Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

David Von Pein

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About David Von Pein

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday 12/27/1961

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Indiana, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

19,895 profile views
  1. As I speculated earlier, I think it's merely a matter of conflating things. 1993 was thirty years after these events occurred. I think when Henry Wade said what he said about Connally's "gurney", he had thoughts in his mind of the CE399 "stretcher bullet". Wade knew that a whole bullet was, indeed, found on Connally's stretcher (or "gurney") at Parkland. And he also had in his mind an event at Parkland which involved a nurse and an envelope which contained some bullet fragments that were recovered from Governor Connally's body. Those two events, in my opinion, could very likely have become merged in Wade's head, so when Wade talked about the events of 11/22/63 in later years, he merged and conflated Stretcher Bullet 399 with a nurse holding an envelope which contained only bullet fragments. If you want to accuse me of merely inventing a convenient excuse in order to dismiss Henry Wade's 1993 story, well, go ahead. But, nevertheless, "conflation" is what I think probably happened.
  2. I've collected several of Connally's interviews and press conferences on my sites, but he doesn't mention anything about hearing the "falling bullet" in any of them.... http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/john-and-nellie-connally.html
  3. Somebody PLEASE get the Comma Police out here to help Bob. All those needless commas are making me dizzy (yet again).
  4. Huh?? Why on Earth would you think the RECEIPT ITSELF would need to be "catalogued" and therefore show up in an "INVENTORY OF EVIDENCE" list like the one we find in CE2003? (Is that what you meant?) Do you think the HOSPITAL MEMO itself should have been mentioned on the DPD's inventory sheet? ~shrug~ Nobody lied about this incident at all. Nobody. Audrey Bell was simply mistaken about the person to whom she gave the envelope containing the Connally bullet fragments. And via your own interview of Bobby Nolan, we know that Nolan himself didn't actually SEE what was inside the envelope. He had no idea what was in there. And Henry Wade's memory of the event must have also faded quite a bit too. He very likely conflated information concerning the "stretcher bullet" (CE399) with information about the envelope which contained only FRAGMENTS from Governor Connally's wrist. (What year did Wade say what he said about the "bullet" and the "gurney", Bob? I'm not sure when it was. Can you please inform me.) And she was obviously wrong. And the hospital memo plus CE2003, both of which existed in November of 1963, provide the PROOF she was wrong/mistaken.
  5. You have no idea whether Fritz saw the memo or not. So stop pretending you do know. But the "description" of the event (Nolan getting fragments from Bell) WAS indeed "catalogued" by the DPD. And we can all see it for ourselves in CE2003, at 24 H 260 (which is a document mentioned to Bob several times previously, but Bob prefers to believe this is yet another fake document; but this one in CE2003 is a DPD inventory of items, not an FBI list; so I guess Bob needs to implicate Fritz and the DPD in this part of the "Bell/Nolan cover-up" as well)..... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0139b.htm As the documents build up (and there's at least two now that verify that Nolan received fragment(s) from Nurse Bell), I need to ask Bob the same question I asked some of the members of this forum in a discussion pertaining to Oswald's Postal Money Order.... "How many things that appear to be legitimate about the Hidell money order does it take for a stubborn CTer to admit that the money order is, in fact, very likely a legitimate document? .... At what point do the LEGITIMATE LOOKING THINGS on the document make you want to stop pretending everything's been put there by conspirators?" -- DVP; January 2016 You've now got TWO very good reasons to abandon your theory about Audrey Bell never giving any evidence to Bobby Nolan----those two things being: the hospital memo unearthed by Gary Murr and the DPD inventory sheet in CE2003. But you still won't give up the notion that Bell never gave anything at all to Nolan, will you Bob? You will instead continue to rely on the decades-old memory of various people to promote your theory, instead of accepting those two pieces of HARD EVIDENCE which totally destroy your theory.
  6. How do you know precisely what Alexander did with it? And how do you know it wasn't seen by other members of the DPD or FBI? Maybe somebody made a copy of it, and all that remains now is the copy that Gary Murr dug up for himself in the late 1990s. In any event, that document positively has the handwriting of THREE different people on it, including Nolan's and Bell's writing. I guess you think the FBI (or somebody) forged BOTH Nolan's and Bell's signatures on that document, right? You must think their signatures are forgeries, since you're now saying you think the memo is "bogus". What a surprise! Bob Harris thinks something is fake! But it's not too much of a shocker that Bob is now calling the hospital memo a "bogus" document. Because if he were to admit the truth---that Nurse Bell gave the bullet fragments to Officer Nolan after all---Mr. Harris would have to abandon one of his most treasured theories that he's put decades into promoting. And I doubt we'll ever see that happen.
  7. IN DECEMBER 2011, ROBERT HARRIS SAID: David, this is insane. I have never seen a more illogical and misinformed set of arguments. IN DECEMBER 2011, DAVID VON PEIN SAID: That's because you reside in Conspiracy Fantasy Land with respect to everything connected with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Your eagerness to promote your various crackpot JFK conspiracy theories has blinded you to even the possibility that the things you deem "conspiratorial" could have a simple non-sinister answer. And let's face facts, Bob, most things in life are NOT "conspiratorial". And most people are NOT willing to engage in deliberate frauds or cover-ups when it comes to the assassination of United States Presidents. In short, every single thing that you think leads down "Conspiracy Avenue" can just as easily be explained in ordinary, non-conspiratorial ways. And I think that even you know this is true. And so do most other conspiracy theorists. They just can't admit it to themselves, mainly because they've invested so much time and effort in chasing down shadows and unprovable gunshots at "Z285" and non-existent bullets that nurses supposedly picked up and put in their pockets, etc. More: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1104.html
  8. FYI.... Here's the relevant "falling bullet" page from John Connally's book....
  9. That's the problem, Ray. It's in Connally's book (which apparently was only published after he died), but Connally never ONCE mentioned this incident in any of his public interviews (which seems kind of odd---wouldn't you agree?---since Connally was never shy about expressing his displeasure with the SBT), plus he provided this WC testimony, which totally contradicts his book.... ARLEN SPECTER -- "Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were placed on the emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?" JOHN B. CONNALLY -- "No."
  10. It doesn't "settle" the matter at all. Far from it, in fact. Why? Because the bullet that you, Bob Harris, thinks exists is NOWHERE IN EVIDENCE. The things Bob Harris refers to as being "settled" are really anything but (including Bob's "Z285" theory).
  11. The problem for you there is ----- John Connally NEVER said anything about any hearing any whole bullet falling from his stretcher in ANY of the many interviews he gave after the assassination. How can you possibly explain that, Bob? Was Connally part of the cover-up too? (Which would be an odd claim, given the fact that Connally was always adamant about his belief that the SBT was a pile of crap.)
  12. IN JULY 2014, ROBERT HARRIS SAID: The FBI also claimed that Bell said the envelope she processed only held a single fragment. But they lied about that, just as they lied claiming that she passed the envelope to Nolan. In fact, Bell flatly denied saying either of those things. The FBI's problem was that they needed to convert Nolan's envelope, which held the bullet (singular) that fell from Connally's gurney and was recovered by a different nurse. In fact, the envelope appeared in DPD records as containing just one fragment. Pretty strange, considering that CE-842 clearly described multiple fragments, eh? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: The official November 1963 FBI interviews with Audrey Bell and Bobby Nolan, which Robert Harris thinks are filled with lies created by the FBI, do not contain any reference to any "whole bullet". Only a single "fragment" is mentioned in the two FBI reports linked below. Now, yes, CE842 does contain more than just a SINGLE metal fragment. I'm not denying that fact at all. But Bob Harris' theory about a WHOLE BULLET being handled by an unknown nurse (not Audrey Bell) and Officer Nolan suffers a pretty big setback when we have a look at these two FBI documents from November 22 and 23, 1963 [Commission Document No. 5]..... AUDREY BELL: CD5, Page 155 BOBBY NOLAN: CD5, Page 156 Footnote---- The error that exists in the FBI reports concerning the fragment being taken from Connally's THIGH, instead of his ARM/WRIST, is explained in this part of CD5. ROBERT HARRIS SAID: That [picture of CE842] shows exactly FOUR tiny fragments. Frazier lied. .... Obviously he was lying. We know for a fact that there were four [fragments], and that the envelope was labelled as containing "fragments". There is no way that could have been an honest mistake. He was trying to be sure that he could pull off the switch. Nolan's envelope contained ONE object, so Frazier decided that he had to claim that Bell's envelope contained ONE object also. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Which means you must also think that Arlen Specter lied too, right? Because it was SPECTER, not FRAZIER, who first uttered the word "fragment" (singular) in connection with the Warren Commission exhibit that was to soon become CE842. As a matter of fact, Arlen Specter used the word "fragment" (singular) FIVE separate times before that same word ("fragment") ever came out of the mouth of Bob Frazier. Let's look and see--and count (emphasis added by DVP): ARLEN SPECTER -- "Was a fragment of metal brought to you which was identified as coming from the wrist of Governor Connally?" ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "It was identified to me as having come from the arm of Governor Connally." SPECTER -- "Will you produce that fragment at this time, please?" FRAZIER -- "This one does not have a Commission number as yet." SPECTER -- "May it please the Commission, I would like to have this fragment marked as Commission Exhibit 842." (Commission Exhibit No. 842 was marked for identification and received in evidence.) SPECTER -- "Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9 for FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842, will you describe that fragment for us, please?" FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal which weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory. It is a piece of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a core of a bullet." ------------- Did Specter nudge Frazier before Frazier testified and whisper to him: "Now remember, Bob, when we get to the part where I want to introduce Exhibit 842, remember to follow my lead when I say to you FIVE different times that CE842 consists of just one single fragment. That way, we'll both be on the same page when it comes to this blatant lie we're both going to be telling in your Warren Commission testimony. Got it, Bob? Okay, good." ------------- The fact that Arlen Specter and Robert Frazier only refer to ONE single bullet fragment existing as part of CE842 is, indeed, quite strange. Because we can see that the "foreign body envelope" that was marked by Audrey Bell clearly indicates that "fragments" (plural) were placed into that envelope which later became part of Commission Exhibit 842, which is an envelope that was ALSO initialled by Robert Frazier of the FBI. His "RF" initials are plainly visible on the front of the envelope. And...the National Archives color photo of CE842 is obviously depicting the presence of four separate metal fragments.... But to think that Specter and Frazier (in that order) were lying their heads off during Frazier's testimony in order to conceal the existence of additional metal fragments that were removed from Governor Connally's body is something I do not believe at all. And one of the reasons we can know that Specter was certainly not on a mission to "cover up" the existence of additional Connally bullet fragments is because we have Specter HIMSELF bringing out the information of MULTIPLE metallic fragments being removed from Connally's right wrist during his questioning of Parkland Hospital doctor Charles Gregory. Let's have a gander: ARLEN SPECTER -- "Did you observe any foreign objects identifiable as bits of fragments or portions of a bullet missile?" DR. CHARLES F. GREGORY -- "A preliminary X-ray had indicated that there were metallic fragments or at least metallic fragments which cast metallic shadows in the soft tissues around the wounded forearm. Two or three of these were identified and were recovered and were observed to be metallic in consistency. These were turned over to appropriate authorities for further disposition." So Specter wasn't hiding the fact that more than just one fragment was retrieved from John Connally's wrist. Specter himself elicited that information from Dr. Gregory. For some inexplicable reason, it would seem as though CE842, when it was first introduced into evidence during Robert Frazier's testimony, contained only one of the four fragments that were removed from Connally's body by Dr. Gregory. The other three fragments were evidently not examined by Bob Frazier of the FBI at all. But we must also keep in mind that the three smallest fragments from CE842 were also not examined by the HSCA in 1978 either. Those three tiny fragments were said to be "too small to weigh" [see 7 HSCA 367]. Do you, Robert Harris, really think that both Specter and Frazier would feel the need to hide or cover up the existence of three very tiny metal fragments that the HSCA later said were "too small to weigh"? How much total weight or mass could those three tiny fragments possibly amount to? Do you think the (unknown) weight of those small fragments was enough to tip the scales in favor of "conspiracy" in the JFK assassination, is that it? And is that why Frazier and Specter didn't want to reveal the fact that more than one fragment existed in CE842? If that is (at least in part) what you believe, I beg to differ. There would have been no good reason for either Specter or Frazier to want to start lying about the existence of three extremely tiny fragments removed from Governor Connally's body. I cannot explain why Robert Frazier seemed to think that CE842 contained just one single fragment. But, as I just explained, to think it was something "shady" or "sinister" on the part of Mr. Frazier (or Mr. Specter) is to believe something that doesn't make a whole lot of sense either, given the incredibly small size of those other three bullet fragments in question. Let me also add.... Bob Frazier's Warren Commission session is not the only time Mr. Frazier used the word "fragment" (singular) to describe the contents of Commission Exhibit No. 842. He also used that same word during his testimony at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969: QUESTION -- "What other projectiles or portions of the projectiles did you have?" ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "In addition to those there were two bullet fragments, the nose section and base section, recovered by the secret police and delivered to me at the laboratory. Then there were additional other fragments, another two fragments from the President's head and one fragment from the arm of Governor Connally." David Von Pein July 16, 2014
  13. Life isn't all JFK, Bob. A tiny bit of diversity is permitted, isn't it?
  14. Yeah, I've never done that before, have I?