New Article on CE399
Robert Harris
CE399 and includes analysis and evidence that was not in my videos on
the subject.
I welcome any legitimate criticisms and correction, and will promptly
correct any errors.
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Robert Harris
Bud
Well, I only looked at the beginning and I noticed you neglected to
include where Tomlinson said this...
"Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of
it, whether it was A or B that I took off. "
Once he said this you were done. If he isn`t sure, nobody else can
be.
Mitch Todd
I would say that it's not the absolute worst attempt to make lemonade from
lemons. Basically, you bring out that all of the various contemporaneous
sources say that Audrey Bell handed a bullet fragment (or fragments) to
Boby Nolan, and do not mention anything about a whole bullet recovered
from the body in the OR. You then procede to ignore the whole lot, because
someone didn't remember it that way 30 years later.
BTW, the report you attribute to Kemp Clark was written not by Clark, but
by Elizabeth Wright, the director of the Parkland nursing service.
Robert Harris
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Robert Harris" <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a pretty extensive article on the question of the legitimacy of
> > CE399 and includes analysis and evidence that was not in my videos on
> > the subject.
> >
> > I welcome any legitimate criticisms and correction, and will promptly
> > correct any errors.
> >
> > http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> I would say that it's not the absolute worst attempt to make lemonade from
> lemons. Basically, you bring out that all of the various contemporaneous
> sources say that Audrey Bell handed a bullet fragment (or fragments) to
> Boby Nolan,
The three sources, Connally, Wade and Nolan unanimously stated that this
was a "bullet", not a fragment and not fragments.
I think this is a great confirmation of the fact that people need to
read the article themselves, rather than let someone like you, tell them
what it says:-)
> and do not mention anything about a whole bullet recovered
> from the body in the OR.
Connally said the bullet fell from the gurney, to the floor. Wade was
told the bullet came from the "gurney" and Nolan said the nurse told him
that the bullet came from the gurney.
That is a very solid and consistent explanation of where that bullet
came from, Todd, no matter how much you don't like it.
And we KNOW the FBI report on their interview of Bell was pure BS. At
the very least, she would not have told them that the envelope contained
only a single fragment. But the feds were not concerned about the
contents of her envelope. They were hugely concerned about the contents
of the envelope Nolan delivered, which obviously, DID contain a single
bullet.
Bell firmly denied their claim that she processed a singular fragment as
well as their claim that she said she gave the envelope to Nolan. This
was a seasoned supervisor. It is just silly to think that she not only
forgot that she gave her envelope to a uniformed officer but then forgot
what she told the FBI. And then their is her little delusion about
giving the envelope to plain clothed agents, undoubtedly, from the FBI.
> You then procede to ignore the whole lot, because
> someone didn't remember it that way 30 years later.
Nolan told the FBI that the "fragment" (FBI wording) came from the
"thigh", on 11/23/63.
And it is preposterous to think that Nolan, Wade and Connally all
suffered the same, belated delusion. ALL relevant evidence confirms that
the bullet which wounded Connally, fell to the floor from his gurney,
and was retrieved by that nurse, exactly as Connally said it did.
And ALL relevant evidence, confirms that CE399 was NOT the stretcher
bullet. Everyone who handled prior to it being passed to the FBI,
refused to confirm it and the bullet does not contain the initials of
FBI agent Todd, or either of the two Secret Service agents who handled
it.
I just don't know how any issue can be as clear cut as this one.
>
> BTW, the report you attribute to Kemp Clark was written not by Clark, but
> by Elizabeth Wright, the director of the Parkland nursing service.
I will double check that and fix it, by yesterday at the latest. Thanks.
BTW, one question for you Todd. Nolan delivered the envelope in the
evening of 11/22/63, so the FBI had plenty of time to examine it and its
contents prior to their interviews on 11/23.
How is it that when they interviewed Bell, they were unaware that it
contained multiple fragments?
And why did they pretend that she told them that?
Robert Harris
lazu...@webtv.net
more than one bullet found. The stretcher bullet i.e. Tomlinson, and the
bullet found here in the OR...ever get the feeling this case is as
crooked as a dog's hind leg?...Laz
Jason Burke
No, but I do get the feeling that you're quite retarded.
>
Robert Harris
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
Do you have a source for that?
If I can verify it, and she said it that way, I will put it in the
article.
Robert Harris
bigdog
Just how many bullets did these dumbass conspirators plant? Did Jack
Ruby plant them both? Or do they send multiple planters?
So Tomlinson found a bullet that was not CE399.
And the bullet found in the OR was not CE399.
Talk about magic bullets. You've got bullets popping up and
disappearing all over the place. PRESTO!!! Now you see it. Now you
don't.
Robert Harris
<5efe98a7-75e9-4b3e...@k27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If you had actually read my article, you would realize that no bullets
were planted, and as I understand Lazuli's post, he never claimed that
either.
Is it possible, that you knew that but decided that you needed to
misrepresent us in order to have something to ridicule:-)
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<1b6b4370-fc44-4b9e...@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 9:47?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > This is a pretty extensive article on the question of the legitimacy of
> > CE399 and includes analysis and evidence that was not in my videos on
> > the subject.
> >
> > I welcome any legitimate criticisms and correction, and will promptly
> > correct any errors.
> >
> > http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Well, I only looked at the beginning and I noticed you neglected to
> include where Tomlinson said this...
>
> "Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of
> it, whether it was A or B that I took off. "
Yes, I "neglected" to post thousands of lines from the WC reports.
But as you must know, I clearly stated that Tomlinson said he wasn't sure
about that, after considerable badgering and arguments from Specter.
What I cited was, Tomlinson's earliest, original statement about the
stretchers, which was crystal clear and included a diagram which I also
posted.
The guy was basically, a janitor, facing a very high powered lawyer, who
had been trying to pressure him to change his story, even before he
testified.
Robert Harris
tom...@cox.net
SEE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/audrey_bell.htm
Jean Davison
> In article
> <1b6b4370-fc44-4b9e-8f2a-f8a545555...@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 25, 9:47?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > This is a pretty extensive article on the question of the legitimacy of
> > > CE399 and includes analysis and evidence that was not in my videos on
> > > the subject.
>
> > > I welcome any legitimate criticisms and correction, and will promptly
> > > correct any errors.
>
> > >http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> > > Robert Harris
>
> > Well, I only looked at the beginning and I noticed you neglected to
> > include where Tomlinson said this...
>
> > "Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of
> > it, whether it was A or B that I took off. "
>
> Yes, I "neglected" to post thousands of lines from the WC reports.
>
> But as you must know, I clearly stated that Tomlinson said he wasn't sure
> about that, after considerable badgering and arguments from Specter.
Here's where Tomlinson first said he wasn't sure:
QUOTE:
Mr. SPECTER. Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher
"A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be perfectly
honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really didn't pay that
much attention to it.
UNQUOTE
If there was any "badgering and arguments from Specter"
before this, please point it out:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htm
>
> What I cited was, Tomlinson's earliest, original statement about the
> stretchers, which was crystal clear and included a diagram which I also
> posted.
>
> The guy was basically, a janitor, facing a very high powered lawyer, who
> had been trying to pressure him to change his story, even before he
> testified.
Your article makes it appear that Tomlinson always said the
same thing. But here he is saying that the bullet was on the elevator
stretcher (about 1 minute in):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ1ecDXbkRs
That's what he told Raymond Marcus, also.
Jean
lazu...@webtv.net
researcher Wallace Milam of multiple bullets, and still had one in her
possession at the time of the interview...Laz
Robert Harris
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
I haven't seen that one. Please email me if you find something that is
accessible.
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
FIRST statement to the WC was that the bullet came from the stretcher
that was already on the ground floor - NOT the one he took off the
elevator.
Not only that, but before he testified, he Specter the SAME THING:
Mr. SPECTER. Now, just before we started this deposition, before I
placed you under oath and before the court reporter started to take down
my questions and your answers, you and I had a brief talk, did we not?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And we discussed in a general way the information which you
have testified about, did we not?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And at the time we started our discussion, it was your
recollection at that point that the bullet came off of stretcher A, was
it not?
Mr. TOMLINSON. B.
Mr. SPECTER. Pardon me, stretcher B, but it was stretcher A that you
took off of the elevator.
Mr. TOMLINSON. I believe that's right.
Mr. SPECTER. But there is no question but that at the time we started
our discussion a few minutes before the court reporter started to take
it down, that your best recollection was that it was stretcher A which
came off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, I believe that was it--yes.
(unquote)
It doesn't matter that Specter got him to say he was uncertain or that
he was later conned into changing his story.
YOU GO WITH THE FIRST, UNCONTAMINATED STATEMENT. And we know what he
said both prior to and at the very beginning of his testimony.
It really is just that simple, and you're wasting bandwidth by
continuing to post anything he said later, after Specter or others,
worked him over.
If you disagree with that, then please itemize all the best reasons you
can think of to NOT go with earliest, original statements - other than
the obvious of course.
Robert Harris
In article
<31e92b94-c2ad-4fb2...@a11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Sam McClung
intended for only a.c.jfk, not the wannabee gruppe also:
and all that testimony produced by the wc for all them folks cited was
actually read and signed by them as accurately capturing what they said
under oath?
or is it just more unsigned illegally created typewritten gobbly dee gook
created by warren commission personnel, to include but not limited to belin
et al?
Sam McClung
Jason Burke
Can ANY of you retards write a coherent sentence?
Jean Davison
Yes, it is tiresome. Your own witness testified that in his
earliest, original statement to the Secret Service he had said he was not
sure which stretcher it was. Maybe you should take your own advice.
You've made is appear that Tomlinson was always positive and
that he expressed uncertainty only after Specter "repeatedly badgered
him." That's not so, Robert. But don't mind me. Carry on.
Jean
Robert Harris
<a11ef0e4-6973-4ed4...@l18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is what he said about the Secret Service agent who claimed that he
said the bullet came from the elevator stretcher. Basically, he was being
asked if the agent was a liar.
Mr. SPECTER. Which did you tell the Secret Service agent--that you
thought it was A that you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Really, I couldn't be real truthful in saying I told him
this or that.
Mr. SPECTER. You just don't remember for sure whether you told him you
thought it was A or not?
Mr. TOMLINSON. No, sir; I really don't remember. I'm not accustomed to
being questioned by the Secret Service and the FBI and by you and they
are writing down everything, I mean.
(unquote)
Based on what he told Specter and on his sworn testimony, it's obvious
that the Secret Service agent really did lie about what Tomlinson said,
when he claimed that he said the bullet came from the "A" stretcher. But
it seems pretty obvious that Tomlinson couldn't bring himself to say that.
But tell me something Jean; we have a LOT of critical witnesses here who
are more important than Tomlinson. Why do you only seek out the one who
expressed some degree of uncertainty?
This is reminiscent of the days when I was posting about the 285 shot and
you would ONLY reply to my arguments about Jackie. Didn't you do that
because her testimony contained ambiguities?
Why didn't you EVER want to talk about the statements of Mrs. Connally,
Kellerman, Greer, Brehm and others whose statements were crystal clear and
unambiguous?
And why don't you want to talk about what District Attorney Wade, Gov.
Connally, officer Nolan, ex police officer O.P. Wright, FBI agent Odum,
and Nursing supervisor Audrey Bell had to say??
If we do that, I think we will quickly discover that we don't need
Tomlinson's testimony, to figure this out. Which one would you like to
start with?
Robert Harris
Walt
Are you kidding?...... The PRIMARY reason for the creation of the
Warren Commission was to allow the LNer's to twist and warp the
original statements of the witnesses..... They're not about to
abandon the lies created by the Warren Commission.
>
> In article
> <31e92b94-c2ad-4fb2-9c98-7df28021c...@a11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jean- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt
> This is a pretty extensive article on the question of the legitimacy of
> CE399 and includes analysis and evidence that was not in my videos on
> the subject.
>
> I welcome any legitimate criticisms and correction, and will promptly
> correct any errors.
If you welcome criticism........ Then please accept this:....... The
whole argument surrounding CE 399 is just plain nonsense. Anybody with
good sense can understand that two identical FMJ bullets alledgedly fired
from the same gun are going to perform in similar manners. One isn't
going to shatter into tiny pieces while the other remains nearly pristine.
CE 399 is bogus..... It's as simple as that. Any discussion about it's
legitimacy is a waste of time.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> Robert Harris
Walt
Perhaps the problem isn't created by the writer of the
sentence.......Maybe the reader has a comprehension problem.
Caeruleo
"Sam McClung" <mcc...@newsguy.com> wrote:
You'll have to run that by us again. Might I suggest an editor?
Perhaps myself? I'll do it for three times minimum wage even, $21.75 an
hour, and that's cheap these days.
May I present an example of my work? Here is how I might transform your
prose into a work of beauty that would make a publisher's mouth water:
Was all of that testimony of the witnesses before the Warren Commission
actually read and signed by them as accurately capturing what they said
under oath? Or was it just more unsigned, inauthentic textual babble
created by members of the Commission staff, including, but hardly
limited to, David Belin et al? O, the misery that contemplation of this
anomaly brings upon the otherwise hardy soul!
There. Isn't that better? Speak it aloud to yourself. Notice how the
words roll fluidly off the tongue and waft lightly into the air.
Anyway, to answer your question, Sam, you'll notice when reading the
complete testimonies that often right near the end the witness is
offered the opportunity to sign a transcript of the testimony, and that
interestingly most of them waived the right to do so.
And at the moment I am only recalling one of these 552 witnesses later
claiming that her testimony as printed was a complete "fabrication," and
that is Jean Hill. I seem to recall that she was never known to have
made such a claim for the first time ever until about 27 years after the
assassination. At that time she conveniently "forgot" that she had
given a live television interview on the day of the assassination, which
because of being live, could not "fabricate" a single word, phrase, or
sentence that she spoke, and that with the exception of claiming in the
interview that there was a dog in the limo, her "fabricated" printed
testimony is very similar in the primary points as her live interview.
It also seems that 27 years after the assassination she suddenly
"remembered" some quite stunning events that she apparently had
"forgotten" about when she was interviewed on the same day those events
had supposedly happened. On the day of the assassination, she was asked
specifically by the interviewer, live (so there was no possible way to
alter her words), if she saw anyone shooting at the motorcade, and she
was quite adamant that she did not.
Twenty-seven years later she woke up one morning and suddenly
"remembered" she had not only never said publicly before, but something
she had never told another human before even privately, not one of her
friends or relatives, that she HAD indeed seen a gunman firing after all!
AFAIK this is the only sort of person among all 552 of those witnesses
who ever claimed that the published text of her testimony was even
slightly different from what she had actually said at the time.
--
"...the difference between rightwingers and
leftwingers is just which rights they want to ignore."
Michael O'Dell on 7-8-11
Ben Holmes
says...
Who cares what she said years later???
YOU CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT SHE SAID ON 11/22/63 - AND ARE TOO DISHONEST TO ADMIT
IT!!
Indeed, you've refused to name even a *SINGLE* eyewitness whom you believe in
their 1963-64 statements.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Jason Burke
Doubtful, Wally.
Clubking01
> This is a pretty extensive article on the question of the legitimacy of
> CE399 and includes analysis and evidence that was not in my videos on
> the subject.
>
> I welcome any legitimate criticisms and correction, and will promptly
> correct any errors.
>
>
> Robert Harris
Just a point of correction. The Youtube scene showing Tomlinson and
narrated by Walter Cronkite was from The Nova documentary, "Who shot
President Kennedy" (November 1988), not a CBS documentary.
Sam McClung
"Caeruleo" wrote ...
[click] [click]
Robert Harris
<3d6cdeca-ae29-4885...@a1g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Clubking01 <trsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks. I automatically associated Cronkite with CBS. I'll check that
right away.
Robert Harris
Hank Sienzant
> On Jul 25, 8:47 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a pretty extensive article on the question of the legitimacy of
> > CE399 and includes analysis and evidence that was not in my videos on
> > the subject.
>
> > I welcome any legitimate criticisms and correction, and will promptly
> > correct any errors.
>
> If you welcome criticism........ Then please accept this:....... The
> whole argument surrounding CE 399 is just plain nonsense.
Walt! How you doing? Haven't discussed this case with you in a long
time.
> Anybody with
> good sense can understand that two identical FMJ bullets alledgedly fired
> from the same gun are going to perform in similar manners. One isn't
> going to shatter into tiny pieces while the other remains nearly pristine.
>
You wrote: "Anybody with good sense can understand that two identical
FMJ bullets alledgedly fired from the same gun are going to perform in
similar manners."
Does that apply regardless of what they hit? A FMJ will perform
similarly regardless of whether it is fired into water (or cotton
wadding or a pine log or soft flesh) or hits a concrete wall (or the
hard bone of a skull)?
Is that your final answer?
You wrote "One isn't going to shatter into tiny pieces while the other
remains nearly pristine."
I would think the one hitting the softer object would be more likely
to remain intact than the one hitting the harder obect, but according
to you, both will break up? Or will both remain intact and nearly
pristine?
I thought the critics argument was CE399 was fired into water so it
could be planted and that is why it remained nearly pristine. Nobody I
have ever read said it was fired at a concrete wall and that kept it
nearly pristine -- so I think what it hits does have some affect on
what it looks like afterward. Do you disagree? If so, why haven't the
critics argued CE399 was fired at a concrete wall and that is why it
looks nearly pristine?
Please advise. Also please advise whether any recognized expert agrees
with you (a citation would be nice) or whether you came up with this
fact by figuring it out for yourself by just using your good sense.
Thanks a bunch!
Hank
aka Joe Zircon
> CE 399 is bogus..... It's as simple as that. Any discussion about it's
> legitimacy is a waste of time.
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> > Robert Harris- Hide quoted text -
Robert Harris
<bobharris77-4AF0...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Jean?
Robert Harris
Jean Davison
> In article
> <a11ef0e4-6973-4ed4-b288-63fff070c...@l18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
Now you're into mindreading. Here's the part you left out:
QUOTE:
Mr. SPECTER. What did you tell the Secret Service man about which
stretcher you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I told him that I was not sure, and I am not--I'm not
sure of it, but as I said, I would be going against the oath which I
took a while ago, because I am definitely not sure.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you remember if you told the Secret Service man which
stretcher you thought you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, we talked about taking a stretcher off of the
elevator, but then when it comes down on an oath, I wouldn't say for
sure, I really don't remember.
Mr. SPECTER. And do you recollect whether or not you told the Secret
Service man which stretcher you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. What do you mean?
Mr. SPECTER. You say you can't really take an oath today to be sure
whether it was stretcher A or stretcher B that you took off the
elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of it,
whether it was A or B that I took off.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, has your recollection always been the same about
the situation, that is, today, and when you talked to the Secret
Service man and when you talked to the FBI man?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes; I told him that I wasn't sure.
Mr. SPECTER. So, what you told the Secret Service man was just about
the same thing as you have told me today?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, sir.
UNQUOTE
> But tell me something Jean; we have a LOT of critical witnesses here who
> are more important than Tomlinson. Why do you only seek out the one who
> expressed some degree of uncertainty?
As I said, I thought you might like to know that Tomlinson told
Ray Marcus and another interviewer that the bullet came from the elevator
stretcher, because you said in your video that Tomlinson was "always
adamant" that it didn't.
>
> This is reminiscent of the days when I was posting about the 285 shot and
> you would ONLY reply to my arguments about Jackie. Didn't you do that
> because her testimony contained ambiguities?
We also disagreed about Clint Hill's testimony and other things
that we've both forgotten. (I had to Google it, myself.)
>
> Why didn't you EVER want to talk about the statements of Mrs. Connally,
> Kellerman, Greer, Brehm and others whose statements were crystal clear and
> unambiguous?
Crystal clear to you, Robert. Others may disagree.
>
> And why don't you want to talk about what District Attorney Wade, Gov.
> Connally, officer Nolan, ex police officer O.P. Wright, FBI agent Odum,
> and Nursing supervisor Audrey Bell had to say??
Wade was a fountain of misinformation that weekend.
Here's Connally:
QUOTE:
Mr. SPECTER. Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet
fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were
placed on the emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Governor CONNALLY. No.
UNQUOTE
The Connally quote you use is from a book that was "co-
authored" by someone else 29 years later.
Here's a DPD evidence sheet showing that Connally fragments
went from nurse Bell to officer Nolan to Fritz:
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/29/2950-002.gif
Concerning Odum, Tomlinson told Marcus that he was shown
the bullet by a different FBI agent and that it looked like the one he
found.
>
> If we do that, I think we will quickly discover that we don't need
> Tomlinson's testimony, to figure this out. Which one would you like to
> start with?
I don't want to debate it. I'm just suggesting that you
might at least acknowledge some of these things. Or just carry on as
usual, that's fine, too.
Jean
bigdog
What a ridiculous statement!!! You are claiming what we know is true is
impossible. You are claiming that a fragmented bullet and an intact bullet
cannot possibly have been fired by the same rifle. Yet both the fragmented
bullet found in the limo and the intact bullet found at Parkland were
ballistically matched to MC C2766 to the exclusion of all other rifles in
the world. We therefore know that two bullets fired from the same gun can
and did end up in completely different conditions.
How can you possibly conclude that all bullets fired from the same gun are
going to end up in the same condition? You are ignoring the variables. One
bullet passed through the soft tissue of two bodies before striking a hard
surface while the other was fired directly into a human skull, one of the
hardest and densest bones in the human body. Why would you think bullets
passing through vastly different objects are going to end up in similar
condition. You are making a ludicrous assumption.
Bud
> In article
> <1b6b4370-fc44-4b9e-8f2a-f8a545555...@l18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 25, 9:47?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > This is a pretty extensive article on the question of the legitimacy of
> > > CE399 and includes analysis and evidence that was not in my videos on
> > > the subject.
>
> > > I welcome any legitimate criticisms and correction, and will promptly
> > > correct any errors.
>
> > >http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
>
> > > Robert Harris
>
> > Well, I only looked at the beginning and I noticed you neglected to
> > include where Tomlinson said this...
>
> > "Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of
> > it, whether it was A or B that I took off. "
>
> Yes, I "neglected" to post thousands of lines from the WC reports.
Are you in the habit of neglecting to include information that runs
contrary to your ideas?
> But as you must know, I clearly stated that Tomlinson said he wasn't sure
> about that, after considerable badgering and arguments from Specter.
>
> What I cited was, Tomlinson's earliest, original statement about the
> stretchers,
What I quoted was from the same source, Tomlinson`s testimony.
> which was crystal clear and included a diagram which I also
> posted.
>
> The guy was basically, a janitor, facing a very high powered lawyer, who
> had been trying to pressure him to change his story, even before he
> testified.
He didn`t change his story, he was using qualifiers like "I think" and I
"believe" from the beginning when asked about the stretchers. These
qualifiers are used to denote unsurety. A person who is sure will say "I
found it on stretcher "B". A person who isn`t sure will say "I think I
found it on stretcher "B" (or "I believe I found it on stretcher "B")".
Tomlinson didn`t change his tune, he was unsure all along.
> Robert Harris
Bud
Not one damned thing in that exchange that even remotely resembles
Tomlinson calling the SS agent a liar, only that he didn`t remember
what he told the FBI agent.
> Based on what he told Specter and on his sworn testimony, it's obvious
> that the Secret Service agent really did lie about what Tomlinson said,
> when he claimed that he said the bullet came from the "A" stretcher. But
> it seems pretty obvious that Tomlinson couldn't bring himself to say that.
Why isn`t that CTers so often have trouble reading what is actually
there, but claim they can read between the lines perfectly?
> But tell me something Jean; we have a LOT of critical witnesses here who
> are more important than Tomlinson. Why do you only seek out the one who
> expressed some degree of uncertainty?
She didn`t "seek him out", Harris, you used his testimony in favor of
your idea. I raised an issue about how you cherry picked Tomlinson`s
testimony and Jean expanded on the idea. Where do you get the idea that if
you put forth a thesis that people critical of it have to focus where you
designate?
> This is reminiscent of the days when I was posting about the 285 shot and
> you would ONLY reply to my arguments about Jackie.
<snicker> It`s terrible that opponents of your ideas get to choose
what issues they want to address, isn`t it Harris?
> Didn't you do that
> because her testimony contained ambiguities?
Don`t they all? Or by "ambiguities" do you mean she gave information
that ran counter to your ideas?
> Why didn't you EVER want to talk about the statements of Mrs. Connally,
> Kellerman, Greer, Brehm and others whose statements were crystal clear and
> unambiguous?
>
> And why don't you want to talk about what District Attorney Wade, Gov.
> Connally, officer Nolan, ex police officer O.P. Wright, FBI agent Odum,
> and Nursing supervisor Audrey Bell had to say??
>
> If we do that, I think we will quickly discover that we don't need
> Tomlinson's testimony, to figure this out. Which one would you like to
> start with?
Lets start with the ambiguous phrase "unable to identify" when it comes
to the CE-399. When a witness says this, is he expressing the idea that
CE-399 wasn`t the bullet the witness handled?
> Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<be87b5b1-8e05-4d0f...@v7g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 5:59?pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <a11ef0e4-6973-4ed4-b288-63fff070c...@l18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
> > > ? ? ? ? ? ? Yes, it is tiresome. ?Your own witness testified that in his
> > > earliest, original statement to the Secret Service he had said he was not
> > > sure which stretcher it was. ?Maybe you should take your own advice.
> >
> > > ? ? ? ? ? ? You've made is appear that Tomlinson was always positive and
> > > that he expressed uncertainty only after Specter "repeatedly badgered
> > > him." ?That's not so, Robert. But don't mind me. ?Carry on.
Ahh... so you think he just made up a lie about talking to that nurse??
Do you think his known misstatements were deliberate lies or honest
mistakes?? I ask because the story he told about the nurse could hardly be
called an error. It was either true, or he made up a deliberate lie.
Why do you think he told a deliberate lie?
> Here's Connally:
>
> QUOTE:
> Mr. SPECTER. Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet
> fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were
> placed on the emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
> Governor CONNALLY. No.
Well, I see two possibilities here:
1. He believed that this was a conspiracy but thought the nation needed
"closure" as he is known to have stated, and so didn't want to drop a
bombshell that proved conspiracy.
or,
2. He told a deliberate lie, which just coincidentally matched the
deliberate lie that Wade told and Nolan's statement which you don't seem
to have manufactured an excuse for yet.
Think about it Jean. What are the odds that both of those men, as well as
Nolan, would conjure up a BS story about a bullet coming from the gurney??
That's three men and one nurse, all saying that this was a bullet from
Connally's gurney. Do you think it was something in the water???
> UNQUOTE
>
> The Connally quote you use is from a book that was "co-
> authored" by someone else 29 years later.
Well that certainly makes sense. Do you think we all suffer outrageous
delusions like that every three decades or so?
I don't recall any personally, but then I guess I wouldn't, if it was a
delusion, eh:-)
>
> Here's a DPD evidence sheet showing that Connally fragments
> went from nurse Bell to officer Nolan to Fritz:
>
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/29/2950-002.gif
That would be very impressive Jean, except that the envelope was
originally logged in as containing a singular object, wasn't it? And the
FBI, in its earliest report, said it was a singular "fragment" from
Connally's right thigh.
And when the FBI interviewed Bell, after they had obviously, inspected
that envelope, they falsely claimed that she described it as a singular
fragment, just as they falsely claimed that she said she gave the envelope
to Nolan.
Funny isn't it, all these misunderstandings over an envelope that was
clearly labelled, "Bullet fragments" from the "right arm":-)
>
> Concerning Odum, Tomlinson told Marcus that he was shown
> the bullet by a different FBI agent and that it looked like the one he
> found.
Yes, we already know that your boys did a great job on Tomlinson:-)
>
> >
> > If we do that, I think we will quickly discover that we don't need
> > Tomlinson's testimony, to figure this out. Which one would you like to
> > start with?
>
> I don't want to debate it.
Yes, we've all seen over the years, how much you hate to debate:-)
Or did you actually mean that you don't want to debate when you have no
chance of winning?
Robert Harris
Jean Davison
"Robert Harris" wrote in message
news:bobharris77-0B2B...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
Do you still think Tomlinson was always adamant, Robert?
>
> >
> > This is reminiscent of the days when I was posting about the 285 shot
> > and
> > you would ONLY reply to my arguments about Jackie. Didn't you do that
> > because her testimony contained ambiguities?
>
> We also disagreed about Clint Hill's testimony and other things
> that we've both forgotten. (I had to Google it, myself.)
>
> >
> > Why didn't you EVER want to talk about the statements of Mrs. Connally,
> > Kellerman, Greer, Brehm and others whose statements were crystal clear
> > and
> > unambiguous?
>
> Crystal clear to you, Robert. Others may disagree.
>
> >
> > And why don't you want to talk about what District Attorney Wade, Gov.
> > Connally, officer Nolan, ex police officer O.P. Wright, FBI agent Odum,
> > and Nursing supervisor Audrey Bell had to say??
>
> Wade was a fountain of misinformation that weekend.
[I'm adding ">"s here to indicate your response:]
>Ahh... so you think he just made up a lie about talking to that nurse??
>Do you think his known misstatements were deliberate lies or honest
>mistakes?? I ask because the story he told about the nurse could hardly be
>called an error. It was either true, or he made up a deliberate lie.
>Why do you think he told a deliberate lie?
I don't. Wade made so many mistakes that even the WC
commented on it.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0130b.htm
>> Here's Connally:
>>
>> QUOTE:
>> Mr. SPECTER. Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet
>> fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were
>> placed on the emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
>> Governor CONNALLY. No.
>Well, I see two possibilities here:
>1. He believed that this was a conspiracy but thought the nation needed
>"closure" as he is known to have stated, and so didn't want to drop a
>bombshell that proved conspiracy.
>or,
>2. He told a deliberate lie, which just coincidentally matched the
>deliberate lie that Wade told and Nolan's statement which you don't seem
>to have manufactured an excuse for yet.
Actually, you see only one possibility: Connally lied under oath.
Whatever happened to "go with the earliest statement"?
>Think about it Jean. What are the odds that both of those men, as well as
>Nolan, would conjure up a BS story about a bullet coming from the gurney??
>That's three men and one nurse, all saying that this was a bullet from
>Connally's gurney. Do you think it was something in the water???
You're quoting a book written by someone other than Connally, who
also claimed that Connally saw Secret Service agents jump out of
the followup car, as I recall. Statements by Bell and Nolan from at least
15 years after the event aren't trustworthy, imo.
>> UNQUOTE
>>
>> The Connally quote you use is from a book that was "co-
>> authored" by someone else 29 years later.
>
>
>Well that certainly makes sense. Do you think we all suffer outrageous
>delusions like that every three decades or so?
>I don't recall any personally, but then I guess I wouldn't, if it was a
>delusion, eh:-)
Memories change. You could look it up.
>>
>> Here's a DPD evidence sheet showing that Connally fragments
>> went from nurse Bell to officer Nolan to Fritz:
>>
>> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/29/2950-002.gif
>That would be very impressive Jean, except that the envelope was
>originally logged in as containing a singular object, wasn't it? And the
>FBI, in its earliest report, said it was a singular "fragment" from
>Connally's right thigh.
Here's the HSCA's take on this discrepancy:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=39166
>And when the FBI interviewed Bell, after they had obviously, inspected
>that envelope, they falsely claimed that she described it as a singular
>fragment, just as they falsely claimed that she said she gave the envelope
>to Nolan.
>
>Funny isn't it, all these misunderstandings over an envelope that was
>clearly labelled, "Bullet fragments" from the "right arm":-)
The DPD record says that she gave an envelope containing
"fragmentS" to Nolan.
>>
>> Concerning Odum, Tomlinson told Marcus that he was shown
>> the bullet by a different FBI agent and that it looked like the one he
>> found.
>Yes, we already know that your boys did a great job on Tomlinson:-)
"My boys"?? Ray Marcus was a conspiracy theorist. He had no
reason to twist Tomlinson's arm.
>>
>> >
>> > If we do that, I think we will quickly discover that we don't need
>> > Tomlinson's testimony, to figure this out. Which one would you like to
>> > start with?
>>
>> I don't want to debate it.
>Yes, we've all seen over the years, how much you hate to debate:-)
>
>Or did you actually mean that you don't want to debate when you have no
>chance of winning?
No chance of getting you to see a different point of view, I think.
Do you still think Tomlinson was "always adamant" that it wasn't Connally's
stretcher?
Jean
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
<966846ad-0090-488a...@x10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Bud <sirs...@fast.net> wrote:
LOL!! Yes, he just forgot. I love how nutters are forever trying to
claim that all these inconvenient witnesses have terrible memories.
Unless the guy had Alzheimers at a very young age, he didn't forget what
he said, and you know it.
>
> > Based on what he told Specter and on his sworn testimony, it's obvious
> > that the Secret Service agent really did lie about what Tomlinson said,
> > when he claimed that he said the bullet came from the "A" stretcher. But
> > it seems pretty obvious that Tomlinson couldn't bring himself to say that.
>
> Why isn`t that CTers so often have trouble reading what is actually
> there, but claim they can read between the lines perfectly?
There is nothing to read between the lines. Tomlinson told Specter the
same thing before he testified that he told the WC under oath.
Obviously, the SS agent was not honest when he claimed the man said
exactly the opposite.
>
> > But tell me something Jean; we have a LOT of critical witnesses here who
> > are more important than Tomlinson. Why do you only seek out the one who
> > expressed some degree of uncertainty?
>
> She didn`t "seek him out", Harris,
Is Kreskin helping you out here, Bud, or did Jean tell you that?
> you used his testimony in favor of
> your idea. I raised an issue about how you cherry picked Tomlinson`s
> testimony and Jean expanded on the idea. Where do you get the idea that if
> you put forth a thesis that people critical of it have to focus where you
> designate?
I stated that we need to look at the man's earliest, uncontaminated
statements. And that's what I did.
And I also stated that he later said he wasn't sure, as you deliberately
omitted when you attacked me.
>
> > This is reminiscent of the days when I was posting about the 285 shot and
> > you would ONLY reply to my arguments about Jackie.
>
> <snicker> It`s terrible that opponents of your ideas get to choose
> what issues they want to address, isn`t it Harris?
Actually, it is.
That suggests that they are more interested in winning debates than the
truth.
>
> > Didn't you do that
> > because her testimony contained ambiguities?
>
> Don`t they all?
No.
> Or by "ambiguities" do you mean she gave information
> that ran counter to your ideas?
I meant ambiguities.
>
> > Why didn't you EVER want to talk about the statements of Mrs. Connally,
> > Kellerman, Greer, Brehm and others whose statements were crystal clear and
> > unambiguous?
> >
> > And why don't you want to talk about what District Attorney Wade, Gov.
> > Connally, officer Nolan, ex police officer O.P. Wright, FBI agent Odum,
> > and Nursing supervisor Audrey Bell had to say??
> >
> > If we do that, I think we will quickly discover that we don't need
> > Tomlinson's testimony, to figure this out. Which one would you like to
> > start with?
>
> Lets start with the ambiguous phrase "unable to identify" when it comes
> to the CE-399. When a witness says this, is he expressing the idea that
> CE-399 wasn`t the bullet the witness handled?
1. He told the FBI that he could not verify CE399 as the same bullet he
recovered, as did O.P. Wright and the two Secret Service agents who
handled it.
2. Before he testified, he told Specter that the bullet did NOT come
from Connally's stretcher. He then testified under oath that it did not
come from Connally's stretcher. He only expressed uncertainty when he
was badgered and pressured to change his story.
BTW Bud, the two SS agents were required to initial the stretcher
bullet, as was SA Todd. What happened to those initials? Why aren't they
anywhere on CE399?
And do you agree with Jean, that Connally, Wade and apparently Nolan all
had the same delusion about a whole bullet from Connally's gurney??
Robert Harris
>
> > Robert Harris
Robert Harris
"Jean Davison" <jjdavison...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, I was wrong about that.
>
> >
> > >
> > > This is reminiscent of the days when I was posting about the 285 shot
> > > and
> > > you would ONLY reply to my arguments about Jackie. Didn't you do that
> > > because her testimony contained ambiguities?
> >
> > We also disagreed about Clint Hill's testimony and other things
> > that we've both forgotten. (I had to Google it, myself.)
> >
> > >
> > > Why didn't you EVER want to talk about the statements of Mrs. Connally,
> > > Kellerman, Greer, Brehm and others whose statements were crystal clear
> > > and
> > > unambiguous?
> >
> > Crystal clear to you, Robert. Others may disagree.
> >
> > >
> > > And why don't you want to talk about what District Attorney Wade, Gov.
> > > Connally, officer Nolan, ex police officer O.P. Wright, FBI agent Odum,
> > > and Nursing supervisor Audrey Bell had to say??
> >
> > Wade was a fountain of misinformation that weekend.
>
> [I'm adding ">"s here to indicate your response:]
>
> >Ahh... so you think he just made up a lie about talking to that nurse??
> >Do you think his known misstatements were deliberate lies or honest
> >mistakes?? I ask because the story he told about the nurse could hardly be
> >called an error. It was either true, or he made up a deliberate lie.
>
> >Why do you think he told a deliberate lie?
>
> I don't. Wade made so many mistakes that even the WC
> commented on it.
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0130b.htm
If someone says something happened at 4 pm and it happened at 5 pm, that
could be an honest mistake.
Fabricating a detailed conversation like that could not have been an
honest mistake. It was either true or it was a deliberate lie, and there
is not a reason on Earth why he would have lied.
Furthermore, the fact that he told the nurse to give the bullet to the
police is corroborated by the simple fact that she did exactly that,
right after her conversation with him.
Further corroboration comes from the fact that this nurse told Nolan
exactly the same thing, and of course, by the fact that Connally also
said the same thing.
>
> >> Here's Connally:
> >>
> >> QUOTE:
> >> Mr. SPECTER. Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet
> >> fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were
> >> placed on the emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
> >> Governor CONNALLY. No.
>
> >Well, I see two possibilities here:
>
> >1. He believed that this was a conspiracy but thought the nation needed
> >"closure" as he is known to have stated, and so didn't want to drop a
> >bombshell that proved conspiracy.
>
> >or,
>
> >2. He told a deliberate lie, which just coincidentally matched the
> >deliberate lie that Wade told and Nolan's statement which you don't seem
> >to have manufactured an excuse for yet.
>
> Actually, you see only one possibility: Connally lied under oath.
> Whatever happened to "go with the earliest statement"?
That's fine, if the witness had not stated a perfectly logical reason
for why he didn't want to rock the boat.
>
> >Think about it Jean. What are the odds that both of those men, as well as
> >Nolan, would conjure up a BS story about a bullet coming from the gurney??
> >That's three men and one nurse, all saying that this was a bullet from
> >Connally's gurney. Do you think it was something in the water???
>
> You're quoting a book written by someone other than Connally,
That's lame and extremely disingenuous Jean. We all know that ghost
writers write the story that they are told to write and are supposed to do
it more eloquently than their client is capable of.
Are you suggesting that the ghost writer made up this story, without
Connally's approval or consent? If so, then you have LOT of proving to do.
> who
> also claimed that Connally saw Secret Service agents jump out of
> the followup car, as I recall. Statements by Bell and Nolan from at least
> 15 years after the event aren't trustworthy, imo.
Sigh... I don't know how to break this to you, but Secret Service agents
DID jump out of the followup car:-)
>
> >> UNQUOTE
> >>
> >> The Connally quote you use is from a book that was "co-
> >> authored" by someone else 29 years later.
> >
> >
> >Well that certainly makes sense. Do you think we all suffer outrageous
> >delusions like that every three decades or so?
> >I don't recall any personally, but then I guess I wouldn't, if it was a
> >delusion, eh:-)
>
> Memories change. You could look it up.
People make errors but they don't invent delusions, or at least those of
us who are not kept in padded cells don't.
And it is preposterous to claim that all three men just coincidentally
invented the same delusion about a whole bullet from Connally's gurney.
I spoke to Nolan and like most of us, that guy remembered the events of
11/22 like they had just happened. And he obviously, told the FBI that the
bullet came from Connally's "thigh", as the FBI report of their interview
with him confirmed.
>
> >>
> >> Here's a DPD evidence sheet showing that Connally fragments
> >> went from nurse Bell to officer Nolan to Fritz:
> >>
> >> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/29/2950-002.gif
>
> >That would be very impressive Jean, except that the envelope was
> >originally logged in as containing a singular object, wasn't it? And the
> >FBI, in its earliest report, said it was a singular "fragment" from
> >Connally's right thigh.
>
> Here's the HSCA's take on this discrepancy:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&
> absPageId=39166
That's nice. The HSCA also said Oswald fired shots 1.67 seconds apart
and that all three autopsists misplaced the entry location of the 312
headshot.
>
> >And when the FBI interviewed Bell, after they had obviously, inspected
> >that envelope, they falsely claimed that she described it as a singular
> >fragment, just as they falsely claimed that she said she gave the envelope
> >to Nolan.
> >
> >Funny isn't it, all these misunderstandings over an envelope that was
> >clearly labelled, "Bullet fragments" from the "right arm":-)
>
> The DPD record says that she gave an envelope containing
> "fragmentS" to Nolan.
Not originally, Jean. This is the earliest DPD documentation for the
envelop that Nolan brought in.
http://jfkhistory.com/connallyfragment.jpg
Notice that my documentation is dated 11/26/63. Why don't you tell us
the date on yours:-)
>
> >>
> >> Concerning Odum, Tomlinson told Marcus that he was shown
> >> the bullet by a different FBI agent and that it looked like the one he
> >> found.
>
> >Yes, we already know that your boys did a great job on Tomlinson:-)
>
> "My boys"?? Ray Marcus was a conspiracy theorist. He had no
> reason to twist Tomlinson's arm.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > If we do that, I think we will quickly discover that we don't need
> >> > Tomlinson's testimony, to figure this out. Which one would you like to
> >> > start with?
> >>
> >> I don't want to debate it.
>
>
> >Yes, we've all seen over the years, how much you hate to debate:-)
> >
> >Or did you actually mean that you don't want to debate when you have no
> >chance of winning?
>
> No chance of getting you to see a different point of view, I think.
> Do you still think Tomlinson was "always adamant" that it wasn't Connally's
> stretcher?
You only need to ask me once, Jean. I don't evade questions.
I will change my mind if someone can provide a reasonable, alternative
explanation of the events then. But I don't think it is reasonable to
argue that Connally, Wade, and Nolan all came up with the same delusions
about a bullet from Connally's gurney, especially since Nolan told the FBI
on 11/23 that the bullet was from Connally's thigh.
If I was on your side, I would go after Bell. You have to prove that it
was her, who told those guys that the bullet came from Connally's gurney,
and apparently, from his thigh.
And then you need to explain why the FBI misrepresented her, at the very
least, when they said she talked about a singular fragment.
As I understand it, this is your current "explanation"
1. Connally's ghostwriter fabricated a phony story about a whole bullet
falling from the gurney.
2. Wade fabricated a phony story about the nurse telling him that the
bullet came from Connally's gurney.
3. Nolan fabricated a phony story about the nurse telling him that the
bullet came Connally's gurney, and then fabricated a false story when he
told the FBI that the bullet came from Connally's thigh.
4. Bell fabricated a phony story about giving her envelope, containing
multiple fragments to plain clothed agents.
Jean, you labelled all four of these people as being totally full of poop,
and without even a shred of evidence or logical justification, other than
that you don't like what they said.
I'm sorry, but that's not enough to make me change my mind. You need to
come up with something a LOT better than claiming that all four of these
people were delusional.
Robert Harris
Jean Davison
"Robert Harris" wrote in message
news:bobharris77-F508...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
I'll try to answer soon, but here's an article on eyewitness
memory that came to mind when you said that when you talked to Nolan in
2010, he remembered the events of 11/22 "like they just happened." I'm
sure he *thought* so, but as this article shows, it ain't necessarily so.
QUOTE:
Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about
Challenger
Ulric Neisser and Nicole Harsch
???When I first heard about the explosion I was in my freshman dorm room
with my roommate and we were watching TV. It came on a news flash and we
were both totally shocked. I was really upset and I went upstairs to talk
to a friend of mine and then I called my parents.???
???I was in my religion class and some people walked in and started
talking about [it]. I didn???t know any details except that it had
exploded and the schoolteacher???s students had all been watching which I
thought was so sad. Then after class I went to my room and watched the TV
program talking about it and got all the details from that.???
The two memories above are actual written responses to the
question ???How did you first hear the news of the Challenger disaster????
The first account was given the fall of 1988, long after the event by an
Emory senior whom we will call ???RT.??? It was a vivid recollection,
which met or exceeded all the standard tests of a ???flashbulb memory.???
Asked for 5-point confidence ratings of various aspects of the memory, RT
hit the top of the scale ???. But despite her confidence, RT was mistaken.
Two and a half years earlier, she had answered the same question 24 hours
after the explosion. The report she gave then is the second response
transcribed above. It tells us that RT had originally heard about the
disaster in one of her classes. She did not first learn about it from
television, as she later came to believe.
[ RT was one of 44 subjects who wrote both early and later
accounts.] Comparison with these original reports shows that none of the
enduring memories was entirely correct, and that many were at least as
wide of the mark as RT???s. ???.
Perhaps the most interesting outcome of the interviews is what
happened???and what did *not* happen???at the end. Many subjects
exhibited great surprise when confronted with their own original reports.
They found it hard to believe that their memories could be so wrong:
???Whoa! That???s totally different from how I remember it.??? We had
expected these exclamations of surprise. But we had also expected
something else: that seeing the original records would at least partially
revive the original memories. If anything can recall a forgotten event to
mind, it should be one???s own first-hand report! In initially designing
the interviews, we had anticipated a methodological problem that never
materialized. How would we distinguish between (a) genuine reminding and
(b) false impressions of being reminded that subjects might try to
present? We need not have worried. No one who had given an incorrect
account in the interview even pretended that they now recalled what was
stated on the original record. On the contrary, they kept saying, ???I
mean, like I told you, I have no recollection of it at all??? or ???I
still think of it as the other way around.??? As far as we can tell, the
original memories are just gone.
UNQUOTE
Jean
Jean Davison
"Jean Davison" wrote in message news:4e35f88e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
"Robert Harris" wrote in message
news:bobharris77-F508...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
I'll try to answer soon, but here's an article on eyewitness
memory that came to mind when you said that when you talked to Nolan in
2010, he remembered the events of 11/22 "like they just happened." I'm
sure he *thought* so, but as this article shows, it ain't necessarily so.
QUOTE:
Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about
Challenger
Ulric Neisser and Nicole Harsch
???When I first heard about the explosion I was in my freshman dorm room
with my roommate and we were watching TV. It came on a news flash and we
were both totally shocked. I was really upset and I went upstairs to talk
to a friend of mine and then I called my parents.???
=================================================
Sorry, I typed in quotation marks and they appeared as question
marks. Could someone tell me why that happened?
Jean
John McAdams
<jjdavison...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The simple shell account software that we moderators use doesn't know
much about ASCII characters except the most basic.
Typographic quotes sometimes create problems.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert Harris
This is a waste of bandwidth, Jean.
I also don't remember how I heard about the Challenger disaster. I think
it was in the papers but it could have been television or radio.
We all know that we are all fallible. That's why we look for
corroborations and refutations. One of the best is to listen to other
witnesses. If only one person mentioned a bullet from Connally's gurney, I
would have filed this away under "maybe". But four, none of whom fell into
the nutcase class, is just way too powerful.
And your argument that these recollections go back a long time, is refuted
by the fact that Nolan had to have told the FBI that the bullet came from
Connally's "thigh". That was on 11/23/1963.
I doubt that his memory failed during less than 24 hours, don't you? And
how did he overlook the fact that the envelope he carried, was labeled as
containing multiple fragments from the "right arm"???
Cops and emergency room supervisors pay VERY close attention to details
like that. If they don't, they don't keep their jobs very long.
Your argument is further refuted by the fact that the FBI very obviously,
misrepresented Audrey Bell. How could she have said on 11/23/63, that her
envelope contained a single fragment, after labeling it as "fragments"?
Each of those four tiny fragments had to have been picked up carefully,
with an instrument and then placed into the plastic container that she put
in the envelope. Do you really think that by the next day, she forgot all
that?
Bell could not have been the nurse who gave an envelope to Nolan. Every
relevant statement she made and every relevant statement he made, confirms
that fact.
And I don't see any way that we can deny the fact that the FBI lied about
what Bell told them. Unfortunately, that was not their only lie.
Robert Harris
In article <4e35f88e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,note:
Jean Davison
............................................................................
I'll try to answer soon, but here's an article on eyewitness
memory that came to mind when you said that when you talked to Nolan in
2010, he remembered the events of 11/22 "like they just happened." I'm
sure he *thought* so, but as this article shows, it ain't necessarily so.
QUOTE:
Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about
Challenger
Ulric Neisser and Nicole Harsch
"When I first heard about the explosion I was in my freshman dorm
room with my roommate and we were watching TV. It came on a news flash and
we were both totally shocked. I was really upset and I went upstairs to
talk to a friend of mine and then I called my parents."
"I was in my religion class and some people walked in and started
talking about [it]. I didn't know any details except that it had
exploded and the schoolteacher's students had all been watching which I
thought was so sad. Then after class I went to my room and watched the TV
program talking about it and got all the details from that."
The two memories above are actual written responses to the
question "How did you first hear the news of the Challenger disaster?"
The first account was given the fall of 1988, long after the event by an
Emory senior whom we will call RT. It was a vivid recollection,
which met or exceeded all the standard tests of a flashbulb memory.
Asked for 5-point confidence ratings of various aspects of the memory, RT
hit the top of the scale. But despite her confidence, RT was mistaken.
Two and a half years earlier, she had answered the same question 24 hours
after the explosion. The report she gave then is the second response
transcribed above. It tells us that RT had originally heard about the
disaster in one of her classes. She did not first learn about it from
television, as she later came to believe.
[ RT was one of 44 subjects who wrote both early and later
accounts.] Comparison with these original reports shows that none of the
enduring memories was entirely correct, and that many were at least as
wide of the mark as RT's.
Perhaps the most interesting outcome of the interviews is what
happened, and what did *not* happen, at the end. Many subjects
exhibited great surprise when confronted with their own original reports.
They found it hard to believe that their memories could be so wrong:
"Whoa! That's totally different from how I remember it." We had
expected these exclamations of surprise. But we had also expected
something else: that seeing the original records would at least partially
revive the original memories. If anything can recall a forgotten event to
mind, it should be one's own first-hand report! In initially designing
the interviews, we had anticipated a methodological problem that never
materialized. How would we distinguish between (a) genuine reminding and
(b) false impressions of being reminded that subjects might try to
present? We need not have worried. No one who had given an incorrect
account in the interview even pretended that they now recalled what was
stated on the original record. On the contrary, they kept saying, "I
mean, like I told you, I have no recollection of it at all" or "I
still think of it as the other way around." As far as we can tell, the
Jean Davison
>"Robert Harris" wrote in message
>news:bobharris77-6AE3...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
>This is a waste of bandwidth, Jean.
Why don't you read it, Robert? If you did, you might understand how
nurse Bell could misremember who she gave the envelope to.
Please read the article.
Jean
Robert Harris
"Jean Davison" <jjdavison...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tell me something Jean. Why do you suppose that officer Nolan told the FBI
on 11/23/63, that the object in the envelope he received, came from
Connally's "thigh"?
Robert Harris
Jean Davison
"Robert Harris" wrote in message
news:bobharris77-5EA6...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
>Robert Harris
Tell me something, Robert. Did you read the article about
witness memory? If so, what do you think about it?
Jean
Robert Harris
"Jean Davison" <jjdavison...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I loved it Jean!
Now it's your turn.
Why do you think Nolan told the FBI on 11/23/63 that the envelope he
delivered, contained a fragment or bullet from Connally's thigh?
Do you think that might have any connection to the fact that the man who
was standing next to him when he received that envelope, also said a
bullet was recovered, from Connally's thigh?
Robert Harris
Jean Davison
>I loved it Jean!
Good! Do you see now how nurse Bell could've misremembered what
she'd told the FBI years earlier?
>Now it's your turn.
>Why do you think Nolan told the FBI on 11/23/63 that the envelope he
>delivered, contained a fragment or bullet from Connally's thigh?
I don't know, but why do you say "or bullet"? The FBI report said
simply "bullet fragment." Why do you think Nolan told the FBI *that*? It
also says he gave this fragment to Capt. Fritz. Why do the DPD records
show a chain from Bell to Nolan to Fritz, if that's not what happened?
>Do you think that might have any connection to the fact that the man who
>was standing next to him when he received that envelope, also said a
>bullet was recovered, from Connally's thigh?
I don't know, but if a bullet was recovered from Connally's
thigh, why is it that none of his doctors or nurses reported it
in their original records or testimony? How could the plotters
have known that they wouldn't?
Jean
David Von Pein
>>> "Do you [Robert Harris] still think Tomlinson was "always adamant" that it wasn't Connally's stretcher?" <<<
Hi Jean,
Bob Harris HAS to know that Tomlinson completely reversed himself,
based on just the two video clips we have that show Tomlinson doing
that very thing between 1967 and 1988.
In '67, Tomlinson said he was absolutely positive that he found the
bullet on a stretcher that had been taken off of the elevator.
But in 1988, on NOVA/PBS, he said the exact opposite, stating he was
positive the bullet had been found on the other stretcher.
Harris knows this about this flip-flop. I guess he just wants to
ignore it.
And, of course, we also have Tomlinson's earliest testimony (to the
WC), in which he says no less than six or seven times that he was "not
sure" which stretcher he had taken off the elevator.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report.html
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-shot-president-kennedy.html
Bud
Try reading for comprehension, Harris. The said he forgot.
> Unless the guy had Alzheimers at a very young age, he didn't forget what
> he said, and you know it.
He said "No, sir; I really don`t remember." But of course "up"
really means "down" when the information goes against your silly
ideas.
> > > Based on what he told Specter and on his sworn testimony, it's obvious
> > > that the Secret Service agent really did lie about what Tomlinson said,
> > > when he claimed that he said the bullet came from the "A" stretcher. But
> > > it seems pretty obvious that Tomlinson couldn't bring himself to say that.
>
> > Why isn`t that CTers so often have trouble reading what is actually
> > there, but claim they can read between the lines perfectly?
>
> There is nothing to read between the lines.
The guy said he didn`t remember. You take that to mean he did
remember. When you give yourself that kind of latitude of
interpretation you can claim the witnesses support any idea you have
(which you do).
> Tomlinson told Specter the
> same thing before he testified that he told the WC under oath.
> Obviously, the SS agent was not honest when he claimed the man said
> exactly the opposite.
Obviously, Tomlinson didn`t remember what he told the SS agent.
> > > But tell me something Jean; we have a LOT of critical witnesses here who
> > > are more important than Tomlinson. Why do you only seek out the one who
> > > expressed some degree of uncertainty?
>
> > She didn`t "seek him out", Harris,
>
> Is Kreskin helping you out here, Bud, or did Jean tell you that?
You used Tomlinson`s testimony in support of your thesis, Harris.
Jean didn`t seek him out, you presented him, apparently to illustrate
your lack of understanding of the written word.
> > you used his testimony in favor of
> > your idea. I raised an issue about how you cherry picked Tomlinson`s
> > testimony and Jean expanded on the idea. Where do you get the idea that if
> > you put forth a thesis that people critical of it have to focus where you
> > designate?
>
> I stated that we need to look at the man's earliest, uncontaminated
> statements. And that's what I did.
You cherry picked his testimony is what you did.
> And I also stated that he later said he wasn't sure, as you deliberately
> omitted when you attacked me.
Where do you include that Tomlinson expressed that he wasn`t sure in
the article you linked to, Harris?
I brought up that he wasn`t sure, and you argued that that shouldn`t
be given any weight. And my "attack" was only pointing out the cherry-
picking approach you take to the evidence.
> > > This is reminiscent of the days when I was posting about the 285 shot and
> > > you would ONLY reply to my arguments about Jackie.
>
> > <snicker> It`s terrible that opponents of your ideas get to choose
> > what issues they want to address, isn`t it Harris?
>
> Actually, it is.
>
> That suggests that they are more interested in winning debates than the
> truth.
So your ideas are the "truth" even if the evidence runs contrary to
them?
> > > Didn't you do that
> > > because her testimony contained ambiguities?
>
> > Don`t they all?
>
> No.
Name one that doesn`t.
> > Or by "ambiguities" do you mean she gave information
> > that ran counter to your ideas?
>
> I meant ambiguities.
I think you`d have no problem with these "ambiguities" if they
tended to support your ideas.
> > > Why didn't you EVER want to talk about the statements of Mrs. Connally,
> > > Kellerman, Greer, Brehm and others whose statements were crystal clear and
> > > unambiguous?
>
> > > And why don't you want to talk about what District Attorney Wade, Gov.
> > > Connally, officer Nolan, ex police officer O.P. Wright, FBI agent Odum,
> > > and Nursing supervisor Audrey Bell had to say??
>
> > > If we do that, I think we will quickly discover that we don't need
> > > Tomlinson's testimony, to figure this out. Which one would you like to
> > > start with?
>
> > Lets start with the ambiguous phrase "unable to identify" when it comes
> > to the CE-399. When a witness says this, is he expressing the idea that
> > CE-399 wasn`t the bullet the witness handled?
>
> 1. He told the FBI that he could not verify CE399 as the same bullet he
> recovered, as did O.P. Wright and the two Secret Service agents who
> handled it.
Swing and a miss.
> 2. Before he testified, he told Specter that the bullet did NOT come
> from Connally's stretcher. He then testified under oath that it did not
> come from Connally's stretcher. He only expressed uncertainty when he
> was badgered and pressured to change his story.
Not even touching the question I asked.
> BTW Bud, the two SS agents were required to initial the stretcher
> bullet, as was SA Todd. What happened to those initials? Why aren't they
> anywhere on CE399?
Do you think this bears the incredible weight of a switched bullet?
And what is the idea, that Tomlinson found a whole bullet unrelated to
the assassination, and it was switched for one fired from Oswald`s
rifle? Needlessly complex and unnecessary, isn`t it? They`d be better
off with no bullet found at all than to risk an elaborate ruse that
could blow up in their faces a number of ways.
But why do you always try to misdirect away to what you want to talk
about? I asked you a question...
If the witness fails to identify a bullet is that the same as saying
that the bullet wasn`t the one they handled?
Put it this way, Edwards, Fischer and Rowland all said they saw a
man on the 6th floor of the TSBD prior to the assassination. Would you
take their lack of identification of this person as Oswald to mean
that they asserted it wasn`t Oswald they saw?
> And do you agree with Jean, that Connally, Wade and apparently Nolan all
> had the same delusion about a whole bullet from Connally's gurney??
I didn`t get that far along in the article.
> Robert Harris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Robert Harris
Jean Davison
"David Von Pein" wrote in message
news:0e4f763c-5b82-4a31...@cq10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Hi David,
I agree -- Tomlinson reversed himself several times. You must have
missed it, but Robert has changed his mind about Tomlinson being adamant.
(Good for him!) I'll sign below your post, so the moderators won't snip
it.
Hi Jean,
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report.html
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-shot-president-kennedy.html
..........................
Jean
Robert Harris
"Jean Davison" <jjdavison...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I say bullet because Nolan said that she told him it was a bullet and
because if it only contained a small fragment the FBI would not have had
to make it go away.
Also, it is obvious that she told both Wade and Stinson, who was standing
next to Nolan, that it was a bullet. And while I have no reason on Earth
to doubt those men I have huge reason to doubt the FBI.
> The FBI report said
> simply "bullet fragment." Why do you think Nolan told the FBI *that*?
Why would Nolan have told them it was a fragment after being told by the
nurse, that it was a bullet?
And why are evading my question?
> It
> also says he gave this fragment to Capt. Fritz. Why do the DPD records
> show a chain from Bell to Nolan to Fritz, if that's not what happened?
They did not originally say that, Jean. The earliest records only stated
that the envelope contained a single object. Obviously, that record was
later altered - just like the Price report in which the word "thigh" was
crossed out and replaced with "wrist".
>
> >Do you think that might have any connection to the fact that the man who
> >was standing next to him when he received that envelope, also said a
> >bullet was recovered, from Connally's thigh?
>
> I don't know,
That's not good enough Jean.
The fact that Nolan obviously, told the FBI that this bullet/fragment came
from Connally's thigh, corroborates much of what he told me and what Wade,
Stinson and Connally said.
Even more importantly, it refutes the notion that Nolan delivered the
original CE-842 envelope, which was clearly labeled as containing "bullet
fragments" from the "right arm".
Of course, the original DPD records further corroborate that fact, since
they would have described the envelope as containing multiple fragments
from the right arm, as well, if that had been the envelope that Bell
filled out.
Once again, all relevant evidence tells us that Nolan's envelope was NOT
the CE842 envelope. That envelope was undoubtedly, given to an FBI agent
in Bell's office, exactly as she said it was, and was later switched with
Nolan's.
> but if a bullet was recovered from Connally's
> thigh, why is it that none of his doctors or nurses reported it
> in their original records or testimony? How could the plotters
> have known that they wouldn't?
Not even one of her coworkers said that she gave fragments to Nolan. Nor
did any of them claim that she SAID she gave fragments or anything else to
him.
They only said things like, they were "advised" by some anonymous
individual that she did, or that they got together and decided to
"release" the information that it was the wrist fragment (singular again)
that Nolan received. The wording here is quite amazing.
"I called Dr. Duke, the resident who was present when I talked with Dr.
Shires. He had heard our conversation, and had assisted Dr. Shires with
this part of the surgery. Two of us conferred, and together agreed to
release to Mrs. Wright the information that according to Dr. Shires, only
one bullet was involved in Governor Connally's injury and that the
fragment of this bullet which was removed by Dr. Gregory from the wrist
was in the possession of Ranger Nolan."
Think how much simpler it would have been to simply state, "Nurse Bell
turned over the wrist fragments to officer Nolan". And rather than call in
another doctor and then have conference, why not just call Bell, who was
in the hospital then, and ask her?
Or do you suppose they did?
But to answer your question more specifically, I will just repeat what I
stated in the article, which I'm sure you already read.
"It would not have been possible for the FBI to have pulled this scam,
without the help of a least a doctor or two and probably, the nurse who
actually recovered the Connally bullet. Of course, the notion that
Parkland doctors or nurses were involved in a sinister coverup, is absurd.
What is not so absurd however, is that like many others, they were told
that if the investigation proved that there was a conspiracy, it would
point to Fidel Castro and lead us into a crisis that could incite a
nuclear, world war. In 1963, nuclear war was a fear that we all had to
live with, every day of our lives. It was powerful enough to make even the
most honest person, tell a little white lie if he was convinced that it
was for the benefit of humanity."
Robert Harris
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-8E9B...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "It would not have been possible for the FBI to have pulled this scam,
> without the help of a least a doctor or two and probably, the nurse who
> actually recovered the Connally bullet. Of course, the notion that
> Parkland doctors or nurses were involved in a sinister coverup, is absurd.
> What is not so absurd however, is that like many others, they were told
> that if the investigation proved that there was a conspiracy, it would
> point to Fidel Castro and lead us into a crisis that could incite a
> nuclear, world war. In 1963, nuclear war was a fear that we all had to
> live with, every day of our lives. It was powerful enough to make even the
> most honest person, tell a little white lie if he was convinced that it
> was for the benefit of humanity."
Wait a minute. No, I don't think I'm buying this. After some time had
passed, and it was obvious that no nuclear war was going to occur, and
after it became obvious too that most conspiracy theories running around
were not focusing on the involvement of a foreign power, I find it quite
implausible that that nurse would still never talk about it, nor Jimison
who was in the room at the same time, nor several others who were in the
room at the same time. This is not at all plausible to me. The doctors,
nurses, and orderlies were allowed to give testimony that to many seemed
to confirm an exit wound in the right rear of the head, but were convinced
to not give testimony about this bullet incident, even though both things
would seem equally to the FBI to be dangerous things to admit? And even
after 1993 when Connally's autobiography was published, not one of them
has admitted it to this day? Were they all deceased by then?
--
"...the difference between rightwingers and
leftwingers is just which rights they want to ignore."
Michael O'Dell on 7-8-11
Jean Davison
"Robert Harris" wrote in message
news:bobharris77-F508...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...
Jean wrote:
> > Do you still think Tomlinson was always adamant, Robert?
Robert wrote:
>No, I was wrong about that.
Bravo.
No, misunderstandings are common. Anyone in the waiting room
might've heard, for instance, that a bullet went through Connally's torso
and wounded his thigh. Then a nurse comes out with an evidence envelope,
wanting to know what she should do with it. It's only a short leap to
*assume* that the bullet or fragment(s) or whatever was in the envelope
(remember: Nolan told you he didn't know for sure which it was)... it
would've been natural to *assume* that it came from Connally's thigh.
Many CTs seem to think that discrepancies are always clues, but
if they're clues, they should fit with the rest of the evidence in a
plausible explanation of what happened. The FBI would've been nuts to
throw away a bullet that came from Connally's own body and trade it for
one found downstairs on a stretcher. If neither bullet came from Oswald's
gun, why pick *that* one? And what about the medical reports, the x-rays,
doctors' testimony-- all of which say there was only a small fragment left
in the thigh?
When I was at the library today I thumbed through this book.
It says the limo's bubble top was bulletproof, and that Oswald frequently
went out for target practice. QUOTE: "His landlord complained about his
keeping [the M-C] in the garage wrapped in a rug."
>> who
>> also claimed that Connally saw Secret Service agents jump out of
>> the followup car, as I recall. Statements by Bell and Nolan from at
>> least
>> 15 years after the event aren't trustworthy, imo.
>Sigh... I don't know how to break this to you, but Secret Service agents
>DID jump out of the followup car:-)
You're right. I goofed. The quote I was reaching for was:
"...Jesse Curry, the Dallas police chief who had been riding at the head
of the motorcade, ordered his officers into the Texas Book Depository.
The federal agents, who had been assigned to their own car (called the
Queen Mary) jumped out and headed for the front entrance [of the
TSBD]...." This is fiction.
I'll have to stop for now. I'm leaving on a jet plane tomorrow,
should be back in about 3 weeks.
Jean
Robert Harris
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
According to FBI agent James Hosty, there was indeed, a major coverup
and for exactly the reason I described. And yet, most of those people
never came forward later to admit that they lied in order to prevent
WW3. Why not?
These people were not JFK conspiracy buffs and probably never felt
certain that Castro wasn't behind the crime. They might have felt that
the coast was clear after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but maybe
they weren't too excited about admitting that they lied. And all they
would have had to look forward to was the FBI calling them liars and
denying everything they said about what the FBI asked them to do.
Connally did finally come forward, and so did Wade. Stinson also told
the truth, but not until he was asked about it. None of those men were
stupid. They might not have ever publicly admitted it, but they had to
have known the significance of that bullet.
If you read the citations I posted, you will realize that something was
seriously wrong with what Bell's coworkers said and the way they said
it. Why couldn't even one of those people, who worked with Bell every
day, simply report what SHE said?
Professionally, this was the biggest event in these people's lives. You
can bet that they talked about it constantly, for months and years
afterward. Do you really think that Bell never discussed any of this
with her associates??
Why months later, did Gregory who worked with Bell every day, have to
rely on what he was "advised" by some anonymous source? And why did he
feel the need to say he was "advised", rather than simply, "yes"?
And later in his testimony, he continued with ambiguous and evasive
words, describing what happened to the wrist fragments,
"Two or three of these were identified and were recovered and were
observed to be metallic in consistency. These were turned over to
appropriate authorities for further disposition. "
"appropriate authorities"?? Why couldn't he have just said they were
turned over to the police?
Gregory sounds to me, like a guy who doesn't like to tell lies and did
the very best he could, to avoid doing so. I think he WAS "advised" by
the FBI and they DID turn the fragments over to the "appropriate
authorities" - who just happened to be the FBI, as Bell stated.
And if you read that section in the Price report, that I quoted, you
will discover that those people didn't lie either. They NEVER said that
Bell turned the fragments over to Nolan. They ONLY said they..
"..agreed to release to Mrs. Wright the information that according to
Dr. Shires, only one bullet was involved in Governor Connally's injury
and that the fragment of this bullet which was removed by Dr. Gregory
from the wrist was in the possession of Ranger Nolan."
Read the language in that report. You don't have to be a paranoid
conspiracy buff to realize that something is waaay wrong here. Part of
that passage sounds like it was taken straight out of the bogus FBI
report of the Bell interview - right down to their false claim that she
said her envelope only contained a singular object.
Robert Harris
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-EB21...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ok. I'm sure you've given the source for him saying that, but if I've
seen it before I have forgotten it with all that other stuff going on.
> And yet, most of those people
> never came forward later to admit that they lied in order to prevent
> WW3. Why not?
>
> These people were not JFK conspiracy buffs and probably never felt
> certain that Castro wasn't behind the crime. They might have felt that
> the coast was clear after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but maybe
> they weren't too excited about admitting that they lied. And all they
> would have had to look forward to was the FBI calling them liars and
> denying everything they said about what the FBI asked them to do.
Perhaps so. But I'm still having a problem with the contemporaneous part
of it, as in what was done and said on the day itself, 11-22-63. If
Connally's claim in the autobiography is correct, and that bullet dropped
to the floor as he was being moved by, I think, three people, from his
stretcher to the "examination table" as I believe he called it (by which I
guess he meant the operating table), then the bullet would have dropped to
the floor in the presence of possibly as many as TEN other people besides
Connally. You may remember that on July 22, after I had finally gotten on
the right floor and the right room, I tracked down those people and named
them, and I do so again now:
Dr. Boland
Nurse Burkett
Dr. Duke
Dr. Giesecke
Orderly Jimison
Nurse Johnson
Nurse King
Nurse Ross
Dr. Shaw
Nurse Wester
Now, I'll freely admit that it cannot be absolutely confirmed that every
single one of these people were in the room at that exact moment, but some
of them can be. Jimison testified that he was physically helping to lift
Connally from the stretcher and put him on the table, and from a
combination of other testimonies Dr. Red Duke was also. Nurses Ross and
Wester are said by either Jimison or Standridge or both, as I recall, to
have been helping with the stretcher. Nurses Boland, Johnson, and King
are listed by the hospital records as assisting with the first operation,
so they might or might not have already been there. Dr. Giesecke is
listed on that same document as beginning the anesthesia for Connally at
1:00, so it could be likely that he was already in the room getting that
set up, since this was obviously a life-threatening emergency that needed
to be dealt with quickly, i.e., Connally could die if the operation did
not begin as soon as possible. Dr. Shaw is said by Standridge to have
come down to Trauma 2 before Connally was taken to the operating room, and
though I can't be sure, he may well have walked alongside the stretcher to
the operating room and thus also have been in there when the bullet would
have fallen to the floor.
So, as I say, while it cannot now be confirmed that ALL ten of these
people were in that operating room at that moment, clearly more than half
of them were. That's an awfully large number of people to keep 100%
silent on this issue to the present day, and although I would think some
of them have passed away by now, others haven't. Dr. James "Red" Duke
sure hasn't. He could be asked today if he remembers such an incident.
He is now 81 years old, so who knows how good his memory still is.
I don't know how familiar you are with him, but here in Texas I used to
see him on television a LOT. I can still hear him in my mind in his drawl
saying, "This is Doctor Red Duke." He always struck me as a VERY
outspoken person, and if you read about him on the Internet others have
said similar things about him. Red Duke, of all people, keeping something
of this magnitude secret to this day does not seem especially plausible.
In fact, I'm having trouble with the idea of him keeping it a secret for
even one decade.
I'm wondering if, when Connally's bombshell came out in 1993, Dr. Duke was
ever asked about this incident in an interview. I've just looked through
a lot of websites and I have not found any reference to such a thing. I
did find a Texas Monthly article from 1998 which has an interview with
several people, including Nellie and Red, but because I am not a
subscriber, I can only see the first page of the article, and that does
not contain any of the interview with Duke.
I see you have discussed him specifically on one of your webpages. There
you say this:
**********
At the request of Dr. Burkley, the President's physician, Parkland Doctor,
Kemp Clark researched and prepared a report on 11/23/1963, describing
events at the hospital related to the treatment of Connally and President
Kennedy. For many years, it was filed away as "Top Secret". In this
section, he describes what Drs. Shires and Duke, who assisted Gregory,
told him. In the first sentence of the cited segment, "he" refers to
Shires.
..........
It seems that Shires' initial statement, which was later altered, was that
officer Nolan was given a single fragment from the "thigh", since the word
was later crossed out and replaced by "wrist". But look at the oblique
description of how Dr. Clark and Dr. Duke, came to the politically correct
conclusion that Nolan was given wrist fragments,
"I called Dr. Duke, the resident who was present when I talked with Dr.
Shires. He had? heard our conversation, and had assisted Dr. Shires with
this part of the surgery. Two of us conferred, and together agreed to
release to Mrs. Wright the information that according to Dr. Shires, only
one bullet was involved in Governor Connally's injury and that the
fragment of this bullet which was removed by Dr. Gregory from the wrist
was in the possession of Ranger Nolan."
**********
So there you are including Dr. Duke specifically as being among those who
came to the "politically correct conclusion" that Nolan was given wrist
fragments, and thus he was agreeing not to mention the bullet from the
thigh. Thus it does seem as if you are claiming Dr. Duke to have known
about the bullet from the thigh and how it was obtained. Am I correct
that this is your assumption?
> Connally did finally come forward, and so did Wade. Stinson also told
> the truth, but not until he was asked about it. None of those men were
> stupid. They might not have ever publicly admitted it, but they had to
> have known the significance of that bullet.
But Dr. Red Duke, someone who strikes me as a more outspoken person than
Connally, Wade, and Stinson combined, did not come forward. And I can't
think of a single plausible reason why he wouldn't.
> If you read the citations I posted, you will realize that something was
> seriously wrong with what Bell's coworkers said and the way they said
> it. Why couldn't even one of those people, who worked with Bell every
> day, simply report what SHE said?
>
> Professionally, this was the biggest event in these people's lives. You
> can bet that they talked about it constantly, for months and years
> afterward. Do you really think that Bell never discussed any of this
> with her associates??
I would think she would have. I would also think that the very outspoken,
drawling Texan, Red Duke, would have talked about it even more. With that
said, I would like to go back to something you said above:
"They might have felt that the coast was clear after the collapse of the
Soviet Union, but maybe they weren't too excited about admitting that they
lied. And all they would have had to look forward to was the FBI calling
them liars and denying everything they said about what the FBI asked them
to do."
I do not believe for a moment that Red Duke, of all people, would be even
slightly afraid of the FBI calling him a liar. Precisely the opposite, I
would think. If he had come clean with this alternate version of how the
bullet was discovered (alternate from the official version), and ANYONE
had called him a liar, he almost certainly would have exploded into some
very colorful language. Henry Wade, by all accounts that I've read of
him, was quite spineless compared to a man like Duke, yet the possibility
of being called a liar didn't seem to deter him from telling a Dallas
newspaper in 1993 about a nurse bringing him a whole bullet. I would
think Red Duke, of all people, would be at least a hundred times more
likely to openly and LOUDLY (and I mean literally, the man had quite a
booming voice) proclaim to all and sundry that that bullet was discovered
IN the operating room, NOT on a stretcher downstairs, and he wouldn't give
a g*dd*mn (very likely one of the exact words he'd use) who believed him
and who didn't, and just bring on those feds, and they could just
[bleep-bleep-bleep] his [bleep-bleep] even if every single FBI employee
nationwide called him a liar. In fact, calling Red Duke of all people a
liar would almost certainly have made him much MORE vocal about it than he
would have been otherwise if his claim went unchallenged.
And did the FBI ever call the spineless Wade a liar after he gave that
1993 interview? Not to my knowledge.
I'm looking up some accounts which might confirm my impression of Dr.
Duke. In the 2009 book by Sorrel King, "Josie's Story," this is said on
p.224:
"A tape rolled, showing clips from a television series and news segments
that featured him. The audience burst into laughter. These clips were
bloopers from the shows. They laughed at the scene of Red being caught on
camera cussing. They continued to laugh at the footage of Red lassoing a
cow and getting dragged through manure."
That's just a little vignette, of course, but nevertheless a glimpse of a
man who seems to me to be anything but spineless is seen there. But you
have to understand that my impression of him is not merely from what I'm
now reading on the Internet about him, or from what I remember of his
television appearances. I have never lived in any other state but Texas,
and because of that I have heard many stories about him from various
people. Some of these were doubtless apocryphal, but others may have some
truth to them. He is consistently described as open and outspoken, the
farthest thing from timid, and a type of Texan man that I am very familiar
with. I myself have a little bit of that in my own personality, as can be
seen and heard in my first Youtube video on the subject of Mr. Oswald.
In that my drawl, which is not feigned (and which I suspect has been
noticed by the three posters to this group who have heard me speak on the
phone, and the two other posters who met me in person), is apparent, and I
do use a tiny bit of "colorful" language in it when addressing a certain
group of CTs, though I stop short of going beyond a PG rating. ;-) And
Red Duke is way more of a Texan good-ole-boy than I am. His type of
personality is very familiar to me; I've known many such men, and have
even worked with several at my schools.
I'd love to be there when anyone called them a liar. The results would be
quite entertaining.
Ok, now I have a question about that. You've shown me that FBI report and
I saved it on my computer. At the time you were plain that your opinion
was that it was bogus. You also said something to the effect that for it
to be true, Bell would have to be so much of a blithering idiot that she
didn't know what she was doing from one minute to the next.
But then I saw a few days ago the HSCA report that also states that Bell
gave this envelope to Nolan.
Now, I hope I'm finally "with it" on at least some of this business.
Bell is not documented for the very first time as denying parts of this
until 1997 with the ARRB, correct? That is 34 years after the
assassination. Her claims 34 years later do not necessarily indicate that
*on* *the* *day*, 11-22-63, she did not know what she was doing from one
minute to the next. Why can't it instead be that in 1997 she could not
clearly remember correctly what she was doing from one minute to the next
34 years earlier?
I am honestly trying to understand your basis for seeming to accept her
1997 statements as the gospel truth, and the FBI report dating from only
one day after the assassination as being false beyond all possible doubt.
I'm having doubts, and they're more than possible. Why is it impossible
for the FBI report to be at least *partially* correct, and Bell's
34-year-old recollections to be *partially* incorrect? If I understand
you correctly you seem to be of the opinion that there is no possibility
of that whatsoever.
If that's so, it does not seem entirely logical to me.
Jean has also shown you an article which gives vivid examples of people
being shown something they had said or written years earlier, and not
remembering it that way at all, even when it is confirmed that that was
what they originally said. Since this appears to be something that is far
from uncommon, how do we know that something similar to this isn't the
case with Bell?
Robert Harris
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hosty, in "the Men Who Killed Kennedy". I think he said something like
that in his book took, but I'm not sure.
"Based on what I know now there was a benign coverup.
They were concerned about Oswald's connections to the Soviet
Union and to Castro. They were fearful that if the public
were to find out, they might become so incensed that it
could possibly lead to an atomic war."
Your argument that there might have been a lot of people in the room is
pointless. Whatever number that was, they were undoubtedly, 100% focused
on the guy who looked like his next breath might be his last. And they
were focused toward the head of the stretcher and the bed. The odds were
that if a small, mutilated chunk of lead fell from the somewhere near the
foot of the bed, they wouldn't have seen it, and at that moment, no one
would have cared.
It was probably a bit of a fluke that the nurse spotted and picked it up
right away.
No. That is one possibility but it is also possible that he heard from
someone else, what happened and what the hospital was supposed to report.
>
> > Connally did finally come forward, and so did Wade. Stinson also told
> > the truth, but not until he was asked about it. None of those men were
> > stupid. They might not have ever publicly admitted it, but they had to
> > have known the significance of that bullet.
>
> But Dr. Red Duke, someone who strikes me as a more outspoken person than
> Connally, Wade, and Stinson combined, did not come forward. And I can't
> think of a single plausible reason why he wouldn't.
Well, we all have our shortcomings.
>
> > If you read the citations I posted, you will realize that something was
> > seriously wrong with what Bell's coworkers said and the way they said
> > it. Why couldn't even one of those people, who worked with Bell every
> > day, simply report what SHE said?
> >
> > Professionally, this was the biggest event in these people's lives. You
> > can bet that they talked about it constantly, for months and years
> > afterward. Do you really think that Bell never discussed any of this
> > with her associates??
>
> I would think she would have. I would also think that the very outspoken,
> drawling Texan, Red Duke, would have talked about it even more. With that
> said, I would like to go back to something you said above:
>
> "They might have felt that the coast was clear after the collapse of the
> Soviet Union, but maybe they weren't too excited about admitting that they
> lied. And all they would have had to look forward to was the FBI calling
> them liars and denying everything they said about what the FBI asked them
> to do."
>
> I do not believe for a moment that Red Duke, of all people, would be even
> slightly afraid of the FBI calling him a liar.
This is getting tiresome, Caeruleo. Holmes thinks up better arguments
than this. Were you getting "Duke" mixed up with John Wayne or something
like that?
Btw, do you agree with Jean, that Connally, Wade, Nolan, Stinson and
Bell all suffered delusions?
Well, that sure impresses me!
But you might want to give the reigns back to Jean. Her case is
hopeless, but a helluva lot better than this:-)
Robert Harris
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-9030...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is that so? "Pointless," is it? To establish who was in that room who
might have witnessed this? To try to provide corroboration that this
incident really did occur?
I don't think so.
> Whatever number that was, they were undoubtedly, 100% focused
> on the guy who looked like his next breath might be his last. And they
> were focused toward the head of the stretcher and the bed. The odds were
> that if a small, mutilated chunk of lead fell from the somewhere near the
> foot of the bed, they wouldn't have seen it, and at that moment, no one
> would have cared.
So that's just all there is to it, is there? Let's just go by statements
made from years later. Never mind the contemporaneous. Never mind the
likelihood, or lack of it, of only one nurse noticing that itty bitty lump
of lead, but no one else noticing. Never mind what would happen
afterward. Never mind procedure. Never mind policy.
We'll just see what kind of valid arguments I can make, because there are
several more things still being overlooked here.
So, we are expected to believe that all those people, save one nurse, were
too "busy" to notice that teensy lump of lead.
And so how did Connally notice it then? He was in terrible pain, dazed,
in and out of consciousness. Yet he said he heard it fall, and apparently
saw the nurse pick it up.
And then the strangest thing of all: she just put it in her pocket.
That's a gigantic clue that Connally made this whole thing up.
> It was probably a bit of a fluke that the nurse spotted and picked it up
> right away.
And put it in her *pocket*. And then waltzed out of the room and held it
out in her hand to Henry Wade. "What do I do with this small, mutilated
chunk of lead, Mr. Wade, sir?"
If you don't see the obvious problem here, I sure do.
> > > If you read the citations I posted, you will realize that something was
> > > seriously wrong with what Bell's coworkers said and the way they said
> > > it. Why couldn't even one of those people, who worked with Bell every
> > > day, simply report what SHE said?
> > >
> > > Professionally, this was the biggest event in these people's lives. You
> > > can bet that they talked about it constantly, for months and years
> > > afterward. Do you really think that Bell never discussed any of this
> > > with her associates??
> >
> > I would think she would have. I would also think that the very outspoken,
> > drawling Texan, Red Duke, would have talked about it even more. With that
> > said, I would like to go back to something you said above:
> >
> > "They might have felt that the coast was clear after the collapse of the
> > Soviet Union, but maybe they weren't too excited about admitting that they
> > lied. And all they would have had to look forward to was the FBI calling
> > them liars and denying everything they said about what the FBI asked them
> > to do."
> >
> > I do not believe for a moment that Red Duke, of all people, would be even
> > slightly afraid of the FBI calling him a liar.
>
> This is getting tiresome, Caeruleo.
It certainly is.
> Holmes thinks up better arguments
> than this.
Oho! Is that so, Robert? Is that meant to shame me into action, or
something? You know, I screwed up before, and I apologized for it. But I
am not screwing up *now*. I've got the right floor, the right room, and
the right people.
And I've also got the right *policies*.
Let's just see if I can now demonstrate half the intellect of our erudite
Mr. Holmes.
What do you think Parkland Hospital's policy was regarding bullets and
fragments of bullets recovered from shooting victims in criminal cases?
As you have told us, there were quite a few shooting victims per year at
Parkland, perhaps more than a thousand. When a bullet or fragment was
recovered from a shooting victim, what was typically done with it? Did
Parkland allow nurses to just put such things in their POCKETS? Evidence
that they knew would have to given to the authorities? Given in a manner
as uncontaminated as possible to ensure validity in the upcoming criminal
court cases? Was Parkland just some small-town Texas hick hospital? Was
John Wayne running this hospital? Home-on-the-Range-Parkland? "Yee-haw,
ole Snuffytoes, well we jest pulled dis yere bullit outta his laig,
yuck-yuck, yew know, cuz ole Black Bart plugged one in 'im and the doc
yere, well, now he be a-sayin' we oughtta give it to yew, Henry, watcha
say to dat?"
Hogwash.
If a bullet had dropped to the floor, whoever picked it up would have done
so with *gloves* and immediately put it on a table or stand, and it would
not have been touched again until it was put into a container of some
sort. It would certainly not have left the room until approved by a
doctor - no mere nurse would have had the authority - and handled as
carefully as possible to avoid breaking the proper chain of evidence as it
was given to the authorities. No mere nurse would dare do anything with
it without asking the doctor first. Now, one might argue, what if this
nurse was new on the job? Then that would make it even more likely that
she would hesitate to do anything at all before asking the doctor in
charge. If she was more experienced, she would have long known of the
policy. Parkland was hardly new to this, far from it. They had had many
thousands of shooting victims in the hospital for years leading up to this
day.
And this was not just any shooting victim.
This was the Governor of Texas.
Such evidence would thus be handled 100 times more carefully than usual.
But we're expected to believe that the hospital would just let a nurse
handle such evidence in such a casual manner? That heads wouldn't have
rolled over that? That she wouldn't have lost her job? Strange, they
didn't let a nurse carry around the fragment or fragments or whatever the
were in her pocket. That was in an envelope, and I would think inside the
envelope they, or it, were/was also sealed in a plastic bag.
But we're expected to believe that the whole bullet was handled quite
differently, in complete opposition to policies established for years,
perhaps decades by this time. A nurse just puts the damned thing in her
pocket, takes it out of the room without asking the doctor, approaches the
District Attorney, *still* without the authority of any doctor or any
administrator at the hospital, pulls it out of her pocket, holds out her
hand to Wade, and asks HIM what to do with it? Not one of her superiors
at the hospital? Someone who DOESN'T WORK AT THE HOSPITAL?
Oh come now.
Price would have had an apoplectic fit.
Heads would have rolled.
Shaw would have been called on the carpet and chewed out all over the
room.
What kind of hicks do you think we are here in Texas, Robert?
> Were you getting "Duke" mixed up with John Wayne or something
> like that?
No, but apparently that's who you thought was running that hospital.
> Btw, do you agree with Jean, that Connally, Wade, Nolan, Stinson and
> Bell all suffered delusions?
As that isn't quite what Jean said regarding *all* of them, the answer
goes another way.
This seems to have been Connally's last laugh from beyond the grave, a
last dig at the Warren Commission. He was never sold on the single
bullet, as you know. He supposedly wrote this, or at least this is what
you've told me, more than a decade before his death. But interestingly,
he made arrangements for it not to be published until after his death.
Then he'd be beyond having to answer questions about it, beyond criticism.
A fine joke. He wouldn't have to explain why this scenario would be at
direct odds with Parkland policy. He wouldn't have to explain why he
never told this story before.
And "story" is the operative word.
And Wade? How long had he been District Attorney by this time, in 1963?
And yet he "didn't know" yet about strict policies governing transmission
of crucial evidence, such as bullets recovered from shooting victims in
criminal cases? Hell, if this had really happened, and a nurse had just
walked up to him and held out her hand with a bullet in it, no container,
no envelope, he'd have an apoplectic fit too.
Looks like Wade was in on the joke too. Weren't he and Connally good
buds? Or do you think it's merely a "coincidence" that Wade made this
claim for the first time in the very month that Connally's autobiography
was published? What would Wade have cared by this time? How old was he
in November, 1993? The days when he'd have to worry about keeping his job
as District Attorney were long gone. He had been retired for how many
years?
Ah, but Stinson now, you say, his statement was made quite a few years
earlier, quite a few indeed. This can't possibly explain what he said.
And you'd be right. Because now we have the actual "delusion."
And it was merely an honest mistake.
Tomlinson said he took the stretcher off the elevator at about 1:00, put
it up against the wall next to the other stretcher, then "Went to pick up
the technician from the second floor to bring him down to the ground floor
to get blood," and then that it was after this that a man had pushed one
of the stretchers out of the way to get into the restroom, didn't push it
back against the wall when he left, so Tomlinson pushed it back against
the wall and a bullet rolled out from under the mat, and this almost
certainly happened well before 1:30.
And word of it spread like wildfire all over the hospital.
Or will you make the astonishing claim that it didn't? Here's Tomlinson
finding a whole bullet sometime between 1:00 and 1:30 (and most likely no
later than 1:15) which seems to be directly connected with the most
shocking murder case in all of United States history, and also to the
near-fatal wounding of the Governor of Texas. And the word of this
"isn't" going to get around the hospital quickly? Of course it is. And
who's almost certainly going to hear about it before an hour has passed?
Stinson?
And what time is given on the envelope shown in CE 842 containing the
"Bullet Fragments"? It's on the top right: "1600 hrs." That's 4:00 p.m.
Almost three hours after Tomlinson found his whole bullet. Who thinks
Stinson, of all people, "didn't know yet" by 4:00 that Tomlinson had found
a bullet on a "gurney" almost three hours earlier?
Of *course* he did.
It is not even slightly implausible, not even slightly, that he merely got
confused and thought the envelope contained the bullet Tomlinson found,
instead of what came out of Connally's wrist. Did the interview
specifically say that Stinson looked at the envelope? I do not recall
that it did.
But what about Nolan? He told you several decades later that he recalled
the nurse saying that the envelope contained the whole bullet from
Connally's thigh. How well-known was Tomlinson's bullet by that time?
Or the bullet *purported* to be Tomlinson's bullet, if you prefer? The
famous (or infamous) CE 399? The most famous bullet in the entire history
of firearms worldwide? Or is there some other bullet that qualifies for
this dubious honor? I can't think of one, can you?
By the time you interviewed Nolan, everybody and their dog's mother had
heard about the "magic bullet" connected with the JFK assassination. You
can stop people at random on the street and probably most of them will
recognize that term and connect it with the assassination, whether or not
they know the specific details, and this will include people who were born
more than a generation after the assassination. Then try asking them if
they knew that a fragment or fragments was/were recovered from Connally's
wrist. Betcha at least nine out of ten of them will say they didn't know
that.
Nolan, like practically all other Americans, would have been hearing
stories about the "magic bullet" that supposedly fell out of Connally's
thigh for decades. Is it possible Robert, just barely possible, just
slightly possible that all those years later his memory was simply in
error and he thought the nurse had said "thigh" when she hadn't? That due
to hearing so many stories about that bullet that he by that time had the
mistaken recollection that it was that bullet that he had been given?
And he didn't seem too sure about that anyway, because in his interview
with you these were his exact words:
"And I don?t know if it was a fragment of a bullet or a whole bullet,
because it was in a little small brown envelope. And it was sealed, and
it was about, I?d say uh 2 by 3 inches. And it was in that envelope when
I got it and I never did look at it or anything."
He doesn't seem to me to be too firm on his recollection that he had been
told "bullet," period, and "thigh." And wasn't the "magic bullet" already
the most famous bullet in history by the time of the HSCA in the late
'70s? Of course it was. And even the HSCA thought Nolan had accidentally
confused that with the "fragment." How is it impossible that Nolan wasn't
simply repeating his confusion to you several decades later?
But what about that lying, conniving FBI? In a *contemporaneous* report
dated only the day after the assassination, it is specifically said that
Bell was told to give the "fragment," singular, to a man named Bobby
Nolan. Is this contemporaneous corroboration that she did give it to him,
or is it a lie? But what about that HSCA document that says that Dr.
Gregory himself, the very doctor who removed the "fragment," confirmed
that to his knowledge also, Bell had given it to Nolan? Is this a lie
too?
So Audrey Bell 34 years later didn't remember things quite this way? Big
whoopie. Errors in memory after such a long time are a common, everyday
occurrence.
But what about that damned envelope saying "fragments," plural? The
11-23-63 FBI report says "fragment," singular. So does the later HSCA
report on Gregory and Nolan. Did the same person who typed the word
"fragment" on the FBI report also write the word "fragments" on the
envelope? I doubt it.
Sorry, but I'm with Jean on this one. It is also a common, everyday
occurrence for people to accidentally write the plural form of a noun,
instead of the singular, and vice-versa. In this case it is a difference
of one letter. The person who wrote "fragments" on the envelope made an
honest, unintentional mistake, that's all. Or that is a perfectly
plausible explanation anyway.
But oh no, all this just isn't good enough. There's still that lying,
conniving FBI to deal with. When they got the bullet Tomlinson found and
tested it, they found out that - oops! - it didn't ballistically match the
Carcano. So let's just toss that bullet in the trash. We know what to
do. We've got the Carcano from Dallas for several days. Let's just load
another bullet in there, fire it into something, and present it as the
bullet Mr. Tomlinson found. Yeah, that's the ticket.
So what do they do, Robert? They fire the bullet into something which,
according to many ever since, barely deforms the bullet at all. It's
"nearly pristine." And they're going to pass this off as a bullet that
smashed through both men.
Not only are these FBI people lying and conniving, they're incredibly
*ST00PID* as well. This, this is what they're going to pass off as the
single bullet? The bullet that inflicted all those wounds in two men?
They wouldn't have thought to themselves, gee, this bullet doesn't look
deformed enough, we'd better produce one that looks a lot more mangled, or
lots of people will think it can't possibly be the one that did what we're
going to claim it did?
Which was indeed exactly what has happened with CE 399. How many
thousands upon thousands of people by now have claimed that that bullet
just doesn't look nearly deformed enough to have really done what the
original investigation claimed it did? You yourself have been one of
them.
I think this is something you, and thousands of others, have overlooked.
The condition of CE 399 is the most powerful evidence of all that it
really was fired by the shooter that day and passed through both men.
Simply by that one in a million chance, which is nearly impossible to
duplicate, through a combination of trajectory and tumbling, the bullet
happened to emerge somewhat flattened, but otherwise not particularly
deformed. Anyone substituting a bullet would have made the "wrong" bullet
look much more convincing, and that addresses *any* scenario of
substitution, including the common one of Jack Ruby planting it on the
stretcher. The fact that CE 399 doesn't look at all convincing to many is
powerful evidence that it's genuine. By pure chance it emerged with a
good deal less deformity than many would have expected.
But oh no, this still isn't good enough. Because that lying, conniving
FBI talked to those 10 people who were in the room when that bullet fell
to the floor. They were reminded of their patriotic duty. Don't talk
about that. Tomlinson found another bullet. You'll start World War III
if you talk about that, because you'll be talking about multiple shooters.
Do you want millions of adults and children, including *your* children, to
die in a nuclear holocaust?
But there are some insurmountable problems with this scenario. First of
all, how long would it take the FBI to discover that not only had
Tomlinson found a bullet on a stretcher, but that another bullet had
dropped to the floor from Connally's thigh in the operating room? And how
long would it take them to realize that this was "one bullet too many"?
I do not recall any contemporaneous claims that there were all that many
FBI agents who had arrived at Parkland during the afternoon of the
assassination. And remember that it was at first thought that the
stretcher bullet might have come from Kennedy instead. Meanwhile, word of
Tomlinson's bullet spreads through the hospital like wildfire. Probably
by the end of the afternoon most of the employees of the hospital know
about it.
But word of the other bullet that fell from Connally's thigh in the
operating room doesn't also spread through the hospital like wildfire,
long before the FBI realizes that it's one bullet too many?
And when would the FBI have had this little talk with these 10 people
anyway? That day? The next day?
Yesterday I looked through the testimonies and statements of 29 Parkland
personnel for specific mentions of when anyone from the FBI talked to them
for the first time. Do you know what I found, Robert? Quite a few of
them didn't mention the FBI at all. But there were also quite a few who
did.
And every single one of them said that the first time anyone from the FBI
talked to them was several days later. Not one of them said it was as
early as that day or the next day. Not one. Were at least some of them
covering up a much earlier contact with the FBI, perhaps on the day of the
assassination, in which they were told to please not start World War III?
This is extremely problematic. The idea of CE 399 having passed through
both men had not yet arisen until at the very earliest, the day after the
assassination, and the day after the autopsy. All anyone knew on the day
was that a bullet had barely lodged itself in Connally's thigh, but was no
longer there when he was operated on. Many suspected that the bullet on
the stretcher had fallen out of Kennedy's body instead, and only later did
some people start to say that, no, that couldn't have been Kennedy's
stretcher, but it might have been Connally's. Under this scenario, I
cannot see how anyone at the FBI would snap to the notion that there was
one bullet too many until the following day at the earliest. Plenty of
time for word of both bullets to spread around the hospital like wildfire.
Plenty of time for hospital personnel to tell members of the media about
the Tomlinson bullet, and the "nurse" bullet, before anyone could have
thought of the idea that this might be "too many" bullets.
Why did Nurse Burkett, or Nurse Johnson, or Nurse King, or Nurse Ross, or
Nurse Wester ever come forward and say that she had picked up a bullet off
the floor that had fallen from Connally's gurney as he was being lifted
from it and placed on the operating table, and put it in her pocket? Why
did none of them ever admit that they were the nurse who had then waltzed
out of the operating room without asking permission from her superiors,
and wandered up to Henry Wade and held out the bullet in her hand,
violating by many orders of magnitude the established procedures for
handling evidence retrieved from a shooting victim in a criminal case, and
not just from any shooting victim this time, but from the Governor of
Texas himself? Why did none of them ever come forward to admit that Wade
then had an apoplectic fit when he saw what was in her hand, and instead
meekly told her to give it to the authorities, but not to put it in a
container?
Because it never happened.
Why did Orderly Jimison never mention that a bullet dropped to the floor
with a *ting* while he himself was helping to lift Connally off the
stretcher and put him on the operating table?
Because it never happened.
Why did Dr. Boland, Dr. Giesecke, or Dr. Shaw never mention this either?
Because it never happened.
Why did Dr. Red Duke, the most outspoken Texas doctor I've ever heard of
in my entire lifetime, never come forward and say, "To hell with the FBI,
there sure as hell was a goddamn bullet that fell on the floor when I was
in there, and I'd just like one of those feds to come down here and tell
me to my face that I'm a liar"?
Because it never happened.
Why did word of the Tomlinson bullet spread around the hospital like
wildfire, so that long before midnight lots of people, including the
press, knew about it, but no word spread around the hospital at all about
this second bullet that fell out of Connally's thigh in the operating
room?
Because that's not when the bullet fell out of his thigh.
I have screwed up before on all this, multiple times, and I always
admitted it and apologized for it the next day.
I'm definitely not screwing up today though. Not even close.
Weeks ago, even before I screwed up and went to the wrong damn room in
that hospital, I told you that a severe flaw in this scenario was the lack
of contemporaneous corroboration, or corroboration from any year, of a
single person who was in that room when Connally claimed this bullet
dropped to the floor. I seem to recall you saying something to the effect
that that was silly, that such corroboration was not necessarily to
support the veracity of this scenario. I recall that I strongly
disagreed, and this was *before* I began to track down the names of the
people in the wrong room AND the right room. I said it was absolutely
essential to know exactly who was in the room, whichever room it was, and
I was correct. And I have found that this scenario has collapsed of its
own accord under close examination.
Not only are we lacking this essential corroboration, but this scenario
also requires that the fragment from the wrist be handled with proper
procedure by putting it in a container before delivering it to the
authorities, but having precisely the opposite happen with the bullet from
his thigh.
I don't buy it.
And I will not take seriously any accusation that I have been especially
biased in investigating this. Everyone is biased to some extent - there
is no such thing as a 100% objective human - but I have indeed tried my
hardest to examine all possibilities with as open a mind as I can manage.
I am sorry, because I know that you have worked for years on this, and my
respect for you has not diminished, but as of today I do not find this
scenario of two separate bullets to be plausible. And I will never agree
if anyone says that I have wandered off onto any irrelevant tangent, or
that I have not given plenty of logical, plausible, rational, and sensible
reasons for my conclusions on this.
Far be it from me to place myself as anything close to an equal to Jean.
I am nothing of the sort, but instead a far inferior researcher. I may
well even be far inferior to you, at least in general. But once in a
while I might, perhaps, rise to the occasion. As for her case, or mine,
being "hopeless," that is merely your opinion. It does not seem to be her
opinion, or mine. And I'm sorry, but you seem to think it irrelevant to
explore the character of Dr. Red, one of the very people who was helping
to put Connally on the operating table when the latter claimed a bullet
fell to the floor, Dr. Red, the most likely of all those ten people to
come forward and say it happened, if it really happened.
I do not think it to be even slightly irrelevant, and I will never agree
with anyone who says it is. This is not due to irrational stubbornness or
bias on my part. It is instead due to objective common sense.
Robert Harris
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That sentence would be correct if you remove the word "so".
To establish your theory that John Connally deliberately lied, you need to
demonstrate that others who were in the room should have seen the bullet,
and that if they did, they would have reported it.
You have established neither point, and so far, haven't even tried.
>
> > Whatever number that was, they were undoubtedly, 100% focused
> > on the guy who looked like his next breath might be his last. And they
> > were focused toward the head of the stretcher and the bed. The odds were
> > that if a small, mutilated chunk of lead fell from the somewhere near the
> > foot of the bed, they wouldn't have seen it, and at that moment, no one
> > would have cared.
>
> So that's just all there is to it, is there? Let's just go by statements
> made from years later.
Yes. And we should also go with Stinson's 1967 statement, describing a
bullet from Connally's thigh and officer Nolan's FBI interview, which
described an object from Connally's thigh, as well as the Price report in
which the word "thigh" was crossed out and replaced by "wrist".
We should also consider the DPD report from 11/23/63, which also confirms
that Nolan's envelope only contained one object, as well as the Price
report and the FBI's report of their phony interview of Bell.
The fact that Nolan, Wade, Connally, Stinson and Bell, all likewise
support these obvious facts, is exactly what we should expect, given the
other evidence.
> Never mind the contemporaneous.
You have no evidence, contemporaneous or otherwise to support your
accusation that Connally and presumably, the others, lied.
Nor do you have a shred of evidence that supports the legitimacy of
CE399.
Don't you think it would be a good idea to have a verifiable argument of
some kind before claiming that I am ignoring it?
> Never mind the
> likelihood, or lack of it, of only one nurse noticing that itty bitty lump
> of lead, but no one else noticing.
LOL!! But your own CE399 "theory" has NO ONE noticing a whole, intact
bullet!!
You seem to want us to believe that it was impossible for a bullet to fall
to the floor that went unnoticed by others in the room, who were busy
getting a man with his chest blown open, safely onto his bed.
You need to consider that even if someone else noticed the nurse pick
something up, he or she, probably wouldn't have cared, and would have
assumed that the nurse would take care of it.
> Never mind what would happen
> afterward. Never mind procedure. Never mind policy.
>
> We'll just see what kind of valid arguments I can make,
I'm waiting with bated breath:-)
> because there are
> several more things still being overlooked here.
>
> So, we are expected to believe that all those people, save one nurse, were
> too "busy" to notice that teensy lump of lead.
Yes, we are indeed, expected to believe that this emergency room team
was too busy trying to keep their patient alive, to be monitoring what
fell to the floor.
And why do you keep calling this bullet, "teensy"?? When did you confirm
its dimensions?
>
> And so how did Connally notice it then?
Hmm.. tough one, but I'll just take a wild guess. He saw it.
> He was in terrible pain, dazed,
> in and out of consciousness. Yet he said he heard it fall, and apparently
> saw the nurse pick it up.
I'm a bit baffled here. He was obviously conscious then. And I don't
believe his vision or hearing was impaired. Why exactly, do you think he
was incapable of seeing and hearing?
>
> And then the strangest thing of all: she just put it in her pocket.
And why in holy hell, was that "strange"??
Did you expect her to leave her patient and go off to fill out the
paperwork?
>
> That's a gigantic clue that Connally made this whole thing up.
I'm sure I've heard crazier arguments than this, but not in the last
decade or two. You think that it is so unlikely that she would put the
bullet in her pocket, that this proves that Connally was a liar????
What the hell was she supposed to do with it, that would not require her
to leave her patient??
>
> > It was probably a bit of a fluke that the nurse spotted and picked it up
> > right away.
>
> And put it in her *pocket*.
YES - of course she put it in her fucking pocket!!! Why wouldn't she?
> And then waltzed out of the room and held it
> out in her hand to Henry Wade.
No, she undoubtedly, waltzed into the operating room and assisted the
doctors.
> "What do I do with this small, mutilated
> chunk of lead, Mr. Wade, sir?"
>
> If you don't see the obvious problem here, I sure do.
No, I think I see the obvious problem, very clearly:-) I would elaborate
on it if this were not a moderated newsgroup.
As for Wade, there was no mention of her asking him what to do with the
bullet. He told her to give it to the police, undoubtedly, because he
wanted to expedite the investigation of the biggest crime he had ever
dealt with.
So, Wade is a liar too? Ok, I'm looking forward to see how many other
liars were involved here.
>
> > > > If you read the citations I posted, you will realize that something was
> > > > seriously wrong with what Bell's coworkers said and the way they said
> > > > it. Why couldn't even one of those people, who worked with Bell every
> > > > day, simply report what SHE said?
I'm sure it was an honest oversight. But you need to address that
question.
Why did NO ONE claim specifically, that Bell gave her envelope to Bell?
And why did no one, even months later, claim that Bell said she gave her
envelope to a police officer??
> > > >
> > > > Professionally, this was the biggest event in these people's lives. You
> > > > can bet that they talked about it constantly, for months and years
> > > > afterward. Do you really think that Bell never discussed any of this
> > > > with her associates??
> > >
> > > I would think she would have. I would also think that the very
> > > outspoken,
> > > drawling Texan, Red Duke, would have talked about it even more. With
> > > that
> > > said, I would like to go back to something you said above:
> > >
> > > "They might have felt that the coast was clear after the collapse of the
> > > Soviet Union, but maybe they weren't too excited about admitting that
> > > they
> > > lied. And all they would have had to look forward to was the FBI calling
> > > them liars and denying everything they said about what the FBI asked them
> > > to do."
> > >
> > > I do not believe for a moment that Red Duke, of all people, would be even
> > > slightly afraid of the FBI calling him a liar.
> >
> > This is getting tiresome, Caeruleo.
>
> It certainly is.
>
> > Holmes thinks up better arguments
> > than this.
>
> Oho! Is that so, Robert? Is that meant to shame me into action, or
> something?
No, it was meant to point out what a ludicrous argument it is for you to
predict what someone you have never meant, would do, under circumstance
you can only guess at.
If this man promised the FBI that he would withhold information about the
bullet that was recovered that day, based on the FBI telling him that
Castro was behind the assassination, I think he would honor his
commitment.
Most people are not students of this case. And if they were told by the
FBI that Cuba was behind it, then I would expect them to believe it. There
are people today, who believe that, even without a confirmation by the
FBI.
> You know, I screwed up before, and I apologized for it. But I
> am not screwing up *now*. I've got the right floor, the right room, and
> the right people.
But Caeruleo your arguments are terrible. All they prove is how
desperate you are.
>
> And I've also got the right *policies*.
>
> Let's just see if I can now demonstrate half the intellect of our erudite
> Mr. Holmes.
I think you've already achieved that goal:-)
>
> What do you think Parkland Hospital's policy was regarding bullets and
> fragments of bullets recovered from shooting victims in criminal cases?
> As you have told us, there were quite a few shooting victims per year at
> Parkland, perhaps more than a thousand. When a bullet or fragment was
> recovered from a shooting victim, what was typically done with it? Did
> Parkland allow nurses to just put such things in their POCKETS?
Yes, I think that is EXACTLY what they were expected to do, when they
were in the process of treating a patient. I think that if they did
anything other than continue to do their job, they would have lost their
job and license - and rightly so.
The patient has to come first. The bullets could be processed later.
> Evidence
> that they knew would have to given to the authorities? Given in a manner
> as uncontaminated as possible to ensure validity in the upcoming criminal
> court cases? Was Parkland just some small-town Texas hick hospital? Was
> John Wayne running this hospital? Home-on-the-Range-Parkland? "Yee-haw,
> ole Snuffytoes, well we jest pulled dis yere bullit outta his laig,
> yuck-yuck, yew know, cuz ole Black Bart plugged one in 'im and the doc
> yere, well, now he be a-sayin' we oughtta give it to yew, Henry, watcha
> say to dat?"
>
> Hogwash.
That nurse had to have been wearing sterile scrubs and plastic gloves, in
order to have been anywhere near Connally. What exactly, do you think she
did wrong?
OTOH, she WAS wrong in giving that bullet to Nolan, instead of the FBI.
She didn't even process a receipt, as Nolan confirmed when I asked him
about that. But that is just one more confirmation that it was NOT Audrey
Bell, a seasoned emergency room supervisor, who gave him that envelope.
Nolan also said that she was fairly young and attractive. Bell got her RN
license in 1946 and was undoubtedly, over 40.
This young nurse also failed to give Nolan instructions about what to do
with the bullet. Remember that FBI report on Nolan.
"Bobby M. Nolan, Texas highway patrolman, Tyler district, was interviewed
relative to a bullet fragment removed from the left thigh of Governor
Connally, which was turned over to him at Parkland Hospital in Dallas for
delivery to the FBI.
Nolan stated his instructions were apparently not clear at the outset and
that following contact with his superior officers while at the Dallas
Police Department, he turned the bullet fragment over to Captain Will
Fritz [Dallas Police Department.] at approximately 7:50 p.m."
Notice that the report basically, complains that Nolan was supposed to
give the bullet to the FBI, instead of the DPD. But Nolan told them that
his instructions were not clear.
IF BELL HAD BEEN THAT NURSE, SHE WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE ENVELOPE TO THE FBI
- NOT TO A HIGHWAY PATROLMAN.
Or at the very least, she would have told Nolan to pass it on to the FBI.
But this obviously, inexperienced nurse did neither.
Bell, OTOH, did exactly what she was supposed to do. She gave her envelope
to the FBi and then had him sign a receipt, which she promptly delivered
to administrator Price.
There were TWO different nurses and TWO different envelopes.
>
> If a bullet had dropped to the floor, whoever picked it up would have done
> so with *gloves* and immediately put it on a table or stand,
WOW!!
Are you going to tell us next, when the world is going to end??
I just phoned Kreskin and he disagrees. He says that bullet was much too
important to just toss it onto a table, and that this nurse was
responsible enough to hang onto it.
> and it would
> not have been touched again until it was put into a container of some
> sort.
It may be that she intended to turn it over to Bell, as she should have
done, but that Wade, who was after all, involved in a fairly important
criminal investigation, wanted her to get it to the police ASAP.
>It would certainly not have left the room until approved by a
> doctor -
Bullshit!!
It is not possible to conduct a rational debate with someone who totally
relies on guesswork, and of course, always guesses that things go his
way.
Show me the documentation which proves that nurses could not process
forensic evidence without the approval of an MD. After you either do that
or admit to the excremental nature of your assertion, we can continue this
discussion.
Robert Harris
Caeruleo
news-server, but does not show up here in aaj on the Marquette server.
Thus I am having to copy and paste it here in order to reply to it.
In article
<bobharris77-F0D2...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <caeruleo-ECFEE2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> That sentence would be correct if you remove the word "so".
Well, that was certainly uncalled-for. I have not insulted you in such
a manner. And I doubt that quite all the readers of these two
newsgroups share your opinion.
Let's just see how well I think.
This scenario depends on an implausible assumption of complete veracity
to a bombshell claim which this man obviously intended not to be
published until after his death, when always before, when he was alive,
from his first interview in the hospital onward, he had been
tremendously forthcoming about everything connected with the shooting
that he could recall, including his continuous expressions of disbelief
in the SBT.
This scenario depends on an implausible premise that there is no
significance to Henry Wade making a "corroborating" claim for the first
time in his life in the same month in which Connally's autobiography
containing the earliest known mention of this bombshell was posthumously
published.
This scenario depends on the implausible premise that it is unnecessary
to identify this nurse in order to support the veracity of this
bombshell claim.
This scenario depends on the implausible premise that no one else in the
room noticed this bullet falling to the floor except the nurse and
Connally, even though Connally was distracted by tremendous pain and no
one else in the room was.
This scenario depends on the implausible premise that a nurse would be
allowed to put a bullet in her pocket, when nothing even remotely like
that was done with the fragment or fragments from Connally's wrist,
which were obviously put into a container before they were taken from
the operating room.
This scenario depends on the implausible premise that a nurse would be
allowed to take crucial evidence directly related to a shooting
connected to what would obviously be expected to be a criminal case, and
when moreover this shooting victim was the Governor of Texas himself,
out of the operating room in her pocket, and then show it in the palm of
her hand to Henry Wade, instead of it being put in a container first, as
would have obviously already been the policy of Parkland in such cases,
policy that was followed with the fragment(s) but supposedly not with
this whole bullet.
This scenario depends on the implausible premise that word of this
bullet would not spread around the hospital like wildfire, and thus also
become known to the press, long before midnight, even though that very
thing happened with the Tomlinson bullet, because this would mean that
the nurse AND Wade AND whoever she gave the bullet to remained entirely
silent about it.
This scenario depends on the implausible premise that the FBI talked to
the 10 people who were in that room and told them to remain silent about
it for fear of possibly starting World War III, when the FBI could not
possibly have had any idea until the following day at the earliest that
there was "one bullet too many" for Oswald to have done the shooting,
and maybe not even then, because this would still mean only two whole
bullets at the most had been recovered, which would still be less than
three, and certainly not more than three. I do not see how such a thing
would have occurred to the FBI soon enough to have prevented some of
these people from blabbing to others in the hospital, and blabbing to
the press, before midnight. Additionally, MORE than 10 OTHER people at
Parkland were allowed to sing like birds about a hole or opening in the
right rear of Kennedy's head, suggesting an exit for a frontal shot (and
some of them were even specifically calling it an exit), and were still
allowed to talk about that hole several months later to the WC, yet no
one seems to have told THEM that they might start World War III.
This scenario depends on the implausible premise that Dr. James "Red"
Duke, of all people, would ever agree to keep silent about this
incident, or that he would agree for more than a few years at the most.
This scenario depends on the implausible premise that a contemporaneous
FBI document just *has* to be a "lie," and that Bobby Nolan just *has*
to be completely reliable in his latter-day recollection to the HSCA,
and much later recollection to you, that the nurse had said "thigh."
This scenario depends on the implausible premise that there is no
possible way Stinson could have been mistaken, even though IIRC there is
no mention in that newspaper interview of whether or not he ever saw the
envelope or read any of the words on it.
This scenario depends on the implausible premise that even though Nellie
Connally lived for more than a dozen years after the bombshell in the
autobiography had been published, it is of no importance that she never
corroborated this claim of her husband's, not even in her OWN 2003 book,
"From Love Field," also co-authored with Mickey Herskowitz.
> To establish your theory that John Connally deliberately lied, you need to
> demonstrate that others who were in the room should have seen the bullet,
> and that if they did, they would have reported it.
>
> You have established neither point, and so far, haven't even tried.
You appear to have read less than half the sentences in my last two
replies then.
I have already said that it is quite unlikely that only Connally and the
nurse would notice the bullet, given that Connally was in great pain and
in and out of consciousness, and also quite unlikely, in fact virtually
impossible, that a mere nurse would dare to take that bullet out the
operating room without consulting her superiors first, and that it would
certainly not have been hospital policy to allow such a thing. I have
also noted that for this scenario to be true, this bullet would have to
be handled very differently from the fragment(s) from his wrist, which
were put into a container and into an envelope, quite obviously with
full knowledge of Dr. Gregory, but apparently we're expected to believe
that this nurse took the whole bullet out of the room without telling
anyone else in the room. I have indeed established quite solidly how
implausible this is. You have made an obviously false statement about
me, and thus it is now you committing a blunder, not me.
And excuse me, but how have YOU "tried" to establish that others in the
room WOULDN'T have noticed the bullet dropping to the floor and the
nurse picking it up and putting it in her pocket? The only thing I can
recall you saying as of yesterday is that they were too busy with
Connally or some such thing, but unless I missed it or I'm forgetting, I
do not recall you addressing the fact that no one else in the room but
Connally was distracted by being in great pain. I also had not, as of
yesterday, seen you address the obvious fallacy that it would have been
a tremendous violation of procedure for a nurse not to get permission
from one of the doctors before taking the bullet out of the operating
room. Thus, even if the doctor did not actually see or hear the bullet
fall and see her pick it up, he would have been told about it by her
before the bullet was taken out of the room. I had also not recalled,
as of yesterday, you ever addressing how very different this would have
been from the handling of the fragment(s) from Connally's wrist.
And how have YOU "tried" to establish that if others in the room DID
know about the bullet, that they WOULDN'T have reported it? The only
argument I can recall you making as of yesterday was that the FBI talked
to them and asked them not to mention this bullet, because it would
suggest multiple shooters, suggest a conspiracy, and possibly start
World War III, since it might cause too many Americans to believe that a
foreign government was behind the assassination. But I do NOT recall
you addressing in conjunction with that, at least as of yesterday, that
the only way the FBI would be able to head off them talking about it to
others would be that the FBI would have to have this talk with them VERY
QUICKLY, long before the day of the assassination was over, because to
wait any longer gives them too much time to blurt it out to others at
the hospital and to the press. I also do not recall you explaining how
the FBI could have come to the conclusion this quickly that this bullet
in the operating room would be one bullet too many to be fired by
Oswald. It took a while to establish that the Tomlinson bullet didn't
come from Kennedy's stretcher, for one thing. You also didn't explain
how two whole bullets would be one bullet too many, since Oswald was
alleged to fire THREE shots, not two, and only FOUR recovered bullets
would turn out to be one bullet too many. You also didn't explain how
the FBI could come to such a conclusion so quickly when the idea of
Connally and Kennedy being hit by the same bullet did not arise for the
first time until quite a bit later. In fact, when is the earliest known
documentation of the earliest suspicion that they were hit by the same
bullet? A week later? A month later? Longer? It's always been my
understanding that Arlen Specter is the first known person to have
suggested this possibility. I also do not recall you ever giving a
shred of credible evidence that the FBI talked to ANY of these Parkland
personnel about ANY SUBJECT on the day of the assassination, or the day
after that, or the day after that. As I noted yesterday, I looked at
the contemporaneous statements (and also a few latter-day statements) of
29 of the Parkland personnel, and not one of them said that anyone from
the FBI talked to them for the first time until SEVERAL DAYS AFTER the
assassination.
Don't tell me I haven't addressed all this in substantive detail. I
most certainly HAVE.
Because of your below the belt suggestion that I don't think, period,
even though I have said nothing even remotely that rude to you, not even
remotely, my reply will stop here. And it quite obviously has nothing
whatsoever to do with any imaginary "inability" to address these points
in extensive detail, since I have already proven beyond all possible
doubt that I am quite able to do that very thing.
Robert Harris
Instead of snipping and evading all of my arguments and questions, why
don't you address them? It gets a bit tiresome having to refute the same
things all over again.
After you do that, I will respond to any remaining issues you have raised.
Robert Harris
In article <caeruleo-BCDBF4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Caeruleo
<bobharris77-18F0...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Instead of snipping and evading all of my arguments and questions, why
> don't you address them?
Excuse me???
I have addressed ALL or at the very least the MAJORITY of every one of
the primary arguments I have seen you raise about this scenario.
You claim I evaded "all" (your exact words) of your arguments, meaning
that I've never once addressed even one of them, ever. Bullshit. Let's
see if that's really true.
One of your primary arguments from the beginning was that Connally,
Wade, and Nolan all "corroborated" each other on a nurse having taken
possession of the bullet from Connally's thigh. You are claiming I
didn't address that very thing in substantive detail in multiple
articles??? You MUST be joking. I cannot imagine any reasonable person
coming to that conclusion unless they had read less than ten percent of
the sentences I wrote. You "don't remember" that I have gone to
considerable time, trouble, and space to track down who else besides
Connally would have been a witness to this
bullet-falling-to-the-floor-in-the-operating-room incident, both in the
wrong room and the right room? How on EARTH does that qualify as
"evading" one of the most primary points you've made about this entire
scenario? I did exactly the OPPOSITE of evading it. What an utterly
ridiculous claim for you to make. I've just lost a great deal of
respect for you for that unfounded claim alone, and I'm extremely
disappointed that you would say that to me of all people.
And you "don't remember" that I've DIRECTLY addressed your claim, made
several days ago, regarding your speculation that the FBI told those
people who had been in the operating room to keep quiet about that
bullet, unless they wanted to give the public evidence of multiple
shooters and thus possibly start World War III? I addressed that very
thing in SUBSTANTIVE DETAIL. You "don't recall" that in my very article
to which you replied here, I said this?
"This scenario depends on the implausible premise that the FBI talked to
the 10 people who were in that room and told them to remain silent about
it for fear of possibly starting World War III, when the FBI could not
possibly have had any idea until the following day at the earliest that
there was "one bullet too many" for Oswald to have done the shooting,
and maybe not even then, because this would still mean only two whole
bullets at the most had been recovered, which would still be less than
three, and certainly not more than three. I do not see how such a thing
would have occurred to the FBI soon enough to have prevented some of
these people from blabbing to others in the hospital, and blabbing to
the press, before midnight. Additionally, MORE than 10 OTHER people at
Parkland were allowed to sing like birds about a hole or opening in the
right rear of Kennedy's head, suggesting an exit for a frontal shot (and
some of them were even specifically calling it an exit), and were still
allowed to talk about that hole several months later to the WC, yet no
one seems to have told THEM that they might start World War III."
Good grief, that's a VERY LENGTHY PARAGRAPH WHICH ADDRESSED YOUR CLAIM
HEAD-ON, UNFLINCHINGLY, IN SUBSTANTIAL AND LOGICAL DETAIL.
That's already TWO of your PRIMARY points that I addressed. Yet you say
I addressed none of them, not one.
Oh, did I address any OTHER of your PRIMARY points? I sure as hell did.
You also said that perhaps none of the other people in the room even
noticed the bullet besides the nurse, to which I already replied:
"This scenario depends on the implausible premise that a nurse would be
allowed to put a bullet in her pocket, when nothing even remotely like
that was done with the fragment or fragments from Connally's wrist,
which were obviously put into a container before they were taken from
the operating room. This scenario depends on the implausible premise
that a nurse would be allowed to take crucial evidence directly related
to a shooting connected to what would obviously be expected to be a
criminal case, and when moreover this shooting victim was the Governor
of Texas himself, out of the operating room in her pocket, and then show
it in the palm of her hand to Henry Wade, instead of it being put in a
container first, as would have obviously already been the policy of
Parkland in such cases, policy that was followed with the fragment(s)
but supposedly not with this whole bullet. This scenario depends on the
implausible premise that word of this bullet would not spread around the
hospital like wildfire, and thus also become known to the press, long
before midnight, even though that very thing happened with the Tomlinson
bullet, because this would mean that the nurse AND Wade AND whoever she
gave the bullet to remained entirely silent about it."
Are you claiming you "didn't see" all that, when it was all present in
the VERY ARTICLE OF MINE THAT YOU REPLIED TO HERE???
Are you making the astonishing claim that that very text does not
address anything you've ever said?
I'll bet even the majority of your own fellow CTs would not agree with
you on this. I *might* believe otherwise when I see at least three
regular CT posters reply in this thread agreeing that I never once
addressed a single point you ever made regarding this scenario. And
some of the ones from the nuthouse don't count, as you seem to already
agree.
But worst of all, Robert, worst of all:
On at least, at least THREE occasions when I messed up badly with you, I
admitted it and apologized for it THE VERY NEXT DAY, and at least once
did so BEFORE my error was pointed out to me by anyone else.
I see now how very differently you treat me than the way I have
CONSISTENTLY treated you. Your reply here contains no hint of an
apology for your extremely offensive "I don't think" insult; in fact,
you do not make any mention of that at all, nor to my objection
regarding it. I've never been nearly that overtly rude to you in any of
the articles I've posted since my return to these newsgroups in June.
I admitted my mistakes repeatedly, and UNHESITATINGLY apologized for
them.
In stark contrast, you do not treat me in even a remotely similar way to
the way I've been treating you for more than two months.
So be it.
Ben Holmes
says...
A provable lie on your part.
As I cited...
>In stark contrast, you do not treat me in even a remotely similar way to
>the way I've been treating you for more than two months.
>
>So be it.
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Robert Harris
Caeruleo <caer...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <bobharris77-18F0...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net>,
> Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Instead of snipping and evading all of my arguments and questions, why
> > don't you address them?
>
> Excuse me???
>
> I have addressed ALL or at the very least the MAJORITY of every one of
> the primary arguments I have seen you raise about this scenario.
>
> You claim I evaded "all" (your exact words) of your arguments, meaning
> that I've never once addressed even one of them, ever. Bullshit. Let's
> see if that's really true.
Stop trying to distort what I said. You snipped every argument and
question from my last post.
There is no excuse for that. And you continue to evade the most
important issues and questions related to this subject.
>
> One of your primary arguments from the beginning was that Connally,
> Wade, and Nolan all "corroborated" each other on a nurse having taken
> possession of the bullet from Connally's thigh. You are claiming I
> didn't address that very thing in substantive detail in multiple
> articles??? You MUST be joking. I cannot imagine any reasonable person
> coming to that conclusion unless they had read less than ten percent of
> the sentences I wrote. You "don't remember" that I have gone to
> considerable time, trouble, and space to track down who else besides
> Connally would have been a witness to this
Let me see if I remember this "argument" correctly. You decided that
Connally was a liar because if the nurse recovered that bullet as he
said she did, then 10 other people would have seen it on the floor and
seen her pick it up.
And since those 10 people didn't report such a thing, it must not have
happened. Do I have you essentially correct?? This is my previous
argument - the one you snipped,
"Your argument that there might have been a lot of people in the room is
pointless. Whatever number that was, they were undoubtedly, 100% focused
on the guy who looked like his next breath might be his last. And they
were focused toward the head of the stretcher and the bed. The odds were
that if a small, mutilated chunk of lead fell from the somewhere near
the foot of the bed, they wouldn't have seen it, and at that moment, no
one would have cared."
Why did you delete that?
Was it because you know as well as everyone else, that none of those
people were monitoring the floor. They were totally focused on Connally.
And if they did see her pick up something, they probably wouldn't have
cared.
This is a pathetically lame argument, because you have no clue about who
was actually in the room and not a reason on earth to think that anyone
there was paying attention to anything other than their patient.
> bullet-falling-to-the-floor-in-the-operating-room incident, both in the
> wrong room and the right room?
How in hell did you track down who "WOULD" have been looking at the
floor and that nurse????
Please be specific about why you think anyone there would have been
looking at the floor and would have noticed.
> How on EARTH does that qualify as
> "evading"
It qualifies as "evading" because you deleted my argument instead of
addressing it.
> one of the most primary points you've made about this entire
> scenario? I did exactly the OPPOSITE of evading it. What an utterly
> ridiculous claim for you to make.
Gosh, I guess if you deny it another 4 times, maybe you'll be right:-)
> I've just lost a great deal of
> respect for you for that unfounded claim alone, and I'm extremely
> disappointed that you would say that to me of all people.
I love how you delete my entire response and then pretend that your
feelings are hurt because I said you evaded me:-)
But it's never too late Careuleo! All you have to do is explain to us
how you confirmed that those "10" people were present and keeping a
close eye on the floor!
Or even better yet, you can impress the hell out of me, by simply
admitting that you don't have a reason on earth to believe that, and you
just conjured all this up out of sheer desperation:-)
>
> And you "don't remember" that I've DIRECTLY addressed your claim, made
> several days ago, regarding your speculation that the FBI told those
> people who had been in the operating room to keep quiet about that
> bullet, unless they wanted to give the public evidence of multiple
> shooters and thus possibly start World War III? I addressed that very
> thing in SUBSTANTIVE DETAIL. You "don't recall" that in my very article
> to which you replied here, I said this?
Why are you misrepresenting me?? I did NOT say that the FBI told all the
people in the operating room, anything!
I realize that you are in desperate need to place 10 witnesses in that
room, but my statement was, "It would not have been possible for the FBI
to have pulled this scam, without the help of a least a doctor or two and
probably, the nurse who actually recovered the Connally bullet."
And your mind reading act, pretending that if Dr. Duke had agreed to go
along with the FBI, you knew that he would have later come forward and
told all, is just ludicrous. It's not worthy of discussion.
You don't know what that man was thinking and you don't know that he still
doesn't believe that Castro was behind the assassination. Calling Connally
a liar on the basis of what you have guessed that someone was thinking is
just pathetic.
>
> "This scenario depends on the implausible premise that the FBI talked to
> the 10 people who were in that room and told them to remain silent about
> it for fear of possibly starting World War III, when the FBI could not
> possibly have had any idea until the following day at the earliest that
> there was "one bullet too many" for Oswald to have done the shooting,
> and maybe not even then, because this would still mean only two whole
> bullets at the most had been recovered, which would still be less than
> three, and certainly not more than three. I do not see how such a thing
> would have occurred to the FBI soon enough to have prevented some of
> these people from blabbing to others in the hospital, and blabbing to
> the press, before midnight. Additionally, MORE than 10 OTHER people at
> Parkland were allowed to sing like birds about a hole or opening in the
> right rear of Kennedy's head, suggesting an exit for a frontal shot (and
> some of them were even specifically calling it an exit), and were still
> allowed to talk about that hole several months later to the WC, yet no
> one seems to have told THEM that they might start World War III."
>
> Good grief, that's a VERY LENGTHY PARAGRAPH WHICH ADDRESSED YOUR CLAIM
> HEAD-ON, UNFLINCHINGLY, IN SUBSTANTIAL AND LOGICAL DETAIL.
Do you actually call this, a RESPONSE??
First of all, it is mostly false. This "10 witness" thing is totally
fabricated. There is no reason on earth to believe that anyone other than
the nurse and Connally, would have seen the bullet, or would have been
"blabbing it all over the hospital".
And your argument that the FBI would not have known that they had one
bullet too many, until 11/23, is completely untrue. Both the stretcher
bullet and the envelope that Bell gave to the FBI had to have been in the
FBI labs on 11/22. They knew that there were "THREE" spent cartridges in
the alleged sniper's nest on 11/22 and they saw the Zapruder film on 11/22
in which even in a casual viewing, it was obvious that JFK was hit at
least twice.
This was pre SBT, so they only had one bullet left to assign to Connally
and that was going to be CE399. One more bullet hitting Connally just
didn't work.
You are correct that there is no evidence that the FBI tried to pressure
Parkland personnel to not talk about the damage to the back of the head.
To do that, they really would have had to convince a lot of people and
would have probably had a hard time tracking down all the witnesses, which
included people back in Dealey Plaza.
But there is a mountain of evidence which confirms that the bullet which
wounded Connally was the one that he described, and that the FBI covered
up the fact that the stretcher bullet was not from Oswald's rifle, and
that the actual bullet was in the envelope that Nolan delivered.
>
> That's already TWO of your PRIMARY points that I addressed. Yet you say
> I addressed none of them, not one.
I said you "snipped and evaded" my arguments. I obviously meant my entire
posting, which you DELETED.
Yes, you discussed some of the same issues that I discussed, but that is
not the same as addressing what I said, SPECIFICALLY. You know damned good
and well why you snipped everything I said.
That way you can omit little things like how idiotic it is to pretend that
10 witnesses were monitoring the floor at the time that nurse recovered
the bullet, and proceed to just pretend that this was an established fact.
And you don't have to explain exactly how you came to believe that all
these people were looking in that direction instead of at their patient.
THAT IS WHY YOU NEED TO ADDRESS EACH ARGUMENT SPECIFICALLY.
And you continue to evade the most important issues, most of which you
have NEVER addressed.
1. If Connally lied and Wade lied, do you think that Stinson and officer
Nolan also lied about a bullet from Connally's thigh?
2. Why did all four of those men choose to tell the same lie about a
bullet from Connally's thigh??? Do you think they collaborated??
2. Why did Nolan tell the FBI on 11/23 that this object came from
Connally's "thigh", if that isn't what the nurse told him??
3. Why did Stinson, who was standing next to Nolan, also describe a
whole bullet from Connally's "thigh", unless he heard that nurse say the
same thing that Nolan and Wade claimed she said?
4. Why was nurse Bell adamant that she did NOT give her envelope to a
uniformed officer, but to plained clothed agents, in her office?
5. What happened to the receipt Bell filled out and had signed, before
delivering it to administrator Price's office? Why isn't it anywhere in
the archives and why couldn't the ARRB locate it?
6. Why did the FBI falsely claim on 11/23 that Bell told them her
envelope only contained a single fragment?? There's no way she would
have said that.
7. Why did the earliest DPD documentation describe an envelope
containing only a single object, if that envelope had been labeled
"fragments" and actually contained four fragments??
8. Why is it that not one person who worked with Bell, ever directly
stated that she gave her envelope to Nolan, or even that she said she
gave it to Nolan?? Why did they instead, produce only evasive,
nonspecific explanations? They worked with her every day. Do you really
think she never talked about it, or that no one every asked her??
Instead of making up goofy arguments, claiming there were 10 witnesses,
etc, why don't you address the actual facts? There were FIVE witnesses
whose stories fully corroborated each other and match perfectly with the
original documentation and the known facts.
I must congratulate you however, for not taking up Jean's nonsensical
argument that all these people were delusional, but it would be nice if
you could conjure up something that is at least remotely plausible.
We both know these 5 people were not liars and were not on drugs. And
that only leaves one explanation, which is that they were telling the
truth, as you would expect them to do if they were talking about
anything that didn't conflict with your personal views on the
assassination.
Robert Harris