Where are Darrell Tomlinson's earliest interviews?

[pjsp...@aol.com]

This is probably a dumb question, but I just wasted an hour trying to find
memos or reports on the November 63 FBI interview of Darrell Tomlinson
mentioned in his testimony, and the December 63 interview of Tomlinson
mentioned in his testimony. In Tomlinson's testimony, Specter confronts
Tomlinson with his previously having told the Secret Service the stretcher
bullet came from the elevator stretcher...but I can't find such a
report...which makes me wonder if Specter was over-worked and confused and
confronting Tomlinson with what he'd thought he'd read, as opposed to what
actually existed.

In any event, your help appreciated.

Pat

[Jean Davison]

Pat,

I can't find those documents either, although this isn't the first time I
couldn't find something that should be in the record (Secret Service memos
in particular seem to have gone missing).

During Humes' testimony on 3/16/64, when Dulles suggested the bullet
may've come from JFK's stretcher, Specter's answer may be referring to
these missing reports, imo:

"There has been other evidence, Mr. Dulles -- If I may say at this point,
we shall produce later, subject to sequential proof, evidence that the
stretcher on which this bullet was found was the stretcher of Governor
Connally. We have a sequence of events on the transmission of that
stretcher which ties that down reasonably closely ... But at any rate the
evidence will show that it was from Governor Connally's stretcher that the
bullet was found."

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=15976

When Tomlinson testified a few days later, in my opinion Specter sounded
exasperated when Tomlinson didn't say what he'd expected him to say. Since
Tomlinson's story changed from one stretcher to the other several times
(as David von Pein pointed out on another forum), I think it's reasonable
to think Tomlinson told a different story to the FBI/Secret Service
several months earlier. As he said repeatedly, he wasn't sure which
stretcher it was.

Tomlinson's testimony for anybody who wants it:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htm

Jean

[pjsp...@aol.com]

So...no such report exists?

So...Specter tried to change Tomlinson's mind by reminding him a Secret
Service report said Tomlinson claimed the bullet came from the stretcher
he'd taken from the elevator...when, in fact, no such report existed?

Isn't that the kind of behavior that will get a lawyer disbarred?

[Jean Davison]

No such report exists now online, apparently. Not the same thing
as not existing in 1964.

Tomlinson testified that he was interviewed by the FBI and Secret
Service a month or two after the assassination. Do you think he lied?

Tomlinson told Ray Marcus and CBS that the bullet was on the
elevator stretcher, so why is it implausible he'd say that in an
interview?

Jean

[Robert Harris]

In his WC testimony, Tomlinson made it clear that he originally stated
that the bullet did not come from Connally's stretcher. Other evidence
makes it a certainty that the bullet he found was not CE399.

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




Robert Harris

[Mike]

On 10/21/2014 8:50 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:

You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

In Tomlinson's testimony to Arlen Specter he states that he is not sure
which stretcher the bullet was on.

He states that several times.

He also states that he is aware he is under oath and he is just trying to
honor that oath, regardless of what he might have said to a SS or FBI
agent months earlier.

And the reason he is not sure is because Tomlinson did not discover the
bullet.

How do we know that?

Because we have the testimony of Nathan Pool for the HSCA dated Jan 10
1977.

In that testimony Mr. Pool states that it was he, not Tomlinson who
discovered the bullet. Pool stated that he gave the bullet to Tomlinson
who in turn gave it to either an SS agent or security officer Wright.

So why should we believe Pool?

Because Tomlinson corroborates Pool in his(Tomlinson's) 1964 testimony.

While Tomlinson never mentions Pool by name in several places
he(Tomlinson) refers to "we"

"Mr. Tomlinson: Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be perfectly
honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really didn't pay that
much attention to it. The stretcher was on the elevator and I pushed it
off of there and I believe WE made one or two calls up before I
straightened out the stretcher up against the wall."

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19537&p=260857

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/P%20Disk/Pool%20Nathan/Item%2003.pdf

[mainframetech]

Further truth about the bullet and the FBI and Tomlinson, Wright and 2
SS agent' denial that they has seen the bullet they were shown months
after the murder murder:

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm


Josiah Thompson, a researcher found that the bullet was found on a
stretcher/gurney used by Ronnie Fuller, as young boy who had need of the
ER earlier. This would be the WRONG stretcher/gurney and not sued by
Connally.

Chris

[Mike]

On 10/22/2014 5:23 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:

Stop.

We know the both and FBI agent and SS agent interviewed Tomlinson
because Tomlinson told us in his testimony.

And it would follows that those agents wrote a report.

All of the evidence points to the report does exist.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

I found the Secret Service report on the stretcher bullet. It's not in a
Commission Exhibit, nor is it in a Commission Document, so it's nowhere to
be found at Mary Ferrell. While the 12-5-63 report describes only one
stretcher in the corridor, which Tomlinson thought he'd pulled from the
elevator, it describes the stretcher on which the bullet was found as
follows: "the stretcher contained some bloody sheets rolled in a ball,
some medical tools, two bandage pads, and a glove."

This was in keeping with the earliest description of the stretcher. An
11-22-63 memo by Richard Johnsen, based upon his discussion with O.P.
Wright, relates: "Also on this stretcher was rubber gloves, a stethoscope
and other doctor's paraphernalia."

The Secret Service report then describes Connally's stretcher as per nurse
Wester: "Miss Wester rolled up the sheet on which the Governor was lying,
which was covered with blood, along with several pieces of paper, and
placed it on one end of the stretcher. She then placed some tools, which
she cannot identify, on the other end of the stretcher."

It's close, but no cigar. No stethoscope, no bandage pads, no glove.

While people think Tomlinson was Specter's nightmare, it turns out it was
Wester. She testified that "There were several glassine packets, small
packets of hypodermic needles---well, packed in and sterilized in. There
were several others---some alcohol sponges and a roll of 1-inch tape.
Those things, I definitely know, were on the cart, and the sheets, of
course.


Mr. SPECTER - Were there any other objects on the cart, on the stretcher cart?
Miss WESTER - Right off, I can't remember...I know I set something down on
the cart, I think it was a curved hemostat---I couldn't say for sure---I'm
not sure.

Mr. SPECTER - Now, what did you do with the stretcher after Governor
Connally was taken off of it?
Miss WESTER - I moved the stretcher back to the center area, fairly close
to the clock, it wasn't right under it, but fairly close, and an orderly, R.
J. Jimison, walked up...And he stood at the cart while I rolled the sheets
up and removed the items from the cart.

She testified that she'd REMOVED the items from the cart. This was then
supported by Jimison, who testified that upon receipt of the stretcher
from Wester: "I noticed nothing more than a little flat mattress and two
sheets as usual."

And then came Tomlinson. He told Specter that stretcher A, which he now
believed was the elevator stretcher--"had sheets on it and had a white
covering on the pad."

He also described the stretcher on which he found the bullet as follows:
"they had one or two sheets rolled up...They were bloody. They were rolled
up on the east end of it and there were a few surgical instruments on the
opposite end and a sterile pack or so...Like gauze or something like
that...it had some paper there but I don't know what they came from."

SO...while Tomlinson was admittedly confused as to which stretcher he took
off the elevator, he was consistent in his description of the stretcher on
which he found the bullet. This description, moreover, is inconsistent
with the testimony of Wester and Jimison regarding Connally's stretcher.

While one might try and claim Wester's testimony was in error, and that
she did not remove the items from the cart, and that her earliest
description of Connally's stretcher was close enough to Tomlinson's
descriptions to support he'd found the bullet on Connally's stretcher,
that's really quite desperate, IMO, seeing as she never said a peep about
the key item on the stretcher bearing the bullet according to the earliest
description of the stretcher: a glove.

[mainframetech]

I doubt that Tomlinson lied, but we have to keep in mind that the FBI
was caught many times lying about what a suspect said. Even in this part
of the case they lied. You might not be able to keep your dinner down,
but there is evidence that was tracked down by Aguilar and Thompson that
shows the FBI lying about the bullet in question:

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

The article has a great deal to do with the 'magic' bullet, and some of
the shenanigans the FBI got into with it. Including breaking the chain of
custody, and lying about the bullet and what witnesses said about it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Tomlinson's first choice was that the stretcher that was already there
was the one with the bullet.

Here's a drawing that Tomlinson made of the hallway to help explain the
2 stretchers and what letters he assigned to them:

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/stretcherdiagram.jpg

Here are some clips from Tomlinson's testimony:
First, the 'A' stretcher:
Mr. SPECTER. Now, would you mark in ink with my pen the stretcher which you
pushed off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I think that it was this one right here (indicating).
Mr. SPECTER. Will you draw the outline of it in ink and mark an "A" right
in the center of that?


Then the 'B' stretcher:

Mr. SPECTER. Will you mark with a "B" the stretcher which was present at
the time you pushed stretcher "A" off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. (Witness complied with the request of Counsel Specter.) I
believe that's it.

Then the bullet:
Mr. TOMLINSON. I bumped the wall and a spent cartridge or bullet rolled out
that apparently had been lodged under the edge of the mat.
Mr. SPECTER. And that was from which stretcher?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I believe that it was "B".

So Tomlinson chose the 'B' stretcher as the one the bullet fell from.

Then we have Specter trying to change his mind to suit Specter's scenario:

Mr. SPECTER. Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher "A"
that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be perfectly

honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really didn't pay that
much attention to it. The stretcher was on the elevator and I pushed it

off of there and I believe we made one or two calls up before I

straightened out the stretcher up against the wall.

In the Nova special he was more sure.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

PAT SPEER SAID:

While one might try and claim Wester's testimony was in error, and that
she did not remove the items from the cart, and that her earliest
description of Connally's stretcher was close enough to Tomlinson's
descriptions to support he'd found the bullet on Connally's stretcher,
that's really quite desperate, IMO, seeing as she never said a peep about
the key item on the stretcher bearing the bullet according to the earliest
description of the stretcher: a glove.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But the fact remains, Pat, that CE399 **is** a bullet from Lee Harvey
Oswald's rifle. And Oswald's rifle **was positively** being used to fire
bullets at JFK's car on 11/22/63.

Therefore, it seems to me that the math is fairly easy to do from this
point on, even with Darrell Tomlinson's confusion about the stretchers.

Because, in my opinion, the only REASONABLE conclusion to reach concerning
the method by which Bullet CE399 could have gotten on a stretcher located
in the part of Parkland Hospital where we know it was found (i.e., AWAY
from Trauma Room 1 where President Kennedy was located) is if that bullet
had fallen from Governor John Connally's body onto his stretcher.

All other explanations regarding the stretcher bullet are filled with
unsupportable speculation about planted or substituted bullets and other
alleged sinister activity on the part of various individuals and
Government agencies.

But no "sinister" activity is required to reach a logical conclusion about
the Stretcher Bullet at all. That bullet was--and still is--Commission
Exhibit No. 399. Simple as that.

---------------

RAYMOND MARCUS -- "As far as you could tell, did it [the bullet] look like
the same one to you?"

DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "Yes, it appeared to be the same one."

[...]

MARCUS -- "You think it was off the one that came off the elevator?"

TOMLINSON -- "I know it was."

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-74.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.html

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Let's not confuse the issue, David. The belief the bullet was the cause of
Connally's wounds is not reliant upon the bullet being found on Connally's
stretcher. The evidence, in fact, clearly suggests it was not found on his
stretcher. There are ways to explain this without SPECULATING that the
bullet went unnoticed by everyone involved in taking off Connally's
clothes, and then SPECULATING that it then went unnoticed by everyone
involved in putting him on the operating table, and clearing away his
stretcher, and then following that up by SPECULATING that the man who
finally found it, or at least officially found it, thought he'd found it
on a different stretcher.

[mainframetech]

I understand that a researcher name Josiah Thompson found that the
stretcher that the bullet was found on was used by a young boy who had cut
himself badly and was bleeding all over the place until they stitched him
up. Thompson put the information into his book, though I can't remember
the name of it.

Chris

[Jean Davison]

Good work finding that, Pat. Would you mind if I post your link to
the document here?

Tomlinson told the Secret Service the bullet was on the stretcher
he took off the elevator. Specter didn't make that up, after all.

I don't know why that's "the key item," but Wester did say this in
her testimony:

>>
Mr. SPECTER - Do you recollect whether there were any gloves on the cart?
Miss WESTER - There could have been---I don't recall right off---I can't
remember that.
>>

Jean

[David Von Pein]

PAT SPEER SAID:

The belief the bullet was the cause of Connally's wounds is not reliant
upon the bullet being found on Connally's stretcher.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Only if you want to believe in the highly unlikely scenario of Secret
Service agent Sam Kinney deciding it was a good idea to move the bullet
from the limousine to a stretcher in the hospital -- with Kinney having NO
IDEA whether that stretcher was even connected to JFK or Connally in any
way.

Such an action being taken by a member of the United States Secret Service
borders on the insane. In fact, I'll say it---it IS insane.

[Mike]

The evidence DOES NOT clearly suggest the bullet was not found on
Connally's stretcher.

A few posts ago you were SPECULATING that Arlen Specter was using a
fictitious FBI report to badger Tomlinson.

You even suggested that Arlen Specter was displaying behaviour that
should have him disbarred.

You ignored the facts that Tomlinson stated that he was interviewed by
one FBI agent and one SS agent.

Your bias was preventing you from correctly interpreting the evidence.

Heaven only knows what you would have written in your online blog if you
had never found that report.

But you did find that report.

What you should have learned from that experience is that your bias is
preventing you from clearly interpreting the evidence.

You are trying to lead the evidence instead of letting the evidence lead
you.

You are doing exactly the same thing with respect to the stretcher.

As I said you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, meaning
you have something you want to prove (for what ever reason) and you are
improperly weighing the evidence to get to your desired result.

Tomlinson was not sure what stretcher the bullet was on.
According to Tomlinson the stretcher was adjacent to another stretcher.
There were two stretchers.
The bullet could have been on either one of those stretchers because he
was not sure which stretcher it was on.

And then you ignore Pool's testimony where he describes the bullet he
found as bronze in color, pointed and looked like it did not hit anything.

[Anthony Marsh]

There are other places to find Commission Documents, such as the AARC or
the National Archives. You could also file an FOIA request.

[Anthony Marsh]

I assume none of you guys have a copy of Six Seconds in Dallas.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

While Kinney is my top suspect, he's by no means the only suspect. The
bullet could have, potentially, fallen out of Kennedy's or Connally's
clothing after they were pulled from the limo, and then been picked up by
a policeman, or an orderly, or a nurse.

And besides, we now know that Kinney and Hickey started to clean up the
limo outside Parkland, and that they kept their silence on that (except
for one possible slip-up by Kinney). Well, if Kinney and Hickey were
willing to hide that for so many years then it follows that they would
also hide that they'd discovered a bullet while performing this partial
clean-up. It need not have been anything sinister. They could have just
been scared they'd lose their jobs or look like idiots and possible
conspirators if they admitted they'd done something so stupid.

Here's a link to the SS report on the stretcher bullet:

https://sites.google.com/a/patspeer.com/www2/tomlinson_darrell_c.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

[Anthony Marsh]

WC lawyers had immunity.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, October 23, 2014 8:07:09 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> While one might try and claim Wester's testimony was in error, and that
> she did not remove the items from the cart, and that her earliest
> description of Connally's stretcher was close enough to Tomlinson's
> descriptions to support he'd found the bullet on Connally's stretcher,
> that's really quite desperate, IMO, seeing as she never said a peep about
> the key item on the stretcher bearing the bullet according to the earliest
> description of the stretcher: a glove.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> But the fact remains, Pat, that CE399 **is** a bullet from Lee Harvey
> Oswald's rifle. And Oswald's rifle **was positively** being used to fire
> bullets at JFK's car on 11/22/63.
>
> Therefore, it seems to me that the math is fairly easy to do from this
> point on, even with Darrell Tomlinson's confusion about the stretchers.
>
> Because, in my opinion, the only REASONABLE conclusion to reach concerning
> the method by which Bullet CE399 could have gotten on a stretcher located
> in the part of Parkland Hospital where we know it was found (i.e., AWAY
> from Trauma Room 1 where President Kennedy was located) is if that bullet
> had fallen from Governor John Connally's body onto his stretcher.
>
> All other explanations regarding the stretcher bullet are filled with
> unsupportable speculation about planted or substituted bullets and other
> alleged sinister activity on the part of various individuals and
> Government agencies.
>

Bull. There other explanation that are reasonable too, but you have to
believe that it was a conspiracy that killed JFK. It was only too easy to
put a bullet on a stretcher/gurney at Parkland, and the guy that did it
didn't know until Later that the WRONG stretcher was used. The stretcher
that had the bullet on it was checked by Josiah Thompson, and he found
that it came from being used by a small boy that had cut himself badly and
was bleeding all over the place, until they stitched him up.

Any bullet could be put on the stretcher, and the idiot that planted it
again made a mistake. He used a standard bullet that has a 'pointy nose'
like most folks are familiar with. The bullet was put into FBI custody
with Robert Frazier, who got assigned as the keeper of the bullet
evidence. The very next day Frazier participated in testing of the MC
rifle, producing 60 bullets fired through the MC rifle. One of those test
bullets would work just fine to replace the CE399 bullet in FBI custody
with Robert Frazier. Simple.

From there on, there was an MC bullet in custody, for anytime someone
checked. And sure enough they wanted to check that the bullet that they
had in custody was the right bullet, so they sent it out to be looked at
by 4 men that had handled the CE399 bullet on the day and evening of the
murder. 2 of those men were SS agents, but they didn't apparently mark
the bullet as they are trained to do. Although perhaps they marked the
original bullet and now didn't see their marks. Surprisingly, the 4 men
refused to identify the bullet! And one of them made it clear that the
bullet he was shown was the wrong shape! He said that the bullet he was
shown was 'round nosed', and the original bullet was pointy nosed! So we
have a replaced bullet in FBI custody! A perfect setup to implicate
Oswald by saying that one of the wounding bullets came from Oswald's
rifle.

So now the FBI has a bullet that can't be authenticated! Of course,
they didn't want to advertise that. It might lead to distrust of the FBI.

> But no "sinister" activity is required to reach a logical conclusion about
> the Stretcher Bullet at all. That bullet was--and still is--Commission
> Exhibit No. 399. Simple as that.
>

LOL! simplicity is true, but not sinister, is false...:)

> ---------------
>
> RAYMOND MARCUS -- "As far as you could tell, did it [the bullet] look like
> the same one to you?"
>
> DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "Yes, it appeared to be the same one."
>
> [...]
>
> MARCUS -- "You think it was off the one that came off the elevator?"
>
> TOMLINSON -- "I know it was."
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-74.html
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.html

Here's the bullet from the WC exhibits:

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg

The first bullet is the CE399 bullet, and the second bullet is a test
bullet. Amazing similarity between them. hey both have a slight bend and
flattening in the middle, and they both are missing a bit of material at
the tail end! Yep, the CE399 is a test bullet, replaced in FBI custody to
look like a bullet implicating Oswald. And it was so easy to do...:)

Chris

[pjsp...@aol.com]

LOL. You don't know what you're writing about. I assumed from the
beginning that the report existed, but raised the possibility it didn't in
hopes it would spur someone to tell me where it was. It turned out no one
knew where it was. So I found it myself. Now we have to find out why it
was never put in a Commission Document.

As far as which stretcher... read the descriptions of the stretcher...
Mike... the descriptions... Wester claimed she'd cleared off Connally's
stretcher... the stretcher with the bullet was not that stretcher

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/23/2014 11:16 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> On Thursday, October 23, 2014 5:07:09 PM UTC-7, David Von Pein wrote:
>> PAT SPEER SAID:
>>
>> While one might try and claim Wester's testimony was in error, and that
>> she did not remove the items from the cart, and that her earliest
>> description of Connally's stretcher was close enough to Tomlinson's
>> descriptions to support he'd found the bullet on Connally's stretcher,
>> that's really quite desperate, IMO, seeing as she never said a peep about
>> the key item on the stretcher bearing the bullet according to the earliest
>> description of the stretcher: a glove.
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> But the fact remains, Pat, that CE399 **is** a bullet from Lee Harvey
>> Oswald's rifle. And Oswald's rifle **was positively** being used to fire
>> bullets at JFK's car on 11/22/63.
>>

Sure, but that does not prove that it was the only rifle being fired.

[Anthony Marsh]

You mean you don't already have Six Seconds in Dallas? But I bet you
have Best Evidence and all the Fetzer books.

[Anthony Marsh]

Who said it had to be Kinney?
Maybe it got swept into the bucket and then taken back into the hospital.

[mainframetech]

Yes, I had forgotten Pool's involvement. He apparently corroborates
Tomlinson's statement that the bullet he originally saw was pointed, NOT
round nosed. That suggests a replacement of the bullet in FBI custody.

Chris

[Jean Davison]

The two Tomlinson videos posted by David show how unreliable
witness memory can be -- in 1967 he was sure it was found on the
elevator stretcher, years later it was the other one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pog1b4y6oz8&index=22&list=PL_dMfz70gRsL2V0su-tAr8r7dXVhogDvA

In the first interview he said that after he looked at the bullet
he put it in his pocket -- which would mean that he was the only person
who actually saw it as it lay on the stretcher. The two stretchers were
side by side. Suppose he misremembered which one from the very beginning
and pointed out the wrong stretcher to Wright? In that case, it wouldn't
matter what articles were on the stretcher.

I agree with David that however it went down it's much more likely
that the bullet was found on the stretcher that came off the elevator
from the second floor, where we know a gunshot victim had just been
taken and where the surgeon was puzzled because he couldn't find a bullet:

>>
Dr. GREGORY - I would say that that [thigh] wound was about a centimeter
in diameter, much larger than the identifiable fragment of metal in the
thigh. I might add that this prompted some speculation on our part, my
part, which was voiced to someone that some search ought to be made in
the Governor's clothing or perhaps in the auto or some place, wherever
he may have been, for the missile which had produced this much damage
but which was not resident in him.
<<
Jean

[Mike]

On 10/24/2014 8:59 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:

If you believed the report existed you should have stated that,
otherwise you are just being manipulative.

So I guess you are doing the same thing when you want to accuse Kinney
and or Hickey of lying?

Are you going to respond and say that you know they are not lying but
you are raising the possibility to get people to tell you they are not?

Here is what you say...

" And besides, we now know that Kinney and Hickey started to clean up the
limo outside Parkland, and that they kept their silence on that (except
for one possible slip-up by Kinney). Well, if Kinney and Hickey were
willing to hide that for so many years then it follows that they would
also hide that they'd discovered a bullet while performing this partial
clean-up. It need not have been anything sinister. They could have just
been scared they'd lose their jobs or look like idiots and possible
conspirators if they admitted they'd done something so stupid."

Regarding the stretcher....

What is clear from the evidence is that it is not clear what stretcher
the bullet fell from.

What is clear is that the bullet DID FALL from SOME stretcher.

What is also clear is there were two stretchers in the foyer.

What is also clear is that one of the stretchers was pushed into the
other stretcher.

It is also clear that one of those stretchers was Connallys stretcher.

It is also clear that the other stretcher was not JFK's stretcher.


Frankly, to any reasonable person reading the testimony of both
Tomlinson and Wester would conclude that they were talking about the
same stretcher.

Here is how Tomlinson described the stretcher that was in the elevator
"The stretcher contained some bloody sheets rolled in a ball, some
medical tools, two bandage pads and a glove".

And here is how Wester described the stretcher that was put on the elevator

"Miss Wester the rolled up the sheet on which Governer was lying which
was covered with blood, along with several pieces of paper and place it
on one end of the stretcher. Shen then placed some tools which she
cannot identify on the other end of the stretcher."

[mainframetech]

There is also the story of the bullet found during the Connally surgery
by a nurse who brought it out of the OR and it was given to someone and
immediately disappeared. Can't have bullets that didn't match the MC
rifle floating around.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

You're not playing along with the spirit of the game, Jean. You are
supposed to be thinking up ways that the bullet could be genuine, but the
witnesses mistaken and still have it not cause ALL the wounds. For
example, maybe it was found on little Ronnie Fuller's stretcher since some
people thing the stuff left on it indicates it was used to carry the
little boy. So it could be a wild miss first shot in the air to draw
attention to the TSBD which went halfway across town and hit little Ronnie
Fuller's knee. Try to get with the program or you'll accidentally reveal
the conspiracy. We're counting on you.

[mainframetech]

Jean, please don't forget Nathan Pool, the Otis repairman.


And whether the bullet was found on the WRONG stretcher/gurney, it
wouldn't matter, since it was replaced and didn't match what 4 men were
asked to identify. Surprisingly, 2 of those men were SS agents, and yet
we don't hear that they marked the evidence as they knew they should.
And all 4 refused to identify the bullet that was shown to them ,and 1 of
them pointed out that the bullet shown from FBI custody was the wrong
shape, that it should have been 'pointy nosed'. This information suggests
strongly that the bullet in FBI custody was not the one that originally
was found on a stretcher.

Much more could be said of the bullet in custody, particularly that it
in all ways resembles the test bullet pictured beside it in a WC exhibit:

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg


And that after hitting 2 men 7 times, including 2 bone strikes, that it
should have more damage on it, like the bullet on the right end, which was
fired into a cadaver wrist bone.

Chris

[pjsp...@aol.com]

How can you possibly assess probabilities on this? Have you done any
research on the comparative likelihood of a bullet's being place on a
stretcher versus the likelihood it would be overlooked by numerous
employees before being spotted on a stretcher. Of course not.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

They were never asked about the clean-up of the limo, so

>
> Are you going to respond and say that you know they are not lying but
> you are raising the possibility to get people to tell you they are not?
>
> Here is what you say...
>
> " And besides, we now know that Kinney and Hickey started to clean up the
> limo outside Parkland, and that they kept their silence on that (except
> for one possible slip-up by Kinney). Well, if Kinney and Hickey were
> willing to hide that for so many years then it follows that they would
> also hide that they'd discovered a bullet while performing this partial
> clean-up. It need not have been anything sinister. They could have just
> been scared they'd lose their jobs or look like idiots and possible
> conspirators if they admitted they'd done something so stupid."
>
> Regarding the stretcher....
>
> What is clear from the evidence is that it is not clear what stretcher
> the bullet fell from.
>
> What is clear is that the bullet DID FALL from SOME stretcher.
>
> What is also clear is there were two stretchers in the foyer.
>
> What is also clear is that one of the stretchers was pushed into the
> other stretcher.
>
> It is also clear that one of those stretchers was Connallys stretcher.

AND that Connally's stretcher was clear of gloves and equipment when it
was sent downstairs

>
> It is also clear that the other stretcher was not JFK's stretcher.

AND that this stretcher DID have a glove etc when noticed downstairs

>
>
> Frankly, to any reasonable person reading the testimony of both
> Tomlinson and Wester would conclude that they were talking about the
> same stretcher.
>
> Here is how Tomlinson described the stretcher that was in the elevator
> "The stretcher contained some bloody sheets rolled in a ball, some
> medical tools, two bandage pads and a glove".
>
> And here is how Wester described the stretcher that was put on the elevator
>
> "Miss Wester the rolled up the sheet on which Governer was lying which
> was covered with blood, along with several pieces of paper and place it
> on one end of the stretcher. Shen then placed some tools which she
> cannot identify on the other end of the stretcher."

BRAVO. You read the SS report the same way Specter did. NOW, go back and
read agent Johnsen's report on the stretcher bullet AND nurse Wester's and
orderly Jimison's testimony. THEN and only then you can make an informed
decision about which stretcher held the bullet, and whether or not this
stretcher was Connally's stretcher.

[Jean Davison]

I'm not talking about a statistical probability, Pat, I'm stating
an opinion (as are you, right?). People overlook all kinds of things
when they're focused on something else. (Have you see the gorilla on the
basketball court video?) Tomlinson might have missed it too if it hadn't
made a noise when it hit the rail.

The improbable part to me is someone finding a bullet in the limo
and then *moving* it. Why on earth would anyone do that? What was he
thinking? A bullet in the limo is clearly connected to the shooting --
but on a stretcher in the ER? What's the point?
Jean

[Jean Davison]

>>>> According to Tomlinson the stretcher was adjacent to another stretcher..

I don't believe Pool was there. His testimony conflicts with
Tomlinson's, and no one mentioned him. I think he's one of those
would-be witnesses like Beverly Oliver who are either inserting
themselves into the event or are mentally confused. That's my opinion.

>
>
> And whether the bullet was found on the WRONG stretcher/gurney, it
> wouldn't matter, since it was replaced and didn't match what 4 men were
> asked to identify. Surprisingly, 2 of those men were SS agents, and yet
> we don't hear that they marked the evidence as they knew they should.
> And all 4 refused to identify the bullet that was shown to them ,and 1 of
> them pointed out that the bullet shown from FBI custody was the wrong
> shape, that it should have been 'pointy nosed'. This information suggests
> strongly that the bullet in FBI custody was not the one that originally
> was found on a stretcher.
>
> Much more could be said of the bullet in custody, particularly that it
> in all ways resembles the test bullet pictured beside it in a WC exhibit:
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5e/Photo_hsca_ex_294.jpg
>
>
> And that after hitting 2 men 7 times, including 2 bone strikes, that it
> should have more damage on it, like the bullet on the right end, which was
> fired into a cadaver wrist bone.

All this has been debated hundreds of times. Olivier explained why
the bullet on the right (CE856) was more damaged and caused more damage to
the cadaver wrist bone than Connally's wrist sustained. I'm not getting
into all this again, sorry.

Jean

[pjsp...@aol.com]

The bullet's being found in the limo is only one possibility. Seeing as we
know Kinney and Hickey partially cleaned up the limo, and then stopped,
and then failed to admit they'd done so in their reports, I don't think
it's at all far-fetched that they would not want anyone to know they'd
found the bullet.

But there's plenty of options should one find that unlikely that are
nevertheless still far more likely, IMO, than the "official" story of the
bullet's going unnoticed while Connally was stripped naked, moved
upstairs, and lifted from the stretcher, and then still going unnoticed
while a nurse rolled up the sheets.

[Mike]

You need to learn how to weigh evidence.

There is no witness you can quote that can be relied upon.
None.

And to be perfectly candid, there is no witness I can quote that can be
totally relied upon.

Every witness has made inconsistent statements.

Nurse Wester told the SS agent the stretcher had tools on it when she
gave it to Jimison.

Nurse Wester told Specter she took the tools off.

Jimson told the SS agent he took the stretcher from Wester and placed it
in the elevator.

Jimison's testimony to Specter is bland. He is not sure what was on the
stretcher. What Jamison is sure of is that there was only 1 stretcher
placed in the elevator and that was Connallys stretcher.

Tomlinson told the SS agent the stretcher he took off the elevator had
tools on it.

Tomlinson told Specter the stretcher on which he found the bullet had
tools on it.

Special Agents Richard Johnsen's report said the stretcher had tools on it.

Tomlinson told Specter when he took the stretcher off the elevator he
left it in the foyer.

Tomlinson told Specter he did not immediately place the stretcher he
took off the elevator against the wall. He made several trips up in the
elevator.

Tomlinson told the SS agent about an hour elapsed before he placed the
stretcher against the wall.

Tomlinson told Specter the stretcher he took off the elevator was placed
in front of the stretcher that was in front of the bathroom door.

Tomlinson told Specter the stretcher that had the tools on it was by the
bathroom door.

Tomlinson told Specter the stretcher he took of the elevator he placed
in front of the stretcher that was in front of the bathroom door.

Tomlinson he found the bullet on the stretcher when it rolled from under
a pad.

Nathan Pool said HE found the bullet when it dropped to the floor when
they pushed it against the wall.


Tomlinson is consistent on two points...

1)The stretcher that had the bullet was the stretcher that had tools on it.
2)The stretcher that he took off the elevator had tools on it.


Nurse Wester said there could have been a glove on it.


Now here is a test for you to take so you can learn how to weigh the
evidence...

http://www.intelligencetest.com/stmemory/games/picture/picture1.htm

[Jean Davison]

>>>>> As far as which stretcher... read the descriptions of the stretcher....

Why use the word "admit"? Do you think they were knowingly doing
something wrong? Many details were left out of the lawmen's reports,
especially "gory" details.

What I really don't understand is, why move the bullet, why not
just leave it there? Could you explain that to me?

>
> But there's plenty of options should one find that unlikely that are
> nevertheless still far more likely, IMO, than the "official" story of the
> bullet's going unnoticed while Connally was stripped naked, moved
> upstairs, and lifted from the stretcher, and then still going unnoticed
> while a nurse rolled up the sheets.
>

Here's another possibility. At about 2:50 into the Tomlinson video,
one can see that the pad slides easily across the metal stretcher.
Suppose that when Connally was being lifted the pad was pushed all the
way to the rail, covering the bullet -- until Tomlinson shoved the
stretcher against the wall, the pad shifted again and out it came.

Works for me. Or as I like to say, "Shift happens"!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pog1b4y6oz8&index=22&list=PL_dMfz70gRsL2V0su-tAr8r7dXVhogDvA

Jean

[mainframetech]

An explanation can be made for why the Earth is flat (or appears to be).
But the odds on it are awful long. Same with the semi-pristine bullet
that resembles a test bullet so closely.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Have we added in the story of the nurse that brought a bullet out of the
Connally surgery and turned it over to authorities, only to have it
disappear?

Chris

[mainframetech]

Perhaps you should include the story of Josiah 'Tink' Thompson, that he
checked it out and found that the stretcher with bloody sheets was from a
young boy named Ronnie Fuller, who had cut himself and needed stitches
while he was bleeding all over the place.

In the long run it doesn't matter that much though, because when they
tried to have the CE399 bullet (supposedly found on the WRONG stretcher)
identified by 4 of the men that had handled it the day of the murder, all
4 refused to identify it. And one of them even said the bullet shown to
them (and now in the custody of the FBI) was the wrong shape, that it was
'round nosed' and not 'pointy nosed' like the original CE399 (the MC
bullets were all round nosed). This strongly suggests that CE399 was
replaced, probably the day after the murder by a test bullet. The
custodian was part of testing the MC rifle the very next day, and they ran
off 60 bullets in doing that. It would have been an easy thing to grab a
test bullet from Oswald's rifle and substitute it for the bullet in
custody, implicating Oswald in the evidence.

Chris

[Mike]

Tomlinson's testimony corroborates Pool's testimony.

In several places Tomlinson uses the word "we" when describing taking
people up in the elevator.

"Mr. Tomlinson: Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be perfectly
honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really didn't pay that
much attention to it. The stretcher was on the elevator and I pushed it
off of there and I believe WE made one or two calls up before I
straightened out the stretcher up against the wall."

And later Pool says

"Prior to his discovery of the bullet, Pool recalls that he and
Tomlinson gave another person a ride up to either the second or third
floor1."

Specter never asked him who "WE" were. If he had the WC would have
discovered the identity of the person who was working with Tomlinson.

So we have this dangling "WE" that needs to be resolved.

This is not my opinion, this is a fact.


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19537&page=6#entry260857

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/P%20Disk/Poo

[Mike]

On 10/26/2014 11:00 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:

You are fighting the evidence.

The evidence is telling us that is exactly what happened. The bullet
went unnoticed.

Anyone who has dropped something while sitting down and even thought
they knew where it went and looked for it and still could not find it
would immediately understand how easy something like this can happen.

[David Von Pein]

JEAN DAVISON SAID:

Here's another possibility. At about 2:50 into the Tomlinson video, one
can see that the pad slides easily across the metal stretcher. Suppose

that when Connally was being lifted, the pad was pushed all the way to the

rail, covering the bullet -- until Tomlinson shoved the stretcher against
the wall, the pad shifted again and out it came. Works for me. Or as I
like to say, "Shift happens"!

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You know what they say about "great minds". .... ~grin~ .... Here's
something I said in 2007 in an article/post that I entitled "The Odd (But
Almost Certainly True) Journey Of Commission Exhibit 399":


"The bullet, now almost totally spent, travels its last few inches into
Connally's left thigh, barely breaking the skin, but not hitting his femur
beneath the skin.

The bullet is then jarred loose from the shallow thigh wound at some
point, falling (probably) into his pants leg for a period of
time...eventually ending up on his stretcher...where it rolls/slides under
the stretcher's rubber mat (partially hiding it; hence, nobody sees the
damn thing in the ER or in the OR).

It's quite possible that Connally's position on the stretcher at the time
the bullet did its little dive under the mat was such that the weight of
Connally's large frame possibly PUSHED UP a portion of the end of the
rubber mat, leaving a gap between the metal stretcher and the mat. And
when Connally was then removed from the stretcher, the mat (now free from
the weight of Connally's body) falls flat and even again with the metal
stretcher, covering (at least partially) Bullet #CE399.

Yes, that above scenario is just a guess on my part (quite obviously). But
it seems like a fairly logical guess, given the sum total of evidence that
indicates Bullet 399 DID, indeed, fall from Connally's thigh wound onto
his stretcher while he was lying on that stretcher inside Parkland
Hospital that Friday afternoon. And also given the fact that not a single
person saw the bullet on the stretcher prior to Tomlinson (or heard the
tinkling of metal rolling against the metal parts of the stretcher as it
was being moved from the OR to the second-floor elevator area).

The stretcher (with bullet under mat) is pushed out of the 2nd-Floor
Operating Room and into an elevator being operated that day by Parkland's
Senior Engineer, Darrell C. Tomlinson.

Tomlinson takes the stretcher down to the first floor, where it's taken
off the elevator and placed in the hallway next to young patient Ronnie
Fuller's stretcher.

Tomlinson then returns to his elevator and hospital duties for a period of
time....making at least 2 additional trips up to higher floors in the
hospital before finally noticing that one of the two first-floor
stretchers has been moved by someone who entered the men's room located
off of that same hallway.

Tomlinson pushes the stretcher up against the wall again to clear it out
of the middle of the aisle/hallway, and hears a metallic sound on the
stretcher he's just pushed against the wall.

Out rolls Commission Exhibit #399, out from under the pad/mat on the
stretcher, where it was partially hidden (or possibly completely out of
viewable sight for a time)....and the never-ending controversy surrounding
this little piece of metal and lead had begun."

-- DVP; September 15, 2007

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/qk8hLx2froI/g6YwybTTZcUJ

[Jean Davison]

Who did Tomlinson mean by "we" here:

Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, we received a call in the engineer's office, the
chief engineer's office, and he requested someone to operate the elevator.
UNQUOTE

Can't be Pool because Pool worked for an elevator company. He
claimed that someone had called *him* to come over and operate the
elevators.

Jean

[Jean Davison]

Wow, you're right, David. I may well have read that in 2007 and by
now didn't realize you'd thought of it first. Sorry. But I'm glad we
agree.

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

Nice dodge. If I tried that you'd accuse me of running away or admitting
defeat. You always argue with a double standard.

[Anthony Marsh]

So what if the Secret Service or Dr. Burkely found a bullet in the limo
and removed it? Just doing their job.

Can you explain how a second Carcano bullet found ANYWHERE in Parkland
Hospital would not be connected to the shooting? Was there a rash of
Carcano shootings that day?

Was little Ronnie Fuller hit by the missed shot?

[pjsp...@aol.com]

NO, she didn't. The SS agent IMPLIED as much. But Specter didn't dare
throw that in her face, did he? And why is that? Because she was a
professional nurse, the assistant supervisor of the operating room, for
crying out loud, and professional nurses, believe it or not, don't send
stretchers holding hypodermic needles and instruments down an elevator so
they can be put out in a hall accessible to God knows who.

Possible scenario. The SS agent (Warner) asked Wester what was on
Connally's stretcher. She told him. He never asked her if she removed
these items. And she never told him.

[Mike]

Thats ridiculous.

You need to read Pools sworn testimony. You will find out that it was
Pool who operated the elevator.

We have Nathan Pools testimony.

Here is a link to it...

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/K%20Disk/Kurtz%20Michael%20L%20Dr%20Kansas%20Wrone%20Book/Item%2017.pdf

If you read his testimony on page 40 you will see that he wore a
uniform(shirt and pants) And the shirt had a patch that said "Otis".

Here is a link to a Josiah Thompson Rex Bradford interview.

In that interview Josiah Thompson says the following...

[QUOTE]

JOSIAH: ..the House Select Committee was called by a gentleman named
Poole. Poole was the service representative for Otis Elevator, and Poole
reported that he had been in Parkland Hospital that morning, that he had
been sent over as soon as the assassination occurred, and he witnessed the
discovery of the bullet. CERTAINLY POOLE WAS THERE, WE HAVE AFFIDAVITS
FROM PEOPLE MENTIONING SOMEONE WITH OTIS ELEVATOR ON THEIR OVERALLS. So
its clear he was there. POOLE CALLED THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE and the
first phone call was taken by a lawyer..."

[UNQUOTE]

Link to Josiah Bradford interview

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Unredacted_-_Episode_3_-_Transcript


So we learn several things...

First, Poole called the HSCA. I doubt that a man would volunteer to
commit perjury.

Second, there are affidavits referring to a man wearing a Otis Elevator
uniform.

Poole was there.

[Mike]

I said...

Nurse Wester told the SS agent the stretcher had tools on it when she
gave it to Jimison.

You said

NO, she didn't. The SS agent IMPLIED as much. But Specter didn't dare
throw that in her face, did he? And why is that? Because she was a
professional nurse, the assistant supervisor of the operating room, for
crying out loud, and professional nurses, believe it or not, don't send
stretchers holding hypodermic needles and instruments down an elevator
so they can be put out in a hall accessible to God knows who.

Read the SS report. Here is a direct quote from the report.

"Miss Wester then rolled up the sheet on which the Governor was lying
which was covered with bloo, along with several pieces of paper and placed
it on one end of the stretcher. She then placed some tools which she
cannot identify on the other end of the stretcher. She then asked an
orderly, R.J. Jimison, to toake the stretcher back to the elevator for use
in the Emergency Ward. Miss Wester stated the last she saw of the
stretcher the orderly, Jimison, was pushing it toward the elevators."


The SS agent is trained to interview people. He did not imply anthing he
reported what the nurse told him.

It is very clear..."She then placed some tools ... on the other end of the
stretcher". "She then asked an orderly..."

It does not say, ANYWHERE, that she then took the tools off the stretcher.

What is implied by this is that SHE DID NOT tell the SS agent she took the
tools off the stretcher.


Tomlinson tells us that the stretcher he took off the elevator had tools
on it.

Jamison tells us he only placed one stretcher in the elevator.

You are trying to create a scenario which fits the square peg that you
want to force into your round hole.

You are not evaluating evidence you are trying to fit a preconceived
theory to the evidence.

[David Von Pein]

Pool was probably there in the hospital on Nov. 22, but where's the proof
he was right there by the stretchers when the bullet was found -- other
than Pool saying he was?

Tomlinson's testimony has always been pretty clear on this point -- it was
HE (Tomlinson) who first found the bullet on the stretcher. (Not on the
FLOOR, which is the story I think Nathan Pool has told, but on the
stretcher.)

RAY MARCUS -- "The bullet didn't actually fall to the floor, did it?"
DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "No."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OkszAXPYCLM/Tubf6UQmxbI/AAAAAAAAA9A/UkYZ9vmu6us/s1600-h/Marcus-Tomlinson-Interview-Transcript-Page-2.jpg

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/marcus-tomlinson-interview-7-25-66.html

[Jean Davison]

On 10/28/2014 4:53 PM, Mike wrote:
> On 10/27/2014 10:40 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
>> On 10/27/2014 7:06 PM, Mike wrote:

<snip of old stuff

The link didn't work for me. I could be wrong about Pool, but I
still have doubts. If there are affidavits mentioning him, I'd like to
see those.

>
> So we learn several things...
>
> First, Poole called the HSCA. I doubt that a man would volunteer to
> commit perjury.

He didn't have to be lying. I highly recommend the links to
articles on false memory Dave Reitzes posted here recently. People often
"remember" things that never happened, as those articles explain.

Jean

[pjsp...@aol.com]

HILARIOUS! You claim that I don't know how to weigh evidence when you give
priority to second hand reports written by government investigators, (who
may or may not have taken notes) over exact quotes and common sense.

[Jean Davison]

My mistake. Your links do work.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/27/2014 11:39 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> JEAN DAVISON SAID:
>
> Here's another possibility. At about 2:50 into the Tomlinson video, one
> can see that the pad slides easily across the metal stretcher. Suppose
> that when Connally was being lifted, the pad was pushed all the way to the
> rail, covering the bullet -- until Tomlinson shoved the stretcher against
> the wall, the pad shifted again and out it came. Works for me. Or as I
> like to say, "Shift happens"!
>

How about when he shoves the stretcher against the wall, the bullet
falls to the floor and then he picks it up and ASSuMEs which stretcher
it came from?

>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> You know what they say about "great minds". .... ~grin~ .... Here's
> something I said in 2007 in an article/post that I entitled "The Odd (But
> Almost Certainly True) Journey Of Commission Exhibit 399":
>
>
> "The bullet, now almost totally spent, travels its last few inches into
> Connally's left thigh, barely breaking the skin, but not hitting his femur
> beneath the skin.
>

Barely breaking the skin? OK, then the base would be sticking out.

> The bullet is then jarred loose from the shallow thigh wound at some
> point, falling (probably) into his pants leg for a period of
> time...eventually ending up on his stretcher...where it rolls/slides under
> the stretcher's rubber mat (partially hiding it; hence, nobody sees the
> damn thing in the ER or in the OR).
>

How about when they take off his clothes?
Do you believe the story that the nurse picked it up? Then you've got
TWO, count them TWO magic bullets.

What number do you give to the second magic bullet?

[Anthony Marsh]

I have, a long time ago.
That story came from his ghostwriter. He never said it.

> Chris
>

[Mike]

I have given you the information. If you would like to see the affidavits
I am sure you could just get on the phone and call Gary Mack or Josiah
Thompson and they will tell you which affidavits.

Again, Tomlinson corroborated Pool in his(Tomlinson's) testimony.

Several times, when referring to trips in the elevator, Tomlinson uses the
word "we".

You can play the "false memory" card anytime you want but people are not
going to buy it in this instance. The evidence tells us the man was there.

[Mike]

I suggest you read Pools complete testimony.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/K%20Disk/Kurtz%20Michael%20L%20Dr%20Kansas%20Wrone%20Book/Item%2017.pdf

I suggest you find the affidavits that Josiah Thompson refers to.

Pools tells us that he had responsiblity for all Otis elevators in the
building. He tells us there were some Hunter-Hayes elevators and he did
not take care of them.

Pool was asked if there is an Otis elevator in the emergency room.

Pool tells us yes, there is an Otis elevator in the emergency room.

Tomlinson does not refer to Pool by name but when talking about taking
people up in the elevator, he(Tomlinson) refers to "we" several times.

[Mike]

You don't know how to weigh evidence.

I said that every witness has given inconsistent statements, including
nurse Wester.

Again....

Nurse Wester told the agent she put the tools on the stretcher. She did
not tell him she then took the tools off.

Tomlinson said the stetcher he took off the elevator had tools on it.


The agent talked to Tomlinson first.

Tomlinson told the agent the stretcher he took off the elevator had
tools on it.

Later the agent talks to Nurse Wester.

Nurse Wester tells the agent she put tools on the stretcher and gave the
stretcher to the orderly to send down stairs.

Here is what Wester tells Specter
Mr. SPECTER. Do you recollect whether there were any gloves on the cart?
Miss WESTER. There could have been---I don't recall right off---I can't
remember that.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you recall whether there were any tools on one end of
the stretcher?
Miss WESTER. I know I set something down on the cart, I think it was a
curved hemostat---I couldn't say for sure---I'm not sure.

Frankly, the evidence is indicating that nurse Wester is mistaken when she
said she took the tools off the stretcher. (Maybe she took some tools off
and left some tools on the stretcher that would make everyones testimony
consistent)

[David Von Pein]

MIKE SAID:

I suggest you read Pools complete testimony.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/K%20Disk/Kurtz%20Michael%20L%20Dr%20Kansas%20Wrone%20Book/Item%2017.pdf

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And when you read Nathan Pool's testimony, make sure to pay attention to
this remark made by Nathan Pool concerning the stretcher bullet he says he
saw on 11/22/63:

"It was more round-nosed than a .303 or a 30.06 or anything like that."

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kH8kpZxy7cU/VFGgLs7IzuI/AAAAAAABAjo/pSZI60D1YY8/s1600/Nathan-Pool-Testimony.png

That's a quote that the conspiracy theorists must hate. They like the idea
of the bullet being "pointy" in nature. But Pool says "it was more
round-nosed".

I have doubts, however, that Nathan Pool was even there when Darrell
Tomlinson found the bullet. But after looking over Tomlinson's very brief
Warren Commission, I now have fewer doubts about Pool being there than I
did before. (And also after looking at Pool's HSCA testimony that Mike
provided above.)

Nathan Pool could have indeed been there with Tomlinson when the bullet
was first discovered. Tomlinson's WC testimony certainly doesn't eliminate
the possibility of Pool being there too.

And since Tomlinson's testimony doesn't include anything about O.P Wright,
who we know took possession of the bullet from Tomlinson, then the name
"Nathan Pool" not appearing in Tomlinson's testimony doesn't seem
unreasonable either. Arlen Specter just didn't ask Tomlinson a lot of
things he could have asked him.

And if it could be proven that Pool was there when the stretcher bullet
was found, then Pool's "round-nosed" quote would take on added
significance.

[Anthony Marsh]

Probably a Javascript error. Make sure you have Javascript enabled and
also a filter to stop bad scripts.

Anyway, what he cited was not someone interviewing Poole. It was just a
chat between Rex Bradford and Tink. But it is still very interesting and
give important background.

Sometimes you can RIGHT CLICK to save it then read it later.

>>
>> So we learn several things...
>>
>> First, Poole called the HSCA. I doubt that a man would volunteer to
>> commit perjury.
>
> He didn't have to be lying. I highly recommend the links to
> articles on false memory Dave Reitzes posted here recently. People often
> "remember" things that never happened, as those articles explain.
>

Every researcher MUST read Loftus.

> Jean

[David Von Pein]

FYI / BTW.....

Here's what Vincent Bugliosi said about Nathan Pool:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LhM4rgqjBwM/VFHAUxjWfWI/AAAAAAABAj4/JRT-W3sYQdU/s1600-h/Reclaiming-History-Excerpt-Regarding-Nathan-Pool.png

[David Von Pein]

Nathan Pool Addendum.....

There are some inconsistencies and contradictions in Nathan Pool's two
interviews with the HSCA. In a telephone interview in January 1977, Pool
described the bullet as "pointed". But in his longer interview with the
HSCA in July 1978, Pool made the previously mentioned "round-nosed"
comment.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qQ32ovfEai8/VFHPiizmr3I/AAAAAAABAkI/uZtnhK5YWlg/s1600/Excerpt-From-Report-Of-January-1977-Telephone-Call-With-Nathan-Pool.png

However, I suppose Pool's "pointed" and "round-nosed" remarks wouldn't
necessarily have to be totally contradictory, because in his 1978
testimony/interview, he merely said that the stretcher bullet was "more
round-nosed than a .303 or a 30.06". Which I guess could conceivably mean
that Pool thought the bullet was sort of "pointed" at the tip, but not AS
POINTED as bullets would be that were used in .303 and 30.06 rifles.

~shrug~

[Mike]

You are tap dancing. (I got that from Jean and I like it!)

[Jean Davison]

On 10/23/2014 7:02 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 10:11:39 PM UTC-4, Jean Davison wrote:
>> On 10/22/2014 5:23 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 21, 2014 6:50:39 PM UTC-7, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>>> This is probably a dumb question, but I just wasted an hour trying to find
>>>>
>>>> memos or reports on the November 63 FBI interview of Darrell Tomlinson
>>>>
>>>> mentioned in his testimony, and the December 63 interview of Tomlinson
>>>>
>>>> mentioned in his testimony. In Tomlinson's testimony, Specter confronts
>>>>
>>>> Tomlinson with his previously having told the Secret Service the stretcher
>>>>
>>>> bullet came from the elevator stretcher...but I can't find such a
>>>>
>>>> report...which makes me wonder if Specter was over-worked and confused and
>>>>
>>>> confronting Tomlinson with what he'd thought he'd read, as opposed to what
>>>>
>>>> actually existed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In any event, your help appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pat
>>>
>>> So...no such report exists?
>>>
>>> So...Specter tried to change Tomlinson's mind by reminding him a Secret
>>> Service report said Tomlinson claimed the bullet came from the stretcher
>>> he'd taken from the elevator...when, in fact, no such report existed?
>>>
>>> Isn't that the kind of behavior that will get a lawyer disbarred?
>>>
>>
>> No such report exists now online, apparently. Not the same thing
>> as not existing in 1964.
>>
>> Tomlinson testified that he was interviewed by the FBI and Secret
>> Service a month or two after the assassination. Do you think he lied?
>>
>> Tomlinson told Ray Marcus and CBS that the bullet was on the
>> elevator stretcher, so why is it implausible he'd say that in an
>> interview?
>>
>> Jean
>
>
>
> I doubt that Tomlinson lied, but we have to keep in mind that the FBI
> was caught many times lying about what a suspect said. Even in this part
> of the case they lied. You might not be able to keep your dinner down,
> but there is evidence that was tracked down by Aguilar and Thompson that
> shows the FBI lying about the bullet in question:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
>
> The article has a great deal to do with the 'magic' bullet, and some of
> the shenanigans the FBI got into with it. Including breaking the chain of
> custody, and lying about the bullet and what witnesses said about it.
>

It hasn't been shown that the FBI lied, only that there are
conflicts and gaps in the record which many CTs *interpret* as the FBI
lying.

Tomlinson remembered it differently at different times. When he
told Specter it was not the elevator stretcher, Specter said he'd told
the SS that it was. Since CTs typically believe witnesses and doubt the
WC/FBI, Specter has been accused of making that up. But now Pat has
found a document showing that Specter was right, after all --
Tomlinson's story had changed.

The essay you link to argues that since the authors couldn't find a
specific FBI report about showing the bullet to witnesses, the FBI must
have lied. That doesn't necessarily follow. Pat's discovery shows that
not being able to find something doesn't mean it never existed.

Tomlinson told CT researcher Ray Marcus that he was shown a bullet
by an FBI agent (he thought it was Shanklin) and that it "appeared to be
the same one." [p.6 here]:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/marcus-tomlinson-interview-7-25-66.html

"Appears to be the same one" is exactly how the FBI quoted him in
CE 2011, the report that's supposedly a lie.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide3.GIF

You shouldn't let suspicion fill in the blanks when there are other
possibilities you may not have thought of.

Jean

[mainframetech]

I have recommended studies showing that memory is ENHANCED by emotion
and strong importance of an event, but the LN crowd will avoid them like
the plague, since they might have to be considered...:)


Chris

[Mike]

Who does not remember exactly where they were and what they were doing
and who the were with when they got the news of 911 or the JFK
assassination(if they were alive)?

[Sandy McCroskey]

That's not really what anything you've presented said. As I pointed out
at the time:

We're talking about the accuracy in remembering details, not whether the
experience itself was unforgettable.

People are, in fact, often most adamant about the details that turn out
to have been mistaken. Yes, they have a very vivid memory of the event.
Vivid does not equal accurate.

/sandy

[Jean Davison]

Sure, we all think that we remember these events quite well, but
studies have shown that these memories aren't necessarily accurate. We
just *think* they are.

For instance, one study began following 9/11 memories the next day:

QUOTE:
The next day, the two researchers asked 54 Duke University students to
recount their 9/11 memories. To get at the issue of what makes flashbulb
memories unique, all the students answered questions about their
memories of 9/11 and about a regular, everyday memory immediately after
the event. One group of 18 students answered the same set of questions
one week later; another group of 18 answered them six weeks later; and a
different group of 18 answered them 32 weeks later.

Talarico and Rubin had the different groups recount their memories at
these intervals to avoid an inadvertent "rehearsal effect," in which a
memory gets strengthened through each retelling. Here's what they found:
The consistency and accuracy of both 9/11 flashbulb memories and
everyday memories declined over time, at comparable rates. But students
thought something quite different was going on.

They believed that their 9/11 memories were much more accurate than
their regular memories. One finding especially popped out for Rubin:
People had already changed their stories of how they heard about the
attacks over just a few days, from the day after the event to one week
later....

Forty percent of the time people misremember some aspect of their 9/11
experience, the study indicates....
UNQUOTE

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/09/memories.aspx

But don't take it from me -- read the links to memory research
Dave posted or Google it up.

Jean

[Mike]

Don't you know exactly where you were when you heard that JFK was
assassinated?

Or when you saw the planes strike the twin towers?

You remember it because you actually have a mental image of it.

Yes we might misremember SOME ASPECT but that depends upon what ASPECT
the researcher was asking about.

[Mike]

On 11/2/2014 9:26 AM, Mike wrote:

> Don't you know exactly where you were when you heard that JFK was
> assassinated?
>
> Or when you saw the planes strike the twin towers?
>
> You remember it because you actually have a mental image of it.
>
> Yes we might misremember SOME ASPECT but that depends upon what ASPECT
> the researcher was asking about.
>
>
>
>

You left off a very important part of the quote you referred to...

Here is what you quoted...

QUOTE

Forty percent of the time people misremember some aspect of their 9/11
experience, the study indicates....
UNQUOTE

Now here is the whole paragraph, including the part you left off

QUOTE

Forty percent of the time people misremember some aspect of their 9/11

experience, the study indicates. And the part they get most wrong is how
they felt.
UNQUOTE

First of all, this says that 60 percent do not mis-remember some aspect
of their 9/11 experience.

and second

Among the 40 percent who do misremember some aspect it is usually about
how they felt.

[Jean Davison]

These "metal images" can be wrong without our knowing it.

President Bush "knew" where he was when he heard about the first
plane hitting a tower. He said he'd seen it on TV while he was in the
Florida classroom, but in fact it wasn't on live TV. Here's an article
from a psychology journal about Bush's false memory:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iX4yF4K6ebwJ:https://www.msu.edu/course/psy/401/Readings/WK10.PresentA.Greenberg%2520(2004).pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Another quote:

>>
Consider the famous study done by Ulric Neisser. The day after the
Challenger disaster he asked Emory University undergrads to write a
description of how they heard of the disaster-?the time of day, what
they were doing, how they felt about it, etc. Neisser then asked the
same students the same set of questions two and a half years later and
compared the two descriptions. He found three things. First, the
memories of the students had dramatically changed: ?twenty-five percent
of the students? subsequent accounts were strikingly different from
their original journal entries. More than half the people had lesser
degrees of error, and less than ten percent had all the details
correct.? Second, people were usually confident that the accounts they
provided two and a half years later were accurate. And third, ?when
confronted with their original reports, rather than suddenly realizing
that they had misremembered, they often persisted in believing their
current memory.?
>>
UNQUOTE

http://whywereason.com/tag/the-challenger-study/

One student originally said that she had been in class when someone
came in and told her about the Challenger explosion. Two years later she
was certain that she'd been in her dorm room when a news bulletin came
on TV. She "knew exactly" where she was, but she was wrong.

Jean

[Mike]

Well so we have two studies.

One study says 60% of the people recalled 9/11 had no problem with any
aspect of their original memory and of the 40% who did misremember some
aspect most of those errors were on how they felt.

The second study was about the Challenger disaster.
10% got all the details correct.
25% had dramatically different recollections (what ever that means)
and 50% had only minor errors.

So it looks like in both studies 60% recalled it fairly well.

These studies are looking at it ass backwards...

What we need to know is what part of the memories most people always
tend to remember correctly.

[Mike]

On 11/3/2014 9:40 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> "And the part they get most wrong is how they felt." <<<
>

> I don't quite understand this. I wonder how such a thing can possibly be
> verified?
>
> How can the people doing the "study" know for certain that their subjects
> have misremembered their exact "feelings"? That seems like it would be an
> impossible thing to prove. Because we're not talking about misremembering
> FACTS of an important historic event. We're talking about something much
> more personal---a person's own feelings.
>
> Who could possibly verify such a contradiction involving personal feelings
> other than the person who is expressing the feelings?
>
> And if it's the SAME person providing the proof of the contradiction, how
> does that work? Did the person suddenly say a few days (or weeks) later?
> --- "I thought I felt this way during the 9/11 attacks; but now, three
> weeks later, I realize I actually felt this other way about it."
>
> ~shrug~
>

What this is telling us is that people do not remember how the felt.

They give the same test to the same people at two different times.

It is a multiple choice test.

[Jean Davison]

On 11/3/2014 9:39 AM, Jean Davison wrote:

I think this quote from the Challenger disaster study is
especially relevant:


> And third, when confronted with their original reports, rather than

> suddenly realizing that they had misremembered, they often persisted in
> believing their current memory.

It reminds me of witnesses whose stories have changed
dramatically over the years and others who've claimed that the FBI
changed what they'd said. They no longer recognize that earlier memory.
It's gone, replaced by a different version.

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

Do you believe thet George Bush saw he first plane hit live on TV? When I
brought up that example McAdams censored it because he says I am not
allowed to call Bush a liar. Can I say he was temporarily confused? Same
disease McAdams has: Temporal Displacement Syndrome.

Bush 'Slip' Raises Questions
About Knowledge
Of 911 Attacks
From What Really Happened.com
12-6-1

Note: We have received repeated claims by many that they 'remember' seeing
the FIRST plane impact LIVE on The Today Show, Fox & Friends and/or CNN...
but none of these news organizations lay claim to having been on LIVE when
the first plane hit the first tower or feature any exclusive of first
impact footage, other than amateur footage, retrieved AFTER the fact; not
broadcast live at all. Many people appear to be layering their memories of
the second impact, and replays of the first impact, out of sequence in
time.

If anyone has definitive proof that any broadcasting news facility was on
LIVE and aimed at the twin towers to catch the first impact, please send
that proof here! We cannot find any such proof ourselves. Remember -- it
has to have been a LIVE broadcast of the first plane impact and have been
a national broadcast for Bush to have seen the first plane hit while in
Florida.



At http://www.cnn.com/TRAN SCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html is a transcript of
President Bush's comments regarding the day of the attacks on the World
Trade Towers.

Towards the bottom of the transcript is the following quote.


QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much
you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel
when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I
heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff,
Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program
that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and
I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to
fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must
have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it,
and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was
sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower.
America's under attack."



There is a problem with the above statement. There was no live video
coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of
that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until days later.

Bush is lying through his teeth here.

Even though Bush is not a very good pilot (he was taken off of flight
status for failure to take a medical exam which included a drug test), it
would be silly to assume that a passenger jet hitting the WTC in clear
weather was pilot error. The only other known impact between an aircraft
and a New York skyscraper was when a military airplane crashed into the
Empire State Building in a heavy fog. Because of that incident, there are
mandatory altitude minimums over the island. If Bush really did see an
airplane on TV hitting the World Trade Towers, then he saw that the
aircraft was under control at the time.

And, it must be remembered that even after andy informed Bush of the
second impact, and by his own admission Bush knew we were being
attacked, he continued to read to the classsroom full of children.

Just think about that for a while.


Confirmation of Bush's comments is also at http://w
ww.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,612354,00.html

Link

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Comment
Bush Ropes Himself In HUGE Gaffe Re Broadcast Of 1st WTC Strike
From TOP_VIEW
top_...@planetmail.com
12-8-1

As they say, the truth has a way of slipping out, and it SURE did on
Tuesday, December 4, when bush was for once NOT reading his usual
dis-informative, canned, pre-spun lies and pablum, but was actually
talking on his own, using whatever brain cells he has left after all the
years of cocaine and booze abuse.

And THANK GOD for that, because WHEN bush was talking on his own on
December 4, he revealed something so staggeringly, astoundingly
important that even our jaded, overloaded minds lit up like Christmas trees.

Bush actually stated that on the morning of September 11 at JUST ABOUT 9
AM EDT, he WATCHED on a TV set a video/film clip of the first plane
hitting the World Trade Center, just prior to that well-known reading
session he was about to have with some (unfortunate) schoolkids.

That's nice. That's VERY interesting INDEED, mr. shrub, because that
first jet didn't bust into the WTC until JUST ABOUT 9 AM EDT that
morning!! So HOW in the name of God could you POSSIBLY have watched the
event on TV RIGHT THEN??

For bush to have watched the first WTC attack on a TV set, as he SURELY
did, he OBVIOUSLY was watching a VERY different channel than most
everyone else in the world right then.

But wait, many people have said. MAYBE, the shrub, the bush, the
President of the United States made a "MISTAKE" when he made the
comments on Tuesday.

A MISTAKE? About THIS? By the PRESIDENT??

Are these people KIDDING??

There is ONE thing for sure. Just as most people who were alive at the
time can remember just where they were and what they were doing when
they heard the news that President Kennedy had been assassinated, most
people -- and SURELY the President of the U.S. -- remember QUITE clearly
where they were and what they were doing when the WTC attack took place
on September 11.

For example: bush quite clearly stated on December 4 that Andy Card came
in to inform him of the SECOND WTC attack AFTER he had begun reading to
the schoolkids, so even pee-brain dubya clearly distinguished between
the two incidents and when each one occurred.

Heck: it was ONLY THREE MONTHS AGO!!

So, to reiterate: bush was DEFINITELY watching a "different" channel
than most everyone else in the world, to have seen the first WTC attack
on a TV set literally WITHIN MINUTES of the event.

He was OBVIOUSLY watching a closed-link video feed being transmitted
from cameras which agents/accomplices of the primary 9,11 perpetrators
had previously placed near the WTC for the SPECIFIC purpose of filming
their upcoming, scheduled "ATTACK ON AMERICA."

Bush has sunk his own ship this time.

_________________


Comment
From (Name Witheld by Request)
12-8-1

Either way Bush is lying.

According to the Associated Press article, Bush was told of the attack
before he had a chance to see it on TV:

"In Florida, Bush was reading to children in a classroom at 9:05 a.m.
when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear. The
president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading. He addressed
the tragedy about a half-hour later. -AP"(Link)

________________




Comment
From Joe & Maria Mu?oz
12-8-1

Jeff,

I read the article about President Bush's "slip" on your site and also
the attached comment. I am a Texan and I agree with the assessment made
in the comment. The only thing the "slip" reveals is that the President
is a Texan. As I read the statement I clearly remembered that the
networks did show live feeds of the towers moments after the impact, and
most were speaking about a horrible accident. To a fellow Texan, it is
obvious this is what the President was trying to say. He didn't see an
airplane hit the tower, he saw that an airplane hit the tower.

Joe J. Mu?oz
Richmond, TX

_______________



Comment
From Paul Yost
12-8-1

Jeff, Like Chet Zaba, I was suspicious of this article - that it was
maliciously manipulated to make the case against Bush. But then I read
it again. And re-read it. It's not Bush's use of grammar that is the
poiint of this comment. It's Bush's literal recollection of his personal
events that morning. Take a look - "...And I was sitting outside the
classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower ..."

"...But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think
about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief
who was sitting over here walked in and said, 'A second plane has hit
the tower. America's under attack.' " He clearly states he saw the first
plane hit the tower before he entered the classroom. Even if he did not
see the first plane hit on TV, like many people have mistaken for
themselves, he knew about the plane before he went into the class. After
hearing of the second plane. He continued reading to the class.

______________



Comment
From Christopher Glover
12-8-1

Me and my brother were watching ABC news later on that night and they
had the only footage of the first plane hitting the first tower. What
struck us as being very odd was the fact that whomever shot the footage
seemed to know something was gonna happen because he was standing there
with his camcorder pointing @the tower. And to make it worse, before the
guy panned up towards the tower, there was a firefighter standing to his
right in full gear. When the plane hit it didn't look like a 747, but
much smaller.

_________________



Comment
(Note: the following Comment was received by Top View and forwarded.)
From TOP_VIEW
top_...@planetmail.com
12-8-1

Something 'frighteningly wrong' with Bush comments on watching the first
WTC attack broadcast...


From: Marcia Olivetti <marcyo@xxx
Subject: Your article about the Trade Center film footage Bush saw
To: TOP_...@planetmail.com
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001

We wanted to let you know, that we had your article forwarded from
someone on youre mailing list. He's sent us some of your other articles
before but frankly, many of them are a bit harsh for us.

When we saw that the fellow who forwarded it said he thought it was
really important, I decided to read it. Luckily your verbiage wasn't so
wild this time.

You should also know this: we lost my husband's uncle a New York City
firefighter and very dear relative, at Ground Zero on September 11. Some
of his co-workers have privately confided to us that they are sure bombs
were used in bringing down the twin towers.

But here's what we wanted to tell you. When I finished the article, an
awful, sickening feeling began to creep all over my entire body, and as
my husband was reading it I began to get really bad chills and started
crying.

It hit us harder and harder that something was frighteningly and
horribly WRONG with what the president said in that talk in Florida,
about having watched that first plane hit the World Trade Center on TV,
when it had only just HAPPENED!

So help me, the blood drained from my face and I almost dropped but Rick
caught me. I was feeling so sick to my stomach it was unbelievable.

I cried for days after the attacks on September 11, and I feel the same
now only SO MUCH WORSE.

We realize that the main point you have made in your article today
really can't be ignored or gotten around.

The only other possible way to explain what the President said, other
than him being 100 percent mentally incompetent, is that he was
deliberately lying; which makes absolutely no sense at all.

No, there really is no way around it, and this realization has simply
devastated us. It was our own leaders who carried out the attacks of
that dreadful and terrible morning, and now we know. I can hardly stand
to acknowledge this terrifying fact. To understand the depth and the
extent of the lies which these people, including the president, have
told about what took place on September 11 is to be shaken and ripped to
the core, at least for us.

Dear God, Dear God, heaven help America and the whole World. WHAT HAVE
THEY DONE? HOW COULD THEY DO THIS?

The feelings of dread and shock are very very deep, but we WILL do
everything we can to get this earthshaking news to every single person
we possibly can.

God bless you and thank you for putting yourselves on the line and
working so hard to get the truth out.

Sincerely,
Marcia and Rick Olivetti

______________


Comment
From Chester Zaba
12-8-1

Mr. Rense, I enjoy your program very much and I rely on the web site for
much of my news gathering, however, today's item "Bush Caught in Lie" is
pure nonesense. Knowing the part of the country the president is from
and understanding few of us speak perfect english, it is entirely
reasonable to assume that Mr. Bush meant to say "I saw an airplane had
hit the tower" instead of "I saw an airplane hit the tower."

I have been to Texas many, many times and trust me, his comment is
entirely how I might expect someone to express knowledge of an event
that had just occured, but which he may not have witnessed. The
explanation is in the inflection and delivery of the statement. Just try
repeating the quote to yourself several times as you might imagine the
president or another Texan saying it. Remember the relaxed form of
language common to this part of the country, the fact that certain words
are, at times, simply omitted from use and it becomes clear. This was
not a lie. He is describing the events as best he could given the
confusion of the moment and the terrible importance of what had
happened. Remember also, at least one aircraft was headed for the oval
office and I am sure security personnel were aware of all possibilities.
It was a frightening morning. I think I can forgive the man for perhaps
using language a bit less than perfect.

Keep up the good work,
Chet Zaba


______________



Comment

From Deanna Haynes
12-10-1

I am writing in response to the Bush "slip-up" article. I too, hail from
Texas and felt, though I don't care for Bush at all and feel the WTC
attacks were planned and known by people INSIDE the US, I know and
understand why Bush said what he did.

The other people are correct as well in assuming Bush was simply
speaking "Texan" when he said he "saw" the first plane. He meant he KNEW
OF the first plane attack. Bush simply suffers from being raised aTexan
and having lazy and poor speaking skills.


DeAnna Haynes
Chicago, IL
(from White Oak, Texas)



Comment

From TOP_VIEW
top_...@planetmail.com
12-15-1

Bush's grammar is NOT a factor in issue of WHEN he watched the 1st WTC
attack on television...

There was NO LIVE broadcast of the first WTC attack -- and there
COULDN'T have been for obvious reasons; unless CNN was in on the
atrocity too (could be, I guess...).

But anyway, going by the CLOCK, the known timeline, and by bush's own
words, grammatical or not, he HAD to have seen the damn thing AS IT WAS
HAPPENING at 8:48 AM. Even a few minutes later would have taken his
first viewing out of the only possible time frame, in relation to WHEN
bush went into the room to do the reading photo opp.

Again: to postulate that the U.S. president could possibly be in some
way mistaken about when he saw the film of the first attack is
completely ridiculous. Surely, if anything is on a par with remembering
"where you were when Kennedy was shot," THIS is.

And to claim Bush was for some reason or other deliberately misstating
things is -- in THIS case at least -- even more absurd. For what purpose?

Reprinted further below are URLS with transcripts of Bush's comments.

Here's the relevant portion from the transcript of Bush's statements:

QUESTION: ... how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE) Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when
I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida.

And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom
talking about a reading program that works.

And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an
airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly
myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must
have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about
it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was
sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower.
America's under attack."

There are BIG PROBLEMS with the above statement. There was NO live TV
coverage of the first attack. There COULD NOT have been. Video of that
first plane hitting the tower taken by a bystander did not air publicly
until hours AFTERWARDS; security camera footage aired only days later.

What's more: there is NO reason Bush would have thought a passenger jet
hitting the WTC in perfectly clear, calm weather was due to any kind of
"pilot error." This is merely disingenuous chaff being emitted by Bush
to cloud the issue and deflect any radar tracking.


And we should all keep in mind: by Bush's own admission even after Card
DID inform him of the second attack and Bush KNEW the Trade Center had
been nailed, he just sat there and kept (trying to) read about rabbits.

Confirmation of Bush's comments is at:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,612354,00.html



MainPage
http://www.rense.com



This Site Served by TheHostPros

[David Von Pein]

MIKE SAID:

What this is telling us is that people do not remember how [they] felt.

They give the same test to the same people at two different times.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Mike, I realized that fact after I went back and re-read Jean's post
where she quoted some excerpts from the study. I had not fully understood
what the study entailed. But now I do.

That's why I deleted my post that you were responding to, Mike. (I sure
wish it was possible to delete a Usenet post on ALL platforms and news
readers, but it isn't possible, so my deletion only occurred at Google
Groups.)

[David Von Pein]

By sheer coincidence, I just happened to be transferring a 2010 Usenet
conversation to my own "JFK Archives" website/blog today, and the
following posts made me think of this 2014 discussion about "memory" and
about how witnesses often get things wrong.....

----------------

"If, in fact, Mr. [Ted] Callaway was a bit confused when talking to Myers
in '96 about the exact timing of his actions on 11/22/63, I'm wondering if
it's just possible that Callaway could have also forgotten about giving
his wallet to the police after he returned to 10th Street that day (as
discussed in the post linked below).

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kV6PRA2oh7k/BG8u8gcLxrcJ

In the final analysis, this post certainly doesn't PROVE anything. But I
think it just might demonstrate that the memory of even a very good
witness like Ted Callaway isn't completely infallible 33 years later." --
DVP; Jan. 9, 2010

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kV6PRA2oh7k/VYHEqbgSUi8J

----------------------------

"This is good example of how errors gets interjected into the evidence. A
witness supplies an erroneous impression because that is how people
process information, when they see things it is influenced by other things
they've seen in the past, and that get incorporated into the narrative.
Often this information is passed on as a factual observation when it is
really just a conclusion that satisfied the observer.

Sometimes information is not available with which to compare or correct
the original observation, and of course the retards [i.e., the conspiracy
theorists who were occupying the acj forum in circa 2010] reject all
attempts to remove any error. The kooks will demand that LN establish how
the error was made (and that information rarely exists in the record), so
they can insist that the error is actually correct.

Here for instance, Callaway says he drew the conclusion it was an
automatic due to his interpretation of Oswald's motions, it was not an
identification of the weapon itself by actual observation." -- Bud; Jan.
9, 2010

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/kV6PRA2oh7k/QE-OQiI2GsAJ

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-832.html

[mainframetech]

In a case like the JFK murder, it helps to have many witnesses to an
event to determine if the event was real. Such as the list of 40+
witnesses that saw a 'large hole' at the BOH of JFK.

Chris

[mainframetech]

There are studies out there that show that memory is enhanced when it
is of an event that was emotional or of great importance:

https://www2.bc.edu/elizabeth-kensinger/Kensinger_CD07.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_and_memory
http://www.memory-key.com/memory/emotion
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.11.1872
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2265099/
http://psych.nyu.edu/phelpslab/papers/04_CON_V14.pdf

I could go on, but that's a good start.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

The InterNet remembers everything forever. Someone tried to go back and
delete messages from Deja News, but they had been archives elsewhere.

[Jean Davison]

So you don't think 9/11 was an emotional event of great
importance?

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

Is that why Bush misremembered it?

[Bud]

<snicker> I was a lot more lucid way back when. Back before I realized
that the hobbyists have no use for reason, it only interferes with their
silly games.

[Anthony Marsh]

No contradiction. Two different events. First, hearing about it and
second seeing it on TV.

What did George Bush say about 9/11?

At http://www.cnn.com/TRANnSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html is a transcript of

Was your hero George Bush lying or conflating memories?