JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
Gov. John Connally Grips His White Stetson Hat at Z-272
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on May 03, 2026, 03:40:49 AM ---It's pointless even discussing any of this other crap because if you can't show it's even possible for JBC to be shot in the back at Z271, the rest of your theory collapses like a house of cards. I'm not even asking you to prove he was shot in that back at or about Z271. Just show us that it was possible. Apparently, you can't do that.
--- End quote ---
And so it goes - my apologies to Monty Python:
MASON: Well an argument is not the same as contradiction.
CORBETT: Can be.
MASON: No it can’t. An argument’s a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition. In this case, the witnesses say the first shot struck JFK and the vast majority said last two shots were closer together. That means a separate shot hit JBC after the midpoint between 1 and 3. If you want to contradict that it is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.
CORBETT: No it isn't and no I don't. You have to disprove my spidey senses and they tell me that JBC could not have been hit in the torso at z271.
MASON: No I don't. You keep just contradicting.
CORBETT: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
MASON: But it isn’t just saying, “no it isn’t.”
CORBETT: Yes it is!
MASON: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction’s just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
CORBETT: No it isn’t. ....
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on May 03, 2026, 09:44:58 PM ---And so it goes - my apologies to Monty Python:
MASON: Well an argument is not the same as contradiction.
CORBETT: Can be.
MASON: No it can’t. An argument’s a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition. In this case, the witnesses say the first shot struck JFK and the vast majority said last two shots were closer together. That means a separate shot hit JBC after the midpoint between 1 and 3. If you want to contradict that it is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.
CORBETT: No it isn't and no I don't. You have to disprove my spidey senses and they tell me that JBC could not have been hit in the torso at z271.
MASON: No I don't. You keep just contradicting.
CORBETT: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
MASON: But it isn’t just saying, “no it isn’t.”
CORBETT: Yes it is!
MASON: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction’s just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
CORBETT: No it isn’t. ....
--- End quote ---
You've been given every opportunity to illustrate how it would even be possible for Oswald to shoot JBC in the back when JBC was facing him and you have declined to do so. We both know you can't do it because you know that would have been impossible. Since your entire theory of what happened collapses without that element, there is no point in even discussing the rest of your silly theory which has a whole bunch of other problems.
You have managed to do one thing. You have the LNs and CTs agreeing with each other on something. We all know how ludicrous your theory is.
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on May 03, 2026, 10:39:41 PM ---You've been given every opportunity to illustrate how it would even be possible for Oswald to shoot JBC in the back when JBC was facing him and you have declined to do so. We both know you can't do it because you know that would have been impossible. Since your entire theory of what happened collapses without that element, there is no point in even discussing the rest of your silly theory which has a whole bunch of other problems.
You have managed to do one thing. You have the LNs and CTs agreeing with each other on something. We all know how ludicrous your theory is.
--- End quote ---
I see that should have said:
MASON: Well an argument is not the same as contradiction.
CORBETT: Can be.
MASON: No it can’t. An argument’s a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition. In this case, the witnesses say the first shot struck JFK and the vast majority said last two shots were closer together. That means a separate shot hit JBC after the midpoint between 1 and 3. I have explained how the bullet path through the body, as found by Dr. Shaw, is consistent with hitting JBC while his torso is twisted around so his shoulders are sideways in the car. In that position a path from the lateral edge of the scapula to right nipple goes around the pleural cavity. The wounds are inconsistent with him facing forward because when facing forward the path from back wound to exit wound goes through the pleural cavity. If you want to contradict that it is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.
CORBETT: No it isn't and no I don't. You have to disprove my spidey senses and they tell me that JBC could not have been hit in the torso at z271.
MASON: No I don't. You keep just contradicting.
CORBETT: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
MASON: But it isn’t just saying, “no it isn’t.”
CORBETT: Yes it is!
MASON: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction’s just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
CORBETT: No it isn’t. ....
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Andrew Mason on Yesterday at 12:29:46 AM ---I see that should have said:
MASON: Well an argument is not the same as contradiction.
CORBETT: Can be.
MASON: No it can’t. An argument’s a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition. In this case, the witnesses say the first shot struck JFK and the vast majority said last two shots were closer together. That means a separate shot hit JBC after the midpoint between 1 and 3. I have explained how the bullet path through the body, as found by Dr. Shaw, is consistent with hitting JBC while his torso is twisted around so his shoulders are sideways in the car. In that position a path from the lateral edge of the scapula to right nipple goes around the pleural cavity. The wounds are inconsistent with him facing forward because when facing forward the path from back wound to exit wound goes through the pleural cavity. If you want to contradict that it is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.
CORBETT: No it isn't and no I don't. You have to disprove my spidey senses and they tell me that JBC could not have been hit in the torso at z271.
MASON: No I don't. You keep just contradicting.
CORBETT: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
MASON: But it isn’t just saying, “no it isn’t.”
CORBETT: Yes it is!
MASON: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction’s just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
CORBETT: No it isn’t. ....
--- End quote ---
You continue to avoid the elephant in the room. Your theory is impossible due to JBC's position at Z271. Since you can't illustrate how JBC could be shot in the back while facing Oswald, nothing else matters. If you can't do that, and it's obvious you can't, there's no point in discussing any other aspect of your FUBAR theory. I don't even bother to read what you post anymore.
Andrew Mason:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 12:47:38 PM ---You continue to avoid the elephant in the room. Your theory is impossible due to JBC's position at Z271. Since you can't illustrate how JBC could be shot in the back while facing Oswald, nothing else matters. If you can't do that, and it's obvious you can't, there's no point in discussing any other aspect of your FUBAR theory. I don't even bother to read what you post anymore.
--- End quote ---
He wasn't facing Oswald. His head was turned about 90 degrees to this shoulders and his shoulders were turned 90 degrees to the car forward direction. He was turned sideways in the car, not backward. When the shoulders turn the shoulder blade or scapula moves back exposing more of the armpit, which is where JBC was struck. There is no problem with a bullet going from just right of the right edge of the right scapula and striking the fifth rib, deflecting right a bit and exiting under the right nipple.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version