Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
David Dodges another one!
133 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
Jul 22, 2016, 11:07:32 PM7/22/16
to
Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
wrong, and then selectively attacking out-of-context statements in his
blog, where no dissent is permitted, I thought it would be good to repost
some of the articles that he has evaded.
This particular one is extremely important, since it proves beyond all
doubt, that CE399 was a replacement for the actual bullet that wounded
Connally. (quoting)
David Von Pein wrote:
> ~sigh~
>
> Repeating some of the stuff I've said in previous years, since apparently
> Bob H. likes to see me reprise this same stuff over and over again, year
> after year (and he'll still pretend I've never responded)....
Resorting to ad hominem insults, only impresses the worst of your
compadres, David.
>
> ------------------
>
> "If [Bobby] Nolan had delivered an intact bullet to the DPD that had
> dropped off of Governor Connally's stretcher, that bullet would be
part of
> the official evidence in this case today.
That is not a rebuttal, since the FBI obviously disposed of the
Tomlinson bullet, which bore the initials of agents Johnsen and Todd,
and replaced it with CE399, which did not.
> And, of course, no such
> additional "whole bullet" (other than CE399) exists in the record,
does it
> Bob?
That's correct, David. But the FBI controls "the record". Did you think
they would permit the official record to prove that they exchanged the
original for a substitute?
>
> Now Bob will pretend the "whole Nolan bullet" was swept under the rug by
> the evil DPD (and/or the wicked FBI). Won't you, Bob?
LOL!! Yes, but they didn't think they were "wicked", David. They were
simply complying with Hoover's directive that the "public must be
convinced" that Oswald acted alone.
Why do you pretend that it is outrageous for the FBI to do exactly what
Hoover said they should do
>
> Bob probably should have learned a lesson from Jim Sibert and Francis
> O'Neill about how BULLET FRAGMENTS can get turned erroneously into WHOLE
> MISSILES:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Interview With James Sibert
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Interview With Francis O'Neill
None of that has anything to do with the issues we are discussing.
Please stop trying to change the subject.
>
> Very similar to the Sibert/O'Neill mistake, it couldn't be any clearer
> that the "Wade/Nolan/Connally bullet" is, in reality, only the BULLET
> FRAGMENTS that were removed from John Connally's wrist.
It couldn't be any clearer??
David, you once again, deleted what was actually "clear"
Connally,
"A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding
band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the
BULLET from my body, the one that passed though my back, chest and wrist
and worked itself loose from my thigh."
Wade,
"Some nurse had a BULLET in her hand, and said this was on the gurney
that Connally was on. I talked with Nellie Connally a while and then
went on home.
Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet
people have talked about?
A: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I
assume that's the pristine BULLET."
Nolan,
"And she came up and told him that she had the BULLET that came off of
the gurney...
Q. Was it a bullet fragment or a complete bullet?
Nolan: I don't know. It was a - they told me that is was a BULLET...
Q. Now when the nurse gave it to you, did she describe it as a bullet
fragment or as a bullet.
Nolan: Uh no. She just said it was a BULLET. That's all.
As for Bell, you know all too well, that she flatly denied giving her
wrist fragments to Nolan and instead, gave them to plain clothed,
federal agents.
ALL relevant witnesses outside of the FBI, prove you are wrong, as does
the nurse who you want me to believe, passed tiny wrist fragments to
officer Nolan.
As does the fact that the neither the initials of Johnsen or Todd are on
that bullet.
>
> The exact same kind of "Fragments become a whole bullet" mistake that has
> plagued the Sibert/O'Neill FBI report undoubtedly also occurred with
> respect to any comments about a whole "bullet" that were made by Henry
> Wade, Bobby Nolan, Audrey Bell, or anyone else associated with those
> bullet fragments which became Warren Commission Exhibit No. 842.
>
> Some of those people might have casually referred to the item they
handled
> as a "bullet", but what they really handled were just fragments--just
like
> the corpsman who wrote up the "missile" memo that is connected to the
> Sibert/O'Neill report." -- DVP; July 2014
>
> -------------------------------
>
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> And when will you be up for talking about Wade, Nolan, Stinson and Bell?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> #1 (Wade) -- District Attorney Henry Wade never saw a WHOLE BULLET at the
> hospital,
Of course he saw it. He said, "Some nurse had a BULLET in her hand".
How simple and clear does it have to be, David? How else could he have
known it was there?
> and you know it, Bob.
I think we both KNOW the same things, David. But we don't both have the
integrity to admit it.
> He was talking about FRAGMENTS.
ROFLMAO! I guess you just overlooked this,
"I assume that's the pristine bullet."
> If the
> word "bullet" was used to describe the fragments, it's exactly the same
> type of semantics error that was made by Sibert & O'Neill in their FBI
> report concerning the supposed "missile" that they saw during JFK's
> autopsy. But Sibert later admitted that "No large bullet of any
kind...was
> found" during the President's autopsy. (That's a verbatim quote from
James
> Sibert on June 30, 2005. And yes, I know I changed the subject a bit
> there, but only to demonstrate how easily that SAME type of
> "bullet"/"fragment" mistake can occur, and DID occur elsewhere in the
very
> same murder investigation.)
What an incredibly stupid argument!
So, Wade thought the tiny particle he saw was THE "pristine bullet"
>
> #2 (Nolan) -- Bobby Nolan, like Wade, never saw any WHOLE BULLET at
> Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63. And even HE admitted that very fact to
YOU,
> didn't he, Bob (in a telephone interview you had with him)? Correct me if
> I'm wrong about that, but didn't Nolan say he NEVER OPENED THE ENVELOPE
> that he took to the DPD and gave to Will Fritz? Therefore, how can he
know
> for certain WHAT was inside that envelope (CE842)?
Why do you have to ask me what he said, when I have cited him a dozen
times for you
He stated repeatedly, that the nurse described a single, whole bullet -
exactly as Wade and Connally saw.
Te believe that she was talking about almost microscopic lead particles,
just insults everyone's intelligence.
>
> #3 (Stinson) -- I'm going to need a refresher on Stinson's observations
> concerning this supposed "extra bullet" matter, Bob. Frankly, I just
plain
> forgot what his role is in this. Did Stinson supposedly see an extra
whole
> bullet too?
You told me that you read the article. It's not that long. (quoting)
Bill Stinson further corroborated the other witnesses, when he was
interviewed by the now defunct, Ramparts magazine.
"Before the Commission discredited Connally's testimony they should at
least have heard all the important witnesses. Ramparts found one the
Commission never talked to; they never even asked him for an affidavit. He
is William Stinson, an aide to Governor Connally at the time of the
assassination. Today, although officially employed by the Veterans
Administraton, he has an office in the White House. Stinson told us he was
in the operating room, wearing a sterile uniform, when the doctors
operated on Connally at Parkland Hospital. 'The last thing they did,' said
Stinson, 'was to remove the bullet from the governor's thigh---because
that was the least thing that was wrong with him.'".
The entire article can be seen here,
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/09th_Issue/ ramparts.html
Stinson was mistaken about the bullet being removed during surgery. He
had been permitted to stand in the operating room then, but it is
unlikely that he would have been permitted to get close enough to
examine the fragments as they were being removed. It makes perfect sense
however, that he would assume that it came from surgery, when shortly
afterward, the nurse came out, in scrubs, and told him and Nolan that
she had a bullet from Connally's thigh.(unquote)
Stinson could only have come to that conclusion if he had heard the
nurse say the same things that the others described. He either didn't
get the part about it coming from Connally's "gurney" or somehow,
thought that happened as a result of the surgery.
>
> #4 (Bell) -- Nurse Audrey Bell is ON TAPE telling the world that the
> handwriting we see on the envelope in CE842 (which is clearly and plainly
> marked "Bullet fragments" from Connally's "Right arm") is Audrey Bell's
> own handwriting."
Uh huh, and she is such a handwriting expert that at a quick glance, she
can differentiate between something she wrote decades earlier and a
decent job of forgery.
And BTW, Dr. Wendy Carlson, who is one of the nations leading
handwriting experts, told me that the "bullet fragments" was not written
in the same hand as the other writing in that section of CE-842.
Bell stated that she filled out the entirety of her envelope.
> She said she positively recognized her own writing on
> that foreign body envelope. And I think she also stated that she did not
> handle (and write on) more than ONE such envelope on 11/22/63.
Please stop exaggerating. When asked if it was her handwriting, she said
yes. Strange, how you, who have made a career out of telling us how
worthless witnesses are, suddenly believe that this one is infallible,
not just when hearing gunshots, but in the esoteric science of
handwriting analysis
Do you also think she was infallible when she flatly denied that she
gave her envelope to Nolan or anyone else in uniform?
> So your
> theory about Bell is moribund on that basis alone. Naturally, you have
> other ideas. But, as usual, you can't PROVE that any hanky-panky was
going
> on with any "erased" initials on CE842.
There were many erasures on CE-842 and the envelope had been crumpled,
as can be easily seen, even in the high contrast version you referenced.
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom_files/image004.jpg
Audrey Bell would never have used a second hand envelope. As I told you
recently in our Facebook discussion, that envelope was undoubtedly,
filled out by the nurse that Connally, Wade, and Nolan encountered.
Wade would have been angry that she had been carrying around such an
important piece of evidence all afternoon and demanded that she get it
to the police, ASAP. Perhaps she didn't know where to get a fresh
envelope, or she didn't know where Bell was, so she grabbed an old used
one and did a half-assed job of erasing as much as she could, before
putting the bullet in it and giving it to Nolan.
http://jfkhistory.com/ce842x.jpg
> And I think Mike Williams did a
> fairly decent job of debunking your "erased initials" theory many months
> ago at another forum.
ROFLMAO!!
Mike Williams did nothing of the kind and you know it. You BOTH made the
idiotic argument that since you found a high contrast scan of CE842 in
which the erasures were not visible, they must not have ever existed.
I think you know how godawful terrible that argument was David, which is
why you're now trying to pass it off on Williams.
>
> Sum total --- Bob Harris cannot prove that ANYONE actually SAW an extra
> "whole bullet" at Parkland Memorial Hospital on November 22, 1963.
Maybe if you repeat that absurdity enough times, you will come to
believe it yourself, David.
But the witness statements are crystal clear, including Audrey Bell's.
>
> And, of course, the only "official" evidence in the case indicates that
> the only whole "bullet" that was found at Parkland that day that was in
> any way connected to the wounding of JFK and/or John B. Connally was
> CE399.
BS!! There is NO evidence, official or otherwise, that CE399 was the
original bullet.
NONE of the witnesses confirmed it, and the initials of two federal
agents are missing from it.
> And nobody has been able to PROVE that that bullet was planted or
> used as a substitute for any other bullet.
I have proved that it was substituted in a multitude of different ways,
which you ignore and evade continuously.
> CTers can pretend that they've
> "proven" that CE399 is a fraudulent bullet, but even Bob Harris knows
that
> nobody has truly PROVEN that 399 is phony.
No David, I have proven that CE399 is a phony, beyond any reasonable doubt.
Can you imagine a court case, in which I call, Connally, Wade, Nolan,
Bell, Johnsen and Todd to the witness stand and then enter a blowup of
CE399 (or the actual bullet) into evidence, proving the absence of the
agents' initials?
Now it's your turn. What witnesses do you call? Odum perhaps:-) Hoover?
What evidence do you submit?
ALL of the evidence and ALL of the relevant testimony proves you are
wrong, David. All the talking and misrepresentations of my statements
won't change that.
> Let's face it -- the CTers of
> the world just flat-out WANT CE399 to be fraudulent. Therefore, in their
> eyes, it is.
What an inept argument. The evidence doesn't change, based on what
anyone "wants".
>
> But the chain of possession of a WHOLE BULLET going from the hands of
> Tomlinson, to Wright, to Johnsen, to Rowley, to Todd, to Frazier IS
INTACT
> -- and it always has been intact.
Probably so. There was no reason to switch out that bullet before it was
tested against Oswald's rifle.
> None of those men ever said anything
> that breaks that consistent chain.
Why are you wasting all this time on irrelevant issues?
> Each man received a whole bullet from
> the previous man in the chain. That establishes a CHAIN OF POSSESSION for
> the stretcher bullet.
That is correct. The bullet went from a stretcher to the FBI labs.
That's where they learned that it didn't come from Oswald's rifle. That
created a big problem, since it would have convinced the public that
Oswald didn't act alone, wouldn't it David?
>
> Yes, most conspiracists think that the lack of Johnsen's and Rowley's
> initials
I don't think Rowley marked the bullet. But Todd certainly did as well
as Johnsen.
> on CE399 constitutes a break in the chain. But, as John McAdams
> has pointed out numerous times in the past, that just simply is not so.
You mean John BLURTED it out:-)
> The chain isn't broken due to a lack of marking the evidence.
David, you're smarter than this. Why are you trying to distort the issue?
The problem is, that both Todd and Johnsen put their initials on the
Tomlinson bullet, but they are missing from CE399.
CE399 ONLY contains the initials of FBI people at their labs. It could
not possibly be the same bullet that Tomlinson found.
And that fact is corroborated over and over and over again by the two
men and one nurse who actually saw the bullet that hit Connally and
probably JFK. It was further corroborated by Audrey Bell, officer Nolan,
Connally aide, Stinson as well as the federal agents and civilians who
refused to confirm CE399 as the same bullet they saw previously.
Perhaps you can do better than blurtations, David. Tell me about your
witnesses and your evidence.
There are
> other ways to establish the chain of possession, and that's been done by
> the FBI, in asking each man in the "chain" if they did, in fact,
receive a
> bullet from the previous person in the chain. And that chain is, indeed,
> intact. Whether the conspiracy theorists like it or not.
>
> And Elmer Todd DID mark Bullet CE399. We know he marked it, because
> there's FBI documentation that tells us he marked it [see CD7 and
CE2011].
Ahh!! So we KNOW he marked it because of FBI documentation! That
certainly nails it, except for one tiny detail.
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png
> And, no, I'm not willing to concede that the FBI was playing fast and
> loose with the words we find in CE2011. And my recent battles with Jim
> DiEugenio regarding Darrell Tomlinson and his role in CE2011 should prove
> something to at least a few CTers -- that being: the FBI did not lie
about
> Tomlinson when the FBI said in CE2011 that Tomlinson said that CE399
> resembled the stretcher bullet. And even Robert Harris has now
> acknowledged the fact that the FBI did not lie about that.
I did? I don't remember taking any heavy drugs or getting blind drunk,
so I'm pretty sure I never did anything that stupid. CE2011 is the
document which contains the lie that agent Odum got Wright and Tomlinson
to partially confirm CE399, but that was a deliberate lie, as Odum
himself confirmed,
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/odum.jpg
>
> Therefore, why should anyone really think that CE2011 contains ANY
lies at
> all
LOL!
David, are you trying to create some kind of a parody of how nutters reason?
> (including the section in that document which reveals that Elmer Todd
> positively identified his own initials on Bullet CE399)?
David, here is a major clue: ELMER TODD WAS AN FBI EMPLOYEE.
And what do we know about the FBI? That's right, they lie their
proverbial asses off.
>
> The initials that are visible on CE399 (even via the NARA's high-quality
> color photos) are very difficult to discern (IMO).
No they aren't. Every one of the initials of FBI lab people who signed
it, are easy to spot.
> I can hardly make out
> anyone's initials on that bullet.
Well of course you can't David:-)
> I can see some faint markings,
Uh huh. Just like .john can't see any of Connally's movements when he
was reacting to the 285 shot.
> but they
> ARE hard to see.
Nutter rule #1 - ALWAYS try to turn objective issues into subjective,
because you can claim ANYTHING as your subjective opinion.
Funny though, that we can see ALL of the FBI lab people's intials, but
neither Todd's nor Johnsen's.
> That's a fact. So why is it so hard to believe that
> perhaps Todd put his mark on the bullet in such a way where his initials
> are even MORE difficult to find than are Bob Frazier's or Cunningham's or
> Killion's? Perhaps Todd didn't mark it as deeply into the surface of the
> bullet as those other men did. Who can know for sure?
We can't unless we are capable of employing at least a bit of critical
thinking.
Even if it weren't for all the lies, refusals to verify CE399 and the
conclusive witness statements proving that Connally was hit by an
entirely different bullet, we still have absolute proof that the SBT
shot did not come from Oswald's rifle.
That shot was inaudible, David. The WC concluded that "most" witnesses
only heard ONE of the early shots, followed by closely bunched shots at
the end.
And it's easy to prove that people reacted to an audible shot prior to
223. So to support your theory, you must believe that there was no 223
shot, or that people just don't notice 130 decibel, high powered rifle
shots.
And then you need to explain why none of the limo passengers reacted to
those shots even remotely similar to how they did following 285 and 313.
http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif
To understand this case David, you cannot segment and isolate different
issues. They ALL must be consistent and corroborative of each other.
And to answer your next claim, which mcadams will probably snip, yes
Todd lied. You previously claimed that he initialed it but you couldn't
see his initials.
So, was his vision that much better than yours, that he could see what
you and I and the rest of the world, can't see??
Robert Harris
wrong, and then selectively attacking out-of-context statements in his
blog, where no dissent is permitted, I thought it would be good to repost
some of the articles that he has evaded.
This particular one is extremely important, since it proves beyond all
doubt, that CE399 was a replacement for the actual bullet that wounded
Connally. (quoting)
David Von Pein wrote:
> ~sigh~
>
> Repeating some of the stuff I've said in previous years, since apparently
> Bob H. likes to see me reprise this same stuff over and over again, year
> after year (and he'll still pretend I've never responded)....
Resorting to ad hominem insults, only impresses the worst of your
compadres, David.
>
> ------------------
>
> "If [Bobby] Nolan had delivered an intact bullet to the DPD that had
> dropped off of Governor Connally's stretcher, that bullet would be
part of
> the official evidence in this case today.
That is not a rebuttal, since the FBI obviously disposed of the
Tomlinson bullet, which bore the initials of agents Johnsen and Todd,
and replaced it with CE399, which did not.
> And, of course, no such
> additional "whole bullet" (other than CE399) exists in the record,
does it
> Bob?
That's correct, David. But the FBI controls "the record". Did you think
they would permit the official record to prove that they exchanged the
original for a substitute?
>
> Now Bob will pretend the "whole Nolan bullet" was swept under the rug by
> the evil DPD (and/or the wicked FBI). Won't you, Bob?
LOL!! Yes, but they didn't think they were "wicked", David. They were
simply complying with Hoover's directive that the "public must be
convinced" that Oswald acted alone.
Why do you pretend that it is outrageous for the FBI to do exactly what
Hoover said they should do
>
> Bob probably should have learned a lesson from Jim Sibert and Francis
> O'Neill about how BULLET FRAGMENTS can get turned erroneously into WHOLE
> MISSILES:
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Interview With James Sibert
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Interview With Francis O'Neill
None of that has anything to do with the issues we are discussing.
Please stop trying to change the subject.
>
> Very similar to the Sibert/O'Neill mistake, it couldn't be any clearer
> that the "Wade/Nolan/Connally bullet" is, in reality, only the BULLET
> FRAGMENTS that were removed from John Connally's wrist.
It couldn't be any clearer??
David, you once again, deleted what was actually "clear"
Connally,
"A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding
band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the
BULLET from my body, the one that passed though my back, chest and wrist
and worked itself loose from my thigh."
Wade,
"Some nurse had a BULLET in her hand, and said this was on the gurney
that Connally was on. I talked with Nellie Connally a while and then
went on home.
Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet
people have talked about?
A: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I
assume that's the pristine BULLET."
Nolan,
"And she came up and told him that she had the BULLET that came off of
the gurney...
Q. Was it a bullet fragment or a complete bullet?
Nolan: I don't know. It was a - they told me that is was a BULLET...
Q. Now when the nurse gave it to you, did she describe it as a bullet
fragment or as a bullet.
Nolan: Uh no. She just said it was a BULLET. That's all.
As for Bell, you know all too well, that she flatly denied giving her
wrist fragments to Nolan and instead, gave them to plain clothed,
federal agents.
ALL relevant witnesses outside of the FBI, prove you are wrong, as does
the nurse who you want me to believe, passed tiny wrist fragments to
officer Nolan.
As does the fact that the neither the initials of Johnsen or Todd are on
that bullet.
>
> The exact same kind of "Fragments become a whole bullet" mistake that has
> plagued the Sibert/O'Neill FBI report undoubtedly also occurred with
> respect to any comments about a whole "bullet" that were made by Henry
> Wade, Bobby Nolan, Audrey Bell, or anyone else associated with those
> bullet fragments which became Warren Commission Exhibit No. 842.
>
> Some of those people might have casually referred to the item they
handled
> as a "bullet", but what they really handled were just fragments--just
like
> the corpsman who wrote up the "missile" memo that is connected to the
> Sibert/O'Neill report." -- DVP; July 2014
>
> -------------------------------
>
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> And when will you be up for talking about Wade, Nolan, Stinson and Bell?
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> #1 (Wade) -- District Attorney Henry Wade never saw a WHOLE BULLET at the
> hospital,
Of course he saw it. He said, "Some nurse had a BULLET in her hand".
How simple and clear does it have to be, David? How else could he have
known it was there?
> and you know it, Bob.
I think we both KNOW the same things, David. But we don't both have the
integrity to admit it.
> He was talking about FRAGMENTS.
ROFLMAO! I guess you just overlooked this,
"I assume that's the pristine bullet."
> If the
> word "bullet" was used to describe the fragments, it's exactly the same
> type of semantics error that was made by Sibert & O'Neill in their FBI
> report concerning the supposed "missile" that they saw during JFK's
> autopsy. But Sibert later admitted that "No large bullet of any
kind...was
> found" during the President's autopsy. (That's a verbatim quote from
James
> Sibert on June 30, 2005. And yes, I know I changed the subject a bit
> there, but only to demonstrate how easily that SAME type of
> "bullet"/"fragment" mistake can occur, and DID occur elsewhere in the
very
> same murder investigation.)
What an incredibly stupid argument!
So, Wade thought the tiny particle he saw was THE "pristine bullet"
>
> #2 (Nolan) -- Bobby Nolan, like Wade, never saw any WHOLE BULLET at
> Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63. And even HE admitted that very fact to
YOU,
> didn't he, Bob (in a telephone interview you had with him)? Correct me if
> I'm wrong about that, but didn't Nolan say he NEVER OPENED THE ENVELOPE
> that he took to the DPD and gave to Will Fritz? Therefore, how can he
know
> for certain WHAT was inside that envelope (CE842)?
Why do you have to ask me what he said, when I have cited him a dozen
times for you
He stated repeatedly, that the nurse described a single, whole bullet -
exactly as Wade and Connally saw.
Te believe that she was talking about almost microscopic lead particles,
just insults everyone's intelligence.
>
> #3 (Stinson) -- I'm going to need a refresher on Stinson's observations
> concerning this supposed "extra bullet" matter, Bob. Frankly, I just
plain
> forgot what his role is in this. Did Stinson supposedly see an extra
whole
> bullet too?
You told me that you read the article. It's not that long. (quoting)
Bill Stinson further corroborated the other witnesses, when he was
interviewed by the now defunct, Ramparts magazine.
"Before the Commission discredited Connally's testimony they should at
least have heard all the important witnesses. Ramparts found one the
Commission never talked to; they never even asked him for an affidavit. He
is William Stinson, an aide to Governor Connally at the time of the
assassination. Today, although officially employed by the Veterans
Administraton, he has an office in the White House. Stinson told us he was
in the operating room, wearing a sterile uniform, when the doctors
operated on Connally at Parkland Hospital. 'The last thing they did,' said
Stinson, 'was to remove the bullet from the governor's thigh---because
that was the least thing that was wrong with him.'".
The entire article can be seen here,
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/09th_Issue/ ramparts.html
Stinson was mistaken about the bullet being removed during surgery. He
had been permitted to stand in the operating room then, but it is
unlikely that he would have been permitted to get close enough to
examine the fragments as they were being removed. It makes perfect sense
however, that he would assume that it came from surgery, when shortly
afterward, the nurse came out, in scrubs, and told him and Nolan that
she had a bullet from Connally's thigh.(unquote)
Stinson could only have come to that conclusion if he had heard the
nurse say the same things that the others described. He either didn't
get the part about it coming from Connally's "gurney" or somehow,
thought that happened as a result of the surgery.
>
> #4 (Bell) -- Nurse Audrey Bell is ON TAPE telling the world that the
> handwriting we see on the envelope in CE842 (which is clearly and plainly
> marked "Bullet fragments" from Connally's "Right arm") is Audrey Bell's
> own handwriting."
Uh huh, and she is such a handwriting expert that at a quick glance, she
can differentiate between something she wrote decades earlier and a
decent job of forgery.
And BTW, Dr. Wendy Carlson, who is one of the nations leading
handwriting experts, told me that the "bullet fragments" was not written
in the same hand as the other writing in that section of CE-842.
Bell stated that she filled out the entirety of her envelope.
> She said she positively recognized her own writing on
> that foreign body envelope. And I think she also stated that she did not
> handle (and write on) more than ONE such envelope on 11/22/63.
Please stop exaggerating. When asked if it was her handwriting, she said
yes. Strange, how you, who have made a career out of telling us how
worthless witnesses are, suddenly believe that this one is infallible,
not just when hearing gunshots, but in the esoteric science of
handwriting analysis
Do you also think she was infallible when she flatly denied that she
gave her envelope to Nolan or anyone else in uniform?
> So your
> theory about Bell is moribund on that basis alone. Naturally, you have
> other ideas. But, as usual, you can't PROVE that any hanky-panky was
going
> on with any "erased" initials on CE842.
There were many erasures on CE-842 and the envelope had been crumpled,
as can be easily seen, even in the high contrast version you referenced.
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom_files/image004.jpg
Audrey Bell would never have used a second hand envelope. As I told you
recently in our Facebook discussion, that envelope was undoubtedly,
filled out by the nurse that Connally, Wade, and Nolan encountered.
Wade would have been angry that she had been carrying around such an
important piece of evidence all afternoon and demanded that she get it
to the police, ASAP. Perhaps she didn't know where to get a fresh
envelope, or she didn't know where Bell was, so she grabbed an old used
one and did a half-assed job of erasing as much as she could, before
putting the bullet in it and giving it to Nolan.
http://jfkhistory.com/ce842x.jpg
> And I think Mike Williams did a
> fairly decent job of debunking your "erased initials" theory many months
> ago at another forum.
ROFLMAO!!
Mike Williams did nothing of the kind and you know it. You BOTH made the
idiotic argument that since you found a high contrast scan of CE842 in
which the erasures were not visible, they must not have ever existed.
I think you know how godawful terrible that argument was David, which is
why you're now trying to pass it off on Williams.
>
> Sum total --- Bob Harris cannot prove that ANYONE actually SAW an extra
> "whole bullet" at Parkland Memorial Hospital on November 22, 1963.
Maybe if you repeat that absurdity enough times, you will come to
believe it yourself, David.
But the witness statements are crystal clear, including Audrey Bell's.
>
> And, of course, the only "official" evidence in the case indicates that
> the only whole "bullet" that was found at Parkland that day that was in
> any way connected to the wounding of JFK and/or John B. Connally was
> CE399.
BS!! There is NO evidence, official or otherwise, that CE399 was the
original bullet.
NONE of the witnesses confirmed it, and the initials of two federal
agents are missing from it.
> And nobody has been able to PROVE that that bullet was planted or
> used as a substitute for any other bullet.
I have proved that it was substituted in a multitude of different ways,
which you ignore and evade continuously.
> CTers can pretend that they've
> "proven" that CE399 is a fraudulent bullet, but even Bob Harris knows
that
> nobody has truly PROVEN that 399 is phony.
No David, I have proven that CE399 is a phony, beyond any reasonable doubt.
Can you imagine a court case, in which I call, Connally, Wade, Nolan,
Bell, Johnsen and Todd to the witness stand and then enter a blowup of
CE399 (or the actual bullet) into evidence, proving the absence of the
agents' initials?
Now it's your turn. What witnesses do you call? Odum perhaps:-) Hoover?
What evidence do you submit?
ALL of the evidence and ALL of the relevant testimony proves you are
wrong, David. All the talking and misrepresentations of my statements
won't change that.
> Let's face it -- the CTers of
> the world just flat-out WANT CE399 to be fraudulent. Therefore, in their
> eyes, it is.
What an inept argument. The evidence doesn't change, based on what
anyone "wants".
>
> But the chain of possession of a WHOLE BULLET going from the hands of
> Tomlinson, to Wright, to Johnsen, to Rowley, to Todd, to Frazier IS
INTACT
> -- and it always has been intact.
Probably so. There was no reason to switch out that bullet before it was
tested against Oswald's rifle.
> None of those men ever said anything
> that breaks that consistent chain.
Why are you wasting all this time on irrelevant issues?
> Each man received a whole bullet from
> the previous man in the chain. That establishes a CHAIN OF POSSESSION for
> the stretcher bullet.
That is correct. The bullet went from a stretcher to the FBI labs.
That's where they learned that it didn't come from Oswald's rifle. That
created a big problem, since it would have convinced the public that
Oswald didn't act alone, wouldn't it David?
>
> Yes, most conspiracists think that the lack of Johnsen's and Rowley's
> initials
I don't think Rowley marked the bullet. But Todd certainly did as well
as Johnsen.
> on CE399 constitutes a break in the chain. But, as John McAdams
> has pointed out numerous times in the past, that just simply is not so.
You mean John BLURTED it out:-)
> The chain isn't broken due to a lack of marking the evidence.
David, you're smarter than this. Why are you trying to distort the issue?
The problem is, that both Todd and Johnsen put their initials on the
Tomlinson bullet, but they are missing from CE399.
CE399 ONLY contains the initials of FBI people at their labs. It could
not possibly be the same bullet that Tomlinson found.
And that fact is corroborated over and over and over again by the two
men and one nurse who actually saw the bullet that hit Connally and
probably JFK. It was further corroborated by Audrey Bell, officer Nolan,
Connally aide, Stinson as well as the federal agents and civilians who
refused to confirm CE399 as the same bullet they saw previously.
Perhaps you can do better than blurtations, David. Tell me about your
witnesses and your evidence.
There are
> other ways to establish the chain of possession, and that's been done by
> the FBI, in asking each man in the "chain" if they did, in fact,
receive a
> bullet from the previous person in the chain. And that chain is, indeed,
> intact. Whether the conspiracy theorists like it or not.
>
> And Elmer Todd DID mark Bullet CE399. We know he marked it, because
> there's FBI documentation that tells us he marked it [see CD7 and
CE2011].
Ahh!! So we KNOW he marked it because of FBI documentation! That
certainly nails it, except for one tiny detail.
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png
> And, no, I'm not willing to concede that the FBI was playing fast and
> loose with the words we find in CE2011. And my recent battles with Jim
> DiEugenio regarding Darrell Tomlinson and his role in CE2011 should prove
> something to at least a few CTers -- that being: the FBI did not lie
about
> Tomlinson when the FBI said in CE2011 that Tomlinson said that CE399
> resembled the stretcher bullet. And even Robert Harris has now
> acknowledged the fact that the FBI did not lie about that.
I did? I don't remember taking any heavy drugs or getting blind drunk,
so I'm pretty sure I never did anything that stupid. CE2011 is the
document which contains the lie that agent Odum got Wright and Tomlinson
to partially confirm CE399, but that was a deliberate lie, as Odum
himself confirmed,
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/odum.jpg
>
> Therefore, why should anyone really think that CE2011 contains ANY
lies at
> all
LOL!
David, are you trying to create some kind of a parody of how nutters reason?
> (including the section in that document which reveals that Elmer Todd
> positively identified his own initials on Bullet CE399)?
David, here is a major clue: ELMER TODD WAS AN FBI EMPLOYEE.
And what do we know about the FBI? That's right, they lie their
proverbial asses off.
>
> The initials that are visible on CE399 (even via the NARA's high-quality
> color photos) are very difficult to discern (IMO).
No they aren't. Every one of the initials of FBI lab people who signed
it, are easy to spot.
> I can hardly make out
> anyone's initials on that bullet.
Well of course you can't David:-)
> I can see some faint markings,
Uh huh. Just like .john can't see any of Connally's movements when he
was reacting to the 285 shot.
> but they
> ARE hard to see.
Nutter rule #1 - ALWAYS try to turn objective issues into subjective,
because you can claim ANYTHING as your subjective opinion.
Funny though, that we can see ALL of the FBI lab people's intials, but
neither Todd's nor Johnsen's.
> That's a fact. So why is it so hard to believe that
> perhaps Todd put his mark on the bullet in such a way where his initials
> are even MORE difficult to find than are Bob Frazier's or Cunningham's or
> Killion's? Perhaps Todd didn't mark it as deeply into the surface of the
> bullet as those other men did. Who can know for sure?
We can't unless we are capable of employing at least a bit of critical
thinking.
Even if it weren't for all the lies, refusals to verify CE399 and the
conclusive witness statements proving that Connally was hit by an
entirely different bullet, we still have absolute proof that the SBT
shot did not come from Oswald's rifle.
That shot was inaudible, David. The WC concluded that "most" witnesses
only heard ONE of the early shots, followed by closely bunched shots at
the end.
And it's easy to prove that people reacted to an audible shot prior to
223. So to support your theory, you must believe that there was no 223
shot, or that people just don't notice 130 decibel, high powered rifle
shots.
And then you need to explain why none of the limo passengers reacted to
those shots even remotely similar to how they did following 285 and 313.
http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif
To understand this case David, you cannot segment and isolate different
issues. They ALL must be consistent and corroborative of each other.
And to answer your next claim, which mcadams will probably snip, yes
Todd lied. You previously claimed that he initialed it but you couldn't
see his initials.
So, was his vision that much better than yours, that he could see what
you and I and the rest of the world, can't see??
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Jul 23, 2016, 11:13:08 PM7/23/16
to
ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
...since the FBI obviously disposed of the Tomlinson bullet...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You might as well have just stopped with your laundry list of complaints
right there, Robert, because I decided to not respond to your imaginative
tommyrot after reading the above hunk of hilarity. After all, a vivid
imagination is hard to combat....and impossible to defeat. The vivid
imagination *always* trumps everything else. (Just ask Bob Harris.)
My general rule of thumb is this:
**The things that conspiracy-happy clowns think are "obvious" are always
things that are far from "obvious", to the point where the words "obvious"
and "fact" being utilized by a JFK conspiracy theorist can nearly always
be totally dismissed and ignored because the exact *opposite* is almost
always the truth when the situation being discussed is evaluated by a
reasonable human being.**
...since the FBI obviously disposed of the Tomlinson bullet...
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You might as well have just stopped with your laundry list of complaints
right there, Robert, because I decided to not respond to your imaginative
tommyrot after reading the above hunk of hilarity. After all, a vivid
imagination is hard to combat....and impossible to defeat. The vivid
imagination *always* trumps everything else. (Just ask Bob Harris.)
My general rule of thumb is this:
**The things that conspiracy-happy clowns think are "obvious" are always
things that are far from "obvious", to the point where the words "obvious"
and "fact" being utilized by a JFK conspiracy theorist can nearly always
be totally dismissed and ignored because the exact *opposite* is almost
always the truth when the situation being discussed is evaluated by a
reasonable human being.**
OHLeeRedux
Jul 24, 2016, 1:48:05 PM7/24/16
to
And Harris drops another one that just won't flush.
Bud
Jul 24, 2016, 1:55:56 PM7/24/16
to
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
> wrong,
Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
> wrong,
claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
proven to your satisfaction.
> and then selectively attacking out-of-context statements in his
> blog, where no dissent is permitted, I thought it would be good to repost
> some of the articles that he has evaded.
>
> This particular one is extremely important, since it proves beyond all
> doubt, that CE399 was a replacement for the actual bullet that wounded
> Connally. (quoting)
>
>
>
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > ~sigh~
> >
> > Repeating some of the stuff I've said in previous years, since apparently
> > Bob H. likes to see me reprise this same stuff over and over again, year
> > after year (and he'll still pretend I've never responded)....
>
> Resorting to ad hominem insults,
that way. Don`t blame others for taking note of the way you act.
> only impresses the worst of your
> compadres, David.
>
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > "If [Bobby] Nolan had delivered an intact bullet to the DPD that had
> > dropped off of Governor Connally's stretcher, that bullet would be
> part of
> > the official evidence in this case today.
>
> That is not a rebuttal,
> since the FBI obviously disposed of the
> Tomlinson bullet,
> which bore the initials of agents Johnsen and Todd,
> and replaced it with CE399, which did not.
no matter how strongly you assert it.
>
> > And, of course, no such
> > additional "whole bullet" (other than CE399) exists in the record,
> does it
> > Bob?
>
> That's correct, David. But the FBI controls "the record".
no telling how many people saw it before they got control of it.
> Did you think
> they would permit the official record to prove that they exchanged the
> original for a substitute?
> >
> > Now Bob will pretend the "whole Nolan bullet" was swept under the rug by
> > the evil DPD (and/or the wicked FBI). Won't you, Bob?
>
> LOL!! Yes, but they didn't think they were "wicked", David. They were
> simply complying with Hoover's directive that the "public must be
> convinced" that Oswald acted alone.
>
> Why do you pretend that it is outrageous for the FBI to do exactly what
> Hoover said they should do
>
> >
> > Bob probably should have learned a lesson from Jim Sibert and Francis
> > O'Neill about how BULLET FRAGMENTS can get turned erroneously into WHOLE
> > MISSILES:
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Interview With James Sibert
> >
> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Interview With Francis O'Neill
>
> None of that has anything to do with the issues we are discussing.
unheard of, not even in just this case.
> Please stop trying to change the subject.
instead of trying to convince them with compelling arguments.
> But we don't both have the
> integrity to admit it.
It takes a childlike mentality.
> > He was talking about FRAGMENTS.
>
> ROFLMAO! I guess you just overlooked this,
>
> "I assume that's the pristine bullet."
take place insults everyone`s intelligence.
weak and uncompelling your ideas are.
the limo are exhibiting startle reactions? Isn`t it only your subjective
opinion that years old recollections are reliable? Isn`t it only your
subjective opinion that certain initials do not exist on CE399? Your whole
sandcastle is constructed of subjective opinion that you consider fact.
> Funny though, that we can see ALL of the FBI lab people's intials, but
> neither Todd's nor Johnsen's.
>
> > That's a fact. So why is it so hard to believe that
> > perhaps Todd put his mark on the bullet in such a way where his initials
> > are even MORE difficult to find than are Bob Frazier's or Cunningham's or
> > Killion's? Perhaps Todd didn't mark it as deeply into the surface of the
> > bullet as those other men did. Who can know for sure?
>
> We can't unless we are capable of employing at least a bit of critical
> thinking.
>
> Even if it weren't for all the lies, refusals to verify CE399 and the
> conclusive witness statements proving that Connally was hit by an
> entirely different bullet, we still have absolute proof that the SBT
> shot did not come from Oswald's rifle.
>
> That shot was inaudible, David. The WC concluded that "most" witnesses
> only heard ONE of the early shots, followed by closely bunched shots at
> the end.
>
> And it's easy to prove that people reacted to an audible shot prior to
> 223. So to support your theory, you must believe that there was no 223
> shot, or that people just don't notice 130 decibel, high powered rifle
> shots.
>
> And then you need to explain why none of the limo passengers reacted to
> those shots even remotely similar to how they did following 285 and 313.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif
>
> To understand this case David, you cannot segment and isolate different
> issues. They ALL must be consistent and corroborative of each other.
> And to answer your next claim, which mcadams will probably snip, yes
> Todd lied. You previously claimed that he initialed it but you couldn't
> see his initials.
>
> So, was his vision that much better than yours, that he could see what
> you and I and the rest of the world, can't see??
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
bigdog
Jul 24, 2016, 10:00:28 PM7/24/16
to
Bob, "obvious" is the word conspiracy hobbyists like to throw in when they
are making claims for which they have no evidence. They pretend saying
"obvious" gives their claims weight and relieves them of the burden of
actually presenting evidence to support their positions.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 25, 2016, 1:00:15 PM7/25/16
to
On 7/24/2016 1:55 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
>> wrong,
>
> Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
> claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
> proven to your satisfaction.
>
>> and then selectively attacking out-of-context statements in his
>> blog, where no dissent is permitted, I thought it would be good to repost
>> some of the articles that he has evaded.
>>
>> This particular one is extremely important, since it proves beyond all
>> doubt, that CE399 was a replacement for the actual bullet that wounded
>> Connally. (quoting)
>>
>>
>>
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>> > ~sigh~
>> >
>> > Repeating some of the stuff I've said in previous years, since apparently
>> > Bob H. likes to see me reprise this same stuff over and over again, year
>> > after year (and he'll still pretend I've never responded)....
>>
>> Resorting to ad hominem insults,
>
> If you don`t want people to point out the way you act then stop acting
> that way. Don`t blame others for taking note of the way you act.
>
Pot-kettle. Why don't YOU go away instead?
> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
>> wrong,
>
> Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
> claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
> proven to your satisfaction.
>
>> and then selectively attacking out-of-context statements in his
>> blog, where no dissent is permitted, I thought it would be good to repost
>> some of the articles that he has evaded.
>>
>> This particular one is extremely important, since it proves beyond all
>> doubt, that CE399 was a replacement for the actual bullet that wounded
>> Connally. (quoting)
>>
>>
>>
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>> > ~sigh~
>> >
>> > Repeating some of the stuff I've said in previous years, since apparently
>> > Bob H. likes to see me reprise this same stuff over and over again, year
>> > after year (and he'll still pretend I've never responded)....
>>
>> Resorting to ad hominem insults,
>
> If you don`t want people to point out the way you act then stop acting
> that way. Don`t blame others for taking note of the way you act.
>
>> only impresses the worst of your
>> compadres, David.
>
> The worst LNer is better than the best conspiracy hobbyist.
>
>>
>> >
>> > ------------------
>> >
>> > "If [Bobby] Nolan had delivered an intact bullet to the DPD that had
>> > dropped off of Governor Connally's stretcher, that bullet would be
>> part of
>> > the official evidence in this case today.
>>
>> That is not a rebuttal,
>
> But it is reasonable to believe.
>
>> since the FBI obviously disposed of the
>> Tomlinson bullet,
>
> Claiming as fact what you can`t show.
>
>> which bore the initials of agents Johnsen and Todd,
>> and replaced it with CE399, which did not.
>
> Empty claim. You can`t prove those initials don`t exist on the bullet,
> no matter how strongly you assert it.
>
>>
>> > And, of course, no such
>> > additional "whole bullet" (other than CE399) exists in the record,
>> does it
>> > Bob?
>>
>> That's correct, David. But the FBI controls "the record".
>
> But do not control reality. If there were a full bullet there would be
it. You are not allowed to think for yourself.
> no telling how many people saw it before they got control of it.
>
>> Did you think
>> they would permit the official record to prove that they exchanged the
>> original for a substitute?
>
> It not existing in the record is evidence it didn`t exist.
>
>> >
>> > Now Bob will pretend the "whole Nolan bullet" was swept under the rug by
>> > the evil DPD (and/or the wicked FBI). Won't you, Bob?
>>
>> LOL!! Yes, but they didn't think they were "wicked", David. They were
>> simply complying with Hoover's directive that the "public must be
>> convinced" that Oswald acted alone.
>>
>> Why do you pretend that it is outrageous for the FBI to do exactly what
>> Hoover said they should do
>>
>> >
>> > Bob probably should have learned a lesson from Jim Sibert and Francis
>> > O'Neill about how BULLET FRAGMENTS can get turned erroneously into WHOLE
>> > MISSILES:
>> >
>> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Interview With James Sibert
>> >
>> > http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Interview With Francis O'Neill
>>
>> None of that has anything to do with the issues we are discussing.
>
> It does have a bearing. People calling fragments full missiles is not
> unheard of, not even in just this case.
>
The Navy corpsman typed "missle." Not them.
Stop making false charges.
BOZ
Jul 25, 2016, 1:06:59 PM7/25/16
to
Robert Harris
Jul 25, 2016, 5:11:44 PM7/25/16
to
Bud wrote:
> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
>> wrong,
>
> Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
> claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
> proven to your satisfaction.
Ambiguity 'R You.
> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
>> wrong,
>
> Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
> claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
> proven to your satisfaction.
If you really believed that, you would be capable of being
specific about something I falsely claimed to be proven.
But you can't do that, Bud, because if you did, you would
then be faced with a long list of very specific, verifiable
and indisputable evidence which supports my analysis.
In this case, you would have to deal with the totally
consistent and mutually corrobative statements of Wade,
Nolan, Connally, Audrey Bell, SA Johnsen and FBI agent Todd.
You would also have to deal with the hard evidence of CE399,
which does not contain the initials which Johnsen and Todd,
carved into the original, Tomlinson bullet.
You would also have to deal with proven lies by the FBI -
that agent Odum got partial corroborations from Tomlinson and
Wright, and that Bell told them she gave a single fragment to
officer Nolan.
And you would need to explain why Hoover suggested to LBJ,
within a few days after receiving the bullets from Parkland,
that Connally came between JFK and a sniper.
That's why you have to be vague, isn't it Bud?
You can't deal with the facts and evidence, so you can only
post vague accusations, that are ridiculously false.
Robert Harris
Bud
Jul 25, 2016, 10:28:29 PM7/25/16
to
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 1:00:15 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/24/2016 1:55 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
> >> wrong,
> >
> > Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
> > claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
> > proven to your satisfaction.
> >
> >> and then selectively attacking out-of-context statements in his
> >> blog, where no dissent is permitted, I thought it would be good to repost
> >> some of the articles that he has evaded.
> >>
> >> This particular one is extremely important, since it proves beyond all
> >> doubt, that CE399 was a replacement for the actual bullet that wounded
> >> Connally. (quoting)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> David Von Pein wrote:
> >> > ~sigh~
> >> >
> >> > Repeating some of the stuff I've said in previous years, since apparently
> >> > Bob H. likes to see me reprise this same stuff over and over again, year
> >> > after year (and he'll still pretend I've never responded)....
> >>
> >> Resorting to ad hominem insults,
> >
> > If you don`t want people to point out the way you act then stop acting
> > that way. Don`t blame others for taking note of the way you act.
> >
>
> Pot-kettle. Why don't YOU go away instead?
Where did I tell him to go away? Your reading comprehension is dismal
> On 7/24/2016 1:55 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
> >> wrong,
> >
> > Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
> > claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
> > proven to your satisfaction.
> >
> >> and then selectively attacking out-of-context statements in his
> >> blog, where no dissent is permitted, I thought it would be good to repost
> >> some of the articles that he has evaded.
> >>
> >> This particular one is extremely important, since it proves beyond all
> >> doubt, that CE399 was a replacement for the actual bullet that wounded
> >> Connally. (quoting)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> David Von Pein wrote:
> >> > ~sigh~
> >> >
> >> > Repeating some of the stuff I've said in previous years, since apparently
> >> > Bob H. likes to see me reprise this same stuff over and over again, year
> >> > after year (and he'll still pretend I've never responded)....
> >>
> >> Resorting to ad hominem insults,
> >
> > If you don`t want people to point out the way you act then stop acting
> > that way. Don`t blame others for taking note of the way you act.
> >
>
> Pot-kettle. Why don't YOU go away instead?
anymore.
> >> only impresses the worst of your
> >> compadres, David.
> >
> > The worst LNer is better than the best conspiracy hobbyist.
>
> Arrogance is not evidence.
LNer is better than the best conspiracy hobbyist.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > ------------------
> >> >
> >> > "If [Bobby] Nolan had delivered an intact bullet to the DPD that had
> >> > dropped off of Governor Connally's stretcher, that bullet would be
> >> part of
> >> > the official evidence in this case today.
> >>
> >> That is not a rebuttal,
> >
> > But it is reasonable to believe.
> >
>
> You will believe anything. You fell for the WC lies.
You guys have epically failed to show any reason to question the WC`s
> >> >
> >> > "If [Bobby] Nolan had delivered an intact bullet to the DPD that had
> >> > dropped off of Governor Connally's stretcher, that bullet would be
> >> part of
> >> > the official evidence in this case today.
> >>
> >> That is not a rebuttal,
> >
> > But it is reasonable to believe.
> >
>
> You will believe anything. You fell for the WC lies.
findings. Had I looked at what they did I would have come to the same
conclusion without them. It is a simple and evident event.
> >> since the FBI obviously disposed of the
> >> Tomlinson bullet,
> >
> > Claiming as fact what you can`t show.
> >
>
> Proposing a solution?
> >> which bore the initials of agents Johnsen and Todd,
> >> and replaced it with CE399, which did not.
> >
> > Empty claim. You can`t prove those initials don`t exist on the bullet,
> > no matter how strongly you assert it.
> >
>
> Has anyone bothered to read John Hunt's articles?
actual bullet or not.
Robert Harris
Jul 25, 2016, 10:30:11 PM7/25/16
to
David Von Pein wrote:
>ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>
>...since the FBI obviously disposed of the Tomlinson bullet...
Yes they did, David.
>ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>
>...since the FBI obviously disposed of the Tomlinson bullet...
I base that on verified facts and evidence. The Tomlinson
bullet was marked by SA Johnsen and FBI Todd, who carved
their initials into the bullet.
But neither of their initials are present on CE399. You have
admitted yourself, that you do not see their initials.
Your pretense that it is difficult to see such initials is
debunked by the fact that we can see ALL of the initials of
FBI personnel in Washington, who marked it. John Hunt
confirmed that fact when he interviewed Frazier.
How do you explain that David?
Oh, I know! You don't explain anything. You snip the
question, along with all the other issues that you evade.
>
>>
>>
>DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>You might as well have just stopped with your laundry list
of complaints
>right there, Robert, because I decided to not respond to
>your imaginative >tommyrot
You decided, "not to respond", because the material you
snipped, proves you wrong, beyond all conceivable doubt. A
classic example:
DVP: "District Attorney Henry Wade never saw a WHOLE BULLET
at the hospital, and you know it. He was talking about
FRAGMENTS."
HARRIS: I guess you just overlooked this,
HENRY WADE "I assume that's the pristine bullet."
If "it couldn't be any clearer" that Wade was talking about
fragments, then how could he have assumed that it was "the
pristine bullet"?
Why did you snip that question, David? Why are you pretending
that Wade's documented, public statements are part of my
"imagination"?
(unquote)
You did not evade my question, because it was "imaginative
tommyrot", did you David? You evaded it because you were
proven flatly wrong.
This statement by you, has got to be the most fallacious I
have ever heard.
"If [Bobby] Nolan had delivered an intact bullet to the DPD
that had dropped off of Governor Connally's stretcher, that
bullet would be part of the official evidence in this case
today."
happened, it would be part of the "official evidence".
How do you bring yourself to say such things?
And here's the most important part, that as usual, you just
snipped:
are on that bullet.
>after reading the above hunk of hilarity.
declare that you intend to evade all of it; and then call it
"hilarity".
You don't get to ridicule analysis that you are helpless to
address, David. When you run, your actions speak for you -
far better and more honestly than your pathetic excuses for
evasion.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Jul 25, 2016, 10:30:22 PM7/25/16
to
bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 11:13:08 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>
>> ...since the FBI obviously disposed of the Tomlinson bullet...
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> You might as well have just stopped with your laundry list of complaints
>> right there, Robert, because I decided to not respond to your imaginative
>> tommyrot after reading the above hunk of hilarity. After all, a vivid
>> imagination is hard to combat....and impossible to defeat. The vivid
>> imagination *always* trumps everything else. (Just ask Bob Harris.)
>>
>> My general rule of thumb is this:
>>
>> **The things that conspiracy-happy clowns think are "obvious" are always
>> things that are far from "obvious", to the point where the words "obvious"
>> and "fact" being utilized by a JFK conspiracy theorist can nearly always
>> be totally dismissed and ignored because the exact *opposite* is almost
>> always the truth when the situation being discussed is evaluated by a
>> reasonable human being.**
>
> As I've observed often in my exchanges with Chris and occasionally with
> Bob, "obvious" is the word conspiracy hobbyists like to throw in when they
> are making claims for which they have no evidence.
John, why are you always incapable of being specific in your
> On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 11:13:08 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>
>> ...since the FBI obviously disposed of the Tomlinson bullet...
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> You might as well have just stopped with your laundry list of complaints
>> right there, Robert, because I decided to not respond to your imaginative
>> tommyrot after reading the above hunk of hilarity. After all, a vivid
>> imagination is hard to combat....and impossible to defeat. The vivid
>> imagination *always* trumps everything else. (Just ask Bob Harris.)
>>
>> My general rule of thumb is this:
>>
>> **The things that conspiracy-happy clowns think are "obvious" are always
>> things that are far from "obvious", to the point where the words "obvious"
>> and "fact" being utilized by a JFK conspiracy theorist can nearly always
>> be totally dismissed and ignored because the exact *opposite* is almost
>> always the truth when the situation being discussed is evaluated by a
>> reasonable human being.**
>
> As I've observed often in my exchanges with Chris and occasionally with
> Bob, "obvious" is the word conspiracy hobbyists like to throw in when they
> are making claims for which they have no evidence.
accusations?
Why don't you tell everyone EXACTLY what I claimed was
obvious, that you think, was not??
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Jul 26, 2016, 5:32:35 PM7/26/16
to
Bud wrote:
> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
>> wrong,
>
> Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
> claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
> proven to your satisfaction.
No they aren't.
> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
>> wrong,
>
> Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
> claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
> proven to your satisfaction.
If they were, you would be specific about what I said that
was an "empty claim".
You HAVE to be vague and ambiguous, because you know that if
are specific, I will bombard you with verifiable facts and
evidence which proves my claim.
It's sad that you continue with these lame tactics, even
after you've been exposed on countless occasions.
Robert Harris
Bud
Jul 26, 2016, 5:33:31 PM7/26/16
to
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
> >> wrong,
> >
> > Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
> > claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
> > proven to your satisfaction.
>
> Ambiguity 'R You.
>
> If you really believed that, you would be capable of being
> specific about something I falsely claimed to be proven.
Specifically every argument you claimed proved DVP wrong.
> Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
> >> wrong,
> >
> > Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
> > claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
> > proven to your satisfaction.
>
> Ambiguity 'R You.
>
> If you really believed that, you would be capable of being
> specific about something I falsely claimed to be proven.
> But you can't do that, Bud, because if you did, you would
> then be faced with a long list of very specific, verifiable
> and indisputable evidence which supports my analysis.
evidence prove Bob Harris`s idea to be valid to the satisfaction of Bob
Harris. What could matter less?
> In this case, you would have to deal with the totally
> consistent and mutually corrobative statements of Wade,
> Nolan, Connally, Audrey Bell, SA Johnsen and FBI agent Todd.
weak, with more mundane and compelling explanations available.
> You would also have to deal with the hard evidence of CE399,
> which does not contain the initials which Johnsen and Todd,
> carved into the original, Tomlinson bullet.
> You would also have to deal with proven lies by the FBI -
> that agent Odum got partial corroborations from Tomlinson and
> Wright, and that Bell told them she gave a single fragment to
> officer Nolan.
>
> And you would need to explain why Hoover suggested to LBJ,
> within a few days after receiving the bullets from Parkland,
> that Connally came between JFK and a sniper.
> That's why you have to be vague, isn't it Bud?
> You can't deal with the facts and evidence, so you can only
> post vague accusations, that are ridiculously false.
them?
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
TOMNLN
Jul 26, 2016, 8:41:33 PM7/26/16
to
"PRESUMABLY OF ENTRANCE" AND, PRESUMABLY OF EXIT" MUST BOTHER THE SHIT OUTTA YOU CORBETT ! ! !
============================================================================================
Anthony Marsh
Jul 26, 2016, 11:42:17 PM7/26/16
to
On 7/25/2016 10:30 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
>>ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>>
>>...since the FBI obviously disposed of the Tomlinson bullet...
>
> Yes they did, David.
>
So you're just another garden variety Alterationist.
> David Von Pein wrote:
>>ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>>
>>...since the FBI obviously disposed of the Tomlinson bullet...
>
> Yes they did, David.
>
> I base that on verified facts and evidence. The Tomlinson bullet was
> marked by SA Johnsen and FBI Todd, who carved their initials into the
> bullet.
>
> But neither of their initials are present on CE399. You have admitted
> yourself, that you do not see their initials.
>
OHLeeRedux
Jul 27, 2016, 3:09:46 PM7/27/16
to
And you can keep your worthless YouTube likes. (The dog dressed like a
spider is in the millions now. snicker)
I guess the whole world is against poor little Robert. Or maybe it's just
that we all know garbage when we smell it.
Here is Robert's cue to go into his amnesia routine: "What garbage? Be
specific because I am incapable of thinking abstractly. Where am I?"
(snicker)
Bud
Jul 27, 2016, 10:49:38 PM7/27/16
to
On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:32:35 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
> >> wrong,
> >
> > Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
> > claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
> > proven to your satisfaction.
>
> No they aren't.
They aren`t even proven to your own satisfaction, eh?
> Bud wrote:
> > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
> >> wrong,
> >
> > Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
> > claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
> > proven to your satisfaction.
>
> No they aren't.
> If they were, you would be specific about what I said that
> was an "empty claim".
claims will you stop posting this nonsense?
You want to keep challenging me you have to make it worth my while to
repeat myself or go back looking through past responses I`ve made that you
ignored.
> You HAVE to be vague and ambiguous, because you know that if
> are specific, I will bombard you with verifiable facts and
> evidence which proves my claim.
> It's sad that you continue with these lame tactics, even
> after you've been exposed on countless occasions.
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Jul 27, 2016, 11:00:34 PM7/27/16
to
On 7/26/2016 5:33 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Bud wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
>>>> wrong,
>>>
>>> Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
>>> claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
>>> proven to your satisfaction.
>>
A person like you could also claim that the shooting of President
> On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> Bud wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
>>>> wrong,
>>>
>>> Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
>>> claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
>>> proven to your satisfaction.
>>
Kennedy was only accidental.
bigdog
Jul 28, 2016, 12:13:54 AM7/28/16
to
specificity?
> Why don't you tell everyone EXACTLY what I claimed was
> obvious, that you think, was not??
>
provided.
Bud
Jul 28, 2016, 6:36:45 PM7/28/16
to
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 11:00:34 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 7/26/2016 5:33 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> Bud wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >>>> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
> >>>> wrong,
> >>>
> >>> Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
> >>> claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
> >>> proven to your satisfaction.
> >>
>
> A person like you could also claim that the shooting of President
> Kennedy was only accidental.
You`re thinking of your conception.
> On 7/26/2016 5:33 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >> Bud wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> >>>> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
> >>>> wrong,
> >>>
> >>> Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
> >>> claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
> >>> proven to your satisfaction.
> >>
>
> A person like you could also claim that the shooting of President
> Kennedy was only accidental.
Anthony Marsh
Jul 29, 2016, 11:04:12 PM7/29/16
to
On 7/28/2016 6:36 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 11:00:34 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 7/26/2016 5:33 PM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>> Bud wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>>>> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
>>>>>> wrong,
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
>>>>> claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
>>>>> proven to your satisfaction.
>>>>
>>
>> A person like you could also claim that the shooting of President
>> Kennedy was only accidental.
>
> You`re thinking of your conception.
>
I am thinking of your cover-up mentality. You have a habit of saying
> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 11:00:34 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 7/26/2016 5:33 PM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 5:11:44 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>> Bud wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>>>> Since David Von Pein has a habit of evading arguments that prove him
>>>>>> wrong,
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the things you consider arguments are nothing more than empty
>>>>> claims. Most of the things you think you haven proven have only been
>>>>> proven to your satisfaction.
>>>>
>>
>> A person like you could also claim that the shooting of President
>> Kennedy was only accidental.
>
> You`re thinking of your conception.
>
murder was just an accidental shooting.
0 new messages