Getting Some Facts Straight About the Single-Bullet Theory

[Martin Weidmann]

Do you know what "non-sequitur" means?

JohnM

Silly question. Most conclusions in the WC report are non-sequitur....

[John Tonkovich]

Do you know what "non-sequitur" means?

JohnM

Yes, your postings are, primarily, non sequiturs. You seem unable to answer questions, so you post unrelated info, and meaningless graphics.

Now, why would the Connaly suit be laundered?
But , not JFK's?
There was a very good reason to launder the suit. And, it was tied to the single bullet theory.
Do you understand that, or do I need to explain it for you?

[Bill Chapman]

Do you understand why Connally's suit was laundered?
Hint: might have something to do with Connally's political future.

Can't wait for your press conference

[John Mytton]

Yes, your postings are, primarily, non sequiturs. You seem unable to answer questions, so you post unrelated info, and meaningless graphics.

Now, why would the Connaly suit be laundered?
But , not JFK's?
There was a very good reason to launder the suit. And, it was tied to the single bullet theory.
Do you understand that, or do I need to explain it for you?

OK, I would really like to see your conclusion because figuring out what you perceive to be reality becomes excessively time consuming and frankly I have better things to do.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

McAdams site

Nope.

Google:
No results found for "behind the forehead" site:mcadams.posc.mu.edu.

[Bill Chapman]

Nope.

Google:
No results found for "behind the forehead" site:mcadams.posc.mu.edu.

It's from a book apparently; I saw the quote on McAdam's site in a graphic layout similar in style to a DPD dispatch layout @McAdams. It might be on the McAdams page (in another graphics layout) where he compares witness testimony as to what they said at the time and then later.

[John Tonkovich]

It's from a book apparently; I saw the quote on McAdam's site in a graphic layout similar in style to a DPD dispatch layout @McAdams. It might be on the McAdams page (in another graphics layout) where he compares witness testimony as to what they said at the time and then later.

You're better off at History Matters, or National Archives.
McAdams is a propagandist.

[John Iacoletti]

It's from a book apparently; I saw the quote on McAdam's site in a graphic layout similar in style to a DPD dispatch layout @McAdams. It might be on the McAdams page (in another graphics layout) where he compares witness testimony as to what they said at the time and then later.

More likely it's yet another Chapman recollection failure.