Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan describes the assassination

[JE Corbett]

Through movie magic, Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood)
was made part of JFK's presidential detail on 11/22/63 and was riding the
follow up limo when the shots were fired. He described it as follows:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+in+the+fline+of+fire+frank+horrigan+describes+jfk+assassination&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dyoutube%2bin%2bthe%2bfline%2bof%2bfire%2bfrank%2bhorrigan%2bdescribes%2bjfk%2bassassination%26FORM%3dHDRSC1&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=4217171BE1E3F36DFB274217171BE1E3F36DFB27&FORM=WRVORC

The description draws heavily from how Clint Hill described it in a 60 Minutes
interview conducted by Mike Wallace. It's nice surprising that Horrigan
remembered that JFK was hit by the first shot because that is how Clint Hill
remembered it. Like Hill, Horrigan was guilt ridden that he didn't react fast
enough.

We'll never know why Hill, like others, didn't remember hearing the first shot
which missed. My own believe is the roar of the motorcycles drown out the
crack of the rifle shot as they accelerated out of the sharp turn onto Elm St.
Connally did hear that first shot an instantly recognized it as a rifle shot and
was looking around to see what was happening when he was struck by the
second shot which had passed through JFK.

[David]

"We'll never know why..." your favorite refrain -- why not take a flying fuck in a rolling donut? Getting back to something familiar should ease all that tenseness your under.... carry on, Sherlock... lmfao

[Ben Holmes]

Speculation isn't evidence.

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 10:21:46 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Speculation isn't evidence.

He thinks if it's in a Hollywood script it must be true.
I eagerly await his review of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 08:28:32 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 10:21:46?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Speculation isn't evidence.
>
>He thinks if it's in a Hollywood script it must be true.
>I eagerly await his review of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy.

If he wants, I'll sell him the ring.

[JE Corbett]

Believe it or not, I actually had a purpose in posting this scene from a fictional movie about a fictional Secret Service
agent who according to the plot had been on JFK's protection detail. This movie came out just two years after the
movie JFK and it still reflects a lot of misconceptions I and many others had about the assassination, primarily a
widespread belief that JFK had been hit by the first shot. Oliver Stone's movie had reawakened my interest in the
assassination as it did for lots of people, both LNs and CTs. I was still getting up to speed on the facts of the case
as I began discussing the various issues online on the old Prodigy board. By that time, I had reverted to being an LN
after having briefly taken the CT side. I actually postulated that the assassination had happened as Connally believed,
with JFK being hit by the first and third shots and Connally by the second with no misses. As I gathered more facts,
I finally came to the conclusion, as the WC had almost 3 decades earlier, that the 3 hit scenario didn't work. Either one
shot hit both men or there was a second gunman.

It didn't take long to figure out the SBT was the only one that made sense given the evidence. It was soon after that
I learned that it was a myth that the WC concluded 3 shots had been fired in under 6 seconds. That was only necessary
if the single bullet had been the first shot but the WC had never concluded that. They only allowed for the possibility.
A second shot single bullet made much more sense and was compatible with Connally's adamant position that he had
been hit by the second shot.

Over the years, through on and off study and online debates, I have further refined my beliefs. DVP's webpage on the
SBT was a real eye opener as it allows us to refine with great precision just when the single bullet struck. We see the
jacket bulge at Z224. We see that JFK's right arm was still moving downward when he reappeared at Z225. We see
both men suddenly flip their arms upward at Z226. The last piece of the puzzle was reconciling the reaction times.
I had read somewhere that a neurologist had said a startle reaction requires about 200 milliseconds. That equates
to roughly 3 1/2 Z-frames. If that were the case, a Z226 reaction would have put the single bullet striking in the Z222-223
window. That would mean the jacket bulge at Z224 occurred 1-2 frames after the bullet passed through it. Although I
believed that, I was never comfortable with that belief. I since learned there are different types of responses requiring
different times. The fastest is an involuntary reflexive response in which the muscles move almost immediately in response
to an outside stimulus, in this case a bullet strike. These require no interaction with the brain which is why they happen
much more rapidly than startle responses. A reflexive response caused by a bullet hitting at or just before Z224 made
everything fit together. That is why I am now convinced the single bullet struck at or just before Z224 triggering a
simultaneous reaction by JFK and JBC as can readily be seen at Z226.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 15:04:49 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 5:47:38?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> Through movie magic, Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood)
>> was made part of JFK's presidential detail on 11/22/63 and was riding the
>> follow up limo when the shots were fired. He described it as follows:
>>
>> https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+in+the+fline+of+fire+frank+horrigan+describes+jfk+assassination&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dyoutube%2bin%2bthe%2bfline%2bof%2bfire%2bfrank%2bhorrigan%2bdescribes%2bjfk%2bassassination%26FORM%3dHDRSC1&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=4217171BE1E3F36DFB274217171BE1E3F36DFB27&FORM=WRVORC
>>
>> The description draws heavily from how Clint Hill described it in a 60 Minutes
>> interview conducted by Mike Wallace. It's nice surprising that Horrigan
>> remembered that JFK was hit by the first shot because that is how Clint Hill
>> remembered it. Like Hill, Horrigan was guilt ridden that he didn't react fast
>> enough.
>>
>> We'll never know why Hill, like others, didn't remember hearing the first shot
>> which missed. My own believe is the roar of the motorcycles drown out the
>> crack of the rifle shot as they accelerated out of the sharp turn onto Elm St.
>> Connally did hear that first shot an instantly recognized it as a rifle shot and
>> was looking around to see what was happening when he was struck by the
>> second shot which had passed through JFK.
>
>Believe it or not, I actually had a purpose in posting this scene from a fictional movie about a fictional Secret Service
>agent who according to the plot had been on JFK's protection detail. This movie came out just two years after the
>movie JFK and it still reflects a lot of misconceptions I and many others had about the assassination, primarily a
>widespread belief that JFK had been hit by the first shot.

Your speculation is just that.

>Oliver Stone's movie had reawakened my interest in the
>assassination as it did for lots of people, both LNs and CTs. I was still getting up to speed on the facts of the case
>as I began discussing the various issues online on the old Prodigy board. By that time, I had reverted to being an LN
>after having briefly taken the CT side. I actually postulated that the assassination had happened as Connally believed,
>with JFK being hit by the first and third shots and Connally by the second with no misses. As I gathered more facts,
>I finally came to the conclusion, as the WC had almost 3 decades earlier, that the 3 hit scenario didn't work. Either one
>shot hit both men or there was a second gunman.

So the reason you changed from CT to LN is that you didn't believe in
a second gunman.

Brilliant reasoning!

>It didn't take long to figure out the SBT was the only one that made sense given the evidence.

That you won't cite.

>It was soon after that
>I learned that it was a myth that the WC concluded 3 shots had been fired in under 6 seconds.

How strange?! I know this to be a fact, yet I *STILL* follow the
evidence showing a conspiracy.

>That was only necessary
>if the single bullet had been the first shot but the WC had never concluded that. They only allowed for the possibility.
>A second shot single bullet made much more sense and was compatible with Connally's adamant position that he had
>been hit by the second shot.

He was. James Chaney confirmed that.

>Over the years, through on and off study and online debates, I have further refined my beliefs. DVP's webpage on the
>SBT was a real eye opener as it allows us to refine with great precision just when the single bullet struck. We see the
>jacket bulge at Z224.

What happened to the "lapel flip?" Is that one no longer trendy?


>We that JFK's right arm was still moving downward when he reappeared at Z225. We see

>both men suddenly flip their arms upward at Z226.

You have a vivid imagination. You see things the WC never saw.

>The last piece of the puzzle was reconciling the reaction times.
>I had read somewhere that a neurologist had said a startle reaction requires about 200 milliseconds. That equates
>to roughly 3 1/2 Z-frames. If that were the case, a Z226 reaction would have put the single bullet striking in the Z222-223
>window. That would mean the jacket bulge at Z224 occurred 1-2 frames after the bullet passed through it. Although I
>believed that, I was never comfortable with that belief. I since learned there are different types of responses requiring
>different times. The fastest is an involuntary reflexive response in which the muscles move almost immediately in response
>to an outside stimulus, in this case a bullet strike. These require no interaction with the brain which is why they happen
>much more rapidly than startle responses. A reflexive response caused by a bullet hitting at or just before Z224 made
>everything fit together. That is why I am now convinced the single bullet struck at or just before Z224 triggering a
>simultaneous reaction by JFK and JBC as can readily be seen at Z226.

A liar convinced by his own faulty reasoning.... how unique!

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:04:51 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
< a big long autobiography that no one cares about >

You say Z frame 226 shows Kennedy and Connally reacting to having been hit by the same bullet and that shot was the second shot.
You claim that the first shot was the one that missed.
At what Z frame was the first shot fired ?

[Bud]

Conspiracy folks insist on focusing on the wrong things.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 5:44:48 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> Conspiracy folks insist on focusing on the wrong things.

Yes, the missed shot is the "wrong thing" to focus on when determining the timing of the shots
and whether they were fired by one man or two. Totally irrelevent.
ROFLMAO

Now you know why he's the Village Idiot.

[JE Corbett]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 5:31:09 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

If the Z-film had sound, we would be able to discern that for certain. Since it didn't, the best we can do is make educated
guesses as to when the missed shot was fired. Based on the camera jiggle and the observable reactions of Connally and
Rosemary Willis, my educated guess is about Z151. Some have guessed earlier. Some have guessed later. What we know
for sure is that all the guesses can't be right.

Now, tell us why it is important to pinpoint when that first shot was fired.

[JE Corbett]

Says the guy who can't figure out a double murder case 60 years after the DPD had solved it in the first 12 hours.
It isn't the least bit important to pinpoint the time the first shot was fired or the total time the shooter took to fire
all three shots. It is enough to establish that the shot was fired before the observable reaction by Connally which
began at Z164 when he suddenly turned to look over his right shoulder, a move he described in his testimony and
which is corroborated by the Z-film. He said he made that turn because he heard a loud noise which he immediately
recognized as a rifle shot and sounded like it came from over his right shoulder. You just made a big deal about
the statements by witnesses I believe were wrong. Are you now going to dismiss Connally's statement which can
be verified by what we see him do in the Z-film?

[JE Corbett]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 5:31:09 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:04:51 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> < a big long autobiography that no one cares about >
>

I posted that to show how I arrived at my current beliefs. Unlike you, when I encounter evidence that conflicts with my
beliefs, I don't assume it is the evidence that is wrong and make excuses as to why the evidence should not be believed.
Instead I modify my beliefs to conform to the evidence. That is what intelligent people do. Maybe you could learn from
them, but I doubt it. If you could've, you would've by now.

[Bud]

If it is the right thing as you contend, where has it taken you?

Show that it gives insight into the event.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 02:44:46 -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 03:30:35 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 5:44:48?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> Conspiracy folks insist on focusing on the wrong things.
>
>Yes, the missed shot is the "wrong thing" to focus on when determining the timing of the shots
>and whether they were fired by one man or two. Totally irrelevent.
>ROFLMAO
>
>Now you know why he's the Village Idiot.

Indeed. Just a second or two later, it's CRITICAL to know the frame
number. You just gotta laugh at these morons!

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 04:18:10 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 6:30:37?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 5:44:48?AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> > Conspiracy folks insist on focusing on the wrong things.
>> Yes, the missed shot is the "wrong thing" to focus on when determining the timing of the shots
>> and whether they were fired by one man or two. Totally irrelevent.
>> ROFLMAO
>>
>> Now you know why he's the Village Idiot.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>DPD had solved it in the first 12 hours.

This unsupportable claim has been made many times by believers, but
not *ONCE* has anyone tried to list the known evidence they relied on
in that first 12 hours.

If you did, it would prove you a moron.

>It isn't the least bit important to pinpoint the time the first shot was fired or the total time the shooter took to fire
>all three shots.

And yet, a mere second or two later, it's CRITICAL to pinpoint the
second shot in the Z-film.

Your argument holds no water.

>It is enough to establish that the shot was fired before the observable reaction by Connally which
>began at Z164 when he suddenly turned to look over his right shoulder, a move he described in his testimony and
>which is corroborated by the Z-film.

You have a vivid imagination.

>He said he made that turn because he heard a loud noise which he immediately
>recognized as a rifle shot and sounded like it came from over his right shoulder. You just made a big deal about
>the statements by witnesses I believe were wrong. Are you now going to dismiss Connally's statement which can
>be verified by what we see him do in the Z-film?

Hs statements, and many other people's statements, CANNOT be found in
the extant Z-film.

And you have already shown that you don't believe Connally.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 04:36:03 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 04:10:45 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 5:31:09?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:04:51?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> < a big long autobiography that no one cares about >
>>
>> You say Z frame 226 shows Kennedy and Connally reacting to having been hit by the same bullet and that shot was the second shot.
>> You claim that the first shot was the one that missed.
>> At what Z frame was the first shot fired ?
>
>If the Z-film had sound, we would be able to discern that for certain.

That's provably a lie.

>Since it didn't, the best we can do is make educated
>guesses as to when the missed shot was fired. Based on the camera jiggle and the observable reactions of Connally and
>Rosemary Willis, my educated guess is about Z151. Some have guessed earlier. Some have guessed later. What we know
>for sure is that all the guesses can't be right.

That has much in common with all the different SBT's... they not only
cannot all be right, it's probable that none of them are.

>Now, tell us why it is important to pinpoint when that first shot was fired.

Nope. We're examining *YOUR* kooky worldview.

[Gil Jesus]

> His statements, and many other people's statements, CANNOT be found in

> the extant Z-film.
>
> And you have already shown that you don't believe Connally.

Don't you know Ben ? Connally knew the shot came from behind and to the right but he didn't know which shot hit him.
Neither did Nellie, who saw both men and said her husband was hit by the second shot.
Everybody's wrong.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 04:23:21 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 5:31:09?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:04:51?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> < a big long autobiography that no one cares about >
>>
>I posted that to show how I arrived at my current beliefs.

And just like Huckster, you can't defend it.

>Unlike you, when I encounter evidence that conflicts with my
>beliefs, I don't assume it is the evidence that is wrong and make excuses as to why the evidence should not be believed.

This is, indeed, PRECISELY what you're doing.

>Instead I modify my beliefs to conform to the evidence.

Here, let me prove you a liar... what time did JFK's body arrive at
Bethesda?

You won't answer... you CAN'T answer... thus proving your cowardice
and lying.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 7:18:12 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> It is enough to establish that the shot was fired before the observable reaction by Connally which
> began at Z164 when he suddenly turned to look over his right shoulder

So you believe that Kennedy was shot at at Z164, the shot missed, and the President wasn't startled by the noise and continued to wave to the crowd after the first shot ?

[JE Corbett]

Yes, he did. He knew the second shot hit him. He was right about that. What he didn't know is the second shot had also hit
JFK. How could he have known that when by his own testimony, he didn't see the President when he looked over his shoulder.

> Neither did Nellie, who saw both men and said her husband was hit by the second shot.

She also said he clutched his throat. That didn't happen. Not the most reliable witness to determine the facts.

> Everybody's wrong.

Not everybody. Nellie definitely is. JBC was mostly right except for his belief that JFK was hit by the first shot. But that's
something he was told by others. He couldn't have witnessed that for himself. The things he got right were the things he had
first hand knowledge of.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:06:31 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> JBC was mostly right except for his belief that JFK was hit by the first shot. But that's something he was told by others. He couldn't have witnessed that for himself.

Really ? This is the first I'm hearing of this.
John Connally was told by other people that JFK was hit by the first shot ?

Source ?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 07:52:40 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, not everyone. The writers of the WCR's fiction weren't wrong.
They were, in fact, AMAZINGLY right. Corbutt can't find a single
thing wrong with the WCR.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 08:06:29 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:52:42?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:46:59?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 04:18:10 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
>>> <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>It is enough to establish that the shot was fired before the observable reaction by Connally which
>>>>began at Z164 when he suddenly turned to look over his right shoulder, a move he described in his testimony and
>>>>which is corroborated by the Z-film.
>>
>>> You have a vivid imagination.
>>
>>>>He said he made that turn because he heard a loud noise which he immediately
>>>>recognized as a rifle shot and sounded like it came from over his right shoulder. You just made a big deal about
>>>>the statements by witnesses I believe were wrong. Are you now going to dismiss Connally's statement which can
>>>>be verified by what we see him do in the Z-film?
>>> His statements, and many other people's statements, CANNOT be found in
>>> the extant Z-film.
>>>
>>> And you have already shown that you don't believe Connally.
>> Don't you know Ben ? Connally knew the shot came from behind and to the right but he didn't know which shot hit him.
>
>Yes, he did. He knew the second shot hit him. He was right about that. What he didn't know is the second shot had also hit
>JFK. How could he have known that when by his own testimony, he didn't see the President when he looked over his shoulder.

The very best witness of all, less than a dozen feet away, and looking
at BOTH JFK and Connally... corroborated Connally.

You lose!

>> Neither did Nellie, who saw both men and said her husband was hit by the second shot.
>
>She also said he clutched his throat. That didn't happen. Not the most reliable witness to determine the facts.

How do you know he didn't clutch his throat?

>> Everybody's wrong.
>
>Not everybody.

Name *ONE* eyewitness who was completely correct in all they said
contemporaneously and in testimony.

But you won't.

You're both a coward and a liar.

[JE Corbett]

It's called process of elimination. It requires the ability to reason which is a process you have rejected. There are only two
ways Connally could have known which shot hit JFK. Either he saw it for himself or somebody told him. Since he told us
he hadn't seen it for himself, that kind of narrows it down.

[Gil Jesus]

Earth to Corbett: process of elimination is not evidence.
I knew you were full of shit.

Connally was a hunter who knew that a rifle bullet travelled faster than the speed of sound.
He knew that he would have been hit before he heard the shot.
He knew that if he had heard the shot and he wasn't hit, then that shot didn't hit him.

THAT'S how he knew.
Nobody told him.
Another one of your lies.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 08:22:23 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:09:52?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:06:31?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>> JBC was mostly right except for his belief that JFK was hit by the first shot. But that's something he was told by others. He couldn't have witnessed that for himself.
>> Really ? This is the first I'm hearing of this.
>> John Connally was told by other people that JFK was hit by the first shot ?
>>
>> Source ?
>
>It's called process of elimination.

It's called speculation.

[JE Corbett]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:30:48 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:22:26 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:09:52 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:06:31 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > > > JBC was mostly right except for his belief that JFK was hit by the first shot. But that's something he was told by others. He couldn't have witnessed that for himself.
> > > Really ? This is the first I'm hearing of this.
> > > John Connally was told by other people that JFK was hit by the first shot ?
> > >
> > > Source ?
> > It's called process of elimination. It requires the ability to reason which is a process you have rejected. There are only two
> > ways Connally could have known which shot hit JFK. Either he saw it for himself or somebody told him. Since he told us
> > he hadn't seen it for himself, that kind of narrows it down.
> Earth to Corbett: process of elimination is not evidence.

It is the correct way to look at evidence. It is how you determine what the available evidence is telling you. For any piece of
evidence, there might be a number of possible explanations. If you can logically eliminate the possibilities until there is only
one, you have proof. In this case, there were two ways Connally could have known which shot hit JFK. Either he saw it for
himself or he was told by somebody else. Since his testimony eliminated the possibility that he had seen it or himself, that
leaves only the possibility that somebody told him which shot hit JFK. I'm sure you couldn't follow this because you reject
reasoning as a way of determining truth. Fortunately in our system of justice, judges instruct jurors to do this type of
reasoning and draw logical inferences from the evidence presented to them. Had Oswald gone to trial, his jury would have
been instructed to do so which would have been curtains for your client.

> I knew you were full of shit.

You think so because I apply reasoning to available evidence to draw logical conclusions.

>
> Connally was a hunter who knew that a rifle bullet travelled faster than the speed of sound.
> He knew that he would have been hit before he heard the shot.
> He knew that if he had heard the shot and he wasn't hit, then that shot didn't hit him.

Here's where your inability to reason has failed you again. None of the above would have told him which shot hit JFK.

>
> THAT'S how he knew.

Explain how any of that would have told him whether JFK had been hit by the first or second shot. It would only have told
him which shot hit him. It wouldn't have told him if that shot had passed through JFK before it struck him.

> Nobody told him.

Nobody needed to tell him which shot hit him. He needed to rely on others to know which shot hit JFK.

> Another one of your lies.

Another one of your displays of your inability to think logically. You just don't seem to have any aptitude for it. Maybe
it's a good thin you don't try. It might cause aneurysm

[Gil Jesus]

In my neighborhood it's called bullshit.
Here's Connally explaining why he KNEW the first shot hadn't hit him.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-wasnt-hit-by-first-shot.mp4

Here's Connally saying the first shot hit JFK.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-nightline-sbt.mp4

Here's Hoover telling LBJ that the first shot hit Kennedy and the second hit Connally.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4

Forget all this evidence from the witness who was present and the FBI Director.

It's all trumped by John Corbett's "applying reasoning to available evidence to draw logical conclusions."

ROFLMAO

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 08:49:03 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:30:48?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:22:26?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:09:52?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:06:31?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>>>> JBC was mostly right except for his belief that JFK was hit by the first shot. But that's something he was told by others. He couldn't have witnessed that for himself.
>>>> Really ? This is the first I'm hearing of this.
>>>> John Connally was told by other people that JFK was hit by the first shot ?
>>>>
>>>> Source ?
>>> It's called process of elimination. It requires the ability to reason which is a process you have rejected. There are only two
>>> ways Connally could have known which shot hit JFK. Either he saw it for himself or somebody told him. Since he told us
>>> he hadn't seen it for himself, that kind of narrows it down.
>> Earth to Corbett: process of elimination is not evidence.
>
>It is the correct way to look at evidence.

Cite for that unsupportable claim.

But you won't.

You'll run, as usual.

>> I knew you were full of shit.
>

>You think so...


The evidence is clear.

>> Connally was a hunter who knew that a rifle bullet travelled faster than the speed of sound.
>> He knew that he would have been hit before he heard the shot.
>> He knew that if he had heard the shot and he wasn't hit, then that shot didn't hit him.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> THAT'S how he knew.
>

>Explain...


No.

Shifting the burden. This is YOUR case, make it.


>> Nobody told him.

[JE Corbett]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:57:21 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:45:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 08:22:23 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> > <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:09:52?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:06:31?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > >>> JBC was mostly right except for his belief that JFK was hit by the first shot. But that's something he was told by others. He couldn't have witnessed that for himself.
> > >> Really ? This is the first I'm hearing of this.
> > >> John Connally was told by other people that JFK was hit by the first shot ?
> > >>
> > >> Source ?
> > >
> > >It's called process of elimination.
> > It's called speculation.
> In my neighborhood it's called bullshit.
> Here's Connally explaining why he KNEW the first shot hadn't hit him.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-wasnt-hit-by-first-shot.mp4

That's nice, Giltardo. Nobody I know of is claiming Connally was hit by the first shot.

>
> Here's Connally saying the first shot hit JFK.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-nightline-sbt.mp4

Now all that's missing is Connally telling us how he "knew" the first shot hit JFK. He testified that
he couldn't see the President after the first shot was fired. So what other way would he have had
to know that?

>
> Here's Hoover telling LBJ that the first shot hit Kennedy and the second hit Connally.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4

Hoover was wrong about so many things that he told LBJ that it's laughable. It's amazing how you
accuse the FBI of being complicit in a cover up yet you trust their director to tell LBJ the truth.

>
> Forget all this evidence from the witness who was present and the FBI Director.
>
> It's all trumped by John Corbett's "applying reasoning to available evidence to draw logical conclusions."
>

You still have no explanation for how Connally could have known which shot hit him.Instead you do what
you always do. You divert that conversation away from point of contention. Nobody is disputing that JBC
was hit by the second shot. Nobody is disputing he believed JFK was hit by the first shot. The question is
on what did he base his belief that JFK was hit by the first shot. He testified he did not see JFK after the
first shot. So what other way could he have determined JFK had been hit by the first unless somebody told
him that? I eagerly await your response with incurable optimism.

[Bud]

<snicker> Ben *hates* the application of reason to information. He thinks because he can`t do it nobody else should do it.

[Bud]

Gil ignored every point I made. He will fringe reset these things tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, as if they have never been addressed. This is somehow seen as a mark of bravery among conspiracy folk.

[JE Corbett]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 12:53:34 PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> You still have no explanation for how Connally could have known which shot hit him.

I worded this badly. I intended to say Gil has no explanation for how Connally could have know which shot
hit JFK. Instead I used "him" which could easily be interpreted to say Connally couldn't have known which
shot hit Connally. Nobody is disputing that Connally was hit by the second shot, just as he always stated.

So my question remains. How could Connally have known if JFK had been hit by the first shot if he did not
see JFK after the first shot?

[JE Corbett]

That's Gil's SOP when confronted with arguments or questions for which he has no answer, which is pretty much most
arguments and questions.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:50:16 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 04:10:45 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 5:31:09?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 6:04:51?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> >> < a big long autobiography that no one cares about >
> >>
> >> You say Z frame 226 shows Kennedy and Connally reacting to having been hit by the same bullet and that shot was the second shot.
> >> You claim that the first shot was the one that missed.
> >> At what Z frame was the first shot fired ?
> >
> >If the Z-film had sound, we would be able to discern that for certain.
> That's provably a lie.

That is provably meaningless hot air.

> >Since it didn't, the best we can do is make educated
> >guesses as to when the missed shot was fired. Based on the camera jiggle and the observable reactions of Connally and
> >Rosemary Willis, my educated guess is about Z151. Some have guessed earlier. Some have guessed later. What we know
> >for sure is that all the guesses can't be right.
> That has much in common with all the different SBT's... they not only
> cannot all be right, it's probable that none of them are.

You can imagine as many as you like, there is only one SBT. Kennedy and Connolly being struck by the same bullet.

> >Now, tell us why it is important to pinpoint when that first shot was fired.
> Nope.

Of course not, you`re a hypocrite.

>We're examining *YOUR* kooky worldview.

Were reasoning is used on information to draw conclusions?

As compared to ConspiracyWorld, where rocking horse people eat marshmallow pies

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 09:53:32 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:57:21?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:45:31?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 08:22:23 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
>>> <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:09:52?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:06:31?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>>>>>> JBC was mostly right except for his belief that JFK was hit by the first shot. But that's something he was told by others. He couldn't have witnessed that for himself.
>>>>> Really ? This is the first I'm hearing of this.
>>>>> John Connally was told by other people that JFK was hit by the first shot ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Source ?
>>>>
>>>>It's called process of elimination.
>>> It's called speculation.
>> In my neighborhood it's called bullshit.
>> Here's Connally explaining why he KNEW the first shot hadn't hit him.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-wasnt-hit-by-first-shot.mp4

If all you have are logical fallacies, it won't go well for you...

>> Here's Connally saying the first shot hit JFK.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-nightline-sbt.mp4
>

>Now all that's missing ..


Tut tut tut.

You're DESPERATE for something to refute the evidence, aren't you?

>> Here's Hoover telling LBJ that the first shot hit Kennedy and the second hit Connally.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4
>

>Hoover was wrong...


Hoover was the basis for the underlying evidence used by the WCR.

If you can't trust the FBI, then you have nothing, do you?

>> Forget all this evidence from the witness who was present and the FBI Director.
>>
>> It's all trumped by John Corbett's "applying reasoning to available evidence to draw logical conclusions."
>>

>You still have no explanation ...

This isn't our burden... it's YOUR burden. Carry your burden coward,
and show us what happened on 11/22/63.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 10:10:58 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 12:53:34?PM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
>> You still have no explanation for how Connally could have known which shot hit him.
>

>I worded this badly. I intended to say Gil has no explanation ...

Gil doesn't need an "explanation."

He needs *YOU* to support what you think happened on 11/22/63. He's
met *his* burden, why can't you carry yours?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 10:06:47 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 10:09:47 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 10:14:43 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>That's Gil's SOP when confronted with arguments or questions for which he has no answer, which is pretty much most
>arguments and questions.

When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you -
Huckster Sienzant.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 10:15:18 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Bud]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 7:08:57 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 09:53:32 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:57:21?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:45:31?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 08:22:23 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> >>> <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:09:52?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:06:31?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> >>>>>> JBC was mostly right except for his belief that JFK was hit by the first shot. But that's something he was told by others. He couldn't have witnessed that for himself.
> >>>>> Really ? This is the first I'm hearing of this.
> >>>>> John Connally was told by other people that JFK was hit by the first shot ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Source ?
> >>>>
> >>>>It's called process of elimination.
> >>> It's called speculation.
> >> In my neighborhood it's called bullshit.
> >> Here's Connally explaining why he KNEW the first shot hadn't hit him.
> >> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-wasnt-hit-by-first-shot.mp4
> If all you have are logical fallacies, it won't go well for you...
> >> Here's Connally saying the first shot hit JFK.
> >> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-nightline-sbt.mp4
> >
> >Now all that's missing ..
>
>
> Tut tut tut.
>
> You're DESPERATE for something to refute the evidence, aren't you?

You`re DESPERATE not to look at the evidence correctly, aren`t you?

> >> Here's Hoover telling LBJ that the first shot hit Kennedy and the second hit Connally.
> >> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4
> >
> >Hoover was wrong...
>
>
> Hoover was the basis for the underlying evidence used by the WCR.

Wrong, they didn`t use Hoover`s understanding of the evidence at all.

> If you can't trust the FBI, then you have nothing, do you?
> >> Forget all this evidence from the witness who was present and the FBI Director.
> >>
> >> It's all trumped by John Corbett's "applying reasoning to available evidence to draw logical conclusions."
> >>
> >You still have no explanation ...
>
> This isn't our burden... it's YOUR burden. Carry your burden coward,
> and show us what happened on 11/22/63.

Been on the table for sixty years. The only thing on the table for consideration.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 16:27:52 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Hank Sienzant]

Straw man argument.

What Corbett said, and you’re ignoring, is this:

“JBC was mostly right except for his belief that JFK was hit by the first shot. But that's something he was told by others. He couldn't have witnessed that for himself.”

You’re leaving JFK out of the rebuttal entirely, but that’s who Corbett was talking about: How Connally came to believe when JFK was hit.

You don’t talk to his point whatsoever.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:57:21 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:45:31 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 08:22:23 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> > <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:09:52?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:06:31?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:
> > >>> JBC was mostly right except for his belief that JFK was hit by the first shot. But that's something he was told by others. He couldn't have witnessed that for himself.
> > >> Really ? This is the first I'm hearing of this.
> > >> John Connally was told by other people that JFK was hit by the first shot ?
> > >>
> > >> Source ?
> > >
> > >It's called process of elimination.
> > It's called speculation.
> In my neighborhood it's called bullshit.
> Here's Connally explaining why he KNEW the first shot hadn't hit him.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-wasnt-hit-by-first-shot.mp4
>
> Here's Connally saying the first shot hit JFK.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/connally-nightline-sbt.mp4

Yes, that’s what he believed.

But here’s his testimony to the HSCA where he says he didn’t see JFK during the shooting:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscacon.htm

“ I didn't think it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet.
…
I would have to volunteer the very, very strong opinion, I know much has been written, much has been discussed, I was being a participant, I can only give you my impressions, but I must say you, as I said to the Warren Commission, I do not believe, nor will I ever believe, that I was hit with the first bullet. I don't believe that. I heard the first shot. I reacted to the first shot and I was not hit with that bullet: Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit with the same bullet that might well, be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet and Nelly doesn't think it's the second bullet. I don't know, I didn't hear the second bullet. I felt the second bullet. We obviously weren't hit by the third bullet. I was down reclining in her lap at the time the third bullet hit.
Mr. CORNWELL. I am sorry, I didn't understand one statement. You said Mrs. Connally doesn't agree it was the second bullet or the same bullet?
Mr. CONNALLY. The second bullet.
Mrs. CONNALLY. That what?
Mr. CONNALLY. That hit me. That hit him and me--
Mrs. CONNALLY. No; I heard three shots, I had three reactions, three separate reactions. The first shot, then I looked and saw the President, the second shot, John, and third, all this matter all over us.
Mr. CORNWELL. So you agree that your recollection is it was the second shot that hit the Governor?
Mrs. CONNALLY. I know it was the second shot that hit the Governor.
Mr. CORNWELL. And, where you disagree is as to the possibility or the question of whether or not it was the same bullet that hit, is that accurate, in other words, the Governor has no knowledge on that subject matter, would that be accurate, since you didn't turn around to see the President, after the first noise, you don't know whether he was hit and Mrs. Connally's recollection is that she did turn and saw him hold his throat before you were hit, is that accurate?
Mrs. CONNALLY. I did.
Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. I never saw him. I never saw Mrs. Kennedy after the shots were fired. I never saw either one of them, and I don't know when he was hit.“

He never saw the President. His belief came from - most likely - his wife, Nellie, who testified she saw the President with his hands to his throat after the first shot.

When does the Z-film show her first look back, Gil?

>
> Here's Hoover telling LBJ that the first shot hit Kennedy and the second hit Connally.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4
>
> Forget all this evidence from the witness who was present and the FBI Director.

The witness didn’t witness when JFK was shot. He says that, quoted above. The FBI director and the witness are both sources of hearsay. You like hearsay, apparently, because you sure rely on it a lot.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Here Hank relies upon the witness, and witnesses are notoriously unreliable. We can see in the Zapruder film that Connally looks directly at JFK after he has been shot in the throat. Obviously, Connally did look at JFK and that's why he knew that JFK had been hit by the "first" shot. And we can see that Connally was hit shortly thereafter.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you -
> Huckster Sienzant.

Corbett's highjacking of Von Pein's theory of a first shot miss at or before Z-164 is ridiculous.
I'll bet Von Pein got that from Posner, although he doesn't give him credit.
Posner got it from some college student and put it in his book and never gave him credit either.
These Lone Nutters all steal info from each other and never give their sources credit.
Even here, these idiots don't give it a second thought to copy and paste someone else's work without giving the author credit.

The trajectory of a missed shot at or prior to Z-164 is incompatable with the bullet strike on the south curb of Main St that nicked Jim Tague.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/trajectory-of-missed-shot-at-Z-164.jpg

Now prove me wrong, assholes.

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:14:23 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> The FBI director and the witness are both sources of hearsay. You like hearsay, apparently, because you sure rely on it a lot.

So did the Warren Commission. What's your point ?

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:44:50 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> What Corbett said, and you’re ignoring, is this:
>
> “JBC was mostly right except for his belief that JFK was hit by the first shot. But that's something he was told by others. He couldn't have witnessed that for himself.”
>
> You’re leaving JFK out of the rebuttal entirely, but that’s who Corbett was talking about: How Connally came to believe when JFK was hit.
>
> You don’t talk to his point whatsoever.

Who told Connally JFK was hit, Hank ?

[Gil Jesus]

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 12:30:28 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> Here Hank relies upon the witness, and witnesses are notoriously unreliable. We can see in the Zapruder film that Connally looks directly at JFK after he has been shot in the throat. Obviously, Connally did look at JFK and that's why he knew that JFK had been hit by the "first" shot. And we can see that Connally was hit shortly thereafter.

Hank is full of shit as usual.
Connally looks back at JFK after he's been shot.

Z-frame 278:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Z278-connally-looking-at-JFK.png

Connally knew Kennedy had been shot. He looked right at him.

[JE Corbett]

Gil still won't tell us how Connally could have come to the belief that JFK had been hit by the first shot. He had no first
hand knowledge that JFK had been hit by the first shot. Any reasonable person would conclude he got that information
from another source. Hank has pointed to his HSCA testimony where he all but says Nellie told him that. He could have
been told that by someone else as well. Possibly he read or heard of the initial FBI report which said JFK had been hit by
the first and third shots. However he came to the belief that JFK had been hit by the first shot, he did not do so on his own.
That was fed to him by someone else. He was not a witness to JFK being hit by the first shot because he had his back to
JFK when the first shot was fired and could not see him at that time nor did he see him after he turned to look over his
right shoulder.

If we are to accept Connally as a reliable witness, and I do, we can safely dismiss the possibility that JFK was hit by the first
shot. Connally said that he immediately recognized the loud bang as a rifle shot and thought it was an assassination attempt.
He told us he turned to look over his right shoulder because that is where it sounded like the shot came from. He told us he
couldn't see the President when he turned. We see Connally start to make that turn at Z164, so the shot had to precede that
frame. Z164 is 3 1/2 seconds before we see JFK's first reaction to being hit. During that time, we see JFK calmly waving to
the few remaining spectators on the north side of Elm St. Are we supposed to believe he had already been hit at that time.

So, Gil:
Do you believe Connally's account is accurate?
Do you believe the Z-film is authentic?
If so, how can you reconcile Connally's account with JFK having been hit by the first shot?
If you still believe JFK was hit by the first shot, tell us when you think he was hit and when you see Connally turn before
Connally himself was hit.

I know these are difficult questions which is why I know you won't even attempt to answer them. You will do what you
always do. You will either make some lame excuse why you won't answer or you will attempt to divert the conversation
to a side issue. Or maybe you will bail out of this thread altogether. Which is it going to be this time, Gil?

[JE Corbett]

That's right, Gil. Connally turned around far enough to see JFK after they had BOTH been shot. By the same bullet. This
look would not have told him that JFK had been hit by the first shot since this was after the second shot had been fired.

You continue to dance around the fact Connally could not have known from his own observations whether or not JFK
had been hit by the first or second shot. Showing a frame of Connally looking back at JFK after the second shot sheds
no light on that question.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 19:44:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Straw man argument.

What's not a "strawman argument" is the proof of your dishonesty &
cowardice:

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?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 05:00:50 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 7:15:50?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 12:30:28?AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
>> > Here Hank relies upon the witness, and witnesses are notoriously unreliable. We can see in the Zapruder film that Connally looks directly at JFK after he has been shot in the throat. Obviously, Connally did look at JFK and that's why he knew that JFK had been hit by the "first" shot. And we can see that Connally was hit shortly thereafter.
>> Hank is full of shit as usual.
>> Connally looks back at JFK after he's been shot.
>>
>> Z-frame 278:
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Z278-connally-looking-at-JFK.png
>>
>> Connally knew Kennedy had been shot. He looked right at him.
>
>That's right, Gil. Connally turned around far enough to see JFK after they had BOTH been shot.

That's not what Connally testified to, nor was this seen by any
witness. You're simply making things up again...


>You continue to dance around...

Says the coward who's unable to respond to a knowledgeable critic...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 04:10:10 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

This will illustrate the difference between Huckster & Corbutt. When
Corbutt doesn't know the answer, he'll simply invent something.

When Huckster knows the answer, but the answer would look bad for his
faith, he simply refuses to answer.

Or labels it a logical fallacy and runs away.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 04:54:35 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 7:10:12?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:44:50?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>> What Corbett said, and you’re ignoring, is this:
>>>
>>> “JBC was mostly right except for his belief that JFK was hit by the first shot. But that's something he was told by others. He couldn't have witnessed that for himself.”
>>>
>>> You’re leaving JFK out of the rebuttal entirely, but that’s who Corbett was talking about: How Connally came to believe when JFK was hit.
>>>
>>> You don’t talk to his point whatsoever.
>> Who told Connally JFK was hit, Hank ?

450+ words deleted... Corbutt couldn't answer.

[Ben Holmes]

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 03:51:19 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:14:23?PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>>> The FBI director and the witness are both sources of hearsay. You like hearsay, apparently, because you sure rely on it a lot.
>
>So did the Warren Commission. What's your point ?

He's busy proving himself a coward. He doesn't think that point has
been sufficiently established.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 7:15:50 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 12:30:28 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:
> > Here Hank relies upon the witness, and witnesses are notoriously unreliable. We can see in the Zapruder film that Connally looks directly at JFK after he has been shot in the throat. Obviously, Connally did look at JFK and that's why he knew that JFK had been hit by the "first" shot. And we can see that Connally was hit shortly thereafter.
> Hank is full of shit as usual.
> Connally looks back at JFK after he's been shot.

So Connally lied when he testified to the HSCA?

Are you really going with that? Or are going to allege the HSCA changed his testimony?
You need to explain the contradiction between the eyewitness’s testimony and your viewpoint.

“Mr. CONNALLY. That is correct. I never saw him. I never saw Mrs. Kennedy after the shots were fired. I never saw either one of them, and I don't know when he was hit.“
“Mr. GIL JESUS. Connally looks back at JFK after he's been shot. Connally knew Kennedy had been shot. He looked right at him.“

Or when he turned, did he have other things on his mind other than what the President was doing?so although he had his head turned in that direction, he really wasn’t looking at the President as hecollapsed backward into Nellie’s arms?

To see someone or see something, you need to have your eyes open, don’t you?
Where did you establish Connally lied to Congress, had his eyes open, and saw the President?

I missed all that.

Ben to insist critics follow the evidence. Gil to ignore these points. NTF, well, who knows what inane comment he’ll come up with to dismiss this contradiction between Gil’sview and the evidence of the direct testimony of the lone surviving victim of the shooting.

[Hank Sienzant]

Same questions as to Gil.

Did Connally lie to the HSCA? Did the HSCA alter his testimony? Did Connally have his eyes open after being short through his trunk?

Can you explain the discrepancy between what Connally said and what you believe?

[NoTrueFlags Here]

He was mistaken. Surely a Nutter can understand that.

[Hank Sienzant]

Asked and answered above, Gil:

“He never saw the President. His belief came from - most likely - his wife, Nellie, who testified she saw the President with his hands to his throat after the first shot.”

He testified to that here, saying he doesn’t know when the President was shot, but Nellie believes the President was struck by the first shot. He is echoing his wife’s belief … “a happy wife is a happy life” and all that:

“Now, there's a great deal of speculation that the President and I were hit with the same bullet that might well be, but it surely wasn't the first bullet and **Nelly doesn't think it's the second bullet.** I don't know, I didn't hear the second bullet. I felt the second bullet. We obviously weren't hit by the third bullet. I was down reclining in her lap at the time the third bullet hit.”

[JE Corbett]

It is difficult to say with certainty what Connally saw after he turned 180 degrees in his seat after he was shot because of the
discrepancy between what he told Martin Agronsky in his hospital bed interview and all subsequent statements which are
very consistent. He told Agronsky that after hearing the first shot he turned to his left (not right) and saw the President
slumped. We know of course by looking at the Z-film that he turned to his right and could not have seen JFK slumped.
JFK did not slump well after both of them had been hit. In fact, he was turning back to the front when the bullet hit him
and JFK had not slumped at that time. After they were both hit, he did turn all the way around and could have seen JFK
slumped by they time, around Z270. That might be what he remembered when he spoke to Agronsky but that obviously
happened after both had been hit, not before. I think it's quite possible that Connally could have seen JFK slumped after
he had been shot but it is not possible he saw that before he was shot because he never turn far enough around.

[Hank Sienzant]

Three logical fallacies above, Gil:
1. Red Herring (also known as changing the subject. Nobody was talking about the trajectory to Tague. You apparently feel you can’t defend your claim about Connally seeing JFK, so you are trying to change the subject to something - anything - else.
2. Shifting the Burden of Proof. Nobody has to prove you wrong. Your argument, your burden. That’s the way it still works among knowledgeable people. If you put an argument on the table, you need to present the evidence and a well-reasoned argument in an attempt to convince, not simply make a pronouncement as you do above and shift the burden to disproof.
3. Ad hominem. Ben quotes me above as saying “When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you” (although he attempts an insult by calling me Huckster instead of Hank). I should point out to Ben it really doesn’t matter where in the response the ad hominem is employed. Above you employ it as your final word in your post. But it’s still ad hominem, it’s still a logical fallacy, and all you did above was employ three logical fallacies instead of addressing the subject matter under discussion originally.

[Hank Sienzant]

It’s you and Gil arguing he was mistaken… as with all inconvenient testimony and evidence, you look for a reason to discard it. Your evidence is driven by your beliefs rather than your beliefs being driven by the evidence. Here you discard Connally's very words because they are inconvenient to your beliefs.

[Hank Sienzant]

Show me where the Commission relied on hearsay for their conclusions as you’re doing above.

Three actual examples will do, if you can muster them.

We’ll wait.

[Hank Sienzant]

Who was mistaken? Gil or Connally, and what’s the evidence for your claim?

Was Connally also mistaken when he said he thought it was someone with an automatic weapon firing? When he said, “they are going to kill us all!”? Or when he estimated the time of the shooting as taking as long as ten seconds?

[JE Corbett]

I wonder if Connally knew the rate of fire for most automatic weapons is 600 rounds per minute and up. That's ten rounds per
second. One things is for sure. If you are hearing individual shots, you aren't hearing an weapon being fired in full auto.
Sem-auto maybe, by the requires one trigger pull for every round fired.

[Hank Sienzant]

It was even longer than I recalled… as many as 12 seconds by Connally’s estimate:
— quote —
Mr. SPECTER. Do you have any estimate as to the distance which the President's automobile traveled during the shooting?
Governor CONNALLY. No; I hadn't thought about it, but I would suppose in 10 to 12 seconds, I suppose you travel a couple of hundred feet.
— unquote —

I’ve never seen that quoted in any conspiracy book. Has anyone?

I’ve seen this quote in plenty of them:
— quote —
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as the third shot?
Governor CONNALLY. …It was extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots; a very short period of time.
— unquote —

But what those books leave out is the sentence Connally utters immediately before the latter quot3 about the automatic weapon. His fuller quote is this:
— quote —
Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds. It was extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots; a very short period of time.
— unquote —

I only discovered this discrepancy by reading the complete testimony of Connally. If I relied on conspiracy authors to tell me the whole truth, I’d still be a conspiracy theorist.

Too many people read a conspiracy book or two and simply believed what the authors were saying and did no checking. I was like that inititially.

[JE Corbett]

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 6:42:27 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you -
> > Huckster Sienzant.
> Corbett's highjacking of Von Pein's theory of a first shot miss at or before Z-164 is ridiculous.

It is neither my theory nor DVP's. The WC presented this theory in their original report. The came to no conclusion as to which
shot missed but they most certainly allowed for it.

> I'll bet Von Pein got that from Posner, although he doesn't give him credit.

Posner didn't create the theory either.

> Posner got it from some college student and put it in his book and never gave him credit either.

Here's where the theory of a first missed shot originated, Gil:
From page 111 of the WCR
The First Shot

If the first shot missed, the assassin perhaps missed in an effort to fire a hurried shot before the President passed under the oak tree, or possibly he fired as the President passed under the tree and the tree obstructed his view. The bullet might have struck a portion of the tree and been completely deflected. On the other hand, the greatest cause for doubt that the first shot missed is the improbability that the same marksman who twice hit a moving target would be so inaccurate on the first and closest of his shots as to miss completely, not only the target, but the large automobile.

Some support for the contention that the first shot missed is found in the statement of Secret Service Agent Glen A. Bennett, stationed in the right rear seat of the President's follow-up car, who heard a sound like a firecracker as the motorcade proceeded down Elm Street. At that moment, Agent Bennett stated:

... I looked at the back of the President. I heard another firecracker noise and saw that shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head.337
Substantial weight may be given Bennett's observations. Although his formal statement was dated November 23, 1963, his notes indicate that he recorded what he saw and heard at 5:30 p.m., November 1963, on the airplane en route back to Washington, prior to the autopsy, when it was not yet known that the President had been hit in the back.338 It is possible, of course, that Bennett did not observe the hole in the President's back, which might have been there immediately after the first noise.

Page 112

Governor Connally's testimony supports the view that the first shot missed, because he stated that he heard a shot, turned slightly to his right, and, as he started to turn back toward his left, was struck by the second bullet.339 He never saw the President during the shooting sequence, and it is entirely possible that he heard the missed shot and that both men were struck by the second bullet. Mrs. Connally testified that after the first shot she turned and saw the President's hands moving toward his throat, as seen in the films at frame 225.340 However, Mrs. Connally further stated that she thought her husband was hit immediately thereafter by the second bullet.341 If the same bullet struck both the President and the Governor, it is entirely possible that she saw the President's movements at the same time as she heard the second shot. Her testimony, therefore, does not preclude the possibility of the first shot having missed.

> These Lone Nutters all steal info from each other and never give their sources credit.

We take into account all available information and weigh it for credibility.

> Even here, these idiots don't give it a second thought to copy and paste someone else's work without giving the author credit.

I just cited the WCR, asshole. When I cited DVP's website, I gave him proper credit.

>
> The trajectory of a missed shot at or prior to Z-164 is incompatable with the bullet strike on the south curb of Main St that nicked Jim Tague.
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/trajectory-of-missed-shot-at-Z-164.jpg

You assume the bullet that struck the curb was a direct shot. That seems rather far fetched given how far from the limo Tague was standing. It would only make sense if the shot had been fired from a low elevation from behind the limo. Most likely it
was a ricochet of the first shot. Some have theorized it struck the pavement first. Some have theorized it struck a tree branch.
Still other believe a ricochet off the traffic light support. Some have even postulated a fragment from the head shot. There
simply isn't enough evidence to rule any of these theories in or out. It is likely to remain one of the unknowns from the
assassination.

>
> Now prove me wrong, assholes.

It's your burden to prove yourself right. Sorry if you're not up to the task

[JE Corbett]

My own guesstimate is the first shot was fired about Z151 with head shot fired at Z311. That's 160 frames which works out
to 8.7 seconds. I believe it was Max Holland who theorized the first shot was fired before Zapruder resumed filming. That
works out to in excess of 178 frames. I'm going on memory but I think he put the time of the first shot at a theoretical Z305,
206 frames before the headshot was fired. That works out to 11.2 seconds. Since nobody was running a stopwatch when
the shooting began, we are left with educated guesses as to how long the shooting took.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:18:34 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Ben to insist critics follow the evidence.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:21:59 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Same questions...

Yep:

[Ben Holmes]

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:54:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:07:49 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I wonder if Connally knew the rate of fire for most automatic weapons is 600 rounds per minute and up.

I wonder if you're a moron.

No, that's not true...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 13:49:04 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:40:26 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It is difficult to say with certainty what Connally saw...

It's difficult to say how much McAdams knew was a lie, and how much
was simply his inability to reason...

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:29:08 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>Asked and answered...

Never:

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:50:21 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Show me where the Commission relied on hearsay...

Why? You refuse to support YOUR claims:

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:43:13 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>Three logical fallacies....

Nah... just your cowardice:

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 14:01:31 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 6:42:27?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 7:11:25?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you -
>> > Huckster Sienzant.
>> Corbett's highjacking of Von Pein's theory of a first shot miss at or before Z-164 is ridiculous.
>
>It is neither my theory nor DVP's. The WC presented this theory in their original report.

You'll never cite for this lie.

>> I'll bet Von Pein got that from Posner, although he doesn't give him credit.
>
>Posner didn't create the theory either.

Are you stupid? If you'd simply READ what Gil said, you'd understand
that he didn't say this either...

>> Posner got it from some college student and put it in his book and never gave him credit either.
>

>Here's where...


Here's where you've been proven to be an illiterate moron.

>> These Lone Nutters all steal info from each other and never give their sources credit.
>
>We take into account all available information and weigh it for credibility.

You're lying again, moron!

>> Even here, these idiots don't give it a second thought to copy and paste someone else's work without giving the author credit.
>

>I just cited the WCR...


No, you didn't.

You **CANNOT** cite the WCR as stating " first shot miss at or before
Z-164..."

>> The trajectory of a missed shot at or prior to Z-164 is incompatable with the bullet strike on the south curb of Main St that nicked Jim Tague.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/trajectory-of-missed-shot-at-Z-164.jpg
>

>You assume ...


No "assumptions" given... you simply assume what Gil was saying - you
REFUSE to quote him.

>> Now prove me wrong, assholes.
>

>It's your burden...

Nope.

It was ALWAYS your original burden.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 14:13:38 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>My own guesstimate is the first shot was fired about Z151 with head shot fired at Z311. That's 160 frames which works out
>to 8.7 seconds. I believe it was Max Holland who theorized the first shot was fired before Zapruder resumed filming. That
>works out to in excess of 178 frames. I'm going on memory but I think he put the time of the first shot at a theoretical Z305,
>206 frames before the headshot was fired. That works out to 11.2 seconds. Since nobody was running a stopwatch when
>the shooting began, we are left with educated guesses as to how long the shooting took.

Your speculation isn't evidence.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 5:38:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 14:13:38 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
> <jecor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >My own guesstimate is the first shot was fired about Z151 with head shot fired at Z311. That's 160 frames which works out
> >to 8.7 seconds. I believe it was Max Holland who theorized the first shot was fired before Zapruder resumed filming. That
> >works out to in excess of 178 frames. I'm going on memory but I think he put the time of the first shot at a theoretical Z305,

Z105

[NoTrueFlags Here]

I discard Connally's words because I can see him in the Zapruder film looking directly at JFK just after JFK had been shot. You, on the other hand, make out with his words because they help you to protect JFK's murderers from discovery.

[Ben Holmes]