From: hsienzant@aol.com   
      
   On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 1:26:40 PM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:   
   > On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 1:22:01 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant wrote:    
   > > On Thursday, December 14, 2023 at 12:30:28 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here   
   wrote:    
   > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:44:50 PM UTC-5, Hank Sienzant   
   wrote:    
   > > > > 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.    
   > > > > > I knew you were full of shit.    
   > > > > >    
   > > > > > 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.    
   > > > > >    
   > > > > > THAT'S how he knew.    
   > > > > > Nobody told him.    
   > > > > > Another one of your lies.    
   > > > > Straw man argument.    
   > > > >    
   > > > > What Corbett said, and you’re ignoring, is this:    
   > > > >    
   > > > > “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.”    
   > > > >    
   > > > > You’re leaving JFK out of the rebuttal entirely, but that’s who   
   Corbett was talking about: How Connally came to believe when JFK was hit.    
   > > > >    
   > > > > You don’t talk to his point whatsoever.    
   > > > Here Hank relies upon the witness, and witnesses are notoriously   
   unreliable. We can see in the Zapruder film that Connally looks directly at   
   JFK after he has been shot in the throat. Obviously, Connally did look at JFK   
   and that's why he knew that    
   JFK had been hit by the "first" shot. And we can see that Connally was hit   
   shortly thereafter.    
   > > Same questions as to Gil.    
   > >    
   > > Did Connally lie to the HSCA? Did the HSCA alter his testimony? Did   
   Connally have his eyes open after being short through his trunk?    
   > >    
   > > Can you explain the discrepancy between what Connally said and what you   
   believe?   
   > He was mistaken. Surely a Nutter can understand that.   
      
   It’s you and Gil arguing he was mistaken… as with all inconvenient   
   testimony and evidence, you look for a reason to discard it. Your evidence is   
   driven by your beliefs rather than your beliefs being driven by the evidence.   
   Here you discard Connally's    
   very words because they are inconvenient to your beliefs.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)