On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 06:29:32 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith <stevemgalbraith@yahoo.com> wrote:

It's obvious that "thuh government", as required by law, accepted the lowest bid for the act. So they awarded the contract to "Bill's Assassination and Bait Shop" and to keep costs down these yahoo used cheap, unreliable ammunition. You get what you pay

for.

As for me, I'd like to know how this "undercharged" bullet broke/went through the windshield first then entered the throat? Or was this another shot? If so, where did *it* go?
This shows, once again, that when the conspiracy believers have to put a theory as to what happened on the table it utterly collapses on its own internal illogic and inconsistencies.

Nothing has "collapsed" at all. (Unless it would be your courage.)

That you seem perplexed how a bullet could break a windshield, then
strike someone, yet not exit, can only provoke laughter from
intelligent people.

Indeed, I'd be happy to demonstrate this for you ... bring the
windshield of your choice, I'll select the weapon of my choice. You
stand behind the windshield.

This post simply shows how desperate believers are getting... that
they can HONESTLY assert perplexity at ordinary events.

Bullet break glass

Bullets don't necessarily exit bodies.

Where's the "utter collapse?"

Of course, Steven, like Corbutt; is too afraid to directly debate me.

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

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 05:15:24 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecorbett4@gmail.com> wrote:

Giltardo wants us to believe that his imaginary frontal shooter fired a shot >into JFK's throat that made only a shallow penetration. Then he wants us to >believe the same shooter fired a frontal shot into JFK's head that shattered >his skull, caused a massive explosive head wound, splattered blood and
brain tissue everywhere, and blew out the back of JFK's head. Did the shooter >switch guns between shots?

Or maybe Giltardo believes the conspirators placed two shooters in front
of JFK who were never seen by anybody. Maybe the conspiracy was on a
budget and could only afford to equip one of the shooters with a high powered >weapon. The other had to make do with whatever he could come up with, and >that was a Saturday Night Special.

Of course, Corbutt will **NEVER** quote Gil saying any such thing.
Corbutt can't refute what Gil *DOES* say, so he's limited to his
imagination.

I'm totally unaware of **ANY** critic who argues that theshooter who
shot JFK's throat fired any other rounds.

But this shows how desperate believers are now... they simply imagine
what they want a critic to say, then put those words in his mouth so
they have something that they can argue.

Watch folks, as Corbutt simply runs from this refutation...

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

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:52:18 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 10:32:02?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 06:29:32 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:

It's obvious that "thuh government", as required by law, accepted the lowest bid for the act. So they awarded the contract to "Bill's Assassination and Bait Shop" and to keep costs down these yahoo used cheap, unreliable ammunition. You get what you

pay for.

As for me, I'd like to know how this "undercharged" bullet broke/went through the windshield first then entered the throat? Or was this another shot? If so, where did *it* go?
This shows, once again, that when the conspiracy believers have to put a theory as to what happened on the table it utterly collapses on its own internal illogic and inconsistencies.

Nothing has "collapsed" at all. (Unless it would be your courage.)

That you seem perplexed how a bullet could break a windshield, then
strike someone, yet not exit, can only provoke laughter from
intelligent people.

Indeed, I'd be happy to demonstrate this for you ... bring the
windshield of your choice, I'll select the weapon of my choice. You
stand behind the windshield.

This post simply shows how desperate believers are getting... that
they can HONESTLY assert perplexity at ordinary events.

Bullet break glass

Bullets don't necessarily exit bodies.

Where's the "utter collapse?"

Of course, Steven, like Corbutt; is too afraid to directly debate me.

Isn't it funny how when one shithead posts something insulting to one of us, that all the other shitheads have to chime in ?
It's like a Shithead Convention !!!!!!

Steven always likes to pile on, but always refuses to debate, and
simply runs away when his nonsense is refuted.

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

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:43:01 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 8:15:26?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

Giltardo wants us to believe that his imaginary frontal shooter fired a shot >> into JFK's throat that made only a shallow penetration. Then he wants us to >> believe the same shooter fired a frontal shot into JFK's head that shattered >> his skull, caused a massive explosive head wound, splattered blood and
brain tissue everywhere, and blew out the back of JFK's head. Did the shooter
switch guns between shots?

Or maybe Giltardo believes the conspirators placed two shooters in front
of JFK who were never seen by anybody. Maybe the conspiracy was on a
budget and could only afford to equip one of the shooters with a high powered
weapon. The other had to make do with whatever he could come up with, and
that was a Saturday Night Special.

I don't want you to believe anything. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
In fact, I don't give a flying fuck WHAT you believe.
That's your business.

YOU'RE the one who has a problem with what I believe.
YOU'RE the one calling the names like the small-minded idiot you are.
YOU'RE the one who can't back up what you say with evidence.
YOU'RE the one constantly being caught in lies.

Tell us, in what year can we expect you to post some actual evidence ?

No Gil - better to ask the coward to CITE evidence. You can't trust
what he claims about the evidence...

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

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 09:55:16 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
<jecorbett4@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 11:43:02?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 8:15:26?AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:

Giltardo wants us to believe that his imaginary frontal shooter fired a shot
into JFK's throat that made only a shallow penetration. Then he wants us to >>> believe the same shooter fired a frontal shot into JFK's head that shattered
his skull, caused a massive explosive head wound, splattered blood and
brain tissue everywhere, and blew out the back of JFK's head. Did the shooter
switch guns between shots?

Or maybe Giltardo believes the conspirators placed two shooters in front >>> of JFK who were never seen by anybody. Maybe the conspiracy was on a
budget and could only afford to equip one of the shooters with a high powered
weapon. The other had to make do with whatever he could come up with, and >>> that was a Saturday Night Special.

I don't want you to believe anything. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
In fact, I don't give a flying fuck WHAT you believe.
That's your business.

YOU'RE the one who has a problem with what I believe.
YOU'RE the one calling the names like the small-minded idiot you are.
YOU'RE the one who can't back up what you say with evidence.
YOU'RE the one constantly being caught in lies.

Tell us, in what year can we expect you to post some actual evidence ?

Giltardo, you are the one who wants history rewritten.

This doesn't answer the question. Gil asked you in what year can we
expect you to post some actual evidence.

I would change that to when can we expect you to CITE some evidence.

You keep talking, but you aren't saying anything.

The burden is therefore on you to
convince a whole lot of other people as to why that should be done.

Nope. Most of America already accepts and believes what we critics
say.

If that is not your
goal, then just what is it you are trying to accomplish with these never ending questions
you raise but never try to answer.

Simple - to prove you a coward.

I have no case to make. That was already done by the Warren Commission.

They failed. You've failed.

I have looked at their case and found it compelling.

Unfortunately for you, your belief isn't compelling to others.

They correctly identified Oswald as the assassin and
the murderer of J.D. Tippit.

This is your belief. You can't cite the evidence for this, so who
cares? Your mother???

Those findings have been widely accepted, even by people who
don't believe Oswald was acting alone when he assassinated JFK.

You reference the very polls you don't believe??? What a maroon!

I am perfectly comfortable
with the status quo.

That would be the HSCA.

I have no burden to change anybody's mind.

Nor could you, only the evidence and logical argument can do that.

I really don't care if a few wackos want to believe Oswald was guilty.

Neither do I. I simply laugh at you.

I'm just someone who finds a bit of fiendish pleasure in the death of a President.

Quite the kook, aren't you?

Yes, I'm the guy on the beach who keeps taking pictures of little boys.

How many times have you been arrested?

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

On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 12:10:35 -0800 (PST), 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)