How To Think About The Head Shot In Ten Easy Lessons - alt.assassination.jfk

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
alt.assassination.jfk
Message from discussion How To Think About The Head Shot In Ten Easy Lessons
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: How To Think About The Head Shot In Ten Easy Lessons
Date: 28 Oct 2012 18:22:18 -0400
Lines: 74
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <caeruleo-A74344.10341228102012@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
References: <5b230325-ec1a-402f-80bb-dab2846997a7@googlegroups.com> <507b242d$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <9155f8f9-f0a1-4e20-94c8-794232785781@googlegroups.com> <ad0ee46e-c82e-46a9-aba9-085d032c7313@googlegroups.com> <2a77dd07-4234-49b8-b91c-19fbdd5ebd30@googlegroups.com> <caeruleo-F32544.20271219102012@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <c59e77cd-5828-4e4c-875a-84db19e8ac92@googlegroups.com> <caeruleo-3E2CEF.18163323102012@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> <57dcc43c-faac-4a3e-ab7f-352c43348411@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.2
Path: 6ni62922pbd.1!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!news-hub.siol.net!news.mi.ras.ru!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.albasani.net!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
Bytes: 5060

In article <57dcc43c-faac-4a3e-ab7f-352c43348411@googlegroups.com>,
 fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:

> 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 
word?

> 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 
> mine.

I'm not even slightly worried about my own credibility.  You're the one 
who should be terrified of yours.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
