http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=15&p=240249&#entry240249
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=15&p=240289&#entry240289
ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>> "David, this is insane. I have never seen a more illogical and misinformed set of arguments." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's because you reside in Conspiracy Fantasy Land with respect to
everything connected with the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy.
Your eagerness to promote your various crackpot JFK conspiracy
theories has blinded you to even the possibility that the things you
deem "conspiratorial" could have a simple non-sinister answer.
And let's face facts, Bob, most things in life are NOT
"conspiratorial". And most people are NOT willing to engage in
deliberate frauds or cover-ups when it comes to the assassination of
United States Presidents.
In short, every single thing that you think leads down "Conspiracy
Avenue" can just as easily be explained in ordinary, non-
conspiratorial ways. And I think that even you know this is true. And
so do most other conspiracy theorists. They just can't admit it to
themselves, mainly because they've invested so much time and effort in
chasing down shadows and unprovable gunshots at "Z285" and non-
existent bullets that nurses supposedly picked up and put in their
pockets, etc.
>>> "David, there is not a speck of evidence supporting that assertion by the FBI [that O.P. Wright said CE399 looked like the bullet he saw on 11/22/63]. And Wright was very specific, that the two bullets were not similar." <<<
OK, Bob. Thanks for doing what I knew you would do regarding CE2011.
You now are convinced (via the Ray Marcus transcript of the 7/25/66
interview with Darrell Tomlinson) that the FBI did not lie in CE2011
with respect to Tomlinson. But you are more than willing to still
think that the FBI DID lie with respect to O.P. Wright, who told the
FBI agent on 6/12/64 (according to CE2011) that CE399 looked pretty
much like the bullet Wright had seen on November 22nd.
And it's also very likely that you still think the FBI lied through
its collective teeth about Elmer Todd having identified CE399 (also
via CE2011). Correct?
I'm wondering, though, why the FBI didn't simply lie about Rowley and
Johnsen of the Secret Service too? Why didn't the FBI utilize the
exact same verbiage in CE2011 with Rowley's and Johnsen's observations
of CE399? Why didn't they do the same thing that you think they did
with O.P. Wright -- i.e., why didn't they put a BALD-FACED LIE into
the mouths of both James Rowley and Richard Johnsen and say that those
two SS men said that CE399 "looks like the slug" or "appears to be the
same one" that each of those SS men handled on 11/22/63?
Why did they stop their lies with O.P. Wright and Elmer Todd, Bob? Why
not go whole hog with their evil deception in CE2011? What would a
couple more blatant falsehoods matter to the FBI anyway, right?
Bob Harris thinks he gets to tell everybody just exactly HOW and WHEN
and WITH WHICH WITNESSES the Federal Bureau of Investigation "lied"
when it comes to the words we see printed in Commission Exhibit 2011
(linked below).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm
But as we have already seen in this forum thread, Robert Harris was
forced to say something about the FBI and CE2011 that he probably
thought he would never have to utter in his lifetime:
"The FBI did not lie about what he [Tomlinson] said." -- Robert
Harris; 12/5/11
So Bob has acknowledged that at least a portion of the words we see
printed in CE2011 are true and are not lies being told by the FBI.
But according to Bob, we are still supposed to believe that SOME of
the things we find in CE2011 are, indeed, blatant lies being forced on
the unsuspecting public by the rotten and corrupt FBI.
Bob thinks that because of what O.P. Wright told Josiah Thompson in
1966 (that the stretcher bullet had a pointier nose than does CE399),
this must therefore mean that Wright did NOT tell the FBI in June of
'64 that CE399 looked like the slug Wright saw on 11/22.
Robert Harris, however, is wrong. Those two things CAN co-exist. And,
in fact, they DO co-exist in this case, even though the two statements
are not totally compatible with each other.
But the record is clear, even if the CONTRADICTORY MEANING of O.P.
Wright's words are not -- he (Wright) definitely told the FBI in 1964
that CE399 looked generally the same as the bullet he handled at
Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination; and Wright also
told Josiah Thompson something that would seem to totally contradict
what he told the FBI two years earlier.
But as we all know, witness observations can be all over the place,
and memories of an event can, indeed, change. Jean Davison posted some
good stuff on the Internet recently about the subject of "changing
memory". If you go to the webpage below (and search more of Jean's
posts), you'll find some interesting things about it:
"There's nothing "delusional" about it. MEMORIES CHANGE. If you
doubt that, please do some basic research." -- Jean Davison; November
2, 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fa774199da545d15
>>> "Of course CE399 came from Oswald's rifle -- the same rifle they had at their labs. But its condition and the total absence of blood and tissue strongly suggests that it was fired into cotton wadding or water. And yes David, I know that in carefully contrived tests, nutters have produced bullets in similar condition. But try Googling a bit for photos of spent bullets, that wounded a person or animal. You won't find one in a hundred in that condition." <<<
Then maybe you can answer the following question for me (derived from
just ordinary common sense):
If a bullet couldn't possibly have caused the damage that CE399 is
claimed to have caused to JFK & Connally and come out in the condition
that 399 is currently in -- then why did the people who allegedly
faked the bullet want to place in the official record a bullet so
clean and so undamaged and so NICE-looking?
Were the cover-up agents bumbling idiots? Or maybe they just didn't
give a damn if their ruse would be discovered by crack CTers in the
future?
Related Article:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jfk-beyond-magic-bullet.html
>>> "David, the bullets recovered from the limo may or may not have come from Oswald's rifle." <<<
Why on Earth are you pretending that there's some doubt about whether
CE567 and CE569 (the two largest limo fragments in the front seat)
came from Oswald's C2766 rifle? Those fragments definitely DID come
from that rifle. There is no ambiguity at all about that, as the
various firearms experts testified to. (They all lied too, Bob?)
Related Article:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html
>>> "Guinn's analysis has been totally discredited, even by an expert from the FBI." <<<
But Dr. Guinn's NAA analysis has got NOTHING to do with the conclusion
that the two largest bullet fragments (CE567 & 569) were fired in
Oswald's Carcano.
Guinn doesn't even need to come into a discussion about CE567 and 569,
because we don't need Dr. Guinn to verify that Oswald's gun fired
those two limo fragments (which was verified via ordinary ballistics/
striation firearms tests, and not Neutron Activation Analysis).
And it wasn't JUST Hoover's FBI boys who verified that the front-seat
limo fragments came from Oswald's rifle, there was also the
independent firearms expert, Joseph Nicol of Illinois, who said the
same thing as the FBI's firearms experts:
MR. NICOL -- "It is my opinion that the same weapon that fired
Commission's Exhibit 572 also fired the projectiles in Commission's
Exhibits 569, 567, and 399."
MR. EISENBERG -- "That would be to the exclusion of all other
weapons?"
MR. NICOL -- "Correct."
Also:
Dr. Guinn's NAA studies are not totally irrelevant and immaterial
(even in this "new era" of Randich, Grant, Tobin, and Spiegelman, et
al). Common sense alone makes Dr. Guinn's NAA analysis far from
obsolete or worthless. Here's why:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-guinn-and-naa.html
>>> "But if he [Lee Oswald] did fire that shot [which resulted in the limo fragments], he didn't have time to fire the other shots that were closely bunched with the one at 312. And he certainly didn't fire the shot at 223. If he had, the limo passengers would have been even more startled than they were at 285 and 312." <<<
~sigh~
Do we really need to go around the mulberry bush one more time with
your make-believe gunshot at Z285? I'm just about to eat. Have some
pity on my poor stomach.
And I don't know why you're claiming that the limo fragments (CE567
and CE569) had to necessarily be the result of a SEPARATE shot from
the three shots that Lee Harvey Oswald fired. Why are you even
suggesting such a thing, Bob? Just to be contrary?
You know darn well that the best and most reasonable scenario to
explain Oswald's bullet fragments being found in the front seat of the
limousine is that they were fragments from the Z313 head shot. The
slowed fragments coming from JFK's head--moving FORWARD toward the
front of the car--then struck the TWO objects that showed damage at
the front of the limousine -- the chrome topping and the windshield.
That scenario fits to a tee -- right down to the "Two & Two" match on
the number of fragments recovered from the front seat (2) and the
number of damaged areas in that same general area of the car (2).
As for your theory that some of the shots were "bunched" together:
Yes, several witnesses did say that the last two shots were bunched
close together. But I will also remind Mr. Harris of the several
witnesses who said that the THREE shots they heard were "evenly
spaced", and not "bunched" together.
The following text comes from a post I directed at Bob Harris just a
few days ago at another forum. I'll repeat it here:
"There were three well-spaced reverberating shots."
-- David Von Pein; December 3, 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0cb324e3da96e0e6
>>> "More bad reasoning David. The Alyea film proves that the MC was there, but it certainly doesn't prove that it was the only rifle that was found." <<<
And so it's your contention that a group of unknown conspirators who
wanted to frame Lee Oswald as a LONE PATSY (correct me if I'm wrong
about that "lone" part) would be stupid enough to leave behind
evidence in the same TSBD building that would expose the conspiracy
and, hence, totally ruin their "lone patsy" plot?
Were those bumbling conspirators just hoping and praying that the evil
DPD and the corrupt FBI would also have a desire to frame ONLY the
patsy named Oswald and, therefore, the cops would want to sweep all of
the "other" rifles that were found in the building under the carpet?
If so, then those pre-assassination henchmen sure got lucky when they
found out that the police wanted to become an active part of their
"Patsy" plot and frame only Oswald, huh? You don't get the authorities
to cooperate with murderers like that very often. November 22nd must
have been their lucky day.
>>> "David, you actually cannot prove that even one bullet was fired that day from Oswald's rifle. Your pretense that you have all this evidence is just silly." <<<
After reading Bob's comment above, I'm not sure if I should laugh or
vomit. It's a toss-up there.
So, via Bob's above remark, we can assume that Bob Harris must think
that CE567 and CE569 were "planted", or are phony in some manner.
Because if those two front-seat bullet fragments were, indeed, fired
from Oswald's rifle (which they were, as I just proved above via Joe
Nicol's testimony), then it has to mean one of these three things:
1.) A gunman using Rifle C2766 (i.e., Oswald's rifle) fired at least
one bullet from that gun into JFK's car during the time when the
President was being assassinated on Elm Street in Dallas on November
22, 1963.
Or:
2.) Someone at some later time, who wanted to make it look like Rifle
C2766 had fired a bullet or bullets into Kennedy's car, gained
possession of Oswald's rifle, fired a bullet from that gun and made
sure the bullet fragments were mutilated pretty badly (but not TOO
badly to prohibit a definitive "to the exclusion" match to Rifle
C2766), and then either planted those two bullet fragments in the
front seat of the limousine prior to the Secret Service's initial
examination of the car early on 11/23/63, or the bullet-manipulators
just PRETENDED that the Secret Service had recovered the two fragments
from the front seat of President Kennedy's SS-100-X limousine.
Or:
3.) Incredibly, a couple of bullet fragments from Rifle C2766 just
happened to already be in the front seat of the limo PRIOR to the
assassination.
Can you think of a fourth option, Robert?
And among the three choices listed above, which one is the most likely
to be true?
I'll answer that one for you:
It ain't #2 or #3.
>>> "The FBI had to get at least a few people at Parkland to support their deception and Gregory was one of them. He's the one who when asked about who Bell gave CE842 to, could only say that he "was advised" that it was Bell. But he worked with Bell in the emergency room daily. It is preposterous to think that she didn't tell him about it." <<<
Oh, brother. And so now Dr. Charles Gregory is part of the official
"cover-up", eh Bob? Geez Louise, what a bunch of hogwash.
And for people who might not know, CE842 clearly states on the
envelope that it contains "Bullet Fragments" from John Connally's
"Right Arm". It does not say anything whatsoever about the envelope
containing a whole bullet that dropped out of Connally's leg. And
Nurse Bell has HERSELF stated that the writing we see in CE842 (linked
below) is her own handwriting.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0434a.htm
Yes, I know that Bob Harris still thinks there's something phony about
Commission Exhibit No. 842. He thinks that some of the writing has
been erased, and other things written in at a later time (to support
the never-ending "cover-up" in this case, of course).
But that's just one in a long list of Mr. Harris' off-the-wall
assumptions and theories about the JFK case. And in the final
analysis, the theories spouted by just one more conspiracy theorist
who thinks a bunch of stuff in the Kennedy case looks "fishy" or
"forged" or "doctored" or "erased" mean very little.
In fact, the continued protestations of conspiracy theorists couldn't
possibly matter less when they are stacked up against the expert
testimony and the overall "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusions that were
reached by TWO separate U.S. Government investigations -- the Warren
Commission and the HSCA. (Not to mention the smaller investigations,
like the Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission.)
And speaking of CE842:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f5f97b3215f2f151
>>> "David, Nellie was given that cufflink on the FIRST FLOOR. Do your homework. The nurse recovered the bullet on the SECOND FLOOR, as he was being transferred from his gurney." <<<
I think you MIGHT have been able to get the drift of my "cuff link"
comment that I made earlier, Bob (even though you're pretending not to
get that drift now).
Main point being:
A cuff link hitting the floor COULD have possibly sounded very similar
to a "bullet" hitting the same floor. Right, Bob?
And since we know that Nellie Connally WAS, in fact, given one of her
husband's gold cuff links in the hospital, by a nurse, I'm suggesting
that the "metal object" that Governor Connally heard falling to the
floor could possibly have been one of his two gold cuff links -- one
of which he never saw again. Maybe it was the missing cuff link that
the nurse put in her pocket, and it just never found its way back into
the possession of the Connallys. Who can know for sure? Nobody can.
And John Connally definitely did NOT see a "bullet" in the operating
room. There is no corroboration for that at all. Not even from John
Connally himself, including Page 18 of his book. He never said he
actually SAW a bullet. And some people have claimed that Connally's co-
writer on that book (Mickey Herskowitz) is responsible for some of the
narrative credited to Connally in the book. (I have no opinion on that
theory one way or the other, however.)
We do have John Connally's Warren Commission testimony to help clear
up this "bullet" matter, though. Connally told the WC this in 1964:
ARLEN SPECTER -- "Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet
fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were
placed on the emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?"
JOHN B. CONNALLY -- "No."
Now, Bob, if your theory is correct, and if Governor Connally had
REALLY seen a bullet that had fallen from his body onto the floor at
Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63, don't you think that Arlen Specter's
above question would have elicited a slightly different response from
Connally?
Now, yes, it's true that Specter's question related to the time when
Connally was first being placed ONTO THE STRETCHER at Parkland. But I
think it's a pretty big stretch to think that these words from Specter
wouldn't have prompted Connally to say something to Specter about a
bullet that had fallen from his body and onto the Operating Room floor
(if such a thing had actually occurred):
"Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet fragments, that
remained in your body or in your clothing...?"
Wouldn't you agree, Robert?
>>> "It is ridiculous to say he [John Connally] never saw the bullet [that a nurse allegedly picked up off the floor at Parkland Hospital and allegedly put in her pocket on 11/22/63]. .... Of course Connally saw the bullet. That's how he knew what it was. David, do you think there is any remote possibility that after picking it up, the nurse might have held it up for a split second, to look at it???" <<<
See my previous comments above.
>>> "Your arguments are preposterous and beyond desperate." <<<
I'm torn between that "Laugh or Vomit?" choice again.
But, with the above quote coming as it does from someone who is
positive a gunshot occurred at precisely Z285 of the Zapruder Film,
and who thinks Dr. Gregory was a part of a cover-up, I think I'll opt
for the "LOL" option. It's a lot more fun that way. (And less messy
too.)
David Von Pein
December 7, 2011
http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com