John Connally insisted to his dying day that he was not hit by the same shot that hit JFK. He believed JFK was hit by the first and third shots and that he was hit by the second shot. Had there been no Zapruder film, that might have become the default conclusion. But we do have the Z-film which casts doubt
on Connally's belief. He said he turned to look over his right shoulder after hearing the first shot. We see him do that at Z164. If he is right that was the shot that hit JFK, why don't we see any reaction from JFK. He doesn't react until Z226 when he flips his arms upward. That would require a delayed
reaction of over three seconds. That is hard to believe if we are to believe Connally's account. I find it far easier to believe Connally was simply mistaken
in saying that the first shot hit JFK. He would have no way of knowing that since he was sitting in front of JFK and testified he couldn't see JFK when
he turned to look over his right shoulder. How could he have known the first shot struck JFK?

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

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:10:35 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< bullshit commentary not supported by any evidence has been deleted >

Hear it from the Governor's own lips:
https://youtu.be/3WWPWO44p_s

Corroborated by the Zapruder film Connally not showing any signs of pain at Z-230.
The rifle had a average muzzle velocity of 2165 ft/sec. ( 3 H 400 )
If Kennedy and Connally were seated three feet apart and were hit by the same bullet, and the camera ran at 18.3 frames per sec.,
they should have reacted in the same Z-frame. But Kennedy reacted at Z-225 and Connally at Z-236.

But at Z-230, Connally shows no sign of pain, even though the Single Bullet Theory says that the bullet has already hit him,
destroyed 4 inches of his fifth rib, entered and exited his wrist and lodged in his thigh. And yet he shows no sign of pain.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Z230.mp4

This fact was so convincing, that the FBI concluded in its Summary Report ( CD 1 ) that the men were hit by separate shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

Hit by separate shots is corroborated by a bystander who saw both men hit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI

Apparently three Warren Commission members believed Connally "at face value". Richard Russell was one. And in this telephone call with President Johnson, he lets Johnson know he doesn't agree with it
and Johnson agrees that he doesn't believe the SBT as well : https://youtu.be/7pW7CNXPCWs

But Corbett thinks his interpretation of the Zapruder film trumps all this evidence.
All the witnesses are wrong.
Connally's wrong.
The Zapruder film is wrong.

Only Corbett's interpretation of the Zapruder film is right.
He sees movement in the car at Z-226 and concludes that the movement is the result of a bullet strike.
The guy could have been swatting at a bug for Christsakes, but no, old johnny boy says it's a bullet.
Even though he has no evidence to support that.
WHAT A
ROFLMAO

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

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:10:35 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

John Connally insisted to his dying day that he was not hit by the same shot that hit JFK. He believed JFK was hit by the first and third shots and that he
was hit by the second shot. Had there been no Zapruder film, that might have become the default conclusion. But we do have the Z-film which casts doubt on Connally's belief. He said he turned to look over his right shoulder after
hearing the first shot. We see him do that at Z164. If he is right that was the
shot that hit JFK, why don't we see any reaction from JFK. He doesn't react until Z226 when he flips his arms upward. That would require a delayed reaction of over three seconds. That is hard to believe if we are to believe Connally's account. I find it far easier to believe Connally was simply mistaken
in saying that the first shot hit JFK. He would have no way of knowing that since he was sitting in front of JFK and testified he couldn't see JFK when he turned to look over his right shoulder. How could he have known the first shot struck JFK?

You're full of shit. Connally, and Nellie and Gayle Newman and the Zapruder film all agree; Connally was hit by a different shot and you're an idiot.

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

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:10:35 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< bullshit commentary without any supporting evidence automatically deleted >

Apparently three Warren Commission members believed Connally "at face value". Richard Russell was one. And in this telephone call with President Johnson, he lets Johnson know he doesn't agree with it
and Johnson agrees that he doesn't believe the SBT as well : https://youtu.be/7pW7CNXPCWs

Hit by separate shots is corroborated by a bystander who saw both men hit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI

Corroborated by the Zapruder film Connally not showing any signs of pain at Z-230.
The rifle had a average muzzle velocity of 2165 ft/sec. ( 3 H 400 )
If Kennedy and Connally were seated three feet apart and were hit by the same bullet, and the camera ran at 18.3 frames per sec.,
THEY SHOULD HAVE REACTED IN THE SAME Z-FRAME. But Kennedy reacted at Z-225 and Connally at Z-236.

At Z-230, Connally shows no sign of pain, even though Corbett's "Connally hit at Z-226" theory says that the bullet has already hit Connally,
destroyed 4 inches of his fifth rib, entered and exited his wrist and lodged in his thigh. And yet he shows no sign of pain.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png

This fact was so convincing, that the FBI concluded in its Summary Report ( CD 1 ) that the men were hit by separate shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

But Corbett thinks his interpretation of the Zapruder film trumps all this evidence.
All the witnesses are wrong.
Connally's wrong.
The Zapruder film is wrong.
The FBI is wrong.

Only Corbett's interpretation of the Zapruder film is right.
He sees movement in the car at Z-226 and concludes that the movement is the result of a bullet strike.
The guy could have been swatting at a bug for Christsake, but no, old johnny boy says it's a bullet.
Even though he has no evidence to support that.
ROFLMAO

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

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:21:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:10:35 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< bullshit commentary without any supporting evidence automatically deleted >

Apparently three Warren Commission members believed Connally "at face value".
Richard Russell was one. And in this telephone call with President Johnson, he lets Johnson know he doesn't agree with it
and Johnson agrees that he doesn't believe the SBT as well : https://youtu.be/7pW7CNXPCWs

Being a lawyer he should know better than to put this much stock in a witness under these conditions.

Hit by separate shots is corroborated by a bystander who saw both men hit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI

So your idea is that this person can discern from a distance what you contend is a split second difference between the men being hit.

Unless you learn how to apply reason you will never be able to figure simple things out.

Corroborated by the Zapruder film Connally not showing any signs of pain at Z-230.

You assume precision from a poor quality home camera.

The rifle had a average muzzle velocity of 2165 ft/sec. ( 3 H 400 )
If Kennedy and Connally were seated three feet apart and were hit by the same bullet, and the camera ran at 18.3 frames per sec.,
THEY SHOULD HAVE REACTED IN THE SAME Z-FRAME. But Kennedy reacted at Z-225 and Connally at Z-236.

Simultaneously...

https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

You think your assumptions rule out them being hit by the same bullet, but they don`t.

The event does not require two bullets fired less than a second apart, one bullet works fine.

And in the context of a conspiracy such a plan would be ridiculous, foolhardy and not worth a second`s consideration.

At Z-230, Connally shows no sign of pain, even though Corbett's "Connally hit at Z-226" theory says that the bullet has already hit Connally,
destroyed 4 inches of his fifth rib, entered and exited his wrist and lodged in his thigh. And yet he shows no sign of pain.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png

His arm goes up. But you are an idiot so you think your interpretations of facial expressions are all that count.

This fact was so convincing, that the FBI concluded in its Summary Report ( CD 1 ) that the men were hit by separate shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

Bullets go really fast. The SBT explains the event much better.

But Corbett thinks his interpretation of the Zapruder film trumps all this evidence.
All the witnesses are wrong.
Connally's wrong.
The Zapruder film is wrong.
The FBI is wrong.

You are avoiding looking at the right things correctly.

Only Corbett's interpretation of the Zapruder film is right.
He sees movement in the car at Z-226 and concludes that the movement is the result of a bullet strike.
The guy could have been swatting at a bug for Christsake, but no, old johnny boy says it's a bullet.

Maybe Kennedy wasn`t shot in the head at all, maybe he was thinking real hard and his head exploded. Maybe.

Even though he has no evidence to support that.

There is plenty of evidence, enough to show the SBT is clearly what occurred. I`ve laid it out numerous times. Others have also. You are impervious to reason.

ROFLMAO

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

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 06:06:16 -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 Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:21:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:10:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

John Connally insisted to his dying day that he was not hit by the same shot
that hit JFK.

That corroborates both the Z-film and what James Chaney witnessed.

They can't deal with the evidence.
Corbett has Kennedy and Connally being hit at Z224-226 but the Zapruder film doesn't have
Connally reacting until Z-236.
They should have reacted in the same Z-frame.
They were hit by separate shots.

Chickenshit wants us to believe that Connally remained calm and expressed no facial reaction after having suffered 5 bullet wounds.
That's how fucking stupid he is.

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

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:21:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Apparently three Warren Commission members believed Connally "at face value".
Richard Russell was one. And in this telephone call with President Johnson, he lets Johnson know he doesn't agree with it
and Johnson agrees that he doesn't believe the SBT as well : https://youtu.be/7pW7CNXPCWs

Being a lawyer he should know better than to put this much stock in a witness under these conditions.

Russell wasn't the only one who believed Connally over the SBT.
If Connally said they were hit by the same bullet would he be credible ?

Hit by separate shots is corroborated by a bystander who saw both men hit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI

So your idea is that this person can discern from a distance what you contend is a split second difference between the men being hit.

People can tell from reactions and that's the key here.

Corroborated by the Zapruder film Connally not showing any signs of pain at Z-230.

You assume precision from a poor quality home camera.

Do you have evidence the camera was running at a different speed ?

The rifle had a average muzzle velocity of 2165 ft/sec. ( 3 H 400 )
If Kennedy and Connally were seated three feet apart and were hit by the same bullet, and the camera ran at 18.3 frames per sec.,
THEY SHOULD HAVE REACTED IN THE SAME Z-FRAME. But Kennedy reacted at Z-225 and Connally at Z-236.

You think your assumptions rule out them being hit by the same bullet, but they don`t.
The event does not require two bullets fired less than a second apart, one bullet works fine.

And Connally suffered a delayed reaction.

Of course it does. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/reasdoubt1.mp4 https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/reasdoubt2.mp4

At Z-230, Connally shows no sign of pain, even though Corbett's "Connally hit at Z-226" theory says that the bullet has already hit Connally,
destroyed 4 inches of his fifth rib, entered and exited his wrist and lodged in his thigh. And yet he shows no sign of pain.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png

His arm goes up. But you are an idiot so you think your interpretations of facial expressions are all that count.

No, people usually remain calm and show no facial anguish when they been wounded as seriously as Connally was.
You're the idiot.

This fact was so convincing, that the FBI concluded in its Summary Report ( CD 1 ) that the men were hit by separate shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

Bullets go really fast. The SBT explains the event much better.

So you're not looking for evidence, you're looking for explanations.

But Corbett thinks his interpretation of the Zapruder film trumps all this evidence.
All the witnesses are wrong.
Connally's wrong.
The Zapruder film is wrong.
The FBI is wrong.

You are avoiding looking at the right things correctly.

And what would those be ?

Only Corbett's interpretation of the Zapruder film is right.
He sees movement in the car at Z-226 and concludes that the movement is the result of a bullet strike.
The guy could have been swatting at a bug for Christsake, but no, old johnny boy says it's a bullet.

Maybe Kennedy wasn`t shot in the head at all, maybe he was thinking real hard and his head exploded. Maybe.

More stupidity from an idiot. Do you get enjoyment out of making light of the President's murder ?

Even though he has no evidence to support that.

There is plenty of evidence, enough to show the SBT is clearly what occurred. I`ve laid it out numerous times. Others have also. You are impervious to reason.

And you are impervious to evidence.
That's why any time I need a good laugh I come in here and read your posts and laugh my ass off.

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

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:10:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

John Connally insisted to his dying day that he was not hit by the same shot >that hit JFK.

That corroborates both the Z-film and what James Chaney witnessed.

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

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:26:13 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:21:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Apparently three Warren Commission members believed Connally "at face value".
Richard Russell was one. And in this telephone call with President Johnson, he lets Johnson know he doesn't agree with it
and Johnson agrees that he doesn't believe the SBT as well : https://youtu.be/7pW7CNXPCWs

Being a lawyer he should know better than to put this much stock in a witness under these conditions.

Russell wasn't the only one who believed Connally over the SBT.
If Connally said they were hit by the same bullet would he be credible ?

He would be correct. But his opinion either way isn`t what makes the SBT the obvious occurance.

Hit by separate shots is corroborated by a bystander who saw both men hit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI

So your idea is that this person can discern from a distance what you contend is a split second difference between the men being hit.

People can tell from reactions and that's the key here.

It is your meaningless claims about what has to be and what can`t be. It is you unsupported assumption that the nuances of pain must be discernable in a poor quality home movie.

Corroborated by the Zapruder film Connally not showing any signs of pain at Z-230.

You assume precision from a poor quality home camera.

Do you have evidence the camera was running at a different speed ?

Not the point. Your absolute claims based on what you think Connally`s facial expressions as captured in a poor quality home movie must mean are meaningless noise.

The rifle had a average muzzle velocity of 2165 ft/sec. ( 3 H 400 )
If Kennedy and Connally were seated three feet apart and were hit by the same bullet, and the camera ran at 18.3 frames per sec.,
THEY SHOULD HAVE REACTED IN THE SAME Z-FRAME. But Kennedy reacted at Z-225 and Connally at Z-236.

You think your assumptions rule out them being hit by the same bullet, but they don`t.
The event does not require two bullets fired less than a second apart, one bullet works fine.

And Connally suffered a delayed reaction.

When does his arm start going up? Looks simultaneous to Kennedy`s reaction to me...

https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

Which is why you keep removing the link to this.

Of course it does. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/reasdoubt1.mp4 https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/reasdoubt2.mp4

At Z-230, Connally shows no sign of pain, even though Corbett's "Connally hit at Z-226" theory says that the bullet has already hit Connally,
destroyed 4 inches of his fifth rib, entered and exited his wrist and lodged in his thigh. And yet he shows no sign of pain.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png

His arm goes up. But you are an idiot so you think your interpretations of facial expressions are all that count.

No, people usually remain calm and show no facial anguish when they been wounded as seriously as Connally was.

You create a problem and then you imagine a second bullet a split second later to solve the problem you created. You do this because you are playing silly games.

You're the idiot.

Still you.

This fact was so convincing, that the FBI concluded in its Summary Report ( CD 1 ) that the men were hit by separate shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

Bullets go really fast. The SBT explains the event much better.

So you're not looking for evidence, you're looking for explanations.

Of course an explanation is required. The SBT is best explanation, it works so well it can be considered fact.

But Corbett thinks his interpretation of the Zapruder film trumps all this evidence.
All the witnesses are wrong.
Connally's wrong.
The Zapruder film is wrong.
The FBI is wrong.

You are avoiding looking at the right things correctly.

And what would those be ?

The autopsy. The simultaneous reactions of the two victims. How the two were situated in relation from where a shooter was seen shooting. The Beyond the Bullet recreation. Computer modeling showing Kennedy lined up right in front of Connally when the
shots were fired.

Only Corbett's interpretation of the Zapruder film is right.
He sees movement in the car at Z-226 and concludes that the movement is the result of a bullet strike.
The guy could have been swatting at a bug for Christsake, but no, old johnny boy says it's a bullet.

Maybe Kennedy wasn`t shot in the head at all, maybe he was thinking real hard and his head exploded. Maybe.

More stupidity from an idiot. Do you get enjoyment out of making light of the President's murder ?

And your nonsense about Connally swatting a bug was meant to be taken seriously?

Even though he has no evidence to support that.

There is plenty of evidence, enough to show the SBT is clearly what occurred. I`ve laid it out numerous times. Others have also. You are impervious to reason.

And you are impervious to evidence.

I just look at it correctly.

That's why any time I need a good laugh I come in here and read your posts and laugh my ass off.

You find reasoning rationally to be absurd. It can only harm your stupid hobby.

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

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:33:07 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:21:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:10:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

John Connally insisted to his dying day that he was not hit by the same shot
that hit JFK.

That corroborates both the Z-film and what James Chaney witnessed.

They can't deal with the evidence.

We look at it correctly.

Corbett has Kennedy and Connally being hit at Z224-226 but the Zapruder film doesn't have
Connally reacting until Z-236.
They should have reacted in the same Z-frame.
They were hit by separate shots.

Chickenshit wants us to believe that Connally remained calm and expressed no facial reaction after having suffered 5 bullet wounds.

You make "this must mean this" declarations without establishing that "this must mean this". This makes your declarations empty claims.

That's how fucking stupid he is.

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

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:21:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:10:35 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< bullshit commentary without any supporting evidence automatically deleted >

Apparently three Warren Commission members believed Connally "at face value".
Richard Russell was one. And in this telephone call with President Johnson, he lets Johnson know he doesn't agree with it
and Johnson agrees that he doesn't believe the SBT as well : https://youtu.be/7pW7CNXPCWs

Being a lawyer he should know better than to put this much stock in a witness under these conditions.

Hit by separate shots is corroborated by a bystander who saw both men hit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI

So your idea is that this person can discern from a distance what you contend is a split second difference between the men being hit.

According to Gil's own interpretation, JFK reacted at Z225 and Connally at Z226. This is 0.6
seconds apart and Gil thinks a witness could tell they were hit by different shots. Amazing.

Unless you learn how to apply reason you will never be able to figure simple things out.

Corroborated by the Zapruder film Connally not showing any signs of pain at Z-230.

You assume precision from a poor quality home camera.

The rifle had a average muzzle velocity of 2165 ft/sec. ( 3 H 400 )
If Kennedy and Connally were seated three feet apart and were hit by the same bullet, and the camera ran at 18.3 frames per sec.,
THEY SHOULD HAVE REACTED IN THE SAME Z-FRAME. But Kennedy reacted at Z-225 and Connally at Z-236.

Simultaneously...

https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

You think your assumptions rule out them being hit by the same bullet, but they don`t.

The event does not require two bullets fired less than a second apart, one bullet works fine.

And in the context of a conspiracy such a plan would be ridiculous, foolhardy and not worth a second`s consideration.

At Z-230, Connally shows no sign of pain, even though Corbett's "Connally hit at Z-226" theory says that the bullet has already hit Connally,
destroyed 4 inches of his fifth rib, entered and exited his wrist and lodged in his thigh. And yet he shows no sign of pain.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png

His arm goes up. But you are an idiot so you think your interpretations of facial expressions are all that count.

This fact was so convincing, that the FBI concluded in its Summary Report ( CD 1 ) that the men were hit by separate shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

Bullets go really fast. The SBT explains the event much better.

But Corbett thinks his interpretation of the Zapruder film trumps all this evidence.
All the witnesses are wrong.
Connally's wrong.
The Zapruder film is wrong.
The FBI is wrong.

You are avoiding looking at the right things correctly.

Only Corbett's interpretation of the Zapruder film is right.
He sees movement in the car at Z-226 and concludes that the movement is the result of a bullet strike.
The guy could have been swatting at a bug for Christsake, but no, old johnny boy says it's a bullet.

Maybe Kennedy wasn`t shot in the head at all, maybe he was thinking real hard and his head exploded. Maybe.

I know my head has nearly exploded from reading some of Gil's goofball arguments.

Even though he has no evidence to support that.

There is plenty of evidence, enough to show the SBT is clearly what occurred. I`ve laid it out numerous times. Others have also. You are impervious to reason.

Well said.

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

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:21:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:10:35 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< bullshit commentary without any supporting evidence automatically deleted >

Apparently three Warren Commission members believed Connally "at face value".

Which does nothing to add to Connally's credibility. As is your custom, you refuse to address the
points I make and instead take refuge in what other people believe. Tell us what you see, Gil, and
what you think it means. Do you see Connally starting to turn to look over his left shoulder at
Z164? Do you think that is when he began reacting to the first shot? If not, when do you see
him turning to look over his right shoulder in reaction to hearing the first shot?

Richard Russell was one. And in this telephone call with President Johnson, he lets Johnson know he doesn't agree with it
and Johnson agrees that he doesn't believe the SBT as well : https://youtu.be/7pW7CNXPCWs

Hit by separate shots is corroborated by a bystander who saw both men hit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI

A bystander corroborates nothing. A bystander needs to be corroborated.

Corroborated by the Zapruder film Connally not showing any signs of pain at Z-230.

Why do you continue to ignore Connally's arm flip which began at Z226? Why won't you even
address it? Why do you steadfastly pretend it didn't happen?

The rifle had a average muzzle velocity of 2165 ft/sec. ( 3 H 400 )
If Kennedy and Connally were seated three feet apart and were hit by the same bullet, and the camera ran at 18.3 frames per sec.,
THEY SHOULD HAVE REACTED IN THE SAME Z-FRAME. But Kennedy reacted at Z-225 and Connally at Z-236.

You're wrong, Gil. They did react at the same frame, Z226. That's when both of them suddenly
and in perfect unison flipped their arms upward. JFK lifted both arms while Connally flipped his
right arm upward. These were reflexive and involuntary responses to being hit by a bullet which
struck at or just before Z224 when we see Connally's jacket bulge outward. We also see his
shoulders tilt to the right with his left shoulder moving upward. These things have been pointed
out to you numerous times and every time you have refused to address it. Why is that?

At Z-230, Connally shows no sign of pain, even though Corbett's "Connally hit at Z-226" theory says that the bullet has already hit Connally,
destroyed 4 inches of his fifth rib, entered and exited his wrist and lodged in his thigh. And yet he shows no sign of pain.

You are a lying scum, Gil. A lying, despicable, repulsive scum. I have NEVER said Connally was
hit at Z226. I said he REACTED at Z226. Why do you have to distort what I say in order to make a
point? It's because you can't honestly refute what I have said.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png

How can you say Connally is showing no pain by looking at a single frame? What the hell is he
supposed to be look like? Connally had a dual reaction to be shot. The first was the reflexive
response to being struck in the wrist which was the flip of his arm. The second was a cognitive
response which was his twisting and dipping to his right. A reflexive response occurs much
faster because the nerves and muscles are reacting directly to an external stimulus which
requires no interaction with the brain. Such reactions are almost immediate. A cognitive response
requires a signal being sent to the brain and the brain returning a signal to the affect muscle
groups. That's why his arm flipped first before he reacted to the bullet strike that tore through
his right lung.

This fact was so convincing, that the FBI concluded in its Summary Report ( CD 1 ) that the men were hit by separate shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

Your reading comprehension is as piss poor as your reasoning skills. The line you highlighted
does not say JFK and JBC were hit by separate shots. It says two bullets hit JFK and one bullet
hit JBC. That is a true statement even if one bullet hit both men, which is what happened.

But Corbett thinks his interpretation of the Zapruder film trumps all this evidence.

What you have offered is not evidence. It is opinion.

All the witnesses are wrong.

Not all of them. Some of them.

Connally's wrong.

Connally was right about some things and wrong about others. Most glaringly, he was wrong
about the first shot hitting JFK. He could not possibly have first hand knowledge of which
shot hit JFK because he had his back to him when he heard the shot and was unable to see
JFK when he turned his shoulder. It's a shame that no one interviewing him over the years
bothered to ask him why he believes the first shot hit JFK because by his own admission he
did not see JFK before the were both hit by the second shot.

The Zapruder film is wrong.

No, your FUBAR interpretation of the Z-film is wrong.

The FBI is wrong.

The FBI was non-committal regarding the SBT, at least as far as the passage you cited goes.

Only Corbett's interpretation of the Zapruder film is right.

It isn't Corbett's interpretation. It is the CORRECT interpretation and I am hardly the only one
who believes it. You have refused to honestly address any of the points I have made and instead
have resorted to blatantly lying about my position.

He sees movement in the car at Z-226 and concludes that the movement is the result of a bullet strike.

I'd love to hear your alternative explanation for why JFK's and JBC's arms both suddenly flipped
upward but I doubt I ever will because you continue to ignore the fact this is what happened.

The guy could have been swatting at a bug for Christsake, but no, old johnny boy says it's a bullet.

Oh, that's your explanation? Maybe you should have continued to ignore it. Are we supposed to
believe it was just a remarkable coincidence that JFK arm movement began at the exact instant
Connally was swatting at a bug? How do you explain how a bullet exiting from JFK's throat
could have missed JBC? And yes, Gil, the throat wound was an exit wound as every qualified
forensic medical examiner has concluded. You can't cite a single qualified medical examiner
who has offered an opposing viewpoint.

Even though he has no evidence to support that.

I have laid out the evidence. You have ignored the evidence and resorted to lying about what I
said. Try addressing the evidence, Gil and the points I have made.

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

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:26:13 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:21:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Apparently three Warren Commission members believed Connally "at face value".
Richard Russell was one. And in this telephone call with President Johnson, he lets Johnson know he doesn't agree with it
and Johnson agrees that he doesn't believe the SBT as well : https://youtu.be/7pW7CNXPCWs

Being a lawyer he should know better than to put this much stock in a witness under these conditions.

Russell wasn't the only one who believed Connally over the SBT.
If Connally said they were hit by the same bullet would he be credible ?

Not if he based it solely on what he saw and heard at the time. Based on that, he would have no
way of knowing whether JFK had been hit by the same bullet that hit him. On the other hand, if
he based his belief on all the information that became available in the succeeding decades, he
would be credible. It would mean he was looking at the right things correctly.

Hit by separate shots is corroborated by a bystander who saw both men hit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI

So your idea is that this person can discern from a distance what you contend is a split second difference between the men being hit.

People can tell from reactions and that's the key here.

You really think people could discern a difference of 0.6 seconds in the reaction of the two
victims? Hilarious.

Corroborated by the Zapruder film Connally not showing any signs of pain at Z-230.

You assume precision from a poor quality home camera.

Do you have evidence the camera was running at a different speed ?

His remark had nothing to do with the speed. It was about the resolution which lacks the
clarity to interpret facial expressions. Even in the enlarged frames, it is impossible to determine
people's facial expressions because the images are blurry.

The rifle had a average muzzle velocity of 2165 ft/sec. ( 3 H 400 )
If Kennedy and Connally were seated three feet apart and were hit by the same bullet, and the camera ran at 18.3 frames per sec.,
THEY SHOULD HAVE REACTED IN THE SAME Z-FRAME. But Kennedy reacted at Z-225 and Connally at Z-236.

You think your assumptions rule out them being hit by the same bullet, but they don`t.
The event does not require two bullets fired less than a second apart, one bullet works fine.

And Connally suffered a delayed reaction.

No, he didn't. He reacted at the same instant JFK did, immediately after both were struck.

Of course it does. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/reasdoubt1.mp4 https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/reasdoubt2.mp4

Gil expects us to sit through 46 minutes of his FUBAR videos because he can't articulate a lucid
argument on his own.

At Z-230, Connally shows no sign of pain, even though Corbett's "Connally hit at Z-226" theory says that the bullet has already hit Connally,
destroyed 4 inches of his fifth rib, entered and exited his wrist and lodged in his thigh. And yet he shows no sign of pain.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png

His arm goes up. But you are an idiot so you think your interpretations of facial expressions are all that count.

No, people usually remain calm and show no facial anguish when they been wounded as seriously as Connally was.
You're the idiot.

The idiot is the one who thinks he can determine facial expressions by looking at one blurry
frame of a low resolution home movie.

This fact was so convincing, that the FBI concluded in its Summary Report ( CD 1 ) that the men were hit by separate shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

Bullets go really fast. The SBT explains the event much better.

So you're not looking for evidence, you're looking for explanations.

You offer neither.

But Corbett thinks his interpretation of the Zapruder film trumps all this evidence.
All the witnesses are wrong.
Connally's wrong.
The Zapruder film is wrong.
The FBI is wrong.

You are avoiding looking at the right things correctly.

And what would those be ?

For starters that JFK and JBC both suddenly flipped their arms upward at Z226, two frames
after JBC's jacket bulged outward and his shoulders tilted to the right.

Only Corbett's interpretation of the Zapruder film is right.
He sees movement in the car at Z-226 and concludes that the movement is the result of a bullet strike.
The guy could have been swatting at a bug for Christsake, but no, old johnny boy says it's a bullet.

Maybe Kennedy wasn`t shot in the head at all, maybe he was thinking real hard and his head exploded. Maybe.

More stupidity from an idiot. Do you get enjoyment out of making light of the President's murder ?

You assholes have been making a mockery of the assassination for six decades, especially
those of you who want to exonerate the assassin.

Even though he has no evidence to support that.

There is plenty of evidence, enough to show the SBT is clearly what occurred. I`ve laid it out numerous times. Others have also. You are impervious to reason.

And you are impervious to evidence.
That's why any time I need a good laugh I come in here and read your posts and laugh my ass off.

Because you are impervious to both reason and evidence.

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

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 12:28:03 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Which does nothing to add to Connally's credibility. As is your custom, you refuse to address the
points I make and instead take refuge in what other people believe. Tell us what you see, Gil, and
what you think it means. Do you see Connally starting to turn to look over his left shoulder at
Z164?

That was supposed to ask Gil if he saw Connally looking over his RIGHT shoulder at Z164. I'd
fire my proof reader but that would be me. I guess I'll just reprimand him.

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

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 12:38:30 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:06:19 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 8:21:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:10:35 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: < bullshit commentary without any supporting evidence automatically deleted >

Apparently three Warren Commission members believed Connally "at face value".
Richard Russell was one. And in this telephone call with President Johnson, he lets Johnson know he doesn't agree with it
and Johnson agrees that he doesn't believe the SBT as well : https://youtu.be/7pW7CNXPCWs

Being a lawyer he should know better than to put this much stock in a witness under these conditions.

Hit by separate shots is corroborated by a bystander who saw both men hit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI

So your idea is that this person can discern from a distance what you contend is a split second difference between the men being hit.

According to Gil's own interpretation, JFK reacted at Z225 and Connally at Z226. This is 0.6
seconds apart and Gil thinks a witness could tell they were hit by different shots. Amazing.

Actually he said...

"But Kennedy reacted at Z-225 and Connally at Z-236."

I misread it the first time also. So his assessment of when they show signs of being hit is still eleven eighteenths of a second apart, a little more than half a second.

But his duplicity is shown in a variety of other ways. As you pointed out, he ignores Connolly`s arm going up and focuses only on his facial expression. But does he use the facial expression of Kennedy to determine Kennedy is struck at Z-225? Of course
not! Here is z-225, Kennedy`s facial expression show no hint of pain...

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z225.jpg

or z226...

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z226.jpg

So how did Gil determine that Kennedy was struck at z225 when his facial expression looks so serene? My guess would be Kennedy arms going up.

Unless you learn how to apply reason you will never be able to figure simple things out.

Corroborated by the Zapruder film Connally not showing any signs of pain at Z-230.

You assume precision from a poor quality home camera.

The rifle had a average muzzle velocity of 2165 ft/sec. ( 3 H 400 )
If Kennedy and Connally were seated three feet apart and were hit by the same bullet, and the camera ran at 18.3 frames per sec.,
THEY SHOULD HAVE REACTED IN THE SAME Z-FRAME. But Kennedy reacted at Z-225 and Connally at Z-236.

Simultaneously...

https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

You think your assumptions rule out them being hit by the same bullet, but they don`t.

The event does not require two bullets fired less than a second apart, one bullet works fine.

And in the context of a conspiracy such a plan would be ridiculous, foolhardy and not worth a second`s consideration.

At Z-230, Connally shows no sign of pain, even though Corbett's "Connally hit at Z-226" theory says that the bullet has already hit Connally,
destroyed 4 inches of his fifth rib, entered and exited his wrist and lodged in his thigh. And yet he shows no sign of pain.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/z230.png

His arm goes up. But you are an idiot so you think your interpretations of facial expressions are all that count.

This fact was so convincing, that the FBI concluded in its Summary Report ( CD 1 ) that the men were hit by separate shots.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png

Bullets go really fast. The SBT explains the event much better.

But Corbett thinks his interpretation of the Zapruder film trumps all this evidence.
All the witnesses are wrong.
Connally's wrong.
The Zapruder film is wrong.
The FBI is wrong.

You are avoiding looking at the right things correctly.

Only Corbett's interpretation of the Zapruder film is right.
He sees movement in the car at Z-226 and concludes that the movement is the result of a bullet strike.
The guy could have been swatting at a bug for Christsake, but no, old johnny boy says it's a bullet.

Maybe Kennedy wasn`t shot in the head at all, maybe he was thinking real hard and his head exploded. Maybe.

I know my head has nearly exploded from reading some of Gil's goofball arguments.

Even though he has no evidence to support that.

There is plenty of evidence, enough to show the SBT is clearly what occurred. I`ve laid it out numerous times. Others have also. You are impervious to reason.

Well said.

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

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:21:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:10:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

John Connally insisted to his dying day that he was not hit by the same shot
that hit JFK.

That corroborates both the Z-film and what James Chaney witnessed.

The trolls are very upset about the video I posted at the EF where Connally said in 1988
that he and the President were hit by separate shots.
Like all of the evidence I post, they can't refute it.

They're in "panic mode", trying to discredit Connally while at the same time attacking me.
ROFLMAO

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

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 08:56:40 -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 Thu, 5 Oct 2023 09:53:10 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:26:13?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

...

If Connally said they were hit by the same bullet would he be credible ?

Not if he based it solely on what he saw and heard at the time.

IOW's... nothing eyewitnesses can say mean anything. Which makes
sense coming from a believer, they don't believe ANY of the
eyewitnesses.

To them, history comes from deduction & reasoning rather than
evidence.

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

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 06:33:06 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:21:29?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:10:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

John Connally insisted to his dying day that he was not hit by the same shot >>>that hit JFK.

That corroborates both the Z-film and what James Chaney witnessed.

They can't deal with the evidence.
Corbett has Kennedy and Connally being hit at Z224-226 but the Zapruder film doesn't have
Connally reacting until Z-236.

You mean Corbutt just *LIED* about what you'd stated?

Oh the shame!!!

They should have reacted in the same Z-frame.
They were hit by separate shots.

Chickenshit wants us to believe that Connally remained calm and expressed no facial reaction after having suffered 5 bullet wounds.
That's how fucking stupid he is.

They believe the WCR over their own senses.

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

On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 7:03:10 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:21:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:10:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

John Connally insisted to his dying day that he was not hit by the same shot
that hit JFK.

That corroborates both the Z-film and what James Chaney witnessed.

The trolls are very upset about the video I posted at the EF where Connally said in 1988
that he and the President were hit by separate shots.
Like all of the evidence I post, they can't refute it.

Nobody is refuting Connally said it. Nobody needs to refute Connally said it. The question is
whether Connally is correct. The question I have posed and you have yet to answer is how
could Connally possibly know whether JFK was hit by the first or second shot? That is
essential to establishing Connally's credibility on this issue.

They're in "panic mode", trying to discredit Connally while at the same time attacking me.
ROFLMAO

We don't need to discredit Connally. You need to establish his credibility as to which shot hit
JFK. To do this, you would have to explain how Connally COULD HAVE KNOWN this. We're
still waiting for you to do that. Until you answer that, we can't move this conversation forward.

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

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:33:07 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:21:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:10:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

John Connally insisted to his dying day that he was not hit by the same shot
that hit JFK.

That corroborates both the Z-film and what James Chaney witnessed.

They can't deal with the evidence.
Corbett has Kennedy and Connally being hit at Z224-226 but the Zapruder film doesn't have
Connally reacting until Z-236.

No, your interpretation of the Z-film has Connally reacting at Z236. The intelligent people who
look at the evidence correctly can see Kennedy and Connally reacting at Z226. Cheer up, Gil.
You were only off by a little more than a half second. That's much better than you normally do.

They should have reacted in the same Z-frame.

They did. Z226. Open your eyes.

They were hit by separate shots.

Yes, a separate shot did blow JFK's brains out at Z313. They were also hit by the same shot at
or just before Z224.

Chickenshit wants us to believe that Connally remained calm and expressed no facial reaction after having suffered 5 bullet wounds.

Gil thinks he can discern a facial expression by Connally at the blurry Z230 frame. He thinks he
know what Connally's facial expression should be in that blurry frame.

That's how fucking stupid I am.

We know that, Gil, but it's not your fault. You were born that way.

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

On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 2:33:29 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 7:03:10 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:21:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:10:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

John Connally insisted to his dying day that he was not hit by the same shot
that hit JFK.

That corroborates both the Z-film and what James Chaney witnessed.

The trolls are very upset about the video I posted at the EF where Connally said in 1988
that he and the President were hit by separate shots.
Like all of the evidence I post, they can't refute it.

Nobody is refuting Connally said it. Nobody needs to refute Connally said it. The question is
whether Connally is correct. The question I have posed and you have yet to answer is how
could Connally possibly know whether JFK was hit by the first or second shot? That is
essential to establishing Connally's credibility on this issue.

They're in "panic mode", trying to discredit Connally while at the same time attacking me.
ROFLMAO

We don't need to discredit Connally. You need to establish his credibility as to which shot hit
JFK. To do this, you would have to explain how Connally COULD HAVE KNOWN this. We're
still waiting for you to do that. Until you answer that, we can't move this conversation forward.

Here is John Connally in his HSCA testimony on the shots: "That is correct. I *never* saw him [JFK]. I never saw Mrs. Kennedy after the shots were fired. I never saw either one of them, and I don't know when he was hit."
Again *never saw JFK* during the shooting. And "don't know when he was hit." Again, that's not me, it's Connally.

Also note that he said this: "The shots came, in my judgment, the two shots I heard came from the same direction, back over my right shoulder, came from behind us. Very clear to me where they came from. I don't think any shots came from any other
direction. I was conscious until we hit the Stemmons Freeway and then I faded into unconsciousness."
He didn't hear the shot that hit him but that obviously came from behind since it hit him in the back. So he says there were three shots, only three, and all, based on his testimony, coming from behind. If conspiracists think this is a witness for them
then they are not thinking very clearly.
Cite/link: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscacon.htm

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

On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 7:03:10 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:21:29 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:10:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

John Connally insisted to his dying day that he was not hit by the same shot
that hit JFK.

That corroborates both the Z-film and what James Chaney witnessed.

The trolls are very upset about the video I posted at the EF where Connally said in 1988
that he and the President were hit by separate shots.

We explain things to you. We don`t expect you to understand them even after they are explained to you.

Like all of the evidence I post, they can't refute it.

No need to. We only need to look at it correctly.

*YOU* have them being hit about a half second apart. It is your idiotic idea that Connally could determine who was hit first in such a small amount of time.,

If you were sitting on a park bench right next to someone, and you and that person were hit about a half second apart, it wouldn`t mean much if you felt you were sure which of you was struck first.

They're in "panic mode", trying to discredit Connally while at the same time attacking me.

Nobody is trying to discredit Connally. You are just an idiot.

ROFLMAO

What makes you say Kennedy reacted at z-225?

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

On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 10:55:56 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 09:53:10 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:26:13?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

...

If Connally said they were hit by the same bullet would he be credible ?

Not if he based it solely on what he saw and heard at the time.

IOW's... nothing eyewitnesses can say mean anything.

You have to look at it correctly. Conspiracy hobbyists refuse to do this.

Which makes
sense coming from a believer, they don't believe ANY of the
eyewitnesses.

To them, history comes from deduction & reasoning rather than
evidence.

Valid conclusions come from sound reasoning. Since none of the reasoning done by conspiracy hobbyists is sound, none of their conclusion have any merit.

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

On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 10:55:58 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 06:33:06 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:21:29?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:10:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

John Connally insisted to his dying day that he was not hit by the same shot
that hit JFK.

That corroborates both the Z-film and what James Chaney witnessed.

They can't deal with the evidence.
Corbett has Kennedy and Connally being hit at Z224-226 but the Zapruder film doesn't have
Connally reacting until Z-236.

You mean Corbutt just *LIED* about what you'd stated?

Gil is lying about when Connally rteacted.

Oh the shame!!!

They should have reacted in the same Z-frame.
They were hit by separate shots.

Chickenshit wants us to believe that Connally remained calm and expressed no facial reaction after having suffered 5 bullet wounds.

You refuse to look at the available information correctly. Nobody can make you.

That's how fucking stupid he is.

They believe the WCR over their own senses.

https://giphy.com/gifs/john-fitzgerald-Xyf3minuoxuBq

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

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 11:59:28 -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 Fri, 6 Oct 2023 11:49:25 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:33:07?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:21:29?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:10:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

John Connally insisted to his dying day that he was not hit by the same shot
that hit JFK.

That corroborates both the Z-film and what James Chaney witnessed.

They can't deal with the evidence.
Corbett has Kennedy and Connally being hit at Z224-226 but the Zapruder film doesn't have
Connally reacting until Z-236.

No, your interpretation of the Z-film has Connally reacting at Z236.

You don't get to decide what Gil's "interpretation" is. He does just
fine without your lying.

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

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 11:33:27 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 7:03:10?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:21:29?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 04:10:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

John Connally insisted to his dying day that he was not hit by the same shot
that hit JFK.

That corroborates both the Z-film and what James Chaney witnessed.

The trolls are very upset about the video I posted at the EF where Connally said in 1988
that he and the President were hit by separate shots.
Like all of the evidence I post, they can't refute it.

Nobody is refuting Connally said it. Nobody needs to refute Connally said it.

Nor did Gil say this. So tell us moron, why didn't you learn to read
in school?

The question is whether Connally is correct.

And, as he's corroborated by all the other witnesses and the Z-film,
the answer is obvious.

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

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 11:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemgalbraith@yahoo.com> wrote:

Here is John Connally in his HSCA testimony on the shots:...

Doesn't matter what he said - YOU DON'T BELIEVE HIM!

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

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 11:57:09 -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)