In article <3a3643ba-0817-41e1-bc1f-1f9a3c91e9b9@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was looking for that! A bullet wouldn't push it out at all (for King > John:
You know, Jay, I do not recall ever making fun of your name, whether your real name or the alias you use here, Saintly Oswald, or the different one which begins your email address. This is yet another example of you descending to levels that I have not descended to with you, or at least not until responding to you doing it first. "Go run along and play," you said to me on Youtube, and then you said to me here that I acted as if I was at least 100 years old. You continue to demonstrate that your maturity level is lower than mine.
> OK, maybe a smidgen) wherever it went through, it would be whatever > material came with it.
Why was I, of all people, mentioned in connection with this? I don't recall ever bringing up the supposed lapel flip with you.
> On Monday, October 1, 2012 3:56:02 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <656c278e-4d6b-4aae-879f-b4ab0512a286@googlegroups.com>,
> > Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thank you. I find that video to be the most persuasive explanation I've > > > ever seen for the throat wound. Maybe Posner didn't get *anything* right. > > > I'll have to ponder this for a while.
> > Have you noticed that I've been telling you for at least a couple of days > > now that Posner (and John Lattimer before him) were way off in the claim > > of the Thorburn Position? I believe that nonsense no more Gil Jesus does > > in that video.
> > Ah, but why can't JFK be trying to cough up *blood* instead? Why does it > > have to be a bullet lodged in his throat? And where did that bullet go if > > it didn't exit his back? And where did the bullet into his back go if it > > didn't exit the front of his throat? When neither of them struck bone > > directly enough to slow them down enough to stop them from exiting? And > > why does John Connally right in front of JFK jerk violently at exactly the > > same instant that JFK does, beginning at Z226, which is exactly the same > > frame when JFK's right hand first begins rising in the motion that will > > end with his right fist against his mouth? And why is Connally facing > > toward the front of the limo for the only time between Z165 and when he is > > pulled back by Nellie, and why did Connally almost always say that he had > > been facing almost directly toward the front when he was hit?
> > A gigantic amount of evidence is being ignored, and not by me.
> You can see all that, but you can't see a shoulder stock?
You are comparing apples and oranges, a moving film, in color no less, to a still black and white photograph. Seeing motions is an entirely different thing from trying to make out the identity of a distantly-photographed object, with the additional problem, as I've told you before, of no color contrast to give more evidence. Because of the photo being black and white, there are various colors the object could be, but each of those colors will look the same in black and white as long as they are equally light or dark. Thus we can't, for example, tell if the object is brown or not, such as would be the color we might expect from a wooden rifle stock. Also, this is merely what you *think*, in your *opinion* to be a shoulder stock. That's not even remotely similar to watching the motions of people in the color Zapruder film. It is not my "opinion" that both men jerk violently starting in frame Z226; they clearly do that in objective truth. It is not my "opinion" that JFK's right hand begins to move upward in Z226; that's simply what it does. It is not my "opinion" that Connally's hat suddenly begins to flip in Z226; that's simply what it does. And this is not a problem of trying to identify an object. We know that's JFK's right hand. We know that is Connally's Stetson. There is no question about the identification of those things. There is no question about the identification of the two men we're looking at there.
Only if we were talking about an *object* in the Zapruder film that is difficult to identify would we be talking about the same type of thing as the object in the Cabluck photo.
You are trying to demonstrate an imaginary inconsistency in my statements, when in reality with the Zapruder film I was talking about things that are totally different, on several levels, as the object you claim in your opinion is a shoulder stock in a still black and white photo. I was talking about *motions* of things that are already identified.
See the obvious difference?
> If I didn't know > you better, I'd think you weren't being completely honest.
You should indeed know better, and you have no legitimate excuse to even express the most meager hint imaginable to the contrary.
> In article <506a57f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/1/2012 8:55 PM, claviger wrote:
>>> Anthony,
>>>> Sitzman and Zapruder did not see Black Dog Man only a few feet in front
>>>> of them.
>>> Mainly because there was no Black Dog Man in front of them, only a
>>> black couple.
>> So where was the baby? Did the woman drop it when she heard the shot?
>> How come Sitzman didn't mention the baby? Did you forget about the baby?
> I thought it was a soda bottle, not a baby.
So you are saying that a soda bottle hitting the ground sounds like a baby being dropped?
If you claim it was a black couple behind the retaining wall, where was the baby?
And why is the image BLACK when their clothing was light?
> On 10/1/2012 1:53 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <5068ddd...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 9/30/2012 6:48 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> >>> In article <699148a3-99a6-480c-90f2-3293d5ca7bfd@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> I say that it's a shoulder stock with a sling which the man is holding in
> >>>> his right hand. But, if you really want to believe that this guy put on
> >>>> his suit and hat and tied a rope to his shovel to go down and watch the
> >>>> presidential cavalcade, I can't stop you.
> >>> Uh, first of all, whether it is a shovel or not, I cannot tell for certain
> >>> that there is anything "tied" to the object. Yes, yes, yes, where you
> >>> have the contrast increased, I do see *something*, a small, dark line in
> >>> the very tiny space between the man and the object just above the top of
> >>> the railing, but it is far, far, far too indistinct to tell if it is
> >>> really something tied to the object or not. I freely admit that it
> >>> *could* be, but even with your best attempts to clarify the image it is
> >>> still much too grainy and blurry to be anywhere close to certain. Also,
> >>> if it is a shovel, or some other tool, how do you know that that's the man
> >>> who put it there? Maybe someone else put it there and he just happened by
> >>> pure chance to be standing next to it at the instant the photo was taken?
> >>> I also don't see how on earth anyone could fire a rifle from such a
> >>> helplessly visible location without at least a dozen witnesses plainly
> >>> seeing it, especially the witnesses whom the limo had already passed at
> >>> this point, as many of them would be looking both toward the limo and the
> >>> overpass at the same time. Also I don't know of a single witness anywhere
> >>> near there who said that any individual shot sounded louder and closer
> >>> than any other shot, unless you're proposing that that man fired *all* the
> >>> shots. The closest thing we have to that is Sam Holland, who was standing
> >>> on the same bridge at the time, but what he said was he thought that one
> >>> shot had come from behind the fence, and from a part of the fence that was
> >>> closer to the other end than to the bridge, over fairly close to witnesses
> >>> such as Hudson, Sitzman, and Zapruder. Are you claiming Sam Holland would
> >> Sitzman and Zapruder did not see Black Dog Man only a few feet in front
> >> of them.
> > Maybe because there wasn't any person there to see?
> >>>> Sitzman and Zapruder did not see Black Dog Man only a few feet in front
> >>>> of them.
> >>> Mainly because there was no Black Dog Man in front of them, only a
> >>> black couple.
> >> So where was the baby? Did the woman drop it when she heard the shot?
> >> How come Sitzman didn't mention the baby? Did you forget about the baby?
> > I thought it was a soda bottle, not a baby.
> So you are saying that a soda bottle hitting the ground sounds like a > baby being dropped?
Strawman. Quote me verbatim from any previous article I've ever posted saying that there was the sound of a baby being dropped. How you do go on, Anthony. ;-)
> If you claim it was a black couple behind the retaining wall, where was > the baby?
Quote me verbatim from any previous article that I've ever posted saying that the black couple was behind the retaining wall, Anthony. And who says they had a baby?
> And why is the image BLACK when their clothing was light?
Perhaps because you've got the Black couple in the wrong place, and the dark area is simply shadow? ;-)
In article <506a5f2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 10/1/2012 3:54 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <e8667418-ec64-49db-a857-8a50388f88b3@googlegroups.com>,
> > Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> After pondering it all the live long day, I am convinced, at least until
> >> something better comes along, that JFK was actually reacting to a throat
> >> wound in z225, almost certainly from the front. I never got this myself,
> >> because I have been captivated by the lie that Connally was hit by a
> >> bullet at Z224.
> > Oh, that's a "lie," is it? Strange then that both Connally and JFK jerk
> Strange that they don't. Strange that JFK reacted BEFORE Connally. Maybe > it was a very slow bullet. Maybe one of them thar CIA boring bullets.
Lol, JFK reacted "before" Connally? How do you work that out, when JFK's right hand does not start rising until Z226, exactly the same frame that Connally's flip of the hat begins?
> > violently at exactly the same instant, beginning at Z226. Strange then
> > that for the rest of his life Connally almost always said he heard a
> > shot, looked to his right, then intended to turn the other way, to the
> > left, to look around into the back seat, but only got as far in the turn
> > as facing just about straight forward when he felt himself to be hit.
> > Strange then that it's exactly at Z226 that we see him suddenly face
> > forward just after his head has been continuously turned to the right
> > since Z165.
> Strange that Lattimer said Z-224.
Didn't he say Z224 for when the bullet went through them, not for the frame they begin to react? And it's only two frames difference, Anthony. That's less than one-sixth of a second.
> But you have to make up you own frame > in order to seem important.
I'm not "making up" that JFK's right hand first begins to rise in Z226 and that Connally's hat flip begins in that same frame also.
> >> Even after concluding that Greer had shot Connally in the
> >> back,
> > While he's driving the car.
> > That alone is an incredible aspect to your claim.
> > And Connally himself, you know, the man who was shot, who would know
> > better than any other human who ever lived or ever will live exactly
> > when he felt that blow in his back, said he was facing almost exactly
> > straight forward, toward the front of the limousine, when he was shot.
> > Sheesh, talk about a magic bullet, Greer's bullet would have to be at
> > least 1000 times more magical than anything even the most virulent
> > critics of the single bullet had ever proposed.
> So? Do you have a SBT with Connally hit by Greer's bullet which then > goes through Kennedy?
Obviously not. Strawman. Do you ever tire of asking stupid questions you already know the answer to before you ask them? You knew years ago that the only SBT I've ever proposed in this newsgroup is that the bullet was fired from the TSBD, entered JFK's back, exited the front of his throat, entered Connally's back, exited his chest, went through his right wrist, and then into his left thigh.
In article <46b77708-4615-456a-b26e-ffabfeba1109@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 4:09:20 PM UTC-4, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <3a3643ba-0817-41e1-bc1f-1f9a3c91e9b9@googlegroups.com>,
> > Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I was looking for that! A bullet wouldn't push it out at all (for King > > > John:
> > You know, Jay, I do not recall ever making fun of your name,
> Who is Jay?
Anthony called you that several weeks ago and you didn't correct him.
I've called you that several times since and you never corrected me. Is that not your name?
> On 10/1/2012 3:55 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> > In article <5068d8b...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 9/30/2012 6:49 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
> >>> In article <fa17795f-3bf9-4c80-8ef3-c6a14a6116bb@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Anyway, he doesn't
> >>>> grab at his throat. Nobody is going to raise his elbows like that and > >>>> make
> >>>> fists to grab at his throat.
> >>> And in that same article I've already told you that what he actually did
> >>> was to press his right fist against his mouth and his left fist against
> >>> his right fist.
> >> Is that what you see in Altgens 1-6?
> > It's what I see in that film, you know, the one you're such an expert in
> > that is authentic, oh dear, what is it called, it starts with a Z, oh
> > goodness, um, Zer, no, that's not right, Zapper, no, that isn't it either,
> > oh, doggie, help me, what is it, oh yes, the one shot by Abraham Zapruder.
> >> And how can a SB get through his
> >> fists without damaging them?
> > Strawman. You know perfectly well I've never said the SB passed through
> > him after he raised his fists. ;-)
> You've never been brave enough to name your frame.
Oh, you're afraid to look through the archives and see how very many times I've done exactly that?
Are you making fun of me in some way by calling me Jay, or are you suffering from some delusion that this is my name? It does seem childish that a person would call another person "Jay" when that is not the person's name. I certainly have never said that my name is Jay. I know this to be true because my name is not Jay, and I am not in the habit of calling myself Jay. Perhaps it is a joke. Ha ha. I don't mind really, but calling you "King John," at least I do use your name. Right? I mean, we all know who I'm talking about. Communication is achieved. But, when you call me Jay, what does this mean? What are you communicating? Who is this Jay?
> In article <506a5f2...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 10/1/2012 3:54 PM, John Reagor King wrote:
>>> In article <e8667418-ec64-49db-a857-8a50388f88b3@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> After pondering it all the live long day, I am convinced, at least until
>>>> something better comes along, that JFK was actually reacting to a throat
>>>> wound in z225, almost certainly from the front. I never got this myself,
>>>> because I have been captivated by the lie that Connally was hit by a
>>>> bullet at Z224.
>>> Oh, that's a "lie," is it? Strange then that both Connally and JFK jerk
>> Strange that they don't. Strange that JFK reacted BEFORE Connally. Maybe
>> it was a very slow bullet. Maybe one of them thar CIA boring bullets.
> Lol, JFK reacted "before" Connally? How do you work that out, when
> JFK's right hand does not start rising until Z226, exactly the same
> frame that Connally's flip of the hat begins?
Dr. Roger McCarthy of Failure Analysis worked it out.
If Connally was in fact hit at frame 224, then this missile could not have struck President Kennedy. Why? Because it is extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that this same bullet could have caused JFK to react the way he does in frame 225. In the Zapruder film Kennedy is seen to be clearly reacting to a wound by frame 225. In this frame his right arm is at his chest and is bent sharply inward. His left arm is at about the level of his diaphragm. Together, his arms appear to be in somewhat of a football-like blocking position. If a missile transited Connally at frame 224, it would have gone through Kennedy at almost the exact same fraction of a second, between frames 223 and 224, or during 224 alone (as Posner opines). But Kennedy could not have stopped waving his right hand, begun to move his left hand, and brought his right arm to his upper chest, all in less than two frames (or in less than 1/9th of a second). Ballistics expert Dr. Roger McCarthy has argued that it would have taken a minimum of 200 milliseconds, or right around four frames, for Kennedy to react, even involuntarily, as we see him doing in Z225:
Mr. CHESLER. Now, what I'd like to do is, is move to the very next frame, 225. How much time elapsed on that day between time frame 224 was filmed and the time that frame 225 was filmed?
Dr. McCARTHY. About 56 milliseconds. This camera is running at a shade more than 18 frames/second, so between any 2 frames there's about an 18th of a second or 56 thousandth of a second. . . .
Mr. CHESLER. Now, Dr., based upon that, do you have a conclusion or an opinion as to when the President was hit with the bullet--how much before this point?
Dr. McCARTHY. Yes, as I think Dr. Piziali accurately indicated, there is a latency or a delay of about 200 milliseconds between the time that a message is delivered by either traumatic shock to the spine or by your mind to a muscle before you can get movement. You've experienced that every time you've ever grabbed something hot. You've known it was hot and were burned because of the delay, because you couldn't get--let go or move fast enough to avoid the damage. You knew it, and you just couldn't make your body move fast enough. There's nothing wrong with you; it takes about a fifth of a second to get all the hardware up to full power--to get the muscles to move.
Mr. CHESLER. Now, Dr., if, then, the President was hit 200 milliseconds before the movement on [frame] 225, how many frames back in the film would that be?
Dr. McCARTHY. That would be at 221 AT A MINIMUM [i.e., at the latest, and notice this is just based on timing it from a reaction at Z225]
Mr. CHESLER. And at 221 he's behind the sign, is that correct?
Dr. McCARTHY. Yes.
Mr. CHESLER. Alright. If he was hit at 221 and the Governor was hit at 224 according to the prosecution, then could they have been hit by the same bullet?
Dr. McCARTHY. NO. (63:235-236, emphasis added)
>>> violently at exactly the same instant, beginning at Z226. Strange then
>>> that for the rest of his life Connally almost always said he heard a
>>> shot, looked to his right, then intended to turn the other way, to the
>>> left, to look around into the back seat, but only got as far in the turn
>>> as facing just about straight forward when he felt himself to be hit.
>>> Strange then that it's exactly at Z226 that we see him suddenly face
>>> forward just after his head has been continuously turned to the right
>>> since Z165.
>> Strange that Lattimer said Z-224.
> Didn't he say Z224 for when the bullet went through them, not for the
> frame they begin to react? And it's only two frames difference,
> Anthony. That's less than one-sixth of a second.
He said the bullet hit them at Z-224.
JFK could not react in one frame by putting his arms up.
That is a reflex reaction not a mechanical reaction.
>> But you have to make up you own frame
>> in order to seem important.
> I'm not "making up" that JFK's right hand first begins to rise in Z226
> and that Connally's hat flip begins in that same frame also.
>>>> Even after concluding that Greer had shot Connally in the
>>>> back,
>>> While he's driving the car.
>>> That alone is an incredible aspect to your claim.
>>> And Connally himself, you know, the man who was shot, who would know
>>> better than any other human who ever lived or ever will live exactly
>>> when he felt that blow in his back, said he was facing almost exactly
>>> straight forward, toward the front of the limousine, when he was shot.
>>> Sheesh, talk about a magic bullet, Greer's bullet would have to be at
>>> least 1000 times more magical than anything even the most virulent
>>> critics of the single bullet had ever proposed.
>> So? Do you have a SBT with Connally hit by Greer's bullet which then
>> goes through Kennedy?
> Obviously not. Strawman. Do you ever tire of asking stupid questions
> you already know the answer to before you ask them? You knew years ago
> that the only SBT I've ever proposed in this newsgroup is that the
> bullet was fired from the TSBD, entered JFK's back, exited the front of
> his throat, entered Connally's back, exited his chest, went through his
> right wrist, and then into his left thigh.
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:55:33 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 9/26/2012 10:11 PM, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:04:27 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 9/25/2012 7:49 PM, Saintly Oswald wrote:
>>> looking at a man who has a gun leaned up against the concrete railing in
> >>> front of him, apparently talking on a walkie-talkie. He is dressed as a
> >>> Dallas police detective. He fired the shot which can be seen in Zapruder
> >>> frame 322 impacting the windshield, Connally's wrist, and JFK's chest or
> >>> throat or both. My video shows the graphics.
> >> Physically impossible. There was no hole in the windshield.
> > I believe there was a hole in the windshield, as I demonstrate in this video.
Just a brief plug here. Tony and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things about the assassination, but everyone interested in the assassination ought to read the article he linked to here. It is a first-rate piece of work and describes his real research that should have settled several issues about where shots did or didn't come from in Dealey Plaza. It is especially incumbent on anyone claiming a front shot or any other trajectory involving the windshield to come to terms with the evidence there. If your theory doesn't fit the physical evidence Tony discovered, your theory needs revising.
In article <33d94956-a060-4739-8c43-54678bd237f3@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you making fun of me in some way by calling me Jay, or are you > suffering from some delusion that this is my name? It does seem childish > that a person would call another person "Jay" when that is not the > person's name. I certainly have never said that my name is Jay. I know > this to be true because my name is not Jay, and I am not in the habit of > calling myself Jay. Perhaps it is a joke. Ha ha.
This will be the second time that I have explained to you that Anthony called you Jay on September 23 and you didn't correct him:
**********
From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: No bank stamped the back of the money order for the rifle
Date: 23 Sep 2012 18:24:23 -0400
On 9/23/2012 10:25 AM, John Reagor King wrote:
> In article <5c4eb5df-d9c8-42aa-a647-e674169f3004@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But, both Kennedy and Connally WERE hit by shots from the front, even in
>> the same Zapruder frame, 322, where Connally's wrist and Kennedy's throat
>> area are hit by a shot that came through the windshield. Go look at a good
>> quality copy of frame 322. You don't need to trust me.
> Lol, what on EARTH does that have to do with my article to which you
> were replying here?
Does't matter. Jay will take ANY opportunity to inject his own wacky theory. Used to be that the driver-did-it theorists were content with blaming the head shot on Greer. Now they want to make it all shots, including the back shots.
Give him a little more rope and he'll say that Greer shot the curb near Tague.
**********
Because he called you Jay first, I thought that was your name. On September 27 I called you Jay too and you did not correct me in your reply on the following day. If that is not your real name I apologize, but you ought to tell Anthony that's not your real name too, since he's the one who first acted as if it was.
> I don't mind really, but > calling you "King John," at least I do use your name. Right?
No. That would be like saying JFK's real name was Kennedy John. And of course you have in at least one article reversed my name in a sarcastic manner, "Regal King John," as if you are implying that I am some sort of pretentious person. Again, I have not made fun of any name you've ever used here, whether it is your real name or not, even though plenty of comedy mileage could be gotten from "fatoldcreep," but I have refrained from even that. ;-)
> I mean, we > all know who I'm talking about. Communication is achieved.
I never said I didn't know who you were talking about. That still doesn't excuse you from ridiculing a person's name when that person never ridiculed any name you've ever gone by. ;-)
> But, when you > call me Jay, what does this mean? What are you communicating? Who is this > Jay?
Again, I already explained to you yesterday, though perhaps you haven't seen it yet, that this was because Anthony Marsh called you Jay first.
Today I have quoted above where he did so on September 23. I simply assumed that he knew your real name. I did *not* call you that to ridicule you in any way whatsoever; I simply honestly believed that was your name. I suppose I should not have trusted Anthony on this. And again I apologize if that is not your name. Could you please also tell Anthony that's not your name, since he's the one who first acted as if it was?
Somebody says "Jay," in a forum, where it is obvious that much of the time people don't even know who they are responding to, and I'm supposed to know he is calling me "Jay" and care enough correct him? Who cares what my name is? I don't care what your name is. Fine. It bothers you that I put the King before the John. I won't do it anymore. I won't call you anything at all. Meanwhile, JFK is still dead.
In article <506d2db...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> If Connally was in fact hit at frame 224, then this missile could not
I'm never again going to take anything you say seriously until you admit that I never said that JFK already had his fists up by Z225. Quite obviously, if you refuse to admit an obvious mistake like that, you have probably made mistakes about the JFK assassination too, which you have also refused to admit.
In article <a30a59a1-7c45-4bc1-be26-0bb18a8fbe2c@googlegroups.com>,
Ace Kefford <bglobe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Therefore, ... what?
> All the evidence showing Oswald had and used that rifle is faked?!
Strawman. I never said anything even remotely like that.
> Typical ill-thought-out nitpicking.
Nonsense. It was a superbly relevant question. My understanding had simply been that it was a requirement for a bank to stamp the back of any money order before the transaction could proceed further, and I was simply asking whether or not my understanding was correct.
> The assassination happened only one way.
Naturally. Is there some strange reason why you think I, of all people, would disagree with that?
In article <d63aebfe-2e5f-43e3-a344-dee986d6780c@googlegroups.com>,
Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Somebody says "Jay," in a forum, where it is obvious that much of the time > people don't even know who they are responding to, and I'm supposed to know > he is calling me "Jay" and care enough correct him? Who cares what my name > is?
Lol, simmer down, simmer down. Actually in many cases we do know a person's real name here, even when they don't use it in their articles.
A good case in point is when you didn't know that Steve Barber was posting replies to you, and Anthony came forward to tell you who that was. I already knew who he was too, since I first had newsgroup exchanges with Steve ten years ago. So sometimes people here are correct when they say that such and such is the person's real name.
> I don't care what your name is. Fine. It bothers you that I put the King > before the John. I won't do it anymore. I won't call you anything at all. > Meanwhile, JFK is still dead.
> In article <33d94956-a060-4739-8c43-54678bd237f3@googlegroups.com>,
> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Are you making fun of me in some way by calling me Jay, or are you
>> suffering from some delusion that this is my name? It does seem childish
>> that a person would call another person "Jay" when that is not the
>> person's name. I certainly have never said that my name is Jay. I know
>> this to be true because my name is not Jay, and I am not in the habit of
>> calling myself Jay. Perhaps it is a joke. Ha ha.
> This will be the second time that I have explained to you that Anthony
> called you Jay on September 23 and you didn't correct him:
> **********
> From: Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
> Subject: Re: No bank stamped the back of the money order for the rifle
> Date: 23 Sep 2012 18:24:23 -0400
> On 9/23/2012 10:25 AM, John Reagor King wrote:
>> In article <5c4eb5df-d9c8-42aa-a647-e674169f3004@googlegroups.com>,
>> Saintly Oswald <fatoldcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But, both Kennedy and Connally WERE hit by shots from the front, even
> in
>>> the same Zapruder frame, 322, where Connally's wrist and Kennedy's
> throat
>>> area are hit by a shot that came through the windshield. Go look at a
> good
>>> quality copy of frame 322. You don't need to trust me.
>> Lol, what on EARTH does that have to do with my article to which you
>> were replying here?
> Does't matter. Jay will take ANY opportunity to inject his own wacky
> theory. Used to be that the driver-did-it theorists were content with
> blaming the head shot on Greer. Now they want to make it all shots,
> including the back shots.
> Give him a little more rope and he'll say that Greer shot the curb near
> Tague.
> **********
> Because he called you Jay first, I thought that was your name. On
> September 27 I called you Jay too and you did not correct me in your
> reply on the following day. If that is not your real name I apologize,
> but you ought to tell Anthony that's not your real name too, since he's
> the one who first acted as if it was.
>> I don't mind really, but
>> calling you "King John," at least I do use your name. Right?
> No. That would be like saying JFK's real name was Kennedy John. And of
> course you have in at least one article reversed my name in a sarcastic
> manner, "Regal King John," as if you are implying that I am some sort of
> pretentious person. Again, I have not made fun of any name you've ever
> used here, whether it is your real name or not, even though plenty of
> comedy mileage could be gotten from "fatoldcreep," but I have refrained
> from even that. ;-)
>> I mean, we
>> all know who I'm talking about. Communication is achieved.
> I never said I didn't know who you were talking about. That still
> doesn't excuse you from ridiculing a person's name when that person
> never ridiculed any name you've ever gone by. ;-)
>> But, when you
>> call me Jay, what does this mean? What are you communicating? Who is this
>> Jay?
> Again, I already explained to you yesterday, though perhaps you haven't
> seen it yet, that this was because Anthony Marsh called you Jay first.
> Today I have quoted above where he did so on September 23. I simply
> assumed that he knew your real name. I did *not* call you that to
> ridicule you in any way whatsoever; I simply honestly believed that was
> your name. I suppose I should not have trusted Anthony on this. And
> again I apologize if that is not your name. Could you please also tell
> Anthony that's not your name, since he's the one who first acted as if
> it was?
I never said that was his real name. I was just making fun of one of his many aliases he uses elsewhere. I even made fun of someone's alias by using it myself after he was forced to stop using it. I called it an homage.
In article <506f4ab...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I never said that was his real name. I was just making fun of one of his
Whatever.
Still can't admit that you were wrong when you falsely claimed that I said JFK already had his fists up by Z225? Afraid to look through the archives to see what I really said?
