(PART 1104)


David, this is insane. I have never seen a more illogical and misinformed set of arguments.


That's because you reside in Conspiracy Fantasy Land with respect to everything connected with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Your eagerness to promote your various crackpot JFK conspiracy theories has blinded you to even the possibility that the things you deem "conspiratorial" could have a simple non-sinister answer.

And let's face facts, Bob, most things in life are NOT "conspiratorial". And most people are NOT willing to engage in deliberate frauds or cover-ups when it comes to the assassination of United States Presidents.

In short, every single thing that you think leads down "Conspiracy Avenue" can just as easily be explained in ordinary, non-conspiratorial ways. And I think that even you know this is true. And so do most other conspiracy theorists. They just can't admit it to themselves, mainly because they've invested so much time and effort in chasing down shadows and unprovable gunshots at "Z285" and non-existent bullets that nurses supposedly picked up and put in their pockets, etc.


David, there is not a speck of evidence supporting that assertion by the FBI [that O.P. Wright said CE399 looked like the bullet he saw on 11/22/63]. And Wright was very specific, that the two bullets were not similar.


OK, Bob. Thanks for doing what I knew you would do regarding CE2011. You now are convinced (via the Ray Marcus transcript of the 7/25/66 interview with Darrell Tomlinson) that the FBI did not lie in CE2011 with respect to Tomlinson. But you are more than willing to still think that the FBI did lie with respect to O.P. Wright, who told the FBI agent on 6/12/64 (according to CE2011) that CE399 looked pretty much like the bullet Wright had seen on November 22nd.

And it's also very likely that you still think the FBI lied through its collective teeth about Elmer Todd having identified CE399 (also via CE2011). Correct?

I'm wondering, though, why the FBI didn't simply lie about Rowley and Johnsen of the Secret Service too? Why didn't the FBI utilize the exact same verbiage in CE2011 with Rowley's and Johnsen's observations of CE399? Why didn't they do the same thing that you think they did with O.P. Wright -- i.e., why didn't they put a BALD-FACED LIE into the mouths of both James Rowley and Richard Johnsen and say that those two Secret Service men said that CE399 "looks like the slug" or "appears to be the same one" that each of those SS men handled on 11/22/63?

Why did they stop their lies with O.P. Wright and Elmer Todd, Bob? Why not go whole hog with their evil deception in CE2011? What would a couple more blatant falsehoods matter to the FBI anyway, right?

Bob Harris thinks he gets to tell everybody just exactly HOW and WHEN and WITH WHICH WITNESSES the Federal Bureau of Investigation "lied" when it comes to the words we see printed in Commission Exhibit 2011.

But as we have already seen in this forum thread [which is no longer available to read because John Simkin, former owner of The Education Forum decided to delete the thread in its entirety in approx. 2012], Robert Harris was forced to say something about the FBI and CE2011 that he probably thought he would never have to utter in his lifetime:

"The FBI did not lie about what he [Tomlinson] said." -- Robert Harris; 12/5/11

So Bob has acknowledged that at least a portion of the words we see printed in CE2011 are true and are not lies being told by the FBI.

But according to Bob, we are still supposed to believe that SOME of the things we find in CE2011 are, indeed, blatant lies being forced on the unsuspecting public by the rotten and corrupt FBI.

Bob thinks that because of what O.P. Wright told Josiah Thompson in 1966 (that the stretcher bullet had a pointier nose than does CE399), this must therefore mean that Wright did NOT tell the FBI in June of '64 that CE399 looked like the slug Wright saw on 11/22.

Robert Harris, however, is wrong. Those two things CAN co-exist. And, in fact, they DO co-exist in this case, even though the two statements are not totally compatible with each other.

But the record is clear, even if the CONTRADICTORY MEANING of O.P. Wright's words are not -- he (Wright) definitely told the FBI in 1964 that CE399 looked generally the same as the bullet he handled at Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination; and Wright also told Josiah Thompson something that would seem to totally contradict what he told the FBI two years earlier.

But as we all know, witness observations can be all over the place, and memories of an event can, indeed, change. Jean Davison posted some good stuff on the Internet recently about the subject of "changing memory". If you go to the webpage below (and search more of Jean's posts), you'll find some interesting things about it:

"There's nothing "delusional" about it. MEMORIES CHANGE. If you doubt that, please do some basic research." -- Jean Davison; November 2, 2011


Of course CE399 came from Oswald's rifle -- the same rifle they had at their labs. But its condition and the total absence of blood and tissue strongly suggests that it was fired into cotton wadding or water. And yes David, I know that in carefully contrived tests, nutters have produced bullets in similar condition. But try Googling a bit for photos of spent bullets, that wounded a person or animal. You won't find one in a hundred in that condition.


Then maybe you can answer the following question for me (derived from just ordinary common sense):

If a bullet couldn't possibly have caused the damage that CE399 is claimed to have caused to JFK and Connally and come out in the condition that 399 is currently in -- then why did the people who allegedly faked the bullet want to place in the official record a bullet so clean and so undamaged and so NICE-looking?

Were the cover-up agents bumbling idiots? Or maybe they just didn't give a damn if their ruse would be discovered by crack CTers in the future?


David, the bullets recovered from the limo may or may not have come from Oswald's rifle.


Why on Earth are you pretending that there's some doubt about whether CE567 and CE569 (the two largest limo fragments in the front seat) came from Oswald's C2766 rifle? Those fragments definitely DID come from that rifle. There is no ambiguity at all about that, as the various firearms experts testified to. (They all lied too, Bob?)


Guinn's analysis has been totally discredited, even by an expert from the FBI.


But Dr. Guinn's NAA analysis has got NOTHING to do with the conclusion that the two largest bullet fragments (CE567 & 569) were fired in Oswald's Carcano.

Guinn doesn't even need to come into a discussion about CE567 and 569, because we don't need Dr. Guinn to verify that Oswald's gun fired those two limo fragments (which was verified via ordinary ballistics/striation firearms tests, and not Neutron Activation Analysis).

And it wasn't JUST Hoover's FBI boys who verified that the front-seat limo fragments came from Oswald's rifle, there was also the independent firearms expert, Joseph Nicol of Illinois, who said the same thing as the FBI's firearms experts:

MR. NICOL -- "It is my opinion that the same weapon that fired Commission's Exhibit 572 also fired the projectiles in Commission's Exhibits 569, 567, and 399."

MR. EISENBERG -- "That would be to the exclusion of all other weapons?"

MR. NICOL -- "Correct."


Dr. Guinn's NAA studies are not totally irrelevant and immaterial (even in this "new era" of Randich, Grant, Tobin, and Spiegelman, et al). Common sense alone makes Dr. Guinn's NAA analysis far from obsolete or worthless. Here's why.


But if he [Lee Oswald] did fire that shot [which resulted in the limo fragments], he didn't have time to fire the other shots that were closely bunched with the one at [Zapruder frame] 312. And he certainly didn't fire the shot at [Z]223. If he had, the limo passengers would have been even more startled than they were at 285 and 312.



Do we really need to go around the mulberry bush one more time with your make-believe gunshot at Z285? I'm just about to eat. Have some pity on my poor stomach.

And I don't know why you're claiming that the limo fragments (CE567 and CE569) had to necessarily be the result of a SEPARATE shot from the three shots that Lee Harvey Oswald fired. Why are you even suggesting such a thing, Bob? Just to be contrary?

You know darn well that the best and most reasonable scenario to explain Oswald's bullet fragments being found in the front seat of the limousine is that they were fragments from the Z313 head shot. The slowed fragments coming from JFK's head--moving FORWARD toward the front of the car--then struck the TWO objects that showed damage at the front of the limousine -- the chrome topping and the windshield.

That scenario fits to a tee -- right down to the "Two & Two" match on the number of fragments recovered from the front seat (2) and the number of damaged areas in that same general area of the car (2).

As for your theory that some of the shots were "bunched" together:

Yes, several witnesses did say that the last two shots were bunched close together. But I will also remind Mr. Harris of the several witnesses who said that the THREE shots they heard were "evenly spaced", and not "bunched" together---CLICK HERE.


More bad reasoning David. The Alyea film proves that the MC [Mannlicher-Carcano] was there, but it certainly doesn't prove that it was the only rifle that was found.


And so it's your contention that a group of unknown conspirators who wanted to frame Lee Oswald as a LONE PATSY (correct me if I'm wrong about that "lone" part) would be stupid enough to leave behind evidence in the same TSBD building that would expose the conspiracy and, hence, totally ruin their "lone patsy" plot?

Were those bumbling conspirators just hoping and praying that the evil DPD and the corrupt FBI would also have a desire to frame ONLY the patsy named Oswald and, therefore, the cops would want to sweep all of the "other" rifles that were found in the building under the carpet?

If so, then those pre-assassination henchmen sure got lucky when they found out that the police wanted to become an active part of their "Patsy" plot and frame only Oswald, huh?

You don't get the authorities to cooperate with murderers like that very often. November 22nd must have been their lucky day.


David, you actually cannot prove that even one bullet was fired that day from Oswald's rifle. Your pretense that you have all this evidence is just silly.


After reading Bob's comment above, I'm not sure if I should laugh or vomit. It's a toss-up there.

So, via Bob's above remark, we can assume that Bob Harris must think that CE567 and CE569 were "planted", or are phony in some manner. Because if those two front-seat bullet fragments were, indeed, fired from Oswald's rifle (which they were, as I just proved above via Joe Nicol's testimony), then it has to mean one of these three things:

1.) A gunman using Rifle C2766 (i.e., Oswald's rifle) fired at least one bullet from that gun into JFK's car during the time when the President was being assassinated on Elm Street in Dallas on November 22, 1963.


2.) Someone at some later time, who wanted to make it look like Rifle C2766 had fired a bullet or bullets into Kennedy's car, gained possession of Oswald's rifle, fired a bullet from that gun and made sure the bullet fragments were mutilated pretty badly (but not TOO badly to prohibit a definitive "to the exclusion" match to Rifle C2766), and then either planted those two bullet fragments in the front seat of the limousine prior to the Secret Service's initial examination of the car early on 11/23/63, or the bullet-manipulators just PRETENDED that the Secret Service had recovered the two fragments from the front seat of President Kennedy's SS-100-X limousine.


3.) Incredibly, a couple of bullet fragments from Rifle C2766 just happened to already be in the front seat of the limo PRIOR to the assassination.

Can you think of a fourth option, Robert?

And among the three choices listed above, which one is the most likely to be true?

I'll answer that one for you:

It ain't #2 or #3.


The FBI had to get at least a few people at Parkland to support their deception and Gregory was one of them. He's the one who, when asked about who Bell gave CE842 to, could only say that he "was advised" that it was Bell [sic; Harris really meant to say "Nolan" here, of course]. But he worked with Bell in the emergency room daily. It is preposterous to think that she didn't tell him about it.


Oh, brother. And so now Dr. Charles Gregory is part of the official "cover-up", eh Bob? Geez Louise, what a bunch of hogwash.

And for people who might not know, CE842 clearly states on the envelope that it contains "Bullet Fragments" from John Connally's "Right Arm". It does not say anything whatsoever about the envelope containing a whole bullet that dropped out of Connally's leg. And Nurse Bell has HERSELF stated that the writing we see in CE842 is her own handwriting.

Yes, I know that Bob Harris still thinks there's something phony about Commission Exhibit No. 842. He thinks that some of the writing has been erased, and other things written in at a later time (to support the never-ending "cover-up" in this case, of course).

But that's just one in a long list of Mr. Harris' off-the-wall assumptions and theories about the JFK case. And in the final analysis, the theories spouted by just one more conspiracy theorist who thinks a bunch of stuff in the Kennedy case looks "fishy" or "forged" or "doctored" or "erased" mean very little.

In fact, the continued protestations of conspiracy theorists couldn't possibly matter less when they are stacked up against the expert testimony and the overall "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusions that were reached by TWO separate U.S. Government investigations -- the Warren Commission and the HSCA. (Not to mention the smaller investigations, like the Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission.)

And speaking of CE842 -- CLICK HERE.


David, Nellie was given that cufflink on the FIRST FLOOR. Do your homework. The nurse recovered the bullet on the SECOND FLOOR, as he was being transferred from his gurney.


I think you MIGHT have been able to get the drift of my "cuff link" comment that I made earlier, Bob (even though you're pretending not to get that drift now).

Main point being:

A cuff link hitting the floor COULD have possibly sounded very similar to a BULLET hitting the same floor. Right, Bob?

And since we know that Nellie Connally WAS, in fact, given one of her husband's gold cuff links in the hospital, by a nurse, I'm suggesting that the "metal object" that Governor Connally heard falling to the floor could possibly have been one of his two gold cuff links -- one of which he never saw again. Maybe it was the missing cuff link that the nurse put in her pocket, and it just never found its way back into the possession of the Connallys. Who can know for sure? Nobody can.

And John Connally definitely did NOT see a "bullet" in the operating room. There is no corroboration for that at all. Not even from John Connally himself, including Page 18 of his book. He never said he actually SAW a bullet. And some people have claimed that Connally's co-writer on that book (Mickey Herskowitz) is responsible for some of the narrative credited to Connally in the book. (I have no opinion on that theory one way or the other, however.)

We do have John Connally's Warren Commission testimony to help clear up this "bullet" matter, though. Connally told the WC this in 1964:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were placed on the emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?"


Now, Bob, if your theory is correct, and if Governor Connally had REALLY seen a bullet that had fallen from his body onto the floor at Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63, don't you think that Arlen Specter's above question would have elicited a slightly different response from Connally?

Now, yes, it's true that Specter's question related to the time when Connally was first being placed ONTO THE STRETCHER at Parkland. But I think it's a pretty big stretch to think that these words from Specter wouldn't have prompted Connally to say something to Specter about a bullet that had fallen from his body and onto the Operating Room floor (if such a thing had actually occurred):

"Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing...?"

Wouldn't you agree, Robert?


It is ridiculous to say he [John Connally] never saw the bullet [that a nurse allegedly picked up off the floor at Parkland Hospital and allegedly put in her pocket on 11/22/63]. .... Of course Connally saw the bullet. That's how he knew what it was.

David, do you think there is any remote possibility that after picking it up, the nurse might have held it up for a split second, to look at it???


See my previous comments above.


Your arguments are preposterous and beyond desperate.


I'm torn between that "Laugh or Vomit?" choice again.

But, with the above quote coming as it does from someone who is positive a gunshot occurred at precisely Z285 of the Zapruder Film, and who thinks Dr. Gregory was a part of a cover-up, I think I'll opt for the "LOL" option. It's a lot more fun that way. (And less messy too.)

David Von Pein
December 7, 2011