Message from discussion How To Think About The Head Shot In Ten Easy Lessons
Received: by 10.66.85.105 with SMTP id g9mr3168623paz.18.1352095109167;
Sun, 04 Nov 2012 21:58:29 -0800 (PST)
From: John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: How To Think About The Head Shot In Ten Easy Lessons
Date: 28 Oct 2012 18:22:18 -0400
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <caeruleo-F32544.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <caeruleo-3E2CEF.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
X-Original-Trace: 28 Oct 2012 10:34:13 -0500, 22.214.171.124
X-Trace: mcadams.posc.mu.edu 1351462938 126.96.36.199 (28 Oct 2012 17:22:18 -0500)
X-Original-Trace: 28 Oct 2012 17:22:18 -0500, 188.8.131.52
In article <email@example.com>,
> My credibility? Why would I care about that? I'm not running for political
> office. I'm not trying to sell a book. I'm not trying to get people to
> believe *me.*
Including the majority of your own fellow CTs.
> I'm saying that 2+2=4.
No, you are saying that 0.00002 + 0.00002 = 4, rather than the correct
answer, which is 0.00004. In other words, whether you realize it or not,
and whether you admit it or not, you are adding together extraordinarily
flimsy bits of "evidence," erroneously stating them to be much more
conclusive than they actually are, and then claiming them to add up to
much more than they actually add up to in reality. To you, every little
common, mundane blur of light and shadow becomes an object: a soda bottle
in Connally's hand, morphing into a gun in his hand, and a reflection of
sunlight that morphs into a gun in Greer's hand, and another blur that
morphs into a hole in the windshield that wasn't there. So no, you are
definitely not making 2 + 2 = 4, whether you realize it or not, whether
you admit it or not.
> Don't trust me.
I certainly don't, as you routinely ignore all sorts of perfectly credible
and reasonable evidence which smashes your scenarios to smithereens. You
still refuse to explain how Skinny and his friends ran right past your
bridge shooter as the latter was walking onto the bridge from the opposite
direction without plainly seeing him carrying the rifle. You still refuse
to admit that I was right all along when I said that bridge runs
north-south, even though you were corrected on this weeks ago by one of
your own fellow CTs as well as by me. You still refuse to explain how
Connally being shot by either your bridge shooter or by Greer would result
in the right to left trajectory through his torso that his wounds
indicate, when a shot from either of your shooters would obviously result
in a left to right trajectory through his torso. You have additionally
put a soda bottle in Connally's hand, then changed that to him putting a
pistol in his pocket, then changed it again to him withdrawing a pistol
from his pocket.
Given all of this, why should I, or *anyone* with even *average* common
sense, including the majority of your own fellow CTs, believe *anything*
you say at this point, even regarding any other subject *besides* this
assassination, unless the claim can be independently verified beyond your
> Just do the math and see
> for yourself. You, who refuse to do the math,
Pot/kettle. You're the one quite obviously refusing to do the math, not
me. You're the one refusing to even *attempt* to consider *all* of the
evidence. You consider only a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of the evidence,
and then claim you've arrived at the truth, which you quite obviously have
come nowhere close to doing in actual reality.
Even according to the majority of your own fellow CTs, who take you no
more seriously than I do.
> need people to trust you if
> they are going to believe that 2+2=5.
As I am claiming nothing even remotely close to being analogous to 2 + 2 =
5, that, uh, "criticism" of me by you is meaningless. You're the one
using some sort of "new" mathematics previously unknown, where tiny
fractions in the millionths add up to whole numbers.
> Credibility is your department, not
I'm not even slightly worried about my own credibility. You're the one
who should be terrified of yours.