info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
For Gil who seems to be factually challenged about the conclusions of the WC
62 views
Skip to first unread message
John Corbett
Sep 12, 2023, 5:11:50 PM9/12/23
to
The following quote is from Chapter 3 of the Warren Commission Report. It
begins at the bottom of page 97 and continues to the bottom of page 98.
[quote on]
The First Bullet that Hit
The position of President Kennedy's car when he was struck in the neck was determined with substantial precision from the films and
Page 98
onsite tests. The pictures or frames in the Zapruder film were marked by the agents, with the number "1" given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street.273 The numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came around the corner and proceeded down Elm. The President was in clear view of the assassin as he rode up Houston Street and for 100 feet as he proceeded down Elm Street, until he came to a point denoted as frame 166 on the Zapruder film.274 These facts were determined in the test by placing the car and men on Elm Street in the exact spot where they were when each frame of the Zapruder film was photographed. To pinpoint their locations, a man stood at Zapruder's position and directed the automobile and both models to the positions shown on each frame, after which a Bureau photographer crouched at the sixth-floor window and looked through a camera whose lens recorded the view through the telescopic sight of the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.275 (See Commission Exhibit No. 887, p. 99.) Each position was measured to determine how far President Kennedy had gone down Elm from a point, which was designated as station C, on a line drawn along the west curbline of Houston Street.276
Based on these calculations, the agents concluded that at frame 166 of the Zapruder film the President passed beneath the foliage of the large oak tree and the point of impact on the President's back disappeared from the gunman's view as seen through the telescopic lens.277 (See Commission Exhibit No. 889, p. 100.) For a fleeting instant, the President came back into view in the telescopic lens at frame 186 as he appeared in an opening among the leaves.278 (See Commission Exhibit No. 891, p. 101.) The test revealed that the next point at which the rifleman had a clear view through the telescopic sight of the point where the bullet entered the President's back was when the car emerged from behind the tree at frame 210.279 (See Commission Exhibit No. 893, p. 102.) According to FBI Agent Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, "There is no obstruction from the sixth floor window from the time they leave the tree until they disappear down toward the triple overpass."
As the President rode along Elm Street for a distance of about 140 feet, he was waving to the crowd.281 Shaneyfelt testified that the waving is seen on the Zapruder movie until around frame 205, when road sign blocked out most of the President's body from Zapruder's view through the lens of his camera. However, the assassin continued to have a clear view of the President as he proceeded down Elm.282 When President Kennedy again came fully into view in the Zapruder film at frame 225, he seemed to be reacting to his neck wound by raising his hands to his throat.283 (See Commission Exhibit No. 895, p. 103.) According to Shaneyfelt the reaction was "clearly apparent in 226 and barely apparent in 225."284 It is probable that the President was not shot. before frame 210, since it is unlikely that the assassin would deliberately have shot at him with a view obstructed by the oak tree when he was about to have a clear opportunity. It is
[quote off]
Notice that the title of the section is "The First Bullet that Hit". It does not say
"The First Bullet that Was Fired", which seems to be how Gil has
misinterpreted the title of the section. The truth is that the WC came to no
conclusion as to whether the first bullet that hit was Oswald's first or second
shot. The WC concluded it was unlikely this shot, whether the first or second
shot fired, would have been fired before Z210 since that is the earliest Oswald
would have had a clear line of sight. I'm not sure where Gil figure this could
have been fired at Z207 at the earliest. It further states that JFK seemed to
be reacting to the shot at frame Z225 which would require the bullet to have
struck before that frame. That is the range of frames the WC gave for the
shot that first struck JFK to have been fired.
This is where I have a slight disagreement with the WC. Given the advantage
of modern tools which allow enhancing of the frames, we can see that JFK
did not start reacting to his wound until Z226. Up until Z225, his arm was
moving downward. It moves up dramatically at Z226, the very same frame
Connally's right arm began flipping upward. The WC can be forgiven for this
slight error given that if you watch the unenhanced film at normal speed, it
does indeed look like JFK was reacting when he reappeared at Z225, but a
closer look tells us otherwise.
Note also that the WC observed that the limo did not go under the tree until
frame Z166. That means that Oswald would have had a clear line of fire up
until that frame. They did not conclude that Oswald took a shot prior to Z166,
but they did conclude it was a possibility. I think we can safely say now, that
is what happened. There is no definitive evidence as to exactly when that
shot was fired, but we can see Connally react to it at Z164.
Of course Gil will try to dismiss these simultaneous arm movements by JFK
and JBC as nothing more than a coincidence without offering any plausible
reason for JBC to suddenly flip his arm upward. He will also dismiss it as a
coincidence that JBC's coat bulged outward just two frames earlier. These
are all inconvenient truths to Gil and the legions of conspiracy hobbyists over
the years. They have no explanation for them so they simply choose to
ignore them.
begins at the bottom of page 97 and continues to the bottom of page 98.
[quote on]
The First Bullet that Hit
The position of President Kennedy's car when he was struck in the neck was determined with substantial precision from the films and
Page 98
onsite tests. The pictures or frames in the Zapruder film were marked by the agents, with the number "1" given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street.273 The numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came around the corner and proceeded down Elm. The President was in clear view of the assassin as he rode up Houston Street and for 100 feet as he proceeded down Elm Street, until he came to a point denoted as frame 166 on the Zapruder film.274 These facts were determined in the test by placing the car and men on Elm Street in the exact spot where they were when each frame of the Zapruder film was photographed. To pinpoint their locations, a man stood at Zapruder's position and directed the automobile and both models to the positions shown on each frame, after which a Bureau photographer crouched at the sixth-floor window and looked through a camera whose lens recorded the view through the telescopic sight of the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.275 (See Commission Exhibit No. 887, p. 99.) Each position was measured to determine how far President Kennedy had gone down Elm from a point, which was designated as station C, on a line drawn along the west curbline of Houston Street.276
Based on these calculations, the agents concluded that at frame 166 of the Zapruder film the President passed beneath the foliage of the large oak tree and the point of impact on the President's back disappeared from the gunman's view as seen through the telescopic lens.277 (See Commission Exhibit No. 889, p. 100.) For a fleeting instant, the President came back into view in the telescopic lens at frame 186 as he appeared in an opening among the leaves.278 (See Commission Exhibit No. 891, p. 101.) The test revealed that the next point at which the rifleman had a clear view through the telescopic sight of the point where the bullet entered the President's back was when the car emerged from behind the tree at frame 210.279 (See Commission Exhibit No. 893, p. 102.) According to FBI Agent Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, "There is no obstruction from the sixth floor window from the time they leave the tree until they disappear down toward the triple overpass."
As the President rode along Elm Street for a distance of about 140 feet, he was waving to the crowd.281 Shaneyfelt testified that the waving is seen on the Zapruder movie until around frame 205, when road sign blocked out most of the President's body from Zapruder's view through the lens of his camera. However, the assassin continued to have a clear view of the President as he proceeded down Elm.282 When President Kennedy again came fully into view in the Zapruder film at frame 225, he seemed to be reacting to his neck wound by raising his hands to his throat.283 (See Commission Exhibit No. 895, p. 103.) According to Shaneyfelt the reaction was "clearly apparent in 226 and barely apparent in 225."284 It is probable that the President was not shot. before frame 210, since it is unlikely that the assassin would deliberately have shot at him with a view obstructed by the oak tree when he was about to have a clear opportunity. It is
[quote off]
Notice that the title of the section is "The First Bullet that Hit". It does not say
"The First Bullet that Was Fired", which seems to be how Gil has
misinterpreted the title of the section. The truth is that the WC came to no
conclusion as to whether the first bullet that hit was Oswald's first or second
shot. The WC concluded it was unlikely this shot, whether the first or second
shot fired, would have been fired before Z210 since that is the earliest Oswald
would have had a clear line of sight. I'm not sure where Gil figure this could
have been fired at Z207 at the earliest. It further states that JFK seemed to
be reacting to the shot at frame Z225 which would require the bullet to have
struck before that frame. That is the range of frames the WC gave for the
shot that first struck JFK to have been fired.
This is where I have a slight disagreement with the WC. Given the advantage
of modern tools which allow enhancing of the frames, we can see that JFK
did not start reacting to his wound until Z226. Up until Z225, his arm was
moving downward. It moves up dramatically at Z226, the very same frame
Connally's right arm began flipping upward. The WC can be forgiven for this
slight error given that if you watch the unenhanced film at normal speed, it
does indeed look like JFK was reacting when he reappeared at Z225, but a
closer look tells us otherwise.
Note also that the WC observed that the limo did not go under the tree until
frame Z166. That means that Oswald would have had a clear line of fire up
until that frame. They did not conclude that Oswald took a shot prior to Z166,
but they did conclude it was a possibility. I think we can safely say now, that
is what happened. There is no definitive evidence as to exactly when that
shot was fired, but we can see Connally react to it at Z164.
Of course Gil will try to dismiss these simultaneous arm movements by JFK
and JBC as nothing more than a coincidence without offering any plausible
reason for JBC to suddenly flip his arm upward. He will also dismiss it as a
coincidence that JBC's coat bulged outward just two frames earlier. These
are all inconvenient truths to Gil and the legions of conspiracy hobbyists over
the years. They have no explanation for them so they simply choose to
ignore them.
Message has been deleted
Gil Jesus
Sep 12, 2023, 5:59:31 PM9/12/23
to
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:11:50 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< a pile of Warren Report bullshit deleted >
So Corbett has the first shot at Z166 ( missed )
The FBI never said that.
The Secret Service never said that.
The Warren Commission never said that.
The House Select Committee never said that.
No witness ever said that.
But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
Second shot hitting both men at Z224
The FBI never said that.
The Secret Service never said that.
The Warren Commission never said that.
The House Select Committee never said that.
No witness ever said that.
But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
Third shot hitting JFK in the head at Z 313.
That we all know is true.
Corbett's entire shooting sequence 8.033 seconds. ( 313-166=147, 147 frames divided by 18.3 )
The FBI never said that.
The Secret Service never said that.
The Warren Commission never said that.
The House Select Committee never said that.
No witness ever said that.
But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
Your willing to accept as fact any "possibility" brought to your attention.
Where's your corroboration ?
You don't have any evidence to support your theory.
Talk about factually challenged.
ROFLMAO
< a pile of Warren Report bullshit deleted >
So Corbett has the first shot at Z166 ( missed )
The FBI never said that.
The Secret Service never said that.
The Warren Commission never said that.
The House Select Committee never said that.
No witness ever said that.
But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
Second shot hitting both men at Z224
The FBI never said that.
The Secret Service never said that.
The Warren Commission never said that.
The House Select Committee never said that.
No witness ever said that.
But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
Third shot hitting JFK in the head at Z 313.
That we all know is true.
Corbett's entire shooting sequence 8.033 seconds. ( 313-166=147, 147 frames divided by 18.3 )
The FBI never said that.
The Secret Service never said that.
The Warren Commission never said that.
The House Select Committee never said that.
No witness ever said that.
But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
Your willing to accept as fact any "possibility" brought to your attention.
Where's your corroboration ?
You don't have any evidence to support your theory.
Talk about factually challenged.
ROFLMAO
Ben Holmes
Sep 12, 2023, 6:26:52 PM9/12/23
to
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 14:11:48 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The following quote is from Chapter 3 of the Warren Commission Report. It
>begins at the bottom of page 97 and continues to the bottom of page 98.
>
>[quote on]
>The First Bullet that Hit
>
>The position of President Kennedy's car when he was struck in the neck was determined with substantial precision from the films and
>
>Page 98
>
>onsite tests. The pictures or frames in the Zapruder film were marked by the agents, with the number "1" given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street.273 The numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came around the corner and proceeded down Elm. The President was in clear view of the assassin as he rode up Houston Street and for 100 feet as he proceeded down Elm Street, until he came to a point denoted as frame 166 on the Zapruder film.274 These facts were determined in the test by placing the car and men on Elm Street in the exact spot where they were when each frame of the Zapruder film was photographed. To pinpoint their locations, a man stood at Zapruder's position and directed the automobile and both models to the positions shown on each frame, after which a Bureau photographer crouched at the sixth-floor window and looked through a camera whose lens recorded the view through the
>telescopic sight of the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.275 (See Commission Exhibit No. 887, p. 99.) Each position was measured to determine how far President Kennedy had gone down Elm from a point, which was designated as station C, on a line drawn along the west curbline of Houston Street.276
>
>Based on these calculations, the agents concluded that at frame 166 of the Zapruder film the President passed beneath the foliage of the large oak tree and the point of impact on the President's back disappeared from the gunman's view as seen through the telescopic lens.277 (See Commission Exhibit No. 889, p. 100.) For a fleeting instant, the President came back into view in the telescopic lens at frame 186 as he appeared in an opening among the leaves.278 (See Commission Exhibit No. 891, p. 101.) The test revealed that the next point at which the rifleman had a clear view through the telescopic sight of the point where the bullet entered the President's back was when the car emerged from behind the tree at frame 210.279 (See Commission Exhibit No. 893, p. 102.) According to FBI Agent Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, "There is no obstruction from the sixth floor window from the time they leave the tree until they disappear down toward the triple overpass."
>
>As the President rode along Elm Street for a distance of about 140 feet, he was waving to the crowd.281 Shaneyfelt testified that the waving is seen on the Zapruder movie until around frame 205, when road sign blocked out most of the President's body from Zapruder's view through the lens of his camera. However, the assassin continued to have a clear view of the President as he proceeded down Elm.282 When President Kennedy again came fully into view in the Zapruder film at frame 225, he seemed to be reacting to his neck wound by raising his hands to his throat.283 (See Commission Exhibit No. 895, p. 103.) According to Shaneyfelt the reaction was "clearly apparent in 226 and barely apparent in 225."284 It is probable that the President was not shot. before frame 210, since it is unlikely that the assassin would deliberately have shot at him with a view obstructed by the oak tree when he was about to have a clear opportunity. It is
>[quote off]
>
>Notice that the title of the section is "The First Bullet that Hit". It does not say
>"The First Bullet that Was Fired", which seems to be ...
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The following quote is from Chapter 3 of the Warren Commission Report. It
>begins at the bottom of page 97 and continues to the bottom of page 98.
>
>[quote on]
>The First Bullet that Hit
>
>The position of President Kennedy's car when he was struck in the neck was determined with substantial precision from the films and
>
>Page 98
>
>onsite tests. The pictures or frames in the Zapruder film were marked by the agents, with the number "1" given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street.273 The numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came around the corner and proceeded down Elm. The President was in clear view of the assassin as he rode up Houston Street and for 100 feet as he proceeded down Elm Street, until he came to a point denoted as frame 166 on the Zapruder film.274 These facts were determined in the test by placing the car and men on Elm Street in the exact spot where they were when each frame of the Zapruder film was photographed. To pinpoint their locations, a man stood at Zapruder's position and directed the automobile and both models to the positions shown on each frame, after which a Bureau photographer crouched at the sixth-floor window and looked through a camera whose lens recorded the view through the
>telescopic sight of the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.275 (See Commission Exhibit No. 887, p. 99.) Each position was measured to determine how far President Kennedy had gone down Elm from a point, which was designated as station C, on a line drawn along the west curbline of Houston Street.276
>
>Based on these calculations, the agents concluded that at frame 166 of the Zapruder film the President passed beneath the foliage of the large oak tree and the point of impact on the President's back disappeared from the gunman's view as seen through the telescopic lens.277 (See Commission Exhibit No. 889, p. 100.) For a fleeting instant, the President came back into view in the telescopic lens at frame 186 as he appeared in an opening among the leaves.278 (See Commission Exhibit No. 891, p. 101.) The test revealed that the next point at which the rifleman had a clear view through the telescopic sight of the point where the bullet entered the President's back was when the car emerged from behind the tree at frame 210.279 (See Commission Exhibit No. 893, p. 102.) According to FBI Agent Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, "There is no obstruction from the sixth floor window from the time they leave the tree until they disappear down toward the triple overpass."
>
>As the President rode along Elm Street for a distance of about 140 feet, he was waving to the crowd.281 Shaneyfelt testified that the waving is seen on the Zapruder movie until around frame 205, when road sign blocked out most of the President's body from Zapruder's view through the lens of his camera. However, the assassin continued to have a clear view of the President as he proceeded down Elm.282 When President Kennedy again came fully into view in the Zapruder film at frame 225, he seemed to be reacting to his neck wound by raising his hands to his throat.283 (See Commission Exhibit No. 895, p. 103.) According to Shaneyfelt the reaction was "clearly apparent in 226 and barely apparent in 225."284 It is probable that the President was not shot. before frame 210, since it is unlikely that the assassin would deliberately have shot at him with a view obstructed by the oak tree when he was about to have a clear opportunity. It is
>[quote off]
>
>Notice that the title of the section is "The First Bullet that Hit". It does not say
Quote Gil.
Or stop molesting your own mother...
Ben Holmes
Sep 12, 2023, 6:27:34 PM9/12/23
to
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 14:55:56 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:11:50?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
>> Note also that the WC observed that the limo did not go under the tree until
>> frame Z166. That means that Oswald would have had a clear line of fire up
>> until that frame. They did not conclude that Oswald took a shot prior to Z166,
>> but they did conclude it was a possibility. I think we can safely say now, that
>> is what happened. There is no definitive evidence as to exactly when that
>> shot was fired, but we can see Connally react to it at Z164.
>
>Notice that Corbett has copied and pasted someone else's work without giving that writer credit.
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:11:50?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>
>> Note also that the WC observed that the limo did not go under the tree until
>> frame Z166. That means that Oswald would have had a clear line of fire up
>> until that frame. They did not conclude that Oswald took a shot prior to Z166,
>> but they did conclude it was a possibility. I think we can safely say now, that
>> is what happened. There is no definitive evidence as to exactly when that
>> shot was fired, but we can see Connally react to it at Z164.
>
>
>So Corbett has the first shot at Z166 ( missed )
>The FBI never said that.
>The Secret Service never said that.
>The Warren Commission never said that.
>The House Select Committee never said that.
>No witness ever said that.
>But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>According to who, some writer on the internet you plagarized ?
>So Corbett has the first shot at Z166 ( missed )
>The FBI never said that.
>The Secret Service never said that.
>The Warren Commission never said that.
>The House Select Committee never said that.
>No witness ever said that.
>But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>
>Second shot hitting both men at Z224
>The FBI never said that.
>The Secret Service never said that.
>The Warren Commission never said that.
>The House Select Committee never said that.
>No witness ever said that.
>But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>According to who, some writer on the internet you plagarized ?
>Second shot hitting both men at Z224
>The FBI never said that.
>The Secret Service never said that.
>The Warren Commission never said that.
>The House Select Committee never said that.
>No witness ever said that.
>But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>
>Third shot hitting JFK in the head at Z 313.
>That we all know is true.
>
>Corbett's entire shooting sequence 8.033 seconds. ( 313-166=147, 147 frames divided by 18.3 )
>The FBI never said that.
>The Secret Service never said that.
>The Warren Commission never said that.
>The House Select Committee never said that.
>No witness ever said that.
>But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>According to who, some writer on the internet you plagarized ?
>Third shot hitting JFK in the head at Z 313.
>That we all know is true.
>
>Corbett's entire shooting sequence 8.033 seconds. ( 313-166=147, 147 frames divided by 18.3 )
>The FBI never said that.
>The Secret Service never said that.
>The Warren Commission never said that.
>The House Select Committee never said that.
>No witness ever said that.
>But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>
>Your willing to accept as fact any "possibility" brought to your attention.
>Where's your corroboration ?
>You don't have any evidence to support your theory.
>Talk about factually challenged.
>ROFLMAO
Corbutt got spanked again!!!
>Your willing to accept as fact any "possibility" brought to your attention.
>Where's your corroboration ?
>You don't have any evidence to support your theory.
>Talk about factually challenged.
>ROFLMAO
John Corbett
Sep 12, 2023, 6:48:38 PM9/12/23
to
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:59:31 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:11:50 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> < a pile of Warren Report bullshit deleted >
>
So you deleted the evidence I posted exposing your lies about what the Warren Commission
> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:11:50 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> < a pile of Warren Report bullshit deleted >
>
said.
>
> So Corbett has the first shot at Z166 ( missed )
Corbett never said that. Either you are telling a bald faced lied or your reading comprehension
> So Corbett has the first shot at Z166 ( missed )
sucks. IOW, you are either deliberately lying about what I wrote, or you are just a dumbfuck.
Either seems plausible.
> The FBI never said that.
> The Secret Service never said that.
> The Warren Commission never said that.
> The House Select Committee never said that.
> No witness ever said that.
> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
can safely say that because decades of viewing of the Z-film reveal clues missed by the WC.
>
> Second shot hitting both men at Z224
At or before. You will never find a statement by me in which I said it was AT Z224. I have said
> Second shot hitting both men at Z224
that is the latest it could have struck.
> The FBI never said that.
> The Secret Service never said that.
> The Warren Commission never said that.
sometime between Z210 and Z224.
> The House Select Committee never said that.
> No witness ever said that.
> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
are able to do this because we have better technology and we have had decades to look at the
film as opposed to just months. Just because they didn't figure everything out from the start is
no reason for us to stop analyzing the evidence. Since analyzing doesn't enter into your
methodology, you probably can't understand that.
If find it both ironic and amusing you would chastise me for concluding things the WC, the FBI,
the SS, or the HSCA never did, when none of those entities concluded any of the nutty things you
believe. All of the above concluded Oswald was the assassin and you reject that finding. They
also concluded Oswald killed Tippit. You reject that finding as well.
>
> Third shot hitting JFK in the head at Z 313.
> That we all know is true.
>
> Corbett's entire shooting sequence 8.033 seconds. ( 313-166=147, 147 frames divided by 18.3 )
Strawman. That is not Corbett's sequence. That is a product of your piss poor reading
> Third shot hitting JFK in the head at Z 313.
> That we all know is true.
>
> Corbett's entire shooting sequence 8.033 seconds. ( 313-166=147, 147 frames divided by 18.3 )
comprehension and your inability to reason.
> The FBI never said that.
> The Secret Service never said that.
> The Warren Commission never said that.
> The House Select Committee never said that.
> No witness ever said that.
> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>
> Your willing to accept as fact any "possibility" brought to your attention.
> Where's your corroboration ?
> You don't have any evidence to support your theory.
> Talk about factually challenged.
> ROFLMAO
Gil, you can be forgiven for being such a dumbfuck because you were born that way but lying is
> Your willing to accept as fact any "possibility" brought to your attention.
> Where's your corroboration ?
> You don't have any evidence to support your theory.
> Talk about factually challenged.
> ROFLMAO
a conscious choice you have made to push your false narratives.
Ben Holmes
Sep 12, 2023, 7:07:48 PM9/12/23
to
On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:48:36 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:59:31?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> So Corbett has the first shot at Z166 ( missed )
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> The FBI never said that.
>> The Secret Service never said that.
>> The Warren Commission never said that.
>> The House Select Committee never said that.
>> No witness ever said that.
>
>Corbett never said that.
But you won't quote what you DID say...
>> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>
>You are lying.
Those are quote marks... are you claiming you never said that???
>> Second shot hitting both men at Z224
>
>At or before.
So you agree with Gil... Good to know.
>> The FBI never said that.
>> The Secret Service never said that.
>> The Warren Commission never said that.
>
>The Warren Commission...
Never said that. Yes, we know.
>> The House Select Committee never said that.
>
>The HSCA...
So you agree Gil... Good to know...
>> No witness ever said that.
>
>How is a witness supposed to have known ...
So you agree with Gil... Good to know.
>> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>
>We can ...
We cannot. Nor have you cited otherwise.
>> Third shot hitting JFK in the head at Z 313.
>> That we all know is true.
>>
>> Corbett's entire shooting sequence 8.033 seconds. ( 313-166=147, 147 frames divided by 18.3 )
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> The FBI never said that.
>> The Secret Service never said that.
>> The Warren Commission never said that.
>> The House Select Committee never said that.
>> No witness ever said that.
>> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>
>Corbett never said that. Again, you lie.
Corbutt ADMITTED the truth of that statement:
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
>> Your willing to accept as fact any "possibility" brought to your attention.
>> Where's your corroboration ?
>> You don't have any evidence to support your theory.
>> Talk about factually challenged.
>> ROFLMAO
Logical fallacy deleted.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:59:31?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:11:50?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> < a pile of Warren Report bullshit deleted >
>>
>So you deleted the evidence I posted exposing your lies about what the Warren Commission
>said.
So you refuse to QUOTE Gil, and have the balls to claim he's lying...
>> < a pile of Warren Report bullshit deleted >
>>
>So you deleted the evidence I posted exposing your lies about what the Warren Commission
>said.
>> So Corbett has the first shot at Z166 ( missed )
>> The FBI never said that.
>> The Secret Service never said that.
>> The Warren Commission never said that.
>> The House Select Committee never said that.
>> No witness ever said that.
>
>Corbett never said that.
>> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>
>You are lying.
>> Second shot hitting both men at Z224
>
>At or before.
>> The FBI never said that.
>> The Secret Service never said that.
>> The Warren Commission never said that.
>
Never said that. Yes, we know.
>> The House Select Committee never said that.
>
So you agree Gil... Good to know...
>> No witness ever said that.
>
So you agree with Gil... Good to know.
>> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>
We cannot. Nor have you cited otherwise.
>> Third shot hitting JFK in the head at Z 313.
>> That we all know is true.
>>
>> Corbett's entire shooting sequence 8.033 seconds. ( 313-166=147, 147 frames divided by 18.3 )
>> The FBI never said that.
>> The Secret Service never said that.
>> The Warren Commission never said that.
>> The House Select Committee never said that.
>> No witness ever said that.
>> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>
>Corbett never said that. Again, you lie.
*************************************************************
> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
We can ...
*************************************************************
>> Your willing to accept as fact any "possibility" brought to your attention.
>> Where's your corroboration ?
>> You don't have any evidence to support your theory.
>> Talk about factually challenged.
>> ROFLMAO
Gil Jesus
Sep 13, 2023, 6:07:12 AM9/13/23
to
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:07:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:48:36 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:59:31?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:11:50?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >> < a pile of Warren Report bullshit deleted >
> >>
> >So you deleted the evidence I posted exposing your lies about what the Warren Commission
> >said.
> So you refuse to QUOTE Gil, and have the balls to claim he's lying...
> >> So Corbett has the first shot at Z166 ( missed )
> Logical fallacy deleted.
> >> The FBI never said that.
> >> The Secret Service never said that.
> >> The Warren Commission never said that.
> >> The House Select Committee never said that.
> >> No witness ever said that.
> >
> >Corbett never said that.
> But you won't quote what you DID say...
> >> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
> >
> >You are lying.
> Those are quote marks... are you claiming you never said that???
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:48:36 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:59:31?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:11:50?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> >> < a pile of Warren Report bullshit deleted >
> >>
> >So you deleted the evidence I posted exposing your lies about what the Warren Commission
> >said.
> So you refuse to QUOTE Gil, and have the balls to claim he's lying...
> >> So Corbett has the first shot at Z166 ( missed )
> Logical fallacy deleted.
> >> The FBI never said that.
> >> The Secret Service never said that.
> >> The Warren Commission never said that.
> >> The House Select Committee never said that.
> >> No witness ever said that.
> >
> >Corbett never said that.
> But you won't quote what you DID say...
> >> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
> >
> >You are lying.
> Those are quote marks... are you claiming you never said that???
"They did not conclude that Oswald took a shot prior to Z166, but they did conclude it was a possibility. I think we can safely say now, that
is what happened." ---John Corbett
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JGUUMtQb4RY/m/25vKV3X0BwAJ
I was giving him the benefit of the doubt at Z166 because any shot fired before that would have only extended the shooting sequence LONGER
and been more detrimental and damaging to his argument.
For that he calls me a liar.
LOL
When Corbett and the other LNers in this group don't have any evidence, they always fall back on "possibilites", "reason" and "common sense".
John Corbett
Sep 13, 2023, 2:57:23 PM9/13/23
to
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:07:12 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:07:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:48:36 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> > <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:59:31?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:11:50?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > >> < a pile of Warren Report bullshit deleted >
> > >>
> > >So you deleted the evidence I posted exposing your lies about what the Warren Commission
> > >said.
> > So you refuse to QUOTE Gil, and have the balls to claim he's lying...
> > >> So Corbett has the first shot at Z166 ( missed )
> > Logical fallacy deleted.
> > >> The FBI never said that.
> > >> The Secret Service never said that.
> > >> The Warren Commission never said that.
> > >> The House Select Committee never said that.
> > >> No witness ever said that.
> > >
> > >Corbett never said that.
> > But you won't quote what you DID say...
> > >> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
> > >
> > >You are lying.
> > Those are quote marks... are you claiming you never said that???
Being the lying motherfucker that you are, you took the phrase completely out of context and
> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:07:48 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:48:36 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> > <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:59:31?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:11:50?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > >> < a pile of Warren Report bullshit deleted >
> > >>
> > >So you deleted the evidence I posted exposing your lies about what the Warren Commission
> > >said.
> > So you refuse to QUOTE Gil, and have the balls to claim he's lying...
> > >> So Corbett has the first shot at Z166 ( missed )
> > Logical fallacy deleted.
> > >> The FBI never said that.
> > >> The Secret Service never said that.
> > >> The Warren Commission never said that.
> > >> The House Select Committee never said that.
> > >> No witness ever said that.
> > >
> > >Corbett never said that.
> > But you won't quote what you DID say...
> > >> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
> > >
> > >You are lying.
> > Those are quote marks... are you claiming you never said that???
claimed I said something that I did not. I just wrote in another thread that conspiracy hobbyists
have long employed the deceitful tactic of taking a word or phrase out of context to change the
meaning of what was said. Contrary to what you claimed, I never wrote that the first shot was
at Z166. I said it was PRIOR to Z166. That is a very significant difference.
If you really had a case to make, it wouldn't be necessary for you to resort to such blatant lies
as this one.
> "They did not conclude that Oswald took a shot prior to Z166, but they did conclude it was a possibility. I think we can safely say now, that
> is what happened." ---John Corbett
then inserting your own lie.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/JGUUMtQb4RY/m/25vKV3X0BwAJ
>
> I was giving him the benefit of the doubt at Z166 because any shot fired before that would have only extended the shooting sequence LONGER
> and been more detrimental and damaging to his argument.
> For that he calls me a liar.
>
> When Corbett and the other LNers in this group don't have any evidence, they always fall back on "possibilites", "reason" and "common sense".
Since you have no common sense and no ability to reason, you are unable to recognize
> When Corbett and the other LNers in this group don't have any evidence, they always fall back on "possibilites", "reason" and "common sense".
possibilities. When we don't have conclusive proof of something, it is logical to recognize there
are multiple possibilities. Only an idiot, like you, would reach conclusions based on inconclusive
evidence.
Ben Holmes
Sep 13, 2023, 4:04:55 PM9/13/23
to
On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:57:21 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:07:12?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
I agree.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:07:12?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:07:48?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:48:36 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:59:31?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:11:50?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>>> < a pile of Warren Report bullshit deleted >
>>>>>
>>>>So you deleted the evidence I posted exposing your lies about what the Warren Commission
>>>>said.
>>> So you refuse to QUOTE Gil, and have the balls to claim he's lying...
>>>>> So Corbett has the first shot at Z166 ( missed )
>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>>> The FBI never said that.
>>>>> The Secret Service never said that.
>>>>> The Warren Commission never said that.
>>>>> The House Select Committee never said that.
>>>>> No witness ever said that.
>>>>
>>>>Corbett never said that.
>>> But you won't quote what you DID say...
>>>>> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>>>>
>>>>You are lying.
>>> Those are quote marks... are you claiming you never said that???
>
>Being the lying motherfucker that I am...
>>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:48:36 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>>> <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:59:31?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 5:11:50?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>>>> < a pile of Warren Report bullshit deleted >
>>>>>
>>>>So you deleted the evidence I posted exposing your lies about what the Warren Commission
>>>>said.
>>> So you refuse to QUOTE Gil, and have the balls to claim he's lying...
>>>>> So Corbett has the first shot at Z166 ( missed )
>>> Logical fallacy deleted.
>>>>> The FBI never said that.
>>>>> The Secret Service never said that.
>>>>> The Warren Commission never said that.
>>>>> The House Select Committee never said that.
>>>>> No witness ever said that.
>>>>
>>>>Corbett never said that.
>>> But you won't quote what you DID say...
>>>>> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>>>>
>>>>You are lying.
>>> Those are quote marks... are you claiming you never said that???
>
I agree.
Gil Jesus
Sep 14, 2023, 4:30:20 AM9/14/23
to
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out
and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that
doesn't work ) insults.
John Corbett
Sep 14, 2023, 6:08:19 AM9/14/23
to
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 4:30:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 4:04:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:57:21 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> > <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:07:12?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:07:48?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >>>>> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
> > >>>>
> > >>>>You are lying.
> > >>> Those are quote marks... are you claiming you never said that???
> > >
> > >Being the lying motherfucker that I am...
> >
> > I agree.
> The only "factually challenged" posters here are the ones who don't post facts.
>
> No citations
I posted an entire page from the WC verbatim. Once again Gil lies his ass off.
> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 4:04:55 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:57:21 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
> > <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:07:12?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:07:48?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > >>>>> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
> > >>>>
> > >>>>You are lying.
> > >>> Those are quote marks... are you claiming you never said that???
> > >
> > >Being the lying motherfucker that I am...
> >
> > I agree.
> The only "factually challenged" posters here are the ones who don't post facts.
>
> No citations
> No documents
> No testimony
> No exhibits
> No witness videos
distort the facts. As for witness videos, the one you post produced by Mark Lane have zero
evidentiary value since none were taken under oath. Using your standard of what would be
admissible in court, we can easily dismiss those silly videos.
>
> They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out
> and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
The conclusions of the WCR have stood the test of time despite that attacks of the snipe
> They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out
> and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
hunters such as yourself.
>
> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
You've had almost 60 years and you still haven't figured this thing out. That's not our fault.
> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
>
> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that
> doesn't work ) insults.
Speculations is all the conspiracy hobbyists have in their tool box. They have no evidence.
> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that
> doesn't work ) insults.
Every time I've asked you to post some, you've refused. Invariably you counter with your
attacks on the WC, none of which are evidence that anyone other than Oswald took part in
the crime.
Ben Holmes
Sep 14, 2023, 10:13:48 AM9/14/23
to
On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 03:08:17 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 4:30:20?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> No documents
>> No testimony
>> No exhibits
>> No witness videos
>
>None of the above was necessary ...
Says who?
Looks like another lie to me...
>> They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out
>> and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
>
>The conclusions of the WCR have stood the test of time...
It's **NEVER** been largely accepted...
>> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that
>> doesn't work ) insults.
Logical fallacy deleted.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 4:30:20?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 4:04:55?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:57:21 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> > <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:07:12?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> > >> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:07:48?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > >>>>> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>You are lying.
>> > >>> Those are quote marks... are you claiming you never said that???
>> > >
>> > >Being the lying motherfucker that I am...
>> >
>> > I agree.
>> The only "factually challenged" posters here are the ones who don't post facts.
>>
>> No citations
>
>I posted an entire page from the WC verbatim. Once again Gil lies his ass off.
That would be a "quote."
>> > On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:57:21 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
>> > <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 6:07:12?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> > >> On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:07:48?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > >>>>> But Corbett says that "we can safely say now that is what happened".
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>You are lying.
>> > >>> Those are quote marks... are you claiming you never said that???
>> > >
>> > >Being the lying motherfucker that I am...
>> >
>> > I agree.
>> The only "factually challenged" posters here are the ones who don't post facts.
>>
>> No citations
>
>I posted an entire page from the WC verbatim. Once again Gil lies his ass off.
>> No documents
>> No testimony
>> No exhibits
>> No witness videos
>
Says who?
Looks like another lie to me...
>> They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out
>> and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
>
It's **NEVER** been largely accepted...
>> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
>> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that
>> doesn't work ) insults.
0 new messages