A Question for David and Bud and everyone else.

[Robert Harris]

If Audrey Bell had been the nurse that Wade and Nolan
encountered, why would she tell them that the bullet (or
whatever), came from Connally's "gurney"?




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe somebody told her.

>
>
> Robert Harris
>

[Bud]

"gurney" is one of the things that makes your narrative less compelling.
Seems to resonate from Tomlinson`s find.

>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

The "gurney" statement is the clincher.

Bell said her fragments were placed on her desk by a scrub
nurse who had attended Connally's surgery. There is no way
she would have said those fragments came from Connally's
stretcher. This is from her HSCA deposition:

G: Now, you have informed me that certain foreign bodies
were taken from the body of Gov. Connally. Is that correct?

B: Yes.



G: And what is the procedure that was used at the
hospital for the removal and recovery of foreign objects. 


B: On that, ah, the procedure is that the objects were
removed by the surgeon, and either placed in a container

or given to the scrub nurse to place in a container on the
scrub nurse's table. Then they are taken. . . . . . . . 



G: Wait just a minute, would you describe the type of
container that they would be placed in? 


B: A small glass container about one ounce medicine glass.



G: Similar to a size and shape to a shot glass? 


B: That's right. 



G: All right, after the objects are placed into the
container by either the doctor of the scrub nurse, what then
occurs? 


B: On that particular case they were given to me, and I
took them in my office and prepared one of our foreign body
envelopes. . . 



But the bullet that the other nurse recovered, DID fall from
Connally's stretcher, as he was being moved to an operating
table. Connally himself, confirmed that,

"..the most curious discovery of all took place when they
rolled me off the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A
metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a
wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her
pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed
though my back, chest and wrist and worked itself loose from
my thigh."

The bullet fell to the floor from his GURNEY, which is why
she told both Wade and Nolan, that it came from the gurney.

That bullet could not possibly have been CE399. Nor was it
the bullet that Tomlinson found.




Robert Harris

[David Von Pein]

More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
case.

And if a nurse had actually picked up a whole bullet off of the floor
after it fell off Governor Connally's stretcher in the Parkland operating
room, that bullet (IMO) would exist today in the National Archives as a
permanent piece of evidence connected to the events of 11/22/63. But no
such "operating room" bullet exists.

Robert, of course, is free to believe that the FBI (or the DPD) swept a
bullet under the rug if he wants to, but that's a road he can travel
alone.

[bigdog]

Eventually conspiracy hobbyists paint themselves into this corner. They
need an explanation for why the available physical evidence points to
Oswald or why there is no physical evidence of anyone else's involvement.
The answer to both is that those doing the investigating planted the
evidence against Oswald and/or got rid of the physical evidence that
others were involved. Since the physical evidence was gathered an analyzed
by three federal departments (Justice, Treasury, and Defense) and two
local agencies (DPD and the sheriff's department) and two other crime labs
(NYPD and Illinois) gave second opinions about key pieces of evidence,
that requires a lot of collusion. Never mind that one of the federal
departments was headed by the brother of the slain President. Just how
would one go about getting all these ducks in a row? Do you do it ahead of
time? That means a lot of people would have prior knowledge of a plot to
kill the President. The planners would have to know that anyone who balked
at going along with the plan would also probably blow the whistle on the
operation. Or do you wait until after the deed is done and then start
arranging the cover up. How would you know ahead of time that you would
get everyone's cooperation in the cover up. Again, anyone who balked at
joining in the cover up would also likely be a whistle blower too.

[Bud]

That account makes little sense. First because what he related when
questioned. Second, how good a witness is a person who is hurt badly and
likely in shock? Thirdly it is hard to see anywhere in that narrative that
he could have actually seen the bullet.

> The bullet fell to the floor from his GURNEY, which is why
> she told both Wade and Nolan, that it came from the gurney.
>
> That bullet could not possibly have been CE399.

Yet Wade assumed it was. Theres your problem, in seems a case of
conflating different information.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/2/2016 8:47 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
> case.
>
> And if a nurse had actually picked up a whole bullet off of the floor
> after it fell off Governor Connally's stretcher in the Parkland operating
> room, that bullet (IMO) would exist today in the National Archives as a
> permanent piece of evidence connected to the events of 11/22/63. But no
> such "operating room" bullet exists.
>

No, don't be so silly. She would keep it as a souvenir. What happened to
the other cufflink?
Is that in the National Archives? I know that you want to pretend that
the government always does things correctly, but you are not aware of
what happens in the real world.
Compare the drawing of C-2 to what it looks like today and tell me what
happened to it.
The whole story about picking up a bullet (whole or fragment) in the
operating room is bogus. Fiction. Bunk.
It was made up by Connally's ghostwriter.

> Robert, of course, is free to believe that the FBI (or the DPD) swept a
> bullet under the rug if he wants to, but that's a road he can travel
> alone.
>

Rug? Oh, you mean the carpet in the limousine?
Did the DPD ever examine the limousine? No, the SS shipped it back to
Washington and destroyed it.

[Robert Harris]

Please explain what you mean by "resonate".

How would Tomlinson finding a bullet in the basement, compel
Audrey Bell to claim that her tiny particles were a bullet
from Connally's Gurney?




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
> case.

David, are you and Bud in a contest to see who can make the
most idiotic arguments?

It is a HUGE fallacy to deny that the FBI switched out this
evidence, because they did not put the bullet that was
replaced, into it's public list of evidence.

The whole point of switching out that bullet was to insure
that the WC and the public were unaware of it.

The FBI has been caught before, manufacturing evidence, in
cases outside of the JFK assassination. And God only knows
how many they they didn't get caught.

And David, are you aware that internal FBI documents
described TWO bullets being flown in from Parkland. At the
time, they believed that Tomlinson's bullet was from JFK's
stretcher and the Connally bullet of course, was the one that
Nolan delivered.

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery/fig5.jpg

>
> And if a nurse had actually picked up a whole bullet off of the floor
> after it fell off Governor Connally's stretcher in the Parkland operating
> room, that bullet (IMO) would exist today in the National Archives as a
> permanent piece of evidence connected to the events of 11/22/63. But no
> such "operating room" bullet exists.

Only if your "opinion" is that the FBI was not motivated to
coverup evidence of conspiracy. But we both know that they
were. The FBI and the Justice department were on the record,
committed to "convince the public" that Oswald acted alone.

>
> Robert, of course, is free to believe that the FBI (or the DPD) swept a
> bullet under the rug if he wants to, but that's a road he can travel
> alone.

This has nothing to do with what you and I believe, David.
This is about the facts and evidence.

And BTW, why didn't you answer my very simple question? If
that nurse was Audrey Bell, why would she have told Wade and
officer Nolan, that she had a bullet from Connally's "gurney"?



Robert Harris

[BOZ]

You don't make any sense. Your videos are rubbish.

[Bud]

The difference of course is that you are looking at the information in a
reasonable and realistic manner, applying real world criteria and using
critical thinking skills. For most of the ideas presented by CTers you
could give them 100 "passes", allow them to use one on each extraordinary
or fantastic occurrence their ideas require and they still couldn`t put a
plausible scenario on the table before they ran out.

Harris here offers one phrase out of context and pretends that gives
this the green light to imagine any kind of malfeasance on the part of the
FBI. Of course what agents in the field would need would be a detailed
gameplan on how to proceed before they just started messing with evidence
helter skelter.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/2/2016 9:34 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 8:47:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
>> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
>> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
>> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
>> case.
>>
>> And if a nurse had actually picked up a whole bullet off of the floor
>> after it fell off Governor Connally's stretcher in the Parkland operating
>> room, that bullet (IMO) would exist today in the National Archives as a
>> permanent piece of evidence connected to the events of 11/22/63. But no
>> such "operating room" bullet exists.
>>
>> Robert, of course, is free to believe that the FBI (or the DPD) swept a
>> bullet under the rug if he wants to, but that's a road he can travel
>> alone.
>
> Eventually conspiracy hobbyists paint themselves into this corner. They
> need an explanation for why the available physical evidence points to
> Oswald or why there is no physical evidence of anyone else's involvement.

Then explain how Oswald could shoot both from the TSBD and the grassy
knoll at the same time. Teleporter?

[bigdog]

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:04:29 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
> > conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
> > do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
> > the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
> > case.
>
> David, are you and Bud in a contest to see who can make the
> most idiotic arguments?
>

If so, second place is the best either could hope for.

[Bud]

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:04:10 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 3:24:57 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> If Audrey Bell had been the nurse that Wade and Nolan
> >> encountered, why would she tell them that the bullet (or
> >> whatever), came from Connally's "gurney"?
> >
> > "gurney" is one of the things that makes your narrative less compelling.
> > Seems to resonate from Tomlinson`s find.
>
> Please explain what you mean by "resonate".

Not the right word. I don`t have a better one. The two stories seem
likely to have the same origin.

> How would Tomlinson finding a bullet in the basement, compel
> Audrey Bell to claim that her tiny particles were a bullet
> from Connally's Gurney?

In the passing years Bell could have incorporated different things she
heard about into her own narrative.

A whole bullet found on the gurney used to transport a gunshot victim is
likely to be a rare occurrence. To have it happen twice in one case...

>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[Bud]

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:04:29 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
> > conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
> > do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
> > the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
> > case.
>
> David, are you and Bud in a contest to see who can make the
> most idiotic arguments?

We are responding to the most idiotic of arguments. If you want better
responses make better arguments.

> It is a HUGE fallacy to deny that the FBI switched out this
> evidence, because they did not put the bullet that was
> replaced, into it's public list of evidence.
>
> The whole point of switching out that bullet was to insure
> that the WC and the public were unaware of it.

I guess if you can imagine them tampering with evidence you can imagine
their motivation for doing so, also. Of course if there was actually a
real bullet so many people would have seen it before they could get their
hands on it that removing it from evidence would be futile. And messing
with evidence before the ramifications of the evidence could be known
would surely backfire, with the inevitable result of the FBI stepping on
their dicks.

> The FBI has been caught before, manufacturing evidence, in
> cases outside of the JFK assassination.

Using that logic since commies have committed assassination before then
Oswald is guilty.

> And God only knows
> how many they they didn't get caught.
>
> And David, are you aware that internal FBI documents
> described TWO bullets being flown in from Parkland. At the
> time, they believed that Tomlinson's bullet was from JFK's
> stretcher and the Connally bullet of course, was the one that
> Nolan delivered.
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery/fig5.jpg
>
> >
> > And if a nurse had actually picked up a whole bullet off of the floor
> > after it fell off Governor Connally's stretcher in the Parkland operating
> > room, that bullet (IMO) would exist today in the National Archives as a
> > permanent piece of evidence connected to the events of 11/22/63. But no
> > such "operating room" bullet exists.
>
> Only if your "opinion" is that the FBI was not motivated to
> coverup evidence of conspiracy. But we both know that they
> were. The FBI and the Justice department were on the record,
> committed to "convince the public" that Oswald acted alone.

A vague sentence fragment out of context which doesn`t even resemble a
strategy on how to proceed. Have you ever heard one FBI agent who saw that
memo who thought he was being instructed to tamper with evidence?

> >
> > Robert, of course, is free to believe that the FBI (or the DPD) swept a
> > bullet under the rug if he wants to, but that's a road he can travel
> > alone.
>
> This has nothing to do with what you and I believe, David.
> This is about the facts and evidence.
>
> And BTW, why didn't you answer my very simple question? If
> that nurse was Audrey Bell, why would she have told Wade and
> officer Nolan, that she had a bullet from Connally's "gurney"?

False memories.


>
>
> Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Stop encouraging him.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/3/2016 9:04 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
>> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
>> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact
>> that we
>> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
>> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
>> case.
>
> David, are you and Bud in a contest to see who can make the most idiotic
> arguments?
>
> It is a HUGE fallacy to deny that the FBI switched out this evidence,
> because they did not put the bullet that was replaced, into it's public
> list of evidence.
>

WTF are you talking about? Since when did the FBI have to put the
evidence into its [sic] PUBLIC list?
I showed you their internal list and John Hunt has gone even further.
The first thing turned in gets named C-1 or Q1 until they know what it is.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/FBI43646.jpg

For extra credit, where is the original photo which was stapled to this
document?

> The whole point of switching out that bullet was to insure that the WC
> and the public were unaware of it.
>

What bullet? SHOW me.

> The FBI has been caught before, manufacturing evidence, in cases outside
> of the JFK assassination. And God only knows how many they they didn't
> get caught.
>
> And David, are you aware that internal FBI documents described TWO
> bullets being flown in from Parkland. At the time, they believed that

No, that is not true. You are confused as usual.

> Tomlinson's bullet was from JFK's stretcher and the Connally bullet of
> course, was the one that Nolan delivered.
>

Prove it.

> http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery/fig5.jpg
>
>>
>> And if a nurse had actually picked up a whole bullet off of the floor
>> after it fell off Governor Connally's stretcher in the Parkland operating
>> room, that bullet (IMO) would exist today in the National Archives as a
>> permanent piece of evidence connected to the events of 11/22/63. But no
>> such "operating room" bullet exists.
>
> Only if your "opinion" is that the FBI was not motivated to coverup
> evidence of conspiracy. But we both know that they were. The FBI and the

The FBI was ordered by LBJ to cover up evidence of conspiracy.
They were just following orders, like good little Nazi soldiers.

> Justice department were on the record, committed to "convince the
> public" that Oswald acted alone.
>
>>
>> Robert, of course, is free to believe that the FBI (or the DPD) swept a
>> bullet under the rug if he wants to, but that's a road he can travel
>> alone.
>
> This has nothing to do with what you and I believe, David. This is about
> the facts and evidence.
>
> And BTW, why didn't you answer my very simple question? If that nurse

Why should he? You are afraid to answer very simple questions.

> was Audrey Bell, why would she have told Wade and officer Nolan, that
> she had a bullet from Connally's "gurney"?
>

Because she didn't know any better. Because that's what someone told her?

>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/3/2016 9:04 AM, Robert Harris wrote:

> Bud wrote:
>> On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 3:24:57 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> If Audrey Bell had been the nurse that Wade and Nolan
>>> encountered, why would she tell them that the bullet (or
>>> whatever), came from Connally's "gurney"?
>>
>> "gurney" is one of the things that makes your narrative less
>> compelling.
>> Seems to resonate from Tomlinson`s find.
>
> Please explain what you mean by "resonate".
>

Vibration.

[Robert Harris]

He said nothing in testimony that contradicted what he said
about the nurse recovering that bullet.

He had stated that he always knew this was a conspiracy, but
that he thought the country needed to get past the
assassination in order to move one.

Had waited until he was literally on his death bed to tell
his story.

> Second, how good a witness is a person who is hurt badly and
> likely in shock?

Connally suffered no delusions that day. But the clincher is
what the nurse told Wade and Nolan. The bullet fell from his
"gurney", exactly as he described.

You can't talk your way out of that perfect corroboration,
Bud - no matter how badly you want to demean this man.

> Thirdly it is hard to see anywhere in that narrative that
> he could have actually seen the bullet.

You make statements that are total nonsense. He heard it
fall, exactly as he said. Then he turned his head and saw her
pick it up - also as he stated.

So, what did she do next Bud?? That's right, she held it up
and looked at it!!

If he hadn't seen it, he wouldn't have known it was a bullet.

He would have assumed she dropped a surgical tool or
something like that. NO ONE assumes a bullet from their wound
will just fall to the floor.

You pulled the same crap with Wade. You are trying to exploit
the fact that people rarely say they "saw" an object or
event, even after describing it or the event in detail.

"A red convertible pulled into my neighbor's driveway
yesterday afternoon."

But, but, but, he didn't say he SAW the convertible.

>
>
>> The bullet fell to the floor from his GURNEY, which is why
>> she told both Wade and Nolan, that it came from the gurney.
>>
>> That bullet could not possibly have been CE399.
>
> Yet Wade assumed it was.

Bullshit!!

You have no justification of any kind, to support that claim.
She was in scrubs and had come from surgery. It is highly
unlikely that she had already prepared an envelope then.

And Wade at that point, was in the same hallway where Nolan
was. He made no mention of her approaching Nolan and giving
the envelope to him. That obviously happened, AFTER she went
back and found a battered envelope and rushed to erase the
writing and put the bullet in it.

This was NOT a new envelope, as it would have been if Bell
had prepared it. What is your excuse for the condition of
that envelope Bud? Is this what Bell would have used to hold
the most important piece of evidence she had ever processed?

http://jfkhistory.com/ce842x.jpg





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:04:29 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
>>> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
>>> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
>>> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
>>> case.
>>
>> David, are you and Bud in a contest to see who can make the
>> most idiotic arguments?
>
> We are responding to the most idiotic of arguments.

Please explain how it is "idiotic" to accept the statements
of John Connally, Henry Wade, Bobby Nolan, and Audrey Bell.

I find it troubling that you post all these vague insults but
never, ever are specific about what you find deficient in my
analysis.

> If you want better
> responses make better arguments.

Please explain exactly what you find wrong with my arguments.

>
>
>> It is a HUGE fallacy to deny that the FBI switched out this
>> evidence, because they did not put the bullet that was
>> replaced, into it's public list of evidence.
>>
>> The whole point of switching out that bullet was to insure
>> that the WC and the public were unaware of it.
>
> I guess if you can imagine them tampering with evidence

No imagination is required Bud. The FBI has been caught
before, falsifying evidence.

> you can imagine
> their motivation for doing so, also.

No imagination is required. The known agenda of the FBI and
the Dept of Justice was to prevent the pubic from being aware
of conspiracy evidence.

This is really simple stuff Bud. Why are you pretending to be
ignorant of it?

> Of course if there was actually a
> real bullet so many people would have seen it before they could get their
> hands on it that removing it from evidence would be futile.

Well, you're half right. All four of the men who originally
examined that bullet, refused to confirm CE399 as the
Tomlinson bullet. That includes Secret Service agent Johnsen,
who marked his initials on it. The ONLY reason he could have
refused to confirm CE399 was that his initials were missing.

The same is true of FBI agent Elmer Todd, who also marked the
Tomlinson bullet. But neither of them are on CE399. That is
hard evidence which by itself, proves that CE399 was the
original bullet.

But you are correct that normally, this scam would have been
futile. Were it not for the WW3 rationalization, a small army
of witnesses would have blown the whistle.

You have no case, Bud. The facts and evidence are
overwhelmingly against you.





Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/4/2016 7:58 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:04:29 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
>>> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
>>> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
>>> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
>>> case.
>>
>> David, are you and Bud in a contest to see who can make the
>> most idiotic arguments?
>
> We are responding to the most idiotic of arguments. If you want better
> responses make better arguments.
>

If you don't want an answer, don't ask a question.

>
>> It is a HUGE fallacy to deny that the FBI switched out this
>> evidence, because they did not put the bullet that was
>> replaced, into it's public list of evidence.
>>
>> The whole point of switching out that bullet was to insure
>> that the WC and the public were unaware of it.
>
> I guess if you can imagine them tampering with evidence you can imagine
> their motivation for doing so, also. Of course if there was actually a

They don't need motivation. Just follow orders.

Heard one FBI agent what? Admit to tampering with evidence? Sure. How
about the state chemist here who admitting to tampering with evidence?

>
>>>
>>> Robert, of course, is free to believe that the FBI (or the DPD) swept a
>>> bullet under the rug if he wants to, but that's a road he can travel
>>> alone.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with what you and I believe, David.
>> This is about the facts and evidence.
>>
>> And BTW, why didn't you answer my very simple question? If
>> that nurse was Audrey Bell, why would she have told Wade and
>> officer Nolan, that she had a bullet from Connally's "gurney"?
>
> False memories.
>

I think you remembered it wrong.

>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/4/2016 7:57 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:04:10 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Bud wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 3:24:57 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>> If Audrey Bell had been the nurse that Wade and Nolan
>>>> encountered, why would she tell them that the bullet (or
>>>> whatever), came from Connally's "gurney"?
>>>
>>> "gurney" is one of the things that makes your narrative less compelling.
>>> Seems to resonate from Tomlinson`s find.
>>
>> Please explain what you mean by "resonate".
>
> Not the right word. I don`t have a better one. The two stories seem
> likely to have the same origin.
>

How about "emanate'? Google has a sale on words this week.

>> How would Tomlinson finding a bullet in the basement, compel
>> Audrey Bell to claim that her tiny particles were a bullet
>> from Connally's Gurney?
>
> In the passing years Bell could have incorporated different things she
> heard about into her own narrative.
>

I like your idea that witness statements are a work in progress.
They change more and we learn more.

> A whole bullet found on the gurney used to transport a gunshot victim is
> likely to be a rare occurrence. To have it happen twice in one case...
>

And who said it did? Stop lisening to kooks and read the damn evidence.

>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
>

[Bud]

Specter: 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?

Governor CONNALLY. No.

> He had stated that he always knew this was a conspiracy, but
> that he thought the country needed to get past the
> assassination in order to move one.

Boggs: Have you ever had any belief of, subsequent to the assassination
of President Kennedy and your own injury, that there was a conspiracy here
of any kind?

Governor CONNALLY. None whatever.

> Had waited until he was literally on his death bed to tell
> his story.

Or his ghostwriter thought the plot needed punching up.

> > Second, how good a witness is a person who is hurt badly and
> > likely in shock?
>
> Connally suffered no delusions that day.

Theres a blurtation if I ever saw one. And a strawman to boot. The point
I made was about how good a witness a person that is gravely wounded and
possibly in shock might be, nothing about him being delusional.

> But the clincher is
> what the nurse told Wade and Nolan. The bullet fell from his
> "gurney", exactly as he described.

Neither said that the nurse said "fell". You insist on changing
information to make your ideas seem stronger, is this supposed to sway
people?

> You can't talk your way out of that perfect corroboration,
> Bud - no matter how badly you want to demean this man.

There is no corroboration. If you had the nurse, and she said that she
told Wade or Nolan those things, that would be corroboration.

> > Thirdly it is hard to see anywhere in that narrative that
> > he could have actually seen the bullet.
>
> You make statements that are total nonsense. He heard it
> fall, exactly as he said.

Yes, a metal object. You do know that someone gave Nellie a cuff link
when she was waiting outside his room, right?

> Then he turned his head and saw her
> pick it up - also as he stated.

Yes, she picked up the metal object and put it in her pocket. But he
never says what made him conclude it was a bullet.

> So, what did she do next Bud?? That's right, she held it up
> and looked at it!!

Did she? Aren`t you just inserting what your ideas need? Why didn`t
Connally mention this?

> If he hadn't seen it, he wouldn't have known it was a bullet.

You assume he knew it was a bullet.

> He would have assumed she dropped a surgical tool or
> something like that. NO ONE assumes a bullet from their wound
> will just fall to the floor.

"A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding
band."

Your blurtation is that no one who was shot would assume that a metallic
ping could be a bullet. What do you base this blurtation on? What your
ideas require?

You know Nellie said "They sent me out one cuff link", right? This satisfies the whole story from Connally`s book in a very mundane way.

> You pulled the same crap with Wade. You are trying to exploit
> the fact that people rarely say they "saw" an object or
> event, even after describing it or the event in detail.

Neither man describes a bullet in detail.

> "A red convertible pulled into my neighbor's driveway
> yesterday afternoon."
>
> But, but, but, he didn't say he SAW the convertible.

That is more detail than you are working with here. A person might pull
up to their driveway and see a wet spot and assume a car was in their
driveway and assume the wet spot was that car leaking oil. The assumptions
might be correct or incorrect. If the person said they went up and felt
the wet spot and confirmed it was oil than the assumption becomes
stronger. If the person doesn`t say that they gathered more information it
tends to leave the occurrence up in the air.

>
>
> >
> >
> >> The bullet fell to the floor from his GURNEY, which is why
> >> she told both Wade and Nolan, that it came from the gurney.
> >>
> >> That bullet could not possibly have been CE399.
> >
> > Yet Wade assumed it was.
>
> Bullshit!!

"I told her to give it to the police, which she said she
would. I assume that's the pristine BULLET."

You don know that CE399 is sometimes referred to as the pristine bullet,
right?

> You have no justification of any kind, to support that claim.

Except what Wade said.

> She was in scrubs and had come from surgery. It is highly
> unlikely that she had already prepared an envelope then.
>
> And Wade at that point, was in the same hallway where Nolan
> was. He made no mention of her approaching Nolan and giving
> the envelope to him. That obviously happened, AFTER she went
> back and found a battered envelope and rushed to erase the
> writing and put the bullet in it.
>
> This was NOT a new envelope, as it would have been if Bell
> had prepared it.

The only thing your assumptions show is your desperation.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 5:20:47 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:04:29 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
> >>> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
> >>> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
> >>> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
> >>> case.
> >>
> >> David, are you and Bud in a contest to see who can make the
> >> most idiotic arguments?
> >
> > We are responding to the most idiotic of arguments.
>
> Please explain how it is "idiotic" to accept the statements
> of John Connally, Henry Wade, Bobby Nolan, and Audrey Bell.

That is what I`ve been doing. I`m not the first.

> I find it troubling that you post all these vague insults but
> never, ever are specific about what you find deficient in my
> analysis.

Because not one word uttered against your ideas enters your
consciousness.

>
> > If you want better
> > responses make better arguments.
>
> Please explain exactly what you find wrong with my arguments.

They lack the strength necessary to support your premise. Do the words
"weak" and "uncompelling" ring a bell?

> >
> >
> >> It is a HUGE fallacy to deny that the FBI switched out this
> >> evidence, because they did not put the bullet that was
> >> replaced, into it's public list of evidence.
> >>
> >> The whole point of switching out that bullet was to insure
> >> that the WC and the public were unaware of it.
> >
> > I guess if you can imagine them tampering with evidence
>
> No imagination is required Bud. The FBI has been caught
> before, falsifying evidence.

The FBI wasn`t, individuals were.

> > you can imagine
> > their motivation for doing so, also.
>
> No imagination is required. The known agenda of the FBI and
> the Dept of Justice was to prevent the pubic from being aware
> of conspiracy evidence.

By presenting all the known facts to the public?

> This is really simple stuff Bud. Why are you pretending to be
> ignorant of it?

All of your ideas have been addressed. Why are you pretending to be
ignorant of this?

> > Of course if there was actually a
> > real bullet so many people would have seen it before they could get their
> > hands on it that removing it from evidence would be futile.
>
> Well, you're half right. All four of the men who originally
> examined that bullet, refused to confirm CE399 as the
> Tomlinson bullet.

Tough to make a positive ID of a bullet. Tomlinson did say that the
bullet in evidence looked like the bullet he found.

> That includes Secret Service agent Johnsen,
> who marked his initials on it. The ONLY reason he could have
> refused to confirm CE399 was that his initials were missing.

And the only way this isn`t a blurtation is if you had Johnsen saying
this was the case.

> The same is true of FBI agent Elmer Todd, who also marked the
> Tomlinson bullet. But neither of them are on CE399.

Empty, unproven claim.

> That is
> hard evidence which by itself, proves that CE399 was the
> original bullet.
>
> But you are correct that normally, this scam would have been
> futile. Were it not for the WW3 rationalization, a small army
> of witnesses would have blown the whistle.
>
> You have no case, Bud. The facts and evidence are
> overwhelmingly against you.

You are the one claiming evidence is faked and planted. That alone shows
the evidence is against you.

>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[bigdog]

I'd love to see the source for that claim. This is what Connally told the
press in 1966.

"I am convinced beyond any doubt that I was not struck by the first
bullet, but just because I disagree with the Warren Commission on this one
finding does not mean I disagree with their over-all findings."

Connally disputed the SBT but not the other findings of the WC. The reason
he disputed the SBT is because he mistakenly believed the WC had concluded
the SB was the first shot. Of course the WC never said the SB was the
first shot, only that it was possible. Connally said it was not possible.
More recent analysis indicates the SB was almost certainly the second
bullet which would fit both what the WC stated and Connally's belief that
he wasn't hit by the first shot.

> Had waited until he was literally on his death bed to tell
> his story.
>
> > Second, how good a witness is a person who is hurt badly and
> > likely in shock?
>
> Connally suffered no delusions that day. But the clincher is
> what the nurse told Wade and Nolan. The bullet fell from his
> "gurney", exactly as he described.
>

You won't find Wade, Nolan, or Bell saying these things shortly after the
assassination. They come from decades old accounts. Witnesses don't
remember things perfectly immediately after an event and when decades pass
memories get even fuzzier and can be influenced by what others have said.
When somebody relates what someone else has said it is unlikely they are
repeating exactly what that person said to them exactly. They are telling
you what they understood which means there is a good chance they are
telling you what they misunderstood.

The bottom line is the whole bullet (CE399) that is in evidence never
passed through Bell's hands. Bell did handle the fragments removed from
Connally and gave them to Nolan in an envelope that was never opened at
Parkland. Neither Wade nor Nolan saw the contents of the envelope. They
may have misunderstood at the time what was in the envelope or their
memories may have become clouded by later hearing about a bullet being
reovered from Connally's stretcher and in their minds they developed the
impression that the envelope Bell gave to Nolan contained that bullet. The
fact is CE399 is the only recovered whole bullet and the there was an
envelope containing only fragments. I'll put my faith in what the physical
evidence tells us over decades old memories of witnesses every time.

> You can't talk your way out of that perfect corroboration,
> Bud - no matter how badly you want to demean this man.
>
> > Thirdly it is hard to see anywhere in that narrative that
> > he could have actually seen the bullet.
>
> You make statements that are total nonsense. He heard it
> fall, exactly as he said. Then he turned his head and saw her
> pick it up - also as he stated.
>

According to the story he heard a metal object hit the floor but never saw
it. It is understandable that he might assume it was a bullet. There is no
first hand account by Bell or any other nurse claiming a bullet was picked
up from the floor. It is also hard to imagine an experienced ER nurse who
no doubt had tended to numerous gun shot cases just casually putting a
bullet in her pocket. The fragments were collected in a glass container.
It is hard to imagine she would no have been just as careful with a whole
bullet if she had actually picked one up.

> So, what did she do next Bud?? That's right, she held it up
> and looked at it!!
>
> If he hadn't seen it, he wouldn't have known it was a bullet.
>

I suppose you think people don't make erroneous assumptions.

> He would have assumed she dropped a surgical tool or
> something like that.

Why would you think that?

> NO ONE assumes a bullet from their wound
> will just fall to the floor.
>
> You pulled the same crap with Wade. You are trying to exploit
> the fact that people rarely say they "saw" an object or
> event, even after describing it or the event in detail.
>

If you want to trust an eyewitness, it is best to go with what they saw
instead of what they assumed.

> "A red convertible pulled into my neighbor's driveway
> yesterday afternoon."
>
> But, but, but, he didn't say he SAW the convertible.
>

Then he wouldn't know there was a red convertible, would he?

>
>
> >
> >
> >> The bullet fell to the floor from his GURNEY, which is why
> >> she told both Wade and Nolan, that it came from the gurney.
> >>
> >> That bullet could not possibly have been CE399.
> >
> > Yet Wade assumed it was.
>
> Bullshit!!
>
> You have no justification of any kind, to support that claim.
> She was in scrubs and had come from surgery. It is highly
> unlikely that she had already prepared an envelope then.
>

So now your beliefs are based on what you think is likely. Real compelling
stuff.

> And Wade at that point, was in the same hallway where Nolan
> was. He made no mention of her approaching Nolan and giving
> the envelope to him. That obviously happened, AFTER she went
> back and found a battered envelope and rushed to erase the
> writing and put the bullet in it.
>
> This was NOT a new envelope, as it would have been if Bell
> had prepared it. What is your excuse for the condition of
> that envelope Bud? Is this what Bell would have used to hold
> the most important piece of evidence she had ever processed?
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/ce842x.jpg
>

Conspiracy hobbyists have shown they can convince themselves about
anything if they are determined enough. The fact is the ballistic evidence
recovered at Parkland consists of CE399 and the fragments recovered from
Connally during surgery and placed in an envelope. No other bullets. No
other envelopes. Just twisted analysis of decades old memories.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/5/2016 5:20 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Bud wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:04:29 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert
>>>> Harris'
>>>> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact
>>>> that we
>>>> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is
>>>> connected to
>>>> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
>>>> case.
>>>
>>> David, are you and Bud in a contest to see who can make the
>>> most idiotic arguments?
>>
>> We are responding to the most idiotic of arguments.
>
> Please explain how it is "idiotic" to accept the statements of John
> Connally, Henry Wade, Bobby Nolan, and Audrey Bell.
>
> I find it troubling that you post all these vague insults but never,
> ever are specific about what you find deficient in my analysis.
>

Make sure that you never listen to criticism.
You're perfect, after all.

>
>> If you want better
>> responses make better arguments.
>
> Please explain exactly what you find wrong with my arguments.
>

Been there, done that, thousands of times.

>>
>>
>>> It is a HUGE fallacy to deny that the FBI switched out this
>>> evidence, because they did not put the bullet that was
>>> replaced, into it's public list of evidence.
>>>
>>> The whole point of switching out that bullet was to insure
>>> that the WC and the public were unaware of it.
>>
>> I guess if you can imagine them tampering with evidence
>
> No imagination is required Bud. The FBI has been caught before,
> falsifying evidence.
>

Yeah, so what? That sin does not prove that they did it all the time or
in the examples you think they did. Sometimes they accidentally told the
truth.

>> you can imagine
>> their motivation for doing so, also.
>
> No imagination is required. The known agenda of the FBI and the Dept of
> Justice was to prevent the pubic from being aware of conspiracy evidence.
>

They were just following orders.

> This is really simple stuff Bud. Why are you pretending to be ignorant
> of it?
>
>> Of course if there was actually a
>> real bullet so many people would have seen it before they could get their
>> hands on it that removing it from evidence would be futile.
>
> Well, you're half right. All four of the men who originally examined
> that bullet, refused to confirm CE399 as the Tomlinson bullet. That
> includes Secret Service agent Johnsen, who marked his initials on it.
> The ONLY reason he could have refused to confirm CE399 was that his
> initials were missing.
>

Silly. You've never challenged John Hunt's work. You don't even have the
courtesy to talk to him.

> The same is true of FBI agent Elmer Todd, who also marked the Tomlinson
> bullet. But neither of them are on CE399. That is hard evidence which by
> itself, proves that CE399 was the original bullet.
>

CE 399 is C-1, the first piece of evidence examined just hours after the
shooting. Or do you claim that the FBI knew to fake the evidence BEFORE
the shooting? They had Oswald test bullets ready to plant in the car and
in the hospital before noon?

> But you are correct that normally, this scam would have been futile.
> Were it not for the WW3 rationalization, a small army of witnesses would
> have blown the whistle.
>

They did. So what?

[Anthony Marsh]

That's his idea of patriotism. Just rejecting the SBT proves conspiracy.

> Had waited until he was literally on his death bed to tell his story.
>

Who? You mean Connally? He did not make up that phony story. His
ghostwriter did.

>> Second, how good a witness is a person who is hurt badly and
>> likely in shock?
>
> Connally suffered no delusions that day. But the clincher is what the
> nurse told Wade and Nolan. The bullet fell from his "gurney", exactly as
> he described.
>

Nonsense.

> You can't talk your way out of that perfect corroboration, Bud - no
> matter how badly you want to demean this man.
>

You are forgetting the missing cufflink. The MacGuffin.

>> Thirdly it is hard to see anywhere in that narrative that
>> he could have actually seen the bullet.
>

And who said he SAW the bullet?

> You make statements that are total nonsense. He heard it fall, exactly
> as he said. Then he turned his head and saw her pick it up - also as he
> stated.

Nonsense. He heard the cufflink fall to the floor and saw the nurse pick
it up.

>
> So, what did she do next Bud?? That's right, she held it up and looked
> at it!!
>

Says who?

> If he hadn't seen it, he wouldn't have known it was a bullet.
>

He didn't. His ghostwriter made up a story to sell a book.

> He would have assumed she dropped a surgical tool or something like
> that. NO ONE assumes a bullet from their wound will just fall to the floor.
>

Why can't it?

[Robert Harris]

"not" the original bullet, of course.

[Robert Harris]

John, who exactly do you think you are impressing with your
refusal to discuss evidence?

The last dozen posts you made in response to me, contained no
specificity of any kind - with no discussion of evidence or
reason.

When you post false accusations that you can't support, you
only make a fool out of yourself.





Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Keep trying. Eventually you will find one moron stupid enough for fall
for your fiction.

> Connally disputed the SBT but not the other findings of the WC. The reason
> he disputed the SBT is because he mistakenly believed the WC had concluded
> the SB was the first shot. Of course the WC never said the SB was the
> first shot, only that it was possible. Connally said it was not possible.
> More recent analysis indicates the SB was almost certainly the second
> bullet which would fit both what the WC stated and Connally's belief that
> he wasn't hit by the first shot.
>

Connally said he was hit at frame 230. You could have a miss before
that. But you can't have Kennedy hit at frame 230 because his hands are
up in front of his throat.

>> Had waited until he was literally on his death bed to tell
>> his story.
>>
>>> Second, how good a witness is a person who is hurt badly and
>>> likely in shock?
>>
>> Connally suffered no delusions that day. But the clincher is
>> what the nurse told Wade and Nolan. The bullet fell from his
>> "gurney", exactly as he described.
>>
>
> You won't find Wade, Nolan, or Bell saying these things shortly after the
> assassination. They come from decades old accounts. Witnesses don't

You wouldn't know if they did.

> remember things perfectly immediately after an event and when decades pass
> memories get even fuzzier and can be influenced by what others have said.

Maybe they had to wait for all the conspiracy books to come out.

> When somebody relates what someone else has said it is unlikely they are
> repeating exactly what that person said to them exactly. They are telling
> you what they understood which means there is a good chance they are
> telling you what they misunderstood.
>
> The bottom line is the whole bullet (CE399) that is in evidence never
> passed through Bell's hands. Bell did handle the fragments removed from

You don't have enough info to state that as a fact.

> Connally and gave them to Nolan in an envelope that was never opened at
> Parkland. Neither Wade nor Nolan saw the contents of the envelope. They
> may have misunderstood at the time what was in the envelope or their
> memories may have become clouded by later hearing about a bullet being
> reovered from Connally's stretcher and in their minds they developed the

Some people don't know the difference between a fragment and a bullet.
We have one kook here who talks about 2 BULLETS found in the limo.
Were they planted there?

> impression that the envelope Bell gave to Nolan contained that bullet. The
> fact is CE399 is the only recovered whole bullet and the there was an
> envelope containing only fragments. I'll put my faith in what the physical
> evidence tells us over decades old memories of witnesses every time.
>
>> You can't talk your way out of that perfect corroboration,
>> Bud - no matter how badly you want to demean this man.
>>
>>> Thirdly it is hard to see anywhere in that narrative that
>>> he could have actually seen the bullet.
>>
>> You make statements that are total nonsense. He heard it
>> fall, exactly as he said. Then he turned his head and saw her
>> pick it up - also as he stated.
>>
>
> According to the story he heard a metal object hit the floor but never saw
> it. It is understandable that he might assume it was a bullet. There is no

Perfectly understandable. The nurse knew it was a cufflink and pocketed it.

> first hand account by Bell or any other nurse claiming a bullet was picked
> up from the floor. It is also hard to imagine an experienced ER nurse who
> no doubt had tended to numerous gun shot cases just casually putting a
> bullet in her pocket. The fragments were collected in a glass container.
> It is hard to imagine she would no have been just as careful with a whole
> bullet if she had actually picked one up.
>
>> So, what did she do next Bud?? That's right, she held it up
>> and looked at it!!
>>
>> If he hadn't seen it, he wouldn't have known it was a bullet.
>>
> I suppose you think people don't make erroneous assumptions.
>
>> He would have assumed she dropped a surgical tool or
>> something like that.
>
> Why would you think that?
>
>> NO ONE assumes a bullet from their wound
>> will just fall to the floor.
>>
>> You pulled the same crap with Wade. You are trying to exploit
>> the fact that people rarely say they "saw" an object or
>> event, even after describing it or the event in detail.
>>
>
> If you want to trust an eyewitness, it is best to go with what they saw
> instead of what they assumed.
>
>> "A red convertible pulled into my neighbor's driveway
>> yesterday afternoon."
>>
>> But, but, but, he didn't say he SAW the convertible.
>>
>
> Then he wouldn't know there was a red convertible, would he?

Huh? He could see it there already but not watch it pull in.

Are you forgetting about the Lester bullet or the Walker bullet?

[Ace Kefford]

On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 3:24:57 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> If Audrey Bell had been the nurse that Wade and Nolan
> encountered, why would she tell them that the bullet (or
> whatever), came from Connally's "gurney"?
>
>
>
>

> Robert Harris

Yes that's the "clincher". This post and the subsequent supproting
arguments presented in this thread definitely convinced me of something!

[Robert Harris]

Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 5:20:47 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Bud wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:04:29 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
>>>>> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
>>>>> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
>>>>> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
>>>>> case.
>>>>
>>>> David, are you and Bud in a contest to see who can make the
>>>> most idiotic arguments?
>>>
>>> We are responding to the most idiotic of arguments.
>>
>> Please explain how it is "idiotic" to accept the statements
>> of John Connally, Henry Wade, Bobby Nolan, and Audrey Bell.
>
> That is what I`ve been doing.

No you haven't. You NEVER post anything specific. Why can't
you be specific about what I said that you believe,
constitutes an idiotic argument?

>
>> I find it troubling that you post all these vague insults but
>> never, ever are specific about what you find deficient in my
>> analysis.
>
> Because not one word uttered against your ideas enters your
> consciousness.

I'm still waiting Bud.

What did you specifically cite me saying that you believe is
idiotic?

Take your time, Bud:-)

>
>>
>>> If you want better
>>> responses make better arguments.
>>
>> Please explain exactly what you find wrong with my arguments.
>
> They lack the strength necessary to support your premise. Do the words
> "weak" and "uncompelling" ring a bell?

What specific arguments Bud?

I'm STILL waiting.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is a HUGE fallacy to deny that the FBI switched out this
>>>> evidence, because they did not put the bullet that was
>>>> replaced, into it's public list of evidence.
>>>>
>>>> The whole point of switching out that bullet was to insure
>>>> that the WC and the public were unaware of it.
>>>
>>> I guess if you can imagine them tampering with evidence
>>
>> No imagination is required Bud. The FBI has been caught
>> before, falsifying evidence.
>
> The FBI wasn`t, individuals were.

Well that must be true, since you just blurted it out:-)

But you obviously, haven't read my post entitled, the FBI or
you wouldn't have made such a stupid assertion.

But you need to admit that you were wrong in suggesting that
"imagination" is required to believe the FBI was and is,
capable for falsifying evidence.

What IS required are facts and evidence, such as the hard
evidence that the initials of both of the federal agents who
marked the Tomlinson bullet, are missing from CE399. Why
don't you want to talk about that Bud?

Or the mutually corroborating statements of Connally, Wade,
Nolan and Bell.

Oh wait! You don't do evidence, do you Bud? You ONLY do
personal insults and make vague accusations, totally lacking
in specificity.

>
>>> you can imagine
>>> their motivation for doing so, also.
>>
>> No imagination is required. The known agenda of the FBI and
>> the Dept of Justice was to prevent the pubic from being aware
>> of conspiracy evidence.
>
> By presenting all the known facts to the public?

Why did you leave out the "in such a way" part, Bud?

You simply cannot state facts in "such a way", because once
you alter them, they are no long facts. They are distortions.

And even if that wasn't the case, you don't get exonerated
for an incriminating statement, by making an innocent
statement. That's why Nixon's "but that would be wrong",
wouldn't have mattered a fig, in his impeachment.

Katzenbach took the heat for saying the public must be
convinced that Oswald acted alone. But he got his marching
orders, from J. Edgar Hoover.

So, it doesn't require imagination Bud. It only requires an
honest evaluation of reality and a truckload of evidence.

>
>> This is really simple stuff Bud. Why are you pretending to be
>> ignorant of it?
>
> All of your ideas have been addressed.

No they haven't. You have not addressed a single, specific
issue. You thrive on personal insults and ambiguous accusations.

> Why are you pretending to be
> ignorant of this?
>
>>> Of course if there was actually a
>>> real bullet so many people would have seen it before they could get their
>>> hands on it that removing it from evidence would be futile.
>>
>> Well, you're half right. All four of the men who originally
>> examined that bullet, refused to confirm CE399 as the
>> Tomlinson bullet.
>
> Tough to make a positive ID of a bullet.

No it's not - especially for Johnsen, who put his initials on
the Tomlinson bullet.

> Tomlinson did say that the
> bullet in evidence looked like the bullet he found.

He said no such thing. You are getting that from an FBI memo
in which it was claimed that agent Odum got partial
confirmations from Tomlinson and Wright.

But once again, the FBI lied. Odum himself, confirmed that he
made no such confirmations, partial or otherwise.

>
>> That includes Secret Service agent Johnsen,
>> who marked his initials on it. The ONLY reason he could have
>> refused to confirm CE399 was that his initials were missing.
>
> And the only way this isn`t a blurtation is if you had Johnsen saying
> this was the case.

Well, first, he was required to mark the bullet. That was SOP
in '63. He could have lost his job if he failed to do so. And
second, why would you believe that Clint Hill lied, when he
stated that Johnsen told him, that he did indeed, mark the
bullet?

Or are you suggesting that Johnsen lied to Hill?

That might make more sense, since you are accusing Johnsen of
negligence involving the most important evidence he had ever
handled, so you might as well accuse him of lying as well.

>
>> The same is true of FBI agent Elmer Todd, who also marked the
>> Tomlinson bullet. But neither of them are on CE399.
>
> Empty, unproven claim.

Bullshit!!

Even Von Pein has admitted that he sees no initials from
Johnsen or Todd on that bullet. How about you Bud? Do you see
'em?

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png

>
>> That is
>> hard evidence which by itself, proves that CE399 was the
>> original bullet.
>>
>> But you are correct that normally, this scam would have been
>> futile. Were it not for the WW3 rationalization, a small army
>> of witnesses would have blown the whistle.
>>
>> You have no case, Bud. The facts and evidence are
>> overwhelmingly against you.
>
> You are the one claiming evidence is faked and planted.

I never in my life, said evidence was planted.

But CE399 could not possibly have been the same bullet that
Todd and Johnsen signed, and it couldn't possibly have been
the bullet that fell from Connally's gurney and was recovered
by a nurse.

> That alone shows
> the evidence is against you.

Really???

Well don't be bashful, Bud. SHOW everyone that evidence.



Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

What? That he's crazy?

[Anthony Marsh]

How do you know that? You don't. Show me the "original" bullet.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 11:41:13 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:04:29 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
> >>> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
> >>> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
> >>> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
> >>> case.
> >>
> >> David, are you and Bud in a contest to see who can make the
> >> most idiotic arguments?
> >>
> >
> > If so, second place is the best either could hope for.
>
> John, who exactly do you think you are impressing with your
> refusal to discuss evidence?
>

Did you think I was trying to impress you?

> The last dozen posts you made in response to me, contained no
> specificity of any kind - with no discussion of evidence or
> reason.
>

Those subjects are foreign to you. I chose to speak your language instead.

> When you post false accusations that you can't support, you
> only make a fool out of yourself.
>

I'll keep that in mind if I am ever tempted to make false accusations I
can't support.

[David Von Pein]

From 2011.....

ROBERT HARRIS SAID:

And are you still standing by your theory that Connally, Wade, Stinson,
Nolan and Bell were all delusional???


JEAN DAVISON SAID:

As you know, I've never called anyone delusional. You don't have a
statement from Connally, Robert. You have a statement from a ghostwriter
who isn't a reliable source (unless you think Secret Service agents left
the motorcade to rush to the TSBD, etc.).

On the other hand, Connally himself said.....

QUOTE:

Mr. SPECTER. 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?

Governor CONNALLY. No.

UNQUOTE

Yes, I know you think he lied -- because it doesn't fit your theory.

More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=robert+harris+nolan+bullet

[Jason Burke]

No, Bob. That's been your job for your last 10^5 posts.
And you're doing a quite admirable job of it.


>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
>

[Bud]

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 4:44:58 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 5:20:47 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> Bud wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:04:29 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >>>> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>>> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
> >>>>> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
> >>>>> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
> >>>>> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
> >>>>> case.
> >>>>
> >>>> David, are you and Bud in a contest to see who can make the
> >>>> most idiotic arguments?
> >>>
> >>> We are responding to the most idiotic of arguments.
> >>
> >> Please explain how it is "idiotic" to accept the statements
> >> of John Connally, Henry Wade, Bobby Nolan, and Audrey Bell.
> >
> > That is what I`ve been doing.
>
> No you haven't.

We disagree then.

> You NEVER post anything specific. Why can't
> you be specific about what I said that you believe,
> constitutes an idiotic argument?

You need a refresher course on your own arguments?

> >
> >> I find it troubling that you post all these vague insults but
> >> never, ever are specific about what you find deficient in my
> >> analysis.
> >
> > Because not one word uttered against your ideas enters your
> > consciousness.
>
> I'm still waiting Bud.

Read what I just wrote.

> What did you specifically cite me saying that you believe is
> idiotic?

Are you unfamiliar with your own arguments?

> Take your time, Bud:-)
>
> >
> >>
> >>> If you want better
> >>> responses make better arguments.
> >>
> >> Please explain exactly what you find wrong with my arguments.
> >
> > They lack the strength necessary to support your premise. Do the words
> > "weak" and "uncompelling" ring a bell?
>
> What specific arguments Bud?
>
> I'm STILL waiting.

I`m still waiting for anything that I`ve written to enter your
consciousness.

> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> It is a HUGE fallacy to deny that the FBI switched out this
> >>>> evidence, because they did not put the bullet that was
> >>>> replaced, into it's public list of evidence.
> >>>>
> >>>> The whole point of switching out that bullet was to insure
> >>>> that the WC and the public were unaware of it.
> >>>
> >>> I guess if you can imagine them tampering with evidence
> >>
> >> No imagination is required Bud. The FBI has been caught
> >> before, falsifying evidence.
> >
> > The FBI wasn`t, individuals were.
>
> Well that must be true, since you just blurted it out:-)
>
> But you obviously, haven't read my post entitled, the FBI or
> you wouldn't have made such a stupid assertion.

Show the FBI directive in that case.

> But you need to admit that you were wrong in suggesting that
> "imagination" is required to believe the FBI was and is,
> capable for falsifying evidence.

I don`t have to prove they didn`t, you need to show they did in the case we are examining instead of just imagining it.

> What IS required are facts and evidence, such as the hard
> evidence that the initials of both of the federal agents who
> marked the Tomlinson bullet, are missing from CE399. Why
> don't you want to talk about that Bud?

Why don`t you establish that as fact, Harris?

> Or the mutually corroborating statements of Connally, Wade,
> Nolan and Bell.

Why don`t you look at the information provided in the proper context?

> Oh wait! You don't do evidence, do you Bud? You ONLY do
> personal insults and make vague accusations, totally lacking
> in specificity.

I make the points I intend to make.

>
> >
> >>> you can imagine
> >>> their motivation for doing so, also.
> >>
> >> No imagination is required. The known agenda of the FBI and
> >> the Dept of Justice was to prevent the pubic from being aware
> >> of conspiracy evidence.
> >
> > By presenting all the known facts to the public?
>
> Why did you leave out the "in such a way" part, Bud?

Why do you leave out "all known facts"? Can you explain how a cover-up
that puts out all the facts can be successful?

> You simply cannot state facts in "such a way", because once
> you alter them, they are no long facts. They are distortions.

Which is why no FBI agent reading that memo would think they are being
instructed to do any such thing as altering evidence.

> And even if that wasn't the case, you don't get exonerated
> for an incriminating statement, by making an innocent
> statement. That's why Nixon's "but that would be wrong",
> wouldn't have mattered a fig, in his impeachment.
>
> Katzenbach took the heat for saying the public must be
> convinced that Oswald acted alone. But he got his marching
> orders, from J. Edgar Hoover.

They both wanted the facts released because they felt that the facts
would convince the public of the same thing they were, that Oswald, acting
alone, killed Kennedy.

> So, it doesn't require imagination Bud. It only requires an
> honest evaluation of reality and a truckload of evidence.

You don`t seem to have either.

> >
> >> This is really simple stuff Bud. Why are you pretending to be
> >> ignorant of it?
> >
> > All of your ideas have been addressed.
>
> No they haven't. You have not addressed a single, specific
> issue.

See, you prove my point. Nothing said against your ideas enters your
consciousness.

>You thrive on personal insults and ambiguous accusations.

Accurate observations both of how you operate and your ideas.

> > Why are you pretending to be
> > ignorant of this?
> >
> >>> Of course if there was actually a
> >>> real bullet so many people would have seen it before they could get their
> >>> hands on it that removing it from evidence would be futile.
> >>
> >> Well, you're half right. All four of the men who originally
> >> examined that bullet, refused to confirm CE399 as the
> >> Tomlinson bullet.
> >
> > Tough to make a positive ID of a bullet.
>
> No it's not -

Yes, it is, it is almost impossible to look at at bullet slug and say
positively it is the slug you had at an earlier time.

> especially for Johnsen, who put his initials on
> the Tomlinson bullet.
>
> > Tomlinson did say that the
> > bullet in evidence looked like the bullet he found.
>
> He said no such thing.

I`ve supplied this to you before. But since it goes against your ideas
it disappears from your consciousness.

> You are getting that from an FBI memo
> in which it was claimed that agent Odum got partial
> confirmations from Tomlinson and Wright.

No, I am getting it from an interview he gave to someone named Marcus.

> But once again, the FBI lied. Odum himself, confirmed that he
> made no such confirmations, partial or otherwise.
>
> >
> >> That includes Secret Service agent Johnsen,
> >> who marked his initials on it. The ONLY reason he could have
> >> refused to confirm CE399 was that his initials were missing.
> >
> > And the only way this isn`t a blurtation is if you had Johnsen saying
> > this was the case.
>
> Well, first, he was required to mark the bullet. That was SOP
> in '63. He could have lost his job if he failed to do so.

Is this a second blurtation to support the first one?

> And
> second, why would you believe that Clint Hill lied, when he
> stated that Johnsen told him, that he did indeed, mark the
> bullet?
>
> Or are you suggesting that Johnsen lied to Hill?
>
> That might make more sense, since you are accusing Johnsen of
> negligence involving the most important evidence he had ever
> handled, so you might as well accuse him of lying as well.

Who have I accused of lying?

>
> >
> >> The same is true of FBI agent Elmer Todd, who also marked the
> >> Tomlinson bullet. But neither of them are on CE399.
> >
> > Empty, unproven claim.
>
> Bullshit!!

I know you don`t think it is one, but it is an empty, unproven claim.

> Even Von Pein has admitted that he sees no initials from
> Johnsen or Todd on that bullet. How about you Bud? Do you see
> 'em?
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png

Give me the real bullet and a magnifying glass and I`ll let you know.

> >
> >> That is
> >> hard evidence which by itself, proves that CE399 was the
> >> original bullet.
> >>
> >> But you are correct that normally, this scam would have been
> >> futile. Were it not for the WW3 rationalization, a small army
> >> of witnesses would have blown the whistle.
> >>
> >> You have no case, Bud. The facts and evidence are
> >> overwhelmingly against you.
> >
> > You are the one claiming evidence is faked and planted.
>
> I never in my life, said evidence was planted.

You accept the three shells in the SN as being there from three shots
taken from that location?

> But CE399 could not possibly have been the same bullet that
> Todd and Johnsen signed, and it couldn't possibly have been
> the bullet that fell from Connally's gurney and was recovered
> by a nurse.

So you are saying that CE399 was planted into the evidential record.

> > That alone shows
> > the evidence is against you.
>
> Really???

Yes, really. When you have to go to such extraordinary lengths to
dismiss evidence this shows that the evidence is against you.

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
> case.

What a spectacularly fallacious statement!

I can't believe that even you would say something this
illogical. You cannot exonerate the FBI from switching an
original bullet for a substitute by arguing that they didn't
go public with the bullet they replaced.

David, try to grasp the fact that that would defeat the whole
purpose of the switch :-)

>
> And if a nurse had actually picked up a whole bullet off of the floor
> after it fell off Governor Connally's stretcher in the Parkland operating
> room, that bullet (IMO) would exist today in the National Archives as a
> permanent piece of evidence connected to the events of 11/22/63. But no
> such "operating room" bullet exists.

You are in desperate need of some training in critical
thinking, my friend.

Setting aside the fact that the FBI has been caught
falsifying evidence before, why would you believe that the
FBI would ignore the dictates of the Justice dept as well as
J. Edgar Hoover, that "the public must be convinced.." that
Oswald had no accomplices?






Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

bigdog wrote:

> On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 8:47:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
>> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
>> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
>> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
>> case.
>>

>> And if a nurse had actually picked up a whole bullet off of the floor
>> after it fell off Governor Connally's stretcher in the Parkland operating
>> room, that bullet (IMO) would exist today in the National Archives as a
>> permanent piece of evidence connected to the events of 11/22/63. But no
>> such "operating room" bullet exists.
>>

>> Robert, of course, is free to believe that the FBI (or the DPD) swept a
>> bullet under the rug if he wants to, but that's a road he can travel
>> alone.
>

> Eventually conspiracy hobbyists paint themselves into this corner. They
> need an explanation for why the available physical evidence points to
> Oswald

Yes, John, we do need an explanation. And that is, that
evidence points to him because he was probably involved in
the attack.

> or why there is no physical evidence of anyone else's involvement.

You have no idea how much physical evidence there is for
other shooters. We have no legitimate forensic evidence for
any of the shots, excepting a few fragments which appear to
have come from Oswald's rifle. But even they, are dependent
on the integrity of the FBI, which is pretty much nonexistent.

> The answer to both is that those doing the investigating planted the
> evidence against Oswald and/or got rid of the physical evidence that
> others were involved.

Why are you speaking in generalities, John? Are you incapable
of discussing specific evidence?

The original Tomlinson bullet was initialed by federal agents
Richard Johnsen and Elmer Todd. But those initials are not
present, anywhere on CE399.

How do you explain that?

And how do you explain the fact that John Connally stated
that the actual bullet that wounded him, fell to the floor
from his stretcher at Parkland and was recovered by a nurse?

Or the fact that DA Henry Wade encountered that nurse,
holding that same bullet in her hand, and explaining that it
came from Connally's gurney/stretcher?

Or the fact that officer Nolan heard her say exactly the same
thing that Wade did?

Or the fact that Audrey Bell flatly denied the FBI's claim
that she told them she gave a fragment to Nolan?

Is it possible John, that the reason you have to be ambiguous
is that you know the specifics of the issue, will sink your
boat:-)


> Since the physical evidence was gathered an analyzed
> by three federal departments (Justice, Treasury, and Defense) and two
> local agencies (DPD and the sheriff's department) and two other crime labs
> (NYPD and Illinois) gave second opinions about key pieces of evidence,
> that requires a lot of collusion.

Bullshit!

The evidence at issue here, was controlled ONLY by the FBI.
And we have absolute proof that CE399 was a replacement for
two bullets.


> Never mind that one of the federal
> departments was headed by the brother of the slain President.

The only department involved with CE399 was the FBI, which
was headed by J. Edgar Hoover.

> Just how
> would one go about getting all these ducks in a row?

This is another really, really bad argument, which seems to
be about all you guys can come up with.



Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> From 2011.....
>
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> And are you still standing by your theory that Connally, Wade, Stinson,
> Nolan and Bell were all delusional???
>
>
> JEAN DAVISON SAID:
>
> As you know, I've never called anyone delusional. You don't have a
> statement from Connally, Robert. You have a statement from a ghostwriter
> who isn't a reliable source (unless you think Secret Service agents left
> the motorcade to rush to the TSBD, etc.).
>
> On the other hand, Connally himself said.....

I love how you always try to dump the really stupid stuff on
other nutters:-)

David do you think Michey Herskowitz is a liar? Then why do
you suppose he has worked with some of America's top
celebrities, including an American President?

If he had lied, he would have been called out by Nellie
Connally and certainly, John Connally if he saw it before his
death.

Why would Herskowitz destroy his reputation by telling an
outrageous lie like that? It certainly would not have
benefited him, would it?

But David, your idiotic liar, liar accusations all go away
with the statements of Henry Wade and officer Bobby Nolan,
both of whom were told by the same nurse Connally described,
that a whole bullet came from his "gurney" aka stretcher,
exactly as Connally described in his autobiography.

>
> QUOTE:
>
> Mr. SPECTER. 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?
>
> Governor CONNALLY. No.
>
> UNQUOTE
>
> Yes, I know you think he lied -- because it doesn't fit your theory.

I think he told the WC the absolute truth. In taking nurse
Standridge's testimony, Arlen Specter made it quite clear,
that he was concerned about Connally telling him OTR, about
the bullet falling from his stretcher.


Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any object in Governor
Connally's clothing?

Miss STANDRIDGE - Not unusual.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice a bullet, specifically?

Miss STANDRIDGE - No.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you hear the sound of anything fall?

Miss STANDRIDGE - I didn't.


DID YOU HEAR THE SOUND OF ANYTHING FALL.

Specter had very obviously, heard the same story from
Connally that was in his autobiography. Granting benefit of
the doubt, perhaps he just thought that the governor was a
bit delusional. He had after all, passed out earlier, and had
lost a lot of blood.

But regardless, there is no way he would have been concerned
about a nurse hearing a bullet fall to the floor if he hadn't
heard about that from Connally.



Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:04:10 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

>> Bud wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 3:24:57 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>> If Audrey Bell had been the nurse that Wade and Nolan
>>>> encountered, why would she tell them that the bullet (or
>>>> whatever), came from Connally's "gurney"?
>>>

>>> "gurney" is one of the things that makes your narrative less compelling.
>>> Seems to resonate from Tomlinson`s find.
>>
>> Please explain what you mean by "resonate".
>
> Not the right word. I don`t have a better one. The two stories seem
> likely to have the same origin.

Well, I do. Ridiculous.

What is your thinking here, that she decided Tomlinson shouldn't be the
one to get credit for it, so she would claim that she was the one who
found the bullet?

Wade SAW the bullet in her hand and Connally saw her pick it up. And
even if your are desperate enough to claim that she only told him it was
a bullet, how could she have held the Tomlinson bullet in her hand?

And how could Wade have heard her state that the envelope she gave him
contained a whole bullet from Connally's gurney??

Your "theory" defies all logic. All you are doing is demonstrating how
ludicrous one has to be to be in denial of all this.

>
>> How would Tomlinson finding a bullet in the basement, compel
>> Audrey Bell to claim that her tiny particles were a bullet
>> from Connally's Gurney?
>
> In the passing years Bell could have incorporated different things she
> heard about into her own narrative.

She told exactly the same story 20 years earlier, to the HSCA. She has
ALWAYS stated that she gave the fragments she processed, to plain
clothed, federal agents.

The FBI lied, not only about her saying she gave her fragments to Nolan,
but about her claiming there was only a single fragment in her envelope.
They had to say that, because Nolan's envelope obviously, contained only
one item, which they falsely claimed, was a "fragment".

The FBI actually labelled those tiny fragments as a single item and lied
to the WC about it,

Mr. SPECTER - Was a fragment of metal brought to you which was
identified as coming from the wrist of Governor Connally?

Mr. FRAZIER - It was identified to me as having come from the arm of
Governor Connally.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you produce that fragment at this time, please?

Mr. FRAZIER - This one does not have a Commission number as yet.

Mr. SPECTER - May it please the Commission, I would like to have this
fragment marked as Commission Exhibit 842.

(Commission Exhibit No. 842 was marked for identification and received
in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER - Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9 for
FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842, will
you describe that fragment for us, please?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal which weighed
one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory. It is a
piece of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a core of a bullet.

Of course, Bell told them that she turned over 4 fragments and small as
they were, it is easy to see that the container held more than one of
them. The FBI labs would routinely have put all of the fragments under a
microscope. It is impossible that they were ignorant of the quantity of
them.

http://jfkhistory.com/ce842.jpg

The FBI lied, to make it appear that Nolan's envelope was the one Bell
processed. But the statements of BOTH Bell and Nolan prove that was not
true.

>
> A whole bullet found on the gurney used to transport a gunshot victim is
> likely to be a rare occurrence. To have it happen twice in one case...

Nonsense.

The Tomlinson bullet might very well have been from JFK's gurney or from
a wound victim unassociated with the assassination.




Robert Harris

[David Von Pein]

Earth to Bob Harris! .....

DVP (that's me) doesn't believe for **one second** that the FBI was
running around switching and/or hiding any bullets in the JFK case!

Ergo, this comment that I made previously is perfectly reasonable and
valid....

---quote:---

"More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
case.

And if a nurse had actually picked up a whole bullet off of the floor
after it fell off Governor Connally's stretcher in the Parkland operating
room, that bullet (IMO) would exist today in the National Archives as a
permanent piece of evidence connected to the events of 11/22/63. But no
such "operating room" bullet exists.

Robert, of course, is free to believe that the FBI (or the DPD) swept a
bullet under the rug if he wants to, but that's a road he can travel
alone."

---unquote---

[Bud]

On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 10:58:22 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

> David Von Pein wrote:
> > More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
> > conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
> > do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
> > the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
> > case.
>
> What a spectacularly fallacious statement!

Which fallacy, specifically?

> I can't believe that even you would say something this
> illogical. You cannot exonerate the FBI from switching an
> original bullet for a substitute by arguing that they didn't
> go public with the bullet they replaced.

The idea, I think, is that extraordinary claims need extraordinary
support. The support you`ve mustered for your argument doesn`t meet the
necessary criteria, it is too weak to support the idea that the bullet was
suppressed.

> David, try to grasp the fact that that would defeat the whole
> purpose of the switch :-)
>
> >
> > And if a nurse had actually picked up a whole bullet off of the floor
> > after it fell off Governor Connally's stretcher in the Parkland operating
> > room, that bullet (IMO) would exist today in the National Archives as a
> > permanent piece of evidence connected to the events of 11/22/63. But no
> > such "operating room" bullet exists.
>
> You are in desperate need of some training in critical
> thinking, my friend.

Are you going for irony here?

> Setting aside the fact that the FBI has been caught
> falsifying evidence before,

It`s irrelevant anyway.

> why would you believe that the
> FBI would ignore the dictates of the Justice dept as well as
> J. Edgar Hoover,

Why would you think what you produced is a dictate to falsefy or
suppress information? A directive wouldn`t take the form a a memo for
general release, it would need to be specific orders given directly to the
agents in the field involved in this case.

> that "the public must be convinced.." that
> Oswald had no accomplices?

Your cherry picking is noted, the memo called for the release of all
known facts.

>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[Bud]

On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 10:59:52 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > From 2011.....
> >
> > ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
> >
> > And are you still standing by your theory that Connally, Wade, Stinson,
> > Nolan and Bell were all delusional???
> >
> >
> > JEAN DAVISON SAID:
> >
> > As you know, I've never called anyone delusional. You don't have a
> > statement from Connally, Robert. You have a statement from a ghostwriter
> > who isn't a reliable source (unless you think Secret Service agents left
> > the motorcade to rush to the TSBD, etc.).
> >
> > On the other hand, Connally himself said.....
>
> I love how you always try to dump the really stupid stuff on
> other nutters:-)

Yes, why would we listen to what Connally himself said?

> David do you think Michey Herskowitz is a liar?

You are calling Connally a liar.

Only a conspiracy hobbyist would try to trump what the witness actually
said with what someone else said they said. Mainframe does this all the
time also.

>Then why do
> you suppose he has worked with some of America's top
> celebrities, including an American President?
>
> If he had lied, he would have been called out by Nellie
> Connally and certainly, John Connally if he saw it before his
> death.

He died months before the book came out.

> Why would Herskowitz destroy his reputation by telling an
> outrageous lie like that? It certainly would not have
> benefited him, would it?

Why do you foist onto others to provide an explanation for why Herskowiz
lied? We don`t know if or why he lied, we only know that what appeared in
that book makes no sense in light of things Connally himself has said.

> But David, your idiotic liar, liar accusations

Don`t you routinely call people liars, including Connally?

> all go away
> with the statements of Henry Wade and officer Bobby Nolan,
> both of whom were told by the same nurse Connally described,
> that a whole bullet came from his "gurney" aka stretcher,
> exactly as Connally described in his autobiography.

If you applied critical thinking and looked at this information in
context you would see why so many find it weak and uncompelling.

> >
> > QUOTE:
> >
> > Mr. SPECTER. 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?
> >
> > Governor CONNALLY. No.
> >
> > UNQUOTE
> >
> > Yes, I know you think he lied -- because it doesn't fit your theory.
>
> I think he told the WC the absolute truth. In taking nurse
> Standridge's testimony, Arlen Specter made it quite clear,
> that he was concerned about Connally telling him OTR, about
> the bullet falling from his stretcher.
>
>
> Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any object in Governor
> Connally's clothing?
>
> Miss STANDRIDGE - Not unusual.
>
> Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice a bullet, specifically?
>
> Miss STANDRIDGE - No.
>
> Mr. SPECTER - Did you hear the sound of anything fall?
>
> Miss STANDRIDGE - I didn't.
>
>
> DID YOU HEAR THE SOUND OF ANYTHING FALL.
>
> Specter had very obviously, heard the same story from
> Connally that was in his autobiography. Granting benefit of
> the doubt, perhaps he just thought that the governor was a
> bit delusional. He had after all, passed out earlier, and had
> lost a lot of blood.

Making him a poor witness to determine what an object that fell might be.

> But regardless, there is no way he would have been concerned
> about a nurse hearing a bullet fall to the floor if he hadn't
> heard about that from Connally.

Did he say "floor"?

>
>
> Robert Harris

[Bud]

On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 11:03:11 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 9:04:10 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> Bud wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 1, 2016 at 3:24:57 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >>>> If Audrey Bell had been the nurse that Wade and Nolan
> >>>> encountered, why would she tell them that the bullet (or
> >>>> whatever), came from Connally's "gurney"?
> >>>
> >>> "gurney" is one of the things that makes your narrative less compelling.
> >>> Seems to resonate from Tomlinson`s find.
> >>
> >> Please explain what you mean by "resonate".
> >
> > Not the right word. I don`t have a better one. The two stories seem
> > likely to have the same origin.
>
> Well, I do. Ridiculous.

You`re right, there was probably just a run on bullets on gurneys that
day.

> What is your thinking here, that she decided Tomlinson shouldn't be the
> one to get credit for it, so she would claim that she was the one who
> found the bullet?

<snicker> You probably think that is the point I was making, seeing as
you don`t listen to anyone and only repeat the same nonsense endlessly.

> Wade SAW the bullet in her hand and Connally saw her pick it up.

When you have to make things up to support your ideas it only shows how
weak they are.

> And
> even if your are desperate enough to claim that she only told him it was
> a bullet, how could she have held the Tomlinson bullet in her hand?

Why do you assume you are working with anything tangible at all? Its
mush.

> And how could Wade have heard her state that the envelope she gave him
> contained a whole bullet from Connally's gurney??

If you look at all this information in context it is entirely plausible
that it is all the product of assumptions, false memory and the like.

> Your "theory" defies all logic. All you are doing is demonstrating how
> ludicrous one has to be to be in denial of all this.

What does science tell us about witness supplied information? What does
this case tell you about it? What does science tell us about the
corruption of long term memory? Experts tell of how easily false
information can be incorporated into a memory, especially in a case like
this when one might come across several articles relating to it every year
(and a person who took part in the events might read them all).
Degradation of memory is all but assured, corruption of memory is all but
assured, but I saw recently you blurted out something to the effect that
this wouldn`t occur in this case because it involved the death of the
President, as if blurtation had the ability to refute reality.

> >
> >> How would Tomlinson finding a bullet in the basement, compel
> >> Audrey Bell to claim that her tiny particles were a bullet
> >> from Connally's Gurney?
> >
> > In the passing years Bell could have incorporated different things she
> > heard about into her own narrative.
>
> She told exactly the same story 20 years earlier, to the HSCA.

Which was still over thirteen years after the event. Why do conspiracy
hobbyists insist that such long term memories are reliable? Your own
memories of anything you did in 2003 must indicate just how this kind of
information is mush. Even the things you are pretty sure of can be
wrong.

Try vice-versa.

> >
> > A whole bullet found on the gurney used to transport a gunshot victim is
> > likely to be a rare occurrence. To have it happen twice in one case...
>
> Nonsense.
>
> The Tomlinson bullet might very well have been from JFK's gurney or from
> a wound victim unassociated with the assassination.

Still, bullets out of victims and onto stretchers would be an uncommon
occurrence. Both still have a connection to the same victim, close enough
that human error and unwarranted assumptions merging with false memory
could account for the discrepancies.

The problem, I think is that CTers, for some reason think you can cut
diamonds with this mush, and recreate accurate conversation decades after
they occurred. The real problem for your ideas is that you can only hope
for echoes of the real event, maybe the gist, but in each of your
evidential points theres is mitigation and context. Just because you brush
it away doesn`t make it disappear.

The Connally/bullet account has Connally`s own words and Nellie`s
account of the cuff link going against it, plus Connally`s condition, plus
the passage of time. You can pooh-pooh this all you like, to my way of
thing that passage from the book is outweighed by these things. Nolan and
Wade`s accounts suffer from the passage of time and the known fact that
there were bullet fragments recovered and transported. Bell`s account is
harmed by the passage of time and the envelope, despite your claims it was
forged. When you have to keep going to the extraordinary while brushing
aside mundane explanations is why many people find your ideas
uncompelling, I think. Somehow you seem to feel that repetition is the key
to swaying opinion.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 10:58:39 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> bigdog wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 8:47:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> >> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
> >> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
> >> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
> >> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
> >> case.
> >>
> >> And if a nurse had actually picked up a whole bullet off of the floor
> >> after it fell off Governor Connally's stretcher in the Parkland operating
> >> room, that bullet (IMO) would exist today in the National Archives as a
> >> permanent piece of evidence connected to the events of 11/22/63. But no
> >> such "operating room" bullet exists.
> >>
> >> Robert, of course, is free to believe that the FBI (or the DPD) swept a
> >> bullet under the rug if he wants to, but that's a road he can travel
> >> alone.
> >
> > Eventually conspiracy hobbyists paint themselves into this corner. They
> > need an explanation for why the available physical evidence points to
> > Oswald
>
> Yes, John, we do need an explanation. And that is, that
> evidence points to him because he was probably involved in
> the attack.
>

You think? What was your first clue?

> > or why there is no physical evidence of anyone else's involvement.
>
> You have no idea how much physical evidence there is for
> other shooters.

Yes I do. ZERO.

> We have no legitimate forensic evidence for
> any of the shots, excepting a few fragments which appear to
> have come from Oswald's rifle. But even they, are dependent
> on the integrity of the FBI, which is pretty much nonexistent.
>

A whole bullet found at Parkland by a civilian and a fragmented bullet
found in the limo by the SS. Both positivey matched to Oswald's rifle to
the exclusion of all others. Just a coincidence I suppose.

> > The answer to both is that those doing the investigating planted the
> > evidence against Oswald and/or got rid of the physical evidence that
> > others were involved.
>
> Why are you speaking in generalities, John? Are you incapable
> of discussing specific evidence?
>

I'll be happy to discuss any piece of evidence there is. I am not going to
waste time talking about evidence you imagine.

> The original Tomlinson bullet was initialed by federal agents
> Richard Johnsen and Elmer Todd. But those initials are not
> present, anywhere on CE399.
>
> How do you explain that?
>

My explanation is that you are repeating a tired old factoid.

> And how do you explain the fact that John Connally stated
> that the actual bullet that wounded him, fell to the floor
> from his stretcher at Parkland and was recovered by a nurse?
>

His ghostwriter claimed that. Even in that bullshit version Connally did
not see a bullet.

> Or the fact that DA Henry Wade encountered that nurse,
> holding that same bullet in her hand, and explaining that it
> came from Connally's gurney/stretcher?
>

Since you refuse to accept the fact that the envelope Wade saw Audrey Bell
with contained nothing but fragments. Wade never saw a bullet in Bell's
hand nor in the hand of any other nurse.

> Or the fact that officer Nolan heard her say exactly the same
> thing that Wade did?
>

See above.

> Or the fact that Audrey Bell flatly denied the FBI's claim
> that she told them she gave a fragment to Nolan?
>
> Is it possible John, that the reason you have to be ambiguous
> is that you know the specifics of the issue, will sink your
> boat:-)
>

No, but they sure do stink yours.

>
> > Since the physical evidence was gathered an analyzed
> > by three federal departments (Justice, Treasury, and Defense) and two
> > local agencies (DPD and the sheriff's department) and two other crime labs
> > (NYPD and Illinois) gave second opinions about key pieces of evidence,
> > that requires a lot of collusion.
>
> Bullshit!
>

Now who can argue with that?

> The evidence at issue here, was controlled ONLY by the FBI.
> And we have absolute proof that CE399 was a replacement for
> two bullets.
>

Just like Chris, you think your silly claims constitute proof. Just like
Chris you need to find a new hobby. Preferably one that doesn't expose
your poor analytical skills.

>
> > Never mind that one of the federal
> > departments was headed by the brother of the slain President.
>
> The only department involved with CE399 was the FBI, which
> was headed by J. Edgar Hoover.
>

The FBI is not a department. It is a bureau that at the time was under the
Department of Justice. RFK was Hoover's superior.

> > Just how
> > would one go about getting all these ducks in a row?
>
> This is another really, really bad argument, which seems to
> be about all you guys can come up with.
>

But for some reason, you are unable to articulate why it is a really,
really bad argument. You think it is enough to claim it is just as you
think claiming something is the equivalent of proving something.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/9/2016 10:59 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
>> From 2011.....
>>
>> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>
>> And are you still standing by your theory that Connally, Wade, Stinson,
>> Nolan and Bell were all delusional???
>>
>>
>> JEAN DAVISON SAID:
>>
>> As you know, I've never called anyone delusional. You don't have a
>> statement from Connally, Robert. You have a statement from a ghostwriter
>> who isn't a reliable source (unless you think Secret Service agents left
>> the motorcade to rush to the TSBD, etc.).
>>
>> On the other hand, Connally himself said.....
>
> I love how you always try to dump the really stupid stuff on other
> nutters:-)
>
> David do you think Michey Herskowitz is a liar? Then why do you suppose
> he has worked with some of America's top celebrities, including an
> American President?
>

Yes, he's a punk. A vulture. Not a journalist. Like Kitty Kelly.

> If he had lied, he would have been called out by Nellie Connally and
> certainly, John Connally if he saw it before his death.
>
> Why would Herskowitz destroy his reputation by telling an outrageous lie
> like that? It certainly would not have benefited him, would it?
>

What reputation? His reputation is being a liar so he has to reinforce it.
Someone else already mentioned the stupid things he wrote. So if you want
to defend his reputation, I issue you this challenge. Show us the footage
of all the SS agents jumping out the Queen Mary and running to the TSBD.

> But David, your idiotic liar, liar accusations all go away with the
> statements of Henry Wade and officer Bobby Nolan, both of whom were told
> by the same nurse Connally described, that a whole bullet came from his
> "gurney" aka stretcher, exactly as Connally described in his autobiography.
>

Not true.

>>
>> QUOTE:
>>
>> Mr. SPECTER. 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?
>>
>> Governor CONNALLY. No.
>>
>> UNQUOTE
>>
>> Yes, I know you think he lied -- because it doesn't fit your theory.
>
> I think he told the WC the absolute truth. In taking nurse Standridge's
> testimony, Arlen Specter made it quite clear, that he was concerned
> about Connally telling him OTR, about the bullet falling from his
> stretcher.

I don't know if you've ever actually read the WC testimonies, but it is
full of gaps where they go off the record where they discuss things
which they didn't want on the record.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/9/2016 10:58 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> bigdog wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 8:47:05 AM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
>>> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact
>>> that we
>>> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
>>> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
>>> case.
>>>
>>> And if a nurse had actually picked up a whole bullet off of the floor
>>> after it fell off Governor Connally's stretcher in the Parkland
>>> operating
>>> room, that bullet (IMO) would exist today in the National Archives as a
>>> permanent piece of evidence connected to the events of 11/22/63. But no
>>> such "operating room" bullet exists.
>>>
>>> Robert, of course, is free to believe that the FBI (or the DPD) swept a
>>> bullet under the rug if he wants to, but that's a road he can travel
>>> alone.
>>
>> Eventually conspiracy hobbyists paint themselves into this corner. They
>> need an explanation for why the available physical evidence points to
>> Oswald
>
> Yes, John, we do need an explanation. And that is, that evidence points
> to him because he was probably involved in the attack.
>

Naive. Was Dreyfus involved in the espionage for which he was convicted
and put into prison? Were the 5 Boston bookies involved in the murder
for which the FBI framed them?

>> or why there is no physical evidence of anyone else's involvement.
>
> You have no idea how much physical evidence there is for other shooters.
> We have no legitimate forensic evidence for any of the shots, excepting
> a few fragments which appear to have come from Oswald's rifle. But even
> they, are dependent on the integrity of the FBI, which is pretty much
> nonexistent.
>

Do you understand that Oswald didn't have to fire any shots from them to
find fragments from his bullets?

>> The answer to both is that those doing the investigating planted the
>> evidence against Oswald and/or got rid of the physical evidence that
>> others were involved.
>
> Why are you speaking in generalities, John? Are you incapable of
> discussing specific evidence?
>
> The original Tomlinson bullet was initialed by federal agents Richard
> Johnsen and Elmer Todd. But those initials are not present, anywhere on
> CE399.
>
> How do you explain that?

Talk to John Hunt.

>
> And how do you explain the fact that John Connally stated that the
> actual bullet that wounded him, fell to the floor from his stretcher at
> Parkland and was recovered by a nurse?
>

He did not. That is a known lie.

> Or the fact that DA Henry Wade encountered that nurse, holding that same
> bullet in her hand, and explaining that it came from Connally's
> gurney/stretcher?
>

Which bullet?

> Or the fact that officer Nolan heard her say exactly the same thing that
> Wade did?
>
> Or the fact that Audrey Bell flatly denied the FBI's claim that she told
> them she gave a fragment to Nolan?
>

All you have is nonsense.

> Is it possible John, that the reason you have to be ambiguous is that
> you know the specifics of the issue, will sink your boat:-)
>
>
>> Since the physical evidence was gathered an analyzed
>> by three federal departments (Justice, Treasury, and Defense) and two
>> local agencies (DPD and the sheriff's department) and two other crime
>> labs
>> (NYPD and Illinois) gave second opinions about key pieces of evidence,
>> that requires a lot of collusion.
>
> Bullshit!
>
> The evidence at issue here, was controlled ONLY by the FBI. And we have
> absolute proof that CE399 was a replacement for two bullets.
>

WHAT? You mean no civilians handled the bullets? The FBI did the operations?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/9/2016 10:58 AM, Robert Harris wrote:

WTF are you talking about? Hoover said it was a conspiracy.

>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/9/2016 10:22 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 10:58:22 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
>>> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
>>> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
>>> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
>>> case.
>>
>> What a spectacularly fallacious statement!
>
> Which fallacy, specifically?
>
>> I can't believe that even you would say something this
>> illogical. You cannot exonerate the FBI from switching an
>> original bullet for a substitute by arguing that they didn't
>> go public with the bullet they replaced.
>
> The idea, I think, is that extraordinary claims need extraordinary
> support. The support you`ve mustered for your argument doesn`t meet the
> necessary criteria, it is too weak to support the idea that the bullet was
> suppressed.
>

They don't have to be extraordinary just because your bias or cover-up
mode needs them to be extraordinary. It is not extraordinary to say that
the CIA assassinates people and there are always cover-ups.

>> David, try to grasp the fact that that would defeat the whole
>> purpose of the switch :-)
>>
>>>
>>> And if a nurse had actually picked up a whole bullet off of the floor
>>> after it fell off Governor Connally's stretcher in the Parkland operating
>>> room, that bullet (IMO) would exist today in the National Archives as a
>>> permanent piece of evidence connected to the events of 11/22/63. But no
>>> such "operating room" bullet exists.
>>
>> You are in desperate need of some training in critical
>> thinking, my friend.
>
> Are you going for irony here?
>
>> Setting aside the fact that the FBI has been caught
>> falsifying evidence before,
>
> It`s irrelevant anyway.
>
>> why would you believe that the
>> FBI would ignore the dictates of the Justice dept as well as
>> J. Edgar Hoover,
>
> Why would you think what you produced is a dictate to falsefy or
> suppress information? A directive wouldn`t take the form a a memo for
> general release, it would need to be specific orders given directly to the
> agents in the field involved in this case.
>

Show me.

>> that "the public must be convinced.." that
>> Oswald had no accomplices?
>
> Your cherry picking is noted, the memo called for the release of all
> known facts.
>

It's not cherry picking. It's the raison d'etre.
That's French.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you that naive? Why of course you are. You are a WC defender.
Things have a habit of "disappearing" from the National Archives.

> Robert, of course, is free to believe that the FBI (or the DPD) swept a
> bullet under the rug if he wants to, but that's a road he can travel
> alone."
>

Well, Jeez, they didn't even bother to look under the rug of the limo.
Supposedly when they rebuilt the limo they found a bullet hole in the
floor of the limo.

> ---unquote---
>

[Ott Rovgeisha]

laupäev, 2. juuli 2016 15:47.05 UTC+3 kirjutas David Von Pein:
> More than anything else, the thing that convinces me that Robert Harris'
> conclusion about the bullet cannot possibly be correct is the fact that we
> do not have any such extra WHOLE BULLET in evidence that is connected to
> the JFK/Connally shooting. It's just not in the evidence pile of this
> case.
>
> And if a nurse had actually picked up a whole bullet off of the floor
> after it fell off Governor Connally's stretcher in the Parkland operating
> room, that bullet (IMO) would exist today in the National Archives as a
> permanent piece of evidence connected to the events of 11/22/63. But no
> such "operating room" bullet exists.
>

> Robert, of course, is free to believe that the FBI (or the DPD) swept a
> bullet under the rug if he wants to, but that's a road he can travel
> alone.

David von Pein, in all honesty, suppose that dishonest things WERE taking
place there, would you THEN expect an extra bullet in the evidence pile?
You are arguing with a premise, that fits a particular conclusion. But if
you take this and look at it objectively, then of course, the edifice
starts to crumble. Petitio principii...

[Ott Rovgeisha]

reede, 1. juuli 2016 22:24.57 UTC+3 kirjutas Robert Harris:
> If Audrey Bell had been the nurse that Wade and Nolan
> encountered, why would she tell them that the bullet (or
> whatever), came from Connally's "gurney"?
>
>
>
>

> Robert Harris

I like some of the responses to mr Harris. Argh... Who can come up with
the most disgusting insult... Or.. well.. I don't like your videos,
therefore they are full of crap.. etc.. Bravo..

Of course, Harris seems to like that too... Gives a sense of fun, because
there is something rather amusing about an opponent who loses a particular
debate again and again and again...

[David Von Pein]

OTT SAID:

David von Pein [sic], in all honesty, suppose that dishonest things WERE

taking place there, would you THEN expect an extra bullet in the evidence
pile?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, of course not. But, as I said, I don't believe that any "dishonest
things" were taking place -- such as the authorities playing around with
the physical evidence in the JFK murder case so that everybody would think
(falsely!) that ONLY Oswald was the killer. It's just silly (IMO).

Sure, *anybody* can speculate that the DPD and FBI monkeyed around with
the bullets. But where's the *proof* that anything like that happened? No
such proof exists. Not even close, in fact. It's all just out-and-out
theorizing and speculation offered up by conspiracy believers---and
everybody knows it.

[Bud]

Assuming there were dishonest things going on is arguing for a premise
because it fits a particular conclusion.

[Bud]

Harris is the Energizer Bunny of bad arguments.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you confirm that you've never read John Hunt's articles and never
compared the photos and weights of the bullet over the years. In other
words you never do any actual research.

[Robert Harris]

Let's review:

You said my analysis constituted, "the most idiotic of arguments"

I said, please be specific about what exactly I said that you believe is
idiotic.

Then you said, "That is what I`ve been doing.".

Then I said, why can't you produce even one verbatim statement I made,
what will pass for "idiotic"?

Then you said, "Because not one word uttered against your ideas enters
your consciousness."

Of course, that is untrue, since I have responded to numerous arguments
you have made. They therefore, had to have entered my consciousness.

And even if your childish accusation were true, how would that prevent
you from being specific about the which you think are idiotic?

Bud, I am not permitted to call you a liar, so I won't, but I think you
were mistaken. I think there is NOTHING I have said, at least in recent
times, that you believe is "idiotic". If there were, you would have
specifically cited those statements and elaborated about why you think
they were so terrible.

I think you're out of arguments, Bud. All you have left are insults and
false accusations.

We are not writing for each other, are we? If we were, we could do it
via email. We are writing for our readers. So, instead of making up a
lot of phony excuses for why you have to evade questions, why don't you
just address them honestly - even when they force you to admit you are
wrong.






Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

I don't believe for one second that we came from Monkeys!! Screw the
empirical evidence! Forget about reason!

It's what I "believe" that matters!




DVP

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> OTT SAID:
>
> David von Pein [sic], in all honesty, suppose that dishonest things WERE
> taking place there, would you THEN expect an extra bullet in the evidence
> pile?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> No, of course not. But, as I said, I don't believe that any "dishonest
> things" were taking place

David, do you have any idea how insignificant what you "believe" is?

That's not an insult David. What I "believe" is also unimportant.

What is important are the facts and evidence.

And I have a double truckload of evidence. You have NO EVIDENCE, beyond
the word of the FBI. That's like saying OJ is innocent because he said
he didn't kill anybody.

The missing initials, the unanimous statements of Connally, Wade,
Stinson, Nolan and Audrey Bell, are all consistent and prove that the
actual bullet that wounded Connally was recovered by a nurse and passed
on to officer Nolan.

ALL FOUR of the men who handled the Tomlinson bullet, refused to verify
it as CE399, in spite of the FBI's lie that FBI agent Odum got partial
confirmations.

And the FBI also lied when they claimed that Bell told them that she
gave a fragment to Nolan.

Even Hoover proves you wrong David!! He knew those bullets didn't come
from Oswald's rifle. Why else would he have told LBJ that Connally came
between a sniper and JFK??

ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE PROVES YOU ARE WRONG.

Believing what you WANT to believe is the very best possible way to
engage in self delusion, David.

Believing in verifiable facts and evidence, is the very best possible
way to learn the truth - about ANYTHING.


Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

What is the worst argument you have heard me make, Bud?




Robert Harris

[Bud]

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:32:36 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > OTT SAID:
> >
> > David von Pein [sic], in all honesty, suppose that dishonest things WERE
> > taking place there, would you THEN expect an extra bullet in the evidence
> > pile?
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > No, of course not. But, as I said, I don't believe that any "dishonest
> > things" were taking place
>
> David, do you have any idea how insignificant what you "believe" is?

Harris is ladling out the irony early here.

> That's not an insult David. What I "believe" is also unimportant.

You don`t believe that.

> What is important are the facts and evidence.

And as soon as you demonstrate that you know the difference between
facts and evidence and your beliefs and opinions a meaningful dialog might
be able to take place.

> And I have a double truckload of evidence. You have NO EVIDENCE, beyond
> the word of the FBI.

You don`t have the kind of evidence you need to support the fantastic
idea that the FBI suppressed a bullet in the murder of the President.

> That's like saying OJ is innocent because he said
> he didn't kill anybody.
>
> The missing initials,

Which are not established.

> the unanimous statements of Connally, Wade,
> Stinson, Nolan and Audrey Bell,

Which are not unanimous.

> are all consistent and prove that the
> actual bullet that wounded Connally was recovered by a nurse and passed
> on to officer Nolan.

You don`t have one single witness stating they saw a whole bullet. Not
one.

> ALL FOUR of the men who handled the Tomlinson bullet, refused to verify
> it as CE399, in spite of the FBI's lie that FBI agent Odum got partial
> confirmations.

Tomlinson has said that the bullet in evidence looks like the bullet he
found. How could he state positively that it was?

> And the FBI also lied when they claimed that Bell told them that she
> gave a fragment to Nolan.

You don`t know this.

> Even Hoover proves you wrong David!! He knew those bullets didn't come
> from Oswald's rifle. Why else would he have told LBJ that Connally came
> between a sniper and JFK??

Because he had a poor understanding of the facts.

> ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE PROVES YOU ARE WRONG.

Or so you assume.

> Believing what you WANT to believe is the very best possible way to
> engage in self delusion, David.

More irony!

> Believing in verifiable facts and evidence, is the very best possible
> way to learn the truth - about ANYTHING.

It helps if you are capable of weighing evidence on it`s merits.

>
> Robert Harris

[Bud]

Wow, thats tough, I know I`ve been stunned by quite a few of your
assertions over the years. Off the top of my head I would go with your
idea that Kellerman spinning around was a startle reaction.

>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/20/2016 12:32 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
>> OTT SAID:
>>
>> David von Pein [sic], in all honesty, suppose that dishonest things WERE
>> taking place there, would you THEN expect an extra bullet in the evidence
>> pile?
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> No, of course not. But, as I said, I don't believe that any "dishonest
>> things" were taking place
>

Like what? Like the SS saying the chrome topping had already been dented
long before 11/22/63? You mean stuff like that?

> David, do you have any idea how insignificant what you "believe" is?
>
> That's not an insult David. What I "believe" is also unimportant.
>
> What is important are the facts and evidence.
>
> And I have a double truckload of evidence. You have NO EVIDENCE, beyond
> the word of the FBI. That's like saying OJ is innocent because he said
> he didn't kill anybody.
>
> The missing initials, the unanimous statements of Connally, Wade,

What missing initials? You mean the ones John Hunt pointed out?
You mean you missed his articles?

> Stinson, Nolan and Audrey Bell, are all consistent and prove that the
> actual bullet that wounded Connally was recovered by a nurse and passed
> on to officer Nolan.
>

No witness statements always agree 100%.

> ALL FOUR of the men who handled the Tomlinson bullet, refused to verify
> it as CE399, in spite of the FBI's lie that FBI agent Odum got partial
> confirmations.
>

What about the "pointy" bullet?
What about the missing cufflink?

> And the FBI also lied when they claimed that Bell told them that she
> gave a fragment to Nolan.
>

Something like that. never get the wording correct.

> Even Hoover proves you wrong David!! He knew those bullets didn't come

Hoover was a moron. He said an intact bullet fell out of JFK's head when
they took the body out of the casket. Show me that bullet.

> from Oswald's rifle. Why else would he have told LBJ that Connally came
> between a sniper and JFK??
>

Because he was a moron.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/20/2016 12:31 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Let's review:
>
> You said my analysis constituted, "the most idiotic of arguments"
>

Not every item. You once said something correct.
I can't remember when it was. Maybe 1995?

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:32:36 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > OTT SAID:
> >
> > David von Pein [sic], in all honesty, suppose that dishonest things WERE
> > taking place there, would you THEN expect an extra bullet in the evidence
> > pile?
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > No, of course not. But, as I said, I don't believe that any "dishonest
> > things" were taking place
>
> David, do you have any idea how insignificant what you "believe" is?
>

Irony alert!

> That's not an insult David. What I "believe" is also unimportant.
>

That calls for a big "NO SHIT!!!.

> What is important are the facts and evidence.
>

Careful, Bob. You're sailing into uncharted waters.

> And I have a double truckload of evidence. You have NO EVIDENCE, beyond
> the word of the FBI. That's like saying OJ is innocent because he said
> he didn't kill anybody.
>

HUH???

> The missing initials, the unanimous statements of Connally, Wade,
> Stinson, Nolan and Audrey Bell, are all consistent and prove that the
> actual bullet that wounded Connally was recovered by a nurse and passed
> on to officer Nolan.
>
> ALL FOUR of the men who handled the Tomlinson bullet, refused to verify
> it as CE399, in spite of the FBI's lie that FBI agent Odum got partial
> confirmations.
>

You guys love this half truth. When you say the refused to identify it you
leave out the part where they said they couldn't be positive it was the
same bullet as the one they saw because one bullet looks pretty much like
another of the same make and caliber. None of you can cite any one of
these men saying it was NOT the bullet they handled. The fact that you all
make the same bogus claim that the refused to identify CE399 as the bullet
they saw indicates to me you are all singing from the same songbook. I'm
sure a long time ago some conspiracy hobbyist thought he was being really
clever by stating these men refused to identify CE399 to make it sound as
if they were saying it wasn't the bullet. Of course none of them said that
but this factoid has become part of the accepted conspiracy hobbyist
mythology. It's just the kind of deception people must resort to when they
have no real evidence to support their beliefs.

> And the FBI also lied when they claimed that Bell told them that she
> gave a fragment to Nolan.
>

We know of only one nurse who handed an evidence envelope to an LEO and
that nurse was Audrey Bell. We know of only one LEO who received an
evidence envelope from a nurse and that LEO was Nolan. If you dispute
these statements, name another nurse. Name another LEO.

> Even Hoover proves you wrong David!! He knew those bullets didn't come
> from Oswald's rifle. Why else would he have told LBJ that Connally came
> between a sniper and JFK??
>

Oh, here's where you start throwing your scientific wild-assed guesses
into the mix.

> ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE PROVES YOU ARE WRONG.
>

All relevant evidence is foreign to you, Bob.

> Believing what you WANT to believe is the very best possible way to
> engage in self delusion, David.
>

This has to be the mother of all irony alerts.

> Believing in verifiable facts and evidence, is the very best possible
> way to learn the truth - about ANYTHING.
>

You should give it a try, Bob.

[bigdog]

They are all tied for first, Bob.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/20/2016 10:43 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:32:36 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>> OTT SAID:
>>>
>>> David von Pein [sic], in all honesty, suppose that dishonest things WERE
>>> taking place there, would you THEN expect an extra bullet in the evidence
>>> pile?
>>>
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> No, of course not. But, as I said, I don't believe that any "dishonest
>>> things" were taking place
>>
>> David, do you have any idea how insignificant what you "believe" is?
>
> Harris is ladling out the irony early here.
>

WOW, that's such a clever comeback. No facts, all attacks.

[Bud]

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:09:13 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/20/2016 10:43 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:32:36 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> OTT SAID:
> >>>
> >>> David von Pein [sic], in all honesty, suppose that dishonest things WERE
> >>> taking place there, would you THEN expect an extra bullet in the evidence
> >>> pile?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >>>
> >>> No, of course not. But, as I said, I don't believe that any "dishonest
> >>> things" were taking place
> >>
> >> David, do you have any idea how insignificant what you "believe" is?
> >
> > Harris is ladling out the irony early here.
> >
>
> WOW, that's such a clever comeback.

Clever observation.

> No facts, all attacks.

No attack, just an observation. Harris`s sandcastle is completely
constructed of the things he has decided to believe. For him to say that
it isn`t important what DVP believes is ironic.