The Shifting Single-Bullet Theory--It Always "Works" No Matter What

[Jack Nessan]

I just asked for a simple cite. We all know there are none. You have admitted as much by your refusal to provide any.

Cite what? No, there is nothing new here. You are well aware of what these witnesses stated. Ignoring the key parts of the witness statements and pretend they did not say them. Doing it with Mary Woodwards as well as Nellies, Jackies, and JBC’s. All in an attempt to promote this bizarre theory. For the umpteenth time you expect to have your hand held and be walked through it.

[Andrew Mason]

Cite what? No, there is nothing new here. You are well aware of what these witnesses stated. Ignoring the key parts of the witness statements and pretend they did not say them. Doing it with Mary Woodwards as well as Nellies, Jackies, and JBC’s. All in an attempt to promote this bizarre theory. For the umpteenth time you expect to have your hand held and be walked through it.

It would take fewer typing strokes to just provide a cite to where JBC and/or Nellie said that JBC was hit in the back by the first shot.... But I can understand the difficulty in doing that.  Either admit that there is no such source and save us time of responding to your posts, or provide the source.

For the purposes of this discussion, my "theory" is simply that JBC was hit in the back by the second shot. How is that bizarre?  You may disagree with it, but that does not make it bizarre.  What is bizarre is maintaining that JBC and Nellie both said that JBC was hit in the back by the first shot but being unable to provide a source...

[Jack Nessan]

It would take fewer typing strokes to just provide a cite to where JBC and/or Nellie said that JBC was hit in the back by the first shot.... But I can understand the difficulty in doing that.  Either admit that there is no such source and save us time of responding to your posts, or provide the source.

For the purposes of this discussion, my "theory" is simply that JBC was hit in the back by the second shot. How is that bizarre?  You may disagree with it, but that does not make it bizarre.  What is bizarre is maintaining that JBC and Nellie both said that JBC was hit in the back by the first shot but being unable to provide a source...

This is just flat out pathetic. Actually, it is beyond pathetic but totally typical of your interpretive skills. Given how many times their collective corroborating statements have been posted you now are pretending you don’t know anything about their testimonies, but yet you just quoted JBC.

Just like Mary Woodward’s statement about the first shot after JFK turned and faced forward, once again being ignorant is your go to response.

[Andrew Mason]

This is just flat out pathetic. Actually, it is beyond pathetic but totally typical of your interpretive skills. Given how many times their collective corroborating statements have been posted you now are pretending you don’t know anything about their testimonies, but yet you just quoted JBC.

Just like Mary Woodward’s statement about the first shot after JFK turned and faced forward, once again being ignorant is your go to response.

Is it that hard to give us a cite for a statement by JBC stating that he was hit in the back on the first shot and not the second? 

If such a statement exists as you say, it should take you much less time to provide it than it takes to think up new epithets for my beyond pathetic lack of interpretive skills. Besides it is not about interpreting his statements.  He spoke English.  It is about reading what he said. 

[Jack Nessan]

Is it that hard to give us a cite for a statement by JBC stating that he was hit in the back on the first shot and not the second? 

If such a statement exists as you say, it should take you much less time to provide it than it takes to think up new epithets for my beyond pathetic lack of interpretive skills. Besides it is not about interpreting his statements.  He spoke English.  It is about reading what he said.

If you are not interested enough to educate yourself then let it go. It was pointed out to you many times.

[Andrew Mason]

If you are not interested enough to educate yourself then let it go. It was pointed out to you many times.

I would have thought that a statement by Governor Connally or Nellie stating that he was hit in the back by the first shot would have been such a remarkable find that you would have no trouble finding it. 

Or perhaps I am misinterpreting your posts.  Are you saying that I am supposed to interpret your posts saying that they said he was hit in the back by the second shot to mean that they didn't actually say this but said the opposite AND I am supposed to interpret their statements as if they meant the opposite of what they said.

Unfortunately, my interpretive skills are too pathetic to do that.  So just give us the cite.

[Jack Nessan]

I would have thought that a statement by Governor Connally or Nellie stating that he was hit in the back by the first shot would have been such a remarkable find that you would have no trouble finding it. 

Or perhaps I am misinterpreting your posts.  Are you saying that I am supposed to interpret your posts saying that they said he was hit in the back by the second shot to mean that they didn't actually say this but said the opposite AND I am supposed to interpret their statements as if they meant the opposite of what they said.

Unfortunately, my interpretive skills are too pathetic to do that.  So just give us the cite.

The interpretive skills assessment is proving to be spot on or you would already have the answer. Actually, what it shows is you already know which is the point.

[Andrew Mason]

The interpretive skills assessment is proving to be spot on or you would already have the answer. Actually, what it shows is you already know which is the point.

Ok, then the reference would be John and Nellie Connally's WC statements.  So your accusation that I made a patently false statement when I stated what they actually said, actually means:

1.  that I accurately stated what they said but
2.  I intentionally omitted your interpretation that they meant the opposite of what they said, and
3.  in so omitting your interpretation, I made a patently false statement.

Thanks for clarifying. It is important to understand the language the other person is using when engaging in a discussion.