.
> >
> > Yes, Connally made mistakes.
>
> Or Hershowitz made mistakes.
Jean, I am not at all familiar with this guy. Does he have a sordid
> > > hurry.
> >
> > Yes, Connally made mistakes.
>
> Or Hershowitz made mistakes.
reputation? Has he been nailed for plagiarism or for false citations or
sources?
Ok, I just googled Hershowitz. Correct me if I'm wrong but this guy is at
the very top of his profession. He's written for Dan Rather, George W Bush
and Howard Cosell - and probably a lot of others, but I'm too lazy to go
look them all up.
How do you become the ghost writer for the POTUS if you are a chronic
liar, Jean??
Your accusation is reckless and totally without justification. I would say
a lot more about it if this wasn't a moderated forum.
>
> >
> > What in holy hell does that have to do with your accusation that he
> > permitted a writer to make up deliberate lies about what happened to him
> > at Parkland?
> >
> > There is no logical connection between the two statements.
> >
> >
> > > > And why aren't you interested in the corroborations by the other
> > > > witnesses
> > > > I cited??
> >
> > > made my comments on him disappear.
> >
> > I did not delete your comment, the mods did. And your reply was NWR.
>
> Forgive me, but IMO this whole theory is NWR.
> It's ironic that
> you've started a thread about someone's "evasions" in which you've
> "evaded" some things yourself. But never mind...
No Jean, I prefer to "mind".
> >
> > I did not delete your comment, the mods did. And your reply was NWR.
>
> Forgive me, but IMO this whole theory is NWR.
> It's ironic that
> you've started a thread about someone's "evasions" in which you've
> "evaded" some things yourself. But never mind...
Tell us about my evasions.
>
> > The fact that Stinson did not happen to use the word "gurney", like
> > Connally, Wade and Nolan did, is just not relevant to anything.
> >
> > Of course he assumed that the bullet that this nurse brought out right
> > after the surgery, was recovered during surgery. That presumption was
> > quite natural. If Wade had been pinned down, he probably would have said
> > that he assumed the same thing. The "gurney" statement doesn't make much
> > sense, without knowing what Connally explained in his book.
> >
> > This is NOT proof that witnesses are unreliable. It is proof that they
> > form conclusions which seem reasonable, based on the circumstances.
> >
> > But why do you ONLY talk about the one witness who was wrong about an
> > issue unrelated to the gist of all this??
>
> I've talked about the other witnesses, Robert, you just have a
> short memory for these things. We discuss and discuss with you, and later
> it's as though it never happened.
and you later denied that you said that.
So, what is your claim today?
>
> >
> > Why is it more important to you that one witness didn't happen to mention
> > the "gurney", than that three witnesses did?
>
> The evidence on this is weak -- secondhand, or comments made
> years later, when memories are unreliable.
First of all, when memories fail, one forgets things - he doesn't
fabricate new ones. Nolan for example, didn't remember that the nurse said
anything about the "thigh". But she obviously did, since that was in the
FBI on him, and Stinson also said the bullet came from the thigh.
That much was confirmed in 1963 and 1967.
And as I'm sure you recall, the DPD originally documented Nolan's envelope
as containing a single object. That's a strange thing to do, when the
envelope was labeled "bullet fragments", eh?
And the plastic container in Bell's envelope contained fragments that were
tiny but were certainly, visible. How could anyone look at that and then
label is as a single fragment?
That's why the FBI lied when they claimed that Bell told them her envelope
contained a single fragment from the wrist. At that time, they needed to
make Nolan's envelope go away.
>
> >
> > It is not likely that anyone just guessed that the bullet was recovered
> > from a "gurney". That could only have come from that nurse. And that
> > nurse, could not have been Audrey Bell.
>
> So you say. IMO, a theory has to have good evidence to support
> it and has to make sense. It makes no sense to me that the feds would
> toss out a bullet found on Connally's gurney and substitute a bullet from
> a different stretcher downstairs,
Jean, we have discussed this stuff enough, that I have a hard time
believing that you don't know what I've been saying.
I believe they took the stretcher bullet back to their labs and discovered
that it wasn't a match with Oswald's rifle. So, at some point in time,
they fired a bullet from his rifle, into a barrel of water or cotton
wading, and that was CE399.
That's why the bullet was relatively undamaged and why it contained no
blood or tissue. That's also why no one would verify it and why Wright was
adamant that it was shaped much differently from the stretcher bullet.
That solved that problem.
The Connally bullet was taken care of by making it appear that it was
actually the wrist fragments that Bell gave to the FBI.
) instead of the other way around, which
> would've been much simpler and less likely to fall apart. I just don't
> see a plausible scenario there.
Have you even bothered to read the article, Jean? If you did, you would.
> see a plausible scenario there.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Why did the nurse tell them, essentially the same thing that Connally
> > > > told
> > > > us?
> >
> > > record. ?Big whoop.
> >
> > Jean, there is a thing in science, called proof by prediction (or
> > something like that). If a Einstein was right, then particles accelerated
> > to nearly the speed of light, will gain mass. Since they do exactly that,
> > we know that Albert had it right.
> >
> > If Nolan, Connally, Wade and Stinson were correct, then a nurse other than
> > Bell was the one who gave her envelope to Nolan. Therefore, we can predict
> > that Bell would deny giving her envelope to Nolan.
> >
> > And of course, that is exactly what she did.
>
> NWR. <g>
Uh huh.
> > Jean, there is a thing in science, called proof by prediction (or
> > something like that). If a Einstein was right, then particles accelerated
> > to nearly the speed of light, will gain mass. Since they do exactly that,
> > we know that Albert had it right.
> >
> > If Nolan, Connally, Wade and Stinson were correct, then a nurse other than
> > Bell was the one who gave her envelope to Nolan. Therefore, we can predict
> > that Bell would deny giving her envelope to Nolan.
> >
> > And of course, that is exactly what she did.
>
> NWR. <g>
I will take your silence as a compliment:-)
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Dec 14, 2011, 9:10:08 AM12/14/11
to
You need to get out into the real world some day and see how things
really work.
Jean Davison
Dec 14, 2011, 9:12:17 AM12/14/11
to
> <737c1854-db87-409c-b693-f4b8b78ff...@l29g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
question because witness memories often change as time passes. I've found
the DMN article, and sure enough, several of Wade's '93 statements
contradict his earlier testimony. (This is why LNers don't give these
later statements much weight.)
Originally Wade said that he never questioned Oswald. He said
this on 11/24/63, for instance: "I didn't do any interrogation of him."
In his testimony he said that the only time he saw Oswald was at
the Friday night press conference: "I never did see Oswald except in that
lineup downstairs," and, "...all I know [about the evidence] is what Fritz
told me."
Thirty years later, it was a different story.
QUOTE:
WADE: .... I went into homicide
and talked to Oswald for five or 10 minutes. He wouldn't say anything
other than `I want a lawyer" and `police brutality." He had a cut on his
eye that happened at the time of his arrest in that theater.
[....]
Q: During that brief time you were in on the interrogation, who was
interviewing him and what did he say?
A: ( Dallas Police) Capt. (Will) Fritz was there, and somebody from the FBI
was there, and somebody from the Secret Service. They'd been talking to
him for four or five hours. I asked him several questions, and the only
thing he would say was `police brutality" and `I want my lawyer" and named
him, in New York City . The cameras at that time had big lights on them,
and they were flashing lights through the glass doors trying to get a
picture of Oswald. I said why don't you put him in a lineup and let the
press look at him, cause he was charging police brutality. They supposedly
had checked the credentials of all the press that went in there. We had
filed on him for the murder of Tippit about 7, but it was about 11 before
we filed on him on the other one. They did that; they put him in a lineup
downstairs, when they looked at it and saw it was not a serious wound.
UNQUOTE
Wade apparently merged seeing Oswald at the press conference with
things he'd heard about the interrogation. That kind of confusion is not
unusual. Please see this page that talks about many similar false memories:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm
Also, Wade said above that putting Oswald in a "lineup" before the
press was his idea. In his testimony, he insisted that he had nothing to do
with it:
QUOTE
Mr. RANKIN. Did they ask you whether they should do this?
Mr. WADE. I don't think I said yea or nay to the thing so far as I know...
UNQUOTE
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm
There were other changes, as well, that I won't get into here.
If Wade had given his statement about a nurse with a bullet in
1963, I might pay attention, but in 1993? No.
The 1993 DMN article is posted here:
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/john_connally.htm
Wade's WC testimony:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/wade.htm
Wade's 11/24/63 press conference:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0420b.htm
Jean
> Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Robert Harris wrote:
> > > Wade said she was holding the bullet in her hand when she told him it
> > > came
> > > from Connally's gurney.
>
> > I've never seen the context of Wade's statement or the date
> > he made it.
>
> You haven't even bothered to read the article??? This is from an interview
> with the Dallas Morning News, November 1993.
>
> "I also went out to see 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. "
>
> You really ought to read that article, Jean.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Your article doesn't give the date or the context. I asked this
Robert Harris wrote:
> > > Wade said she was holding the bullet in her hand when she told him it
> > > came
> > > from Connally's gurney.
>
> > I've never seen the context of Wade's statement or the date
> > he made it.
>
> You haven't even bothered to read the article??? This is from an interview
> with the Dallas Morning News, November 1993.
>
> "I also went out to see 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. "
>
> You really ought to read that article, Jean.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
question because witness memories often change as time passes. I've found
the DMN article, and sure enough, several of Wade's '93 statements
contradict his earlier testimony. (This is why LNers don't give these
later statements much weight.)
Originally Wade said that he never questioned Oswald. He said
this on 11/24/63, for instance: "I didn't do any interrogation of him."
In his testimony he said that the only time he saw Oswald was at
the Friday night press conference: "I never did see Oswald except in that
lineup downstairs," and, "...all I know [about the evidence] is what Fritz
told me."
Thirty years later, it was a different story.
QUOTE:
WADE: .... I went into homicide
and talked to Oswald for five or 10 minutes. He wouldn't say anything
other than `I want a lawyer" and `police brutality." He had a cut on his
eye that happened at the time of his arrest in that theater.
[....]
Q: During that brief time you were in on the interrogation, who was
interviewing him and what did he say?
A: ( Dallas Police) Capt. (Will) Fritz was there, and somebody from the FBI
was there, and somebody from the Secret Service. They'd been talking to
him for four or five hours. I asked him several questions, and the only
thing he would say was `police brutality" and `I want my lawyer" and named
him, in New York City . The cameras at that time had big lights on them,
and they were flashing lights through the glass doors trying to get a
picture of Oswald. I said why don't you put him in a lineup and let the
press look at him, cause he was charging police brutality. They supposedly
had checked the credentials of all the press that went in there. We had
filed on him for the murder of Tippit about 7, but it was about 11 before
we filed on him on the other one. They did that; they put him in a lineup
downstairs, when they looked at it and saw it was not a serious wound.
UNQUOTE
Wade apparently merged seeing Oswald at the press conference with
things he'd heard about the interrogation. That kind of confusion is not
unusual. Please see this page that talks about many similar false memories:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm
Also, Wade said above that putting Oswald in a "lineup" before the
press was his idea. In his testimony, he insisted that he had nothing to do
with it:
QUOTE
Mr. RANKIN. Did they ask you whether they should do this?
Mr. WADE. I don't think I said yea or nay to the thing so far as I know...
UNQUOTE
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm
There were other changes, as well, that I won't get into here.
If Wade had given his statement about a nurse with a bullet in
1963, I might pay attention, but in 1993? No.
The 1993 DMN article is posted here:
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/john_connally.htm
Wade's WC testimony:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/wade.htm
Wade's 11/24/63 press conference:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0420b.htm
Jean
Bud
Dec 14, 2011, 9:12:53 AM12/14/11
to
> <db4ab163-10c6-447e-86eb-d4ecf8fcb...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
too silly to entertain, and wants to replace it with an idea a
hundredfold more ludicrous. How many people does your ideas require to
have information harmful to the WC`s findings keeping quiet about this
information? Hundreds? Thousands? If your ideas were valid there would
be people coming forward weekly with information they know or heard,
and everything would unravel very easily. The only real reason to
explain why this hasn`t occurred is because your ideas just aren`t
valid.
> > If the word "bullet" was used
> > to describe the fragments, it's exactly the same type of semantics
> > error that was made by Sibert & O'Neill in their FBI report concerning
> > the supposed "missile" that they saw during JFK's autopsy. But Sibert
> > later admitted that "No large bullet of any kind...was found" during
> > the President's autopsy.
>
> Yes David - lots of stories got changed in those days - especially when
> FBI agents were involved.
Why would so many people who were coerced keep quiet about it for
life? Isn`t this impossible?
> Admiral Osborne who held that bullet in his hand, never changed his story
> though, did he? What is your excuse for his sworn testimony? Drugs?
> Hallucinations?
>
> > (That's a verbatim quote from James Sibert on
> > June 30, 2005; listen to him say it at the link below. And yes, I know
> > I changed the subject a bit there, but only to demonstrate how easily
> > that SAME type of "bullet"/"fragment" mistake can occur, and DID occur
> > elsewhere in the very same murder investigation.)
>
> > Sibert Interview:
> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert....
> David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "And when will you be up for talking about Wade, Nolan, Stinson and
> > >>> Bell?" <<<
>
> > #1 (Wade) -- He never saw a WHOLE BULLET at the hospital, and you know
> > it, Bob.
>
> I didn't know that David. I don't think Wade, Nolan, Stinson, Connally
> or the nurse knew it either:-)
>
> > He was talking about FRAGMENTS.
>
> Well that certainly is strange. Do you suppose he didn't know the
> difference between a fragment and a bullet? It's a bit scary to think that
> District Attorney would call a fragment a whole bullet, don't you think?
Behold the conspiracy oriented mind at work. He finds one idea as
>
> > >>> "And when will you be up for talking about Wade, Nolan, Stinson and
> > >>> Bell?" <<<
>
> > #1 (Wade) -- He never saw a WHOLE BULLET at the hospital, and you know
> > it, Bob.
>
> I didn't know that David. I don't think Wade, Nolan, Stinson, Connally
> or the nurse knew it either:-)
>
> > He was talking about FRAGMENTS.
>
> Well that certainly is strange. Do you suppose he didn't know the
> difference between a fragment and a bullet? It's a bit scary to think that
> District Attorney would call a fragment a whole bullet, don't you think?
too silly to entertain, and wants to replace it with an idea a
hundredfold more ludicrous. How many people does your ideas require to
have information harmful to the WC`s findings keeping quiet about this
information? Hundreds? Thousands? If your ideas were valid there would
be people coming forward weekly with information they know or heard,
and everything would unravel very easily. The only real reason to
explain why this hasn`t occurred is because your ideas just aren`t
valid.
> > If the word "bullet" was used
> > to describe the fragments, it's exactly the same type of semantics
> > error that was made by Sibert & O'Neill in their FBI report concerning
> > the supposed "missile" that they saw during JFK's autopsy. But Sibert
> > later admitted that "No large bullet of any kind...was found" during
> > the President's autopsy.
>
> Yes David - lots of stories got changed in those days - especially when
> FBI agents were involved.
life? Isn`t this impossible?
> Admiral Osborne who held that bullet in his hand, never changed his story
> though, did he? What is your excuse for his sworn testimony? Drugs?
> Hallucinations?
>
> > (That's a verbatim quote from James Sibert on
> > June 30, 2005; listen to him say it at the link below. And yes, I know
> > I changed the subject a bit there, but only to demonstrate how easily
> > that SAME type of "bullet"/"fragment" mistake can occur, and DID occur
> > elsewhere in the very same murder investigation.)
>
> > Sibert Interview:
Jean Davison
Dec 14, 2011, 9:13:51 AM12/14/11
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
> <6f96f54a-bfa3-4dbb-ae2b-5a4e25f13...@q9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Of course I do. The book's claim that Connally knew about
an "extra" bullet directly contradicts his sworn testimony.
>
> Your reasoning is that because the book contained errors that were totally
> consistent with the recollections of a dying man, that this is *proof*
> that the writer is a liar who made up stories out of whole cloth, without
> Connally's approval???
>
> Wow!!
Don't put words in my mouth. I haven't claimed I have proof,
nor have I ever called the writer a liar. That's YOUR spin.
There are undoubtedly errors in this book. Do you know of any
JFK book that has no errors, Robert? I don't.
>
> Jean, I cannot think of even the craziest conspiracy buff who made an
> accusation that was more ridiculous and unsupportable.
Right back at ya, bub!
>
>
>
> > > Most people are pretty fanatical about their biographies. This is their
> > > legacy, which will remain long after they are dead. It's understandable
> > > that Connally would make a few honest errors. He was not an enthusiast.
> > > But it makes no sense that he would make up lies or permit a writer to
> > > make them up for him.
>
> > > That's a really nasty accusation and you don't have shred of evidence to
> > > support it
>
> Well, at least we got that settled.
See above.
>
>
>
> > > > > And for what? It didn't make him look heroic. There is absolutely no
> > > > > reason on Earth to believe that a ghostwriter made this up or that
> > > > > Connally lied, except for your rather desperate need to make this go
> > > > > away.
>
> > > > ? ? ? ? ? So you think Connally actually believed that, e.g., Oswald's
> > > > landlord complained about the rifle in his garage? ?Sounds to me more
> > > > like a writer who misread something when he was doing research in a
> > > > hurry.
>
> > > Yes, Connally made mistakes.
>
> > Or Hershowitz made mistakes.
>
> Jean, I am not at all familiar with this guy. Does he have a sordid
> reputation? Has he been nailed for plagiarism or for false citations or
> sources?
No, but he's been cited for errors, and not just by me.
I'll remind you of that below.
>
> Ok, I just googled Hershowitz. Correct me if I'm wrong but this guy is at
> the very top of his profession. He's written for Dan Rather, George W Bush
> and Howard Cosell - and probably a lot of others, but I'm too lazy to go
> look them all up.
>
> How do you become the ghost writer for the POTUS if you are a chronic
> liar, Jean??
Do you understand the word E-R-R-O-R, sir? Do you think it's
a synonym for L-I-E? Need a dictionary?
>
> Your accusation is reckless and totally without justification. I would say
> a lot more about it if this wasn't a moderated forum.
Really? Do tell.
>
>
>
> > > What in holy hell does that have to do with your accusation that he
> > > permitted a writer to make up deliberate lies about what happened to him
> > > at Parkland?
The only person recklessly calling someone a liar is... guess
who.... YOU. You are claiming Connally lied under oath, are you
not?
>
> > > There is no logical connection between the two statements.
>
> > > > > And why aren't you interested in the corroborations by the other
> > > > > witnesses
> > > > > I cited??
>
> > > > ? ? ? ? ? Yeah, what about your witness Stinson? ?You seem to have
> > > > made my comments on him disappear.
>
> > > I did not delete your comment, the mods did. And your reply was NWR.
>
> > Forgive me, but IMO this whole theory is NWR.
> > It's ironic that
> > you've started a thread about someone's "evasions" in which you've
> > "evaded" some things yourself. But never mind...
>
> No Jean, I prefer to "mind".
>
> Tell us about my evasions.
>
Sure, here's what I wrote in an earlier post -- you ignored
it:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Connally couldn't have signed Oswald's discharge because he
wasn't Secretary of the Navy when it was issued in August 1960.
Actually, I don't think *any* Secretary of the Navy signed it:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=104...
Do you think Nellie made this error? I don't. I doubt she
knew or gave a flip what kind of discharge Oswald got or who signed
it.
++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> > > The fact that Stinson did not happen to use the word "gurney", like
> > > Connally, Wade and Nolan did, is just not relevant to anything.
>
> > > Of course he assumed that the bullet that this nurse brought out right
> > > after the surgery, was recovered during surgery. That presumption was
> > > quite natural. If Wade had been pinned down, he probably would have said
> > > that he assumed the same thing. The "gurney" statement doesn't make much
> > > sense, without knowing what Connally explained in his book.
>
> > > This is NOT proof that witnesses are unreliable. It is proof that they
> > > form conclusions which seem reasonable, based on the circumstances.
>
> > > But why do you ONLY talk about the one witness who was wrong about an
> > > issue unrelated to the gist of all this??
>
> > I've talked about the other witnesses, Robert, you just have a
> > short memory for these things. We discuss and discuss with you, and later
> > it's as though it never happened.
>
> Then refresh my memory Jean. You previously said they were delusional
> and you later denied that you said that.
>
> So, what is your claim today?
I've never said these witnesses were "delusional." That was
YOUR word, not mine.
>
>
>
> > > Why is it more important to you that one witness didn't happen to mention
> > > the "gurney", than that three witnesses did?
>
> > The evidence on this is weak -- secondhand, or comments made
> > years later, when memories are unreliable.
>
> Jean, you and your buds have worn this one out, long ago.
>
> First of all, when memories fail, one forgets things - he doesn't
> fabricate new ones.
You could not be more wrong. Memories change, Robert.
Didn't you read that article I posted about memories of the Challenger
disaster? (Apparently not.) Do a Google search on false memories,
for pete's sake.
>Nolan for example, didn't remember that the nurse said
> anything about the "thigh". But she obviously did, since that was in the
> FBI on him, and Stinson also said the bullet came from the thigh.
>
> That much was confirmed in 1963 and 1967.
>
> And as I'm sure you recall, the DPD originally documented Nolan's envelope
> as containing a single object. That's a strange thing to do, when the
> envelope was labeled "bullet fragments", eh?
Not at all. The autopsy brain fragments were labeled a
"missile," remember?
>
> And the plastic container in Bell's envelope contained fragments that were
> tiny but were certainly, visible. How could anyone look at that and then
> label is as a single fragment?
Why were the two brain fragments called a single missile?
Human error.
>
> That's why the FBI lied when they claimed that Bell told them her envelope
> contained a single fragment from the wrist. At that time, they needed to
> make Nolan's envelope go away.
So you claim.
>
>
>
> > > It is not likely that anyone just guessed that the bullet was recovered
> > > from a "gurney". That could only have come from that nurse. And that
> > > nurse, could not have been Audrey Bell.
>
> > So you say. IMO, a theory has to have good evidence to support
> > it and has to make sense. It makes no sense to me that the feds would
> > toss out a bullet found on Connally's gurney and substitute a bullet from
> > a different stretcher downstairs,
>
> That doesn't make any sense to me either.
>
> Jean, we have discussed this stuff enough, that I have a hard time
> believing that you don't know what I've been saying.
>
> I believe they took the stretcher bullet back to their labs and discovered
> that it wasn't a match with Oswald's rifle. So, at some point in time,
> they fired a bullet from his rifle, into a barrel of water or cotton
> wading, and that was CE399.
Yes, I understand that. My point is, why would anyone claim
that Tomlinson's bullet was CE399 and throw out the bullet that
(according to you) actually came from Connally's gurney? They
could've written off the Tomlinson one as totally unrelated to the
case. Much, much simpler.
>
> That's why the bullet was relatively undamaged and why it contained no
> blood or tissue. That's also why no one would verify it and why Wright was
> adamant that it was shaped much differently from the stretcher bullet.
CE399 contained no *obvious* blood or tissue, according to
the FBI's Frazier. It would've been a miracle if it did have any
observable blood or tissue on it, after having been handled by five
people and having been carried around in several coat pockets and even
having a note attached to it by agent Johnsen. No surprise it looked
clean after all that, imo.
Wright was adamant because after three years, his memory
had changed. If you don't think that can happen, please research
it.
>
> That solved that problem.
>
> The Connally bullet was taken care of by making it appear that it was
> actually the wrist fragments that Bell gave to the FBI.
No need to do that. SImply report that there were fragments
from Bell and a bullet from another nurse during a different operation
(wrist, thigh).
>
> ) instead of the other way around, which
>
> > would've been much simpler and less likely to fall apart. I just don't
> > see a plausible scenario there.
>
> Have you even bothered to read the article, Jean? If you did, you would.
>
>
>
> > > > > Why did the nurse tell them, essentially the same thing that Connally
> > > > > told
> > > > > us?
>
> > > > ? ? ? ? Many years later her memory disagreed with the contemporary
> > > > record. ?Big whoop.
>
> > > Jean, there is a thing in science, called proof by prediction (or
> > > something like that). If a Einstein was right, then particles accelerated
> > > to nearly the speed of light, will gain mass. Since they do exactly that,
> > > we know that Albert had it right.
>
> > > If Nolan, Connally, Wade and Stinson were correct, then a nurse other than
> > > Bell was the one who gave her envelope to Nolan. Therefore, we can predict
> > > that Bell would deny giving her envelope to Nolan.
>
> > > And of course, that is exactly what she did.
>
> > NWR. <g>
>
> Uh huh.
>
> I will take your silence as a compliment:-)
Sorry, wrong again. :-)
Jean
>
> Robert Harris
an "extra" bullet directly contradicts his sworn testimony.
>
> Your reasoning is that because the book contained errors that were totally
> consistent with the recollections of a dying man, that this is *proof*
> that the writer is a liar who made up stories out of whole cloth, without
> Connally's approval???
>
> Wow!!
nor have I ever called the writer a liar. That's YOUR spin.
There are undoubtedly errors in this book. Do you know of any
JFK book that has no errors, Robert? I don't.
>
> Jean, I cannot think of even the craziest conspiracy buff who made an
> accusation that was more ridiculous and unsupportable.
>
>
>
> > > Most people are pretty fanatical about their biographies. This is their
> > > legacy, which will remain long after they are dead. It's understandable
> > > that Connally would make a few honest errors. He was not an enthusiast.
> > > But it makes no sense that he would make up lies or permit a writer to
> > > make them up for him.
>
> > > That's a really nasty accusation and you don't have shred of evidence to
> > > support it
>
> Well, at least we got that settled.
>
>
>
> > > > > And for what? It didn't make him look heroic. There is absolutely no
> > > > > reason on Earth to believe that a ghostwriter made this up or that
> > > > > Connally lied, except for your rather desperate need to make this go
> > > > > away.
>
> > > > ? ? ? ? ? So you think Connally actually believed that, e.g., Oswald's
> > > > landlord complained about the rifle in his garage? ?Sounds to me more
> > > > like a writer who misread something when he was doing research in a
> > > > hurry.
>
> > > Yes, Connally made mistakes.
>
> > Or Hershowitz made mistakes.
>
> Jean, I am not at all familiar with this guy. Does he have a sordid
> reputation? Has he been nailed for plagiarism or for false citations or
> sources?
I'll remind you of that below.
>
> Ok, I just googled Hershowitz. Correct me if I'm wrong but this guy is at
> the very top of his profession. He's written for Dan Rather, George W Bush
> and Howard Cosell - and probably a lot of others, but I'm too lazy to go
> look them all up.
>
> How do you become the ghost writer for the POTUS if you are a chronic
> liar, Jean??
a synonym for L-I-E? Need a dictionary?
>
> Your accusation is reckless and totally without justification. I would say
> a lot more about it if this wasn't a moderated forum.
>
>
>
> > > What in holy hell does that have to do with your accusation that he
> > > permitted a writer to make up deliberate lies about what happened to him
> > > at Parkland?
who.... YOU. You are claiming Connally lied under oath, are you
not?
>
> > > There is no logical connection between the two statements.
>
> > > > > And why aren't you interested in the corroborations by the other
> > > > > witnesses
> > > > > I cited??
>
> > > > ? ? ? ? ? Yeah, what about your witness Stinson? ?You seem to have
> > > > made my comments on him disappear.
>
> > > I did not delete your comment, the mods did. And your reply was NWR.
>
> > Forgive me, but IMO this whole theory is NWR.
> > It's ironic that
> > you've started a thread about someone's "evasions" in which you've
> > "evaded" some things yourself. But never mind...
>
> No Jean, I prefer to "mind".
>
> Tell us about my evasions.
>
it:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The writer, Mickey Hershowitz, also wrote a book with
Nellie Connally. A reviewer at Amazon said:
QUOTE:
More disappointing than its brevity are the blatant factual errors
that appear in the book. Mrs. Connally's ghostwriter, her editor(s),
and her fact checkers have let her down. [....]
Near the end of Chapter 6, the book states "After three years in the
service [Oswald ...] had been court-martialed twice and, eventually,
received a dishonorable discharge, signed by President Kennedy's
Secretary of the Navy, John B. Connally." [....]
In fact, Oswald never received a dishonorable discharge. He received
an early dependency discharge in September of 1959 and an undesirable
discharge in 1960. Connally could not have been involved with either
of these events.
UNQUOTE
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Field-Final-President-Kennedy/product-revi...
Nellie Connally. A reviewer at Amazon said:
QUOTE:
More disappointing than its brevity are the blatant factual errors
that appear in the book. Mrs. Connally's ghostwriter, her editor(s),
and her fact checkers have let her down. [....]
Near the end of Chapter 6, the book states "After three years in the
service [Oswald ...] had been court-martialed twice and, eventually,
received a dishonorable discharge, signed by President Kennedy's
Secretary of the Navy, John B. Connally." [....]
In fact, Oswald never received a dishonorable discharge. He received
an early dependency discharge in September of 1959 and an undesirable
discharge in 1960. Connally could not have been involved with either
of these events.
UNQUOTE
Connally couldn't have signed Oswald's discharge because he
wasn't Secretary of the Navy when it was issued in August 1960.
Actually, I don't think *any* Secretary of the Navy signed it:
Do you think Nellie made this error? I don't. I doubt she
knew or gave a flip what kind of discharge Oswald got or who signed
it.
>
>
> > > The fact that Stinson did not happen to use the word "gurney", like
> > > Connally, Wade and Nolan did, is just not relevant to anything.
>
> > > Of course he assumed that the bullet that this nurse brought out right
> > > after the surgery, was recovered during surgery. That presumption was
> > > quite natural. If Wade had been pinned down, he probably would have said
> > > that he assumed the same thing. The "gurney" statement doesn't make much
> > > sense, without knowing what Connally explained in his book.
>
> > > This is NOT proof that witnesses are unreliable. It is proof that they
> > > form conclusions which seem reasonable, based on the circumstances.
>
> > > But why do you ONLY talk about the one witness who was wrong about an
> > > issue unrelated to the gist of all this??
>
> > I've talked about the other witnesses, Robert, you just have a
> > short memory for these things. We discuss and discuss with you, and later
> > it's as though it never happened.
>
> Then refresh my memory Jean. You previously said they were delusional
> and you later denied that you said that.
>
> So, what is your claim today?
YOUR word, not mine.
>
>
>
> > > Why is it more important to you that one witness didn't happen to mention
> > > the "gurney", than that three witnesses did?
>
> > The evidence on this is weak -- secondhand, or comments made
> > years later, when memories are unreliable.
>
> Jean, you and your buds have worn this one out, long ago.
>
> First of all, when memories fail, one forgets things - he doesn't
> fabricate new ones.
Didn't you read that article I posted about memories of the Challenger
disaster? (Apparently not.) Do a Google search on false memories,
for pete's sake.
>Nolan for example, didn't remember that the nurse said
> anything about the "thigh". But she obviously did, since that was in the
> FBI on him, and Stinson also said the bullet came from the thigh.
>
> That much was confirmed in 1963 and 1967.
>
> And as I'm sure you recall, the DPD originally documented Nolan's envelope
> as containing a single object. That's a strange thing to do, when the
> envelope was labeled "bullet fragments", eh?
"missile," remember?
>
> And the plastic container in Bell's envelope contained fragments that were
> tiny but were certainly, visible. How could anyone look at that and then
> label is as a single fragment?
Human error.
>
> That's why the FBI lied when they claimed that Bell told them her envelope
> contained a single fragment from the wrist. At that time, they needed to
> make Nolan's envelope go away.
>
>
>
> > > It is not likely that anyone just guessed that the bullet was recovered
> > > from a "gurney". That could only have come from that nurse. And that
> > > nurse, could not have been Audrey Bell.
>
> > So you say. IMO, a theory has to have good evidence to support
> > it and has to make sense. It makes no sense to me that the feds would
> > toss out a bullet found on Connally's gurney and substitute a bullet from
> > a different stretcher downstairs,
>
> That doesn't make any sense to me either.
>
> Jean, we have discussed this stuff enough, that I have a hard time
> believing that you don't know what I've been saying.
>
> I believe they took the stretcher bullet back to their labs and discovered
> that it wasn't a match with Oswald's rifle. So, at some point in time,
> they fired a bullet from his rifle, into a barrel of water or cotton
> wading, and that was CE399.
that Tomlinson's bullet was CE399 and throw out the bullet that
(according to you) actually came from Connally's gurney? They
could've written off the Tomlinson one as totally unrelated to the
case. Much, much simpler.
>
> That's why the bullet was relatively undamaged and why it contained no
> blood or tissue. That's also why no one would verify it and why Wright was
> adamant that it was shaped much differently from the stretcher bullet.
the FBI's Frazier. It would've been a miracle if it did have any
observable blood or tissue on it, after having been handled by five
people and having been carried around in several coat pockets and even
having a note attached to it by agent Johnsen. No surprise it looked
clean after all that, imo.
Wright was adamant because after three years, his memory
had changed. If you don't think that can happen, please research
it.
>
> That solved that problem.
>
> The Connally bullet was taken care of by making it appear that it was
> actually the wrist fragments that Bell gave to the FBI.
from Bell and a bullet from another nurse during a different operation
(wrist, thigh).
>
> ) instead of the other way around, which
>
> > would've been much simpler and less likely to fall apart. I just don't
> > see a plausible scenario there.
>
> Have you even bothered to read the article, Jean? If you did, you would.
>
>
>
> > > > > Why did the nurse tell them, essentially the same thing that Connally
> > > > > told
> > > > > us?
>
> > > > ? ? ? ? Many years later her memory disagreed with the contemporary
> > > > record. ?Big whoop.
>
> > > Jean, there is a thing in science, called proof by prediction (or
> > > something like that). If a Einstein was right, then particles accelerated
> > > to nearly the speed of light, will gain mass. Since they do exactly that,
> > > we know that Albert had it right.
>
> > > If Nolan, Connally, Wade and Stinson were correct, then a nurse other than
> > > Bell was the one who gave her envelope to Nolan. Therefore, we can predict
> > > that Bell would deny giving her envelope to Nolan.
>
> > > And of course, that is exactly what she did.
>
> > NWR. <g>
>
> Uh huh.
>
> I will take your silence as a compliment:-)
Jean
>
> Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Dec 14, 2011, 10:28:39 PM12/14/11
to
Another key point regarding John Connally:
If Connally had really seen a bullet fall from his body to the floor
in the Parkland operating room, then why in the world wouldn't he have
SAID SO in the many interviews that he gave after the assassination?
That "extra bullet" information would have been a particularly
powerful weapon for Connally to use in his post-1963 interviews since
he was always adamant about the SBT being untrue.
Instead, we have to wait until after his death in 1993 to find out
that Connally saw a bullet?
That doesn't make much sense.
David Von Pein
Dec 16, 2011, 10:37:34 PM12/16/11
to
Bump...
Robert Harris
Dec 17, 2011, 10:26:20 PM12/17/11
to
I'm sorry Jean, but since John has censored my attempt to suggest that we
contact Hershowitz to get his opinion on whether he made up that story, it
seems pretty obvious that he isn't going to allow us to have much of a
discussion.
And your denial that you called him a liar, after claiming that he
fabricated the story about the nurse retrieving the bullet, also suggests
that we can't have a very meaningful discussion.
For that reason, I've decided to move on to other issues. Please feel free
to have the last word.
Robert Harris
contact Hershowitz to get his opinion on whether he made up that story, it
seems pretty obvious that he isn't going to allow us to have much of a
discussion.
And your denial that you called him a liar, after claiming that he
fabricated the story about the nurse retrieving the bullet, also suggests
that we can't have a very meaningful discussion.
For that reason, I've decided to move on to other issues. Please feel free
to have the last word.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Dec 17, 2011, 10:27:49 PM12/17/11
to
In article
<315fa6e0-9062-4b4d...@o1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 9:57?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <db4ab163-10c6-447e-86eb-d4ecf8fcb...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
you cannot address your adversaries respectfully and stick with facts and
evidence, your messages are just NWR.
You might also want to lose these ambiguous generalizations and get
specific. Instead of these endless, unsupported assertions that my
arguments are terrible, why don't you PROVE how bad they are?
Robert Harris
<315fa6e0-9062-4b4d...@o1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 9:57?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <db4ab163-10c6-447e-86eb-d4ecf8fcb...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> > ?David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >>> "And when will you be up for talking about Wade, Nolan, Stinson and
> > > >>> Bell?" <<<
> >
> > > #1 (Wade) -- He never saw a WHOLE BULLET at the hospital, and you know
> > > it, Bob.
> >
> > I didn't know that David. I don't think Wade, Nolan, Stinson, Connally
> > or the nurse knew it either:-)
> >
> > > He was talking about FRAGMENTS.
> >
> > Well that certainly is strange. Do you suppose he didn't know the
> > difference between a fragment and a bullet? It's a bit scary to think that
> > District Attorney would call a fragment a whole bullet, don't you think?
>
> Behold the conspiracy oriented mind at work. He finds one idea as
> too silly to entertain, and wants to replace it with an idea a
> hundredfold more ludicrous.
Sorry Bud. You need to take the insults and trashtalk back to A.C.J. If
> >
> > > >>> "And when will you be up for talking about Wade, Nolan, Stinson and
> > > >>> Bell?" <<<
> >
> > > #1 (Wade) -- He never saw a WHOLE BULLET at the hospital, and you know
> > > it, Bob.
> >
> > I didn't know that David. I don't think Wade, Nolan, Stinson, Connally
> > or the nurse knew it either:-)
> >
> > > He was talking about FRAGMENTS.
> >
> > Well that certainly is strange. Do you suppose he didn't know the
> > difference between a fragment and a bullet? It's a bit scary to think that
> > District Attorney would call a fragment a whole bullet, don't you think?
>
> Behold the conspiracy oriented mind at work. He finds one idea as
> too silly to entertain, and wants to replace it with an idea a
> hundredfold more ludicrous.
you cannot address your adversaries respectfully and stick with facts and
evidence, your messages are just NWR.
You might also want to lose these ambiguous generalizations and get
specific. Instead of these endless, unsupported assertions that my
arguments are terrible, why don't you PROVE how bad they are?
Robert Harris
Bud
Dec 18, 2011, 8:03:34 AM12/18/11
to
> <315fa6e0-9062-4b4d-9d78-5d88055f8...@o1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
"evasion"? Or why you accused Jean of "embellishments"? Of course to
your mind these insults are deserved, so that makes them ok. Well
guess what, I find your ideas silly and the way you think faulty, so
that makes it ok for me to say these things, regardless of the effect
it has on your suddenly thin skin.
But lets cut to the chase, it wasn`t the insults that made you
dismiss my response, it was the idea I expressed that you had no
answer to. You know, the one one you removed without a snip (are you
going to blame the "mods" again?). Here, I`ll replace the content you
removed so you can duck it again...
"How many people does your ideas require to have information harmful
to the WC`s findings keeping quiet about this information? Hundreds?
Thousands? If your ideas were valid there would be people coming
forward weekly with information they know or heard, and everything
would unravel very easily. The only real reason to explain why this
hasn`t occurred is because your ideas just aren`t valid."
way you think. If the root of the problem is the way you think then
that is where attention needs to be focused, not at your bad ideas.
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 9:57?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <db4ab163-10c6-447e-86eb-d4ecf8fcb...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > ?David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> "And when will you be up for talking about Wade, Nolan, Stinson and
> > > > >>> Bell?" <<<
>
> > > > #1 (Wade) -- He never saw a WHOLE BULLET at the hospital, and you know
> > > > it, Bob.
>
> > > I didn't know that David. I don't think Wade, Nolan, Stinson, Connally
> > > or the nurse knew it either:-)
>
> > > > He was talking about FRAGMENTS.
>
> > > Well that certainly is strange. Do you suppose he didn't know the
> > > difference between a fragment and a bullet? It's a bit scary to think that
> > > District Attorney would call a fragment a whole bullet, don't you think?
>
> > Behold the conspiracy oriented mind at work. He finds one idea as
> > too silly to entertain, and wants to replace it with an idea a
> > hundredfold more ludicrous.
>
> Sorry Bud. You need to take the insults and trashtalk back to A.C.J. If
> you cannot address your adversaries respectfully and stick with facts and
> evidence, your messages are just NWR.
<snicker> Is that why you started this post accusing DVP of
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 9:57?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <db4ab163-10c6-447e-86eb-d4ecf8fcb...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > ?David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> "And when will you be up for talking about Wade, Nolan, Stinson and
> > > > >>> Bell?" <<<
>
> > > > #1 (Wade) -- He never saw a WHOLE BULLET at the hospital, and you know
> > > > it, Bob.
>
> > > I didn't know that David. I don't think Wade, Nolan, Stinson, Connally
> > > or the nurse knew it either:-)
>
> > > > He was talking about FRAGMENTS.
>
> > > Well that certainly is strange. Do you suppose he didn't know the
> > > difference between a fragment and a bullet? It's a bit scary to think that
> > > District Attorney would call a fragment a whole bullet, don't you think?
>
> > Behold the conspiracy oriented mind at work. He finds one idea as
> > too silly to entertain, and wants to replace it with an idea a
> > hundredfold more ludicrous.
>
> Sorry Bud. You need to take the insults and trashtalk back to A.C.J. If
> you cannot address your adversaries respectfully and stick with facts and
> evidence, your messages are just NWR.
"evasion"? Or why you accused Jean of "embellishments"? Of course to
your mind these insults are deserved, so that makes them ok. Well
guess what, I find your ideas silly and the way you think faulty, so
that makes it ok for me to say these things, regardless of the effect
it has on your suddenly thin skin.
But lets cut to the chase, it wasn`t the insults that made you
dismiss my response, it was the idea I expressed that you had no
answer to. You know, the one one you removed without a snip (are you
going to blame the "mods" again?). Here, I`ll replace the content you
removed so you can duck it again...
"How many people does your ideas require to have information harmful
to the WC`s findings keeping quiet about this information? Hundreds?
Thousands? If your ideas were valid there would be people coming
forward weekly with information they know or heard, and everything
would unravel very easily. The only real reason to explain why this
hasn`t occurred is because your ideas just aren`t valid."
> You might also want to lose these ambiguous generalizations and get
> specific. Instead of these endless, unsupported assertions that my
> arguments are terrible, why don't you PROVE how bad they are?
I was pointing out that your bad ideas are a direct result of the
> specific. Instead of these endless, unsupported assertions that my
> arguments are terrible, why don't you PROVE how bad they are?
way you think. If the root of the problem is the way you think then
that is where attention needs to be focused, not at your bad ideas.
> Robert Harris
Jean Davison
Dec 18, 2011, 10:59:16 AM12/18/11
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Dec 17, 9:26 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry Jean, but since John has censored my attempt to suggest that we
> contact Hershowitz to get his opinion on whether he made up that story, it
> seems pretty obvious that he isn't going to allow us to have much of a
> discussion.
I'm sure you could post something that would get past the
> I'm sorry Jean, but since John has censored my attempt to suggest that we
> contact Hershowitz to get his opinion on whether he made up that story, it
> seems pretty obvious that he isn't going to allow us to have much of a
> discussion.
moderators, Robert, but.... whatever.
Actually, I misspelled his name -- it's Herskowitz.
>
> And your denial that you called him a liar, after claiming that he
> fabricated the story about the nurse retrieving the bullet, also suggests
> that we can't have a very meaningful discussion.
reasons? Do you really think that Connally told Herskowitz that Oswald
frequently practiced with his rifle? Or that Nellie told him Connally
signed Oswald's discharge papers?
I don't know where these errors came from, but I'd never
accuse someone of lying without positive evidence that the person knew the
story was not true.
>
> For that reason, I've decided to move on to other issues. Please feel free
> to have the last word.
Jean
0 new messages