"3. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the
Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there
is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same
bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor
Connally's wounds." (WCR 19)

Another excellent lie by omission... "the experts" are apparently Dr.
Alfred G. Olivier, a veterinarian, and Dr. Arthur J. Dziemian, a PH.D.
in physiology. As McKnight puts it:

"The awkward fact confronting the Commission in marshaling so-called
expert testimony was that most of the experts the Commission called
upon for this critical determination actually disagreed with the
conclusion stated in the report. The three Bethesda prosectors, Drs.
Humes, Boswell, and Finck, were convinced that a separate bullet had
struck Connally. None of them supported the possibility that
Commission Exhibit (CE) 399 (the so-called magic bullet) could have
shattered the governor's wrist and remained in near-pristine
condition. Dr. Joseph R. Dolce, the U.S. Army's expert on high
velocity weapons and the military's top ballistics expert, remained
un-yielding in his opinion that two bullets had hit Connally, with a
separate bullet causing the extensive damage to his wrist. When Dolce
told Commission lawyer Arlen Specter that the forensic evidence did
not support the contention that both men had been hit by the same
missile, he was never again consulted and was not called as a witness.
Governor Connally's two principal surgeons, Drs. Robert R. Shaw and
Charles F. Gregory, testified before the Commission in late April that Connally's wounds were too massive to have been inflicted by one
missile, especially one that was barely mutilated. It is worth noting
that it was a unique event in the investigation for the Bethesda
prosectors and the Parkland Memorial Hospital doctors to be in
agreement about the medicolegal evidence in the Kennedy
assassination." Breach of Trust - Gerald McKnight, pg. 289.

Another obvious lie by the Warren Commission - the experts who could
apply the best expertise to the topic were disregarded or even
dismissed, while the WC 'shopped' for the "experts" who would support
their thesis.

And unless you immerse yourself into the actual testimony of these
critical medical & ballistic experts, you'd never know this from just
reading the WCR.

Another lie exposed!

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

Another obvious lie by the Warren Commission - the experts who could
apply the best expertise to the topic were disregarded or even
dismissed, while the WC 'shopped' for the "experts" who would support
their thesis.

They did this multiple times, when the FBI didn't give them the results they wanted, they went somewhere else.
This is proof that the Commission was not pursuing the truth, but rather their own agenda.

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

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 08:35:05 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

Another obvious lie by the Warren Commission - the experts who could
apply the best expertise to the topic were disregarded or even
dismissed, while the WC 'shopped' for the "experts" who would support
their thesis.

They did this multiple times, when the FBI didn't give them the results they wanted, they went somewhere else.
This is proof that the Commission was not pursuing the truth, but rather their own agenda.

And the fact that you can't find a *SINGLE* believer to publicly
acknowledge this truth shows that in order to be a believer, you must
be both a coward and a liar.

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

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:35:07 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Another obvious lie by the Warren Commission - the experts who could
apply the best expertise to the topic were disregarded or even
dismissed, while the WC 'shopped' for the "experts" who would support their thesis.

They did this multiple times, when the FBI didn't give them the results they wanted, they went somewhere else.
This is proof that the Commission was not pursuing the truth, but rather their own agenda.

Gil keeps lying his ass off. The Commission got second opinions for key pieces of evidence,
such as the fingerprints and ballistic evidence. It wasn't necessary for them to do so. They did
this out of diligence.

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

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 08:43:05 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:35:07?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Another obvious lie by the Warren Commission - the experts who could
apply the best expertise to the topic were disregarded or even
dismissed, while the WC 'shopped' for the "experts" who would support
their thesis.

They did this multiple times, when the FBI didn't give them the results they wanted, they went somewhere else.
This is proof that the Commission was not pursuing the truth, but rather their own agenda.

Gil keeps lying his ass off.

He is, of course, merely agreeing with the FACTS I pointed out and
supported.

You're TERRIFIED of those facts, so you refuse to respond to these
proofs that the WCR blatantly lied.

You lose.

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

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 08:43:05 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Gil keeps lying his ass off.

The difference between you and I is that I can call you a liar and PROVE it, while you can only call names.
You say I'm a liar and it was only for corroboration, prove it.
Show us the results the Commission got and the corroboration.

They were so diligent, what happened to the negative of CE 133-A ?

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

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:11:19 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 08:43:05 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Gil keeps lying his ass off.

The difference between you and I is that I can call you a liar and PROVE it, while you can only call names.
You say I'm a liar and it was only for corroboration, prove it.
Show us the results the Commission got and the corroboration.

You are the one who made the accusation that they shopped for second opinions because they
didn't like the answers the FBI gave them. The burden is on you to support that allegation.

They were so diligent, what happened to the negative of CE 133-A ?

One more example of Gil thinking he can prove a point simply by raising a question as opposed
to answering it. He thinks by simply asking a question for which the answer is unknown, he's
allowed to assume an answer that indicates a conspiracy.

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

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 11:34:48 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:11:19?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 08:43:05 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Gil keeps lying his ass off.

The difference between you and I is that I can call you a liar and PROVE it, while you can only call names.
You say I'm a liar and it was only for corroboration, prove it.
Show us the results the Commission got and the corroboration.

You are the one who made the accusation that they shopped for second opinions because they
didn't like the answers the FBI gave them. The burden is on you to support that allegation.

This is already well established historical fact.

Joseph Nicol

They were so diligent, what happened to the negative of CE 133-A ?

One more example ...

Of you running from the evidence.

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

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 12:11:19 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 08:43:05 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Gil keeps lying his ass off.

The difference between you and I is that I can call you a liar and PROVE it, while you can only call names.
You say I'm a liar and it was only for corroboration, prove it.
Show us the results the Commission got and the corroboration.

They were so diligent, what happened to the negative of CE 133-A ?

"What about this, huh, huh, huh?"

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

On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 11:46:38 -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)