Gil keeps putting his poor analytical skills on display

[John Corbett]

According to Gil, and FBI report refutes the SBT. Oh, really. This is the report
Gil cited:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=slausen+cutoff&view=detail&mid=A3348DA7B962513ECCB2A3348DA7B962513ECCB2&FORM=VIRE

The passage Gil highlighted states the following:

"Three shots rang out. Two bullets struck President Kennedy, and one
wounded Governor Connally."

According to the SBT:
Oswald fired three shots.
President Kennedy was hit by two of those shots.
Governor Connally was hit by one of those shots.

So where's the conflict?

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 12:08:20 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> According to Gil, and FBI report refutes the SBT. Oh, really. This is the report
> Gil cited:
>
> https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=slausen+cutoff&view=detail&mid=A3348DA7B962513ECCB2A3348DA7B962513ECCB2&FORM=VIRE
>

I think you better check that link, idiot.
That has nothing to do with any report I cited. It's a video of Johnny Carson and Loni Anderson spoofing a detour and then video of the 405 Freeway.
Once again you've proven that you're the biggest fuck up in this newsgroup.
And you question MY analytical skills ?
You can't even post a simple link.
ROFLMAO

Here's page 1 of the FBI Summary Report:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

You interpret it saying that three shots were fired, two hit Kennedy and one of the bullets that hit Kennedy also hit Connally.
So what did the Summary say about the third shot ?

[robert johnson]

LONE NUTTER SCUM OF THE WORLD UNITE!!!!

YOU SEEM TO NEED IT SINCE YOUR INVESTIGATIVE SKILLS ARE SHITTIER THAN SHIT.

[Bud]

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 7:26:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 12:08:20 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > According to Gil, and FBI report refutes the SBT. Oh, really. This is the report
> > Gil cited:
> >
> > https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=slausen+cutoff&view=detail&mid=A3348DA7B962513ECCB2A3348DA7B962513ECCB2&FORM=VIRE
> >
> I think you better check that link, idiot.
> That has nothing to do with any report I cited. It's a video of Johnny Carson and Loni Anderson spoofing a detour and then video of the 405 Freeway.
> Once again you've proven that you're the biggest fuck up in this newsgroup.
> And you question MY analytical skills ?
> You can't even post a simple link.
> ROFLMAO
>
> Here's page 1 of the FBI Summary Report:
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

Isn`t it true that this was written before they had seen the autopsy report?

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:01:23 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> Isn`t it true that this was written before they had seen the autopsy report?

This has nothing to do with the autopsy report.
This is a discussion over what the summary report said.

Corbett claims it supports the SBT.
So I've asked him what the Summary Report says about the third shot.

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 7:26:20 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 12:08:20 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > According to Gil, and FBI report refutes the SBT. Oh, really. This is the report
> > Gil cited:
> >
> > https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=slausen+cutoff&view=detail&mid=A3348DA7B962513ECCB2A3348DA7B962513ECCB2&FORM=VIRE
> >
> I think you better check that link, idiot.
> That has nothing to do with any report I cited. It's a video of Johnny Carson and Loni Anderson spoofing a detour and then video of the 405 Freeway.
> Once again you've proven that you're the biggest fuck up in this newsgroup.
> And you question MY analytical skills ?
> You can't even post a simple link.
> ROFLMAO
>
> Here's page 1 of the FBI Summary Report:
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png
>

Yes, I did screw up the paste of the link. I had copied the one above for a post on another forum.
I tried to copy the link you had provided earlier but apparently I missed when I tried to click on
COPY to get your link. However, I did quote the highlighted passage in your link verbatim so the
key portion was available in the OP. My mistake did give you the excuse you needed to avoid
responding to the key question. Where's the conflict? You didn't respond to that question. You
always avoid the hard the questions.

> You interpret it saying that three shots were fired, two hit Kennedy and one of the bullets that hit Kennedy also hit Connally.

I did not interpret it as a support of the SBT. I pointed out there is no conflict between the passage
you highlighted and the SBT. Based on the highlighted conclusion, JFK and JBC could have been
hit by the same or separate bullets. Either possibility is compatible with it. It is you who insists
there is a conflict between this passage and the SBT. No such conflict exists. The passage is
non-committal as to whether JFK and JBC were hit by the same or separate shots.

> So what did the Summary say about the third shot ?

What difference does the third shot have to do with the question of the SBT? What reason is
there for me to repeat what you already posted? This is just another of the diversions you come
up with to avoid the central question. I'll ask it again. Where is the conflict between your passage
and the SBT? What diversion are you going to come up with to avoid answering it?

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:09:14 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:01:23 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > Isn`t it true that this was written before they had seen the autopsy report?
> This has nothing to do with the autopsy report.
> This is a discussion over what the summary report said.

Yes it is. So are you going to explain how the summary report conflicts with the SBT.

>
> Corbett claims it supports the SBT.

You're lying, Gil. I said it was compatible with the SBT. Since you are very poor at reasoning, you
don't understand the difference. The passage you have highlighted neither supports nor refutes
the SBT. You are the one arguing the report refutes it yet you can't explain how.

> So I've asked him what the Summary Report says about the third shot.

Which is nothing but a diversion away from the question of the SBT. The third shot has nothing
to do with it. If you think it does, explain how.

[Bud]

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:09:14 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:01:23 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > Isn`t it true that this was written before they had seen the autopsy report?
> This has nothing to do with the autopsy report.

Them not having read the autopsy report has a direct effect on the conclusions in the report, stupid.

> This is a discussion over what the summary report said.

I know this is the silly game where you isolate information so you can look at it incorrectly.

A more comprehensive investigation was conducted by the WC.

> Corbett claims it supports the SBT.

The line you quoted is not incompatible with the SBT.

> So I've asked him what the Summary Report says about the third shot.

I asked you this...

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/pHJtsuLxwpc/m/3Ic8uEqtAgAJ

How long do you intend to run from my question?

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:34:46 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > So I've asked him what the Summary Report says about the third shot.
> Which is nothing but a diversion away from the question of the SBT. The third shot has nothing
> to do with it. If you think it does, explain how.

You're so fucking stupid.
The third shot doesn't make a difference ?

I've already quoted them as saying there was three shots, two that hit the President and one that wounded Connally.
Three separate shots. Three hits.
The FBI gave a total number of shots fired, then broke them down:
3 shots fired
2 hit Kennedy
1 wounded Connally
-----------------------------------
That totals 3.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

No mention of one bullet hitting both men, no mention of a missed bullet, a bullet thaty split or any other nonsense.
3 shots. 3 Hits.

That's what the Summary Report says to me.

Your interpretation that the Summary Report is "not in conflict with the SBT" means that the third shot mentioned, the one that "wounded Connally", was one of the two shots that hit Kennedy.
Because that's what the Single Bullet Theory says.
Under your interpretation, that's only two shots accounted for.

The FBI concluded three shots were fired.
Where do they mention the third shot ?

Do you really believe that they would conclude that three shots were fired and then only account for two shots ?
You really think Hoover would allow such an incomplete report to stand without kicking it back ?

"Not in conflict with the SBT" ?
The SBT accounted for the third shot. The Summary report did not.
You don't consider that a conflict ?
So tell us, where's the account for the third shot in the Summary Report ?

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 9:54:44 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

< stupid bullshit deleted >

Why don't you go in the corner and play with your magic bullet.
Because your opinions don't mean shit.

I'm not letting you change the subject, asshole.

[Bud]

As usual a conspiracy idiot claims reasoning and looking at things correctly is not allowed.

[John Corbett]

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 12:22:50 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:34:46 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > > So I've asked him what the Summary Report says about the third shot.
> > Which is nothing but a diversion away from the question of the SBT. The third shot has nothing
> > to do with it. If you think it does, explain how.
> You're so fucking stupid.
> The third shot doesn't make a difference ?

The third shot made a big difference. It just didn't make a difference to the question of whether
the SBT is valid. Only the first two shots are relevant to that question. Either the first shot hit only
JFK and the second shot hit only JBC, or the first shot missed them both and the second shot
hit them both. How does the third shot affect that issue?

>
> I've already quoted them as saying there was three shots, two that hit the President and one that wounded Connally.
> Three separate shots. Three hits.

So each shot hit somebody or one shot missed and one shot hit both of them.

> The FBI gave a total number of shots fired, then broke them down:
> 3 shots fired
> 2 hit Kennedy
> 1 wounded Connally
> -----------------------------------
> That totals 3.

And it fits the SBT. First shot missed them both. Second shot hit them both. Third shot hit JFK
in the head.
Under that scenario:
How many shots were fired? Answer 3.
How many shots hit JFK? Answer 2.
How many shots hit JBC? Answer 1.

That summation fits the SBT as well as the three hit scenario. Elsewhere in the FBI report they
may have concluded there were 3 hits and no single bullet, but that brief summation doesn't
do that for you. I have no illusions that I can help you understand that.


>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

A damn shame you can't understand what your own source is telling you.

>
> No mention of one bullet hitting both men, no mention of a missed bullet, a bullet thaty split or any other nonsense.

No mention of three hits, no misses either. Their description is compatible with either scenario
as my 3 part Q&A demonstrates.

> 3 shots. 3 Hits.

That summation doesn't say that.

>
> That's what the Summary Report says to me.

It doesn't say that to people with good reading comprehension.

>
> Your interpretation that the Summary Report is "not in conflict with the SBT" means that the third shot mentioned, the one that "wounded Connally", was one of the two shots that hit Kennedy.

How the fuck did you come up with that? Who has ever said the third shot hit Connally? I laid
out the SBT 3 shot, 1 miss scenario and it had no resemblance to what you just proposed.

> Because that's what the Single Bullet Theory says.

You really are an idiot.

> Under your interpretation, that's only two shots accounted for.

The currently commonly accepted SBT is the first shot missed both men, the second hit both
men, and the third shot hit JFK in the head. Because the WC didn't pick up on some clues in the
Z-film that have since been discovered, they allowed for the first shot striking both men and
the second shot missing. The even allowed for the second shot being the head shot and the
third shot being the miss although I've never heard anyone argue for that scenario. Knowing what
we know now, we can safely say the first shot missed and the second shot was the single bullet.

>
> The FBI concluded three shots were fired.
> Where do they mention the third shot ?

If three shots were fired, it can safely be concluded there was a full shot.

>
> Do you really believe that they would conclude that three shots were fired and then only account for two shots ?

Two hits and on miss is accounting for all three shots.

> You really think Hoover would allow such an incomplete report to stand without kicking it back ?

It is not incomplete to people who can reason. That leaves you out.

>
> "Not in conflict with the SBT" ?
> The SBT accounted for the third shot. The Summary report did not.
> You don't consider that a conflict ?

I can't even follow how you reach the conclusions you do so I can't say whether your twisted
figuring creates a conflict or not.

> So tell us, where's the account for the third shot in the Summary Report ?

It is widely accepted that the third shot was the head shot. The point of contention is whether
the first two shots hit somebody or one of those shots missed and the other hit both men. The
third shot doesn't figure into that question at all unless someone actually believes there was a
third shot miss. That scenario requires the SBT but I've never heard anyone argue for that one.

[Gil Jesus]

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 7:55:22 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
> LONE NUTTER SCUM OF THE WORLD UNITE!!!!
>
> YOU SEEM TO NEED IT SINCE YOUR INVESTIGATIVE SKILLS ARE SHITTIER THAN SHIT.

The FBI knew that the bullet had not transited JFK's body because they had two agents ( James Sibert and Frank O'Neill ) at the autopsy
who reported that the BACK wound was not on the base of the neck, but rather "below the shoulders" and
that "the end of the opening could be felt with the finger." ( ARRB MD 44 / Sibert & O'Neill report, pg. 5 )

This is why the Summary Report says that there were three shots and three hits.
No misses.
No bullet hitting both men.
Three shots were fired. Two hit President Kennedy and one wounded Governor Connally.
Unlike most of Corbett's speculations, these weren't wild guesses.
The conclusions of the Summary Report were based on what the agents saw at the autopsy.
Completely in conflict with the Single Bullet Theory.

[Bud]

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 8:20:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 7:55:22 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
> > LONE NUTTER SCUM OF THE WORLD UNITE!!!!
> >
> > YOU SEEM TO NEED IT SINCE YOUR INVESTIGATIVE SKILLS ARE SHITTIER THAN SHIT.
> The FBI knew that the bullet had not transited JFK's body because they had two agents ( James Sibert and Frank O'Neill ) at the autopsy
> who reported that the BACK wound was not on the base of the neck, but rather "below the shoulders" and
> that "the end of the opening could be felt with the finger." ( ARRB MD 44 / Sibert & O'Neill report, pg. 5 )
>
> This is why the Summary Report says that there were three shots and three hits.

Yes, that is why, they used bad information rather than waiting to get the good information of the actual autopsy report.

This is why hearsay isn`t allowed at trials, mister lawyer.

> No misses.
> No bullet hitting both men.
> Three shots were fired. Two hit President Kennedy and one wounded Governor Connally.
> Unlike most of Corbett's speculations, these weren't wild guesses.

That is exactly what the FBI was doing.

> The conclusions of the Summary Report were based on what the agents saw at the autopsy.

Why have autopsies at all when you can get the opinions of random people?

> Completely in conflict with the Single Bullet Theory.

In conflict with the reality of the event.

[John Corbett]

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 8:20:56 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

The Summary Report was written long before the SBT was developed so there was no reason
for them to even address that scenario. Initially what was know is that the assassin fired three
shots, striking JFK with two of them and JBC with one of them. Given that knowledge, it would
be the natural inclination to think all three shots hit one or the other victim. Since Connally told
the investigators he had been hit by the second shot, naturally they would have assumed JFK
got hit by shots one and three. However, after taking a deeper dive the WC began to see problems
with that explanation. For one, why were only two bullets recovered. None ended up in the bodies
of either victim. Only one was found in the limo and another found at Parkland. The two
victims seemed to have reacted too closely together to have been hit by separate shots. JFK
seemed fine when he went behind the sign while Connally didn't think he was hit until the Z230s.
The left only about a second and a half maximum between the two strikes if they were hit by
separates shots. They also had the SS recreation which showed the two men were aligned with
the shooter at frame Z225. Given that additional information led them to believe the two were
probably hit by the same shot, even if they seemed to react at slightly different times. Had they
had the advantage of modern technology, they might have realized both men reacted at the
same time. JFK reacted a little later than they first thought and JBC reacted a little earlier. They
both raised their arms at precisely the same moment, Z226.

If the WC knew then what we know now, I have no doubt they would have concluded the first
shot missed, JFK and JBC were hit at or a split second before Z224, and both men began
reacting at Z226. That all fits the visual evidence, both of the Z-film and the SS recreation.
It also fits the medical evidence which established the bullet that hit JFK in the back exited from
his throat. A bullet exiting his throat on a downward trajectory could not have missed JBC.

[Gil Jesus]

On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 12:08:47 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< bullshit comments deleted >

The final word on what the FBI Summary Report said comes from J.Edgar Hoover himself.
In this phone call to LBJ, Hoover describes specifically what shot did what.
His description confirms what I said they reported in their Summary Report and is in direct conflict with the Single Bullet Theory.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/hoover-to-lbj-3-shots-3-hits.mp4

The world now knows who has the "poor analytical skills" and who can prove what they say.

[Bud]

The FBI Summary Report is garbage in/garbage out.

Why is it that conspiracy hobbyists always find erroneous information to be the most significant?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 05:09:13 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:01:23?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> Isn`t it true that this was written before they had seen the autopsy report?
>
>This has nothing to do with the autopsy report.
>This is a discussion over what the summary report said.
>
>Corbett claims it supports the SBT.
>So I've asked him what the Summary Report says about the third shot.

Corbutt is lying. Chickenshit is lying. Chuckles is lying. Von
Penis is lying. Huckster Sienzant is lying.

*NONE OF THEM* can admit that the FBI's Summary Report describes the
shooting differently than the WCR.

*ALL OF THEM* are flat TERRIFIED of the actual evidence in this
case... and prove it over and over and over again.

They run.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 05:01:22 -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]

It's obvious, and you're TERRIFIED of admitting that you got caught in
a lie.

The FBI posits three shots, and three hits.

*YOU* posit three shots, and two hits, one of which hit JFK AND
Connally.

The SBT isn't possible - because that same FBI Summary Report, on page
18, states quite clearly: "Medical examination of the President's body
revealed that one of the bullets had entered just below his shoulder
to the right of the spinal column at an angle of 45 to 60 degrees
downward, THAT THERE WAS NO POINT OF EXIT, and that the bullet was not
in the body.

I've already cited this - no need to do it multiple times... one of
the reasons that Corbutt no longer responds to my posts (although, to
be sure, he reads them) is that I show quite clearly what a coward and
a liar he is.

The FBI Summary Report says EXACTLY what Gil pointed out, and that
you, Chickenshit, Chuckles, Von Penis, and Huckster are lying about.

Run coward...

RUN!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 04:26:18 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

More importantly, what does it say on page 18?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 05:30:04 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 7:26:20?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 12:08:20?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> > According to Gil, and FBI report refutes the SBT. Oh, really. This is the report
>> > Gil cited:
>> >
>> > https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=slausen+cutoff&view=detail&mid=A3348DA7B962513ECCB2A3348DA7B962513ECCB2&FORM=VIRE
>> >
>> I think you better check that link, idiot.
>> That has nothing to do with any report I cited. It's a video of Johnny Carson and Loni Anderson spoofing a detour and then video of the 405 Freeway.
>> Once again you've proven that you're the biggest fuck up in this newsgroup.
>> And you question MY analytical skills ?
>> You can't even post a simple link.
>> ROFLMAO
>>
>> Here's page 1 of the FBI Summary Report:
>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png
>>
>Yes, I did screw up the paste of the link. I had copied the one above for a post on another forum.
>I tried to copy the link you had provided earlier but apparently I missed when I tried to click on
>COPY to get your link. However, I did quote the highlighted passage in your link verbatim so the
>key portion was available in the OP. My mistake did give you the excuse you needed to avoid
>responding to the key question. Where's the conflict? You didn't respond to that question. You
>always avoid the hard the questions.

It's not a hard question at all... you're pretending you don't read my
posts... but page 18 of the FBI's Summary Report makes it CRYSTAL
CLEAR that the FBI posits three shots - three hits.

This is in DIRECT conflict with the SBT.

>> You interpret it saying that three shots were fired, two hit Kennedy and one of the bullets that hit Kennedy also hit Connally.
>
>I did not interpret it as a support of the SBT. I pointed out there is no conflict between the passage
>you highlighted and the SBT.

And absolute MINIMUM requirement for the SBT is that a bullet striking
his back EXIT THE BODY.

The FBI Summary Report on page 18 makes it clear that this did not
happen.

You're a liar, Corbutt. You're too stupid to take the time to read
the document you're posting about.

>Based on the highlighted conclusion, JFK and JBC could have been
>hit by the same or separate bullets.

Not based on the FBI Summary Report.

Notice folks, the careful wording here suggests that Corbutt HAS been
reading my posts, and HAS realized that he's been caught in a lie.
He's no longer speaking about the Report - but about "the highlighted
conclusion."

If you need any more proof that Corbutt's a liar - Just ask yourself
about this change in wording.

> Either possibility is compatible with it. It is you who insists
>there is a conflict between this passage and the SBT.

Notice that Corbutt is speaking ONLY of "this passage."

Yeah... he's been reading my posts... he knows that the FBI Summary
Report contradicts the SBT.

>No such conflict exists. The passage is
>non-committal as to whether JFK and JBC were hit by the same or separate shots.

Notice again his emphasis on the "passage." He ORIGINALLY wrote this:
"Why do you keep citing an FBI report that doesn't say JFK and JBC
were hit by separate shots."

He dares not say that anymore - because he's been reading my posts,
Gil hasn't specifically mentioned page 18, he's going at it from
another direction. But page 18 makes it crystal clear to even morons.

YOU CANNOT HAVE A BULLET THAT DOESN'T EXIT THE BODY GO ON TO STRIKE
ANOTHER BODY.

It's just that simple.



So Corbutt's changes in wording prove that he knows he got caught
lying.

>> So what did the Summary say about the third shot ?
>
>What difference does the third shot have to do with the question of the SBT? What reason is
>there for me to repeat what you already posted? This is just another of the diversions you come
>up with to avoid the central question. I'll ask it again. Where is the conflict between your passage
>and the SBT? What diversion are you going to come up with to avoid answering it?

No, the question has NOTHING to do with Gil's "passage."

It has to do with the FBI Summary Report.

You've been caught in a lie. I've QUOTED your lie. You can't delete
it, or wriggle out of it.

Corbutt lies.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 05:34:44 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:09:14?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:01:23?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> > Isn`t it true that this was written before they had seen the autopsy report?
>> This has nothing to do with the autopsy report.
>> This is a discussion over what the summary report said.
>
>Yes it is. So are you going to explain how the summary report conflicts with the SBT.

Already done so.

You've had over 60 years to figure this out... so pretending that you
don't read my posts isn't going to get the job done.

You're lying.

*YOU* are making a claim you can't cite for.

>> Corbett claims it supports the SBT.
>
>You're lying, Gil. I said it was compatible with the SBT.

Neither is it compatible with the SBT.

Indeed, it flat REJECTS the SBT. It's is IMPOSSIBLE to accept the FBI
Summary Report and the SBT at the same time. They are in direct
conflict.


Logical fallacy deleted.

>> So I've asked him what the Summary Report says about the third shot.
>
>Which is nothing but a diversion away from the question of the SBT. The third shot has nothing
>to do with it. If you think it does, explain how.

Page 18 isn't a diversion at all - you cannot have a bullet THAT DID
NOT EXIT JFK'S BODY striking Connally.

And you're too stupid to bother reading the report before you make
claims about it.

You're lying.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 06:54:42 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

> How long do you intend to run from my question?

A question you CAN'T ask yourself...

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 09:08:45 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 8:20:56?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 7:55:22?AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:
>>> LONE NUTTER SCUM OF THE WORLD UNITE!!!!
>>>
>>> YOU SEEM TO NEED IT SINCE YOUR INVESTIGATIVE SKILLS ARE SHITTIER THAN SHIT.
>> The FBI knew that the bullet had not transited JFK's body because they had two agents ( James Sibert and Frank O'Neill ) at the autopsy
>> who reported that the BACK wound was not on the base of the neck, but rather "below the shoulders" and
>> that "the end of the opening could be felt with the finger." ( ARRB MD 44 / Sibert & O'Neill report, pg. 5 )
>>
>> This is why the Summary Report says that there were three shots and three hits.
>> No misses.
>> No bullet hitting both men.
>> Three shots were fired. Two hit President Kennedy and one wounded Governor Connally.
>> Unlike most of Corbett's speculations, these weren't wild guesses.
>> The conclusions of the Summary Report were based on what the agents saw at the autopsy.
>> Completely in conflict with the Single Bullet Theory.
>

>The Summary Report was written long before the SBT was developed...


Yet you're moron enough to argue that it's not in conflict with the
SBT.

ROTFLMAO!!!

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 10:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 05:20:54 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's amusing to teach these morons what the evidence is...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 03:31:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 06:48:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 10:38:58 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 11:40:40 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 12:22:50?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 8:34:46?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> > > So I've asked him what the Summary Report says about the third shot.
>> > Which is nothing but a diversion away from the question of the SBT. The third shot has nothing
>> > to do with it. If you think it does, explain how.
>> You're so fucking stupid.
>> The third shot doesn't make a difference ?
>
>The third shot made a big difference.

End of story.

>> I've already quoted them as saying there was three shots, two that hit the President and one that wounded Connally.
>> Three separate shots. Three hits.
>

>So each shot hit somebody...

Yep.

>> The FBI gave a total number of shots fired, then broke them down:
>> 3 shots fired
>> 2 hit Kennedy
>> 1 wounded Connally
>> -----------------------------------
>> That totals 3.
>
>And it fits the SBT.

You're lying again, Corbutt.

>> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png
>
>A damn shame you can't understand what your own source is telling you.

The shame is in you constantly lying.

>> No mention of one bullet hitting both men, no mention of a missed bullet, a bullet thaty split or any other nonsense.
>

>No mention of three hits....


That's PRECISELY what it said.

>> 3 shots. 3 Hits.
>
>That summation doesn't say that.

The FBI Summary Report does...

>> That's what the Summary Report says to me.
>
>It doesn't say that to people with good reading comprehension.

You're lying again, moron...

Even *YOU* admitted that you're lying here.

>> Your interpretation that the Summary Report is "not in conflict with the SBT" means that the third shot mentioned, the one that "wounded Connally", was one of the two shots that hit Kennedy.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Because that's what the Single Bullet Theory says.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Under your interpretation, that's only two shots accounted for.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> The FBI concluded three shots were fired.
>> Where do they mention the third shot ?

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> Do you really believe that they would conclude that three shots were fired and then only account for two shots ?

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> You really think Hoover would allow such an incomplete report to stand without kicking it back ?

Yet another logical fallacy deleted.

>> "Not in conflict with the SBT" ?
>> The SBT accounted for the third shot. The Summary report did not.
>> You don't consider that a conflict ?
>

>I can't even follow...


A true statement...

>> So tell us, where's the account for the third shot in the Summary Report ?
>

>It is widely accepted...


That wasn't the question...

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:16:36 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> It's amusing to teach these morons what the evidence is...

It's also amusing how these asshole trolls come in here with the intent of making fools out of other people
and the only ones they make fools out of are themselves.

[John Corbett]

Shirley, you know how that feels.

[Chuck Schuyler]

...says the guy who fantasizes about being Oswald's attorney.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 08:46:40 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 11:16:38?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:16:36?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> It's amusing to teach these morons what the evidence is...
>> It's also amusing how these asshole trolls come in here with the intent of making fools out of other people
>> and the only ones they make fools out of are themselves.

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 10:47:13 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:16:38?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:16:36?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> It's amusing to teach these morons what the evidence is...
>> It's also amusing how these asshole trolls come in here with the intent of making fools out of other people
>> and the only ones they make fools out of are themselves.

Logical fallacy deleted.