FOR WHISKY JOE
tomnln
Dr. Shires Volume VI page 109>>>
Mr. SPECTER. Focusing on the time sequence---what did Governor Connally say
as to the timing, number one, the time he was hit, and number two, the time
he had heard a sound, and number three, the time he turned-those three
factors? In what sequence did he relate them?
Dr. SHIRES. As he recalled it, he heard a shot, he turned to the
right and felt himself receiving a shot--in that order--in a matter of a few
seconds
Mr. SPECTER. Where did he feel himself receive a shot?
Dr. SHIRES. In the right chest.
From YOUR Official Record.
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3896c259-94a3-4309...@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> from Tom Rossley:
>> My quote that JBC was shot
>> "in the right chest" came
>> from JBC's Dr's TESTIMONY".
>
> But does not the testimony of Connally's doctor, Dr. Robert Roeder
> Shaw:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaw1.htm
>
> And the diagram, Commission Exhibit 689:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0186b.htm
>
> which Specter and Shaw discussed, which Dr. Shaw had initialed
> himself, make it abundantly clear that Dr. Shaw believe the bullet
> came from behind?
>
> Note the following exchange between Specter and Shaw:
>
> Mr. SPECTER - Looking at Commission Exhibit No. 689, is that a drawing
> which was prepared, after consultation with you, representing the
> earlier theory of all of the Governor's wounds having been inflicted
> by a single missile?
> Dr. SHAW - That is Correct.
>
> Granted, Commission Exhibit 689 is not a perfect diagram. Dr. Shaw had
> not examined Kennedy's wounds. He probably did not know the exact
> positions of Kennedy and Connally at the time a bullet struck both. He
> had not carefully surveyed Dealey Plaza. So his diagram shows the
> bullet coming down at a steeper angle than it would have in reality.
> But the diagram makes it abundantly clear that Dr. Shaw though the
> bullet came from behind.
>
> *******************************
>
> Question for Tom Rossley:
>
> Given the testimony of Dr. Shaw, given Commission Exhibit 689, given
> Dr. Shaw's initials on Commission Exhibit 689,
> what excuse do you have for saying that Dr. Shaw's use of the word
> "chest" implies a shot from the front?
>
bigdog
> In case McAdams don't post this one;
>
> Dr. Shires Volume VI page 109>>>
>
> Mr. SPECTER. Focusing on the time sequence---what did Governor Connally say
> as to the timing, number one, the time he was hit, and number two, the time
> he had heard a sound, and number three, the time he turned-those three
> factors? In what sequence did he relate them?
>
> Dr. SHIRES. As he recalled it, he heard a shot, he turned to the
> right and felt himself receiving a shot--in that order--in a matter of a few
> seconds
>
> Mr. SPECTER. Where did he feel himself receive a shot?
>
> Dr. SHIRES. In the right chest.
>
> From YOUR Official Record.
>
> "WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> news:3896c259-94a3-4309...@f1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> from Tom Rossley:
> >> My quote that JBC was shot
> >> "in the right chest" came
> >> from JBC's Dr's TESTIMONY".
>
> > But does not the testimony of Connally's doctor, Dr. Robert Roeder
> > Shaw:
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaw1.htm
>
> > And the diagram, Commission Exhibit 689:
>
>
> > which Specter and Shaw discussed, which Dr. Shaw had initialed
> > himself, make it abundantly clear that Dr. Shaw believe the bullet
> > came from behind?
>
> > Note the following exchange between Specter and Shaw:
>
> > Mr. SPECTER - Looking at Commission Exhibit No. 689, is that a drawing
> > which was prepared, after consultation with you, representing the
> > earlier theory of all of the Governor's wounds having been inflicted
> > by a single missile?
> > Dr. SHAW - That is Correct.
>
> > Granted, Commission Exhibit 689 is not a perfect diagram. Dr. Shaw had
> > not examined Kennedy's wounds. He probably did not know the exact
> > positions of Kennedy and Connally at the time a bullet struck both. He
> > had not carefully surveyed Dealey Plaza. So his diagram shows the
> > bullet coming down at a steeper angle than it would have in reality.
> > But the diagram makes it abundantly clear that Dr. Shaw though the
> > bullet came from behind.
>
> > *******************************
>
> > Question for Tom Rossley:
>
> > Given the testimony of Dr. Shaw, given Commission Exhibit 689, given
> > Dr. Shaw's initials on Commission Exhibit 689,
> > what excuse do you have for saying that Dr. Shaw's use of the word
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, that is exactly what happened. Connally hurt shot #1 at
approximately Z160. At approximately Z222, give or take a frame or
two, Connally felt the second shot hit him. About 3.5 seconds after
hearing the first shot.
David Von Pein
Tom Rossley's insane theory about Governor Connally's chest wound
being one of ENTRY instead of exit is even more ludicrous after
reading that Shires testimony that Rossley's cites above -- because
it's not really even SHIRES that's making the statement (i.e., Shires
is speaking for CONNALLY there).
And, as we all know, John Connally himself never once even HINTED at
the idea that he was shot from the FRONT.
Also:
Later in Dr. Shires' testimony, he makes the following comments that
Rossley conveniently ignores, with Shires talking about how JBC's
doctors pretty much ALL were of the opinion that Connally had been
shot by just ONE BULLET (6 H 109-110):
DR. GEORGE T. SHIRES -- "We all thought, me included, that this was
probably one missile, one bullet."
ARLEN SPECTER -- "When you say 'we all thought', whom do you mean by
that?"
DR. SHIRES -- "Dr. Shaw, Dr. Gregory---as we were reconstructing the
events in the operating room in an attempt to plot out trajectory as
best we could, this appeared to be our opinion. .... Everyone was
under the impression this was one missile---through and through the
chest, through and through the arm and the thigh."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0060a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0060b.htm
tomnln
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d62dce33-026f-4c80...@j8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
bigdog wrote;
Yes, that is exactly what happened. Connally hurt shot #1 at
approximately Z160. At approximately Z222, give or take a frame or
two, Connally felt the second shot hit him. About 3.5 seconds after
hearing the first shot.
I write;
NOWHERE in JBC's testimony are the words "Z160".
I gusess you Rejected the Citation I gave you ! ! !
In case McAdams don't post this one;
Dr. Shires Volume VI page 109>>>
Mr. SPECTER. Focusing on the time sequence---what did Governor Connally say
as to the timing, number one, the time he was hit, and number two, the time
he had heard a sound, and number three, the time he turned-those three
factors? In what sequence did he relate them?
Dr. SHIRES. As he recalled it, he heard a shot, he turned to the
right and felt himself receiving a shot--in that order--in a matter of a
few
seconds
Mr. SPECTER. Where did he feel himself receive a shot?
Dr. SHIRES. In the right chest.
From YOUR Official Record.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
David Von Pein
Note how Rossley totally ignores my post where I cite this statement
from Tom Shires:
"We all thought, me included, that this was probably one
missile, one bullet. .... Everyone was
under the impression this was one missile---through and through the
chest, through and through the arm and the thigh." -- Dr. Shires; 1964
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:efb54db0-e4ce-4036...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
We'll only discuss two of your problems for now David;
1 You don't know how to Cite.
2 You're NOT Terachable.
THIS is how to Cite, David. (Cite Volume & Page number)
Dr. Shires Volume VI page 109>>>
Mr. SPECTER. Focusing on the time sequence---what did Governor Connally say
as to the timing, number one, the time he was hit, and number two, the time
he had heard a sound, and number three, the time he turned-those three
factors? In what sequence did he relate them?
Dr. SHIRES. As he recalled it, he heard a shot, he turned to the
right and felt himself receiving a shot--in that order--in a matter of a few
seconds
Mr. SPECTER. Where did he feel himself receive a shot?
Dr. SHIRES. In the right chest.
YOUR Official Record
tomnln
Dr. Shires Volume VI page 109>>>
Mr. SPECTER. Focusing on the time sequence---what did Governor Connally say
as to the timing, number one, the time he was hit, and number two, the time
he had heard a sound, and number three, the time he turned-those three
factors? In what sequence did he relate them?
Dr. SHIRES. As he recalled it, he heard a shot, he turned to the
right and felt himself receiving a shot--in that order--in a matter of a
few
seconds
Mr. SPECTER. Where did he feel himself receive a shot?
Dr. SHIRES. In the right chest.
From YOUR Official Record.
Tell the nice people that Citation isn't on page 109 of volume VI, David???
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:31e078db-1ec1-4ffc...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
He keeps Rejecting his own evidence/testimony from the 26 Volumes>>>
Dr. Shires Volume VI page 109>>>
Mr. SPECTER. Focusing on the time sequence---what did Governor Connally say
as to the timing, number one, the time he was hit, and number two, the time
he had heard a sound, and number three, the time he turned-those three
factors? In what sequence did he relate them?
Dr. SHIRES. As he recalled it, he heard a shot, he turned to the
right and felt himself receiving a shot--in that order--in a matter of a
few
seconds
Mr. SPECTER. Where did he feel himself receive a shot?
Dr. SHIRES. In the right chest.
From YOUR Official Record.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:31e078db-1ec1-4ffc...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
David Von Pein
>>> "We'll only discuss two of your problems for now David; 1 You don't know how to Cite. 2 You're NOT Terachable [sic]." <<<
We'll only focus on three of Rossley's biggest problems here:
1.) Every post of Rossley's is a hard-to-read mess, riddled with
multiple misspellings and (for some reason) random capitalized words.
In short -- Rossley doesn't know how to properly post Internet
messages.
2.) Rossley knows full well that Governor Connally was not shot "in
the chest" from the front. But he'll continue to pretend he doesn't
know this fact, since he's now on record as having uttered his stupid
theory on the radio.
3.) Rossley is a retarded Anybody-But-Oswald kook.
tomnln
>
>
>>>> "We'll only discuss two of your problems for now David; 1 You don't
>>>> know how to Cite. 2 You're NOT Terachable [sic]." <<<
>
> We'll only focus on three of Rossley's biggest problems here:
>
> 1.) Every post of Rossley's is a hard-to-read mess, riddled with
> multiple misspellings and (for some reason) random capitalized words.
Only you would Focus on typo's rasther than evidence/testimony.
> In short -- Rossley doesn't know how to properly post Internet
> messages.
Rossley posts WELL enough to get you off your dead ass every day.
> 2.) Rossley knows full well that Governor Connally was not shot "in
> the chest" from the front. But he'll continue to pretend he doesn't
> know this fact, since he's now on record as having uttered his stupid
> theory on the radio.
David is TOO Ignorant to know that Rossley quoted Testimony.
> 3.) Rossley is a retarded Anybody-But-Oswald kook.
David is a Criminal KOOK-SUCKER !
hahahaha
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
>>> "Poor David; He keeps rejecting his own evidence/testimony from the 26 Volumes." <<<
What the heck do you think I was citing in my 04/13/09 post linked
below, Mr. Retard -- the Gettysburg Address?!
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d3e47aae02972cbb
Let's try this for a third time (from the OFFICIAL records that
Rossley is always harping on):
"We all thought, me included, that this was probably one
missile, one bullet. .... Everyone was under the impression this was
one missile---through and through the chest, through and through the
arm and the thigh." -- Dr. Tom Shires; 1964 (6 H 109-110)
6H110:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0060b.htm
Now who's ignoring the OFFICIAL records, Rossley?
Rossley wants to prop up the "in the right chest" remark by Shires
(which is, btw, a remark that Shires is attributing to another person--
Connally)....but Rossley wants to totally ignore the comments I quoted
above from Dr. Shires' lips, wherein he specifically states that it
was his belief (and that of his colleagues) that ONLY ONE BULLET
struck Governor Connally.
Maybe Rossley can make up a new theory which could solve this snafu --
i.e., a bullet entered JBC's chest from the front, then after exiting
JBC's back, a strong gust of wind blew the bullet in the opposite
direction, with the same bullet going into Connally's wrist and thigh.
After all, Rossley has performed "magic" similar to that by turning
every ENTRY wound into an EXIT (and vice-versa). So why not believe in
some more magic on the part of those bullets, Tom? It would fit your
retarded theories quite nicely, in fact.
bigdog
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> bigdog wrote;
>
> Yes, that is exactly what happened. Connally hurt shot #1 at
> approximately Z160. At approximately Z222, give or take a frame or
> two, Connally felt the second shot hit him. About 3.5 seconds after
> hearing the first shot.
>
> I write;
>
> NOWHERE in JBC's testimony are the words "Z160".
>
immediately to look over his right shoulder in the direction he
thought the shot came from. We can see Connolly beginning this turn at
Z164, less than one quarter second past Z160. You see, Rossley, people
who can think for themselves don't have to limit their knowledge base
to what is told them in the 26 volumes. They can look at the evidence
presented and do their own analysis. You on the other hand have taken
the illogical position that information that was not presented in the
26 volumes, is invalid.
> I gusess you Rejected the Citation I gave you ! ! !
>
> In case McAdams don't post this one;
>
> Dr. Shires Volume VI page 109>>>
>
> Mr. SPECTER. Focusing on the time sequence---what did Governor Connally say
> as to the timing, number one, the time he was hit, and number two, the time
> he had heard a sound, and number three, the time he turned-those three
> factors? In what sequence did he relate them?
>
> Dr. SHIRES. As he recalled it, he heard a shot, he turned to the
> right and felt himself receiving a shot--in that order--in a matter of a
> few
> seconds
>
> Mr. SPECTER. Where did he feel himself receive a shot?
>
> Dr. SHIRES. In the right chest.
>
> From YOUR Official Record.
You have presented a second hand account of Connally's recollection.
Once again, you have limited yourself to what is available in the 26
volumes and ignored information that has been developed in the many
years since they were published. I have heard Connally himself say on
numerous occassions that it felt as if he had been punched in the
back.
tomnln
You must have MISSED the interview JBC gave to Martin Agronsky on 11/27/63.
JBC Clearly said he turned to his LEFT & "the President had Slumped".
SEE>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP04_lGjkO0
tomnln
David;
I don't know why you would invent "MORE Strawmen Arguements" when you can't
explain the Original Reports?
JFK's "back wound" had an Upward Trajectory ! (HSCA Report page 179)
HOW does that happen if the shooter was 60 feet up???
No wonder you RAN from the radio debate !
bigdog
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:8a34fc77-e716-4196...@w40g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> "Poor David; He keeps rejecting his own evidence/testimony from the 26
> >>>> Volumes." <<<
>
> > What the heck do you think I was citing in my 04/13/09 post linked
> > below, Mr. Retard -- the Gettysburg Address?!
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d3e47aae02972cbb
>
> > Let's try this for a third time (from the OFFICIAL records that
> > Rossley is always harping on):
>
> > "We all thought, me included, that this was probably one
> > missile, one bullet. .... Everyone was under the impression this was
> > one missile---through and through the chest, through and through the
> > arm and the thigh." -- Dr. Tom Shires; 1964 (6 H 109-110)
>
> > 6H110:
>
> > Now who's ignoring the OFFICIAL records, Rossley?
>
> > Rossley wants to prop up the "in the right chest" remark by Shires
> > (which is, btw, a remark that Shires is attributing to another person--
> > Connally)....but Rossley wants to totally ignore the comments I quoted
> > above from Dr. Shires' lips, wherein he specifically states that it
> > was his belief (and that of his colleagues) that ONLY ONE BULLET
> > struck Governor Connally.
>
> > Maybe Rossley can make up a new theory which could solve this snafu --
> > i.e., a bullet entered JBC's chest from the front, then after exiting
> > JBC's back, a strong gust of wind blew the bullet in the opposite
> > direction, with the same bullet going into Connally's wrist and thigh.
>
> > After all, Rossley has performed "magic" similar to that by turning
> > every ENTRY wound into an EXIT (and vice-versa). So why not believe in
> > some more magic on the part of those bullets, Tom? It would fit your
> > retarded theories quite nicely, in fact.
>
> David;
> I don't know why you would invent "MORE Strawmen Arguements" when you can't
> explain the Original Reports?
>
> JFK's "back wound" had an Upward Trajectory ! (HSCA Report page 179)
>
> HOW does that happen if the shooter was 60 feet up???
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The same panel said the bullet passed from back to front. Are you
really going to try to tell us the shooter was firing from below JFK?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
We can clearly see from the Z-film that JBC's recollections were
fuzzy. JBC could not have seen JFK looking to his left because JFK was
behind him to his right. From the time JFK was first hit, at no time
was JBC turned to his left. The only time JBC was turned far enough to
his RIGHT to see JFK slumped was around Z270, after JBC had also
clearly been hit. Once again, a CT cherry picks the evidence to suit
his theory rather than attempting to resolve conflicting information.
You also ignored JBC's statement that when he was hit, it felt as if
someone had punched him in the back.
tomnln
bigdog wrote;
We can clearly see from the Z-film that JBC's recollections were
fuzzy. JBC could not have seen JFK looking to his left because JFK was
behind him to his right. From the time JFK was first hit, at no time
was JBC turned to his left. The only time JBC was turned far enough to
his RIGHT to see JFK slumped was around Z270, after JBC had also
clearly been hit. Once again, a CT cherry picks the evidence to suit
his theory rather than attempting to resolve conflicting information.
You also ignored JBC's statement that when he was hit, it felt as if
someone had punched him in the back.
I write;
Very Shaky position when you MUST "Impeach" your own witnesses.
tomnln
Maybe Your Country of origin convicts by "Accusation".
The U S A convicts by evidence/testimonjy ONLY.
NOW, Address the question>>>>
JFK's "back wound" had an Upward Trajectory ! (HSCA Report page 179)
HOW does that happen if the shooter was 60 feet up???
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I reject the premise. The bullet did not pass through JFK on an upward
trajectory. The entry wound was higher than the exit wound at the time
the bullet passed through JFK's body. That is a downward trajectory.
You presume JFK's torso was perfectly vertical. We know the bullet
passed through JFK from back to front. We know it was not fired from
street level. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that the
downward slope of Elm St and JFK's body lean combined to create the
path through JFK's torso. That was the conclusion of the panel that
you are trying to cite as evidence that the trajectory was upward.
bigdog
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> bigdog wrote;
>
> We can clearly see from the Z-film that JBC's recollections were
> fuzzy. JBC could not have seen JFK looking to his left because JFK was
> behind him to his right. From the time JFK was first hit, at no time
> was JBC turned to his left. The only time JBC was turned far enough to
> his RIGHT to see JFK slumped was around Z270, after JBC had also
> clearly been hit. Once again, a CT cherry picks the evidence to suit
> his theory rather than attempting to resolve conflicting information.
> You also ignored JBC's statement that when he was hit, it felt as if
> someone had punched him in the back.
>
> I write;
>
> Very Shaky position when you MUST "Impeach" your own witnesses.
>
the eyewitness accounts and the Z-film. I clearly explained why it is
not possible that JBC's earliest recorded account could have been
correct and you had no answer for that so you come up with this lame
argument. We would expect nothing less of you.
JBC could not have looked over his left shoulder and seen JFK, much
less see him slump. The only time JBC was turned far enough to his
right to see JFK slump was around Z270 after he himself had clearly
been hit as well. Therefore we can say with absolute certainty that
JBC could not have seen JFK slump before JBC was hit.
tomnln
I wrote;
JFK's "back wound" had an Upward Trajectory ! (HSCA Report page 179)
HOW does that happen if the shooter was 60 feet up???
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog writes;
I reject the premise. The bullet did not pass through JFK on an upward
trajectory. The entry wound was higher than the exit wound at the time
the bullet passed through JFK's body. That is a downward trajectory.
You presume JFK's torso was perfectly vertical. We know the bullet
passed through JFK from back to front. We know it was not fired from
street level. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that the
downward slope of Elm St and JFK's body lean combined to create the
path through JFK's torso. That was the conclusion of the panel that
you are trying to cite as evidence that the trajectory was upward.
You MUST "reject it;
I Repeat the Official Record (Volume and, page number)
JFK's "back wound" had an Upward Trajectory ! (HSCA Report page 179)
HOW does that happen if the shooter was 60 feet up???
To support the LN'r Theory, bigdog Must Impeach his own Official Records.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
> bigdog wrote;
>
> We can clearly see from the Z-film that JBC's recollections were
> fuzzy. JBC could not have seen JFK looking to his left because JFK was
> behind him to his right. From the time JFK was first hit, at no time
> was JBC turned to his left. The only time JBC was turned far enough to
> his RIGHT to see JFK slumped was around Z270, after JBC had also
> clearly been hit. Once again, a CT cherry picks the evidence to suit
> his theory rather than attempting to resolve conflicting information.
> You also ignored JBC's statement that when he was hit, it felt as if
> someone had punched him in the back.
>
> I write;
>
> Very Shaky position when you MUST "Impeach" your own witnesses.
>
Not nearly as shaky as your inability to resolve the conflicts between
the eyewitness accounts and the Z-film. I clearly explained why it is
not possible that JBC's earliest recorded account could have been
correct and you had no answer for that so you come up with this lame
argument. We would expect nothing less of you.
JBC could not have looked over his left shoulder and seen JFK, much
less see him slump. The only time JBC was turned far enough to his
right to see JFK slump was around Z270 after he himself had clearly
been hit as well. Therefore we can say with absolute certainty that
JBC could not have seen JFK slump before JBC was hit.
In the words of President Reagan;
"there you go again"
You keep Impeaching your own witnesses to support the Lies of the WCR.
bigdog
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > bigdog wrote;
>
> > We can clearly see from the Z-film that JBC's recollections were
> > fuzzy. JBC could not have seen JFK looking to his left because JFK was
> > behind him to his right. From the time JFK was first hit, at no time
> > was JBC turned to his left. The only time JBC was turned far enough to
> > his RIGHT to see JFK slumped was around Z270, after JBC had also
> > clearly been hit. Once again, a CT cherry picks the evidence to suit
> > his theory rather than attempting to resolve conflicting information.
> > You also ignored JBC's statement that when he was hit, it felt as if
> > someone had punched him in the back.
>
> > I write;
>
> > Very Shaky position when you MUST "Impeach" your own witnesses.
>
> Not nearly as shaky as your inability to resolve the conflicts between
> the eyewitness accounts and the Z-film. I clearly explained why it is
> not possible that JBC's earliest recorded account could have been
> correct and you had no answer for that so you come up with this lame
> argument. We would expect nothing less of you.
>
> JBC could not have looked over his left shoulder and seen JFK, much
> less see him slump. The only time JBC was turned far enough to his
> right to see JFK slump was around Z270 after he himself had clearly
> been hit as well. Therefore we can say with absolute certainty that
> JBC could not have seen JFK slump before JBC was hit.
>
> In the words of President Reagan;
>
> "there you go again"
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
You keep calling them my witnesses which makes no sense. You keep
avoiding the question. Why don't you tell us at what frame in the
Zapruder film JBC could have seen JFK slumped?
tomnln
You keep calling them my witnesses which makes no sense. You keep
avoiding the question. Why don't you tell us at what frame in the
Zapruder film JBC could have seen JFK slumped?
bigdog
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:d4c44beb-d8cd-4ebb...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
> bigdog wrote;
>
> You keep calling them my witnesses which makes no sense. You keep
> avoiding the question. Why don't you tell us at what frame in the
> Zapruder film JBC could have seen JFK slumped?
>
> I write;
>
> I wondered why the "most exhaustive investigation in History" never asked Connally that question.
>
> Do you suppose the Warren Commission/FBI "MISSED" that filmed interview between Connally/Agronsky?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still avoiding the question.
Let's ask it a different way and see if we can get an answer (I'm
betting not).
Do you think Connally saw JFK slumped before or after Connally was hit?
tomnln
Still avoiding the question.
Let's ask it a different way and see if we can get an answer (I'm
betting not).
Do you think Connally saw JFK slumped before or after Connally was hit?
YOU are the one Avoiding the Facts>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP04_lGjkO0
What did Connally say in that filmed Interview on 11/27/63???
Did you contact Anton Batey yet to set up a radio debate (chickenshit)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, Rossley, you proved me right. You didn't answer the question. A
very simple, straight forward question and you run for cover. That is
par for the course. CTs only know how to ask questions. Providing
answers is apparently above their pay grade as you have demonstrated.
You haven't got the balls to answer a simple question and you call me
chickenshit. You have enough feathers on your ass to make a king sized
feather bed.
As far as Anton Batey goes, I have told you I would gladly debate you
anytime, anywhere. Anton Batey doesn't know me from Adam but you have
a history and a connection with him, so why don't you set it up. Just
tell me where and when. I would relish the chance to show what a
gutless wonder you are on the airwaves as I have done on this forum.
It will be a hoot to see you piss all over yourself when I confront
you with the same simple, straight forward questions as I have here
and which you have cut and run from. If you can't answer these
questions on this forum with all the time in the world to come up with
an answer, how the hell are you going to handle them on live radio?
tomnln
Well, Rossley, you proved me right. You didn't answer the question. A
very simple, straight forward question and you run for cover. That is
par for the course. CTs only know how to ask questions. Providing
answers is apparently above their pay grade as you have demonstrated.
You haven't got the balls to answer a simple question and you call me
chickenshit. You have enough feathers on your ass to make a king sized
feather bed.
As far as Anton Batey goes, I have told you I would gladly debate you
anytime, anywhere. Anton Batey doesn't know me from Adam but you have
a history and a connection with him, so why don't you set it up. Just
tell me where and when. I would relish the chance to show what a
gutless wonder you are on the airwaves as I have done on this forum.
It will be a hoot to see you piss all over yourself when I confront
you with the same simple, straight forward questions as I have here
and which you have cut and run from. If you can't answer these
questions on this forum with all the time in the world to come up with
an answer, how the hell are you going to handle them on live radio?
I write;
You can e-mail me your phone number so Anton Batey can call you.
This may be your Opportunity to become a STAR ! ! !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------