Gil Jesus`s Crackpot Assumptions

[Bud]

Recently Gil wrote this...

"Corbett doesn't realize that Connally's lung had collapsed and would have puffed out his cheeks as it forced air from his lungs. This was an involuntary reaction Connally would have had no control over. His cheeks don't puff out until Z-238."

He acts like is is speaking with authority, but he is really just talking out his ass. He is making the groundless assumption that a lung would collapse immediately, like a balloon or the piñatas of his home country. He further makes the groundless assumption that the face Connally is making is the result of air being pushed out of his lungs, and not from the pain.

I found these offerings on Q&A boards, people can take them for whatever they think they are worth (but to me they seem to make more sense than Gil`s baseless assumptions)...

"Well, first of all the lung is punctured, meaning that it is a very damn serious trauma that inflicts a lot of pain. Secondly, the chamber, where the lung sits, is also punctured, meaning that the lungs lose the ability to pump air and slowly collapse, so no matter how hard the victim breathes, it will still suffocate. And the last thing - the lungs are slowly filled with bodily liquids and thus cannot function properly."
https://www.reddit.com/r/writingadvice/comments/lq4tm0/chances_of_survival_from_getting_shot_in_the_lung/

"An isolated lung injury from a gun shot wound would likely result in a tension pneumothorax 7 in which air leaks out of the lung with each breath building up pressure in the chest cavity and collapsing the lung. Given enough pressure the lung will collapse completely and you’ll be oxygenating out of one side only. Sometimes even more pressure builds up and actually can begin to push the heart and trachea over to the other side as well as making it difficult for blood to return to the heart (due to pressure differential). The combination of low oxygen and low BP can be deadly if not corrected quickly."

https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-it-feel-like-to-die-from-a-gunshot-to-the-lung/702407/2

Medical sources back up that it is a buildup, not an immediate collapse...
https://myhealth.alberta.ca/Health/aftercareinformation/pages/conditions.aspx?hwid=uh3682

https://www.pennmedicine.org/for-patients-and-visitors/patient-information/conditions-treated-a-to-z/collapsed-lung-pneumothorax

[John Corbett]

Citing actual medical websites seems a lot more compelling than Gil's unsourced claims. It
seems to be a common practice among CTs to substitute their laymen's opinions over those
of people who actually have expertise in a particular field.

As long was we are throwing laymen's opinions around, here is mine. I don't see how a
perforating bullet is going to force air out of the lung and into Connally's cheeks. That
would require a squeezing of the lungs, not a bullet passing through a lung.

[Bud]

It is retard figuring borne of desperation.

> As long was we are throwing laymen's opinions around, here is mine. I don't see how a
> perforating bullet is going to force air out of the lung and into Connally's cheeks. That
> would require a squeezing of the lungs, not a bullet passing through a lung.

Every time you take a breathe there is pressure in the lungs. When you exhale there is little or no pressure in the lungs. So when you breathe in a small amount of that pressured air goes into the bullet hole, and is now outside of the lung. Every breath the pressure outside the lung gets greater (kind of how a garden sprayer works). Eventually the pressure outside the lung is greater than inside the lung and the lung collapses.

[John Corbett]

It seems to me the air would be forced out of the two bullet holes as the lung collapsed, not
forced into Connally's cheeks. In any event, the puffing of Connally's cheeks happened within
one second of the bullet strike so I doubt the collapsing of the lung had anything to do with it.

[Steven Galbraith]

That seems to me what would have happened. The lung wasn't pressed or squeezed like a balloon until it collapsed with the air rushing out of the top/mouth. The lung collapsed *after* it was perforated or cut/torn open by the bullet and by fragments of the rib. Any air would have escaped through that hole/cut into the chest cavity and not expelled through the mouth. Wouldn't that be the process? Or does a lung react differently? I wouldn't think so.

Here is Shaw's description of the damaged lung: "Inspection of the lung revealed that the middle lobe had a long tear which separated the lobe into approximately two equal segments. This tear extended up into the hilum of the lobe...
And: "Upon repair of the lobe it expanded well upon pressure on the anesthetic bag with very little in the way of peripheral leak. Attention was next turned to the lower lobe. There was a large hematoma in the anterior basal segment of the right lower lobe extending on into the median basal segment. At one point there was a laceration in the surface of the lobe approximating a centimeter in length, undoubtedly caused by one of the penetrating rib fragments. A single mattress suture No. 3 O chromic gut of an atromitac needle was used to close this laceration from which blood was oozing."
So the tear in the lungs caused it to collapse with the air escaping through those tears/holes. A tear wouldn't cause the air to rush up through the mouth. Once the repair of the lobe was done the lung then expanded back.
Shaw's testimony: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/shaw2.htm.

[Bud]

My thinking is that the lung is more akin to one of those old hot water bottles than a balloon. You could fill them with water and stab it, and it wouldn`t necessarily lose water unless you squeezed it, creating the necessary pressure to force the water out. Breathing creates pressure in the lungs, although this source seems to say that it is the opposite of what I thought, and the pressure is greater when you exhale.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ap2/chapter/the-process-of-breathing-no-content/

It is the breathing that forces air through the bullet wounds into the area surrounding the lungs. As I understand it, this is what causes the lungs to collapse, too much pressure around the outside of the lungs.

[Steven Galbraith]

Yeah, a hot water bottle or partially deflated/inflated balloon is a better analogy than a full balloon. So the lung collapsed *not* when it was perforated with the air being expelled but from the outside pressure on a perforated lung. Shaw said the lung expanded after the hole was repaired/sewn up and the pressure on the anesthetic bag forcing air into it. This is why these people spend decades of their lives studying these matters. And decades more after becoming doctors.

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:30:30 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

> Recently Gil wrote this...
>
> "Corbett doesn't realize that Connally's lung had collapsed and would have puffed out his cheeks as it forced air from his lungs. This was an involuntary reaction Connally would have had no control over. His cheeks don't puff out until Z-238."
>
> He acts like is is speaking with authority, but he is really just talking out his ass. He is making the groundless assumption that a lung would collapse immediately, like a balloon or the piñatas of his home country. He further makes the groundless assumption that the face Connally is making is the result of air being pushed out of his lungs, and not from the pain.
>
> I found these offerings on Q&A boards, people can take them for whatever they think they are worth (but to me they seem to make more sense than Gil`s baseless assumptions)...

You can always pick out the Lone Nutters because they all line up to put their two cents in when it comes to insults.

Bud goes to Q&A boards for medical advice.
Brilliant.

But Dr. Charles Gregory told Josiah Thompson that a necessary consequence of a shot through Connally's chest would be a compression of the chest wall and an INVOLUNTARY opening of the epiglottis, followed by escaping air forcing open his mouth. The puffing of the cheeks is the same result one would get from air being forced from the lungs by a violent cough.

My "assumption" wasn't "baseless", it was based on the opinion of a medical doctor, that is, a medical expert.
Not on some clowns on an internet Q&A board.

And while we're on the subject of "baseless assumptions", let's talk about a couple of yours.

You claimed the gunsack was 41 inches although there is absolutely no evidence of that.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/33a9MbNPYEg
That's a lie.

You claimed it was possible to touch things and not leave fingerprints.
That's a lie.
https://www.scienceworld.ca/resource/finding-fingerprints/#:~:text=In%20this%20activity%2C%20students%20learn,patterns%2C%20on%20everything%20we%20touch

That's just a couple of recent ones. I'm sure if I went back in the archives I could find plenty more.

With the exception of Corbett, no one make more baseless assumptions than Bud.

[Bud]

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:59:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:30:30 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > Recently Gil wrote this...
> >
> > "Corbett doesn't realize that Connally's lung had collapsed and would have puffed out his cheeks as it forced air from his lungs. This was an involuntary reaction Connally would have had no control over. His cheeks don't puff out until Z-238."
> >
> > He acts like is is speaking with authority, but he is really just talking out his ass. He is making the groundless assumption that a lung would collapse immediately, like a balloon or the piñatas of his home country. He further makes the groundless assumption that the face Connally is making is the result of air being pushed out of his lungs, and not from the pain.
> >
> > I found these offerings on Q&A boards, people can take them for whatever they think they are worth (but to me they seem to make more sense than Gil`s baseless assumptions)...
> You can always pick out the Lone Nutters because they all line up to put their two cents in when it comes to insults.
>
> Bud goes to Q&A boards for medical advice.
> Brilliant.
>
> But Dr. Charles Gregory told Josiah Thompson that a necessary consequence of a shot through Connally's chest would be a compression of the chest wall and an INVOLUNTARY opening of the epiglottis, followed by escaping air forcing open his mouth. The puffing of the cheeks is the same result one would get from air being forced from the lungs by a violent cough.

Caught in a lie, you merely change the concept. You said "...Connally's lung had collapsed and would have puffed out his cheeks as it forced air from his lungs.". Now that it is shown that the collapsing of the lung would be slow, you change the concept.

If Dr. Charles Gregory has knowledge on this subject, he must have gotten this knowledge from a book (unless he actually shot someone while a camera was in place filming the epiglottis). Show where he got this expertise about this phenomenon from.

I have watched hundreds of videos of people being shot in the chest and don`t recall ever seeing this phenomenon you claim must occur.

> My "assumption" wasn't "baseless", it was based on the opinion of a medical doctor, that is, a medical expert.
> Not on some clowns on an internet Q&A board.

I cited two medical sources also, stupid.

> And while we're on the subject of "baseless assumptions", let's talk about a couple of yours.
>
> You claimed the gunsack was 41 inches although there is absolutely no evidence of that.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/33a9MbNPYEg
> That's a lie.

You ran like a coward where I made the argument but you keep bringing it up. What are you trying to prove, that you are a coward?

> You claimed it was possible to touch things and not leave fingerprints.
> That's a lie.

You ran like a coward where I made the argument, but you keep bringing it up. What are you trying to prove, that you are a coward?

> https://www.scienceworld.ca/resource/finding-fingerprints/#:~:text=In%20this%20activity%2C%20students%20learn,patterns%2C%20on%20everything%20we%20touch
>
> That's just a couple of recent ones. I'm sure if I went back in the archives I could find plenty more.
>
> With the exception of Corbett, no one make more baseless assumptions than Bud.

The difference being I can show yours.

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:59:58 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:30:30 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > Recently Gil wrote this...
> >
> > "Corbett doesn't realize that Connally's lung had collapsed and would have puffed out his cheeks as it forced air from his lungs. This was an involuntary reaction Connally would have had no control over. His cheeks don't puff out until Z-238."
> >
> > He acts like is is speaking with authority, but he is really just talking out his ass. He is making the groundless assumption that a lung would collapse immediately, like a balloon or the piñatas of his home country. He further makes the groundless assumption that the face Connally is making is the result of air being pushed out of his lungs, and not from the pain.
> >
> > I found these offerings on Q&A boards, people can take them for whatever they think they are worth (but to me they seem to make more sense than Gil`s baseless assumptions)...
> You can always pick out the Lone Nutters because they all line up to put their two cents in when it comes to insults.
>
> Bud goes to Q&A boards for medical advice.
> Brilliant.
>
> But Dr. Charles Gregory told Josiah Thompson that a necessary consequence of a shot through Connally's chest would be a compression of the chest wall and an INVOLUNTARY opening of the epiglottis, followed by escaping air forcing open his mouth. The puffing of the cheeks is the same result one would get from air being forced from the lungs by a violent cough.
>

Does Dr. Gregory say what the time lag will be between the bullet strike and the puffing of the
cheeks? The puffing of Connally's cheeks occurs after he has already started twisting and dipping
to his right so we can safely say this doesn't happen instantaneously. Connally's cheeks puffed
within approximately 3/4 of a second of the bullet strike which occurred no later than Z224. His
first visible reaction is his arm flip which began at Z226.

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:14:27 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> Connally's cheeks puffed
> within approximately 3/4 of a second of the bullet strike which occurred no later than Z224. His
> first visible reaction is his arm flip which began at Z226.

The Warren Commission claimed that the first shot could not have been fired until Z-207.
Connally testified that he was not hit by the first shot. He knew this because he heard the shot and had not been hit because the bullet travelled faster than the speed of sound.
Hence he would have felt it before he heard the shot.
Because he heard the shot and had not been hit, he knew he hadn't been hit by the first shot.
So Connally was hit by the second shot.

Sam Holland was standing on the overpass looking down into the car and corroborated Connally's account.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI

Now explain how there could have been two shots fired from the C 2766 rifle in the 17 Z-frames ( 0.928 seconds ) between when the Commission claimed the EARLIEST first shot was fired ( Z-207 )
and your single bullet striking both victims at Z-224.

[Bud]

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:14:27 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

It is nonsense. What medical utility does this have that they would teach it to doctors in medical school, why would they fill their heads up with trivia like this? "Hey, when this patient was shot 10 minutes ago his cheeks puffed out"?

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:17:07 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> What medical utility does this have that they would teach it to doctors in medical school, why would they fill their heads up with trivia like this?

You seem to know about what medical schools teach.
What medical school did you go to ?

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:11:09 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:14:27 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Connally's cheeks puffed
> > within approximately 3/4 of a second of the bullet strike which occurred no later than Z224. His
> > first visible reaction is his arm flip which began at Z226.
> The Warren Commission claimed that the first shot could not have been fired until Z-207.

Do you think this means they said the bullet was fired at Z207. If you do, your reading
comprehension is very, very bad.

> Connally testified that he was not hit by the first shot. He knew this because he heard the shot and had not been hit because the bullet travelled faster than the speed of sound.

Connally is correct. The first bullet missed both men.

> Hence he would have felt it before he heard the shot.

> Because he heard the shot and had not been hit, he knew he hadn't been hit by the first shot.
> So Connally was hit by the second shot.

Which supports the single bullet theory since JFK was not hit by the first shot either.

>
> Sam Holland was standing on the overpass looking down into the car and corroborated Connally's account.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI

That puts same Holland in a very poor vantage point to tell when either man was hit because he
was a long way away and had Kellerman seated between himself and the two shooting victims.

>
> Now explain how there could have been two shots fired from the C 2766 rifle in the 17 Z-frames ( 0.928 seconds ) between when the Commission claimed the EARLIEST first shot was fired ( Z-207 )

No they didn't you dumbass. They said that was the earliest it COULD HAVE been fired. Could
have does not mean it was fired at Z207. No wonder you can't figure this thing out. You're too
fucking stupid.

> and your single bullet striking both victims at Z-224.

How did you possibly conclude a bullet was fired at Z207. And to think you called me stupid.

[John Corbett]

We could ask you the same question.

[Bud]

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 9:24:07 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:17:07 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > What medical utility does this have that they would teach it to doctors in medical school, why would they fill their heads up with trivia like this?
> You seem to know about what medical schools teach.

I apply reason to information. I know this astounds you that people can do this because you cannot.

Explain why they would need to teach this to doctors. How would it help them treat the damage that bullets inflict?

> What medical school did you go to ?

By all means, show that this is taught in medical school. Show video of people shot in the chest having their cheeks puff out. Show something.

[John Corbett]

I should make a clarification here. The WC did not say the earliest the FIRST shot could have
been fired was at Z207. They said that is the earliest the shot that hit JFK in the back could
have been fired. The never said JFK was hit by the first shot, only that it was possible. Decades
of analysis of the Z-film pretty much eliminates the possibility of a first shot striking either man.
We know this because we see Connally begin to react to the missed shot beginning at Z264, a little more than three seconds before the single bullet struck. JFK was obviously not hit until
he disappeared behind the sign. The bullet struck him almost at the very instant he first
becomes partially visible at Z224. At Z225 he is fully visible but has not started to react to the
bullet that just struck him. That reaction begins at Z226.

[John Corbett]

It's a good way for college students to make a little extra money on the side. They volunteer to
be filmed getting shot so medical students can see how a person reacts.

[Bud]

I don`t see how this is necessary, or even useful information for saving lives. Whether people`s cheeks puff out when shot has no bearing on the treatment of the wounds (which is what doctors do).

The conspiracy hobbyists think that medical people are wound ballistic experts, but they aren`t, it is a completely different field. Olivier, the wound ballistic expert for the Army viewed shootings using high speed cameras because it was relevant to his field. Doctors don`t do this. It is kind of like saying they are experts on automotive crashes because they treat the victims of automotive crashes. It doesn`t follow and it isn`t necessary.

I did a little searching for reactions of people shot in the chest. In many it is unclear where the person is hit, or the face is blurred so they aren`t that useful to this issue.

The following is a fatal shooting...

Mãe PM atira em ladrão na porta de escola em São Paulo

If you freeze it about 0:29 this is around when he is shot, and no cheek puffing. His mouth does open in pain as he is falling.

Backstory is that this is an attempted stick up in Brazil.

[Bud]

Forgot the link...

https://youtu.be/wSdYIbi-lLU?si=SvvlG_4DxayAIXC7

[John Corbett]

Love those videos with a happy ending. Another example of a good guy (or in this case a good
gal) with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun. Don't know if that woman was a cop or just an
armed citizen but she obviously knew what she was doing, both in taking the scum down and
then keeping him under control after he hit the ground.

[Bud]

The story...

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/05/13/watch-off-duty-female-officer-shoots-robber-point-blank-range/

I was looking through the shootings here...

https://www.youtube.com/@PoliceActivity

...looking for videos that shed light on the "cheek puffing" issue, but it seems police have started to block out or blur the faces before releasing the videos.

This one would have been perfect, because it is clear he was shot in the chest, but face details are removed...

https://youtu.be/bEqbdPRoleA?si=yDskTLmu9GG2CF9A

The perp came off the other elevator and stabbed the cop, lucky he had a vest on.

This shooting is stirring up a fuss here in Philly...

https://youtu.be/IwMEAvYbzGk?si=VtaxTrDCAss-ap8d

Naturally I feel the shooting was justified.

I watch these sometimes, each one has it`s own drama. In this one cops fire 80 shots in seven seconds...

https://youtu.be/IlZ5GjaFdu8?si=kDPPtwDo1NUxHwuK

[David Healy]

you have a one time ONLY pass proving you're a dumb fuck, no more options for you, toots....

[David Healy]

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 2:59:58 AM UTC-7, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:30:30 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > Recently Gil wrote this...
> >
> > "Corbett doesn't realize that Connally's lung had collapsed and would have puffed out his cheeks as it forced air from his lungs. This was an involuntary reaction Connally would have had no control over. His cheeks don't puff out until Z-238."
> >
> > He acts like is is speaking with authority, but he is really just talking out his ass. He is making the groundless assumption that a lung would collapse immediately, like a balloon or the piñatas of his home country. He further makes the groundless assumption that the face Connally is making is the result of air being pushed out of his lungs, and not from the pain.
> >
> > I found these offerings on Q&A boards, people can take them for whatever they think they are worth (but to me they seem to make more sense than Gil`s baseless assumptions)...
> You can always pick out the Lone Nutters because they all line up to put their two cents in when it comes to insults.
>
> Bud goes to Q&A boards for medical advice.
> Brilliant.
>
> But Dr. Charles Gregory told Josiah Thompson that a necessary consequence of a shot through Connally's chest would be a compression of the chest wall and an INVOLUNTARY opening of the epiglottis, followed by escaping air forcing open his mouth. The puffing of the cheeks is the same result one would get from air being forced from the lungs by a violent cough.
>
> My "assumption" wasn't "baseless", it was based on the opinion of a medical doctor, that is, a medical expert.
> Not on some clowns on an internet Q&A board.

corbutt has no fear smelling an ass he hasn't smelled in at least 90 minutes, and Dudster fits the bill... these nutter-nutzoids gotta find some explanation for another bullet found in the limo on scene, by an SS agent eyewitness...

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:51:12 PM UTC-4, David Healy wrote:
> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 5:59:59 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

> you have a one time ONLY pass proving you're a dumb fuck, no more options for you, toots....

Are you still around?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 17:30:28 -0700 (PDT), 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 Fri, 8 Sep 2023 18:34:05 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It seems to me the air would be forced out of the two bullet holes as the lung collapsed, not
>forced into Connally's cheeks. In any event, the puffing of Connally's cheeks happened within
>one second of the bullet strike so I doubt the collapsing of the lung had anything to do with it.

Your non-scientific opinon isn't evidence.

Can you cite anything for your wacky beliefs?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 17:59:56 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


Logical fallacy deleted.

>As long was we are throwing laymen's opinions around, here is mine. I don't see how a
>perforating bullet is going to force air out of the lung and into Connally's cheeks. That
>would require a squeezing of the lungs, not a bullet passing through a lung.

It's always good for a laugh to see believers try to give an expert
opinion.
https://www.academia.edu/2087375/Medico-legal_Study_of_Shockwave_Damage_by_High_Velocity_Missiles_in_Firearm_Injuries

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 18:26:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 08:39:03 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>That seems to me ...

Another Dunning Kruger wacko...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 04:06:34 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 06:24:05 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:17:07?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> What medical utility does this have that they would teach it to doctors in medical school, why would they fill their heads up with trivia like this?
>
>You seem to know about what medical schools teach.
>What medical school did you go to ?

Just another example of Dunning Kruger, Gil

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 05:17:04 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 18:10:13 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:51:12?PM UTC-4, David Healy wrote:

>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 5:59:59?PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:
>
>> you have a one time ONLY pass proving you're a dumb fuck, no more options for you, toots....
>
>Are you still around?

This is the stupidity of Corbutt on display.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 09:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 13:14:30 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>> https://youtu.be/wSdYIbi-lLU?si=SvvlG_4DxayAIXC7
>
>Love those videos with a happy ending. Another example of a good guy (or in this case a good
>gal) with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun. Don't know if that woman was a cop or just an
>armed citizen but she obviously knew what she was doing, both in taking the scum down and
>then keeping him under control after he hit the ground.

Sadly, not relevant to anything in this forum.

You're denying the expert opinion Gil posted, and desperately thinking
that people have already forgotten.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 02:59:56 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:30:30?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> Recently Gil wrote this...
>>
>> "Corbett doesn't realize that Connally's lung had collapsed and would have puffed out his cheeks as it forced air from his lungs. This was an involuntary reaction Connally would have had no control over. His cheeks don't puff out until Z-238."
>>
>> He acts like is is speaking with authority, but he is really just talking out his ass. He is making the groundless assumption that a lung would collapse immediately, like a balloon or the piñatas of his home country. He further makes the groundless assumption that the face Connally is making is the result of air being pushed out of his lungs, and not from the pain.
>>
>> I found these offerings on Q&A boards, people can take them for whatever they think they are worth (but to me they seem to make more sense than Gil`s baseless assumptions)...
>
>You can always pick out the Lone Nutters because they all line up to put their two cents in when it comes to insults.
>
>Bud goes to Q&A boards for medical advice.
>Brilliant.
>
> But Dr. Charles Gregory told Josiah Thompson that a necessary
> consequence of a shot through Connally's chest would be a compression
> of the chest wall and an INVOLUNTARY opening of the epiglottis,
> followed by escaping air forcing open his mouth. The puffing of the
> cheeks is the same result one would get from air being forced from the
> lungs by a violent cough.
>
>My "assumption" wasn't "baseless", it was based on the opinion of a medical doctor, that is, a medical expert.
>Not on some clowns on an internet Q&A board.

Watch, as not a SINGLE believer will accept Dr. Gregory's statements.

They pretend that they like expert opinion, but they really don't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 08:06:27 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>It's a good way for college students to make a little extra money on the side. They volunteer to
>be filmed getting shot so medical students can see how a person reacts.

Believers always reach for the magical, as well as the plainly
stupid...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 08:04:13 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:11:34?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:11:09?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Now explain how there could have been two shots fired from the C 2766 rifle in the 17 Z-frames ( 0.928 seconds ) between when the Commission claimed the EARLIEST first shot was fired ( Z-207 )
>> No they didn't you dumbass. They said that was the earliest it COULD HAVE been fired. Could
>> have does not mean it was fired at Z207. No wonder you can't figure this thing out. You're too
>> fucking stupid.
>
>I should make a clarification here. The WC did not say the earliest the FIRST shot could have
>been fired was at Z207. They said that is the earliest the shot that hit JFK in the back could
>have been fired. The never said JFK was hit by the first shot, only that it was possible.

Good! You agree with Gil. Embarrassing, isn't it?

>Decades
>of analysis of the Z-film pretty much eliminates the possibility of a first shot striking either man.

You won't cite for this wacky claim, of course.

>We know this because we see Connally begin to react to the missed shot beginning at Z264, a little more than three seconds before the single bullet struck. JFK was obviously not hit until
>he disappeared behind the sign. The bullet struck him almost at the very instant he first
>becomes partially visible at Z224. At Z225 he is fully visible but has not started to react to the
>bullet that just struck him. That reaction begins at Z226.

More wacky speculation with no citations offered. This demonstrates,
according to Chickenshit, that you're lying.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 07:29:11 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 09:35:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 04:14:25 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 5:59:58?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:30:30?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>> Recently Gil wrote this...
>>>
>>> "Corbett doesn't realize that Connally's lung had collapsed and would have puffed out his cheeks as it forced air from his lungs. This was an involuntary reaction Connally would have had no control over. His cheeks don't puff out until Z-238."
>>>
>>> He acts like is is speaking with authority, but he is really just talking out his ass. He is making the groundless assumption that a lung would collapse immediately, like a balloon or the piñatas of his home country. He further makes the groundless assumption that the face Connally is making is the result of air being pushed out of his lungs, and not from the pain.
>>>
>>> I found these offerings on Q&A boards, people can take them for whatever they think they are worth (but to me they seem to make more sense than Gil`s baseless assumptions)...
>> You can always pick out the Lone Nutters because they all line up to put their two cents in when it comes to insults.
>>
>> Bud goes to Q&A boards for medical advice.
>> Brilliant.
>>
>> But Dr. Charles Gregory told Josiah Thompson that a necessary consequence of a shot through Connally's chest would be a compression of the chest wall and an INVOLUNTARY opening of the epiglottis, followed by escaping air forcing open his mouth. The puffing of the cheeks is the same result one would get from air being forced from the lungs by a violent cough.
>>

>Does Dr. Gregory say what the time lag will be between the bullet strike and the puffing of the
>cheeks? The puffing of Connally's cheeks occurs after he has already started twisting and dipping
>to his right so we can safely say this doesn't happen instantaneously. Connally's cheeks puffed
>within approximately 3/4 of a second of the bullet strike which occurred no later than Z224. His
>first visible reaction is his arm flip which began at Z226.

There you go again, Betting the Question... You clearly believe that
air is compressible by the human lungs. Can you cite for this wacky
belief?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 14:00:35 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 07:11:32 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:11:09?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:14:27?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> Connally's cheeks puffed
>>> within approximately 3/4 of a second of the bullet strike which occurred no later than Z224. His
>>> first visible reaction is his arm flip which began at Z226.

>> The Warren Commission claimed that the first shot could not have been fired until Z-207.
>
>Do you think this means they said the bullet was fired at Z207. If you do, your reading
>comprehension is very, very bad.


You've just PROVEN who's reading comprehension is bad. You just
accused Gil of saying what you cannot support.


>> Connally testified that he was not hit by the first shot. He knew this because he heard the shot and had not been hit because the bullet travelled faster than the speed of sound.
>
>Connally is correct. The first bullet missed both men.


Your speculation isn't evidence.


>> Hence he would have felt it before he heard the shot.
>
>> Because he heard the shot and had not been hit, he knew he hadn't been hit by the first shot.
>> So Connally was hit by the second shot.
>
>Which supports the single bullet theory since JFK was not hit by the first shot either.


Begging the question again...


>> Sam Holland was standing on the overpass looking down into the car and corroborated Connally's account.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI
>
>That puts same Holland in a very poor vantage point to tell when either man was hit because he
>was a long way away and had Kellerman seated between himself and the two shooting victims.


You can't say that of Chaney, now can you?

You lose.

>> Now explain how there could have been two shots fired from the C 2766 rifle in the 17 Z-frames ( 0.928 seconds ) between when the Commission claimed the EARLIEST first shot was fired ( Z-207 )
>
>No they didn't you dumbass. They said that was the earliest it COULD HAVE been fired. Could
>have does not mean it was fired at Z207. No wonder you can't figure this thing out. You're too
>fucking stupid.

When you sink to ad hominem, you merely admit you've lost.


>> and your single bullet striking both victims at Z-224.
>
>How did you possibly conclude a bullet was fired at Z207. And to think you called me stupid.


Can't figure it out? Try reading for compirehension.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 07:12:07 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 9:24:07?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:17:07?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>> What medical utility does this have that they would teach it to doctors in medical school, why would they fill their heads up with trivia like this?
>> You seem to know about what medical schools teach.
>> What medical school did you go to ?
>

>We could ask you the same question.

The RELEVANT question is, who cited expert medical opinion for their
claim?

Can you figure that out?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 11:37:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Gil Jesus]

Bud + Corbett + Chuckles is a perfect example of how 1 + 1 +1 = 0.
Their combined IQ is less than a foosball table.

[John Corbett]

Was this your attempt at humor. It didn't work.

On the positive side, you did break up the Swamp Creature's streak of 21 consecutive posts,
none of which I bothered to read.

[Bud]

Did that earlier...

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ap2/chapter/the-process-of-breathing-no-content/

[Bud]

What there supports anything Gil has said?

[Bud]

Gil produced nothing from this supposed expert witness.

[Bud]

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:09:06 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 02:59:56 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:30:30?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> >> Recently Gil wrote this...
> >>
> >> "Corbett doesn't realize that Connally's lung had collapsed and would have puffed out his cheeks as it forced air from his lungs. This was an involuntary reaction Connally would have had no control over. His cheeks don't puff out until Z-238."
> >>
> >> He acts like is is speaking with authority, but he is really just talking out his ass. He is making the groundless assumption that a lung would collapse immediately, like a balloon or the piñatas of his home country. He further makes the groundless assumption that the face Connally is making is the result of air being pushed out of his lungs, and not from the pain.
> >>
> >> I found these offerings on Q&A boards, people can take them for whatever they think they are worth (but to me they seem to make more sense than Gil`s baseless assumptions)...
> >
> >You can always pick out the Lone Nutters because they all line up to put their two cents in when it comes to insults.
> >
> >Bud goes to Q&A boards for medical advice.
> >Brilliant.
> >
> > But Dr. Charles Gregory told Josiah Thompson that a necessary
> > consequence of a shot through Connally's chest would be a compression
> > of the chest wall and an INVOLUNTARY opening of the epiglottis,
> > followed by escaping air forcing open his mouth. The puffing of the
> > cheeks is the same result one would get from air being forced from the
> > lungs by a violent cough.
> >
> >My "assumption" wasn't "baseless", it was based on the opinion of a medical doctor, that is, a medical expert.
> >Not on some clowns on an internet Q&A board.
> Watch, as not a SINGLE believer will accept Dr. Gregory's statements.

What statements?

Gil said that Tink Thompson said that Dr Charles Greory said...

Does not constitute a statement.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 10:14:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 10:11:53 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 10:10:43 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 09:38:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:59:24?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 11:09:04?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 06:24:05 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
>>> <gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 8:17:07?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>>>>> What medical utility does this have that they would teach it to doctors in medical school, why would they fill their heads up with trivia like this?
>>>>
>>>>You seem to know about what medical schools teach.
>>>>What medical school did you go to ?
>>> Just another example of Dunning Kruger, Gil
>> Bud + Corbett + Chuckles is a perfect example of how 1 + 1 +1 = 0.
>> Their combined IQ is less than a foosball table.
>
>Was this your attempt at humor. It didn't work.
>
>On the positive side, you did break up the Swamp Creature's streak of 21 consecutive posts,
>none of which I bothered to read.

Oh, don't try to fool anyone - You read EVERYTHING I write, and are
beginning to feel bad about how bad it looks that you can't respond.

I own you.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 10:08:57 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Bud]

Your next response will prove I own you.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 16:30:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>