Gov. John Connally Grips His White Stetson Hat at Z-272

[John Corbett]

I agree it is pointless if you can’t see that with your torso twisted and shoulders turned 90 degrees to the hips, the lateral edge of the scapula, middle of the right armpit and a point just below and medial to the right nipple align and form a left-to-right path that does not pass through the pleural cavity and right lung.

Why not at least try sitting and, keeping your hips facing forward and with your finger on the edge of your shoulder blade, turn your shoulders 90 degrees. Your finger, fifth rib at mid armpit and right nipple will form a straight line going around the pleural cavity.

I am not a thoracic surgeon nor anatomist, but it may be that the known bullet path requires that kind of right turn for the bullet path not to penetrate the pleural cavity.

I am also saddened that you would consider the honest recollections of the witnesses to the murder of your President to be crap.

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.

[Andrew Mason]

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.

All I have done is show that the recollections of witnesses overwhelmingly put the first shot hitting JFK in the neck and the second shot striking JBC in the right armpit after the midpoint between the first and third, and the third striking JFK in the head.

So, according to that evidence the second shot occurred when JBC was turned sideways.  That is not my “theory”. That just follows from that witness evidence. And, this is exactly what Nellie and Gayle Newman recalled seeing shortly after the events.

Now you are saying that you can prove that, despite being independent and mutually consistent, this evidence is all wrong. So it is up to you to show that what the witnesses said happened could not have occurred.  So why don’t you show us why the bullet path through JBC ‘s torso doesn’t work at z271 but does at z222?

[John Corbett]

All I have done is show that the recollections of witnesses overwhelmingly put the first shot hitting JFK in the neck and the second shot striking JBC in the right armpit after the midpoint between the first and third, and the third striking JFK in the head.

So, according to that evidence the second shot occurred when JBC was turned sideways.  That is not my “theory”. That just follows from that witness evidence. And, this is exactly what Nellie and Gayle Newman recalled seeing shortly after the events.

Now you are saying that you can prove that, despite being independent and mutually consistent, this evidence is all wrong. So it is up to you to show that what the witnesses said happened could not have occurred.  So why don’t you show us why the bullet path through JBC ‘s torso doesn’t work at z271 but does at z222?

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.

[Andrew Mason]

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.

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]

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.  ....

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]

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.

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]

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.  ....

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.