Robert Harris

My conclusion from all this is that it is not certain T1 Transverse Process was damaged. The whole situation is full of ambiguity.

James.

Yes, well there seems to be a unwritten law that nothing related to this case can be simple :-)

But it appears that there was something there, which at the very least, might have been the result of a bullet strike nearby. And as near as I can tell, T1 is a perfect match with the lower of the two alleged wounds that I measured at the top of this thread. Now, it's important to understand that JFK's anatomy was somewhat different than a lot of other people's. The base of his neck and his vertebrae seemed to be lower in relation to his back. So, when we look at other skeletal models, we get the impression that T1 was higher than it was on Kennedy.

Look at photos of him in profile and then look at photos of others. To his credit, I think Seaton was trying to make that clear in his illustration. Look at how far down the back, his T1 appears.

I'm not saying it didn't, Robert. I'm saying that Seaton's image, which you insist on posting over and over again, is nonsense designed to support McAdams's disingenuous support of Artwohl's pet theory the bullet entered at T-1, AND that T-1 was significantly above the throat wound.

Yes, of course it's above the throat wound. I've been telling you that for years.

T1 was fractured and there are NO vertebrae below C7 that could have affected anything that was connected to the elbows. JFK's neurological reaction could only have been to a bullet passing very close to C7. JFK's anatomy was different that some other men. The base of his throat sat lower in relation to his vertebrae for example, than the guy you measured in your video on this subject. Measure JFK - not someone else.

This argument about the coat bunching is a waste of time. The coat undoubtedly did bunch up a bit in the back. In fact, the hole in the jacket is probably an inch or two lower than the back wound in the photo that I described at the top of this thread.

But we get a perfect match with vertebrae T1, which the HSCA confirmed, had been fractured. Just extend the T1 line to the back. Our personal opinions about "tailored" jackets don't mean much. What matters is the empirical, verifiable evidence.

Seaton's image is LN nonsense, Robert. It was designed to sell the ridiculous lie that a bullet entering at T-1 and exiting from the lower throat would be heading sharply downward in the body. This was in direct contradiction to the conclusions of the HSCA Pathology Panel, and Anatomy 101.

Dr. David Davis came to the following conclusion:

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area.

Now you might argue that he lied in order to support the LN cause, but the facts support him. Consider this, from the following website,

http://www.spine-hea...cervical-nerves

C7 controls the Triceps (the large muscle on the back of the arm that allows for straightening of the elbow).

As I have pointed out many, many times over the years, after he was wounded at about 223, JFK did not react to a wound in his throat. His elbows rose high into the air, above his shoulders, which could only have been a neurological reaction to a bullet striking near C7. That bullet fractured T1 and shocked C7. That is where the bullet struck.

This argument about the coat bunching is a waste of time. The coat undoubtedly did bunch up a bit in the back. In fact, the hole in the jacket is probably an inch or two lower than the back wound in the photo that I described at the top of this thread.

But we get a perfect match with vertebrae T1, which the HSCA confirmed, had been fractured. Just extend the T1 line to the back. Our personal opinions about "tailored" jackets don't mean much. What matters is the empirical, verifiable evidence.

Still can't deal HONESTLY with the fact your method of measurement is FATALLY FLAWED. Oh so typical.

I believe I did Craig. I explained to you that ALL 2 dimensional photos contain angular distortion. But the amount is negligible and not nearly enough to alter the fact that the lower of the two wounds matches both the dimensions and the position that Humes described.

If you think otherwise, then show us the math and give us some reason to believe that there is enough distortion to affect my conclusions.

Wow. . I have a whole bunch of points to make.

1. Robert is wrong in claiming no one has used the ruler to measure before. I did it 6 pr 7 years ago, and have posted my slide on this on this forum several times. I'm fairly certain I showed this slide at the 2009 COPA conference as well. It's currently on my website. The top wound is the wound measured by Humes. And you don't have to take my say-so on it. Assume the smaller wound is 7mm wide, and then extrapolate from that the size of the body, and you'll see that the body would have to have been gigantic for that wound to be 7mm.

2. The reason people think the bullet passed through Connally, and not on the outside of his rib, is the exit location, combined with the exit on the jacket. They are both near the middle of his body, and not at the right side. If Gary Murr, or some other expert on Connally thinks otherwise, I'd appreciate their chiming in.

3. I suspect James Gordon assumes we are looking up in Mantik's cross-section when it seems pretty clear we're looking down. I don't recall if there's a proper way to present a cross-section, but I'm pretty sure most layman would look at one under the assumption we a re looking down.

4. Shortly after I used the ruler to measure the wound, I was contacted by, if I'm not mistaken, Martin Hinrichs,. He'd cleaned up the back wound photo considerably, and was able to demonstrate to my satisfaction that the ruler in the photo was not 12 inches, but a centimeter ruler closer to 15 inches, if I recall. So Robert's assumption the ruler is 12 inches long--the assumption I'd made as well--is incorrect.

5. David mentioned "Knudsen's friend." I assume he is thinking of Joe O'Donnell. After O'Donnell's death, it was discovered that he had been suffering from dementia since at least the early 90's, and that his dementia centered around the Kennedy family. He'd claimed he'd taken pictures of the Kennedys that were known to have been taken by others, etc. He'd also told Doug Horne he'd edited the Zapruder film at Mrs. Kennedy's instruction. The man was clearly loopy. And it's far worse than that. O'Donnell was brought to Horne's attention through the research community, not through the government's records. As a consequence, there is NO evidence O'Donnell even knew Knudsen. The Knudsen family had never heard of him, and several colleagues of Knudsen's were asked after O'Donnell's dementia became public if they recalled O'Donnell, and none did. So, just a thought... Until SOME researcher spends a day or two doing real research and is able to prove Knudsen and O'Donnell were in fact pals, let's stop pretending O'Donnell was anything more than some demented old man telling stories.

6. Paul Seaton's appraisal of T-1's location in the neck is laughably inaccurate, and should not be relied upon. The HSCA FPP determined the neck wound was slightly above a wound on Kennedy's back at the T-1 level of his spine, Seaton embraced an inaccurate depiction of T-1 within the neck so he could claim a bullet entering at T-1 would be well above the exit on the throat. It horrifies me that Robert fell for it.

Robert is wrong in claiming no one has used the ruler to measure before. I did it 6 pr 7 years ago, and have posted my slide on this on this forum several times.

I was unaware of that. Would you mind posting a link to one or more of them? I'm curious about your measurements.

Assume the smaller wound is 7mm wide, and then extrapolate from that the size of the body

Pat, I don't mind you attacking my article but don't you think it would be a good idea to read it first? I was very clear that the lower alleged wound was 4mm wide and 7mm tall - exactly what Humes said it was. It's position is also consistent with his statement that it was 14 cm below the mastoid process and 14 cm from the acromium. This is the image I posted, which includes the measurements.

You should also look at my reply #13, which includes additional corroborations, including the fact that vertebrae T1 was fractured and is a perfect match with the lower alleged wound. And the hole in the coat is very close to the center of the back, which is where this wound was located.

And this image contains more information, confirming that the lower wound was exactly where Humes said it was.

My first problem, that I appear not to have articulated well, is that on BE 5 you state that the larger object was 15 pixels and that measured 7mm.

In Keynote the ruler is 661 pixels long and since we know it to have been 12 inches or 305 mms, we know that 1 mm = 2.167 pixels. Therefore, 7 mms = 15.169 pixels and 4 mms = 8.668 pixels. Of course, I cannot display fractions of pixels, so I did have to round the numbers off to 15 and 9 pixels respectively. I simply drew lines of those lengths and positioned them next to to the two candidates. I invite you or anyone else to verify my results using any valid software on the planet, including Autocad or whatever.

Yes the ruler may tell you that, but what verification did you have to suggest that these values were valid and not a consequence your use with Keynote on this particular image

I'd love to tell you that I am infallible but I certainly am not. OTOH, this is trivial stuff, based on junior high school geometry and I have been playing with this stuff for a long time, going back to the 90's, using Claris Draw under OS 9. I posted this or similar articles in three different forums so far, which are patrolled by ever vigilant nutters and so far, no one (present company excepted) have challenged my math. As I said, this is trivial stuff.

You total ignorance of the process and basic photographic principal is duly noted.

And your work is still useless.

Hi Craig!

You are correct that I am not a photographic expert.

You were also correct in pointing out that there is angular distortion in that photo. As I'm sure a bright guy like you realizes, ALL two dimensional photos contain angular distortion - no exceptions.

What matters however, is the degree of distortion and whether it is substantial enough to alter our conclusions. Is it your belief that my measurements, adjusted for distortion, would prove that the upper of the two alleged wounds matched Humes measurements better than the lower?

If so, perhaps you could share the math with us that led you to that conclusion. If not, then why would it matter?

Robert,

My first problem, that I appear not to have articulated well, is that on BE 5 you state that the larger object was 15 pixels and that measured 7mm. Yes the ruler may tell you that, but what verification did you have to suggest that these values were valid and not a consequence your use with Keynote on this particular image in that particular resolution and magnification.

You comment that the lower object being by the spine, is exactly where it needs to be. The autopsy is categorical that there was no damage to the spine. Yes the HSCA does have some language on T1, but it has no language on a wound in that area of the body. In addition we now have access to very good high resolution copies of JFK's jacket. There is no damage where this object you say struck JFK. If JFK was wounded in that area of his body, where is the verifying evidence from his jacket and shirt to corroborate your theory?

I am aware that the Daltex may well be a part of the narrative of the Kennedy assassination. I have trajectories leading back to that building. However to suggest that the Connally wound at 225 leads back there is a nonsense. 2D trajectory analysis is a useful tool, but it is open to distorted results. However the serious criticism is your blue dashed line. If that is your understanding of the Connally wound, put simply you are completely wrong. Connally wound was not a through wound, as you appear to suggest. It was a tangential wound. If you plot back the trajectory of the Connally chest wound it would pass to the right of JFK. It would do that because of the tangential angle that it entered Connally body. That is one of the reasons the SBT is an invalid theory.

I have looked at the beginning of your video. I see where you suggest the shot was fired from, but the quality of the image you use does not support your contention. I hear what you say, but you have not - at least to my mind - provided evidence to support it. I do not see this broken window you talk about. I appreciate that you firmly believe that window played a part in the assassination narrative. What you have not done - to my point of view - is to provide evidence of such quality that would lead others to agree with you.

James.

My first problem, that I appear not to have articulated well, is that on BE 5 you state that the larger object was 15 pixels and that measured 7mm.

In Keynote the ruler is 661 pixels long and since we know it to have been 12 inches or 305 mms, we know that 1 mm = 2.167 pixels. Therefore, 7 mms = 15.169 pixels and 4 mms = 8.668 pixels. Of course, I cannot display fractions of pixels, so I did have to round the numbers off to 15 and 9 pixels respectively. I simply drew lines of those lengths and positioned them next to to the two candidates. I invite you or anyone else to verify my results using any valid software on the planet, including Autocad or whatever.

Yes the ruler may tell you that, but what verification did you have to suggest that these values were valid and not a consequence your use with Keynote on this particular image

I'd love to tell you that I am infallible but I certainly am not. OTOH, this is trivial stuff, based on junior high school geometry and I have been playing with this stuff for a long time, going back to the 90's, using Claris Draw under OS 9. I posted this or similar articles in three different forums so far, which are patrolled by ever vigilant nutters and so far, no one (present company excepted) have challenged my math. As I said, this is trivial stuff.

Yes the HSCA does have some language on T1

"Language"?? Why can't we be specific James? They said it was "fractured". And where is T1? This is from Paul Seaton's website

Funny coincidence eh? T1 is a virtually perfect match with the lower of those two alleged wounds.

What do you suppose caused that fracture?

In addition we now have access to very good high resolution copies of JFK's jacket. There is no damage where this object you say struck JFK.

I'm afraid the evidence doesn't support you James.

I do not see this broken window you talk about.

Then you need to explain the irregularly shaped darkened area which BTW, can also be seen in other photos as well, clearly extending only part way across that window. But let's stick with one issue at a time.

James, I'm not sure I understand your arguments here. There is very little angular distortion in that photo, certainly not enough to invalidate the conclusions. And your argument that Keynote is presentation software is just not relevant, since all we are doing is counting pixels. If Keynote cannot do that, I'm going back PC's :-)

There has been considerable discussion about this in my own forum, between a LN advocate named Kegeshook and myself. If you go to this link and reply #41, you will see a totally different perspective on how far down from the mastoid process, 14cms. really is.

http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=2338.30#lastPost

As to your point that the lower alleged wound is near the center of the back, that is exactly where it needs to be. This is another diagram I made some time ago, calculating angles for the apparent shot at Zapruder frame 223, from the alleged sniper's nest and a window on the third floor of the Daltex building where I feel quite certain that shot came from. In the limo diagram I probably should have turned JFK a few degrees to his right.

At the beginning of this video I explain why I believe one or more shots were fired from that window. From there, all the angles for the 223 shot finally make sense.

It looks like the back back of the head is tilted back some would this throw off the measurement.

I all always thought the best way to see where the back wound was to measure the shirt from the tip of the collar to the hole in the shirt and the same for the jacket and see were they line up.

I realize that the head was tilted back a bit, but click on that second image to blow it up and look at how low on the BOH the mastoid process is . The 14 cm line I overlayed, comes to a point well above that. Also, the dimensions of that lower defect match perfectly with Hume's 7x4 measurement.

I have always believed that the lower of the two alleged wounds was the correct one because the ruler is obviously, turned to measure it and not the higher one. And there seems to be an abrasion collar surrounding it. I have argued for years, that the SBT shot could not have come from the 6th floor of the TSBD because the vertical angle for such a shot was too steep to match the known wounds on the two victims. But both the the vertical and horizontal angles match quite well, with a third floor window in the Daltex building. I explain why I believe that this shot came from there, at the beginning of this video.

Interesting work Bob.

But as I am sure someone will ask: What is the other mark then?

I honestly don't know what it was.

But I'm quite sure what it was not :-)

After half a century of quarreling about the location of the back wound on President Kennedy, I think I have stumbled upon a way to resolve this issue once and for all. As is often the case, it is ridiculously simple.

The famous autopsy photo below, has been controversial, because govt. doctors have stated that the upper of two alleged wounds was the actual entry point. Skeptics (including moi) have argued that the ruler is turned in such a way as to be measuring the lower of the two and that there appears to be an abrasion collar around it.

The answer to this controversy is simple. In his testimony, Humes was very specific about both the size of that wound and its location. All we really had to do was take a few measurements. That becomes a relatively simple task, because of the ruler in the photo.

Although its markings are indistinct, we know that it was 12 inches or 305 millimeters long. I made my calculation using a Mac program called Keynote, but there are many CAD or simple drawing programs which can be used to verify my conclusions.

Keynote’s measurements are displayed as pixels. I measured the ruler to be 661 pixels long, which means that 661 pixels = 305 millimeters. Therefore, 1 millimeter is equal to 2.167 pixels.

The first measurement we’ll be considering is what Humes determined to be the size of the wound. That was 7mm tall by 4 mm wide. I did have to round off the number of pixels but the error was negligable. 7mm=15 pixels and 4mm = 9 pixels. I therefore, drew lines of 15 and 9 pixels and placed them alongside the two candidates. This was the result. (The forum software shrunk the image. To see it at full size, just click on it)

The next measurement we’ll look at is about the location of that wound. This is how Humes described it,

“this wound was 14 cm. from the tip of the mastoid process and 14 cm. from the acromion”

Using the same kind of calculations it was quite easy to determine the length of a 14cm (140mm) line. I overlayed two lines on the drawing, one which determines the distance from the apparent wound to the mastoid process and the other, to the acromion. This is the result.

The lower of the two wounds is a virtually perfect match with both the dimensions that Humes reported, and the location. The upper of the two matches none. I would encourage anyone and everyone to do their own measurements to confirm my conclusions.

The following is a posting I recently made in alt.assassination.jfk, a usenet forum populated by some of the most radical lone nut advocates on the Internet. As you look at the images here, consider that McAdams replied by continuing to deny that there was any protrusion in the back of JFK's head.

That massive protrusion

Over the years, John McAdams has desperately tried to deny its existence, claiming that the massive protrusion in the back of the President's head did not exist.

He argued that frame 337 was some kind of photographic anomaly, depicting damage that does not exist in any of the other Zapruder frames. In a recent thread in which I tried to explain how the protrusion was created, he has blocked three consecutive posts.

Of course, this is not John's only "see no evil" pitch, as anyone who has seen his denial of the startle reactions following frame 285, knows:-)

And as in the 285 issue, John's denial is not just wrong; it is outrageously wrong. Let's look first at frame 317, just after the 313 explosion has completely subsided. Notice that there is no protrusion and no damage in the BOH area.

There are numerous blurred frames after that, but let's look at a few of the clearest. Perhaps John will tell us what we are seeing (or not seeing:-) in frame 228.

And frame 335.

This is the one from Groden's TKOAP. It is a full page blowup of frame 337, taken from a second generation copy of the film. It is undoubtedly, the highest quality copy of the frame that we will ever see.

By studying blowups of frames from the Nix film, we can see that the shot which caused a large piece of skullbone to flip to the rear, taking with it, hair and scalp from the upper-forward part of the head, was fired at about Zapruder frame 319-320.

As I explained in one of my messages that John hijacked,

That broken piece of skull was almost certainly broken by the shot at 313. Look closely at the top of the head at 313 and in the Moorman photo.

When it was hit by the second bullet, there was very little resistance - not enough to permit what was likely, a bullet from a handgun to pass through it. Think of a small, swinging door.

Try a simple experiment. Fire a pistol at a piece of 4x8 plywood. The bullet goes right through it, doesn't it?

Now, suspend a small piece of that same plywood from a piece of line or rope. Shoot it and watch what happens. It will spin around furiously and in all likelihood, no hole will be created.

That's essentially what happened when the second head shot was fired. That skull piece flipped to the rear, ripping out hair and scalp in the upper forward part of the head.

Anyone wishing to disagree with that needs to provide a better explanation for how the hair which was present in frame 317 was displaced by the 330's and wound up inside the inverted piece of skull that formed the massive protrusion in the upper rear of the head.

This article goes into more detail. Please read it all. The most important parts are at the very end.

http://jfkhistory.co.../BOHDamage.html

Robert Harris

Mr. Harris for you to take the attitude that you have just displayed shows that you are more interested in defending your position than discovering the truth.

I am just pointing out what is obviously there. I can see why you do not want to see it however.

What this shows is that you have to view the actual bullet, you cannot determine what initials are on that bullet from the photographs.

Click the image to enlarge or click this link http://imageshack.us...ntsbullets4.png

You're using a dark, low resolution copy of the picture. You can't even see Killion and Frazier's initials on the side where you think you see these phantom initials, which just happens to be right over the top of where Frazier's initials are.

I guess CTers must have totally forgotten (or deem as fake too) Elmer Todd's FBI report which is seen in Commission Document No. 7, which is a report that was written by Todd himself on the night of the assassination, wherein he says that he etched his initials into the nose of the stretcher bullet.

So we've not only got CE2011 (from June/July '64) to confirm that Todd marked the bullet, we've got a report written by Todd himself on 11/22/63 which says the exact same thing (that Todd marked the bullet):

In point of fact, there is, indeed, a complete chain of possession (chain of custody) for Bullet CE399 when all of the various documents and testimony are assembled and reasonably and sensibly evaluated:

From Tomlinson/Wright to Richard Johnsen (via Johnsen's typed note on White House stationery, which was stapled to the envelope that Johnsen put the bullet into; a copy of Johnsen's note appears in CE1024, at 18 H 800).

From Johnsen to Rowley (via CE2011, which verifies that Johnsen gave the bullet to Rowley).

From Rowley to Todd (via CD7 [Todd's 11/22/63 FD-302 report] and via the envelope which has the very key words written at the bottom by Elmer Todd, with Todd saying he had received the envelope and its contents from Rowley).

From Todd to Frazier (via Frazier's initials on the bullet and via CD7 and via Frazier's testimony).

It's not nearly strong enough of a chain to please CTers (naturally), but it is a chain nonetheless.

This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic and desperate.

First of all, you don't use one of Todd's own reports to prove that he was telling the truth. That's like say OJ was innocent because he wrote a report saying he didn't kill anybody.

And secondly, it wouldn't matter whether he etched his initials into the stretcher bullet or not, because those initials are not on CE399, which was obviously, not the same bullet.

Come on David. Take a course in critical thinking:-)

Its unfortunate Colby jumped on here, as it always is.

That was nice work Bob. And you quoted the goon Reitzes accurately. I did not know about the large age differential. In other words, they could not be confused as the same person, and they were not related in any way.

Therefore this is one more point that demonstrates it was Oswald in the Clinton Jackson incident.

Reitzes work on the Clinton Jackson incident is a disgrace. I mean all you have to do is see how the word first got out about Oswald being there. Garrison had nothing to do with that. Period.

There is what might first appear as a small detail, which pretty much nails the question of whether at least Oswald was there. This was a great catch by Ray and Mary La Fontaine - from their book "Oswald Talked".

Posner cites this Summers interview with Palmer as a

prelude to switching into search and destroy mode. The Warren

pitbull wants to show that whatever Palmer may have said to

Summers in 1978, he said something devastatingly different

eleven years earlier "in his 1967 statement to Garrison's

office. "Among the things Palmer said then", says Posner, was

that "Oswald produced a `cancelled Navy I.D. card' and that

Oswald told him he had been living in Jackson for six months

with a doctor from the hospital."106

The last part of Oswald's alleged statement has no more

consequence than any of the other minor contradictions Posner

dredges up in his six pages seeking to discredit the Clinton

testimony... The first part, however, about the cancelled Navy

ID card, is an extremely interesting find, for which we owe

Posner a debt of gratitude.

As we now know, none of the Oswald military cards included

in the Warren exhibits bears a cancellation. There is one

card, however, not included in the exhibits or ever shown to the

Warren investigators that is "cancelled" not once, but twice. This

is ID card No.N (for Navy) 4,271,617, the Department of

Defense Form1173 discussed in Chapter3. The apparent

cancellations on the DoD ID are probably circular postmarks,

one superimposed over the other. The clearer postmark is dated

October23, 1963. The previous postmark beneath it has only

three legible letters: JUL, for July. Since October23 would

have been too late for a Clinton debut (Oswald was already back

in Dallas by then), the cancellation that Palmer believed he

saw on the "Navy ID" was probably the July postmark, though

whether of 1963 or an earlier year remains unknown.

This is the card they were talking about:

Of course, "cancellation stamps" don't normally belong on a miltary ID card. However they got there, this was a millions to one fluke on Oswald's card. It was already ridiculously improbable that someone Oswald's age would come along who didn't have a driver's license and used a military ID to apply for voter registration. The notion that he also had a cancellation stamp on his card is beyond improbable.

Mr. Ragano, I think you're hallucinating if you believe that you can see another set of initials.

Reread the article he was not saying they mistook Morgan for LHO.

http://mcadams.posc....du/clinton1.htm

EDIT - Originally wrote: " LHO for Morgan"

Well then, tell us what he really meant. He said,

These remarkable similarities suggest that whoever was shaping the Clinton scenario simply appropriated the entire 'profile' of Estus Morgan, who really did appear at the registrar's office in 1963, and attributed it to Lee Harvey Oswald.

If David did not mean that this appropriation was an honest misidentification then what was it? Did all of these men conspire to lie about who they saw and talked to? Were all the details about Oswald's age, his military ID, and the men who were with him, complete, deliberate fabrications?

These men included members of the C.O.R.E. and members of the KKK. Is David suggesting that they all conspired to deliberately lie?

The bullet we know as CE 399 went directly to the SS at Parkland (via Wright). It did not pass through the Dallas Police Department.

The bullet fragment that you claim a nurse gave to Ranger Nolan went ultimately to the Dallas Police Department and Captain Firtz.

Nurse bell also delivers 4 small fragments to the Dallas Police Department.

We do not know what Captain Fritz gave to the FBI.

The next day the FBI interviews Nolan and mentions the word fragment.

Nolan did not know what was in that envelope, he never looked.

You accuse the FBI of a lot of lying and I believe you are wrong about that.

When you realize we are talking about two bullets, not one, a whole lot of lying goes away.

http://www.ctka.net/...ll_Article.html

Regarding John Hunt, apparently, he did not examine the actual bullet, he only examined photographs of the bullet. If that is indeed the case he cannot state , as a fact, that Todd's initials are not on that bullet.

First of all, CE399 was not the bullet that Tomlinson found. And Bell did not deliver her envelope to the DPD. She gave it to two plain clothed agents, probably from the FBI, in her office. She then had one of them sign a receipt and sent the receipt to administration at the hospital. But rather than re-explain all of this, I would prefer to direct you to the article which contains all the documented facts related to this issue. They are MUCH different than what you seem to believe.

Please read it all. The most important parts are toward the end.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Refresh my memory David. What was your explanation for why Bell told those men that this was a single bullet that was from Connally's gurney, rather than four tiny fragments recovered from his wrist during surgery?

Maybe you could just cut 'n paste your previous explanation.

Take your time David. Honest young man that you are, I'm sure didn't lie about addressing those questions. Just cite your response - verbatim, please.

Already done it, Bob. Many times. You just don't like the answers.

Refresh my memory David. What was your explanation for why Bell told those men that this was a single bullet that was from Connally's gurney, rather than four tiny fragments recovered from his wrist during surgery?

Maybe you could just cut 'n paste your previous explanation.

The only bullet associated with JBC's wounds is CE399. That's a FACT that was accepted as a FACT by both the WC & HSCA, and no amount of foot-stomping done by Robert Harris (or anyone else) is going to change that fact.

David, you remind me of radical theists I have debated with re: religion. They endlessly proclaim that god made the universe and that their bible or koran is a FACT. Of course, they have exactly the same amount of support for their assertion that you have for yours. Absolute zero.

Ever wonder why (or how!) both the WC and HSCA could accept CE399 as the SBT bullet if it has such a rotten chain of possession (and if your other theories re Connally, Stinson, Bell, and Nolan are accurate)?

Yes, I did but only for a little while. The WC was obviously suspicious after Tomlinson testified that the bullet didn't come from Connally's stretcher, so they told the FBI to get confirmation from the four men who first examined that bullet.

But since all four refused to confirm CE399, they lied to the WC and told them that SA Odum got a partial confirmation and that FBI agent Todd confirmed that his initials were on the bullet. Of course, we know that both of those claims were lies.

Was the HSCA just incredibly stupid, Bob?

Well, actually they were exactly that, and on many other issues, but that's for another thread.

Like virtually all conspiracy theorists, Robert Harris has no ability whatsoever when it comes to properly (and reasonably) evaluating evidence in the JFK case.

I love how you resort to ad hominem attacks when the evidence proves you are wrong David. When do you intend to talk about those key witnesses?

The best way to know that Harris is full of cow dung is the fact that there is no second bullet in evidence today that in any way was associated with the wounding of Gov. John B. Connally.

That has got to be the worst example of circular reasoning I have heard this year. The FBI couldn't have made this bullet evaporate because it is no longer around!! Of course the freakin bullet isn't "in evidence". The FBI made sure of that.

I think it is pathetic that you continue to try to change the subject and evade the most important evidence. There are no Ed Hoffmans among those witnesses David. We're talking about the Governor of Texas, the Dallas district attorney, the police officer in charge of Connally's security, Connally's top aide and the nursing supervisor in the ER. Who else do I need? Was Einstein still alive then?

Every one of them contradict you and every one of them prove that the actual bullet that wounded Connally was recovered on the second floor and given to officer Nolan.

Let me ask you a question David. You want to believe the FBI, that it was Audrey Bell who gave that envelope to Nolan, right?

But tell me something - Bell told the HSCA 15 years later that she carefully place 4 tiny fragments from Connally's wrist into a plastic box which she then placed in an envelope. She told the ARRB exactly the same thing 34 years later. And she labelled the envelope as containing "fragments" from Connally's arm.

So, if she could remember that for over three decades, why was she unable to remember it for the 10 or 15 minutes after she processed that envelope on 11/22/63? How could she have forgotten and told Wade, Nolan and Stinson that it contained a single bullet from Connally's gurney?? And this was not just any nurse. She was the supervisor of nurses in the Parkland emergency room. She had been an RN for 16 years at the time.

And don't you find it strange that Wade, whom you are sure, only looked at an envelope, and Nolan, never noticed that the envelope was labelled as containing "fragments from the arm".

And isn't it an amazing coincidence that she also told them the bullet came from Connally's gurney and that Connally said the bullet fell from his gurney onto the floor??

Come on David. Stop running. Explain to us why those witnesses said what they did and why their statements were so consistent with one another.

Bob's laughter begins, as he cannot believe that ANYONE in 2012 would still place an ounce of faith in anything the US Govt. or the DPD or the FBI told him about the JFK evidence.

Why do you continue to misrepresent me? You know very well that the ONLY agency I have ever accused of something like this, is the FBI - no exceptions, other than the WW3 thing which was essentially benign. But I get it David. I've been in JFK forums for a long time and was a moderator in two of them. The trashtalk and ad hominem almost always comes when some clown is in a corner. I've seen it happen a thousand times.

Address the facts and the evidence David. After you do that, then call me all names and do the trashtalk. But FIRST - talk about the facts and the evidence. That's all that matters.

David, that is the biggest pile of crap I have heard in a long time, and coming from you, that's saying a lot. Let's review what those people actually said:

John Connally:

"..the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, 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 though my back, chest and wrist and worked itself loose from my thigh."

DA Henry Wade:

I also went out to see (Gov. John) Connally, but he was in the operating room. Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was on the gurney that Connally was on. I talked with Nellie Connally a while and then went on home.

Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet people have talked about?

A: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I assume that's the pristine bullet.

Officer Billy Nolan:

Nolan: I was talking to a man who was one of governor Connally's aides. His name was - I think it was either Stinton or Stimmons (Bill Stinson). And he was an aide to the Governor. And she came up and told him that she had the bullet that came off of the gurney.

Now I don't know what gurney. I think they meant Governor Connally's gurney. And she said, "What do you want me to do with it?" He and I were just sitting there in the hallway talking to me and said, "Give it to him"

Q. Was it a bullet fragment or a complete bullet?

Nolan: I don't know. It was a - they told me that is was a bullet.

And I don't know if it was a fragment of a bullet or a whole bullet because it was in a little, small brown envelope. And it was sealed and it was about, I'd say 2 by 3 inches. And it was in that envelope when I got it and I never did look at it or anything."

Q. Now when the nurse gave it to you, did she describe it as a bullet fragment or as a bullet.

Nolan: Uh no. She just said it was a bullet. That's all.

Connally Aide Bill Stinson, whom Nolan said was standing next to him, obviously missed or misunderstood the part about the bullet coming from the gurney. He thought it was recovered in surgery.

from Ramparts magazine

"Before the Commission discredited Connally's testimony they should at least have heard all the important witnesses. Ramparts found one the Commission never talked to; they never even asked him for an affidavit. He is William Stinson, an aide to Governor Connally at the time of the assassination. Today, although officially employed by the Veterans Administraton, he has an office in the White House. Stinson told us he was in the operating room, wearing a sterile uniform, when the doctors operated on Connally at Parkland Hospital. 'The last thing they did,' said Stinson, 'was to remove the bullet from the governor's thigh---because that was the least thing that was wrong with him.'".

The FBI tried to cover this up by making it appear that Nolan was given the tiny fragments that nurse Audrey Bell gave to plain clothed agents in her office. This is from the ARRB report on her testimony:

When shown an FBI FD-302 dated November 23,1963 (Agency File Number 000919, Record# 180-l 0090-10270), she felt it was inaccurate in two respects: it quotes her as turning over “the metal fragment (singular),” whereas she is positive it was multiple fragments - it says she turned over the fragment to a Texas State Trooper, whereas she recalls turning it over to plainclothes Federal agents who were either FBI or Secret Service.

Let's review:

1. Connally said a bullet fell from his gurney onto the floor and was picked up by a nurse.

2. Wade encountered a nurse, undoubtedly, the same one, who was holding a bullet (not an envelope) in her hand and said it came from Connally's "gurney". He told her to give to the cops, pronto.

3. She did exactly as she was told and put the bullet into an envelope and gave it to officer Nolan, telling him that it was a "bullet" (not a fragment or fragments) that came from Governor Connally's "gurney".

4. Bill Stinson, who was with Nolan at the time, misunderstood and thought the bullet was recovered in surgery.

Tell me what happened David. Were they all on drugs? Did they all lie in order to promote a crazy conspiracy theory?

I also notice that you aren't interested in talking about that FBI phone call at 1:30 in the AM, to Tomlinson, telling him to keep his mouth shut about the bullet, just after they received fragments in Dallas that they could compare with Tomlinson's bullet. Strange coincidence, eh David??

This is the article that anyone interested in this subject needs to read:

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

David, you know very well that Hunt's scan was done in high contrast for the obvious purpose of making the initials stand out clearly. Why are you pretending that I said that Hunt "forged" it? But even it contains obvious character fragments which prove that information on the envelope was altered.

You seem desperate to change the subject David. Are you now ready to discuss the statements of Connally, Wade, Nolan and Bell? I think Stinson's statement on the subject is also significant. And I think the key word here is "gurney".

The natural presumption would be that a nurse coming out of surgery on a gunshot wound victim, carrying a bullet, would be that the bullet was removed from the victim's body. Without Connally's explanation of what happened, it makes no sense at all that the bullet came from his "gurney". It is not something that these people would just presume or construct a false memory of. But that is exactly what she told both Wade and Nolan. Stinson, apparently wasn't listening closely to her, and made the presumption that the bullet was removed during surgery. But like the others, he confirmed that this bullet could not have been the one that Tomlinson found.

And don't you find it amazing that within about 90 minutes after the arrival of fragments at the FBI lab which could be compared with Tomlinson's bullet, he was awakened and told by the FBI to "keep his mouth shut" about that bullet?

CE399 was NOT the bullet that wounded Connally. It contained NONE of the initials that were made prior to it arriving at the FBI labs.

And the actual bullet that the nurse picked up and gave to Nolan could not have come from Oswald's gun, or the FBI would have flaunted it instead of trying to cover it up.

The evidence is overwhelming and beyond dispute. I find it shameful that all you can do is frantically try to change the subject so that you won't have to talk about it.

Re: Nolan/Wade/Connally, etc.:

As you well know, Mr. Harris, I've tackled your theories re that matter in past years. But apparently every conspiracy theory becomes shiny new and baby fresh once again after it lies around for a few years, as per the CTer norm.

Perhaps you'd like to resurrect your theory about Nurse Audrey Bell's initials being planted on CE842 once again. You still have a video online that suggests that very thing, even though we both know the "forgery" is really Will Fritz' initials turned upside-down. Why is that theory still be peddled in your video for the unknowing public to lap up, Bob?

David, we have no idea what was or was not forged on that envelope. What we do know is that significant portions of it were erased, partially erased, and written over. You responded to that by posting a high contrast scan of the original photo in which much of the detail was not visible and then proclaimed the issue debunked. That was not only wrong, but flatly dishonest.

But why are you trying to change the subject? I asked why you refused to talk about the statements by Wade, Nolan and Connally. And for that matter, why won't you talk about Bell's denial of the FBI's claim that her envelope only contained a single object and that she gave it to officer Nolan. She was in fact, adamant that she gave it to plain clothed agents who unlike Nolan, were not in uniform.

You need to stop evading the important issues, David.