I'm amazed there aren't more posts yet on the Landis volte face. Now would have been the time for rogue LN Claviger to bring up *his* SS take. But I haven't seen him since the days of alt.assassination.jfk. Of course LNs would want to discount any
revelation that suggested that four bullets were fired in Dealey. CTs (like me) find the tale tantalizing. It all hinges on *where* a bullet was found....

Just when everyone (well, some ones) thought the JFK assassination story was quiescent, passe.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:03:19 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

I'm amazed there aren't more posts yet on the Landis volte face. Now would have been the time for rogue LN Claviger to bring up *his* SS take. But I haven't seen him since the days of alt.assassination.jfk. Of course LNs would want to discount any

revelation that suggested that four bullets were fired in Dealey. CTs (like me) find the tale tantalizing. It all hinges on *where* a bullet was found....

Just when everyone (well, some ones) thought the JFK assassination story was quiescent, passe.

Have you noticed the lack of reaction from the public at large. The silence is deafening. An 88
year old geezer gives his nearly 60 year old memory of what he thought happened and this is
supposed to be a game changer? It makes no sense that a bullet would have ended up in the
back seat. How the hell did it get there? If he did find the bullet in the limo, it likely would have been in Connally's jump seat after dislodging from the superficial thigh wound.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:25:09 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

If he did find the bullet in the limo, it likely would have been in Connally's jump seat after dislodging from the superficial thigh wound.

I'm sure he couldn't tell the difference between the back seat and a jump seat. Besides, I thought the bullet that fell out of Connally's thigh was found in the hospital ???????
Now you're saying it was found on his jump seat ?
Citation please.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 04:25:07 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:03:19?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

I'm amazed there aren't more posts yet on the Landis volte face. Now would have been the time for rogue LN Claviger to bring up *his* SS take. But I haven't seen him since the days of alt.assassination.jfk. Of course LNs would want to discount any

revelation that suggested that four bullets were fired in Dealey. CTs (like me) find the tale tantalizing. It all hinges on *where* a bullet was found....

Just when everyone (well, some ones) thought the JFK assassination story was quiescent, passe.

Have you noticed the lack of reaction from the public at large. The silence is deafening. An 88
year old geezer gives his nearly 60 year old memory of what he thought happened and this is
supposed to be a game changer? It makes no sense that a bullet would have ended up in the
back seat. How the hell did it get there? If he did find the bullet in the limo, it likely would have been in Connally's jump seat after dislodging from the superficial thigh wound.

Speculation is a believers' best friend.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:29:22 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:25:09 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

If he did find the bullet in the limo, it likely would have been in Connally's jump seat after dislodging from the superficial thigh wound.

I'm sure he couldn't tell the difference between the back seat and a jump seat.

Do you think you could remember a detail such as that almost 60 years later?

Besides, I thought the bullet that fell out of Connally's thigh was found in the hospital ???????
Now you're saying it was found on his jump seat ?
Citation please.

I'm not saying anything. We don't know how the bullet got on the gurney and we are not even sure which gurney it fell from. It was speculated that it had fallen from Connally's gurney but
Landis is saying he placed it on JFK's gurney. Either is plausible although putting a key piece of
evidence on a gurney seems like a strange way to handle a key piece of evidence. But since the
Secret Service protection detail weren't experienced crime scene investigators, I suppose it's
possible. What I find highly improbable is that the bullet could have landed on the back seat no
matter where you think it was fired from and whom you think it hit. Can you give us a
plausible explanation for how that could have happened or are you willing to accept Landis'
claim at face value?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 09:40:49 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:29:22?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:25:09?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

If he did find the bullet in the limo, it likely would have been in Connally's jump seat after dislodging from the superficial thigh wound.

I'm sure he couldn't tell the difference between the back seat and a jump seat.

Do you think you could remember a detail such as that almost 60 years later?

Do you think your speculations override the evidence?

Besides, I thought the bullet that fell out of Connally's thigh was found in the hospital ???????
Now you're saying it was found on his jump seat ?
Citation please.

I'm not saying anything.

Of course you aren't... of course you aren't.

Citing evidence is alien to you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 12:58:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 09:40:49 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:29:22?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:25:09?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >> > If he did find the bullet in the limo, it likely would have been in Connally's jump seat after dislodging from the superficial thigh wound.
I'm sure he couldn't tell the difference between the back seat and a jump seat.

Do you think you could remember a detail such as that almost 60 years later? Do you think your speculations override the evidence?

Besides, I thought the bullet that fell out of Connally's thigh was found in the hospital ???????
Now you're saying it was found on his jump seat ?
Citation please.

I'm not saying anything.

Of course you aren't... of course you aren't.

Citing evidence is alien to you.

Applying reasoning to information is alien to conspiracy hobbyists. They insist on looking at the wrong things incorrectly.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 10:46:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:46:07 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

Applying reasoning to information is alien to conspiracy hobbyists. They insist on looking at the wrong things incorrectly.

"Reasoning" isn't evidence. It's speculation.
We've seen your "reasoning" and we're not impressed.
Denying the truth doesn't change the facts.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 08:22:03 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:46:07?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

Applying reasoning to information is alien to conspiracy hobbyists. They insist on looking at the wrong things incorrectly.

"Reasoning" isn't evidence. It's speculation.
We've seen your "reasoning" and we're not impressed.
Denying the truth doesn't change the facts.

And all the "reasoning" the WCR did simply didn't convince the public.

They've lost, and our purpose here is to laugh at them...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:22:05 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:46:07 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

Applying reasoning to information is alien to conspiracy hobbyists. They insist on looking at the wrong things incorrectly.

"Reasoning" isn't evidence. It's speculation.

Without reasoning, evidence is worthless. Jurors are instructed to look at evidence and apply
sound reasoning to it. Reasoning is not speculation. Speculation is judgement made in absence
of evidence.

We've seen your "reasoning" and we're not impressed.

I doubt Bud has any more interest in impressing you than I do. We've give up on you ever being
able to figure this case out.

Denying the truth doesn't change the facts.

You should get that tattooed on a conspicuous body part so you could read it every day. All
you've ever done is deny the truth and try to change the facts. The facts are Oswald murdered
Kennedy and Tippit and severely wounded Connally. You continue to deny things that are so
obviously true.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:22:05 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:46:07 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

Applying reasoning to information is alien to conspiracy hobbyists. They insist on looking at the wrong things incorrectly.

"Reasoning" isn't evidence. It's speculation.
We've seen your "reasoning" and we're not impressed.
Denying the truth doesn't change the facts.

You've said "the Russians got it right" in their investigation into the assassination. Then when challenged about it admitted you knew nothing about the investigation. The same one you endorsed.
Someone who makes that argument, reasons in that manner has no standing to question anyone else's reasoning. That someone, in case your reasoning skills fail you again, is you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:02:25 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:22:05?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:46:07?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

Applying reasoning to information is alien to conspiracy hobbyists. They insist on looking at the wrong things incorrectly.

"Reasoning" isn't evidence. It's speculation.

Without reasoning, evidence is worthless.

Speculation without evidence is worthless.

We've seen your "reasoning" and we're not impressed.

I doubt Bud has any more interest in impressing you than I do. We've give up on you ever being
able to figure this case out.

Or most of America as well.

You lose.

Denying the truth doesn't change the facts.

You ..

Nothing Gil can do will change the facts. His statement is so
inherently true that you can't deny it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 11:05:40 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemgalbraith@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:22:05?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:46:07?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

Applying reasoning to information is alien to conspiracy hobbyists. They insist on looking at the wrong things incorrectly.

"Reasoning" isn't evidence. It's speculation.
We've seen your "reasoning" and we're not impressed.
Denying the truth doesn't change the facts.

You've said...

Nothing Gil says will change the fact that denying the truth won't
change the facts...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:22:05 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:46:07 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

Applying reasoning to information is alien to conspiracy hobbyists. They insist on looking at the wrong things incorrectly.

"Reasoning" isn't evidence. It's speculation.

Only an idiot would believe that. It is synonymous with the word "thinking".

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/reasoning

We've seen your "reasoning" and we're not impressed.

You don`t recognize it, you don`t understand it and you certainly can`t do it. You seem proud of your inability to reason.

Denying the truth doesn't change the facts.

Playing silly games with information doesn`t make for rational conclusions.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 11:35:19 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 04:25:07 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 9:03:19?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

I'm amazed there aren't more posts yet on the Landis volte face. Now would have been the time for rogue LN Claviger to bring up *his* SS take. But I haven't seen him since the days of alt.assassination.jfk. Of course LNs would want to discount any

revelation that suggested that four bullets were fired in Dealey. CTs (like me) find the tale tantalizing. It all hinges on *where* a bullet was found....

Just when everyone (well, some ones) thought the JFK assassination story was quiescent, passe.

Have you noticed the lack of reaction from the public at large. The silence is deafening. An 88
year old geezer gives his nearly 60 year old memory of what he thought happened and this is
supposed to be a game changer? It makes no sense that a bullet would have ended up in the
back seat. How the hell did it get there? If he did find the bullet in the limo, it likely would have been in Connally's jump seat after dislodging from the superficial thigh wound.

Speculation is a believers' best friend.

The ability to reason is the conspiracy crackpot`s worst enemy.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 2:02:27 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 11:22:05 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:46:07 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

Applying reasoning to information is alien to conspiracy hobbyists. They insist on looking at the wrong things incorrectly.

"Reasoning" isn't evidence. It's speculation.

Without reasoning, evidence is worthless. Jurors are instructed to look at evidence and apply
sound reasoning to it. Reasoning is not speculation. Speculation is judgement made in absence
of evidence.

We've seen your "reasoning" and we're not impressed.

I doubt Bud has any more interest in impressing you than I do.

We are where we are at as a species solely on the basis of our ability to reason. Gil thinks reasoning is some evil that should be avoided at all costs.

We've give up on you ever being
able to figure this case out.

Denying the truth doesn't change the facts.

You should get that tattooed on a conspicuous body part so you could read it every day. All
you've ever done is deny the truth and try to change the facts. The facts are Oswald murdered
Kennedy and Tippit and severely wounded Connally. You continue to deny things that are so
obviously true.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 16:04:29 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 13 Sep 2023 16:01:56 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)