Jean's discovery

[Robert Harris]

This is from Jean's recent post in the Tomlinson thread, declaring that
she had refuted the notion of the "mystery nurse". It is important
enough to warrant a new thread, because in reality, her citation proves
exactly the opposite. (quoting)

Robert,
I searched the online Dallas Morning News archive for Tominson and
didn't find much, but I did find this in a 4/22/77 article by Earl Golz.
After ID-ing Bill Stinson as a Connally aide who was in the OR, Golz
wrote that Stinson "was with the nurse when she placed several bullet
fragments from Connally's wrist into an envelope." The nurse is ID-ed as
Audrey Bell. The article continues:
"There was more than one fragment (placed in the envelope)," Stinson
said. "I don't remember how many."
Mystery nurse identified! Mysterious second bullet goes poof!
(unquote)

After going back over Bell's testimonies to the ARRB and HSCA, I believe
Stinson was truthful, that he observed Bell placing the tiny wrist
fragments into a plastic container and an envelope.

Bell told the HSCA that normally, a scrub nurse would deliver the
fragments to her, but she was a bit ambiguous in this case, saying "I
was given" the fragments, without naming who did it.

She first encountered Bill Stinson when he burst into the ER, demanding
that he be allowed to observe Connally's surgeries. After a bit of
squabbling, he was given permission on the condition that he first
change into scrubs.

What seems to have happened, is that after Gregory's surgery, he
volunteered to take the tiny fragments to Bell, which he apparently did,
according to his statements to Golz.

So at this point. BELL HAD SEEN STINSON AT LEAST TWICE, and knew all too
well that he was a Connally aide. As we will see, that's important.

Officer Nolan was very specific, that he was chatting with Stinson in
the hallway outside of Connally's room, when a nurse approached them,
asking what she should do with the "bullet" she had recovered. Stinson
said, "Give it to him", pointing at Nolan.

If Bell had been that nurse, she would have said she brought the fragments
to a Connally aide and a State Trooper, rather than FBI agents. She knew
and could easily recognize Stinson. In her testimonies, she could not
remember his name, but she certainly remembered him. How could she have
forgotten, after THREE encounters, that she had delivered her fragments to
him and an officer in uniform??

Now consider the fact that Stinson observed Connally's surgeries. He
certainly never saw anyone remove a bullet from Connally's thigh, so HOW
COULD HE HAVE BELIEVED A "BULLET" WAS REMOVED, as he stated in the
Ramparts interview in 1967?

There is only one plausible explanation. He heard that nurse say it was
a bullet, just like Nolan and Wade did - which means that THAT nurse was
not Audrey Bell.

What Jean's citation, in conjunction with the other facts proves is,
that the nurse who gave a bullet to officer Nolan, could not have been
Bell.



Robert Harris

[David Von Pein]

But what about this document that Jean also unearthed recently, Bob?....

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rXWJVNluzR8/WEeoDiW8h6I/AAAAAAABLJM/MR3tXQf6SAsPPsx0RoykIg---dYEG73bgCLcB/s900/DPD-Document-Regarding-Evidence-Recovered.gif

Let's now compare two quotes --- the first one by Bob Harris and the
second one from the above DPD document:

"[Audrey] Bell flatly denied the FBI's claim that she said she gave the
fragments to Nolan. Nolan was in full dress uniform that day and she was
adamant that she gave the wrist fragments to two plain clothed agents, who
were undoubtedly with the FBI." -- Robert Harris; July 7, 2014

----------

"Bullet fragments taken from body of Governor Connally. Mrs. Audrey Bell,
operating room nurse, to Bob Nolan, D.P.S., to Capt. Fritz, to Crime Lab,
to FBI" -- Dallas Police Department Document (linked above)

----------

Are you just going to ignore the above DPD document, Bob? Or will you
merely pretend it's fake so you can continue your speculative argument
about Audrey Bell never giving anything to Officer Nolan?

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1207.html

[OHLeeRedux]

Behold Harris's latest snip-fest.

It's a good opportunity for me to call attention to something that he is
unable to misrepresent, and therefore doesn't want anyone to see.

Click the link, scroll down to June 29, 2015, and follow the debate from
there. You will enjoy seeing Harris's nonsense dragged over the coals.
Then stay tuned here to see Harris feign surprise that anyone would
mention the existence of his utter humiliation.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279669&page=42

[Robert Harris]

I was listening to Welton Harford's interview on Youtube of Bobby Nolan
and noticed a detail that I had overlooked. Nolan said that Bill Stinson
was wearing "emergency room garb" (AKA scrubs) when he met him and they
began to chat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN9jIAiGNYg&t=19s

That means that if Bell had been the nurse who approached them, she
would have seen one man in scrubs, who she knew to be a Connally aide
and the other in full dress, Texas State Trooper uniform.

And yet, she was adamant in her HSCA and ARRB testimonies that she gave
her envelope to plain-clothed federal agents, probably from the FBI, or
from the Secret Serice.

If Jean's theory were correct, this would be the THIRD time she saw
Stinson - this time wearing scrubs as she told him to do. And yet, she
never remembered that she turned over her fragments to him and Nolan??

You might blame it on age if we were only talking about her ARRB
testimony, but she was 20 years younger and still working when she told
the HSCA, the same thing. This was not a case of dementia.



Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> But what about this document that Jean also unearthed recently, Bob?....
>
> https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rXWJVNluzR8/WEeoDiW8h6I/AAAAAAABLJM/MR3tXQf6SAsPPsx0RoykIg---dYEG73bgCLcB/s900/DPD-Document-Regarding-Evidence-Recovered.gif
>
> Let's now compare two quotes --- the first one by Bob Harris and the
> second one from the above DPD document:
>
> "[Audrey] Bell flatly denied the FBI's claim that she said she gave the
> fragments to Nolan. Nolan was in full dress uniform that day and she was
> adamant that she gave the wrist fragments to two plain clothed agents, who
> were undoubtedly with the FBI." -- Robert Harris; July 7, 2014
>
> ----------
>
> "Bullet fragments taken from body of Governor Connally. Mrs. Audrey Bell,
> operating room nurse, to Bob Nolan, D.P.S., to Capt. Fritz, to Crime Lab,
> to FBI" -- Dallas Police Department Document (linked above)

They got that from the FBI, who apparently made them change their
records. This is what it looked like before the record was modified,

http://jfkhistory.com/dpd1fragment.jpg

There was only ONE police officer present when that nurse gave him the
"object". That was officer Nolan, and we all know what he said.

Have you noticed David, that with all these phony records claiming that
Bell gave a "fragment" to Nolan, we have nothing first hand from EITHER
of them, except flat denials?




Robert Harris

[Jean Davison]

It's not dementia, it's normal for people to mis-remember details
like that.

And it doesn't matter how "adamant" a witness is. You assume that a
confident witness must be accurate but study after study has shown that,
as this article says, "eyewitness confidence is not a reliable predictor
of accuracy." An "adamant" witness can be just as wrong as one who's not
sure.

http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Smith_Kassin_Ellsworth_1989.pdf

Jean

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1207.html
>

Not interested, David and I doubt that anyone else is either.

You deliberately snip the most important parts of my postings at your
blog. And this last link just leads to a slew of other links:-)

Post your arguments RIGHT HERE, where we both know you will be corrected
and refuted.



Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Instead of making up things that even your fellow nutters know is untrue,
why don't you actually contribute something of value? Why don't you
address the issues of the thread?

Jean thinks that because Stinson apparently saw her place fragments in an
envelope, that she must be the same nurse who Wade, Nolan and Stinson
encountered in the hall outside of Connally's room.

By that time, Bell had met Stinson twice and knew he was a Connally aide.
And in fact, he was still dressed in scrubs, as Bell had previously told
him do, when that nurse appeared.

That would have been the THIRD time Bell met him if Jean was correct.

So why is it that Bell never said she gave her tiny fragments to a
Connally aide and a Texas Ranger in full, dress uniform?

How could she have believed that she gave them to federal agents wearing
suits, who came into her office? And how could she be so adamant that
she did not give them to anyone in uniform?




Robert Harris

[Jason Burke]

On 12/8/2016 7:17 AM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Behold Harris's latest snip-fest.
>
> It's a good opportunity for me to call attention to something that he is
> unable to misrepresent, and therefore doesn't want anyone to see.
>
> Click the link, scroll down to June 29, 2015, and follow the debate from
> there. You will enjoy seeing Harris's nonsense dragged over the coals.
> Then stay tuned here to see Harris feign surprise that anyone would
> mention the existence of his utter humiliation.
>

Actually, I'm beginning to believe that Harris really *is* that clueless.

> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279669&page=42
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/8/2016 10:15 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1207.html
>

#
#
############
#
# #
# #
# #
# #

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/8/2016 10:15 AM, David Von Pein wrote:

No Bob here, he just ran away crying.

[bigdog]

A couple of brilliant observations made by JayUtah that deserve to be
repeated for emphasis:

"No. Read at least the last few pages of the thread. Do not attempt a
disingenuous argument where you dismiss Oswald based on one standard of
evidence and then are unwilling to present an alternative theory and
defend it to the same standard."

"Second, do not attempt to shift the burden of proof. Every single
conspiracy theorist tries to recruit his critics to stand as proxies for
the Warren Commission, the HSCA, or the conventional narrative in general,
in order to distract from his own generally weak case. The evidence is
easily available and the conclusions commonly drawn from it are a matter
of public knowledge. As the challenger to all that, you bear the burden of
proof. Especially if you allege there was an accomplice or an alternative
suspect -- that is an affirmative claim no matter how you slice it, and
you will be rigorously held to the burden to prove that case."

I have seen conspiracy hobbyists on this newsgroup exhibit one or both of
the described practices on countless occasions. For example some of them
will state that Oswald was never convicted of a crime so we can't call him
the assassin yet they will turn around and accuse any number of people of
masterminding the assassination and or cover up despite the fact only one
other person was ever charged with being complicit and the jury acquitted
him in less than an hour. As for shifting the burden of proof, there is
one particular poster here who frequently presents his hypotheses and then
challenges others to disprove them. I won't mention his name but his
initials are Chris/mainframetech.

[Jason Burke]

Is that what it is, Harris? Dementia? You know, what happens when you
can't remember what you posted a day ago. Or that you posted the same
thing 10^5 times already. Or that you got shredded over in skepticville,
even though you insist you won.

Ah, the Black Knight. (I actually watched that the other day for the
first time. Funny enough I guess, but not my type of humor.)

[bigdog]

It shows how desperate you are when you have to claim all the records were
phony. It demonstrates what I have often said. LNs explain the evidence.
Conspiracy hobbyists are forced to explain it away.

[Mitch Todd]

On 12/7/2016 10:11 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> This is from Jean's recent post in the Tomlinson thread, declaring that
> she had refuted the notion of the "mystery nurse". It is important
> enough to warrant a new thread, because in reality, her citation proves
> exactly the opposite. (quoting)
>
> Robert,
> I searched the online Dallas Morning News archive for Tominson and
> didn't find much, but I did find this in a 4/22/77 article by Earl Golz.
> After ID-ing Bill Stinson as a Connally aide who was in the OR, Golz
> wrote that Stinson "was with the nurse when she placed several bullet
> fragments from Connally's wrist into an envelope." The nurse is ID-ed as
> Audrey Bell. The article continues:
> "There was more than one fragment (placed in the envelope)," Stinson
> said. "I don't remember how many."
> Mystery nurse identified! Mysterious second bullet goes poof! (unquote)
>
> After going back over Bell's testimonies to the ARRB and HSCA, I believe
> Stinson was truthful, that he observed Bell placing the tiny wrist
> fragments into a plastic container and an envelope.
>
> Bell told the HSCA that normally, a scrub nurse would deliver the
> fragments to her, but she was a bit ambiguous in this case, saying "I
> was given" the fragments, without naming who did it.

So what did she tell the ARRB, Bob?

I'll same everyone the trouble of looking it up.
She told Gunn and Horne that he scrub nurse gave
her a medicine glass with the fragments. So, your
Golden Tour of the Land of Fantasy stops right at
the gate. You just aren't tall enough, (that is,
metaphorically) to ride this ride.

> She first encountered Bill Stinson when he burst into the ER, demanding
> that he be allowed to observe Connally's surgeries. After a bit of
> squabbling, he was given permission on the condition that he first
> change into scrubs.
>
> What seems to have happened, is that after Gregory's surgery, he
> volunteered to take the tiny fragments to Bell, which he apparently did,
> according to his statements to Golz.
>
> So at this point. BELL HAD SEEN STINSON AT LEAST TWICE, and knew all too
> well that he was a Connally aide. As we will see, that's important.
>
> Officer Nolan was very specific, that he was chatting with Stinson in
> the hallway outside of Connally's room, when a nurse approached them,
> asking what she should do with the "bullet" she had recovered. Stinson
> said, "Give it to him", pointing at Nolan.
>
> If Bell had been that nurse, she would have said she brought the
> fragments to a Connally aide and a State Trooper, rather than FBI
> agents. She knew and could easily recognize Stinson. In her testimonies,
> she could not remember his name, but she certainly remembered him. How
> could she have forgotten, after THREE encounters, that she had delivered
> her fragments to him and an officer in uniform??
>
> Now consider the fact that Stinson observed Connally's surgeries. He
> certainly never saw anyone remove a bullet from Connally's thigh, so HOW
> COULD HE HAVE BELIEVED A "BULLET" WAS REMOVED, as he stated in the
> Ramparts interview in 1967?

On the afternoon of the assassination, after his
role in the Governor's treatment was complete,
Dr Shaw told a press conference that the bullet
was still in Connally's left thigh and was yet to
be removed. Stinson was standing next to Shaw
when the doctor said it. That might be a clue.

> There is only one plausible explanation. He heard that nurse say it was
> a bullet, just like Nolan and Wade did - which means that THAT nurse was
> not Audrey Bell.

Or, someone didn't do his homework, and went
off on a speculative tear through the
desperate throes of his imagination...

> What Jean's citation, in conjunction with the other facts proves is,
> that the nurse who gave a bullet to officer Nolan, could not have been
> Bell.

Except that Nolan's and Bell's handwriting is on
the ce842 envelope. The one that says "fragments"

[Mitch Todd]

On 12/8/2016 3:38 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1207.html
>
> Not interested, David and I doubt that anyone else is either.
>
> You deliberately snip the most important parts of my postings at your

> blog. [...]

You mean, they way that you snip important parts out of
other people's posts, Bob?

[David Von Pein]

ROBERT HARRIS (RIGHT ON CUE) SAID:

They got that from the FBI, who apparently made them change their records.

.... Have you noticed David, that with all these phony records claiming

that Bell gave a "fragment" to Nolan, we have nothing first hand from
EITHER of them, except flat denials?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep. Just as I thought. Bob thinks the DPD document is fake and "phony".

Gee, what a surprise there, huh?

~yawn~

[OHLeeRedux]

On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 1:39:15 PM UTC-8, Robert Harris wrote:
> Instead of making up things that even your fellow nutters know is untrue,
> why don't you actually contribute something of value? Why don't you
> address the issues of the thread?
>

>

> Robert Harris

[Bud]

Its the common conspiracy hobbyist approach. They start with a false
premise (the bullet was switched, Oswald was a patsy) and then scour the
evidence looking for anything they think can support their premise, while
desperately thinking up reasons to dismiss anything that goes against
their premise. A silly, silly hobby.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think you got this mixed up in the translation.
Bob is the fake and phony, not the document.
Some documents are fake and phony and it is our job to point out why and
how. Like the fake letter from Nixon to excuse Jack Ruby from testifying
before the HUAC or the fake letter from the CIA to the SS.
That particular one annoyed me because the used one of my scans from the
SS report to create it.
Pixels.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/9/2016 1:23 AM, Mitch Todd wrote:
> On 12/7/2016 10:11 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>> This is from Jean's recent post in the Tomlinson thread, declaring that
>> she had refuted the notion of the "mystery nurse". It is important
>> enough to warrant a new thread, because in reality, her citation proves
>> exactly the opposite. (quoting)
>>
>> Robert,
>> I searched the online Dallas Morning News archive for Tominson and
>> didn't find much, but I did find this in a 4/22/77 article by Earl Golz.
>> After ID-ing Bill Stinson as a Connally aide who was in the OR, Golz
>> wrote that Stinson "was with the nurse when she placed several bullet
>> fragments from Connally's wrist into an envelope." The nurse is ID-ed as
>> Audrey Bell. The article continues:
>> "There was more than one fragment (placed in the envelope)," Stinson
>> said. "I don't remember how many."
>> Mystery nurse identified! Mysterious second bullet goes poof!
>> (unquote)
>>
>> After going back over Bell's testimonies to the ARRB and HSCA, I believe
>> Stinson was truthful, that he observed Bell placing the tiny wrist
>> fragments into a plastic container and an envelope.
>>
>> Bell told the HSCA that normally, a scrub nurse would deliver the
>> fragments to her, but she was a bit ambiguous in this case, saying "I
>> was given" the fragments, without naming who did it.
>
> So what did she tell the ARRB, Bob?
>

I thought you guys didn't believe in the ARRB?
You guys always say that all the answers are in the WC.

> I'll same everyone the trouble of looking it up.

SAVE? Same difference.

> She told Gunn and Horne that he scrub nurse gave
> her a medicine glass with the fragments. So, your

At least it wasn't a shot glass. Get it? SHOT?

Or the one that says "fragment"?
How did they KNOW those were BULLET fragments? Did they test with NAA?

[Robert Harris]

What exactly, did I snip that you think is important?




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/9/2016 1:01 AM, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 12/8/2016 9:47 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
>> I was listening to Welton Harford's interview on Youtube of Bobby Nolan
>> and noticed a detail that I had overlooked. Nolan said that Bill Stinson
>> was wearing "emergency room garb" (AKA scrubs) when he met him and they
>> began to chat.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN9jIAiGNYg&t=19s
>>
>> That means that if Bell had been the nurse who approached them, she
>> would have seen one man in scrubs, who she knew to be a Connally aide
>> and the other in full dress, Texas State Trooper uniform.
>>
>> And yet, she was adamant in her HSCA and ARRB testimonies that she gave
>> her envelope to plain-clothed federal agents, probably from the FBI, or
>> from the Secret Serice.
>>
>> If Jean's theory were correct, this would be the THIRD time she saw
>> Stinson - this time wearing scrubs as she told him to do. And yet, she
>> never remembered that she turned over her fragments to him and Nolan??
>>
>> You might blame it on age if we were only talking about her ARRB
>> testimony, but she was 20 years younger and still working when she told
>> the HSCA, the same thing. This was not a case of dementia.
>>
>>
>>
>> Robert Harris
>>
>
> Is that what it is, Harris? Dementia? You know, what happens when you

I forget. It might have been Alzheimer's.

> can't remember what you posted a day ago. Or that you posted the same
> thing 10^5 times already. Or that you got shredded over in skepticville,
> even though you insist you won.
>
> Ah, the Black Knight. (I actually watched that the other day for the
> first time. Funny enough I guess, but not my type of humor.)
>
>

Not gory enough. Too stoic British.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/9/2016 12:58 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:17:30 AM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> Behold Harris's latest snip-fest.
>>
>> It's a good opportunity for me to call attention to something that he is
>> unable to misrepresent, and therefore doesn't want anyone to see.
>>
>> Click the link, scroll down to June 29, 2015, and follow the debate from
>> there. You will enjoy seeing Harris's nonsense dragged over the coals.
>> Then stay tuned here to see Harris feign surprise that anyone would
>> mention the existence of his utter humiliation.
>>
>> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279669&page=42
>
> A couple of brilliant observations made by JayUtah that deserve to be
> repeated for emphasis:
>

No such person.

> "No. Read at least the last few pages of the thread. Do not attempt a
> disingenuous argument where you dismiss Oswald based on one standard of
> evidence and then are unwilling to present an alternative theory and
> defend it to the same standard."
>

Also known as bullying.

> "Second, do not attempt to shift the burden of proof. Every single
> conspiracy theorist tries to recruit his critics to stand as proxies for
> the Warren Commission, the HSCA, or the conventional narrative in general,

Well, I think that's why we call them WC defenders.
Do you have your own Single Bullet Theory or are you just a parrot?

> in order to distract from his own generally weak case. The evidence is
> easily available and the conclusions commonly drawn from it are a matter

No, you destroyed the evidence.

> of public knowledge. As the challenger to all that, you bear the burden of
> proof. Especially if you allege there was an accomplice or an alternative

Not exactly. One can question an assumption without having to prove that
it is not true. And it is possible to prove that one conclusion is wrong
without having to prove a competing theory.

> suspect -- that is an affirmative claim no matter how you slice it, and
> you will be rigorously held to the burden to prove that case."
>
> I have seen conspiracy hobbyists on this newsgroup exhibit one or both of
> the described practices on countless occasions. For example some of them
> will state that Oswald was never convicted of a crime so we can't call him
> the assassin yet they will turn around and accuse any number of people of
> masterminding the assassination and or cover up despite the fact only one
> other person was ever charged with being complicit and the jury acquitted

Not the same thing. You try to state it as a fact. We state it as an
accusation.

[mainframetech]

We have seen ay times the FBI falsify information on documents, usually
to promote the 'lone nut' scenario. Since they are suspect in this case,
it is not only possible, but probable they falsified the document in question,
which would reduce the number of bullets that one person could fire. It
was important to stay with the 3 shells found in the TSBD where Oswald worked.
Especially since Nurse Audrey Bell, who spoke clearly and solidly saying
that she gave the fragments she had to plainclothes federal agents. And
once again the FBI interceded and tried to reduce the number of lead
fragments by saying there was only one fragment. One more proof of their
efforts.

Chris

[mainframetech]

In this particular point of Bell's passing on fragments, or bullets,
you have nothing to offer of any importance except your opinions, which
don't cut it here.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Back off fella. You don't make the rules of argument here.
No one needs to follow your little idea of how to present a case. You're
no more in charge here than a cockroach runs the government.

> I have seen conspiracy hobbyists on this newsgroup exhibit one or both of
> the described practices on countless occasions. For example some of them
> will state that Oswald was never convicted of a crime so we can't call him
> the assassin yet they will turn around and accuse any number of people of
> masterminding the assassination and or cover up despite the fact only one
> other person was ever charged with being complicit and the jury acquitted
> him in less than an hour. As for shifting the burden of proof, there is
> one particular poster here who frequently presents his hypotheses and then
> challenges others to disprove them. I won't mention his name but his
> initials are Chris/mainframetech.

WRONG yet again! You'll never learn that jumping in with no
information just makes you look stupid. First, I don't make hypotheses to
test by stating them. I see evidence and put it together usually as it
was stated by various witnesses. I don't play in the fantasy world as you
do, trying constantly to make opinion count as evidence. Don't try to
make me like you. Of all the conspiracy hobbyists here, you have the most
balls to make up fantasies to promote. After all, you uphold the WCR
while only admitting to 1% error.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Sad. This is the murder of a POTUS! People involved will remember it
more vividly than other memories, and be more accurate, as these many
studies show:

http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/08/21/emotion-can-heighten-memories/43437.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/learning-by-surprise/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959438804000479

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v2/n3/abs/nn0399_289.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11166493

https://www2.bc.edu/elizabeth-kensinger/Kensinger_JML06.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10072696

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/9/2016 5:37 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 1:24:26 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>> ROBERT HARRIS (RIGHT ON CUE) SAID:
>>
>> They got that from the FBI, who apparently made them change their records.
>> .... Have you noticed David, that with all these phony records claiming
>> that Bell gave a "fragment" to Nolan, we have nothing first hand from
>> EITHER of them, except flat denials?
>>
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> Yep. Just as I thought. Bob thinks the DPD document is fake and "phony".
>>
>> Gee, what a surprise there, huh?
>>
>> ~yawn~
>
> Its the common conspiracy hobbyist approach. They start with a false
> premise (the bullet was switched, Oswald was a patsy) and then scour the

We don't know the bullet was switched. Some kooks suggest it.
But maybe CE 399 was planted. Not the same thing.

> evidence looking for anything they think can support their premise, while
> desperately thinking up reasons to dismiss anything that goes against
> their premise. A silly, silly hobby.
>

How about just looking at all the WC lies and covering up evidence?
Wouldn't that alone suggest that something was not Kosher?
WHy cross out the name of the part of the body where a fragment was
removed which didn't match the other SBT fragments?
Cui Bono?
Why would the head of the SS lie to the WC and say the chrome topping
was dented years earlier not during the shooting? (and no one noticed?)

[Robert Harris]

No, it isn't "normal" at all.

Please post evidence that it is common for people with no
record of mental issues to fabricate detailed delusions which
include conversation, dress, and various actions.

And while you're at it, please explain how three men with no
known mental issues suffered identical delusions of a whole
bullet recovered from Connally's "gurney".

>
> And it doesn't matter how "adamant" a witness is.

Yes it does.

That eliminates the possibility of uncertainty.

> You
> assume that a confident witness must be accurate

I said no such thing.

> but study
> after study has shown that, as this article says, "eyewitness
> confidence is not a reliable predictor of accuracy."

That is probably true, but it does mean that the witnesses
was not uncertain about what he saw.

I would suggest that confident witnesses are more like to to
be accurate than those who are uncertain about what they saw.

Please stop making up things I never said.

> An
> "adamant" witness can be just as wrong as one who's not sure.

I seriously doubt that.

>
> http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Smith_Kassin_Ellsworth_1989.pdf

So, if uncertainty is as good as certainty, why did you argue
a dozen or so times that we shouldn't believe Tomlinson
because he expressed uncertainty?

As for the study, subjects were shown an enactment of a crime
and then asked questions about what they saw. We would expect
minor errors.

But that is not the same as an event in which one is
personally involved and takes part in the conversation. You
would have them making outrageous errors which would require
serious delusions, which were much different from the errors
in the study.

You would have two law enforcement professionals each hear a
nurse describe tiny fragments taken during surgery, thinking
she said it was a whole bullet from a stretcher.

And I assume you think it is just coincidence that Connally
himself, described the bullet falling from his stretcher.

You would then have Bell delivering tiny fragments to a man
she had met three times, wearing surgical scrubs and a police
officer in dress uniform, thinking she gave them to plain
clothed federal agents and expressly denying that either of
them were in uniform.

I had the privilege of speaking (briefly) with Richard
Dawkins when he came to give a talk in Clearwater, recently.
I thanked him for his achievements and for retweeting me a
few months earlier.

By your standers Jean, that was probably a delusion. I
actually talked to Elvis about guitar lessons:-)




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

And he was standing next to officer Nolan when that nurse
brought the bullet out, asking who she should give it to
(smething Bell would never have done). You can hear Nolan's
answer in this interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN9jIAiGNYg&t=21s

And Nolan was corroborated by District Attorney Wade, who
said that when he met her, she was holding the bullet in her
hand. She stated that it came from Connally's "gurney".

How could Stinson not have heard what those men heard?

And Connally himself, confirmed that the bullet fell from his
gurney and was recovered by a nurse.

>
>
>> There is only one plausible explanation. He heard that
>> nurse say it was
>> a bullet, just like Nolan and Wade did - which means that
>> THAT nurse was
>> not Audrey Bell.
>
> Or, someone didn't do his homework,

That seems to be obvious:-)

> and went
> off on a speculative tear through the
> desperate throes of his imagination...

Yes, you claimed that Wade lied, did you not?

And Herskowitz also lied?

What about Nolan? Another liar?

I'm surprised that you and Jean aren't duking it out. She
thinks they all suffered identical delusions.

Yes, I think that "desperate tears through the deepest throes
of imagination", hits it squarely on the nose:-)

>
>
>> What Jean's citation, in conjunction with the other facts
>> proves is,
>> that the nurse who gave a bullet to officer Nolan, could
>> not have been
>> Bell.
>
> Except that Nolan's and Bell's handwriting is on
> the ce842 envelope. The one that says "fragments"

Nolan's initials probably are, but where are Bell's? She
testified that she did initial the envelope - something she
had done hundreds of times before.

As for the upper part of the envelope, there is no cursive
writing. It is all printed, making it easy to forge.

I showed this to one of the nation's leading experts on
handwriting analysis and she confirmed that at least two
hands were involved in that part of the envelope.

Bell claimed it was her writing, but I seriously doubt that
she had the training to be able to differentiate it from a
forgery.

http://jfkhistory.com/ce842.jpg




Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, December 8, 2016 at 10:17:30 AM UTC-5, OHLeeRedux wrote:
>> Behold Harris's latest snip-fest.
>>
>> It's a good opportunity for me to call attention to something that he is
>> unable to misrepresent, and therefore doesn't want anyone to see.
>>
>> Click the link, scroll down to June 29, 2015, and follow the debate from
>> there. You will enjoy seeing Harris's nonsense dragged over the coals.
>> Then stay tuned here to see Harris feign surprise that anyone would
>> mention the existence of his utter humiliation.
>>
>> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279669&page=42
>
> A couple of brilliant observations made by JayUtah that deserve to be
> repeated for emphasis:
>
> "No. Read at least the last few pages of the thread. Do not attempt a
> disingenuous argument where you dismiss Oswald based on one standard of
> evidence

This was after I already said that Oswald was probably guilty.

Your "brilliant" genius seems to have a problem with reading
comprehension:-)

> and then are unwilling to present an alternative theory and
> defend it to the same standard."

His reference to "they" is to other conspiracy advocates, not
me, who he has clairvoyently determined think just like I do.

His reasoning is, that if we cannot determine the names and
shoe sizes of each of the sniper's, then we must buy the LN
theory.

That is spectactularly stupid, since conspiracy is confirmed,
simply by proving that Oswald couldn't have fired all the shots.

>
> "Second, do not attempt to shift the burden of proof.

This is probably the most idiotic of his spewage.

> Every single
> conspiracy theorist tries to recruit his critics to stand as proxies for
> the Warren Commission, the HSCA, or the conventional narrative

This is just meaningless babblage, meant to relieve him of
the need to defend his own position.

> in general,
> in order to distract from his own generally weak case.

What a magnificent example of a closed mind!

He thinks he can predict the future, including not only what
I will say, but that it will be "weak".

> The evidence is
> easily available and the conclusions commonly drawn from it are a matter
> of public knowledge.

So far, the ONLY truthful statement he has made:-)

> As the challenger to all that, you bear the burden of
> proof.

That is absolutely true, but the problem is, that Mr. Utah
feels no obligation to prove HIS case.

He repeats that lunacy a dozen more times in later posts.

> Especially if you allege there was an accomplice or an alternative
> suspect

"especially"?

Duh.. that's what a conspiracy is:-)

>-- that is an affirmative claim no matter how you slice it

Damn!!

This guy misses nothing!

> and
> you will be rigorously held to the burden to prove that case."

Thanks to Mr. Utah, I now realize that I have to prove my
arguments!!

>
> I have seen conspiracy hobbyists on this newsgroup exhibit one or both of
> the described practices on countless occasions. For example some of them
> will state that Oswald was never convicted of a crime so we can't call him
> the assassin

That's wierd. In over 20 years I have never heard anyone make
that argument.


So, you find this "brilliant"???

What do you think was his BEST argument in that segment,
Dawg? Please cite it verbatim.



Robert Harrsi

[Glenn V.]

I agree. These are some of the best arguments I've had the pleasure to
read and for Robert Harris to even try to comply with those basics, is of
course factually impossible.

[Robert Harris]

So, are you trying to claim that Stinson was suffering one of those
delusions you and Jean claim are so common:-)

Oh wait!! Only my witnesses are liars/delusional, right?

But let's get back to your misrepresentation of Bell's ARRB testimony.

She said the scrub nurse told her the fragments had already been placed
on her table, not necessarily by her. Only then, did the nurse pick them
up hand them to her.

So, Stinson could have delivered them and watched her place them in the
envelope. Nothing Bell said, contradicted that.

I'm sorry Mitch. I know how desperately you want to demean the most
important witnesses.

> So, your
> Golden Tour of the Land of Fantasy stops right at
> the gate. You just aren't tall enough, (that is,
> metaphorically) to ride this ride.

You seem to be trying to do a Jay Utah impression, right up to the point
of being totally F.O.S :-)



Robert Harris

[Jean Davison]

As you like to say....WRONG!!

Initially, yes, emotions can cause people to remember dramatic
events better than humdrum ones ("flashbulb memories"). But the abstract
for the 9/ll memories study cited earlier says, "There was rapid
forgetting of both flashbulb and event memories within the first year.
Despite the rapid initial forgetting, confidence remained high throughout
the 10-year period...." IOW, these witnesses were wrong and didn't even
know it.

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2015-09755-001/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20apa-journals-ofp-xge%20(Online%20First%20Publication:%20Journal%20of%20Experimental%20Psychology:%20General)

None of your links is relevant because, unless I overlooked it,
the subjects were tested anywhere from 45 minutes to 2 weeks later -- not
even months later, much less years. Nolan, Bell, and other witnesses were
trying to recall details from 15 or more years back. Show me any study
that says memories that old are likely to be accurate. I don't think you
can. The ones you linked to certainly do not.

Jean

[bigdog]

One more example of you inventing an excuse to dismiss a piece of evidence
that conflicts with your cherished beliefs. Nothing new here.

[bigdog]

Who's trying to make rules. You are perfectly free to make weak arguments.
I am perfectly free to point out how weak your arguments are.

>
>
> > I have seen conspiracy hobbyists on this newsgroup exhibit one or both of
> > the described practices on countless occasions. For example some of them
> > will state that Oswald was never convicted of a crime so we can't call him
> > the assassin yet they will turn around and accuse any number of people of
> > masterminding the assassination and or cover up despite the fact only one
> > other person was ever charged with being complicit and the jury acquitted
> > him in less than an hour. As for shifting the burden of proof, there is
> > one particular poster here who frequently presents his hypotheses and then
> > challenges others to disprove them. I won't mention his name but his
> > initials are Chris/mainframetech.
>
>
> WRONG yet again! You'll never learn that jumping in with no
> information just makes you look stupid. First, I don't make hypotheses to
> test by stating them. I see evidence and put it together usually as it
> was stated by various witnesses. I don't play in the fantasy world as you
> do, trying constantly to make opinion count as evidence. Don't try to
> make me like you. Of all the conspiracy hobbyists here, you have the most
> balls to make up fantasies to promote. After all, you uphold the WCR
> while only admitting to 1% error.
>

Calm down. Try breathing into a paper bag.

[Anthony Marsh]

They don't care. WC defennders applauded the JFK assassination.

[Robert Harris]

Why did you snip my question? Was it too hard for you:-)

Instead of making up things that even your fellow nutters know is untrue,
why don't you actually contribute something of value? Why don't you
address the issues of the thread?

Jean thinks that because Stinson apparently saw her place fragments in an
envelope, that she must be the same nurse who Wade, Nolan and Stinson
encountered in the hall outside of Connally's room.

By that time, Bell had met Stinson twice and knew he was a Connally aide.
And in fact, he was still dressed in scrubs, as Bell had previously told
him do, when that nurse appeared.

That would have been the THIRD time Bell met him if Jean was correct.

So why is it that Bell never said she gave her tiny fragments to a
Connally aide and a Texas Ranger in full, dress uniform?

How could she have believed that she gave them to federal agents wearing
suits, who came into her office? And how could she be so adamant that she
did not give them to anyone in uniform?

I clicked the link, but as always, there was nothing that even came
close to proving me wrong.

Have you noticed that we have at least one thing in common, Mr. Redux?

NEITHER OF US can find anything at that link that challenges my analysis.

I can't find anything. You can't find anything. And your fellow nutters
can't find anything:-)





Robert Harris



>
>

[Bud]

Of course it is. Everyone does it, whether they know it or not.

> Please post evidence that it is common for people with no
> record of mental issues to fabricate

Now we will be treated to various strawmen as Bob Harris struggles to
avoid the actual concepts being expressed and arguments made. He is a
complete and utter waste of time. Nobody said these impressions were
"fabricated".

> detailed delusions

And even though it has been explained to him that the word "delusion"
doesn`t apply, he will keep using it in attempt to avoid the actual
arguments made. He is an utter waste of time.

>which
> include conversation, dress, and various actions.

Some of these detail might very well have a basis in fact.

> And while you're at it, please explain how three men with no
> known mental issues suffered identical delusions

False memories, Harris. Don`t ask for the same thing to be explained to
you over and over.

> of a whole
> bullet recovered from Connally's "gurney".

Asked and answered.

>
> >
> > And it doesn't matter how "adamant" a witness is.
>
> Yes it does.

It is no barometer to accuracy.

> That eliminates the possibility of uncertainty.

Uncertainty is an expressed opinion. Opinions can often be wrong,
especially those concerning the memory of events that happened many years
prior.

> > You
> > assume that a confident witness must be accurate
>
> I said no such thing.

> > but study
> > after study has shown that, as this article says, "eyewitness
> > confidence is not a reliable predictor of accuracy."
>
> That is probably true, but it does mean that the witnesses
> was not uncertain about what he saw.
>
> I would suggest that confident witnesses are more like to to
> be accurate than those who are uncertain about what they saw.
>
> Please stop making up things I never said.
>
> > An
> > "adamant" witness can be just as wrong as one who's not sure.
>
> I seriously doubt that.
>
> >
> > http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Smith_Kassin_Ellsworth_1989.pdf
>
> So, if uncertainty is as good as certainty, why did you argue
> a dozen or so times that we shouldn't believe Tomlinson
> because he expressed uncertainty?

Really there was never anything to argue about. Once he said he wasn`t
sure the game was up. You would accept a positive identification of a
suspect by a witness who said he wasn`t sure, would you.

The only reason we are even in this area is because conspiracy hobbyist
drag the case here. The gurney`s are a non-issue to LNers, the conspiracy
hobbyist find them significant.

> As for the study, subjects were shown an enactment of a crime
> and then asked questions about what they saw. We would expect
> minor errors.
>
> But that is not the same as an event in which one is
> personally involved and takes part in the conversation. You
> would have them making outrageous errors

Not outrageous at all. There probably was a nurse carrying bullet
evidence down that hallway, and she probably did engage these guys in
conversation.

>which would require
> serious delusions,

You really need to stop with this "delusions" strawman. No one is
suggesting them.

> which were much different from the errors
> in the study.

How about the passage of time. How about the interjection of other
information picked up over that time? Minor errors can grow.

> You would have two law enforcement professionals each hear a
> nurse describe tiny fragments taken during surgery, thinking
> she said it was a whole bullet from a stretcher.

Its real simple, the was a whole bullet found around this time
associated with a gurney. They heard about that whole bullet at some point
and it became incorporated into their stories. The were in that same
hospital at that same time, why wouldn`t their mind connect the things?

> And I assume you think it is just coincidence that Connally
> himself, described the bullet falling from his stretcher.

When you look at that event in isolation and in context it is very weak.

> You would then have Bell delivering tiny fragments to a man
> she had met three times, wearing surgical scrubs and a police
> officer in dress uniform, thinking she gave them to plain
> clothed federal agents and expressly denying that either of
> them were in uniform.

Jerrol Custer said that when JFK was brought in he was in a suit. In
reality JFK was totally nude when he was brought in. Explain how he could
see the President of the United States naked and remember it as him being
clothed.

> I had the privilege of speaking (briefly) with Richard
> Dawkins when he came to give a talk in Clearwater, recently.
> I thanked him for his achievements and for retweeting me a
> few months earlier.
>
> By your standers Jean, that was probably a delusion. I
> actually talked to Elvis about guitar lessons:-)

Wow! Did you make a mistake bringing up Richard Dawkins. Here he
explains a false memory he himself suffered from....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdd8iMA_lDk

And someone else suffered from the same false memory as he did. If he
didn`t see the video of the event it is clear he would still to this day
be adamant that the event unfolded as he remembered it.

>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[bigdog]

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 6:56:55 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:

She just did that a day or two ago. I guess you weren't paying attention.

> And while you're at it, please explain how three men with no
> known mental issues suffered identical delusions of a whole
> bullet recovered from Connally's "gurney".
>

Look up the words "delusion" and "misconception" in the dictionary and see
if you can explain the difference. Here's a hint for you. One of them is a
symptom of mental illness. The other is a common trait among humans.

>
> >
> > And it doesn't matter how "adamant" a witness is.
>
> Yes it does.
>
> That eliminates the possibility of uncertainty.
>

If you had bothered to read the study Jean posted you would see that is
simply not true. Many people are adamant about false memories.

> > You
> > assume that a confident witness must be accurate
>
> I said no such thing.
>
> > but study
> > after study has shown that, as this article says, "eyewitness
> > confidence is not a reliable predictor of accuracy."
>
> That is probably true, but it does mean that the witnesses
> was not uncertain about what he saw.
>
> I would suggest that confident witnesses are more like to to
> be accurate than those who are uncertain about what they saw.
>
> Please stop making up things I never said.
>
> > An
> > "adamant" witness can be just as wrong as one who's not sure.
>
> I seriously doubt that.
>

Because you are willfully ignorant on the subject.

> >
> > http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Smith_Kassin_Ellsworth_1989.pdf
>
> So, if uncertainty is as good as certainty, why did you argue
> a dozen or so times that we shouldn't believe Tomlinson
> because he expressed uncertainty?
>

Because both a witness who is certain and one who is uncertain can both be
wrong. Did you really need that explained to you?

> As for the study, subjects were shown an enactment of a crime
> and then asked questions about what they saw. We would expect
> minor errors.
>
> But that is not the same as an event in which one is
> personally involved and takes part in the conversation. You
> would have them making outrageous errors which would require
> serious delusions, which were much different from the errors
> in the study.
>

Since none of the three people you cited had any direct knowledge of the
contents of the evidence envelope, that is a moot point.

> You would have two law enforcement professionals each hear a
> nurse describe tiny fragments taken during surgery, thinking
> she said it was a whole bullet from a stretcher.
>

Law enforcement professionals are human and they make mistakes just like
everyone else. They can misunderstand what they are told just like anyone
else. Pinning a badge on your shirt doesn't magically raise one's powers
of perception.

> And I assume you think it is just coincidence that Connally
> himself, described the bullet falling from his stretcher.
>

If we believe what was ghost written for him, he HEARD a METAL OBJECT fall
to the floor. He assumed it was a bullet. Given the condition he was in,
he can be excused for his error.

> You would then have Bell delivering tiny fragments to a man
> she had met three times, wearing surgical scrubs and a police
> officer in dress uniform, thinking she gave them to plain
> clothed federal agents and expressly denying that either of
> them were in uniform.
>

The documentation indicates Bell delivered an evidence envelope to Officer
Nolan. You choose to ignore that.

> I had the privilege of speaking (briefly) with Richard
> Dawkins when he came to give a talk in Clearwater, recently.
> I thanked him for his achievements and for retweeting me a
> few months earlier.
>
> By your standers Jean, that was probably a delusion. I
> actually talked to Elvis about guitar lessons:-)
>

None of us would be surprised to see you make such a claim.

[bigdog]

Neither the paragraphs by Jay Utah which I cited nor any comment by me
mentioned you by name yet you chose to become defensive about the remarks.
If it is any consolation, you are a different breed of conspiracy hobbyist
in that you accept Oswald's guilt as well as the SBT. You have staked out
your own area of foolishness. However you share some traits with the more
typical conspiracy hobbyists. Your inability to think logically, your
propensity for making assumptions and dismissing plausible explanations
which conflict with your chosen beliefs are practices which almost all
conspiracy hobbyists resort to including yourself.

[Anthony Marsh]

Have you read Loftus?

>
>

[Robert Harris]

Do you guys sign off on an agreement to be vague and ambiguous?

If not, then why don't you be specific about at least one or two of Mr.
Utah's specific arguments which you believe, put me in my place?

Is it possible Glenn, that you can't find ANYTHING, but just pretend you
can, in order to insult me??

If not, then the floor is yours:-)



Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

I'm looking forward to your reply, Mr. Corbett.

Just seeing you say ANYTHING specific, will impress the hell out of me
and I'm sure, others:-)



Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/11/2016 2:57 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Why did you snip my question? Was it too hard for you:-)
>

Why don't YOU answer my questions? Too hard for you? ;]>

> Instead of making up things that even your fellow nutters know is
> untrue, why don't you actually contribute something of value? Why don't
> you address the issues of the thread?
>

I detest the way the WC defenders don't stick together.
Their cover-up is falling apart.

> Jean thinks that because Stinson apparently saw her place fragments in
> an envelope, that she must be the same nurse who Wade, Nolan and Stinson
> encountered in the hall outside of Connally's room.
>

Are you writing to her or talking about her behind her back?

[Anthony Marsh]

So you want to include it because you know it was false?

[Mitch Todd]

So, you admit that Stinson likely got the idea that
there was a bullet in Connally's thigh from Shaw.
You just don't want to admit it, and try to hide it by
changing the subject. Classy move, Bob.

>>> There is only one plausible explanation. He heard that
>>> nurse say it was
>>> a bullet, just like Nolan and Wade did - which means that
>>> THAT nurse was
>>> not Audrey Bell.
>>
>> Or, someone didn't do his homework,
>
> That seems to be obvious:-)

The joyous part about that last sentence, for
me, is how badly you're about to prove you
completely miss the obvious. It's about to
happen a couple of sections down.

>> and went
>> off on a speculative tear through the
>> desperate throes of his imagination...
>
> Yes, you claimed that Wade lied, did you not?
>
> And Herskowitz also lied?
>
> What about Nolan? Another liar?
>
> I'm surprised that you and Jean aren't duking it out. She thinks they
> all suffered identical delusions.
>
> Yes, I think that "desperate tears through the deepest throes of
> imagination", hits it squarely on the nose:-)

I did, judging by the whopper you blew below:

>>> What Jean's citation, in conjunction with the other facts
>>> proves is,
>>> that the nurse who gave a bullet to officer Nolan, could
>>> not have been
>>> Bell.
>>
>> Except that Nolan's and Bell's handwriting is on
>> the ce842 envelope. The one that says "fragments"
>
> Nolan's initials probably are, but where are Bell's? She testified that
> she did initial the envelope - something she had done hundreds of times
> before.

See, you've answered your own question as soon as
you've asked it. If she was in the habit of signing
and initialing things, then it's no stretch to
realize that, 30 years after the fact, she would
have a tendency to remember it that way whether or
not she did.

> As for the upper part of the envelope, there is no cursive writing. It
> is all printed, making it easy to forge.

Even a cursory examination of the envelope will
reveal cursive writing all over the envelope.
The "N" in "Nov"; "hrs" in "1600 hrs"; the "G"
in "Gov"; the "B" and "u" in "Bullet"; the "f",
"ag", and "en" in "fragments"; "G" and "g" in
"Gregory"; "Rutherford"; and the "Schr" in
"Schrader" are all in cursive. I'm actually
amazed that you missed something so --here
come your favorite word!-- obvious. Do you
really bother to look at your shit?

> I showed this to one of the nation's leading experts on handwriting
> analysis and she confirmed that at least two hands were involved in that
> part of the envelope.

One whom you can neither name nor bother to quote
(and even if you do, you don't dare to fully quote
her, give your bad luck with that in the past).
Maybe she's related to Anthony Michael Hall's
Canadian girlfriend from Niagara Falls?

Bell seems to suffer from some form of disgraphia
and, as already shown, inconsistently combines
cursive and printing, as well as mixing lower case
letters with capitals -- e.g. "JohN CoNNally,"
"Dr. Cf GregoRy." I'll bet it varied enough that
a lot of people, experts or not, might wrongly
assume something she wrote was written by more
than one person. You'd need to examine a number
of samples of Bell's writing to really tell. How
many did you send along to your document examiner?

> Bell claimed it was her writing, but I seriously doubt that she had the
> training to be able to differentiate it from a forgery.
>
> http://jfkhistory.com/ce842.jpg

I'll bet that Bell had more training and experience
with recognizing her own handwriting than any handwriting
expert could ever dream of being. After all, she dealt
with it almost all of her life.

[OHLeeRedux]

Robert Harris

OHLeeRedux wrote:
>
>
>
> Click the link, scroll down to June 29, 2015, and follow the debate from
> there. You will enjoy seeing Harris's nonsense dragged over the coals.
> Then stay tuned here to see Harris feign surprise that anyone would
> mention the existence of his utter humiliation.
>
> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279669&page=42

I clicked the link, but as always, there was nothing that even came
close to proving me wrong.

Robert Harris


Of course YOU don't see it because you don't want to see it. And you don't
want anyone to read the debate because you know that if they read the
whole thing in context -- not just the misrepresentations you post here --
they will see that your theories were shown to be laughable at best.

And you can save your passive-aggressive posts asking for more
specificity. That is your fall-back position whenever you are cornered. No
matter how specific others are in debunking your nonsense, you suddenly
lose your ability to think abstractly and you feign ignorance.

It's not working. Never has worked. Never will. And you know it. The more
you post, the more convinced I am that you are trying out a comedy
routine.

Bob Harris, comedian.

http://articles.mcall.com/1993-11-20/entertainment/2946845_1_smuggling-biggest-drug-conspiracy

[Mitch Todd]

Bell said that the scrub nurse *handed her* the glass
containing the fragments. In fact, here is what she
said about receiving the fragments:

"...Dr Shires came about the same time as the
Governor's children and I was so glad to see
him. He got dressed, and I had Dr Gregory and
Dr Shaw back in the operating room. Well, I
went back and I knew we had to take care of
the fragments, I went back there and the scrub
nurse said, I have fragments on my table [...]
and I said, I'd better take them, so she handed
them, they were in a little, what we call a
glass medicine cup, and she handed them off to
me, and I went out and filled out the little
envelope that we have for foreign bodies, and
dated it..."

Before I go any further, it's important to explain the
role of the scrub nurse in the OR. The scrub nurse
is responsible for preparing the area within the
sterile field before surgery, setting up the various
surgical tools, making sure that everyone within the
sterile file is properly "scrubbed in" (hence the
title), and assisting the surgeon during surgery. The
latter role is what gets portrayed onscreen -- handing
tools from the Mayo tray at the request of the surgeon,
applying suction, etc. The important thing to remember
is that the scrub nurse stays within the sterile field
in the OR during surgery.

Now, when she "went back there" we know that "there" was
the Operating Room, since she already associated "back"
with the OR by saying "Dr Gregory and Dr Shaw back in the
operating room." Since Shaw had yet to perform his part
in Connally's surgical cavalcade, the scrub nurse would
have remained in the sterile field within the OR. It all
boils down to Bell going into the OR and being given the
fragments by the scrub nurse. Stinson never entered into
the exchange. In fact, there was *never* any evidence
that he ever did, other than your own need for it to
thwart the evidence piling up against your brontosaurus
theory.

>> So, your
>> Golden Tour of the Land of Fantasy stops right at
>> the gate. You just aren't tall enough, (that is,
>> metaphorically) to ride this ride.
>
> You seem to be trying to do a Jay Utah impression, right up to the point
> of being totally F.O.S :-)

The interesting bit about your tete a' tete with
Mr Utah is that you never began to get what he
was talking about. And you still don't.

:-D

[Robert Harris]

"He is a complete and utter waste of time."

I do not reply to sewage, reposted by John McAdams in direct
violation of the newsgroup charter.

The fact that John has to resort to such sleezy ad hominem
attacks is just one more confirmation that he KNOWS his case
cannot be defended honestly.





Robert Harris

[Mitch Todd]

On 12/9/2016 7:45 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Mitch Todd wrote:

>> On 12/8/2016 3:38 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1207.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not interested, David and I doubt that anyone else is either.
>>>
>>> You deliberately snip the most important parts of my
>>> postings at your
>>> blog. [...]
>>
>> You mean, they way that you snip important parts out of
>> other people's posts, Bob?
>
> What exactly, did I snip that you think is important?

My favorite example is in this thread:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/connally$20talked%7Csort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/JIFQd22sZRI/q3oYZXlJBgAJ

In particular, my Jul 21 reply to your post of 7/14. You replied on 7/22
and cut out quite a bit of what I'd written, especially the part where the
core "Connally Talked" got eviscerated. I restored the most important
parts of what you'd clipped out in my 7/26 post. But you never replied to
it. You just ran away.

[bigdog]

I'll give you an example of my own false memory. Having grown up in Omaha,
I am a huge fan of Nebraska Cornhusker football. I have a religious fervor
for it. In 1982 Nebraska was playing at Penn State in an early season
game. Nebraska led by 3 points in the final minute but Penn State drove
deep into Nebraska territory. Facing a fourth and short yardage situation
around the 20 yard line, Joe Paterno passed up a game tying field goal to
go for the win (there was no overtime back then). Here is where my memory
and reality take diverging paths.

My memory:

On fourth down Penn State through a deep sideline pass which the Penn
State receiver caught in mid air and then landed at least 3 feet out of
bounds but it was called a good catch by the home town official. To this
day not even the most ardent Penn State fan disputes it was a ridiculously
bad call. Had it been correctly ruled an incomplete pass, Nebraska would
have taken over on downs and run out the clock. Instead, Penn State scored
the game winning touchdown on the next play costing Nebraska the victory.

The reality:

Penn State converted the first down with a short gain. It was on the next
play that the deep sideline pass and the crooked call occurred. Had the
play been called correctly, Penn State would have still have had the ball
with a chance to tie or win the game in which case we will never know what
the outcome of the game was.

It turned out to be Nebraska's only loss of the season. Penn State ended
up losing a game later in the season but when the finally polls were
taken, Penn State was awarded the national championship over Nebraska by
virtue of their head-to-head "victory". For decades I was under the false
impression that the crooked call had cost Nebraska not only the game but
the national championship. It was decades later when I discovered a replay
of the game on YouTube that I discovered my memory of the final minute of
the game was less than accurate. I had completely forgotten a key element
which was that Penn State had converted the first down before the
controversial play. According to Chris since I was so emotionally invested
in the game, my memory of it should have been much more vivid. Yet until I
saw the YouTube video, I would have bet any amount of money that the game
unfolded as I first described, I was that adamant.

Nebraska gained a measure of revenge 12 years later when Nebraska and Penn
State were the only two teams with perfect seasons but Nebraska was
awarded the national championship over Penn State in both the major polls.

[bigdog]

The two passages I quoted WERE his best arguments. That's why I prefaced
them by writing "A couple of brilliant observations made by JayUtah that
deserve to be repeated for emphasis". I guess you missed that part.

[OHLeeRedux]

> Robert Harris


Your pretense of blindness to the fact that you were whipped like a
stepchild over at the International Skeptics Forum is getting old, Robert.
Nobody is impressed. Nobody believes it.

But anyone who doubts that Harris's nonsensical theories were summarily
dismissed and sent to the conspiracy nut retirement home may simply click
the below link, scroll down to June 29, 2015, and follow the debate from
there.

Enjoy! :-)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279669&page=42

[Anthony Marsh]

A-

[Robert Harris]

Yes, AFTER they had already been delivered.

How does that contradict anything Stinson said?

> In fact, here is what she
> said about receiving the fragments:
>
> "...Dr Shires came about the same time as the
> Governor's children and I was so glad to see
> him. He got dressed, and I had Dr Gregory and
> Dr Shaw back in the operating room. Well, I
> went back and I knew we had to take care of
> the fragments, I went back there and the scrub
> nurse said, I have fragments on my table[...]
> and I said, I'd better take them, so she handed
> them, they were in a little, what we call a
> glass medicine cup, and she handed them off to
> me, and I went out and filled out the little
> envelope that we have for foreign bodies, and
> dated it..."

Yes, that is what she said.

>
> Before I go any further, it's important to explain the
> role of the scrub nurse in the OR. The scrub nurse
> is responsible for preparing the area within the
> sterile field before surgery, setting up the various
> surgical tools, making sure that everyone within the
> sterile file is properly "scrubbed in" (hence the
> title), and assisting the surgeon during surgery. The
> latter role is what gets portrayed onscreen -- handing
> tools from the Mayo tray at the request of the surgeon,
> applying suction, etc. The important thing to remember
> is that the scrub nurse stays within the sterile field
> in the OR during surgery.

And your point is...?

>
> Now, when she "went back there" we know that "there" was
> the Operating Room,

And Stinson was in the operating room, dressed in scrubs.

> since she already associated "back"
> with the OR by saying "Dr Gregory and Dr Shaw back in the
> operating room." Since Shaw had yet to perform his part
> in Connally's surgical cavalcade, the scrub nurse would
> have remained in the sterile field within the OR. It all
> boils down to Bell going into the OR and being given the
> fragments by the scrub nurse. Stinson never entered into
> the exchange. In fact, there was *never* any evidence
> that he ever did, other than your own need for it to
> thwart the evidence piling up against your brontosaurus
> theory.

Did you even bother to read Jean's citation? (quoting)

After ID-ing Bill Stinson as a Connally aide who was in the
OR, Golz wrote that Stinson "was with the nurse when she
placed several bullet fragments from Connally's wrist into
an envelope." The nurse is ID-ed as Audrey Bell. The article
continues:
"There was more than one fragment (placed in the

envelope)," Stinson said. "I don't remember how many."(unquote)

Stinson didn't claim that he had anything to do with the
"exchange". He ONLY said that he was with her when she put
the fragments into an envelope.

There are no contradictions.

>
>
>
>>> So, your
>>> Golden Tour of the Land of Fantasy stops right at
>>> the gate. You just aren't tall enough, (that is,
>>> metaphorically) to ride this ride.
>>
>> You seem to be trying to do a Jay Utah impression, right up
>> to the point
>> of being totally F.O.S :-)
>
> The interesting bit about your tete a' tete with
> Mr Utah is that you never began to get what he
> was talking about.
> And you still don't.

Well, don't be bashful Mitch. Tell us about his brilliant put
downs that devastated my analysis.

But do what NO OTHER NUTTER does, and be specific.

Ambiguity of the province of liars and phonies, Mitch.

BE SPECIFIC.



Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

Just cite the arguments that you think are important.

It takes a couple seconds to cut n paste. Post them right
here. In fact, why don't you start a new thread and show
everyone these brilliant arguments that I evaded:-)


Robert Harris

[OHLeeRedux]

As usual, Harris demands that anyone who refuses to swallow his snake oil
must follow the same ritual that he employs here: cut-and-paste your
opponent's post to make it say what you want it to say, the argument that
you have scripted for him, and start a new thread misrepresenting
everything he actually said.

Sorry, Robert. We'll leave the smoke and mirrors to you, as you seem to
have it down to a science.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/13/2016 8:47 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> Mitch Todd wrote:
>> On 12/9/2016 7:45 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>> Mitch Todd wrote:
>>>> On 12/8/2016 3:38 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
>>>>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1207.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not interested, David and I doubt that anyone else is
>>>>> either.
>>>>>
>>>>> You deliberately snip the most important parts of my
>>>>> postings at your
>>>>> blog. [...]
>>>>
>>>> You mean, they way that you snip important parts out of
>>>> other people's posts, Bob?
>>>
>>> What exactly, did I snip that you think is important?
>>
>> My favorite example is in this thread:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/connally$20talked%7Csort:relevance/alt.assassination.jfk/JIFQd22sZRI/q3oYZXlJBgAJ
>>
>>
>>
>> In particular, my Jul 21 reply to your post of 7/14. You
>> replied on 7/22 and cut out quite a bit of what I'd written,
>> especially the part where the core "Connally Talked" got

Why do you keep posting false information?
Connally did not TALK in his book.
It was his ghostwriter making up stories to sell a book.
I've asked you thousands of time to SHOW me the SS agents jumping out of
the Queen Mary and running up to the TSBD. And you can't.
Because it's a LIE. He LIED and you keep quoting a liar.

[Bud]

On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 10:43:15 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> "He is a complete and utter waste of time."
>
> I do not reply to sewage, reposted by John McAdams in direct
> violation of the newsgroup charter.

You took a single line out of context. Where you lifted this single line
from it was shown *why* you a complete and utter waste of time. You keep
creating strawmen, ignoring the actual arguments made by changing meanings
and inserting words. If someone did that to you would wail about the
injustice of it all.

[Anthony Marsh]

No such person.

[Robert Harris]

Mitch??

Everyone's waiting.


Robert Harris

[Jason Burke]

Aw, poor Harris. No one wants to play with him any more so he has to
resort to a bit of whiny passive aggressiveness. Annnd a smiley! Oh boy.

Oh, excuse me. "...passive, aggressiveness..."

[Mitch Todd]

Have done that before. And you never even try to respond.

[Mitch Todd]

Simply enough done, though you could have
found it easily enough:


"BTW, let me add back in one of the more important
sections of what you've cut out:

===BEGIN QUOTE===
- hide quoted text -
"It is no longer possible to say with certitude
how much of the race to Parkland Memorial Hospital
I remember and how much I have been told by Nellie,
or picked up from watching the news films or reading
the official reports."

"Many of my memories are secondhand. I am missing
the most historic minutes of my life."

"This is what I missed, what I would put together
from the accounts of those who survived that day
Dallas."

Of course, you know that those sentences come from
the first chapter of Connally's book. Its
take on the assassination includes any number
of narrative events that Connally could not have
seen, or where his the book's take is completely
wrong, like the SS agents jumping out of the
Queen Mary and heading for the entrance of the
TSBD, or Perry taknig the call for Shires before
the motorcade got to Parkland.

So how can anyone know how to separate what the
governor actually remembered experiencing from
what he'd gathered elsewhere? The test, it turns
out, is pretty easy. Match up his earlier
testimony (to the WC, HSCA, etc) with corresponding
sections of the book's narrative, and you notice
that he writes directly in first person what he was
doing and experiencing at a given moment when he
relates things that we independently know he
experienced and remembered:

"I heard..."
"I turned my head"
"I turned to my left"
"I felt a thud"
"I doubled over"
"I could see blood"
"I blurted out the words..."
"We were all smiling and waving to the crowds"
"I was, frankly, relieved, pleased..."
"...I heard the first shot..."
"...and [I] felt the second"
"I was vaguely aware..."
"I felt frozen"
"I saw President Kennedy..."
"I said I did"
"I knew,"
"I turned, and felt the blow against my back"
"I came to..."
"I thought..."
"I realized..."
"I struggled to raise myself"
"I half stood"
"I had been unaware of any pain up to that moment"
"I was revived by a pain..."
"I cried out..."
"I heard someone say.."
"I spoke up again"

Now, in contrast, look at your favorite passage:

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

There is no "I saw" or "I heard" or "I felt" or
anything else like that. It's stated passively,
like he's relating something that he didn't
experience firsthand, but came to after the fact
from some other source. Even when he refers to
himself, it's the object of a phrase rather than
the subject of a sentence. Even if the "verbatim"
quote is 100% correct, you're screwed, Bob.

===END QUOTE===

The thing is, Bob, you had to have read
These passages on your way to the bit about
the nurse picking up the bullet. Did you
really think that no one was going to check
up on your sources before asserting that
Connally said he saw a nurse pick up a bullet?

As you've so often liked to ask others, does
an honest man behave that way?"

[Mitch Todd]

Impatient, aren't you? I sent in two replies to your post
last night.

Of course, you could have cut out the middleman just by
following the provided link.

[Mitch Todd]

I didn't say it did. It kills *your* contention
that Stinson walked the fragments out of the OR
and on to Bell.

In the larger sense? That your Stinson-carried-out-
the-framgents idea is, as a Londoner would say,
"pants." THe digression into surgical nursing was
just some useful background info on the path to
enlightenment, Grassshopper.

>> Now, when she "went back there" we know that "there" was
>> the Operating Room,
>
> And Stinson was in the operating room, dressed in scrubs.
>
>> since she already associated "back"
>> with the OR by saying "Dr Gregory and Dr Shaw back in the
>> operating room." Since Shaw had yet to perform his part
>> in Connally's surgical cavalcade, the scrub nurse would
>> have remained in the sterile field within the OR. It all
>> boils down to Bell going into the OR and being given the
>> fragments by the scrub nurse. Stinson never entered into
>> the exchange. In fact, there was *never* any evidence
>> that he ever did, other than your own need for it to
>> thwart the evidence piling up against your brontosaurus
>> theory.
>
> Did you even bother to read Jean's citation? (quoting)
>
> After ID-ing Bill Stinson as a Connally aide who was in the OR, Golz
> wrote that Stinson "was with the nurse when she placed several bullet
> fragments from Connally's wrist into an envelope." The nurse is ID-ed
> as Audrey Bell. The article continues:
> "There was more than one fragment (placed in the envelope)," Stinson
> said. "I don't remember how many."(unquote)
>
> Stinson didn't claim that he had anything to do with the "exchange". He
> ONLY said that he was with her when she put the fragments into an envelope.
>
> There are no contradictions.

Not with Stinson, no. But, again, it does kill
your idea that the OR staff gave Stinson the
fragments to take to Bell. I think that would
have been part of the circulating nurse's job,
anyway.

BTW you are correct when you say, "Stinson

didn't claim that he had anything to do with

the 'exchange'". Which makes me wonder why
you tried to pass it off in the first place.

>>>> So, your
>>>> Golden Tour of the Land of Fantasy stops right at
>>>> the gate. You just aren't tall enough, (that is,
>>>> metaphorically) to ride this ride.
>>>
>>> You seem to be trying to do a Jay Utah impression, right up
>>> to the point
>>> of being totally F.O.S :-)
>>
>> The interesting bit about your tete a' tete with
>> Mr Utah is that you never began to get what he
>> was talking about.
>> And you still don't.
>
> Well, don't be bashful Mitch. Tell us about his brilliant put downs that
> devastated my analysis.
>
> But do what NO OTHER NUTTER does, and be specific.
>
> Ambiguity of the province of liars and phonies, Mitch.
>
> BE SPECIFIC.

Bob, I figure that if you haven't picked up
on it by now, you just ain't gonna get it.
Why waste your precious time?

[OHLeeRedux]

Everyone is waiting for you to make yourself look foolish. Again. I'm sure
we don't have long to wait.

[bigdog]

Everyone? I doubt anyone except you is waiting. And nobody cares.

[Jason Burke]

Harris be good at running away.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe McAdams isn't posting them to protect his dignity.

[Mitch Todd]

This post has been up for over a week. You know,
the one where I cut and pasted (as you've demanded)
the stuff about Connaly's biography you never
respond to. I take it you never had any intention
of replying?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/24/2016 12:03 AM, Mitch Todd wrote:
> This post has been up for over a week. You know,
> the one where I cut and pasted (as you've demanded)
> the stuff about Connaly's biography you never
> respond to. I take it you never had any intention
> of replying?
>

You accidentally revealed the truth. Connally's biography by a
ghostwriter, not his autobiography in his own hand.

[Mitch Todd]

Bob,

My response to your earlier request was posted to
a.a.jfk on 12/14. You have yet to respond after
two and a half weeks. I normally wouldn't bring
something like this up, but you make such a fuzz
when others don't respond to you posts in what you
deem to be a timely manner. Sauce for the goose,
as they say.

I take it from your, uh, coyness that your
earlier request was made with the same amount
of.......good faith that we've come to expect
from you over the years?

>> TSBD, or Perry taking the call for Shires before

[Mitch Todd]

So, Bob, we'll just give this the old college try
one last time. Are you going to respond to the
material that I've (re)posted for you? After all,
you asked for it. I know that I'm being a little
badgery and all about this, but you always seem
to make a stink when people don't respond to
your posts, so I figure you won't mind too much.
My original repost to the Connally thing --again,
that you'd asked for-- has been up for over a
month, and I don't think it's seen a response
from you. Not that I'm heartbroken about it.
More like vindicated. And everyone sees it.

[OHLeeRedux]

Give Robert a break. He is on tour with his comedy act.