Huckster Telling Unsupportable Whoppers...

[Ben Holmes]

>> 4. What pushed you into the LN camp?
>
> In the early 1980s I purchased the complete 26 volumes of the Warren
> Commission Volumes of Hearings and Evidence from the Presidents Box
> Bookshop for $2,500. About the same time I purchased the 12 House
> Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Volumes of the Hearings and
> Evidence from the Government Printing Office for (as I recall) $89.
>
> I immediately started to read through everything, and I read through
> everything twice. I lost a lot of sleep and went to work more than
> once bleary-eyed as I had stayed up until two, three, or four in the
> morning before falling asleep. I started reading those volumes with
> the express purpose of finding the conspirators - the conspiracy books
> hinted at conspirators but never came out and named any. i was intent
> on finding them.


Of course, Huckster can't quote a *SINGLE* book he read that "hinted"
that conspirators would be found in the testimony.

And clearly, he didn't read the testimony clearly enough - because he
*should* have spotted the fact that the WCR lied repeatedly about the
eyewitnesses.


> As I read through the testimony and examined the evidence, I found a
> massive -- MASSIVE -- disconnect between what the conspiracy books
> were saying about the testimony and evidence and what the testimony
> and evidence itself was saying to me. I found the conspiracy authors
> were selectively quoting from the testimony to build a case for
> conspiracy, but not telling the full truth. I found they were guilty
> of the sins they accused the Warren Commission of, while the Warren
> Commission was being falsely accused by them of being unfaithful to
> the evidence.


Just don't ask Huckster to support this with examples. I'm quite sure
that I currently own any book that Huckster could have been referring
to, and can quickly look up the statement, AND THE CONTEXT - but
Huckster simply refuses to back up his lie.

And clearly... it *IS* a lie. There's no "disconnect" between
"conspiracy books" and the evidence & testimony.

I've asked him in the past to support this, but he simply runs away.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

And he'll so so again...


> I went in a conspiracy theorist, I came out understanding Oswald
> committed the assassination alone and unaided.


Then you are aware of the evidence for a pre-autopsy autopsy - yet
remain silent when Corbutt denies it. You're aware of the evidence
for a Grassy Knoll shooter - yet remain silent.

Looks to me like you're merely proving yourself a liar.


> From that point forward, as new claims of the conspiracy came
> online, I found each had a begged premise or took something out of
> context or was an assumption based on suspicion, and the like. None of
> the claims withstood scrutiny. The last book I actually held out hope
> for was Lifton's Best Evidence, but I found his conclusions from scant
> and fragmentary evidence more than a little bizarre, as he simply
> ignored non-conspiratorial and far-more-reasonable explanations in
> arguing for a conspiracy.


So list them... let's examine them. Cite the page number as well, so
we can make sure you're not simply lying again.

Let's hear this "scant and fragmentary" evidence... surely you aren't
afraid to let others examine it.

But, of course, you won't.


> One of my friends brought up the book after seeing Lifton on a
> morning TV talk show speaking about the book. He mentioned the author
> (he didn't recall the name) was talking about a conspiracy to alter
> the President's wounds and make it look like the shots came from the
> rear when all the shooters were in front of the President. I knew the
> flaw in Lifton's premise and immediately pointed it out. "Who altered
> Connally's wounds?" He was old enough to remember the assassination
> and understood exactly why the body alteration theory of Lifton makes
> no sense. If all the shooters were in front of the President, then
> Connally's wounds - which point to the rear - must have been altered
> as well.


Why don't you pull out your copy of "Best Evidence" - and QUOTE David
Lifton on the direction of the shots.

But you won't... you're clearly a coward and a liar...


> Fast forward to 1992 or 1993, I am at a Kennedy assassination
> Symposium in Dallas, and David Lifton is giving a lecture. There is a
> Q&A afterward, and I ask Lifton along these lines, "If all the
> shooters were in front of the President, there were also in front of
> Governor Connally. So who altered Connally's wounds, which point to a
> shooter above and behind?"


Surely you don't expect people to believe you?


> He said, "That's a very good question," and said he'd be addressing
> that in his next book. He never did respond meaningfully to the
> question. Meanwhile nearly 30 years later, I'm still waiting for
> Lifton to address the issue that exposes his book as knuckleheaded
> nonsense.


So your working hypothesis is if a claim is made that you cannot cite
or quote in a book, you can label the entire book as "nonsense."

You clearly aren't intelligent enough to think such a theory all the
way through. Do you realize that you've just labeled the WCR as
"nonsense?"

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Connally's chest wounds didn't need to be altered because he was turned around when he was shot. He was shot through the back from the front of the car. His wrist wound also came from the front, which probably explains was his wounds diagram had to be done over. First the wound was labeled "enter." Then it was labeled "exit." Connally, too, was shot from the front. https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 12:56:42 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> Connally's chest wounds didn't need to be altered because he was turned around when he was shot. He was shot through the back from the front of the car. His wrist wound also came from the front, which probably explains was his wounds diagram had to be done over. First the wound was labeled "enter." Then it was labeled "exit." Connally, too, was shot from the front. https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs

On or about January 28, 1964, Drs. Shires, Gregory and Shaw were interviewed by Special Agent Roger Warner of the USSS. Warner had them mark on a diagram Governor Connally's wounds. That diagram is on page 6 of Commission Document 326. And shows an entry wound on the dorsal side of the right wrist and an exit wound on the palm side.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10727#relPageId=6
THOSE MARKINGS WERE MADE BY THE DOCTORS.

Two months later, in March, Dr. Gregory confimed that fact, testifying that the bullet, "had passed through the wrist from the dorsal to the volar aspect". ( 6 H 98 )

A month later, in April, Dr. Gregory appeared to give testimony and once again, confirmed that the bullet had, "passed from the dorsal side or back side to the volar". ( 4 H 119 ) Once again explaining that the "volar" side was the palm side. ( ibid. ) It was during this testimony that Dr. Gregory was shown Commission Exhibit 679, which showed the wrist wounds REVERSED and to which he noted. ( 4 H 126 ) He was then asked to make the corrections to the diagram, which he did and initialed.

The point is that the Commission published as Exhibit 679 the diagram with the WRONG markings on the wrist, markings that they themselves had already printed on the form before Dr. Gregory affirmed them, markings that showed the wrist wounds in the REVERSE order. They HAD the "rough diagram" that the doctors had marked with the correct markings ( CD 326, pg. 6 ), but chose to instead suppress that as a Commission Document and publish the diagram with the wrong printed markings ( CE 679 ) albeit with Dr. Gregory's pencilled-in correction.

I asked Hank why would they publish the document with the wrong orientation and correction ( CE 679 ) when they had a diagram with the correct orientation ( CD 326, pg. 6 ) and his answer was that CE 679 had been corrected.

In other words, he didn't answer my question, as usual.

He went on babbling about what was admissable and what was not.
I would have like to have asked him how the Commission could have made admissable a diagram that showed the wrist wounds in REVERSE ( it was already designated as an exhibit when it was shown to Dr. Gregory, 4 H 126 ), but I was afraid it was too much for his feeble mind. How does one make admissable, and accept as an Exhibit, a diagram that identifies the wounds before the identifications are confirmed ?

I think someone was trying to pull a fast one here, but it didn't get past Dr. Gregory. He caught it.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Secret Service documents show that the "wrong" diagram was produced with the doctors on 1-28-64, and that the 11-22-63 Parkland document also has the "wrong" information, but corrected. I think this indicates that the doctors story was changed under the influence of the Secret Service.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 5:56:01 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

That Mary Ferrell link does not include all of the relevant documents. Interesting...Maybe I need to make another video.

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 6:25:48 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> That Mary Ferrell link does not include all of the relevant documents. Interesting...Maybe I need to make another video.

There's more to it. It starts here:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10727#relPageId=2

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Yes, I saw it all. It has two copies of the same SS document. It doesn't have the other one. And it doesn't have the Parkland Hospital document. I seem to have a more complete version of this material.

[JE Corbett]

Giltardo finds it strange that in the course of a massive investigation, errors would be made in the gathering of data and
finds it somewhat sinister that the errors would be corrected.

What is important is the FINDINGS of the WC which are what is contained in their 888 page report which transparently notes
the discrepancy and the resolution. Dr. Gregory was the surgeon who repaired Connally's wrist wounds and he was the
final authority on where the bullet entered and exited. Dr. Gregory and the WC got it right. We know they got it right because
the Z-frames showing Connally's arm flip immediately following being struck by the single bullet indicate he had been holding
his hat in his lap with the palm down which means the bullet would have to have entered on the opposite side.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

The contradictions in the wrist wound evidence seem to be based in a disagreement in judgement between Drs. Gregory and Shaw. Shaw said, assuming that one bullet did all the damage, that he could not comfortably hold his own hand in the position in which Connally would have to have been holding his hand for the entry wound to be on the dorsal aspect. Probably the Secret Service did not, as I suspected, attempt to change the bullet direction. It probably was a result of the two doctors saying different things. Shaw also told the DPD that the entry would was on the palm side. But what Shaw says means that the wrist wound was not made by the same missile that made the chest wound. We already know that. Shaw's testimony covers this, and there is a DPD report on Connally being shot.

[JE Corbett]

Shaw thought the entry was on the palm side and Gregory thought it was on the opposite side. Obviously, they could not both
be correct so the issue had to be resolved. Since Gregory was the one who operated on the wrist wounds, Shaw deferred to
his judgement about that. It is no more complicated than that. The WC was totally transparent regarding this issue. They
reported the disagreement in their report and they made available both diagrams. Why is this even an issue?

[NoTrueFlags Here]

You're too stupid to understand anything, but it's very cute that you try!

[JE Corbett]

Apparently you are too stupid to explain anything. You can't tell us why this even matters. That seems to be a common thread
with conspiracy hobbyists. They find a couple things that don't quite fit together and to them that is an AHA moment. They
can't tell us why the anomaly is significant. That think it's significant simply because it exists even though they can't tell us
what it indicates.

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:36:45 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

> Apparently you are too stupid to explain anything. You can't tell us why this even matters. That seems to be a common thread
> with conspiracy hobbyists. They find a couple things that don't quite fit together and to them that is an AHA moment. They
> can't tell us why the anomaly is significant.

The man is correct. You're too stupid to understand and you always have to have everything explained to you, so here it is.
Because we're talking about opposite ends of the wrist, the identifications of the wounds are significant because they determine the direction from which the shot that hit the wrist was fired.
If the entry wound was on the dorsal side, it was from one direction, if it was on the palm side, the shot came from the opposite direction.
I really don't know why you couldn't understand that.

[JE Corbett]

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 5:10:47 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:36:45 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>
> > Apparently you are too stupid to explain anything. You can't tell us why this even matters. That seems to be a common thread
> > with conspiracy hobbyists. They find a couple things that don't quite fit together and to them that is an AHA moment. They
> > can't tell us why the anomaly is significant.
> The man is correct. You're too stupid to understand and you always have to have everything explained to you, so here it is.

It is the burden of those who think these things are significant to explain why they are significant. It's not my fault that you
are not up to the challenge.

> Because we're talking about opposite ends of the wrist, the identifications of the wounds are significant because they determine the direction from which the shot that hit the wrist was fired.

Now tell us why it is significant that Shaw's initial opinion was different from Gregory's and that Shaw later changed
his mind.

> If the entry wound was on the dorsal side, it was from one direction, if it was on the palm side, the shot came from the opposite direction.
> I really don't know why you couldn't understand that.

The entry side doesn't tell us which direction the shot came from because the forearm can be turned so the palm faces up
or the palm faces down. Connally' wrist was in his lap in a horizontal position so the entry on the dorsal side only tells us
his wrist was palm down. It gives no indication whether that was from in front or behind. We have ample other evidence
that tells us he was hit from behind. It would not be possible for his wrist to have been hit by a frontal because there wasn't
anyplace in front of the limo that was elevated enough to fire a shot on a steep enough downward trajectory to strike
Connally's wrist.

Of course you were never able to figure any of this out on your own because you eschew the process of applying reasoning
to the available evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 02:55:59 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

And Huckster would have you believe that he was unaware of this.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 06:37:11 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 9:18:59?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:11:40?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 6:40:46?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 6:25:48?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>>>>> That Mary Ferrell link does not include all of the relevant documents. Interesting...Maybe I need to make another video.
>>>> There's more to it. It starts here:
>>>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10727#relPageId=2
>>> Yes, I saw it all. It has two copies of the same SS document. It doesn't have the other one. And it doesn't have the Parkland Hospital document. I seem to have a more complete version of this material.
>> The contradictions in the wrist wound evidence seem to be based in a disagreement in judgement between Drs. Gregory and Shaw. Shaw said, assuming that one bullet did all the damage, that he could not comfortably hold his own hand in the position in which Connally would have to have been holding his hand for the entry wound to be on the dorsal aspect. Probably the Secret Service did not, as I suspected, attempt to change the bullet direction. It probably was a result of the two doctors saying different things. Shaw also told the DPD that the entry would was on the palm side. But what Shaw says means that the wrist wound was not made by the same missile that made the chest wound. We already know that. Shaw's testimony covers this, and there is a DPD report on Connally being shot.
>
>Shaw thought the entry was on the palm side and Gregory thought it was on the opposite side. Obviously, they could not both
>be correct so the issue had to be resolved. Since Gregory was the one who operated on the wrist wounds, Shaw deferred to
>his judgement about that. It is no more complicated than that. The WC was totally transparent regarding this issue. They
>reported the disagreement in their report and they made available both diagrams. Why is this even an issue?

Shaw has no say in the matter. What part of this don't you
understand?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 08:36:43 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 9:45:29?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 9:37:13?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 9:18:59?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:11:40?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 6:40:46?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 6:25:48?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>>>>>>> That Mary Ferrell link does not include all of the relevant documents. Interesting...Maybe I need to make another video.
>>>>>> There's more to it. It starts here:
>>>>>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10727#relPageId=2
>>>>> Yes, I saw it all. It has two copies of the same SS document. It doesn't have the other one. And it doesn't have the Parkland Hospital document. I seem to have a more complete version of this material.
>>>> The contradictions in the wrist wound evidence seem to be based in a disagreement in judgement between Drs. Gregory and Shaw. Shaw said, assuming that one bullet did all the damage, that he could not comfortably hold his own hand in the position in which Connally would have to have been holding his hand for the entry wound to be on the dorsal aspect. Probably the Secret Service did not, as I suspected, attempt to change the bullet direction. It probably was a result of the two doctors saying different things. Shaw also told the DPD that the entry would was on the palm side. But what Shaw says means that the wrist wound was not made by the same missile that made the chest wound. We already know that. Shaw's testimony covers this, and there is a DPD report on Connally being shot.
>>> Shaw thought the entry was on the palm side and Gregory thought it was on the opposite side. Obviously, they could not both
>>> be correct so the issue had to be resolved. Since Gregory was the one who operated on the wrist wounds, Shaw deferred to
>>> his judgement about that. It is no more complicated than that. The WC was totally transparent regarding this issue. They
>>> reported the disagreement in their report and they made available both diagrams. Why is this even an issue?
>> You're too stupid to understand anything, but it's very cute that you try!

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 02:10:45 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Believers understand, they just don't *WANT* to understand.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 05:00:43 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 5:10:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 11:36:45?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>
>> > Apparently you are too stupid to explain anything. You can't tell us why this even matters. That seems to be a common thread
>> > with conspiracy hobbyists. They find a couple things that don't quite fit together and to them that is an AHA moment. They
>> > can't tell us why the anomaly is significant.
>> The man is correct. You're too stupid to understand and you always have to have everything explained to you, so here it is.
>
>It is the burden of those who think these things are significant to explain why they are significant.

And we've met that burden.

Can you tell us what *YOUR* burden is?

>> Because we're talking about opposite ends of the wrist, the identifications of the wounds are significant because they determine the direction from which the shot that hit the wrist was fired.
>
>Now tell us why it is significant that Shaw's initial opinion was different from Gregory's and that Shaw later changed
>his mind.

It's not.

>> If the entry wound was on the dorsal side, it was from one direction, if it was on the palm side, the shot came from the opposite direction.
>> I really don't know why you couldn't understand that.
>

>The entry side doesn't tell us which direction the shot came from...

Then just post a photo of you with your wrist in the appropriate
position...

But you won't.

You can't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 04:40:33 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 5:56:01?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 12:56:42?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>> > Connally's chest wounds didn't need to be altered because he was turned around when he was shot. He was shot through the back from the front of the car. His wrist wound also came from the front, which probably explains was his wounds diagram had to be done over. First the wound was labeled "enter." Then it was labeled "exit." Connally, too, was shot from the front. https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs
>> On or about January 28, 1964, Drs. Shires, Gregory and Shaw were interviewed by Special Agent Roger Warner of the USSS. Warner had them mark on a diagram Governor Connally's wounds. That diagram is on page 6 of Commission Document 326. And shows an entry wound on the dorsal side of the right wrist and an exit wound on the palm side.
>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10727#relPageId=6
>> THOSE MARKINGS WERE MADE BY THE DOCTORS.
>>
>> Two months later, in March, Dr. Gregory confimed that fact, testifying that the bullet, "had passed through the wrist from the dorsal to the volar aspect". ( 6 H 98 )
>>
>> A month later, in April, Dr. Gregory appeared to give testimony and once again, confirmed that the bullet had, "passed from the dorsal side or back side to the volar". ( 4 H 119 ) Once again explaining that the "volar" side was the palm side. ( ibid. ) It was during this testimony that Dr. Gregory was shown Commission Exhibit 679, which showed the wrist wounds REVERSED and to which he noted. ( 4 H 126 ) He was then asked to make the corrections to the diagram, which he did and initialed.
>>
>> The point is that the Commission published as Exhibit 679 the diagram with the WRONG markings on the wrist, markings that they themselves had already printed on the form before Dr. Gregory affirmed them, markings that showed the wrist wounds in the REVERSE order. They HAD the "rough diagram" that the doctors had marked with the correct markings ( CD 326, pg. 6 ), but chose to instead suppress that as a Commission Document and publish the diagram with the wrong printed markings ( CE 679 ) albeit with Dr. Gregory's pencilled-in correction.
>>
>> I asked Hank why would they publish the document with the wrong orientation and correction ( CE 679 ) when they had a diagram with the correct orientation ( CD 326, pg. 6 ) and his answer was that CE 679 had been corrected.
>>
>> In other words, he didn't answer my question, as usual.
>>
>> He went on babbling about what was admissable and what was not.
>> I would have like to have asked him how the Commission could have made admissable a diagram that showed the wrist wounds in REVERSE ( it was already designated as an exhibit when it was shown to Dr. Gregory, 4 H 126 ), but I was afraid it was too much for his feeble mind. How does one make admissable, and accept as an Exhibit, a diagram that identifies the wounds before the identifications are confirmed ?
>>
>> I think someone was trying to pull a fast one here, but it didn't get past Dr. Gregory. He caught it.

Logical fallacies deleted.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 10:14:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Believers understand, they just don't *WANT* to understand.

One thing they don't want to understand is that when Connally reacts to the shot that hits him, his wrist is nowhere near below his right nipple.
In fact, it's visible above the top of the limo door.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Z236.png

Add to that that the victims' reactions were 10 Z-frames ( .546 seconds ) apart, it means that the same bullet travelling at 2165 ft/sec hitting both victims would have required them to be seated 1,182.09 feet apart.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/z226-236-comparison.png

Even if the bullet had lost more than half it's velocity when it hit Connally, and it hit him at say, 1,000 ft/sec., they still would have had to have been sitting 546 feet apart.
At 100 feet/sec., they would have had to bee 54.6 feet apart.
IOW, there's no way in hell these men were hit by the same bullet.
Both the FBI and the Secret Sevice knew this and that's why they both concluded that separate bullets hit the President and Governor Connally.

But again, they don't WANT to understand that.

[JE Corbett]

On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 11:58:57 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 10:14:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Believers understand, they just don't *WANT* to understand.
> One thing they don't want to understand is that when Connally reacts to the shot that hits him, his wrist is nowhere near below his right nipple.
> In fact, it's visible above the top of the limo door.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Z236.png

Right, Gil. He suddenly flipped his right arm upward in anticipation of being shot. Why would anybody believe that the arm
flip was a reflexive response to being shot through the wrist. Your version makes much more sense. <chuckle>

>
> Add to that that the victims' reactions were 10 Z-frames ( .546 seconds ) apart, it means that the same bullet travelling at 2165 ft/sec hitting both victims would have required them to be seated 1,182.09 feet apart.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/z226-236-comparison.png
>
> Even if the bullet had lost more than half it's velocity when it hit Connally, and it hit him at say, 1,000 ft/sec., they still would have had to have been sitting 546 feet apart.

Wrong again, Gil. Both men reacted at the same frame, Z226. That is the frame both men's arm's suddenly started upward.
You and every other conspiracy hobbyist on the planet wants to ignore that inconvenient truth because there is no way to
reconcile it with your silly belief that they were hit by separate shots.

> At 100 feet/sec., they would have had to bee 54.6 feet apart.
> IOW, there's no way in hell these men were hit by the same bullet.

When you start with an incorrect premise, an incorrect conclusion is inevitable.

> Both the FBI and the Secret Sevice knew this and that's why they both concluded that separate bullets hit the President and Governor Connally.

That was the initial belief by everybody. The SBT was figured out months after the FBI made their report. It is understandable
why the initial belief was they were hit by separate shots. JFK was hit twice and JBC was hit once and the evidence indicated
three shots were fired. It was only after closely examining the Z-film they saw that the two men were hit at the same time
which would indicate they were probably hit by the same bullet. The further discovered that at the time JFK was first hit, he
and JBC were in a direct line with the sniper's nest. A bullet exiting JFK's throat would have hit JBC.

>
> But again, they don't WANT to understand that.

You don't understand that deductive reasoning is a process and the correct answer is not always going to be the most obvious
one. In this case, the obvious answer had to be abandoned in favor of the correct one. Since you aren't a believer in applying
reasoning to available information, I don't expect you to understand that.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 1:11:36 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> Wrong again, Gil. Both men reacted at the same frame, Z226. That is the frame both men's arm's suddenly started upward.
> You and every other conspiracy hobbyist on the planet wants to ignore that inconvenient truth because there is no way to
> reconcile it with your silly belief that they were hit by separate shots.

No we ignore it because that's YOUR interpretation. YOU'RE the only one in history to ever promote that.
No one's ever said that before.

Zapruder frame 230 proves that Connally had not been hit prior to that time. He expresses no pain even though ( according to you ) he's already been shot in the back, the bullet has pulverized 4 inches of the fifth rib, exited through his chest under the right nipple, struck the large bone in the forearm and broken it, severing the radial nerve that controls the thumb, exiting the palm side of the wrist and entering the left thigh.
All of this, according to you, with no expression of any discomfort on his face.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png

Governor Connally himself said in and interview with ABC's NIGHTLINE that he and the President were hit by separate shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-nightline-sbt.mp4

Witness S.M.Holland was looking down inside the car from the railroad overpass and saw the President and Governor hit by separate shots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI

So to your silly "both men were hit by the same bullet at Z-226" theory, I say PROVE IT.

Name one document from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
Name one exhibit from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
Name one witness from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that testified that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.

And until you can prove it, make sure when you repeat it, you say it's your opinion.
Because until it's proven, it's not fact.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 10:11:34 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 11:58:57?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 10:14:58?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > Believers understand, they just don't *WANT* to understand.
>> One thing they don't want to understand is that when Connally reacts to the shot that hits him, his wrist is nowhere near below his right nipple.
>> In fact, it's visible above the top of the limo door.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Z236.png
>
>Right, Gil. He suddenly flipped his right arm upward in anticipation of being shot. Why would anybody believe that the arm
>flip was a reflexive response to being shot through the wrist. Your version makes much more sense. <chuckle

You see what you need to see for your beliefs...

>> Add to that that the victims' reactions were 10 Z-frames ( .546 seconds ) apart, it means that the same bullet travelling at 2165 ft/sec hitting both victims would have required them to be seated 1,182.09 feet apart.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/z226-236-comparison.png
>>
>> Even if the bullet had lost more than half it's velocity when it hit Connally, and it hit him at say, 1,000 ft/sec., they still would have had to have been sitting 546 feet apart.
>
>Wrong again, Gil. Both men reacted at the same frame, Z226. That is the frame both men's arm's suddenly started upward.
>You and every other conspiracy hobbyist on the planet wants to ignore that inconvenient truth because there is no way to
>reconcile it with your silly belief that they were hit by separate shots.

I find it ABSOLUTELY AMUSING that you have just called the WC liars,
yet won't specifically say it.

The WC certainly called YOU a liar, they saw no such thing, and
indeed, spoke of "delayed" reactions.

>> At 100 feet/sec., they would have had to bee 54.6 feet apart.
>> IOW, there's no way in hell these men were hit by the same bullet.
>
>When you start with an incorrect premise, an incorrect conclusion is inevitable.

When you disagree with the WC, you've lost.

>> Both the FBI and the Secret Sevice knew this and that's why they both concluded that separate bullets hit the President and Governor Connally.
>
>That was the initial belief by everybody.

This is a blatant lie. You imply that they all got on board with the
WCR's theory... but you can't support that claim.

> The SBT was figured out months after the FBI made their report.

You mean, of course, that this *speculation* was worked out later by
the WC.

> It is understandable
>why the initial belief was they were hit by separate shots. JFK was hit twice and JBC was hit once and the evidence indicated
>three shots were fired. It was only after closely examining the Z-film they saw that the two men were hit at the same time

And you're a DAMNED LIAR.

As usual, you'll refuse (and be unable) to cite for your lie.

>which would indicate they were probably hit by the same bullet. The further discovered that at the time JFK was first hit, he
>and JBC were in a direct line with the sniper's nest. A bullet exiting JFK's throat would have hit JBC.

Once again, you're simply lying.

>> But again, they don't WANT to understand that.

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 12:46:42 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 1:11:36?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> Wrong again, Gil. Both men reacted at the same frame, Z226. That is the frame both men's arm's suddenly started upward.
>> You and every other conspiracy hobbyist on the planet wants to ignore that inconvenient truth because there is no way to
>> reconcile it with your silly belief that they were hit by separate shots.
>
>No we ignore it because that's YOUR interpretation. YOU'RE the only one in history to ever promote that.
>No one's ever said that before.
>
>Zapruder frame 230 proves that Connally had not been hit prior to that time. He expresses no pain even though ( according to you ) he's already been shot in the back, the bullet has pulverized 4 inches of the fifth rib, exited through his chest under the right nipple, struck the large bone in the forearm and broken it, severing the radial nerve that controls the thumb, exiting the palm side of the wrist and entering the left thigh.
>All of this, according to you, with no expression of any discomfort on his face.
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png
>
>Governor Connally himself said in and interview with ABC's NIGHTLINE that he and the President were hit by separate shots.
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-nightline-sbt.mp4
>
>Witness S.M.Holland was looking down inside the car from the railroad overpass and saw the President and Governor hit by separate shots.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI

Don't forget the CLOSEST non-limo eyewitnesses... James Chaney.

>So to your silly "both men were hit by the same bullet at Z-226" theory, I say PROVE IT.
>
>Name one document from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
>Name one exhibit from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
>Name one witness from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that testified that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
>
>And until you can prove it, make sure when you repeat it, you say it's your opinion.
>Because until it's proven, it's not fact.

Indeed, it's an outright LIE - because Corbutt isn't proposing this as
his opinion, he's claiming it as historical fact. Yet can't cite for
it.

[Ben Holmes]

Huckster read this, then ran for the hills, He can't defend his lies.

This was predicted, of cours.

[BT George]

Yawn!

[BT George]

On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 12:11:36 PM UTC-6, JE Corbett wrote:
> On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 11:58:57 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 10:14:58 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > Believers understand, they just don't *WANT* to understand.
> > One thing they don't want to understand is that when Connally reacts to the shot that hits him, his wrist is nowhere near below his right nipple.
> > In fact, it's visible above the top of the limo door.
> > https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Z236.png
> Right, Gil. He suddenly flipped his right arm upward in anticipation of being shot. Why would anybody believe that the arm
> flip was a reflexive response to being shot through the wrist. Your version makes much more sense. <chuckle>
> >
> > Add to that that the victims' reactions were 10 Z-frames ( .546 seconds ) apart, it means that the same bullet travelling at 2165 ft/sec hitting both victims would have required them to be seated 1,182.09 feet apart.
> > https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/z226-236-comparison.png
> >
> > Even if the bullet had lost more than half it's velocity when it hit Connally, and it hit him at say, 1,000 ft/sec., they still would have had to have been sitting 546 feet apart.
> Wrong again, Gil. Both men reacted at the same frame, Z226. That is the frame both men's arm's suddenly started upward.
> You and every other conspiracy hobbyist on the planet wants to ignore that inconvenient truth because there is no way to
> reconcile it with your silly belief that they were hit by separate shots.
> > At 100 feet/sec., they would have had to bee 54.6 feet apart.
> > IOW, there's no way in hell these men were hit by the same bullet.
> When you start with an incorrect premise, an incorrect conclusion is inevitable.

So too when you have no (zero) skills and/or interest in an honest analysis of the *facts* available to us. So much more fun to be "creative" and collect (meaningless) anomalies and questions for you fellow attention seekers to praise you for!

[JE Corbett]

On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 3:46:44 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 1:11:36 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > Wrong again, Gil. Both men reacted at the same frame, Z226. That is the frame both men's arm's suddenly started upward.
> > You and every other conspiracy hobbyist on the planet wants to ignore that inconvenient truth because there is no way to
> > reconcile it with your silly belief that they were hit by separate shots.
> No we ignore it because that's YOUR interpretation. YOU'RE the only one in history to ever promote that.
> No one's ever said that before.

Do you deny that Z226 is the frame that both men started raising their arms or do you deny that one or both are reacting to
being shot at that frame.

I'm hardly the first one to notice that. In fact I learned about it from DVP's excellent webpage devoted to the SBT. Prior to
seeing that, I like most people thought JFK was already reacting to being shot when he reappeared at frame Z225. What
DVP's webpage showed is that JFK's right arm was still moving downward from Z224-225. It wasn't until Z226 that both
arms started moving upward in reaction to the shot. Z226 is also the frame we see JBC's arm start upward. You won't
acknowledge that but it is undeniably true. Yu can disagree his arm movement is a reaction to being shot but if you deny
his right arm started moving upward at that frame, you are denying reality.

The question isn't whether other people are aware that both men began raising their arms at Z226. The question is whether
that is what happened. Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes who toggles between the frames can see without question
that is what happened.

>
> Zapruder frame 230 proves that Connally had not been hit prior to that time.

It proves no such thing.

> He expresses no pain even though ( according to you ) he's already been shot in the back, the bullet has pulverized 4 inches of the fifth rib, exited through his chest under the right nipple, struck the large bone in the forearm and broken it, severing the radial nerve that controls the thumb, exiting the palm side of the wrist and entering the left thigh.

You seem oblivious to the difference between reflexive and cognitive response. The former has very little time lag from
stimulus to response. Both JFK and JBC exhibit an almost immediate reflexive response to the bullet that passed through
them in the Z223-224 time frame. A cognitive response involves a pain signal being sent to the brain and the brain returning
and impulse. This happens very rapidly too, but not as quickly as a reflexive response. Connally felt the bullet strike him in the
back, which he described as feeling as if somebody punched him in the back. It was after Z230 that he began to exhibit the
pain from the bullet that had struck him less than a half second earlier.

> All of this, according to you, with no expression of any discomfort on his face.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png

You are operating under the erroneous misconception that a cognitive response happens immediately following a stimulus.

>
> Governor Connally himself said in and interview with ABC's NIGHTLINE that he and the President were hit by separate shots.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-nightline-sbt.mp4

That would be significant if he knew when JFK had been hit but since he had his back to JFK when the were both hit, he had
no way of knowing whether they had been hit by the same shot. He was adamant that he had been hit by the second shot. He
had been led to believe that the first shot had hit JFK because that was the earliest theory but that is not what happened.

>
> Witness S.M.Holland was looking down inside the car from the railroad overpass and saw the President and Governor hit by separate shots.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI

Oh, that's a great source. A guy watching from a distance looking through the two SS agents in the front seat.

>
> So to your silly "both men were hit by the same bullet at Z-226" theory, I say PROVE IT.

You do this every time this subject comes up. You lie about what I have said. I did not say they were shot at Z226. I said they
reacted at Z226 to a bullet that had struck both of them a few frames earlier. Why can't you refute what I write honetly?

>
> Name one document from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
> Name one exhibit from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
> Name one witness from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that testified that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.

Why would you expect there to be a document, exhibit, or a witness to something that didn't happen?
>
It would be pretty stupid for them to have written that because that isn't what happened. The WC concluded that the single
bullet struck in the Z210-225 time frame. I bullet strike in the Z223-224 time frame and a reaction beginning at Z226 fits
perfectly with that conclusion.

> And until you can prove it, make sure when you repeat it, you say it's your opinion.
> Because until it's proven, it's not fact.

When have you ever stated your goofy ideas are your opinion. You present Sam Holland's opinion that the two men were
hit by separate shots as if it were a proven fact. I'll gladly put my observation of what the Z-film shows up against his naked
eye observation from a distance.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:25:18 PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> 4. What pushed you into the LN camp?
> >
> > In the early 1980s I purchased the complete 26 volumes of the Warren
> > Commission Volumes of Hearings and Evidence from the Presidents Box
> > Bookshop for $2,500. About the same time I purchased the 12 House
> > Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Volumes of the Hearings and
> > Evidence from the Government Printing Office for (as I recall) $89.
> >
> > I immediately started to read through everything, and I read through
> > everything twice. I lost a lot of sleep and went to work more than
> > once bleary-eyed as I had stayed up until two, three, or four in the
> > morning before falling asleep. I started reading those volumes with
> > the express purpose of finding the conspirators - the conspiracy books
> > hinted at conspirators but never came out and named any. i was intent
> > on finding them.
>
>
> Of course, Huckster can't quote a *SINGLE* book he read that "hinted"
> that conspirators would be found in the testimony.

You'd snip it.

The corollary is that conspiracy books DON'T hint--let alone specify--what happened on 11/22/63. (Ben: "Some people did something!)

>
> And clearly, he didn't read the testimony clearly enough - because he
> *should* have spotted the fact that the WCR lied repeatedly about the
> eyewitnesses.

Ben hits the logical fallacy Daily Double here, mixing a variation of a No True Scotsman logical fallacy ("And clearly he didn't read the testimony clearly enough...") with a begged question logical fallacy (...the fact that the WCR lied repeatedly about the eyewitnesses.)

>
>
> > As I read through the testimony and examined the evidence, I found a
> > massive -- MASSIVE -- disconnect between what the conspiracy books
> > were saying about the testimony and evidence and what the testimony
> > and evidence itself was saying to me. I found the conspiracy authors
> > were selectively quoting from the testimony to build a case for
> > conspiracy, but not telling the full truth. I found they were guilty
> > of the sins they accused the Warren Commission of, while the Warren
> > Commission was being falsely accused by them of being unfaithful to
> > the evidence.
>
>
> Just don't ask Huckster to support this with examples.

Fringe reset.

>I'm quite sure
> that I currently own any book that Huckster could have been referring
> to, and can quickly look up the statement, AND THE CONTEXT - but
> Huckster simply refuses to back up his lie.

Hank's reasoned position isn't a lie, little fella. It's his position.

>
> And clearly... it *IS* a lie. There's no "disconnect" between
> "conspiracy books" and the evidence & testimony.

Then if there isn't a disconnect, why don't conspiracy books--in your opinion in response to Hank--not even HINT at who did what on 11/22/63? Puzzle that one, shorty.

>
> I've asked him in the past to support this, but he simply runs away.

Or doesn't incessantly post here and has other interests.

>
> EVERY
>
> SINGLE
>
> TIME!
>
> And he'll so so again...
>
>
> > I went in a conspiracy theorist, I came out understanding Oswald
> > committed the assassination alone and unaided.
>
>
> Then you are aware of the evidence for a pre-autopsy autopsy - yet
> remain silent when Corbutt denies it.

There is no evidence for something this silly.

>You're aware of the evidence
> for a Grassy Knoll shooter - yet remain silent.

There is no evidence for a shot from the grassy knoll. The acoustics evidence from the HSCA report was trashed decades ago. Even JFK's own library takes pains to point this out.

>
> Looks to me like you're merely proving yourself a liar.

Everyone is a liar or coward or child molester in Ben's world. A college psychology 101 student reading Ben's frustrated cyber bully screeds would immediately recognize that Ben is projecting. Ben accuses others of being child molesters when Ben is the one who paws children at the Encino Judo Club. Ben accuses others of lying when Ben lies all day long that his questions haven't been answered. Ben accuses others of cowardice while he tried to hide his own cowardice by joining the Marines.

>
>
> > From that point forward, as new claims of the conspiracy came
> > online, I found each had a begged premise or took something out of
> > context or was an assumption based on suspicion, and the like. None of
> > the claims withstood scrutiny. The last book I actually held out hope
> > for was Lifton's Best Evidence, but I found his conclusions from scant
> > and fragmentary evidence more than a little bizarre, as he simply
> > ignored non-conspiratorial and far-more-reasonable explanations in
> > arguing for a conspiracy.
>
>
> So list them... let's examine them. Cite the page number as well, so
> we can make sure you're not simply lying again.

You'd snip them.

>
> Let's hear this "scant and fragmentary" evidence... surely you aren't
> afraid to let others examine it.

Done. You snip everything.

>
> But, of course, you won't.

He has. We have. You snip, snip, snip.

>
>
> > One of my friends brought up the book after seeing Lifton on a
> > morning TV talk show speaking about the book. He mentioned the author
> > (he didn't recall the name) was talking about a conspiracy to alter
> > the President's wounds and make it look like the shots came from the
> > rear when all the shooters were in front of the President. I knew the
> > flaw in Lifton's premise and immediately pointed it out. "Who altered
> > Connally's wounds?" He was old enough to remember the assassination
> > and understood exactly why the body alteration theory of Lifton makes
> > no sense. If all the shooters were in front of the President, then
> > Connally's wounds - which point to the rear - must have been altered
> > as well.
>
>
> Why don't you pull out your copy of "Best Evidence" - and QUOTE David
> Lifton on the direction of the shots.

Shifting the Burden.

>
> But you won't... you're clearly a coward and a liar...

Or smart enough not to take your bait.

>
>
> > Fast forward to 1992 or 1993, I am at a Kennedy assassination
> > Symposium in Dallas, and David Lifton is giving a lecture. There is a
> > Q&A afterward, and I ask Lifton along these lines, "If all the
> > shooters were in front of the President, there were also in front of
> > Governor Connally. So who altered Connally's wounds, which point to a
> > shooter above and behind?"
>
>
> Surely you don't expect people to believe you?

I believe him. Why not put Lifton on the hot seat? His book sucked, and he deserved to be asked some questions. Best Evidence was immediately panned by those closest to JFK when it came out. Dave Powers said what Lifton alleged never happened, that there was a general watch over JFK the entire time. Was Dave Powers "in" on it to? Wouldn't rigor mortis have been setting in on JFK's corpse as this so-called "pre-autopsy" was occurring?

https://www.medicinenet.com/what_are_the_stages_of_rigor_mortis/article.htm

>
>
> > He said, "That's a very good question," and said he'd be addressing
> > that in his next book. He never did respond meaningfully to the
> > question. Meanwhile nearly 30 years later, I'm still waiting for
> > Lifton to address the issue that exposes his book as knuckleheaded
> > nonsense.
>
>
> So your working hypothesis is if a claim is made that you cannot cite
> or quote in a book, you can label the entire book as "nonsense."

The working hypothesis is called the person or persons making the extraordinary claim need to carry the burden of providing proof for the claim and to not shift that burden to others. Team Oswald claims a Seal Team 6 type of operation kidnapped or diverted JFK's corpse/coffin for a secret "pre-autopsy" yet cannot lay out the mechanics of the theft or any other details. Your claim, your burden to carry. Carry it.

>
> You clearly aren't intelligent enough to think such a theory all the
> way through.

Oh, the irony.

>Do you realize that you've just labeled the WCR as
> "nonsense?"

Re-read what he wrote again.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 6:13:37 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>
> Do you deny that Z226 is the frame that both men started raising their arms or do you deny that one or both are reacting to being shot at that frame.

I deny that both men were hit by the same shot. Whether it was 224, 225 or 226. Doesn't matter.

Let me understand this: you're saying that a bullet allegedly travelling in a downward path forced Connally's arm to move upward ?

> I'm hardly the first one to notice that. In fact I learned about it from DVP's excellent webpage devoted to the SBT. Prior to
> seeing that, I like most people thought JFK was already reacting to being shot when he reappeared at frame Z225. What
> DVP's webpage showed is that JFK's right arm was still moving downward from Z224-225. It wasn't until Z226 that both
> arms started moving upward in reaction to the shot. Z226 is also the frame we see JBC's arm start upward. You won't
> acknowledge that but it is undeniably true. Yu can disagree his arm movement is a reaction to being shot but if you deny
> his right arm started moving upward at that frame, you are denying reality.

Well, if an expert like David Von Pein says it, it must be true.

> The question isn't whether other people are aware that both men began raising their arms at Z226. The question is whether
> that is what happened. Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes who toggles between the frames can see without question
> that is what happened.

And Connally's movement could only have been caused by a bullet ? Prove it.

Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes can see that Connally isn't expressing any pain at Z-230.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png

> > Zapruder frame 230 proves that Connally had not been hit prior to that time.
> It proves no such thing.

It certainly does.

> You seem oblivious to the difference between reflexive and cognitive response. The former has very little time lag from
> stimulus to response. Both JFK and JBC exhibit an almost immediate reflexive response to the bullet that passed through
> them in the Z223-224 time frame. A cognitive response involves a pain signal being sent to the brain and the brain returning
> and impulse. This happens very rapidly too, but not as quickly as a reflexive response. Connally felt the bullet strike him in the
> back, which he described as feeling as if somebody punched him in the back. It was after Z230 that he began to exhibit the
> pain from the bullet that had struck him less than a half second earlier.

Even Connally testified that he wasn't struck before Z-231. His testimony was that he was hit between Z231 and Z 234. ( 4 H 145 )
Totally consistent with his reaction at Z-236.

> > https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png
> You are operating under the erroneous misconception that a cognitive response happens immediately following a stimulus.
> >
> > Governor Connally himself said in and interview with ABC's NIGHTLINE that he and the President were hit by separate shots.
> > https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-nightline-sbt.mp4

> That would be significant if he knew when JFK had been hit but since he had his back to JFK when the were both hit, he had
> no way of knowing whether they had been hit by the same shot. He was adamant that he had been hit by the second shot. He
> had been led to believe that the first shot had hit JFK because that was the earliest theory but that is not what happened.

Nellie Connally DID see the President after he was hit and testified that they were hit by separate shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/WC_Vol4_147-nellie.gif

> > Witness S.M.Holland was looking down inside the car from the railroad overpass and saw the President and Governor hit by separate shots.
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI
> Oh, that's a great source. A guy watching from a distance looking through the two SS agents in the front seat.

What do you men, "looking through two SS agents", was he standing in the street, or positioned up on the elevated overpass looking down into the car ?

> You do this every time this subject comes up. You lie about what I have said. I did not say they were shot at Z226. I said they
> reacted at Z226 to a bullet that had struck both of them a few frames earlier. Why can't you refute what I write honetly?

223, 224, 225, 226, who gives a shit ? You're saying that they both react to a shot at 226 but you haven't PROVEN it.
You've posted no citations, no documents, no testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos, no photographs, no links......NOTHING to support your position.
Only your own opinions and observations.
NO PROOF, as usual.

Your own Warren Commission was quite clear that there was no identical reaction by both men.
It blamed the difference in their reaction times as a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=136&search=%22delayed_reaction%22

But Dr. Shaw disagreed:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/shaw-gov-reaction-immediate.mp4

> > Name one document from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
> > Name one exhibit from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
> > Name one witness from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that testified that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
> Why would you expect there to be a document, exhibit, or a witness to something that didn't happen?

Now you're saying that they both weren't hit at the same time ?

> It would be pretty stupid for them to have written that because that isn't what happened. The WC concluded that the single
> bullet struck in the Z210-225 time frame. I bullet strike in the Z223-224 time frame and a reaction beginning at Z226 fits
> perfectly with that conclusion.

The Commission reported that "the PRESIDENT was PROBABLY shot through the neck between frames 210 and 225" ( Report, pg. 105 )
But the evidence shows that Connally wasn't hit until after frame 231.

> > And until you can prove it, make sure when you repeat it, you say it's your opinion.
> > Because until it's proven, it's not fact.

> When have you ever stated your goofy ideas are your opinion. You present Sam Holland's opinion that the two men were hit by separate shots as if it were a proven fact.

It's called an eyewitness account and it becomes evidence when it's corroborated by other witnesses like the ones I've already listed.

>I'll gladly put my observation of what the Z-film shows up against his naked eye observation from a distance.

What David Von Pein and you think you see in the Zapruder film against an eyewitness who was present and whose account is corroborated by other witnesses ?
ROFLMAO

I have news for you and David Von Pein:

Your "observation" doesn't trump the testimony of John Connally.
Your "observation" doesn't trump the testimony of Nellie Connally.
Your "observation" doesn't trump the opinion of a medical expert like Dr. Robert Shaw.
Your "observation" doesn't trump the accounts of eyewitnesses who were present during the assassination and whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses.
Your "observation" doesn't trump the conclusion of the Warren Commission that there was no identical reaction by both men.
Your "observation" doesn't trump the conclusion of the FBI that both men were hit by separate bullets.
Your observation doesn't trump Hoover telling LBJ that both men were hit by separate shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4

You source is David Von Pein and now youre claiming his "observation" as your own ?
Here's some more news for the two of you: your observations aren't evidence of ANYTHING.
They're opinions and nothing more.
ROFLMAO

[JE Corbett]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:57:42 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 6:13:37 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> >
> > Do you deny that Z226 is the frame that both men started raising their arms or do you deny that one or both are reacting to being shot at that frame.
> I deny that both men were hit by the same shot. Whether it was 224, 225 or 226. Doesn't matter.

That wasn't the question. The question was whether you see both men raise their arms at Z226. You lack the guts to deal
with that. If you denied it, you would look like a fool and if you acknowledged it, you would be conceding a powerful piece of
evidence that both had been shot at the same time. So you do what you always do with the difficult questions. You dodge it.

>
> Let me understand this: you're saying that a bullet allegedly travelling in a downward path forced Connally's arm to move upward ?

Yes, that's how reflexive responses work. An outside stimulus triggers an impulse in the nerves which cause an involuntary
response by the surrounding muscle groups. It's the same kind of response that causes your lower leg to kick upward when
the doctor taps your knee with a hammer. The following article explains the reflexive response much better than I could, not
that you are going to be capable of understanding it.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-a-reflex-2488718#:~:text=The%20most%20familiar%20reflex%20is%20the%20patellar%20reflex%2C,that%20could%20otherwise%20cause%20it%20to%20fall%20over.

> > I'm hardly the first one to notice that. In fact I learned about it from DVP's excellent webpage devoted to the SBT. Prior to
> > seeing that, I like most people thought JFK was already reacting to being shot when he reappeared at frame Z225. What
> > DVP's webpage showed is that JFK's right arm was still moving downward from Z224-225. It wasn't until Z226 that both
> > arms started moving upward in reaction to the shot. Z226 is also the frame we see JBC's arm start upward. You won't
> > acknowledge that but it is undeniably true. Yu can disagree his arm movement is a reaction to being shot but if you deny
> > his right arm started moving upward at that frame, you are denying reality.
> Well, if an expert like David Von Pein says it, it must be true.
> > The question isn't whether other people are aware that both men began raising their arms at Z226. The question is whether
> > that is what happened. Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes who toggles between the frames can see without question
> > that is what happened.
> And Connally's movement could only have been caused by a bullet ? Prove it.

I am willing to entertain a plausible alternative explanation for why JBC suddenly flipped his arm rapidly upward just two
frames after we see his coat bulge outward. Do you have any such explanation.

>
> Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes can see that Connally isn't expressing any pain at Z-230.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png

There's no reason to believe he would be exhibiting such an expression that quickly. Cognitive responses take slightly longer
than reflexive responses.

> > > Zapruder frame 230 proves that Connally had not been hit prior to that time.
> > It proves no such thing.
> It certainly does.

No, that is your opinion.

> > You seem oblivious to the difference between reflexive and cognitive response. The former has very little time lag from
> > stimulus to response. Both JFK and JBC exhibit an almost immediate reflexive response to the bullet that passed through
> > them in the Z223-224 time frame. A cognitive response involves a pain signal being sent to the brain and the brain returning
> > and impulse. This happens very rapidly too, but not as quickly as a reflexive response. Connally felt the bullet strike him in the
> > back, which he described as feeling as if somebody punched him in the back. It was after Z230 that he began to exhibit the
> > pain from the bullet that had struck him less than a half second earlier.
> Even Connally testified that he wasn't struck before Z-231. His testimony was that he was hit between Z231 and Z 234. ( 4 H 145 )
> Totally consistent with his reaction at Z-236.

Connally was wrong.

> > > https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png
> > You are operating under the erroneous misconception that a cognitive response happens immediately following a stimulus.
> > >
> > > Governor Connally himself said in and interview with ABC's NIGHTLINE that he and the President were hit by separate shots.
> > > https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-nightline-sbt.mp4

Connally was wrong.

>
> > That would be significant if he knew when JFK had been hit but since he had his back to JFK when the were both hit, he had
> > no way of knowing whether they had been hit by the same shot. He was adamant that he had been hit by the second shot. He
> > had been led to believe that the first shot had hit JFK because that was the earliest theory but that is not what happened.
> Nellie Connally DID see the President after he was hit and testified that they were hit by separate shots.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/WC_Vol4_147-nellie.gif

Nellie thought JFK clutched his throat. The Z-film shows that never happened. Hardly the best witness available.

> > > Witness S.M.Holland was looking down inside the car from the railroad overpass and saw the President and Governor hit by separate shots.
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI
> > Oh, that's a great source. A guy watching from a distance looking through the two SS agents in the front seat.
> What do you men, "looking through two SS agents", was he standing in the street, or positioned up on the elevated overpass looking down into the car ?

Elm Street goes downward in order to go under the overpass. The overpass isn't much above where the limo was when JFK
was first shot. The triple underpass was constructed in 1936. Prior to that time, Elm, Main, and Commerce streets crosse
the railroad tracks at grade which was at the same level as Houston St. At the time of the single bullet, the limo had only
gone slightly downgrade from Houston.

> > You do this every time this subject comes up. You lie about what I have said. I did not say they were shot at Z226. I said they
> > reacted at Z226 to a bullet that had struck both of them a few frames earlier. Why can't you refute what I write honetly?
> 223, 224, 225, 226, who gives a shit ? You're saying that they both react to a shot at 226 but you haven't PROVEN it.
> You've posted no citations, no documents, no testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos, no photographs, no links......NOTHING to support your position.
> Only your own opinions and observations.
> NO PROOF, as usual.

DVP has produced this video which nicely summarizes the evidence supporting simultaneous reactions by JFK and JBC
just two frames after the visual evidence of the bullet strike at Z224.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-48mrWgjlc

DVP's blog deals with the SBT in much greater detail here:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory

I'd love to see your explanation that takes into account all these observable facts but I know I won't because you don't have
one.

>
> Your own Warren Commission was quite clear that there was no identical reaction by both men.

> It blamed the difference in their reaction times as a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally.
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=136&search=%22delayed_reaction%22

You can't even understand your own cites. The page you have cited does not say anything about JFK and JBC reacting at
the same time. They are dealing with whether it was theoretically possible for JBC to have been hit by the first shot when he
believed he was hit by the second shot. It doesn't even address whether both could have been hit by the second shot. That is
dealt with elsewhere. The WC never came to a conclusion as to whether the single bullet was the first or second shot. They
allowed either was possible. The delayed reaction was only necessary to explain a first shot single bullet. Based on what we
have learned since 1964, we can safely dismiss that possibility and therefore it is not necessary to consider that JBC had a
delayed reaction.

>
> But Dr. Shaw disagreed:
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/shaw-gov-reaction-immediate.mp4

Like you, Shaw seems oblivious to the simultaneous arm movements by both men at Z226. Unlike you, Shaw can be
forgiven because apparently no one pointed that out to him.

> > > Name one document from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
> > > Name one exhibit from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
> > > Name one witness from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that testified that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
> > Why would you expect there to be a document, exhibit, or a witness to something that didn't happen?
> Now you're saying that they both weren't hit at the same time ?

Christ, your are dumbfuck. They were hit at the same time. They weren't hit at Z226. That is your piss poor reading
comprehension kicking in again.

> > It would be pretty stupid for them to have written that because that isn't what happened. The WC concluded that the single
> > bullet struck in the Z210-225 time frame. I bullet strike in the Z223-224 time frame and a reaction beginning at Z226 fits
> > perfectly with that conclusion.
> The Commission reported that "the PRESIDENT was PROBABLY shot through the neck between frames 210 and 225" ( Report, pg. 105 )
> But the evidence shows that Connally wasn't hit until after frame 231.

The evidence shows no such thing. Connally remembers his cognitive reaction of doubling over and by looking at still frame
blow ups, he saw that happened after Z231. He never looked for when his right arm flipped upward because he had no
memory of that reflexive, involuntary reaction. In fact, he wasn't even aware that his right arm had been struck until after
he came out of surgery.

> > > And until you can prove it, make sure when you repeat it, you say it's your opinion.
> > > Because until it's proven, it's not fact.
>
> > When have you ever stated your goofy ideas are your opinion. You present Sam Holland's opinion that the two men were hit by separate shots as if it were a proven fact.
> It's called an eyewitness account and it becomes evidence when it's corroborated by other witnesses like the ones I've already listed.

It's evidence but eyewitness evidence doesn't establish anything as a fact because eyewitnesses frequently get things
wrong.

> >I'll gladly put my observation of what the Z-film shows up against his naked eye observation from a distance.
> What David Von Pein and you think you see in the Zapruder film against an eyewitness who was present and whose account is corroborated by other witnesses ?

Absolutely. Anybody who looks at even the unenhanced Z-film gets a much better view of the assassination than what Sam
Holland observed from the overpass. It is laughable that you think Sam Holland's account is reliable.

> ROFLMAO

It's nice to see you agree with my last statement.

>
> I have news for you and David Von Pein:
>
> Your "observation" doesn't trump the testimony of John Connally.

Yes it does. My observation is based on a factual viewing of the Z-film using modern enhancement technologies.

> Your "observation" doesn't trump the testimony of Nellie Connally.

Yes it does. My observation is based on a factual viewing of the Z-film using modern enhancement technologies.

> Your "observation" doesn't trump the opinion of a medical expert like Dr. Robert Shaw.

Yes it does. Shaw could not possibly determine when Connally was struck nor was he qualified to determine whether
the bullet that struck Connally's wrist had passed through JFK and JBC first.

> Your "observation" doesn't trump the accounts of eyewitnesses who were present during the assassination and whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses.

Yes it does. Looking at the Z-film countless times gives me a much better viewing of what any witness saw with the naked
eye in real time. That is the reason the use of video replay is used in sports now. Being able to see plays in video review with
slow motion and stop action gives a much more reliable view than a human official can see in real time.

> Your "observation" doesn't trump the conclusion of the Warren Commission that there was no identical reaction by both men.

Quote the WC saying that.

> Your "observation" doesn't trump the conclusion of the FBI that both men were hit by separate bullets.

Yes it does. The FBI issued its report early on base on the fact that there were three shots, two striking JFK and one striking
Connally. They never considered whether one bullet could have hit both men because that idea wasn't developed until after
the SBT was developed.

> Your observation doesn't trump Hoover telling LBJ that both men were hit by separate shots.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4

Yes it does because Hoover was woefully uninformed about the facts of the case but he pretended to LBJ that he knew
more than he actually did.

>
> You source is David Von Pein and now youre claiming his "observation" as your own ?

As usual, you're lying Gil. I have made no such claim. I cited DVP as a source. His website allows us to toggle between
frames. Toggling between Z223-224 shows us JBC's jacket suddenly bulge outward, indicating that is the time frame
the bullet struck. Toggling between Z224-225 shows us JFK's right arm was still moving downward between those frames,
indicating that although he had just been struck by the bullet, his reflexive action had not yet begun. Toggling between
Z225-226 shows us that is when JFK's reflexive raising of his arms began at Z226, the same frame JBC's reflexive flipping
of his right arm upward began. You won't address any of these facts because you know they are powerful evidence of the
validity of the SBT. Instead you obfuscate by diverting to far less reliable indicators of what happened.

> Here's some more news for the two of you: your observations aren't evidence of ANYTHING.

What we observe is evidence and you refuse to address or even acknowledge what the video evidence clearly shows.

> They're opinions and nothing more.

You won't even address the facts. If you deny what I have observed is factual, tell us which frame JFK's arms start moving
upward. Tell us which frame JBC's right arm starts moving upward. You won't answer either question because you lack the
guts to do so.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:13:35 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 3:46:44?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 1:11:36?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>> Wrong again, Gil. Both men reacted at the same frame, Z226. That is the frame both men's arm's suddenly started upward.
>>> You and every other conspiracy hobbyist on the planet wants to ignore that inconvenient truth because there is no way to
>>> reconcile it with your silly belief that they were hit by separate shots.
>> No we ignore it because that's YOUR interpretation. YOU'RE the only one in history to ever promote that.
>> No one's ever said that before.
>
>Do you deny that Z226 is the frame that both men started raising their arms or do you deny that one or both are reacting to
>being shot at that frame.

Yep.


>I'm hardly the first one to notice that. In fact I learned about it from DVP's ...


Well, there you go.

The same Von Penis who denies that JFK's major head wound is in the
back of his head.

>> Zapruder frame 230 proves that Connally had not been hit prior to that time.
>
>It proves no such thing.

It "proves" as much as your imaginings...

>> He expresses no pain even though ( according to you ) he's already been shot in the back, the bullet has pulverized 4 inches of the fifth rib, exited through his chest under the right nipple, struck the large bone in the forearm and broken it, severing the radial nerve that controls the thumb, exiting the palm side of the wrist and entering the left thigh.
>

>You seem oblivious ...


The rest of your logical fallacy has been deleted.

>> All of this, according to you, with no expression of any discomfort on his face.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Governor Connally himself said in and interview with ABC's NIGHTLINE that he and the President were hit by separate shots.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-nightline-sbt.mp4
>

>That would be significant if...


He was there.

Yes.

>> Witness S.M.Holland was looking down inside the car from the railroad overpass and saw the President and Governor hit by separate shots.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI
>
>Oh, that's a great source. A guy watching from a distance looking through the two SS agents in the front seat.

And corroborated by Chaney, the CLOSEST non-limo eyewitness.

You lose.

>> So to your silly "both men were hit by the same bullet at Z-226" theory, I say PROVE IT.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Name one document from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
>> Name one exhibit from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
>> Name one witness from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that testified that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
>

>Why would you expect there to be a document, exhibit, or a witness ...


That would be a normal expectation.

>It would be pretty stupid for them to have written that because that isn't what happened. The WC concluded that the single
>bullet struck in the Z210-225 time frame. I bullet strike in the Z223-224 time frame and a reaction beginning at Z226 fits
>perfectly with that conclusion.

Nope.

>> And until you can prove it, make sure when you repeat it, you say it's your opinion.
>> Because until it's proven, it's not fact.

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 05:57:29 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:57:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 6:13:37?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you deny that Z226 is the frame that both men started raising their arms or do you deny that one or both are reacting to being shot at that frame.
>> I deny that both men were hit by the same shot. Whether it was 224, 225 or 226. Doesn't matter.
>
>That wasn't the question.

You just HATE the answer, don't you?

> The question was whether you see both men raise their arms at Z226. You lack the guts to deal

>with that. If you denied it...


I deny it.

>> Let me understand this: you're saying that a bullet allegedly travelling in a downward path forced Connally's arm to move upward ?
>
>Yes, that's how reflexive responses work.

The arm is not "reflexive" of a chest wound.

>>> I'm hardly the first one to notice that. In fact I learned about it from DVP's excellent webpage devoted to the SBT. Prior to
>>> seeing that, I like most people thought JFK was already reacting to being shot when he reappeared at frame Z225. What
>>> DVP's webpage showed is that JFK's right arm was still moving downward from Z224-225. It wasn't until Z226 that both
>>> arms started moving upward in reaction to the shot. Z226 is also the frame we see JBC's arm start upward. You won't
>>> acknowledge that but it is undeniably true. Yu can disagree his arm movement is a reaction to being shot but if you deny
>>> his right arm started moving upward at that frame, you are denying reality.
>> Well, if an expert like David Von Pein says it, it must be true.
>>> The question isn't whether other people are aware that both men began raising their arms at Z226. The question is whether
>>> that is what happened. Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes who toggles between the frames can see without question
>>> that is what happened.
>> And Connally's movement could only have been caused by a bullet ? Prove it.
>
>I am willing to entertain a plausible alternative explanation for why JBC suddenly flipped his arm rapidly upward just two
>frames after we see his coat bulge outward. Do you have any such explanation.

Logical fallacy.

>> Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes can see that Connally isn't expressing any pain at Z-230.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png
>

>There's no reason to believe...


Yes. There is.

>>>> Zapruder frame 230 proves that Connally had not been hit prior to that time.
>>> It proves no such thing.
>> It certainly does.
>

>No...


Yes.

>> Even Connally testified that he wasn't struck before Z-231. His testimony was that he was hit between Z231 and Z 234. ( 4 H 145 )
>> Totally consistent with his reaction at Z-236.
>
>Connally was wrong.

Indeed, EVERY SINGLE EYEWITNESS that day was wrong. Believers have
resolutely refused to name any eyewitness they believe completely...

This fact tells the tale.

>>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png
>>> You are operating under the erroneous misconception that a cognitive response happens immediately following a stimulus.
>>>>
>>>> Governor Connally himself said in and interview with ABC's NIGHTLINE that he and the President were hit by separate shots.
>>>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-nightline-sbt.mp4
>
>Connally was wrong.

Ditto above.

>>> That would be significant if he knew when JFK had been hit but since he had his back to JFK when the were both hit, he had
>>> no way of knowing whether they had been hit by the same shot. He was adamant that he had been hit by the second shot. He
>>> had been led to believe that the first shot had hit JFK because that was the earliest theory but that is not what happened.
>> Nellie Connally DID see the President after he was hit and testified that they were hit by separate shots.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/WC_Vol4_147-nellie.gif
>
>Nellie thought JFK clutched his throat. The Z-film shows that never happened. Hardly the best witness available.

The Z-film is hardly the best witness available.

>>>> Witness S.M.Holland was looking down inside the car from the railroad overpass and saw the President and Governor hit by separate shots.
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI
>>> Oh, that's a great source. A guy watching from a distance looking through the two SS agents in the front seat.
>> What do you men, "looking through two SS agents", was he standing in the street, or positioned up on the elevated overpass looking down into the car ?
>
>Elm Street goes downward in order to go under the overpass. The overpass isn't much above where the limo was when JFK
>was first shot. The triple underpass was constructed in 1936. Prior to that time, Elm, Main, and Commerce streets crosse
>the railroad tracks at grade which was at the same level as Houston St. At the time of the single bullet, the limo had only
>gone slightly downgrade from Houston.

Not an answer, but a longwinded evasion.

Actual photos prove you're lying.

>>> You do this every time this subject comes up. You lie about what I have said. I did not say they were shot at Z226. I said they
>>> reacted at Z226 to a bullet that had struck both of them a few frames earlier. Why can't you refute what I write honetly?
>> 223, 224, 225, 226, who gives a shit ? You're saying that they both react to a shot at 226 but you haven't PROVEN it.
>> You've posted no citations, no documents, no testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos, no photographs, no links......NOTHING to support your position.
>> Only your own opinions and observations.
>> NO PROOF, as usual.
>

>DVP has produced this video...

G.I.G.O.

>I'd love to see your explanation that takes into account all these observable facts but I know I won't because you don't have
>one.

Sure we do - you're lying. You see? Explains everything!

>> Your own Warren Commission was quite clear that there was no identical reaction by both men.

Note the dead silence here...

>> It blamed the difference in their reaction times as a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally.
>> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=136&search=%22delayed_reaction%22
>
>You can't even understand your own cites. The page you have cited does not say anything about JFK and JBC reacting at
>the same time.

Nor did Gil say that it would. He gave the cite showing the "delayed
reaction" explanation. You don't even understand that Gil, as with
the overwelming majority of critics, deny any evidence of a
SIMULTANEOUS reaction on the part of Connally & JFK. It didn't
happen.

Moron, aren't you?

>They are dealing with whether it was theoretically possible for JBC to have been hit by the first shot when he
>believed he was hit by the second shot. It doesn't even address whether both could have been hit by the second shot.

It was dealing with the point at which he was struck.

>That is
>dealt with elsewhere. The WC never came to a conclusion as to whether the single bullet was the first or second shot. They
>allowed either was possible. The delayed reaction was only necessary to explain a first shot single bullet.

No, you're lying again. You'll **NEVER** cite anything that says
this.

>Based on what we have learned since 1964, we can safely dismiss that
>possibility and therefore it is not necessary to consider that JBC had a
>delayed reaction.

In other words, you're claiming that the WCR got it wrong.

>> But Dr. Shaw disagreed:
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/shaw-gov-reaction-immediate.mp4

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>>> Name one document from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
>>>> Name one exhibit from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
>>>> Name one witness from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that testified that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
>>> Why would you expect there to be a document, exhibit, or a witness to something that didn't happen?
>> Now you're saying that they both weren't hit at the same time ?

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>> It would be pretty stupid for them to have written that because that isn't what happened. The WC concluded that the single
>>> bullet struck in the Z210-225 time frame. I bullet strike in the Z223-224 time frame and a reaction beginning at Z226 fits
>>> perfectly with that conclusion.
>> The Commission reported that "the PRESIDENT was PROBABLY shot through the neck between frames 210 and 225" ( Report, pg. 105 )
>> But the evidence shows that Connally wasn't hit until after frame 231.
>

>The evidence shows no such thing...


"In your opinion." You forgot to add that.

>>>> And until you can prove it, make sure when you repeat it, you say it's your opinion.
>>>> Because until it's proven, it's not fact.
>>
>>> When have you ever stated your goofy ideas are your opinion. You present Sam Holland's opinion that the two men were hit by separate shots as if it were a proven fact.
>> It's called an eyewitness account and it becomes evidence when it's corroborated by other witnesses like the ones I've already listed.
>
>It's evidence but eyewitness evidence doesn't establish anything as a fact because eyewitnesses frequently get things
>wrong.

No, you're lying again. In your opinion, and the opinion of ALL
believers in this forum, EVERY SINGLE EYEWITNESS GOT THINGS WRONG.

No "frequently" about it.

>>>I'll gladly put my observation of what the Z-film shows up against his naked eye observation from a distance.
>> What David Von Pein and you think you see in the Zapruder film against an eyewitness who was present and whose account is corroborated by other witnesses ?
>

>Absolutely...


This tells the tale.


>> ROFLMAO

>>
>> I have news for you and David Von Pein:
>>
>> Your "observation" doesn't trump the testimony of John Connally.
>
>Yes it does. My observation is based on a factual viewing of the Z-film using modern enhancement technologies.

Cite for your claim of a "factual viewing." Define it, cite for it.

But you won't.

You're lying again.

>> Your "observation" doesn't trump the testimony of Nellie Connally.
>
>Yes it does.

No it doesn't.


> My observation is based on a factual viewing ...


No such thing.

>> Your "observation" doesn't trump the opinion of a medical expert like Dr. Robert Shaw.
>

>Yes it does...


Dunning Kruger at it's best...

>> Your "observation" doesn't trump the accounts of eyewitnesses who were present during the assassination and whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses.
>

>Yes it does...


Dunning Kruger again...

>> Your "observation" doesn't trump the conclusion of the Warren Commission that there was no identical reaction by both men.
>
>Quote the WC saying that.

He already cited for it.

Coward & liar, aren't you?

>> Your "observation" doesn't trump the conclusion of the FBI that both men were hit by separate bullets.
>

>Yes it does...


Dunning Kruger again...

>> Your observation doesn't trump Hoover telling LBJ that both men were hit by separate shots.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4
>

>Yes it does ...


Dunning Kruger again.

>> You source is David Von Pein and now youre claiming his "observation" as your own ?
>

>As usual, you're lying Gil. I have made no such claim...


So you *DON'T* see what you're claiming you saw?

>> Here's some more news for the two of you: your observations aren't evidence of ANYTHING.
>
>What we observe is evidence

Cite for that claim.

>> They're opinions and nothing more.
>
>You won't even address the facts.

Of course we will... when you start posting any...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:40:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:25:18?PM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> 4. What pushed you into the LN camp?
>>>
>>> In the early 1980s I purchased the complete 26 volumes of the Warren
>>> Commission Volumes of Hearings and Evidence from the Presidents Box
>>> Bookshop for $2,500. About the same time I purchased the 12 House
>>> Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Volumes of the Hearings and
>>> Evidence from the Government Printing Office for (as I recall) $89.
>>>
>>> I immediately started to read through everything, and I read through
>>> everything twice. I lost a lot of sleep and went to work more than
>>> once bleary-eyed as I had stayed up until two, three, or four in the
>>> morning before falling asleep. I started reading those volumes with
>>> the express purpose of finding the conspirators - the conspiracy books
>>> hinted at conspirators but never came out and named any. i was intent
>>> on finding them.
>>
>>
>> Of course, Huckster can't quote a *SINGLE* book he read that "hinted"
>> that conspirators would be found in the testimony.
>
>You'd snip it.

You're lying again, Chuckles.

I deleted your following logical fallacy.

>> And clearly, he didn't read the testimony clearly enough - because he
>> *should* have spotted the fact that the WCR lied repeatedly about the
>> eyewitnesses.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>> As I read through the testimony and examined the evidence, I found a
>>> massive -- MASSIVE -- disconnect between what the conspiracy books
>>> were saying about the testimony and evidence and what the testimony
>>> and evidence itself was saying to me. I found the conspiracy authors
>>> were selectively quoting from the testimony to build a case for
>>> conspiracy, but not telling the full truth. I found they were guilty
>>> of the sins they accused the Warren Commission of, while the Warren
>>> Commission was being falsely accused by them of being unfaithful to
>>> the evidence.
>>
>> Just don't ask Huckster to support this with examples.

Indeed, he refuses to even respond to this...

>>I'm quite sure
>> that I currently own any book that Huckster could have been referring
>> to, and can quickly look up the statement, AND THE CONTEXT - but
>> Huckster simply refuses to back up his lie.
>>

>> And clearly... it *IS* a lie. There's no "disconnect" between
>> "conspiracy books" and the evidence & testimony.
>

>Then if there isn't a disconnect...


Make your case, coward.

>> I've asked him in the past to support this, but he simply runs away.
>>

>> EVERY
>>
>> SINGLE
>>
>> TIME!
>>
>> And he'll so so again...

Another perfect prediction...

>>> I went in a conspiracy theorist, I came out understanding Oswald
>>> committed the assassination alone and unaided.
>>
>> Then you are aware of the evidence for a pre-autopsy autopsy - yet
>> remain silent when Corbutt denies it.
>
>There is no evidence for something this silly.

Of course their is. Indeed, *YOU* prove it with your cowardice...
what time does the evidence show that JFK arrived at Parkland?

>>You're aware of the evidence
>> for a Grassy Knoll shooter - yet remain silent.
>
>There is no evidence for a shot from the grassy knoll.

Dozens of eyewitnesses are laughing at you... Kook!


> The acoustics evidence from the HSCA report was trashed decades ago...


And in returned, trashed.

>> Looks to me like you're merely proving yourself a liar.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>>> From that point forward, as new claims of the conspiracy came
>>> online, I found each had a begged premise or took something out of
>>> context or was an assumption based on suspicion, and the like. None of
>>> the claims withstood scrutiny. The last book I actually held out hope
>>> for was Lifton's Best Evidence, but I found his conclusions from scant
>>> and fragmentary evidence more than a little bizarre, as he simply
>>> ignored non-conspiratorial and far-more-reasonable explanations in
>>> arguing for a conspiracy.
>>
>> So list them... let's examine them. Cite the page number as well, so
>> we can make sure you're not simply lying again.
>>

>> Let's hear this "scant and fragmentary" evidence... surely you aren't
>> afraid to let others examine it.
>>

>> But, of course, you won't.
>
>He has.

Quote it. Cite it. Or be proven an admitted liar.

>>> One of my friends brought up the book after seeing Lifton on a
>>> morning TV talk show speaking about the book. He mentioned the author
>>> (he didn't recall the name) was talking about a conspiracy to alter
>>> the President's wounds and make it look like the shots came from the
>>> rear when all the shooters were in front of the President. I knew the
>>> flaw in Lifton's premise and immediately pointed it out. "Who altered
>>> Connally's wounds?" He was old enough to remember the assassination
>>> and understood exactly why the body alteration theory of Lifton makes
>>> no sense. If all the shooters were in front of the President, then
>>> Connally's wounds - which point to the rear - must have been altered
>>> as well.
>>
>> Why don't you pull out your copy of "Best Evidence" - and QUOTE David
>> Lifton on the direction of the shots.
>
>Shifting the Burden.

It's his burden, he made the claim.

>> But you won't... you're clearly a coward and a liar...
>>

>>> Fast forward to 1992 or 1993, I am at a Kennedy assassination
>>> Symposium in Dallas, and David Lifton is giving a lecture. There is a
>>> Q&A afterward, and I ask Lifton along these lines, "If all the
>>> shooters were in front of the President, there were also in front of
>>> Governor Connally. So who altered Connally's wounds, which point to a
>>> shooter above and behind?"
>>
>>
>> Surely you don't expect people to believe you?
>
>I believe him.

Of course... Believers believe without evidence. That's what
believers do.

>>> He said, "That's a very good question," and said he'd be addressing
>>> that in his next book. He never did respond meaningfully to the
>>> question. Meanwhile nearly 30 years later, I'm still waiting for
>>> Lifton to address the issue that exposes his book as knuckleheaded
>>> nonsense.
>>
>> So your working hypothesis is if a claim is made that you cannot cite
>> or quote in a book, you can label the entire book as "nonsense."
>
> The working hypothesis is called the person or persons making the
> extraordinary claim need to carry the burden of providing proof for
> the claim and to not shift that burden to others.

So Huckster needs to carry his burden.

>> You clearly aren't intelligent enough to think such a theory all the
>> way through.
>>

[Bud]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:57:42 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 6:13:37 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> >
> > Do you deny that Z226 is the frame that both men started raising their arms or do you deny that one or both are reacting to being shot at that frame.
> I deny that both men were hit by the same shot. Whether it was 224, 225 or 226. Doesn't matter.
>
> Let me understand this: you're saying that a bullet allegedly travelling in a downward path forced Connally's arm to move upward ?

You are purposely trying not to understand this. You refuse to look at things correctly.

You refuse to look into the actual physics of people being struck by bullets.

You refuse to look at the "force" (kinetic energy) expended on a person when they are hit by a bullet.

You refuse to look at how people react when struck by bullets, the delays in reaction and the bodily movement.

You keep yourself ignorant of all relevant information, focus solely on the wrong things and show yourself to be an idiot.

> > I'm hardly the first one to notice that. In fact I learned about it from DVP's excellent webpage devoted to the SBT. Prior to
> > seeing that, I like most people thought JFK was already reacting to being shot when he reappeared at frame Z225. What
> > DVP's webpage showed is that JFK's right arm was still moving downward from Z224-225. It wasn't until Z226 that both
> > arms started moving upward in reaction to the shot. Z226 is also the frame we see JBC's arm start upward. You won't
> > acknowledge that but it is undeniably true. Yu can disagree his arm movement is a reaction to being shot but if you deny
> > his right arm started moving upward at that frame, you are denying reality.
> Well, if an expert like David Von Pein says it, it must be true.

You didn`t touch an idea expressed. You can`t, your an idiot when couldn`t discuss ideas if his life depended on it.

> > The question isn't whether other people are aware that both men began raising their arms at Z226. The question is whether
> > that is what happened. Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes who toggles between the frames can see without question
> > that is what happened.
> And Connally's movement could only have been caused by a bullet ? Prove it.

To who, you? You can believe that nobody was shot in the limo if you like, it is a free country.

People not playing silly games can see that both men act exactly in accordance with a bullet passing between them both.

Just a coincidence that they are lined up from where a person was seen shooting, and they react simultaneously as if they were struck by the same bullet, right?

> Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes can see that Connally isn't expressing any pain at Z-230.

Besides the delayed reactions of humans Corbett mentions, you can`t support that pain must be discernable in a poor quality home movie filmed from a distance.

> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png
> > > Zapruder frame 230 proves that Connally had not been hit prior to that time.
> > It proves no such thing.
> It certainly does.

Typical of the "this is all I need to know" approach of conspiracy hobbyists.

> > You seem oblivious to the difference between reflexive and cognitive response. The former has very little time lag from
> > stimulus to response. Both JFK and JBC exhibit an almost immediate reflexive response to the bullet that passed through
> > them in the Z223-224 time frame. A cognitive response involves a pain signal being sent to the brain and the brain returning
> > and impulse. This happens very rapidly too, but not as quickly as a reflexive response. Connally felt the bullet strike him in the
> > back, which he described as feeling as if somebody punched him in the back. It was after Z230 that he began to exhibit the
> > pain from the bullet that had struck him less than a half second earlier.
> Even Connally testified that he wasn't struck before Z-231. His testimony was that he was hit between Z231 and Z 234. ( 4 H 145 )
> Totally consistent with his reaction at Z-236.

You are using a victim who is shot in a surprise attack lasting seconds to determine with exactitude the sequence of events by the split second.

> > > https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png
> > You are operating under the erroneous misconception that a cognitive response happens immediately following a stimulus.
> > >
> > > Governor Connally himself said in and interview with ABC's NIGHTLINE that he and the President were hit by separate shots.
> > > https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-nightline-sbt.mp4
>
> > That would be significant if he knew when JFK had been hit but since he had his back to JFK when the were both hit, he had
> > no way of knowing whether they had been hit by the same shot. He was adamant that he had been hit by the second shot. He
> > had been led to believe that the first shot had hit JFK because that was the earliest theory but that is not what happened.
> Nellie Connally DID see the President after he was hit and testified that they were hit by separate shots.

She never saw the bullet enter or leave either victim, bullets go very fast.

> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/WC_Vol4_147-nellie.gif
> > > Witness S.M.Holland was looking down inside the car from the railroad overpass and saw the President and Governor hit by separate shots.
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI
> > Oh, that's a great source. A guy watching from a distance looking through the two SS agents in the front seat.
> What do you men, "looking through two SS agents", was he standing in the street, or positioned up on the elevated overpass looking down into the car ?

Did he see the bullet enter or leave either victim?

And he must have seen this, right?

https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

> > You do this every time this subject comes up. You lie about what I have said. I did not say they were shot at Z226. I said they
> > reacted at Z226 to a bullet that had struck both of them a few frames earlier. Why can't you refute what I write honetly?
> 223, 224, 225, 226, who gives a shit ? You're saying that they both react to a shot at 226 but you haven't PROVEN it.
> You've posted no citations, no documents, no testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos, no photographs, no links......NOTHING to support your position.

https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

> Only your own opinions and observations.
> NO PROOF, as usual.

You have the information necessary, you just have no ability to reason to apply to the information.

> Your own Warren Commission was quite clear that there was no identical reaction by both men.
> It blamed the difference in their reaction times as a "delayed reaction" on the part of Connally.

I don`t see a delayed reaction...

https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

I see a simultaneous reaction.

> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=136&search=%22delayed_reaction%22
>
> But Dr. Shaw disagreed:
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/shaw-gov-reaction-immediate.mp4
> > > Name one document from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
> > > Name one exhibit from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
> > > Name one witness from either the Warren Commission or the HSCA that testified that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet at Z-226.
> > Why would you expect there to be a document, exhibit, or a witness to something that didn't happen?
> Now you're saying that they both weren't hit at the same time ?

Can you show any other murder where you had to precisely, to a small fraction of a second, determine when the bullet struck the victim(s)?

> > It would be pretty stupid for them to have written that because that isn't what happened. The WC concluded that the single
> > bullet struck in the Z210-225 time frame. I bullet strike in the Z223-224 time frame and a reaction beginning at Z226 fits
> > perfectly with that conclusion.
> The Commission reported that "the PRESIDENT was PROBABLY shot through the neck between frames 210 and 225" ( Report, pg. 105 )
> But the evidence shows that Connally wasn't hit until after frame 231.

It shows that to you, but then again, you`re an idiot.

> > > And until you can prove it, make sure when you repeat it, you say it's your opinion.
> > > Because until it's proven, it's not fact.
>
> > When have you ever stated your goofy ideas are your opinion. You present Sam Holland's opinion that the two men were hit by separate shots as if it were a proven fact.
> It's called an eyewitness account and it becomes evidence when it's corroborated by other witnesses like the ones I've already listed.

Show witnesses ever being used to determine the exact instant a bullet hit a victim.

> >I'll gladly put my observation of what the Z-film shows up against his naked eye observation from a distance.
> What David Von Pein and you think you see in the Zapruder film against an eyewitness who was present and whose account is corroborated by other witnesses ?

How can they corroborate something they didn`t see? They didn`t see the bullets entering and exiting the victims.

I can show you actual shootings all day long, and you will be unable to say when the person was hit, or where.

> ROFLMAO
>
> I have news for you and David Von Pein:
>
> Your "observation" doesn't trump the testimony of John Connally.
> Your "observation" doesn't trump the testimony of Nellie Connally.
> Your "observation" doesn't trump the opinion of a medical expert like Dr. Robert Shaw.
> Your "observation" doesn't trump the accounts of eyewitnesses who were present during the assassination and whose accounts are corroborated by other witnesses.
> Your "observation" doesn't trump the conclusion of the Warren Commission that there was no identical reaction by both men.
> Your "observation" doesn't trump the conclusion of the FBI that both men were hit by separate bullets.
> Your observation doesn't trump Hoover telling LBJ that both men were hit by separate shots.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4

Hey look, a conspiracy hobbyist looking at the wrong things incorrectly.

> You source is David Von Pein and now youre claiming his "observation" as your own ?
> Here's some more news for the two of you: your observations aren't evidence of ANYTHING.
> They're opinions and nothing more.

Opinions formed by using critical thinking and reasoning are worth something. Yours are not.

> ROFLMAO

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:45:04 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> You refuse to...

Answer...

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:06:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> You source is David Von Pein and now youre claiming his "observation" as your own ?
> >
> >As usual, you're lying Gil. I have made no such claim...
>

Don't call me a liar because, unlike you, I can prove which one of us is lying.

You posted:

"I'm hardly the first one to notice that. In fact I learned about it from DVP's excellent webpage devoted to the SBT. Prior to
seeing that, I like most people thought JFK was already reacting to being shot when he reappeared at frame Z225. What
DVP's webpage showed is that JFK's right arm was still moving downward from Z224-225. It wasn't until Z226 that both
arms started moving upward in reaction to the shot. Z226 is also the frame we see JBC's arm start upward."

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-AcV4aHYEMM/m/bvWyjGQbAgAJ

From Von Pein's Blog:

"The right arms of both victims are moving upward simultaneously --with JFK moving his arms upward toward the pain point in his throat; and Connally's right hand/arm involuntarily moving upward after his
right wrist has just been smashed by Oswald's Bullet #399."

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/single-bullet-theory-in-action.html

You got the idea from Von Pein's website and you're claiming it as your own "observation".

You posted:

"I'll gladly put MY observation of what the Z-film shows up against his naked eye observation from a distance."
YOUR observation, really ?
You mean Von Pein's observation that you happen to agree with.

Even the lowest scum of the earth give credit where credit is due. Ask Bud and Chuckles.
It wasn't until I kept pressing you that you were the only one who thought that, that you finally came clean and admitted you got it from someplace else.
You're a real piece of work. And that's putting it nicely.

The difference between you and I is that I can prove what I say and you can't.
Between the two of us, that makes YOU the liar.
Again.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:45:05 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
< a lot of his usual boring commentary and insults >

<yawn>
Oh Look, the Villiage Idiot has another opinion.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:53:14 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Ouch! What a spanking!!

Corbutt's running for his safe place to cry in private...

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:55:18 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:45:05?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>< a lot of his usual boring commentary and insults >
>
><yawn>
>Oh Look, the Villiage Idiot has another opinion.

Except he mistakes them for facts...

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Except he mistakes them for facts...

I was looking at Von Pein's post back in June on the two men reacting at Z-226 from being hit by the same shot.
He provides no corroborating evidence that this is so, other than his own observation of the Z-film.

I find it amusing that of all the writers on the subject of the assassination, he repeatedly quotes himself.
Like he's his own source. I've never seen that done before.
ROFLMAO

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:56:48 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Ouch! What a spanking!!
>
> Corbutt's running for his safe place to cry in private...

No one ever spanked him for lying when he was a kid, so I guess it's up to you and me.

[JE Corbett]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:53:16 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:06:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >> You source is David Von Pein and now youre claiming his "observation" as your own ?
> > >
> > >As usual, you're lying Gil. I have made no such claim...
> >
> Don't call me a liar because, unlike you, I can prove which one of us is lying.
>
> You posted:
> "I'm hardly the first one to notice that. In fact I learned about it from DVP's excellent webpage devoted to the SBT. Prior to
> seeing that, I like most people thought JFK was already reacting to being shot when he reappeared at frame Z225. What
> DVP's webpage showed is that JFK's right arm was still moving downward from Z224-225. It wasn't until Z226 that both
> arms started moving upward in reaction to the shot. Z226 is also the frame we see JBC's arm start upward."
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-AcV4aHYEMM/m/bvWyjGQbAgAJ
>
> From Von Pein's Blog:
>
> "The right arms of both victims are moving upward simultaneously --with JFK moving his arms upward toward the pain point in his throat; and Connally's right hand/arm involuntarily moving upward after his
> right wrist has just been smashed by Oswald's Bullet #399."
>
> https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/single-bullet-theory-in-action.html
>
> You got the idea from Von Pein's website and you're claiming it as your own "observation".

The observation is mine. The source of my observation was DVP's website which I have properly credited every time I
have referenced it. Your reading comprehension is even worse than I thought.

>
> You posted:
>
> "I'll gladly put MY observation of what the Z-film shows up against his naked eye observation from a distance."
> YOUR observation, really ?
>

The observation is mine. The source of my observation was DVP's website which I have properly credited every time I
have referenced it. Your reading comprehension is even worse than I thought.

> You mean Von Pein's observation that you happen to agree with.

No, I observed his website for myself.

> Even the lowest scum of the earth give credit where credit is due. Ask Bud and Chuckles.

When have I failed to credit DVP when citing website?

> It wasn't until I kept pressing you that you were the only one who thought that, that you finally came clean and admitted you got it from someplace else.

You are pathetically trying to make the argument that I somehow tried to take credit for something I learned from DVP's
website. It isn't necessary for me to cite his website every time I make an argument based on what I learned from his website.
When I have cited the source of that knowledge, I have always credited DVP. I have NEVER tried to take credit for his material.

> You're a real piece of work. And that's putting it nicely.

It is not my fault your reading comprehension is so bad.

>
> The difference between you and I is that I can prove what I say and you can't.
> Between the two of us, that makes YOU the liar.
> Again.

You make lots of claims and never prove anything. It's amazing what you believe constitutes proof. You think Sam Holland's
impression is proof. You think Nellie Connally's impression is proof. You think impressions from people of what happened
in a surprise attack that lasted less than ten seconds are a more reliable indicator than a film of the actual event which paints
a very different picture. A film is an accurate record of an event. It can be viewed over and over again allowing us to discover
things that we hadn't noticed in prior viewings. A film can be enhanced, in this case through enlargements and frame
stabilization, slow motion, freeze framing, and toggling to give us an even clearer view of what happened than we could see
through normal viewing of the film.

Bud stated this a long time ago (note I am giving credit where credit is due). Conspiracy hobbyists, such as yourself, are
really, really bad at weighing evidence. They judge the credibility of evidence based SOLELY on whether it supports what
they want to believe. You believe Sam Holland and Nellie Connally not because they were in position to see exactly what
happened but because they told you what you want to believe, that JFK and JBC were hit by separate shows. You reject
what the Z-film clearly shows, that both men reacted at the same time just two frames after visual evidence of a bullet
strike in the form of JBC's jacket bulge. You also ignore the fact that at that very instant, the two men were in perfect
alignment to be struck by the same shot fired from the location where several people saw a gunman. You reject the
unanimous conlcusion of every forensic examiner who has seen the autopsy evidence that JFK the bullet that struck
JFK in the back exited from his throat and would have gone on to strike JBC the back. You reject the obvious ramifications
of these known facts because you refuse to think critically and apply reasoning to available information. It is the reason you
remain completely clueless about what actually happened over 60 years ago.

[JE Corbett]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:10:43 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Except he mistakes them for facts...
> I was looking at Von Pein's post back in June on the two men reacting at Z-226 from being hit by the same shot.
> He provides no corroborating evidence that this is so, other than his own observation of the Z-film.

You need corroborating evidence for something you can see with your own eyes? Clueless as ever.

>
> I find it amusing that of all the writers on the subject of the assassination, he repeatedly quotes himself.
> Like he's his own source. I've never seen that done before.

Your lying again, Gil. He makes his argument and shows the film record of the event that supports his argument. He
doesn't need to cite other writers when he can lay his cards on the table for all to see.

[JE Corbett]

Giltardo and Yellowpanties continue to share their creepy spanking fetishes with us.

[JE Corbett]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:57:31 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

> As usual, you're lying Gil. I have made no such claim. I cited DVP as a source. His website allows us to toggle between
> frames. Toggling between Z223-224 shows us JBC's jacket suddenly bulge outward, indicating that is the time frame
> the bullet struck. Toggling between Z224-225 shows us JFK's right arm was still moving downward between those frames,
> indicating that although he had just been struck by the bullet, his reflexive action had not yet begun. Toggling between
> Z225-226 shows us that is when JFK's reflexive raising of his arms began at Z226, the same frame JBC's reflexive flipping
> of his right arm upward began. You won't address any of these facts because you know they are powerful evidence of the
> validity of the SBT. Instead you obfuscate by diverting to far less reliable indicators of what happened.
> > Here's some more news for the two of you: your observations aren't evidence of ANYTHING.
> What we observe is evidence and you refuse to address or even acknowledge what the video evidence clearly shows.
> > They're opinions and nothing more.
> You won't even address the facts. If you deny what I have observed is factual, tell us which frame JFK's arms start moving
> upward. Tell us which frame JBC's right arm starts moving upward. You won't answer either question because you lack the
> guts to do so.

As I predicted, Giltardo refused to address these points or answer the questions. It's not as if it was difficult to do so. It
is a virtual certainty, when Giltardo is confronted with facts that don't jibe with his cherished beliefs or faced with difficult
questions, he will take the coward's way out. Even though he responded to this post, he deleted the above paragraphs
because he lacked both the guts and the intellect to make a reasoned response. He steadfastly refuses to acknowledge
that JFK's and JBC's arms started upward at the same frame nor can he offer a plausible alternative explanation for why
that would happen. He doesn't even have the guts to deny that happened because that would make him look foolish. Since
he had no answer, he simply avoided the issue. He took the coward's way out.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:59:29 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:23:00?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:56:48?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> Ouch! What a spanking!!
>>>
>>> Corbutt's running for his safe place to cry in private...
>>
>> No one ever spanked him for lying when he was a kid, so I guess it's up to you and me.

Logical fallacy deleted. Corbutt was unable to refute Gil's insight.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:53:56 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:53:16?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:06:26?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>>> You source is David Von Pein and now youre claiming his "observation" as your own ?
>>>>
>>>>As usual, you're lying Gil. I have made no such claim...
>>>
>> Don't call me a liar because, unlike you, I can prove which one of us is lying.
>>
>> You posted:
>> "I'm hardly the first one to notice that. In fact I learned about it from DVP's excellent webpage devoted to the SBT. Prior to
>> seeing that, I like most people thought JFK was already reacting to being shot when he reappeared at frame Z225. What
>> DVP's webpage showed is that JFK's right arm was still moving downward from Z224-225. It wasn't until Z226 that both
>> arms started moving upward in reaction to the shot. Z226 is also the frame we see JBC's arm start upward."
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/-AcV4aHYEMM/m/bvWyjGQbAgAJ
>>
>> From Von Pein's Blog:
>>
>> "The right arms of both victims are moving upward simultaneously --with JFK moving his arms upward toward the pain point in his throat; and Connally's right hand/arm involuntarily moving upward after his
>> right wrist has just been smashed by Oswald's Bullet #399."
>>
>> https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/single-bullet-theory-in-action.html
>>
>> You got the idea from Von Pein's website and you're claiming it as your own "observation".
>
>The observation is mine.

How strange! It's IDENTICAL to Von Penis's

>> You posted:
>>
>> "I'll gladly put MY observation of what the Z-film shows up against his naked eye observation from a distance."
>> YOUR observation, really ?
>>
>The observation is mine.

Ditto above.

>> You mean Von Pein's observation that you happen to agree with.
>

>No...


Yes.

>> Even the lowest scum of the earth give credit where credit is due. Ask Bud and Chuckles.
>
>When have I failed to credit DVP when citing website?

Every time you've made this argument up until this thread.

>> It wasn't until I kept pressing you that you were the only one who thought that, that you finally came clean and admitted you got it from someplace else.
>

>You are pathetically...


Cries the self admitted plagiarist.

>> You're a real piece of work. And that's putting it nicely.
>

>It is not my fault...


Blaming Von Penis now?

>> The difference between you and I is that I can prove what I say and you can't.
>> Between the two of us, that makes YOU the liar.
>> Again.

Word vomit deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 10:17:55 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:57:31?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>
>> As usual, you're lying Gil. I have made no such claim. I cited DVP as a source. His website allows us to toggle between
>> frames. Toggling between Z223-224 shows us JBC's jacket suddenly bulge outward, indicating that is the time frame
>> the bullet struck. Toggling between Z224-225 shows us JFK's right arm was still moving downward between those frames,
>> indicating that although he had just been struck by the bullet, his reflexive action had not yet begun. Toggling between
>> Z225-226 shows us that is when JFK's reflexive raising of his arms began at Z226, the same frame JBC's reflexive flipping
>> of his right arm upward began. You won't address any of these facts because you know they are powerful evidence of the
>> validity of the SBT. Instead you obfuscate by diverting to far less reliable indicators of what happened.
>> > Here's some more news for the two of you: your observations aren't evidence of ANYTHING.
>> What we observe is evidence and you refuse to address or even acknowledge what the video evidence clearly shows.
>>> They're opinions and nothing more.
>> You won't even address the facts. If you deny what I have observed is factual, tell us which frame JFK's arms start moving
>> upward. Tell us which frame JBC's right arm starts moving upward. You won't answer either question because you lack the
>> guts to do so.
>

>As I predicted...

As predicted, although I routinely point out your lies and logical
fallacies, you always run.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:10:42 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah, Von Penis is a legend in his own mind.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:57:43 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:10:43?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:00:57?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > Except he mistakes them for facts...
>> I was looking at Von Pein's post back in June on the two men reacting at Z-226 from being hit by the same shot.
>> He provides no corroborating evidence that this is so, other than his own observation of the Z-film.
>
>You need corroborating evidence for something you can see with your own eyes? Clueless as ever.

Calling the WC "clueless" will get you thrown off your CIA pension.

>> I find it amusing that of all the writers on the subject of the assassination, he repeatedly quotes himself.
>> Like he's his own source. I've never seen that done before.
>
>Your lying again, Gil.

You're lying again, Corbutt. As you do, in every single post.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:57:44 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:10:43 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > I was looking at Von Pein's post back in June on the two men reacting at Z-226 from being hit by the same shot.
> > He provides no corroborating evidence that this is so, other than his own observation of the Z-film.
> >

> > I find it amusing that of all the writers on the subject of the assassination, he repeatedly quotes himself.
> > Like he's his own source. I've never seen that done before.
> Your lying again, Gil.

Really ? Here's just a few:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/DnykKCzNUB0/m/Z6x8d_aVAwAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uki0CzP23cU/m/s9gUlyfTCQAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/AfVDpVtDnEE/m/urPNcP1zAQAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/OPx_euCKrr4/m/24oNDou_MQoJ
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/2cpHEpvOgu8/m/DSHUIxsUAwAJ

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:06:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 05:57:29 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:57:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> It's called an eyewitness account and it becomes evidence when it's corroborated by other witnesses like the ones I've already listed.
> >
> >It's evidence but eyewitness evidence doesn't establish anything as a fact because eyewitnesses frequently get things
> >wrong.
> No, you're lying again. In your opinion, and the opinion of ALL
> believers in this forum, EVERY SINGLE EYEWITNESS GOT THINGS WRONG.

Buell Wesley Frazier was wrong.
Linnie Mae Randle was wrong.
The witnesses who said there were more than three shots were all wrong.
The witnesses who saw smoke on the knoll were all wrong.
The witnesses who claimed that at least one shot was fired from behind the picket fence were all wrong.
The witnesses who saw the limo slow down or stop on Elm St. during the shooting sequence were all wrong.
The Parkland medical staff who saw an entry wound in the throat were all wrong.
The Parkland medical staff that saw a gaping wound in the back of the head were all wrong.
The deputies who reported finding a 7.65 Mauser in the TSBD were all wrong.
The deputy who found the three spent shells on the sixth floor and could not identify the shells in evidence as the shells he found was wrong.
The police who described the Tippit murder weapon and the shells found at the scene as an automatics were all wrong.
The police that were present at the time the white discarded jacket was found were all wrong.
The FBI and Secret Service, who concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate shots were both wrong.
John Connally was wrong.
Nellie Connally was wrong.
Motorcycle officer James Chaney was wrong.
The witnesses who found and handled the stretcher bullet and could not identify CE 399 as that bullet were all wrong.
The witnesses who found the spent shells at the Tippit murder scene and could not identify the shells in evidence as the shells they found were all wrong.
The witnesses who knew and placed Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital were all wrong.
The witnesses who testified of a close relationship between Jack Ruby and the Dallas Police were all wrong.

Everybody was wrong and in spite of all of this error, they managed to arrest the right person for TWO homicides on the very first time.
Truly a remarkable piece of police work, the likes of which I've never heard of in my lifetime.

[JE Corbett]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 4:52:44 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:57:44 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:10:43 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > I was looking at Von Pein's post back in June on the two men reacting at Z-226 from being hit by the same shot.
> > > He provides no corroborating evidence that this is so, other than his own observation of the Z-film.
> > >
> > > I find it amusing that of all the writers on the subject of the assassination, he repeatedly quotes himself.
> > > Like he's his own source. I've never seen that done before.
> > Your lying again, Gil.

Why did you cut out the statement that followed which gave context to what you are lying about? Oh, that's right. You did it
because you are a devious liar. Never mind.

[JE Corbett]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 6:13:33 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:06:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 05:57:29 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> > <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:57:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > >> It's called an eyewitness account and it becomes evidence when it's corroborated by other witnesses like the ones I've already listed.
> > >
> > >It's evidence but eyewitness evidence doesn't establish anything as a fact because eyewitnesses frequently get things
> > >wrong.
> > No, you're lying again. In your opinion, and the opinion of ALL
> > believers in this forum, EVERY SINGLE EYEWITNESS GOT THINGS WRONG.
> Buell Wesley Frazier was wrong.

Yup.

> Linnie Mae Randle was wrong.

Yup.

> The witnesses who said there were more than three shots were all wrong.

Either that or most of the witnesses who said there were only three were wrong.

> The witnesses who saw smoke on the knoll were all wrong.

Oh, they might have seen smoke. It just wasn't gunsmoke.

> The witnesses who claimed that at least one shot was fired from behind the picket fence were all wrong.

Yup.

> The witnesses who saw the limo slow down or stop on Elm St. during the shooting sequence were all wrong.

No. There is no doubt the limo slowed down.

> The Parkland medical staff who saw an entry wound in the throat were all wrong.

They were wrong about it being an entry wound.

> The Parkland medical staff that saw a gaping wound in the back of the head were all wrong.

No. They just weren't aware the gaping wound extended along the upper right side of his head.

> The deputies who reported finding a 7.65 Mauser in the TSBD were all wrong.

Yup. They admitted they were wrong.

> The deputy who found the three spent shells on the sixth floor and could not identify the shells in evidence as the shells he found was wrong.

No. He was right. He couldn't positively identify the shells because one spent shell looks pretty much like all other shells of
the same caliber. Explain what unique features a spent shell would have that would distinguish it from others.

> The police who described the Tippit murder weapon and the shells found at the scene as an automatics were all wrong.

Yup.

> The police that were present at the time the white discarded jacket was found were all wrong.

Wrong about what?

> The FBI and Secret Service, who concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate shots were both wrong.

Yup.
> John Connally was wrong.
Wrong about JFK being hit by the first shot. He got most everything else right.
> Nellie Connally was wrong.
About lots of things.

> Motorcycle officer James Chaney was wrong.

Yup.

> The witnesses who found and handled the stretcher bullet and could not identify CE 399 as that bullet were all wrong.

Like the shells, what unique characteristics do you think a bullet would have that would distinguish it from another. Bullets
and shells are made to exacting standards which is why bullets and shells of the same caliber and the same manufacturer
all look alike.

> The witnesses who found the spent shells at the Tippit murder scene and could not identify the shells in evidence as the shells they found were all wrong.

No. They were right that they couldn't positively identify the shells. See above.

> The witnesses who knew and placed Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital were all wrong.

Probably.

> The witnesses who testified of a close relationship between Jack Ruby and the Dallas Police were all wrong.

No. Jack Ruby was friends with lots of cops. Some hung out at his club.

>
> Everybody was wrong and in spite of all of this error, they managed to arrest the right person for TWO homicides on the very first time.

They were able to get the right guy because forensic evidence is far more reliable than eyewitness testimony and all of that
pointed to Oswald and nobody else. The forensic evidence told the investigators what the witnesses got right and what the
witnesses got wrong. They weren't dumb enough to assume everything every witness said was correct. Only a moron would
do that.

> Truly a remarkable piece of police work, the likes of which I've never heard of in my lifetime.

Not remarkable at all. That's why they were able to solve it in about 12 hours. When you have the murder weapon, matching
shells and bullets, ownership of the murder weapon established, owner's palm print on the murder weapon, fibers matching
his shirt on the murder weapon, and the owner's fingerprints at the location where the shooter was seen, it doesn't take
Columbo to figure it out. Then when that same prime suspect guns down a cop 45 minutes later, even Inspector Clouseau
could figure it out. That's why we're so baffled as to why you can't.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 6:13:33 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:06:26 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 05:57:29 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> > <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:57:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > >> It's called an eyewitness account and it becomes evidence when it's corroborated by other witnesses like the ones I've already listed.
> > >
> > >It's evidence but eyewitness evidence doesn't establish anything as a fact because eyewitnesses frequently get things
> > >wrong.
> > No, you're lying again. In your opinion, and the opinion of ALL
> > believers in this forum, EVERY SINGLE EYEWITNESS GOT THINGS WRONG.
> Buell Wesley Frazier was wrong.

You look at the information the provided incorrectly. He guessed at a length, they didn`t state one.

> Linnie Mae Randle was wrong.

You look at the information incorrectly. She guessed at a length, she didn`t state one.

> The witnesses who said there were more than three shots were all wrong.

If they were right than you are calling a whole bunch of other witnesses wrong.

I guess it is ok when you call witnesses wrong.

> The witnesses who saw smoke on the knoll were all wrong.

Says who? The question is whether it was gunsmoke.

> The witnesses who claimed that at least one shot was fired from behind the picket fence were all wrong.

Who saw a shooter there?

> The witnesses who saw the limo slow down or stop on Elm St. during the shooting sequence were all wrong.

The limo did change speeds. So what?

> The Parkland medical staff who saw an entry wound in the throat were all wrong.

They did no examination to make such a determination, nor did they have the expertise to do so.

> The Parkland medical staff that saw a gaping wound in the back of the head were all wrong.

It was on the side.

> The deputies who reported finding a 7.65 Mauser in the TSBD were all wrong.

There is film of the rifle found. It isn`t a Mauser.

> The deputy who found the three spent shells on the sixth floor and could not identify the shells in evidence as the shells he found was wrong.

You refuse how they could make a positive identification if they didn`t mark them.

> The police who described the Tippit murder weapon and the shells found at the scene as an automatics were all wrong.

Only one did that I`m aware of. And him being wrong is much less fantastic than any other possibility.

> The police that were present at the time the white discarded jacket was found were all wrong.

About what?

> The FBI and Secret Service, who concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate shots were both wrong.

The FBI hadn`t even looked at the autopsy report when they produced their conclusions.

And you can`t show that such exactitude has ever been necessary in a murder case in order to find people culpable of crimes. I`ve seen videos of cops emptying their clips at suspects, I doubt it would be possible to determine which shots hit in what order, or which shots missed, nor would it be necessary to do so to determine what occurred. The bar is always placed at the highest for other people`s ideas, the lowest for conspiracy ideas.

> John Connally was wrong.

Understandable under the circumstances. A surprise attack lasting seconds and you expect a split second accounting of events?

> Nellie Connally was wrong.

See above.

> Motorcycle officer James Chaney was wrong.

See above. And Chaney got some things right, like the shots coming from behind him.

> The witnesses who found and handled the stretcher bullet and could not identify CE 399 as that bullet were all wrong.

You refuse to show how they could make a positive identification without marking them.

> The witnesses who found the spent shells at the Tippit murder scene and could not identify the shells in evidence as the shells they found were all wrong.

See above.

> The witnesses who knew and placed Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital were all wrong.

In order to believe them you must call other witnesses wrong.

I guess it is ok when you call witnesses wrong.

> The witnesses who testified of a close relationship between Jack Ruby and the Dallas Police were all wrong.

He was friendly with some. So what?

> Everybody was wrong and in spite of all of this error, they managed to arrest the right person for TWO homicides on the very first time.

You refuse to show how what you produced draws into question Oswald`s guilt.

> Truly a remarkable piece of police work, the likes of which I've never heard of in my lifetime.

Oswald wasn`t a hard man to track, he left bodies wherever he went.

You being a stump, unable to figure out simple crimes does not reflect on anyone else but yourself.

[JE Corbett]

You and I both made point-by-point rebuttals to the issues Gil raised and in many cases, made the same objections. That
reveals how easy it is to spot the flaws in the way Gil looks at evidence.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:29:11 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> You and I both made point-by-point rebuttals to the issues Gil raised and in many cases, made the same objections. That
> reveals how easy it is to spot the flaws in the way Gil looks at evidence.

You two idiots haven't refuted anything I've posted.
It's really amazing to me that you two were the sperm cells who found the eggs.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 03:13:31 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well stated. You actually can add quite a few more wrong witnesses to
that list, including EVERY SINGLE MEDICAL DOCTOR OR NURSE connected to
this case.

Good that you included James Chaney - believers are TERRIFIED of what
he saw and described.

[JE Corbett]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:46:39 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:29:11 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > You and I both made point-by-point rebuttals to the issues Gil raised and in many cases, made the same objections. That
> > reveals how easy it is to spot the flaws in the way Gil looks at evidence.
> You two idiots haven't refuted anything I've posted.

We both pointed out how you look at things incorrectly.

> It's really amazing to me that you two were the sperm cells who found the eggs.

If you could manage it, anybody could.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 04:05:02 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 6:13:33?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:06:26?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 05:57:29 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
>> > <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:57:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> > >> It's called an eyewitness account and it becomes evidence when it's corroborated by other witnesses like the ones I've already listed.
>> > >
>> > >It's evidence but eyewitness evidence doesn't establish anything as a fact because eyewitnesses frequently get things
>> > >wrong.
>> > No, you're lying again. In your opinion, and the opinion of ALL
>> > believers in this forum, EVERY SINGLE EYEWITNESS GOT THINGS WRONG.
>> Buell Wesley Frazier was wrong.
>Yup.
>> Linnie Mae Randle was wrong.
>Yup.
>> The witnesses who said there were more than three shots were all wrong.
>Either that or most of the witnesses who said there were only three were wrong.
>> The witnesses who saw smoke on the knoll were all wrong.
>Oh, they might have seen smoke. It just wasn't gunsmoke.
>> The witnesses who claimed that at least one shot was fired from behind the picket fence were all wrong.
>Yup.
>> The witnesses who saw the limo slow down or stop on Elm St. during the shooting sequence were all wrong.
>No. There is no doubt the limo slowed down.

The *closest* eyewitnesses described a brief stop. You lose!

>> The Parkland medical staff who saw an entry wound in the throat were all wrong.

>They were wrong...


You don't believe ANY of the doctors.

>> The Parkland medical staff that saw a gaping wound in the back of the head were all wrong.
>No.

Yes. Check with Von Penis, who will set you straight.

>> The deputies who reported finding a 7.65 Mauser in the TSBD were all wrong.
>Yup. They admitted they were wrong.
>> The deputy who found the three spent shells on the sixth floor and could not identify the shells in evidence as the shells he found was wrong.
>No. He was right. He couldn't positively identify the shells because one spent shell looks pretty much like all other shells of
>the same caliber. Explain what unique features a spent shell would have that would distinguish it from others.

Quite the kook, aren't you? Do you know *how* police get around this
problem?

>> The police who described the Tippit murder weapon and the shells found at the scene as an automatics were all wrong.
>Yup.
>> The police that were present at the time the white discarded jacket was found were all wrong.
>Wrong about what?

You're lying again, Corbutt.

>> The FBI and Secret Service, who concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate shots were both wrong.
>Yup.
>> John Connally was wrong.

>Wrong...


Yep, wrong.

>> Nellie Connally was wrong.
>About lots of things.

As most other eyewitnesses.

>> Motorcycle officer James Chaney was wrong.
>Yup.

And as he was the CLOSEST non-limo eyewitness, you can't explain why
no-one questioned him prior to the WCR.

But I can.

>> The witnesses who found and handled the stretcher bullet and could not identify CE 399 as that bullet were all wrong.

>Like the shells...


Like *any* evidence. Police have a procedure. Can you describe it?

>> The witnesses who found the spent shells at the Tippit murder scene and could not identify the shells in evidence as the shells they found were all wrong.

>No....


Yes.

>> The witnesses who knew and placed Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital were all wrong.
>Probably.

You can't support this.

>> The witnesses who testified of a close relationship between Jack Ruby and the Dallas Police were all wrong.
>No. Jack Ruby was friends with lots of cops. Some hung out at his club.

So you're admitting that the WC lied on this topic?

>> Everybody was wrong and in spite of all of this error, they managed to arrest the right person for TWO homicides on the very first time.
>They were able to get the right guy because forensic evidence is far more reliable than eyewitness testimony and all of that
>pointed to Oswald and nobody else.

*WHAT* forensics?

Cite it... or run away proving your cowardice again.

>The forensic evidence told the investigators what the witnesses got right and what the
>witnesses got wrong.

"In your opinion."

Dunning Kruger again...

>> Truly a remarkable piece of police work, the likes of which I've never heard of in my lifetime.
>
>Not remarkable at all. That's why they were able to solve it in about 12 hours. When you have the murder weapon, matching
>shells and bullets, ownership of the murder weapon established, owner's palm print on the murder weapon, fibers matching
>his shirt on the murder weapon, and the owner's fingerprints at the location where the shooter was seen, it doesn't take
>Columbo to figure it out. Then when that same prime suspect guns down a cop 45 minutes later, even Inspector Clouseau
>could figure it out. That's why we're so baffled as to why you can't.

It's amusing that you think all of this was done in the first 12
hours.

But you're lying, of course.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:04:32 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 01:52:42 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:57:44?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:10:43?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>> I was looking at Von Pein's post back in June on the two men reacting at Z-226 from being hit by the same shot.
>>> He provides no corroborating evidence that this is so, other than his own observation of the Z-film.
>>>
>>> I find it amusing that of all the writers on the subject of the assassination, he repeatedly quotes himself.
>>> Like he's his own source. I've never seen that done before.
>> Your lying again, Gil.
>
>Really ? Here's just a few:
>
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/DnykKCzNUB0/m/Z6x8d_aVAwAJ
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uki0CzP23cU/m/s9gUlyfTCQAJ
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/AfVDpVtDnEE/m/urPNcP1zAQAJ
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/OPx_euCKrr4/m/24oNDou_MQoJ
>https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/2cpHEpvOgu8/m/DSHUIxsUAwAJ

Even before seeing Corbutt's response, I'm going to predict that he
will REFUSE to retract what Gil has now proven to be false.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 04:04:13 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 4:52:44?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:57:44?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

>>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:10:43?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>> I was looking at Von Pein's post back in June on the two men reacting at Z-226 from being hit by the same shot.
>>>> He provides no corroborating evidence that this is so, other than his own observation of the Z-film.
>>>>
>>>> I find it amusing that of all the writers on the subject of the assassination, he repeatedly quotes himself.
>>>> Like he's his own source. I've never seen that done before.
>>> Your lying again, Gil.
>
>Why did you cut out the statement that followed which gave context to what you are lying about? Oh, that's right. You did it
>because you are a devious liar. Never mind.

ROTFLMAO!!! I was right!

Here's the rest of Corbutt's statement:

> He makes his argument and shows the film record of the event that
> supports his argument. He doesn't need to cite other writers when
> he can lay his cards on the table for all to see.

Notice that nothing there changed the topic at all. Von Penis
frequently does PRECISELY what Gil stated, and Corbutt can only
blatantly lie about it.

Tell us Corbutt, why can't **YOU** cite for *YOUR* claim that Von
Penis doesn't cite himself?

[Ben Holmes]

Nah... it just shows that kooks make the same mistakes.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 07:58:48 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:46:39?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:29:11?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>> You and I both made point-by-point rebuttals to the issues Gil raised and in many cases, made the same objections. That
>>> reveals how easy it is to spot the flaws in the way Gil looks at evidence.
>> You two idiots haven't refuted anything I've posted.
>
>We both pointed out how you look at things incorrectly.

Both Gil and I have pointed out how you're wrong.

And we did it first.

You lose!

[Bud]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:46:39 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:29:11 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > You and I both made point-by-point rebuttals to the issues Gil raised and in many cases, made the same objections. That
> > reveals how easy it is to spot the flaws in the way Gil looks at evidence.
> You two idiots haven't refuted anything I've posted.

Non sequitur.

We *have* pointed out the flaws in your questions. Whether you are honest enough to acknowledge this fact is another thing altogether.

Most of your questions are loaded, begged or contain some shifting of the burden.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:12:39 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 04:04:13 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 4:52:44?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:57:44?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 12:10:43?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >>>> I was looking at Von Pein's post back in June on the two men reacting at Z-226 from being hit by the same shot.
> >>>> He provides no corroborating evidence that this is so, other than his own observation of the Z-film.
> >>>>
> >>>> I find it amusing that of all the writers on the subject of the assassination, he repeatedly quotes himself.
> >>>> Like he's his own source. I've never seen that done before.
> >>> Your lying again, Gil.
> >
> >Why did you cut out the statement that followed which gave context to what you are lying about? Oh, that's right. You did it
> >because you are a devious liar. Never mind.
> ROTFLMAO!!! I was right!
>
> Here's the rest of Corbutt's statement:
> > He makes his argument and shows the film record of the event that
> > supports his argument. He doesn't need to cite other writers when
> > he can lay his cards on the table for all to see.
> Notice that nothing there changed the topic at all. Von Penis
> frequently does PRECISELY what Gil stated, and Corbutt can only
> blatantly lie about it.
>
> Tell us Corbutt, why can't **YOU** cite for *YOUR* claim that Von
> Penis doesn't cite himself?

Can you show you know the difference between someone quoting themselves and a cite?

[Bud]

Which you cannot engage against, I wonder why.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 14:52:34 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 14:57:48 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 14:56:52 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 9:46:39 AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:29:11 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > You and I both made point-by-point rebuttals to the issues Gil raised and in many cases, made the same objections. That
> > reveals how easy it is to spot the flaws in the way Gil looks at evidence.

> You two idiots haven't refuted anything I've posted.

...to your satisfaction. Always throw that in there.

> It's really amazing to me that you two were the sperm cells who found the eggs.

Says a lazy, lonely old man without a family, collecting a disability check, who fantasizes about being Oswald's attorney. Good grief.

Why don't you tell us what happened other than your vague claim that on 11/22/63, some people did something? All you know how to do is shoot spitballs and snap rubber bands at the work of others.


You and Ben are two of the laziest people in the world. Did you ever bother to lift a finger and reach out to a retired cop from Dallas with experience working there in the 60s and find out about those evidence forms that had your undies in a bunchie, or did that shiny little object flit right past you and now it's on to the next shiny little object to waste your time on?

L-A-Z-Y!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 06:42:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 9:46:39?AM UTC-6, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:29:11?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>> You and I both made point-by-point rebuttals to the issues Gil raised and in many cases, made the same objections. That
>>> reveals how easy it is to spot the flaws in the way Gil looks at evidence.
>
>> You two idiots haven't refuted anything I've posted.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> It's really amazing to me that you two were the sperm cells who found the eggs.

More logical fallacies deleted.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 6:25:18 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> 4. What pushed you into the LN camp?
> >
> > In the early 1980s I purchased the complete 26 volumes of the Warren
> > Commission Volumes of Hearings and Evidence from the Presidents Box
> > Bookshop for $2,500. About the same time I purchased the 12 House
> > Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Volumes of the Hearings and
> > Evidence from the Government Printing Office for (as I recall) $89.
> >
> > I immediately started to read through everything, and I read through
> > everything twice. I lost a lot of sleep and went to work more than
> > once bleary-eyed as I had stayed up until two, three, or four in the
> > morning before falling asleep. I started reading those volumes with
> > the express purpose of finding the conspirators - the conspiracy books
> > hinted at conspirators but never came out and named any. i was intent
> > on finding them.
>
>
> Of course, Huckster can't quote a *SINGLE* book he read that "hinted"
> that conspirators would be found in the testimony.

Not what I said. I said the conspiracy books hinted at conspirators but never named any.

They do what Gil does, attack the evidence the Warren Commission compiled, contrasting one witness’ recollection against another, accepting the one they like and discarding the other(s).

Unlike Gil, I took it upon myself to understand the testimony and evidence better, in the hopes of determining the conspirators. I found instead the conspiracy books were lying by omission and commission, and the evidence against Oswald was solid.


>
> And clearly, he didn't read the testimony clearly enough - because he
> *should* have spotted the fact that the WCR lied repeatedly about the
> eyewitnesses.

Another assertion without evidence by you.


>
>
> > As I read through the testimony and examined the evidence, I found a
> > massive -- MASSIVE -- disconnect between what the conspiracy books
> > were saying about the testimony and evidence and what the testimony
> > and evidence itself was saying to me. I found the conspiracy authors
> > were selectively quoting from the testimony to build a case for
> > conspiracy, but not telling the full truth. I found they were guilty
> > of the sins they accused the Warren Commission of, while the Warren
> > Commission was being falsely accused by them of being unfaithful to
> > the evidence.
>
>
> Just don't ask Huckster to support this with examples.

What did Mark Lane say about the stretcher where CE399 was found near? What did he fail to mention to leave a false impression? We discussed in detail a few years ago. You remember how you never did explain why Lane left out what nurse Wester said, among other details? And how that evidence changes the impression of whose stretcher the bullet was found near?

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/wester.htm

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/fuA0ojlSEEo/m/Wx-cRh-iBgAJ

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/PSvt4MFUxUI/m/5rs-QeSvBgAJ

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/PSvt4MFUxUI/m/5rs-QeSvBgAJ


> I'm quite sure
> that I currently own any book that Huckster could have been referring
> to, and can quickly look up the statement, AND THE CONTEXT - but
> Huckster simply refuses to back up his lie.
>
> And clearly... it *IS* a lie. There's no "disconnect" between
> "conspiracy books" and the evidence & testimony.
>
> I've asked him in the past to support this, but he simply runs away.

Another empty assertion by you.

Read almost any conspiracy book, one of the things they discuss - in detail - is the witnesses who heard four or more shots. What they don't discuss in equal detail is the far greater number of witnesses who heard exactly three. They leave a false impression of more shots than three.


>
> EVERY
>
> SINGLE
>
> TIME!
>
> And he'll so so again...
>
>
> > I went in a conspiracy theorist, I came out understanding Oswald
> > committed the assassination alone and unaided.
>
>
> Then you are aware of the evidence for a pre-autopsy autopsy - yet
> remain silent when Corbutt denies it.

Another thing you assert but provide no evidence for.


> You're aware of the evidence
> for a Grassy Knoll shooter - yet remain silent.

No, we discussed this in detail, and I showed how many of those named as knoll witnesses aren’t.


>
> Looks to me like you're merely proving yourself a liar.
>
>
> > From that point forward, as new claims of the conspiracy came
> > online, I found each had a begged premise or took something out of
> > context or was an assumption based on suspicion, and the like. None of
> > the claims withstood scrutiny. The last book I actually held out hope
> > for was Lifton's Best Evidence, but I found his conclusions from scant
> > and fragmentary evidence more than a little bizarre, as he simply
> > ignored non-conspiratorial and far-more-reasonable explanations in
> > arguing for a conspiracy.
>
>
> So list them... let's examine them. Cite the page number as well, so
> we can make sure you're not simply lying again.
>
> Let's hear this "scant and fragmentary" evidence... surely you aren't
> afraid to let others examine it.
>
> But, of course, you won't.

Two off the top of my head:
1. He makes a big deal of the bullet entering and exiting from behind, presuming that means the autopsy reveals the bullet exited out the back of the head, but it doesn't mean that at all.
2. He makes a big deal out of a hearsay document by two men with no medical expertise, that mentions *apparent* surgery of the top of the head.

He thinks that establishes surgery of the head. It doesn't.


>
>
> > One of my friends brought up the book after seeing Lifton on a
> > morning TV talk show speaking about the book. He mentioned the author
> > (he didn't recall the name) was talking about a conspiracy to alter
> > the President's wounds and make it look like the shots came from the
> > rear when all the shooters were in front of the President. I knew the
> > flaw in Lifton's premise and immediately pointed it out. "Who altered
> > Connally's wounds?" He was old enough to remember the assassination
> > and understood exactly why the body alteration theory of Lifton makes
> > no sense. If all the shooters were in front of the President, then
> > Connally's wounds - which point to the rear - must have been altered
> > as well.
>
>
> Why don't you pull out your copy of "Best Evidence" - and QUOTE David
> Lifton on the direction of the shots.
>
> But you won't... you're clearly a coward and a liar...
>
>
> > Fast forward to 1992 or 1993, I am at a Kennedy assassination
> > Symposium in Dallas, and David Lifton is giving a lecture. There is a
> > Q&A afterward, and I ask Lifton along these lines, "If all the
> > shooters were in front of the President, there were also in front of
> > Governor Connally. So who altered Connally's wounds, which point to a
> > shooter above and behind?"
>
>
> Surely you don't expect people to believe you?
>
>
> > He said, "That's a very good question," and said he'd be addressing
> > that in his next book. He never did respond meaningfully to the
> > question. Meanwhile nearly 30 years later, I'm still waiting for
> > Lifton to address the issue that exposes his book as knuckleheaded
> > nonsense.

Back up 20 years or more from today.

On alt.assassination.jfk (the moderated forum), I confronted Lifton with that very question, who altered Connally’s wounds? He didn't deny the necessity to alter Connally’s wounds as you do, he said he would tell me at a future date — May 5th, 2004. That date came and went. He never explained when and how Connally’s wounds were altered, and he never denied the need for them to be altered either. He certainly understood his own theory (and the ramifications of his theory) better than you do.

Read it for yourself. From January 11, 2002:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/JwGAWbhZgDk/m/pjZxCmrWRscJ

== quote ==
> > > Who altered Connally's wounds, David?
> > >
> > > After all this time, you're still unable to answer that basic
> > > question.
> >
> > WRONG (again). I am certainly capable of addressing this question and
> > in detail, but choose not to at this time.
>
> Translation: You have absolutely no clue how Connally's wounds were
> altered, but the alteration of Connally's wounds is absolutely
> necessary to your theory, so you maintain you do know, but just won't
> tell us at this time.

CORRECT TRANSLATION: I choose not to deal with that matter in this
e-mail post.


>
> The JFK assassin happened 38 years ago, David. If you won't tell us
> now, when?

May 5, 2004; at 10:30 am.

>
> And what's the need for the big secret anyway?

There's something I cannot discuss that will be occurring that May 5,
at 9:20 am, and which must remain confidential.

DSL
== unquote ==

>
>
> So your working hypothesis is if a claim is made that you cannot cite
> or quote in a book, you can label the entire book as "nonsense."

Straw Man argument.


>
> You clearly aren't intelligent enough

Ad hominem.


> to think such a theory all the
> way through. Do you realize that you've just labeled the WCR as
> "nonsense?"

No, that’s your strawman argument.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 12:56:42 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 6:25:18 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >> 4. What pushed you into the LN camp?
> > >
> > > In the early 1980s I purchased the complete 26 volumes of the Warren
> > > Commission Volumes of Hearings and Evidence from the Presidents Box
> > > Bookshop for $2,500. About the same time I purchased the 12 House
> > > Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Volumes of the Hearings and
> > > Evidence from the Government Printing Office for (as I recall) $89.
> > >
> > > I immediately started to read through everything, and I read through
> > > everything twice. I lost a lot of sleep and went to work more than
> > > once bleary-eyed as I had stayed up until two, three, or four in the
> > > morning before falling asleep. I started reading those volumes with
> > > the express purpose of finding the conspirators - the conspiracy books
> > > hinted at conspirators but never came out and named any. i was intent
> > > on finding them.
> >
> >
> > Of course, Huckster can't quote a *SINGLE* book he read that "hinted"
> > that conspirators would be found in the testimony.
> >

> > And clearly, he didn't read the testimony clearly enough - because he
> > *should* have spotted the fact that the WCR lied repeatedly about the
> > eyewitnesses.
> >
> >

> > > As I read through the testimony and examined the evidence, I found a
> > > massive -- MASSIVE -- disconnect between what the conspiracy books
> > > were saying about the testimony and evidence and what the testimony
> > > and evidence itself was saying to me. I found the conspiracy authors
> > > were selectively quoting from the testimony to build a case for
> > > conspiracy, but not telling the full truth. I found they were guilty
> > > of the sins they accused the Warren Commission of, while the Warren
> > > Commission was being falsely accused by them of being unfaithful to
> > > the evidence.
> >
> >

> > Just don't ask Huckster to support this with examples. I'm quite sure

> > that I currently own any book that Huckster could have been referring
> > to, and can quickly look up the statement, AND THE CONTEXT - but
> > Huckster simply refuses to back up his lie.
> >
> > And clearly... it *IS* a lie. There's no "disconnect" between
> > "conspiracy books" and the evidence & testimony.
> >
> > I've asked him in the past to support this, but he simply runs away.
> >

> > EVERY
> >
> > SINGLE
> >
> > TIME!
> >
> > And he'll so so again...
> >
> >
> > > I went in a conspiracy theorist, I came out understanding Oswald
> > > committed the assassination alone and unaided.
> >
> >
> > Then you are aware of the evidence for a pre-autopsy autopsy - yet

> > remain silent when Corbutt denies it. You're aware of the evidence

> > for a Grassy Knoll shooter - yet remain silent.
> >

> > Looks to me like you're merely proving yourself a liar.
> >
> >
> > > From that point forward, as new claims of the conspiracy came
> > > online, I found each had a begged premise or took something out of
> > > context or was an assumption based on suspicion, and the like. None of
> > > the claims withstood scrutiny. The last book I actually held out hope
> > > for was Lifton's Best Evidence, but I found his conclusions from scant
> > > and fragmentary evidence more than a little bizarre, as he simply
> > > ignored non-conspiratorial and far-more-reasonable explanations in
> > > arguing for a conspiracy.
> >
> >
> > So list them... let's examine them. Cite the page number as well, so
> > we can make sure you're not simply lying again.
> >
> > Let's hear this "scant and fragmentary" evidence... surely you aren't
> > afraid to let others examine it.
> >
> > But, of course, you won't.
> >
> >

> > So your working hypothesis is if a claim is made that you cannot cite
> > or quote in a book, you can label the entire book as "nonsense."
> >

> > You clearly aren't intelligent enough to think such a theory all the

> > way through. Do you realize that you've just labeled the WCR as
> > "nonsense?"

> Connally's chest wounds didn't need to be altered because he was turned around when he was shot. He was shot through the back from the front of the car. His wrist wound also came from the front, which probably explains was his wounds diagram had to be done over. First the wound was labeled "enter." Then it was labeled "exit." Connally, too, was shot from the front. https://postimg.cc/QBWy6xKs


I'm just doing this as a spacer to see if it allows me to respond to another comment i can't access if I don't try a trick like this.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Hank said: I took it upon myself to understand the testimony and evidence better, in the hopes of determining the conspirators.

That's interesting. If your goal was to name the conspirators, then you must have had some suspects. Who were they? Why did you dismiss them all? Or did you just read the 26 volumes twice and decide that there was nothing to question about the WC Report conclusions?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 22:34:05 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Hank Sienzant]

No, why would I have suspects before examining the evidence? Is that the way a normal crime scene investigation proceeds? Is that how you went about it?

> Who were they? Why did you dismiss them all? Or did you just read the 26 volumes twice and decide that there was nothing to question about the WC Report conclusions?

I read the 26 volumes and determined there was little to no evidence of a conspiracy. That most of the complaints in conspiracy books were molehills made out of level ground, if I maybe permitted that analogy.

Waiting to see if anyone wants to actually discuss Lifton’s theory of all the shooters being in front of the limousine, and hence, in front of Connally. And what that means for Lifton’s theory.

You’d rather discuss my theories of who I should have suspected from the get-go, before examining any evidence, apparently, and Ben just wants to spam the group.

Scratching my head over those responses.

Ben raised the issue originally (see the top post), and now that I’ve responded, he has nothing to say about Lifton’s theory of body alteration on Kennedy and Connally whatsoever. All he wants to do is change the subject.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Probably the lice after finishing off your brain.

[Hank Sienzant]

No, you are confused about an American idiom:

“What does ‘scratching my head over those responses’ mean as an idiom?”

(asked of Google)

Response: “to be puzzled and unsure about what to do about a problem or question, or to be unsure what the solution is.”

I am not literally scratching my head. That’s where your confusion lies. I was pointing out your response and Ben’s are off-topic and unrelated to what Ben asked me to respond to, and wondering if you could explain why you chose that route instead of discussing Lifton’s theory of all the shooters being in front of the limo.

And, of course, instead of getting back on track after my gentle nudge in that direction, you go ad hominem and suggest lice eating my brain. I find your responses amusing in how they avoid the subject under discussion and how you immediately jump to ad hominem.

It’s almost like you have no rebuttal to the facts I presented.

In fact, it’s exactly like that.

Ben to respond by deleting my points and spamming the group.

[David Drummond]

>
> I read the 26 volumes and determined there was little to no evidence of a conspiracy.

"I read OJ's book; dude seems legit."

[Bud]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 12:33:33 AM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
> >
> > I read the 26 volumes and determined there was little to no evidence of a conspiracy.
> "I read OJ's book; dude seems legit."

You would.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 09:42:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 11:44:50 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Ben to respond by deleting my points and spamming the group.

Ben to respond by proving you a coward using your own words &
cowardice:

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 04:01:15 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 12:33:33 AM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
> >

> > I read the 26 volumes and determined there was little to no evidence of a conspiracy.
> "I read OJ's book; dude seems legit."

I’m going to call that the logical fallacy of an appeal to ridicule.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a multi-layered circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace event or to another irrelevant thing based on comedic timing, or wordplay. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or position, attempting to inspire a strong emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. **This is typically done by mocking the argument's representative foundation in an uncharitable and oversimplified way**. The person using the tactic is often sarcastic in their argument.

Instead of resorting to logical fallacies, try dealing with the topic under discussion - whether Lifton’s argument makes any sense, given he admits for his argument to work, it requires all the shooters to be in front of the President (so they could ultimately post-mortem expand the wounds in the front to retrieve the bullets and make those wounds look like exits and put fake wounds on the opposite side). His theory reduces to the need to alter Connally’s wounds as well. And if the President survived, it requires surgery to alter the living President’s wounds (as well as the Governor’s).

Please explain how this plan had any chance of working, especially since it would make more sense to just attempt to assassinate JFK from behind by one shooter from the TSBD with a good rifle, and then frame Oswald for owning that good weapon?

What morons planned the assassination in your world?

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 10:30:50 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 11:44:50 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Ben to respond by deleting my points and spamming the group.
>

> You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
> description of the *location* of the large head wound.
>
> Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
> paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
>
> You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
>
> Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
>
> Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
>
> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
> and exited the back of his head.
>
> More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
>
> Are you proud of yourself?

Called it!

[David Drummond]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 12:46:11 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 12:33:33 AM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
> > >
> > > I read the 26 volumes and determined there was little to no evidence of a conspiracy.
> > "I read OJ's book; dude seems legit."
> I’m going to call that the logical fallacy of an appeal to ridicule.
>

You should. I am ridiculing you. And drawing parallels while I do it.

[Hank Sienzant]

You are ridiculing my arguments, not me. That’s a logical fallacy, and doesn't touch what I said at all.

And I note that Ben, NoTrueFlags, and now you are staying as far away from discussing the ramifications of Lifton's theory as possible.

You'd rather employ logical fallacies than actually address a theory many CTs accept.

Explain that too, while you're explaining how Lifton’s theory makes any sense:

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:49:01 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

What you "called" is your own proven cowardice...

[David Drummond]

On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 1:02:27 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 12:50:34 PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 12:46:11 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 12:33:33 AM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I read the 26 volumes and determined there was little to no evidence of a conspiracy.
> > > > "I read OJ's book; dude seems legit."
> > > I’m going to call that the logical fallacy of an appeal to ridicule.
> > >
> > You should. I am ridiculing you. And drawing parallels while I do it.
> You are ridiculing my arguments, not me. That’s a logical fallacy, and doesn't touch what I said at all.
>
> And I note that Ben, NoTrueFlags, and now you are staying as far away from discussing the ramifications of Lifton's theory as possible.
>
> You'd rather employ logical fallacies than actually address a theory many CTs accept.
>
> Explain that too, while you're explaining how Lifton’s theory makes any sense:

Doesn't need to. Only one shooter needs to be in front of the limousine.

[David Drummond]

I really wish Henry would stop spamming this thread. I'm trying to read the new book I just bought, "If I Did It" by Allen Dulles. Foreword by Arlen Specter.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 09:46:10 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>I’m going to call that the logical fallacy of an appeal to ridicule.

I'm going to call this cowardice:

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:02:26 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>You are ridiculing my arguments, not me.

Nah... you too!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:12:06 -0800 (PST), David Drummond
<borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:

Why did O.J. just pop into my head? :)

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:10:34 -0800 (PST), David Drummond
<borisba...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 1:02:27?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 12:50:34?PM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 12:46:11?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:

>>>> On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 12:33:33?AM UTC-5, David Drummond wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I read the 26 volumes and determined there was little to no evidence of a conspiracy.
>>>>> "I read OJ's book; dude seems legit."
>>>> I’m going to call that the logical fallacy of an appeal to ridicule.
>>>>
>>> You should. I am ridiculing you. And drawing parallels while I do it.
>> You are ridiculing my arguments, not me. That’s a logical fallacy, and doesn't touch what I said at all.
>>
>> And I note that Ben, NoTrueFlags, and now you are staying as far away from discussing the ramifications of Lifton's theory as possible.
>>
>> You'd rather employ logical fallacies than actually address a theory many CTs accept.
>>
>> Explain that too, while you're explaining how Lifton’s theory makes any sense:
>
>Doesn't need to. Only one shooter needs to be in front of the limousine.

And even believers, if they dared, would admit that such a shooter
wasn't Oswald.

[Hank Sienzant]

Not according to Lifton, and Lifton’s theory.

If there are shooters behind the President, and a bullet is recovered from a different weapon, how does that implicate a lone nut and not establish a conspiracy?

Lifton’s theory solves that problem by putting all the shooters in front of the President, but it introduced other problems, like the need to alter Connally’s wounds, or retrieve bullets that wind up deflected deep into JFK’s body, or if either man was shot from the front but survived, he never did explain.

And neither will anyone else.

And you pretend these problems go away if we add one shooter in front of the President.

They don't.

[Hank Sienzant]

More appeal to ridicule. Still a logical fallacy.

But no CT wants to discuss Lifton’s theory here.

Curious, ain't it, if it's such a good theory?