Bud's Bad Argument on CE399

[Robert Harris]

BT George wrote:> On Thursday, March 20, 2014 3:59:37 PM UTC-5, Robert
Harris wrote:
>> BT George wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:52:57 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>>>> On 16 Mar 2014 15:24:27 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> It's hard for me to watch things like this, knowing that the
producers
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> undoubtedly, think that their "research" is significant, all the
while
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> being totally ignorant of the most important facts related to the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> shooting.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> But in this case, they should have been apprised of the facts,
because
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> John McAdams was one of their "experts" who commented throughout the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> documentary, and he knows those facts as well as I do.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> John, why did you let them waste all that time and effort, firing
bullets
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> through gelatin, when we both know that CE399 had nothing to do
with the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> SBT or the assassination?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Why didn't you tell those people what John Connally said about
the bullet
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> falling from his thigh and gurney, and being recovered by a
nurse? And
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> that that same nurse then showed the bullet to district attorney
Wade and
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> then gave it to officer Bobby Nolan? It could not have been the
bullet
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> that Tomlinson recovered.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> And why didn't you tell them that CE399 did not bear the initials
of any
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> of the men who initialed the Tomlinson bullet at Parkland, and
only the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> initials of the FBI people who handled it *AFTER* it left the
hospital?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> And did you mention to them that the overwhelming majority of
witnesses
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> that day said they only heard one report prior to the very end of the
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> attack, when they heard closely bunched shots?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Did you tell them that Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio confirmed a loud and
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> startling noise at frame 285, or show them the startle reactions
to that
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> shot?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Did you explain to them that every surviving passenger in that
vehicle
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> reacted in the same 1/6th of one second??
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>> Why would you let them remain ignorant of all those facts?
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Bob, I would lose all credibility if I tried selling your wacky theory
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> to any TV producer.
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>> Especially since much of his "CE399 is faked" theory depends on the
crucial role of a (still) *unnamed* nurse.
>>
>>
>>
>> No sir, it does not. It depends on the statements of the Governor of
>>
>> Texas, the Dallas district attorney, the officer who delivered that
>>
>> bullet to the DPD and the supervisor of nursing in the ER at Parkland
>>
>> hospital.
>>
>>
>
> You are basing this on inferences drawn from 30 year old
> (Connally/Wade/Bell) and 47 year old (Nolan) recollections.

Age can cause people to forget. It does not cause them to imagine events
that never took place. And it certainly did not cause all of those people
to have the *SAME* delusion.

The key word here is "gurney" or stretcher. Connally said the bullet fell
from his gurney. Wade said the nurse showed him the bullet and said it
came from his "gurney". Nolan said she stated that the bullet came from
his "gurney".

That word is important because the natural presumption would be that a
bullet held by a nurse emerging from a surgery, must have been acquired
from that surgery.

Without Connally's description of events, the reference to his "gurney"
would have made no sense. It is not something they would have naturally
presumed. It could only have come from her actually saying that.

And it makes no sense at all that Audrey Bell would have written on her
envelope "bullet fragments" from Connally's "right arm" and then told the
police and district attorney that it was a whole bullet from his gurney.

The only explanation for that Bud, is that the FBI lied when they claimed
that she said she gave her envelope to Nolan, which of course, is why she
emphatically denied it.

I must commend you Bud, for having the courage to tackle this issue. But
you are dead wrong. As for the name of the nurse who recovered the bullet
and spoke with Wade and Nolan, it would be nice to find it, but it really
doesn't matter. The totally consistent statements of the people whose
names we *DO* know, are more than sufficient to settle the matter.

And that is only *part* of the most important evidence.

How do you explain the fact that the initials of the two men who said they
initialed the Tomlinson bullet at Parkland, are not present on CE399 and
that only the initials of the FBI people who marked it at the FBI labs,
are?

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

Why did the FBI phone Tomlinson during the wee hours of the morning,
shortly after they received the first bullet fragments that were large
enough to be compared with his bullet, and tell him to "keep his mouth
shut" about finding it? (quoting)

Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock - uh, excuse me,
that's Saturday morning - after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on
the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut.

Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?

Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found?

Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's
pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there any
particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you to talk
about it period?

Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it period.

(unquote)

Why did all four of the men who originally handled the Tomlinson bullet
refuse to verify that it was CE399?

Why did the FBI lie, claiming that agent Bardwell Odum got a partial
confirmation from Tomlinson and his supervisor, O.P. Wright?

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


The evidence is overwhelming Bud and it points to just one indisputable
conclusion.


Robert Harris

[OHLeeRedux]

Hey Robert. Who killed JFK?

After all, that is the pertinent question here, is it not?

Not what happened within 1/6th of a second. Not who danced a jig in the
limo. Inquiring minds want to know. It doesn't take an hour long video to
answer that question, although that is a good supplement. First we want to
know, in the parlance of our times, Who dunnit? JFK had the top of his
head blown off. Who exactly did that horrible deed?

Excuses about how everyone and his brother has conspired to hide evidence
and alter evidence and conceal the truth from the American people have run
their course. It has been fifty years. If you can't give me a name (I have
one -- Lee Harvey Oswald), then you need to take up a new hobby.

Refocus the microscope. Save the details for later. You are the
prosecutor. Show us the indictment.

[BT George]

Hey Robert! Psssst. You are *NOT* replying to Bud. This is *my* post
that you are replying to.

As I am in the middle of month-end close I will get to this as soon as I
have sufficient time to respond. In the meantime, since you've called
*BUD* out (and he has made the same basic argument before), perhaps he and
others will respond too

BT George

[Bud]

I didn`t write the above so I don`t know why Harris is answering it in a
post that is supposed to show the error of my ways.

> Age can cause people to forget. It does not cause them to imagine events
>
> that never took place.

Of course it does. In fact I don`t think I`ve ever heard an event
recounted by someone that occurred more than a decade ago where the
person`s account and my remembrance of the event was the same.

> And it certainly did not cause all of those people
>
> to have the *SAME* delusion.

They aren`t the same. *If* you had a nurse saying she showed Wade a
bullet then you would have someone corroborating that event. They aren`t
all recounting the same thing so they aren`t all in agreement.

>
>
> The key word here is "gurney" or stretcher. Connally said the bullet fell
>
> from his gurney.

Why not quote what he *actually* said?

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

Is he saying he saw a bullet on the gurney? In flight? Did he catch a
glimpse of it before being pocketed by the anonymous nurse? None of these
seem likely by his account, especially considering his state. But in true
hobbyist fashion Harris does scrutinize information he likes the sound of.

> Wade said the nurse showed him the bullet and said it
>
> came from his "gurney". Nolan said she stated that the bullet came from
>
> his "gurney".
>
>
>
> That word is important because the natural presumption would be that a
>
> bullet held by a nurse emerging from a surgery, must have been acquired
>
> from that surgery.

I suppose the account sounds better when you make up things and insert
them like "emerging from surgery", doesn`t it?

>
>
> Without Connally's description of events, the reference to his "gurney"
>
> would have made no sense. It is not something they would have naturally
>
> presumed. It could only have come from her actually saying that.

Actually what could have happened was that a nurse had fragments and
decades of time passed and it became the infamous pristine bullet.

> And it makes no sense at all that Audrey Bell would have written on her
>
> envelope "bullet fragments" from Connally's "right arm" and then told the
>
> police and district attorney that it was a whole bullet from his gurney.

When you can establish each and every possibility as impossible then you
can move on to ninjas putting bullets in the evidential record.

>
>
> The only explanation for that Bud,

In what meaningful way have you established that every other explanation
under the sun is ruled out?

> is that the FBI lied when they claimed
>
> that she said she gave her envelope to Nolan, which of course, is why she
>
> emphatically denied it.
>
>
>
> I must commend you Bud, for having the courage to tackle this issue.

But apparently you lacked same when you neglected to address the post
where I made my points.

> But
>
> you are dead wrong. As for the name of the nurse who recovered the bullet
>
> and spoke with Wade and Nolan, it would be nice to find it, but it really
>
> doesn't matter. The totally consistent statements of the people whose
>
> names we *DO* know, are more than sufficient to settle the matter.

Better to let your imagination fill in the blanks than actual
information, eh?

>
>
> And that is only *part* of the most important evidence.
>
>
>
> How do you explain the fact that the initials of the two men who said they
>
> initialed the Tomlinson bullet at Parkland, are not present on CE399 and
>
> that only the initials of the FBI people who marked it at the FBI labs,
>
> are?
>
>
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png
>
>
>
> Why did the FBI phone Tomlinson during the wee hours of the morning,
>
> shortly after they received the first bullet fragments that were large
>
> enough to be compared with his bullet, and tell him to "keep his mouth
>
> shut" about finding it? (quoting)

Perhaps they wanted to confirm that the bullet that Tomlinson found was
connected to the assassination before word of it circulated.

>
>
> Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock - uh, excuse me,
>
> that's Saturday morning - after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on
>
> the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut.

One wonders how they went about showing credentials over the phone.

'

> Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?
>
>
>
> Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found?
>
>
>
> Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's
>
> pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there any
>
> particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you to talk
>
> about it period?
>
>
>
> Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it period.


> (unquote)
>
>
>
> Why did all four of the men who originally handled the Tomlinson bullet
>
> refuse to verify that it was CE399?

Tomlinson has said that the bullet in evidence looks like the bullet he
found.

>
>
> Why did the FBI lie, claiming that agent Bardwell Odum got a partial
>
> confirmation from Tomlinson and his supervisor, O.P. Wright?
>
>
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/odum.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
> The evidence is overwhelming Bud and it points to just one indisputable
>
> conclusion.

Hobbyists on the case.

>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Hey Robert. Who killed JFK?

Members of the mob, under orders from Carlo Marcello. That may also have
included Lee Harvey Oswald.

>
> After all, that is the pertinent question here, is it not?

I think that is the most important question but not the only important
question.

>
> Not what happened within 1/6th of a second.

But what happened within a sixth of second is relevant to the question
of who was involved in the assassination.

That is just one of numerous facts which prove that there was more than
a single assassin involved.

> Not who danced a jig in the
> limo.

Your demeaning language does not alter the fact that those people were
startled by a rifle shot, which was much too close to the head shot at
313, for Oswald to have fired both.

But why are you changing the subject?

This thread is about CE399.

> Inquiring minds want to know. It doesn't take an hour long video to
> answer that question, although that is a good supplement.

Well, it certainly shouldn't require an hour long video, but 50 years
later and after being bombarded by countless "theories" that didn't hold
up, the media and much of the public has grown rightfully skeptical of
anything related to JFK conspiracy theories.

So, I thought it was important to demonstrate that not only is there
solid proof that Oswald didn't act alone, but that the numerous pieces
of evidence are consistent with one another.

For example, the fact that the 223 shot, which I feel certain, wounded
both JFK and Connally, went unheard and was obviously fired from a
suppressed weapon and not Oswald's rifle, is consistent with the proven
fact that CE399 (which DID come from Oswald's rifle) was not the one
that wounded the two men.

And the fact that within a week of the assassination, J. Edgar Hoover
was telling LBJ that Connally came between a sniper and JFK is
consistent with the fact that the actual bullet which was delivered by
officer Nolan and transferred to the FBI, was not from Oswald's rifle.
Of course, Hoover knew that.

And all of that is in turn, consistent with the absence of initials on
CE399 by the men who marked it at Parkland and bore only the initials of
people who initialed it later, at the FBI labs.

And all of that is consistent with a perfect sniper location on the
third floor of the Daltex building, where there is clear evidence that a
section of the blinds were cut out and a guy behind those blinds who had
connections to Marcello and David Ferrie, and was rubbing elbows with
Jack Ruby the night before the attack.

If you have seen the video, you know there is MUCH more. But I guess the
short version of my explanation is that I realized that in the 21st
century, just *PROVING* my case was not enough. I needed to prove it
over and over again and in numerous different ways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE



Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

Correction #1. JFK did NOT have the TOP of his head blown off.
Parkland personnel stated that there was no damage to the top of the head
before the body left them. There was of course, a 'large hole' in the BOH
of JFK seen by 39+ people, most of whom were medically trained. The TOP
of the head was damaged and removed at Bethesda by Humes and Boswell, and
they were seen by at least 2 people doing it. Tom Robinson and Ed Reed.

Correction #2. If the agencies and others hadn't hidden or modified so
much evidence, we'd have had a prosecution by now. Since there were those
that thwarted justice, we continue to plow the fields for a new crop of
information, which has always happened.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

Robert Harris

OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Hey Robert. Who killed JFK?

Members of the mob, under orders from Carlo Marcello.

Members of the Mob, eh? Tell me, do the "members" of this "mob" carry
membership cards? Do they have annual picnics and Xmas parties?

Your reply could not get more vague than that.

That may also have included Lee Harvey Oswald.

Oops. My mistake. It just did.

[Bud]

<snicker> That probably should have been "were the same", right Sandy?

>
>
>
> > And it certainly did not cause all of those people
>
> >
>
> > to have the *SAME* delusion.
>
>
>
> They aren`t the same. *If* you had a nurse saying she showed Wade a
>
> bullet then you would have someone corroborating that event. They aren`t
>
> all recounting the same thing so they aren`t all in agreement.
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The key word here is "gurney" or stretcher. Connally said the bullet fell
>
> >
>
> > from his gurney.
>
>
>
> Why not quote what he *actually* said?
>
>
>
> "..the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off
>
> the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the
>
> floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up
>
> and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one
>
> that passed though my back, chest and wrist and worked itself loose from
>
> my thigh."
>
>
>
> Is he saying he saw a bullet on the gurney? In flight? Did he catch a
>
> glimpse of it before being pocketed by the anonymous nurse? None of these
>
> seem likely by his account, especially considering his state. But in true
>
> hobbyist fashion Harris does scrutinize information he likes the sound of.

"does scrutinize" should have been "doesn`t scrutinize"

>
>
>
> > Wade said the nurse showed him the bullet and said it
>
> >
>
> > came from his "gurney". Nolan said she stated that the bullet came from
>
> >
>
> > his "gurney".
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > That word is important because the natural presumption would be that a
>
> >
>
> > bullet held by a nurse emerging from a surgery, must have been acquired
>
> >
>
> > from that surgery.
>
>
>
> I suppose the account sounds better when you make up things and insert
>
> them like "emerging from surgery", doesn`t it?
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Without Connally's description of events, the reference to his "gurney"
>
> >
>
> > would have made no sense. It is not something they would have naturally
>
> >
>
> > presumed. It could only have come from her actually saying that.
>
>
>
> Actually what could have happened was that a nurse had fragments and
>
> decades of time passed and it became the infamous pristine bullet.

Note that in both Connally`s and Wade`s accounts neither say they
actually saw a bullet. It`s possible that in both instances they were
operating from impressions rather than observations.

[Lanny]

On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:29:51 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

> And the fact that within a week of the assassination, J. Edgar Hoover
>

> was telling LBJ that Connally came between a sniper and JFK ...

>
>
>
> And all of that is consistent with a perfect sniper location on the
>

> third floor of the Daltex building ....



If a chain is only as strong as its weakest length, I'm thinking you might
want to try this one again.

p.s. -- I obviously snipped some of your post so that you would not be
distracted from the point I am making, namely that "ALL OF THAT" (which
are your words describing your previous paragraphs including the material
I snipped)is "consistent with a perfect sniper location on the third floor
of the Daltex building."

Hoover's verbal blunder of placing Connally between a sniper and JFK is in
no way consistent with YOUR assertion that that particular sniper was
located in the Daltex building -- or the TSBD for that matter.

Now, go ahead and argue with me and make yourself look even more
ridiculous.

[Robert Harris]

> Hey Robert! Psssst. You are *NOT* replying to Bud. This is *my* post
> that you are replying to.

Sorry, you guys all sound pretty much the same. It's easy to confuse one
of you for another:-)



Robert Harris

[Bud]

On Wednesday, March 26, 2014 3:38:29 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:32:23 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>
> > Hey Robert. Who killed JFK?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > After all, that is the pertinent question here, is it not?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Not what happened within 1/6th of a second. Not who danced a jig in the
>
> >
>
> > limo. Inquiring minds want to know. It doesn't take an hour long video to
>
> >
>
> > answer that question, although that is a good supplement. First we want to
>
> >
>
> > know, in the parlance of our times, Who dunnit? JFK had the top of his
>
> >
>
> > head blown off. Who exactly did that horrible deed?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Excuses about how everyone and his brother has conspired to hide evidence
>
> >
>
> > and alter evidence and conceal the truth from the American people have run
>
> >
>
> > their course. It has been fifty years. If you can't give me a name (I have
>
> >
>
> > one -- Lee Harvey Oswald), then you need to take up a new hobby.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Refocus the microscope. Save the details for later. You are the
>
> >
>
> > prosecutor. Show us the indictment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Correction #1. JFK did NOT have the TOP of his head blown off.
>
> Parkland personnel stated that there was no damage to the top of the head
>
> before the body left them. There was of course, a 'large hole' in the BOH
>
> of JFK seen by 39+ people, most of whom were medically trained. The TOP
>
> of the head was damaged and removed at Bethesda by Humes and Boswell, and
>
> they were seen by at least 2 people doing it. Tom Robinson and Ed Reed.

Silly hobbyist, tricks are for kids.

>
>
> Correction #2. If the agencies and others hadn't hidden or modified so
>
> much evidence, we'd have had a prosecution by now.

If things were as you claim you`d have a prosecution by now. They just
aren`t, is all.

> Since there were those
>
> that thwarted justice, we continue to plow the fields for a new crop of
>
> information, which has always happened.

The hobbyists always add a generous portion of fertilizer.

>
>
> Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

"Parkland personnel stated" means nothing.
Look at the damn evidence.

>

[OHLeeRedux]

Robert Harris

You seem to getting a bit snippy, Robert. Perhaps you need a vacation. I
suggest Cuba. You can pick up a visa at the Soviet embassy in Mexico City.

[OHLeeRedux]

Anthony Marsh
- show quoted text -

"Parkland personnel stated" means nothing.
Look at the damn evidence.

>

"Damned," Anthony. "Damn" is a verb. Your sentence requires an adjective.

[OHLeeRedux]

mainframetech

- show quoted text -

Correction #1. JFK did NOT have the TOP of his head blown off.
Parkland personnel stated that there was no damage to the top of the head
before the body left them. There was of course, a 'large hole' in the BOH
of JFK seen by 39+ people, most of whom were medically trained. The TOP
of the head was damaged and removed at Bethesda by Humes and Boswell, and
they were seen by at least 2 people doing it. Tom Robinson and Ed Reed.

Yep. Top of his head.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY

Oh, I know. Shuck and jive. Spin till it throws up. The film was altered
by THEM!

Nope. Won't do. Photographic evidence versus witnesses with faulty
memories -- The film wins every time.

Case closed.

[cmikes]

This is a point I've tried to make to Chris several times. If witness
testimony (especially 30 year old memories) contradicts authenticated
physical evidence, the evidence wins. If a witness remembers something
different than the authenticated physical evidence, the laws of physics
don't change. If a witness says that 2+2=5, it doesn't matter, 2+2
still equals 4.

Of course, none of this matters, Chris will respond, if it all, that the
laws of physics are determined by witness testimony, or maybe the ever
popular "they" had access to time travel and used futuristic technology to
fake the evidence in such a way that we can't detect it.

[MINNESOTA SLOB]

2 plus 2 equals 5 in Orwell's 1984.

[Bud]

Yah, it takes the easily confused to figure out this crime. But
apparently it isn`t as easy to respond to counter arguments.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[BT George]

So are you *seriously* claiming that people have never imagined events
that never actually took place in regards to the Kennedy assassination !?!
I can't think of a case with MORE "misrembering" and outright
embellishment over time.

Also this "delusion" is possibly explicable by the *real* events of Audrey
Bell's interaction with the bullet fragments becoming (erroneously) merged
in the minds of the participants with the familiar story of the whole
(CE399) bullet being found on what was assumed---correctly I believe---to
have been Connally's stretcher/gurney.

(And don't try to tell me that people don't sometimes incorrectly remember
details and tend to merge separate, but interrelated events together in
their minds---especially after DECADES have passed.)

>
>
> The key word here is "gurney" or stretcher. Connally said the bullet fell
>
> from his gurney. Wade said the nurse showed him the bullet and said it
>
> came from his "gurney". Nolan said she stated that the bullet came from
>
> his "gurney".
>
>
>
> That word is important because the natural presumption would be that a
>
> bullet held by a nurse emerging from a surgery, must have been acquired
>
> from that surgery.
>

I have no intention of obtaining and reading Connally's autobiography, so
I will have to make my comments without full knowledge of the context of
his remarks. My first question is whether it is fully clear from the
passage this comes from, that Connally was claiming to be relating
something he actually saw with his own eyes?

If so, what makes you think that his state of mind at that point (being
taken from a stretcher with multiple bullet wounds and about to be /or
just having been anesthetized for surgery) was such that the high trust
can be accorded to the reality/accuracy of this event as he related it?
However, if it really did happen just as he related, are you claiming this
was something separate he was intending to relate other than the recovery
of the bullet that the SBT holds accounted for all his wounds ? If so,
how do you account for his own statement in the passage that, "It WAS the
bullet from my body, the one that passed through my back, chest and wrist
and worked itself loose from my thigh."?

If you concede that he was intending to relate the story of the recovery
of that bullet, then I also need to ask you whether you think that
(anti-SBT) JBC was unaware of the competing story of Darrell Tomlinson and
the manner in which the official version says this very SAME bullet was
recovered ? Otherwise, how do you account for the fact that he never
called attention to the discrepancies between his 'memory' (as related in
his 1993 autobiography) and the official story---either in the book or in
any of his *MANY* post-assassination interviews?

>
>
> Without Connally's description of events, the reference to his "gurney"
>
> would have made no sense. It is not something they would have naturally
>
> presumed. It could only have come from her actually saying that.
>
>
>
> And it makes no sense at all that Audrey Bell would have written on her
>
> envelope "bullet fragments" from Connally's "right arm" and then told the
>
> police and district attorney that it was a whole bullet from his gurney.
>
>
>
> The only explanation for that Bud, is that the FBI lied when they claimed
>
> that she said she gave her envelope to Nolan, which of course, is why she
>
> emphatically denied it.
>

Spoken like a true believer...in conspiracy ! ...Complete with high trust
in the accuracy/veracity of 3 and 4 decade old memories/claims, and in the
correctness of your *interpretations* of the same.

>
>
> I must commend you Bud, for having the courage to tackle this issue. But
>
> you are dead wrong. As for the name of the nurse who recovered the bullet
>
> and spoke with Wade and Nolan, it would be nice to find it, but it really
>
> doesn't matter. The totally consistent statements of the people whose
>
> names we *DO* know, are more than sufficient to settle the matter.
>
>

You don't have a name, because you *cannot* locate a *real* historical
figure that could confirm having been the person who performed the exact
actions that your scenario has this anonymous nurse carrying out.

That is *very* significant, because there is *NO* excuse not to have it
given that the number of nurses that worked for Parkland and who were
engaged in the case that day is limited. It is ridiculous to assume that
such a person would never have been identified before by JFK researches
and/or the involved investigative agencies.

Presto! She just gets to "appear" out of nowhere to do what you believe
was done, and then gets to "disappear" back to oblivion---never to be
identified, questioned, or confirmed. ...How convenient.

>
>
> And that is only *part* of the most important evidence.
>
>
>
> How do you explain the fact that the initials of the two men who said they
>
> initialed the Tomlinson bullet at Parkland, are not present on CE399 and
>
> that only the initials of the FBI people who marked it at the FBI labs,
>
> are?
>
>

Of course, you believe it is because the real bullet was replaced with
CE399. But as you are aware, DVP has already gone down this trail with
you at length here:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-secret-service-and-ce399.html

I personally believe that what we have here is primarily a poor chain of
custody, record + some initials that may have been too faintly recorded to
be confirmed. (Especially based on an examination of *photographs* rather
than being able to directly examine the bullet itself.) Of course that's
speculation too, but infinitely more probable IMHO than a scenario where
they pulled the 'ole bullet switcheroo, then tried to go back and get the
original handler's to positively "identify" the (obviously) DIFFERENT
bullet, only to compound their stupidity by documenting---for all the
world to see---said handler's "refusal" (as you put it) to do so.

(Gee. If they are going to go around forging bullets, why not just go the
whole hog and fake the initials of Johnsen and Rowley too?)

>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png
>
>
>
> Why did the FBI phone Tomlinson during the wee hours of the morning,
>
> shortly after they received the first bullet fragments that were large
>
> enough to be compared with his bullet, and tell him to "keep his mouth
>
> shut" about finding it? (quoting)
>
>
>
> Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock - uh, excuse me,
>
> that's Saturday morning - after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on
>
> the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut.
>
>
>
> Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?
>
>
>
> Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found?
>
>
>
> Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's
>
> pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there any
>
> particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you to talk
>
> about it period?
>
>
>
> Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it period.
>
>
>
> (unquote)
>

And you have documented proof that someone from the FBI really called him
and really said this ? If it did happen, how can you be 100% certain that
the meaning was to "keep quiet" about any discrepancies, rather than to
simply "keep quiet for now" till the facts are more fully established
and/or till this case goes to trial ? (Which of course it never did.)

At any rate, for the interested viewer/lurker, I am linking the entire
interview between Tomlinson and Ray Marcus below that the above statements
came from so that everyone has the *full* context.

>
>
> Why did all four of the men who originally handled the Tomlinson bullet
>
> refuse to verify that it was CE399?
>
>

"Refused" Bob ? You have relevant quotes or documentation to support that
terminology? Weren't the documented answers more like 'could not
positively identify' or simply "could not identify" per the various
documents linked below ?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide5-1.GIF

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide5-2.GIF

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide6.GIF


Also, isn't it true that in the *same* interview where Tomlinson mentions
the FBI calling him to tell him to keep quiet about the bullet, he also
said the following when asked by Marcus if (as far as he could tell) the
bullet shown him by the FBI appeared to be the same one he had recovered :

"Yes, it appeared to be the same one." ?

Link to full interview transcript :

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

>
>
> Why did the FBI lie, claiming that agent Bardwell Odum got a partial
>
> confirmation from Tomlinson and his supervisor, O.P. Wright?
>
>

So let me understand. Because the evidence seems to be against the
accuracy of the FBI statement that Bardwell Odum showed the bullet to
Tomlinson/Wright and got them to confirm that it at least looked/appeared
to be the same bullet they saw before, are you saying the men were never
subsequently shown a bullet and/or that they denied that it at least
looked similar ?

If so, doesn't Tomlinson confirm in the above linked interview, that the
FBI (in the person of Odum's Dallas office partner Shanklin) actually
*DID* subsequently show him a bullet and---as quoted already
above---didn't he also indicate that it appeared to be the *same* one ?

Also, I don't believe that O.P. Wright ever denied he was interviewed by
the FBI during his interview with Josiah Thompson interview either. So at
worst (at least back in 1966-67) we have two witnesses each *confirming*
being interviewed by the FBI and only *one* of them claiming the bullet
looked noticeably different.

>
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/odum.jpg
>
>
>
>
>
> The evidence is overwhelming Bud and it points to just one indisputable
>
> conclusion.
>
>

I will leave it to our discerning viewers and lurkers to determine just
how "indisputable" your conclusions are in these matters. Past experience
suggests that many/most of them will be a *decidedly* less certain of your
theories than you are.


BT George

[John Reagor King]

In article <519b9dd4-11d1-422a...@googlegroups.com>,

BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have no intention of obtaining and reading Connally's autobiography, so
> I will have to make my comments without full knowledge of the context of
> his remarks.

Psst: Connally is not known to have made that claim, for the first time
ever, until that autobiography, published posthumously. Never once, not
even once, before that publication, is there any solidly-documented
statement by him that he "heard" something metallic drop on the floor
while he was in the hospital. Looky at his hospital interview, conducted
only a few days after the assassination, and hear how he made no mention
of such a thing, not even indirectly. Then looky at all subsequent
interviews he ever gave, whether on video or in print, and see/hear how he
*still* didn't mention such a thing. Suddenly, for the first time ever,
he made such a claim, but only in an autobiography published after his
death, and never at any other time. Notice carefully how Henry Wade also
never once was known to make a claim that any nurse showed him any bullet
until after Connally's death. That is the earliest documented instance of
Wade making such claim.

Also notice carefully that in almost all interview Connally ever gave
about the assassination, he disputed the single bullet theory simply
because the WC ***INCORRECTLY*** told him that the single bullet might
have been involved in the FIRST shot ***OR*** the second shot (the WC
never made up their minds which shot it was), and also because Nellie told
him that she *thought* JFK was hit by the first shot, because she always,
always said that his elbows came up after the sound of the first shot, but
before the second shot, even though the Z-film PLAINLY shows her to not
look at JFK for the FIRST TIME until JFK has ALREADY RAISED HIS ELBOWS
INTO A MORE OR LESS HORIZONTAL POSITION.

Oh, but never mind the obvious: only CTs, in my experience, have claimed
that they "can't see" both men jerk violently starting in exactly the same
frame in the Z-film.

Oh, and btw, only LNs, in my experience, have ever claimed that many
witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda were "just wrong" about there being a
hole in the rear of JFK's head. And only LNs, in my experience, have ever
acted as if making the admission that this is true equates to accepting a
frontal shooter, even though it quite obviously does not equate to
anything even remotely like that.

Yeppers, had to slip that last bit in. :P

[John Reagor King]

In article <ee6dba5e-a091-4c05...@googlegroups.com>,

mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Correction #1. JFK did NOT have the TOP of his head blown off.
> Parkland personnel stated that there was no damage to the top of the head
> before the body left them.

No. You need to read the Parkland testimony more carefully. They
didn't exactly say that there was literally "no" damage to the top of
his head. They were not in a position to notice damage to the top of
his *skull*, because they never *once* even *tried* to peel back his
hair and scalp to see if there was or wasn't damage to that area of his
skull. Several of them, nevertheless, said very clearly a great deal of
his head was severely damaged, not the back of the head only.

> There was of course, a 'large hole' in the BOH
> of JFK seen by 39+ people, most of whom were medically trained.

I'm not sure about that exact number, but it was definitely *dozens*
(plural) of ppl who said that there was a very obvious hole in the back
of his head. For almost the past *dozen* years I have been disputing
certain LNs (only) who claim that that hole just "wasn't there," despite
the overwhelming evidence that it was indeed there.

> The TOP
> of the head was damaged and removed at Bethesda by Humes and Boswell,

Oh please. Much of the right half of the top of the skull was blasted
away by what is called a "bullet," many hours before Boswell and Humes
first laid eyes on the deceased President, much less before they touched
his body for the first time ever.

> and
> they were seen by at least 2 people doing it. Tom Robinson and Ed Reed.

Uh-huh. The real truth is that they were seen to be the first humans to
peel back the scalp and hair to expose the complete extent of the damage
to the skull, something that was not even vaguely attempted at Parkland.

> Correction #2. If the agencies and others hadn't hidden or modified so
> much evidence, we'd have had a prosecution by now.

The agencies and others did indeed hide and modify a lot of evidence.
The autopsists most certainly downplayed the hole in the back of the
head, in the mistaken belief that admitting such a thing equated to also
admitting a frontal shot, which in actual truth it does not. However,
your claim that "we'd have had a prosecution by now" is suspect. With a
deceased defendant?? Thanks to Jack Ruby. Or are you proposing a
different defendant? Utter this person's first and last name, please.

I continue to find it fascinating that although quite a few CTs claim
that Oswald either didn't fire the fatal shot, or didn't fire any shot,
they still come nowhere within one-million light-years of a consensus on
who it was, if it wasn't Oswald. Various names have been floated about,
each one less credible than the last. There's James Files, who was very
*obviously* *coached* to claim that he saw things in real time as he was
shooting that in reality can only be seen when examining the Z-film
frame by frame and/or seeing it in very slow motion.

Oh gawd, then there's Lucien Sarti, implicated for the first time ever
in 1988 in TMWKK, although the "evidence" of his involvement in the
assassination, or even physical presence in Texas or any other U.S.
state anywhere even remotely close to November, 1963, is tenuous at best.

Oh double-deity, then there are the claims originating from Jim
Garrison. Clay Shaw? Yes, accused by Garrison of having been involved
in plotting the assassination. But what was the first and last name of
the shooter who actually fired the fatal shot? I seem to recall that
either Garrison never named such a person, even falsely, or that he
refused to even *try* to settle on naming such a person definitively.

This is, I'll freely admit, a guess, but I would not be at all surprised
if less than 10% of all CTs worldwide in this year, or any year since
1963, have ever *agreed* on the precise identity of the human who fired
the fatal shot.

In stark contrast, 100% (or nearly, depending on how it is defined) of
the LNs worldwide agree on who fired, not only the fatal shot, but all
of the shots. First, middle, and last name, even.

I "wonder" if that could possibly be because he really was the only
person who fired shots in Dealey Plaza onn that day.

You, Chris, quite a few months ago, maybe more than a year ago (I don't
remember now) misrepresented what the witnesses actually said, and I
challenged you on that, but I didn't come back later to see what your
replies to me might have been. You conflated both the witnesses who
said they heard shots coming from the grassy knoll ONLY and the
witnesses who said they heard shots coming from multiple directions. In
actual truth, in all such tabulations I've ever seen, including the one
you quoted in your articles at the time, the grassy knoll witnesses and
the multiple direction witnesses are given as two separate groups. The
grassy knoll witnesses said that ALL of the shots sounded as if they
came from the knoll, and nowhere else. The multiple direction witnesses
comprise a tiny, tiny percentage of all the Dealey witnesses: far, far
less than 10% of the witnesses ever, ever claimed, even decades later,
that shots sounded as if they came from multiple directions.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/2/2014 11:40 AM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <519b9dd4-11d1-422a...@googlegroups.com>,
> BT George <brockg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have no intention of obtaining and reading Connally's autobiography, so
>> I will have to make my comments without full knowledge of the context of
>> his remarks.
>
> Psst: Connally is not known to have made that claim, for the first time
> ever, until that autobiography, published posthumously. Never once, not

Connally did not write his autobiography. He has a ghost writer who
wrote some ridiculous and physically impossible things.

> even once, before that publication, is there any solidly-documented
> statement by him that he "heard" something metallic drop on the floor

There was something metallic which dropped on the floor. His other
cufflink, which was never recovered. How about if it was his wallet?
We'd be sure to hear about that.

> while he was in the hospital. Looky at his hospital interview, conducted
> only a few days after the assassination, and hear how he made no mention
> of such a thing, not even indirectly. Then looky at all subsequent

Yeah, he wasn't asked about it. How would Agronsky know about it?
He is there to get information about the assassination, not to search
for the missing cufflink.

> interviews he ever gave, whether on video or in print, and see/hear how he
> *still* didn't mention such a thing. Suddenly, for the first time ever,
> he made such a claim, but only in an autobiography published after his
> death, and never at any other time. Notice carefully how Henry Wade also

Why would Wade know trivia like that? Is it a fact essential to
prosecuting a murder case?

> never once was known to make a claim that any nurse showed him any bullet
> until after Connally's death. That is the earliest documented instance of
> Wade making such claim.
>
> Also notice carefully that in almost all interview Connally ever gave
> about the assassination, he disputed the single bullet theory simply
> because the WC ***INCORRECTLY*** told him that the single bullet might
> have been involved in the FIRST shot ***OR*** the second shot (the WC
> never made up their minds which shot it was), and also because Nellie told
> him that she *thought* JFK was hit by the first shot, because she always,
> always said that his elbows came up after the sound of the first shot, but
> before the second shot, even though the Z-film PLAINLY shows her to not
> look at JFK for the FIRST TIME until JFK has ALREADY RAISED HIS ELBOWS
> INTO A MORE OR LESS HORIZONTAL POSITION.
>
> Oh, but never mind the obvious: only CTs, in my experience, have claimed
> that they "can't see" both men jerk violently starting in exactly the same
> frame in the Z-film.
>

You are the ONLY person who claims that he can see both men through the
Stemmons Freeway sign.

> Oh, and btw, only LNs, in my experience, have ever claimed that many
> witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda were "just wrong" about there being a
> hole in the rear of JFK's head. And only LNs, in my experience, have ever

Are you trying to claim that I am a LN because I always say there was no
hole in the back of the head? Not only do I say that most witnesses were
wrong, I say that some conspiracy believers simply LIE about what the
witnesses said. Like Joe McCarthy we can be sure that they are lying
when they constantly change the numbers and use phrases like, "there can
no longer be any doubt."

> acted as if making the admission that this is true equates to accepting a
> frontal shooter, even though it quite obviously does not equate to
> anything even remotely like that.
>

For the record, disposing of the SBT does not add a shooter to the
front. It would add a shooter from the rear. Both Kennedy and Connally
hit in their backs by separate bullets. And the HSCA had its shooter
from the front and still needed a SBT. Even Don Thomas who believes in
the acoustical evidence as much as I do, has his own SBT at Z-224.

[Robert Harris]

Lanny wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:29:51 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
>> And the fact that within a week of the assassination, J. Edgar Hoover
>>
>> was telling LBJ that Connally came between a sniper and JFK ...
>>
>>
>>
>> And all of that is consistent with a perfect sniper location on the
>>
>> third floor of the Daltex building ....
>
>
>
> If a chain is only as strong as its weakest length, I'm thinking you might
> want to try this one again.

Why?

Were you hoping I would finally say something you could refute?

>
> p.s. -- I obviously snipped some of your post so that you would not be
> distracted from the point I am making,

No, you snipped my post for the same reason you always do - you have no
answer to the arguments.

> namely that "ALL OF THAT" (which
> are your words describing your previous paragraphs including the material
> I snipped)is "consistent with a perfect sniper location on the third floor
> of the Daltex building."

I am trying to figure out WTH your complaint is Lanny. Are you trying to
imply that something I said was inconsistent with a sniper location on the
third floor of the Daltex building?

If that is your argument, then why can't you just come out and say it?
Tell us about this inconsistency that you imply, but never describe with
specificity.

>
> Hoover's verbal blunder of placing Connally between a sniper and JFK

It was not a "blunder". He said EXACTLY what he meant.

The difference between your statement and mine is that you just blurt
out your opinion without a shred of evidential support.

Mine is based on the *FACT* that the actual bullet that wounded
Connally was recovered by a nurse and passed on to officer Bobby Nolan,
who was guarding Connally's room, and passed on to the DPD that evening.

And the fact that the FBI lied, trying to make it appear that Nolan
received wrist fragments from nursing supervisor, Audrey Bell, which
contradicted Connally, D.A. Wade, officer Nolan and Bell herself.

And the fact that the FBI switched the Tomlinson bullet with one from
Oswald's rifle - confirmed by the absence of DA Johnsen and FBI agent
Todd's initials.

Read this article Lanny. It presents more verifiable, documented
evidence than you have posted in your entire life. Instead of snipping
the facts, why don't you address them?

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

That's the difference between you and I Lanny. I *PROVE* my claims. You
posts assertions that you can't prove to save your life. All you can do
is the same thing Mr. Redux does, and snip the facts and evidence I present.

> is in
> no way consistent with YOUR assertion that that particular sniper was
> located in the Daltex building

Ok, so don't be bashful.

Tell us what is inconsistent with that location.

Perhaps, this brief presentation you with something specific that you
can refute.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXWC87-WOKU

or this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvqCtaBkyyE

> -- or the TSBD for that matter.
>
> Now, go ahead and argue with me and make yourself look even more
> ridiculous.

How do I argue with you Lanny:-)

You present NO argument - NO analysis, NO evidence, NO testimony, or no
anything else, other than just blurting out your subjective opinion
which you are totally incapable of supporting.


Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:32:23 PM UTC-4, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> Hey Robert. Who killed JFK?
>>
>>
>>
>> After all, that is the pertinent question here, is it not?
>>
>>
>>
>> Not what happened within 1/6th of a second. Not who danced a jig in the
>>
>> limo. Inquiring minds want to know. It doesn't take an hour long video to
>>
>> answer that question, although that is a good supplement. First we want to
>>
>> know, in the parlance of our times, Who dunnit? JFK had the top of his
>>
>> head blown off. Who exactly did that horrible deed?
>>
>>
>>
>> Excuses about how everyone and his brother has conspired to hide evidence
>>
>> and alter evidence and conceal the truth from the American people have run
>>
>> their course. It has been fifty years. If you can't give me a name (I have
>>
>> one -- Lee Harvey Oswald), then you need to take up a new hobby.
>>
>>
>>
>> Refocus the microscope. Save the details for later. You are the
>>
>> prosecutor. Show us the indictment.
>
>
>
> Correction #1. JFK did NOT have the TOP of his head blown off.

I'm afraid he did.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage_files/4.jpg

This article explains what we are seeing in that frame.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html

> Parkland personnel stated that there was no damage to the top of the head

Citations please - verbatim with source.



Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

<snippage>

> Tomlinson has said that the bullet in evidence looks like the bullet he
> found.

He did?

Would you mind posting a verifiable citation on that Bud?







Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

John, I would like to commend you for having the courage to actually
address what this thread is all about.

Because of the importance of this topic, I started a new thread
entitled, "Finally, a nutter steps up (CE399)".

I look forward to your reply.





Robert Harris

[Bud]

Again? I think you will find it in the same interview of Tomlinson by Marcus that you recently posted excerpts from.

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

[BT George]

And for which I already provided links to in my post above, while pointing
out the very same thing.

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

[Bud]

I was just searching the archives and found Jean Davison pointing it out
to Harris years ago. It`s just another case of information that goes
against Harris`s ideas not showing up on his radar.

And then he starts a post claiming that LNers were "finally" responding
to this issue when it has been discussed at length for years with him by
LNers. He really should be ignored, because any responses to him are
useless, he only sees his own ideas and thats it.

Here is one from 2011, hilarious when Harris calls it "tiresome" when
Jean Davison keeps bringing up information that conflicts with Harris`s
ideas...

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/alt.conspiracy.jfk/vRhQJaScsA0/discussion

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