From: jecorbett4@gmail.com   
      
   On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:30:48 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:22:26 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett wrote:    
   > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:09:52 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:    
   > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 11:06:31 AM UTC-5, JE Corbett   
   wrote:    
   > > > > JBC was mostly right except for his belief that JFK was hit by the   
   first shot. But that's something he was told by others. He couldn't have   
   witnessed that for himself.    
   > > > Really ? This is the first I'm hearing of this.    
   > > > John Connally was told by other people that JFK was hit by the first   
   shot ?    
   > > >    
   > > > Source ?    
   > > It's called process of elimination. It requires the ability to reason   
   which is a process you have rejected. There are only two    
   > > ways Connally could have known which shot hit JFK. Either he saw it for   
   himself or somebody told him. Since he told us    
   > > he hadn't seen it for himself, that kind of narrows it down.   
   > Earth to Corbett: process of elimination is not evidence.    
      
   It is the correct way to look at evidence. It is how you determine what the   
   available evidence is telling you. For any piece of   
   evidence, there might be a number of possible explanations. If you can   
   logically eliminate the possibilities until there is only   
   one, you have proof. In this case, there were two ways Connally could have   
   known which shot hit JFK. Either he saw it for   
   himself or he was told by somebody else. Since his testimony eliminated the   
   possibility that he had seen it or himself, that   
   leaves only the possibility that somebody told him which shot hit JFK. I'm   
   sure you  couldn't follow this because you reject   
   reasoning as a way of determining truth. Fortunately in our system of justice,   
   judges instruct jurors to do this type of    
   reasoning and draw logical inferences from the evidence presented to them. Had   
   Oswald gone to trial, his jury would have    
   been instructed to do so which would have been curtains for your client.    
      
   > I knew you were full of shit.    
      
   You think so because I apply reasoning to available evidence to draw logical   
   conclusions.   
   >    
   > Connally was a hunter who knew that a rifle bullet travelled faster than the   
   speed of sound.    
   > He knew that he would have been hit before he heard the shot.    
   > He knew that if he had heard the shot and he wasn't hit, then that shot   
   didn't hit him.    
      
   Here's where your inability to reason has failed you again. None of the above   
   would have told him which shot hit JFK.   
   >    
   > THAT'S how he knew.    
      
   Explain how any of that would have told him whether JFK had been hit by the   
   first or second shot. It would only have told   
   him which shot hit him. It wouldn't have told him if that shot had passed   
   through JFK before it struck him.    
      
   > Nobody told him.    
      
   Nobody needed to tell him which shot hit him. He needed to rely on others to   
   know which shot hit JFK.   
      
   > Another one of your lies.   
      
   Another one of your displays of your inability to think logically. You just   
   don't seem to have any aptitude for it. Maybe   
   it's a good thin you don't try. It might cause aneurysm   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)