Gil fails to appreciate that history does not operate under the same rules as
trial courts. Our justice system has a twofold mission. Determine the truth while protecting the rights of the accused. History has one mission. To determine the truth. Rights belong to the living. The three most basic rights
as defined by the Constitution are life, liberty, and property. Once he died,
Oswald had none of these that needed protecting and history does not need
to be concerned with them. Gil's objections to the evidence, real or imagined,
mostly imagined, are moot. In determining the truth of the assassination, we can avail ourselves of all of the available evidence, whether or not it conforms to the justice system's rules of evidence. But Gil seems to have
no interest in determining the truth. His mission seems to be to get all the evidence that Oswald was a double murderer dismissed on technicalities.
That way he doesn't have to deal with what that evidence clearly shows.
History should look at all the available evidence and weigh it for probative value. We must determine how reliable each piece of evidence is in determining the truth, then put that evidence together into a plausible scenario. Oswald as a double murderer is the only plausible scenario possible given the evidence we have. To argue against that conclusion, one must invent excuses to dismiss the evidence. That seems to be Gil's mission. He doesn't want to explain the evidence. He wants to explain it away.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:33:53 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
<bullshit comments deleted>
The Warren Commission had a mandate according to the Katzenbach memo to present a case in which,
"the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial".
But they allowed all kinds of evidence that would have been inadmissible at trial.
and the memos prove THEY FUCKING KNEW IT.
It's only numbskulls like yourself that can't see that you were conned.
Sky throne is right.
You act as if you care about something you claim you don't care about!
That makes you a liar, as usual.
Gil fails to appreciate that history does not operate...
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:32:18?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:33:53?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
<bullshit comments deleted>
The Warren Commission had a mandate according to the Katzenbach memo to present a case in which,
"the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial".
The Katzenbach memo was not a directive to the Warren Commission. It was a memo between
the Justice Department and the White House. It reflected what Katzenbach already knew. The
evidence was overwhelming that Oswald was the assassin.
But they allowed all kinds of evidence that would have been inadmissible at trial.
and the memos prove THEY FUCKING KNEW IT.
The Warren Commission was not conducting a trial. It was a fact finding mission. They should
have looked at all the evidence whether it would have been admissible at a trial or not. They
should have weighed each piece of evidence based on its probative value.
Once again, Gil demonstrates he doesn't understand that criminal trials have different rules of
evidence than a fact finding commission.
It's only numbskulls like yourself that can't see that you were conned.
Sky throne is right.
You act as if you care about something you claim you don't care about!
That makes you a liar, as usual.
Gil thinks I'm a liar.
Gil fails to appreciate that history does not operate under the same rules asCorrect. But they only use this legal/court standard with the evidence against Oswald. When it comes to their conspiracy claims, when it comes to them accusing LBJ or Hoover or Dulles or even minor figures like Greer or Ruth Paine this legalistic
trial courts. Our justice system has a twofold mission. Determine the truth while protecting the rights of the accused. History has one mission. To determine the truth. Rights belong to the living. The three most basic rights
as defined by the Constitution are life, liberty, and property. Once he died,
Oswald had none of these that needed protecting and history does not need
to be concerned with them. Gil's objections to the evidence, real or imagined,
mostly imagined, are moot. In determining the truth of the assassination, we can avail ourselves of all of the available evidence, whether or not it conforms to the justice system's rules of evidence. But Gil seems to have
no interest in determining the truth. His mission seems to be to get all the evidence that Oswald was a double murderer dismissed on technicalities.
That way he doesn't have to deal with what that evidence clearly shows.
History should look at all the available evidence and weigh it for probative value. We must determine how reliable each piece of evidence is in determining the truth, then put that evidence together into a plausible scenario. Oswald as a double murderer is the only plausible scenario possible given the evidence we have. To argue against that conclusion, one must invent excuses to dismiss the evidence. That seems to be Gil's mission. He doesn't want to explain the evidence. He wants to explain it away.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:33:53 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:standard disappears, is nowhere to be found.
Gil fails to appreciate that history does not operate under the same rules as
trial courts. Our justice system has a twofold mission. Determine the truth
while protecting the rights of the accused. History has one mission. To determine the truth. Rights belong to the living. The three most basic rights
as defined by the Constitution are life, liberty, and property. Once he died,
Oswald had none of these that needed protecting and history does not need to be concerned with them. Gil's objections to the evidence, real or imagined,
mostly imagined, are moot. In determining the truth of the assassination, we
can avail ourselves of all of the available evidence, whether or not it conforms to the justice system's rules of evidence. But Gil seems to have no interest in determining the truth. His mission seems to be to get all the
evidence that Oswald was a double murderer dismissed on technicalities. That way he doesn't have to deal with what that evidence clearly shows.
History should look at all the available evidence and weigh it for probativeCorrect. But they only use this legal/court standard with the evidence against Oswald. When it comes to their conspiracy claims, when it comes to them accusing LBJ or Hoover or Dulles or even minor figures like Greer or Ruth Paine this legalistic
value. We must determine how reliable each piece of evidence is in determining the truth, then put that evidence together into a plausible scenario. Oswald as a double murderer is the only plausible scenario possible given the evidence we have. To argue against that conclusion, one must invent excuses to dismiss the evidence. That seems to be Gil's mission.
He doesn't want to explain the evidence. He wants to explain it away.
If they want to use this high standard against Oswald they need to use it against everyone else they accuse of murdering JFK. But they *never* do.
It's thoroughly inconsistent - what do you expect from a person who uncritically accepted the Soviet investigation? - and once again reveals that they are engaged in reverse engineering a conspiracy. That is conspiracy first, evidence second.
Correct. But they only use this legal/court standard with the evidence against Oswald.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:33:53 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:standard disappears, is nowhere to be found.
Gil fails to appreciate that history does not operate under the same rules as
trial courts. Our justice system has a twofold mission. Determine the truth
while protecting the rights of the accused. History has one mission. To determine the truth. Rights belong to the living. The three most basic rights
as defined by the Constitution are life, liberty, and property. Once he died,
Oswald had none of these that needed protecting and history does not need to be concerned with them. Gil's objections to the evidence, real or imagined,
mostly imagined, are moot. In determining the truth of the assassination, we
can avail ourselves of all of the available evidence, whether or not it conforms to the justice system's rules of evidence. But Gil seems to have no interest in determining the truth. His mission seems to be to get all the
evidence that Oswald was a double murderer dismissed on technicalities. That way he doesn't have to deal with what that evidence clearly shows.
History should look at all the available evidence and weigh it for probativeCorrect. But they only use this legal/court standard with the evidence against Oswald. When it comes to their conspiracy claims, when it comes to them accusing LBJ or Hoover or Dulles or even minor figures like Greer or Ruth Paine this legalistic
value. We must determine how reliable each piece of evidence is in determining the truth, then put that evidence together into a plausible scenario. Oswald as a double murderer is the only plausible scenario possible given the evidence we have. To argue against that conclusion, one must invent excuses to dismiss the evidence. That seems to be Gil's mission.
He doesn't want to explain the evidence. He wants to explain it away.
If they want to use this high standard against Oswald they need to use it against everyone else they accuse of murdering JFK. But they *never* do.Person A: "The evidence is Oswald murdered JFK."
It's thoroughly inconsistent - what do you expect from a person who uncritically accepted the Soviet investigation? - and once again reveals that they are engaged in reverse engineering a conspiracy. That is conspiracy first, evidence second.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 12:47:38?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:32:18?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:33:53?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:You have made no persuasive arguments that this is true.
<bullshit comments deleted>
The Warren Commission had a mandate according to the Katzenbach memo to present a case in which,
"the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial".
But they allowed all kinds of evidence that would have been inadmissible at trial.
Every time the flaws in your ideas are shown you disappear.
and the memos prove THEY FUCKING KNEW IT.
It's only numbskulls like yourself that can't see that you were conned.
Sky throne is right.
You act as if you care about something you claim you don't care about!
That makes you a liar, as usual.
Here is LBJ's Executive Order creating the commission. There is
nothing in his "mandate" about what type of evidence they could or
couldn't use or what standards they needed to follow.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-11130-appointing-commission-report-upon-the-assassination-president-john-f
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:33:53 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
<bullshit comments deleted>
The Warren Commission had a mandate according to the Katzenbach memo to present a case in which,
"the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial".
But they allowed all kinds of evidence that would have been inadmissible at trial.
and the memos prove THEY FUCKING KNEW IT.
It's only numbskulls like yourself that can't see that you were conned.
Sky throne is right.
You act as if you care about something you claim you don't care about!
That makes you a liar, as usual.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:32:18 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Here is LBJ's Executive Order creating the commission. There is nothing in his "mandate" about what type of evidence they could or couldn't use or what standards they needed to follow.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:33:53 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: <bullshit comments deleted>
The Warren Commission had a mandate according to the Katzenbach memo to present a case in which,You have made no persuasive arguments that this is true.
"the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial". But they allowed all kinds of evidence that would have been inadmissible at trial.
Every time the flaws in your ideas are shown you disappear.
and the memos prove THEY FUCKING KNEW IT.
It's only numbskulls like yourself that can't see that you were conned. Sky throne is right.
You act as if you care about something you claim you don't care about! That makes you a liar, as usual.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 10:16:05?AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:standard disappears, is nowhere to be found.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:33:53?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Gil fails to appreciate that history does not operate under the same rules asCorrect. But they only use this legal/court standard with the evidence against Oswald. When it comes to their conspiracy claims, when it comes to them accusing LBJ or Hoover or Dulles or even minor figures like Greer or Ruth Paine this legalistic
trial courts. Our justice system has a twofold mission. Determine the truth
while protecting the rights of the accused. History has one mission. To
determine the truth. Rights belong to the living. The three most basic rights
as defined by the Constitution are life, liberty, and property. Once he died,
Oswald had none of these that needed protecting and history does not need >> > to be concerned with them. Gil's objections to the evidence, real or imagined,
mostly imagined, are moot. In determining the truth of the assassination, we
can avail ourselves of all of the available evidence, whether or not it
conforms to the justice system's rules of evidence. But Gil seems to have >> > no interest in determining the truth. His mission seems to be to get all the
evidence that Oswald was a double murderer dismissed on technicalities.
That way he doesn't have to deal with what that evidence clearly shows.
History should look at all the available evidence and weigh it for probative
value. We must determine how reliable each piece of evidence is in
determining the truth, then put that evidence together into a plausible
scenario. Oswald as a double murderer is the only plausible scenario
possible given the evidence we have. To argue against that conclusion, one >> > must invent excuses to dismiss the evidence. That seems to be Gil's mission.
He doesn't want to explain the evidence. He wants to explain it away.
If they want to use this high standard against Oswald they need to use it against everyone else they accuse of murdering JFK. But they *never* do.
It's thoroughly inconsistent - what do you expect from a person who uncritically accepted the Soviet investigation? - and once again reveals that they are engaged in reverse engineering a conspiracy. That is conspiracy first, evidence second.
Person A: "The evidence is Oswald murdered JFK."
Conspiracist: "The evidence chain was broken, Miranda rights, the
money order wasn't cashed, the lineups were corrupt!"
Person B: "The evidence is Ruth Paine and Greer murdered JFK."
Conspiracist: (silence)
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 10:01:35 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 12:47:38?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:32:18?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:33:53?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:You have made no persuasive arguments that this is true.
<bullshit comments deleted>
The Warren Commission had a mandate according to the Katzenbach memo to present a case in which,
"the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial". >>> But they allowed all kinds of evidence that would have been inadmissible at trial.
Every time the flaws in your ideas are shown you disappear.
and the memos prove THEY FUCKING KNEW IT.
It's only numbskulls like yourself that can't see that you were conned. >>> Sky throne is right.
You act as if you care about something you claim you don't care about! >>> That makes you a liar, as usual.
Here is LBJ's Executive Order creating the commission. There is
nothing in his "mandate" about what type of evidence they could or couldn't use or what standards they needed to follow.
Name this logical fallacy, or run away again like the proven coward
you are.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-11130-appointing-commission-report-upon-the-assassination-president-john-f
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 12:04:11?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 10:01:35 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 12:47:38?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:32:18?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:33:53?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:You have made no persuasive arguments that this is true.
<bullshit comments deleted>
The Warren Commission had a mandate according to the Katzenbach memo to present a case in which,
"the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial". >>>>> But they allowed all kinds of evidence that would have been inadmissible at trial.
Every time the flaws in your ideas are shown you disappear.
and the memos prove THEY FUCKING KNEW IT.
It's only numbskulls like yourself that can't see that you were conned. >>>>> Sky throne is right.
You act as if you care about something you claim you don't care about! >>>>> That makes you a liar, as usual.
Here is LBJ's Executive Order creating the commission. There is
nothing in his "mandate" about what type of evidence they could or
couldn't use or what standards they needed to follow.
Name this logical fallacy, or run away again like the proven coward
you are.
The logical fallacy of...
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-11130-appointing-commission-report-upon-the-assassination-president-john-f
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 10:50:32 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 12:04:11?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 10:01:35 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 12:47:38?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:32:18?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:33:53?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>>>> <bullshit comments deleted>You have made no persuasive arguments that this is true.
The Warren Commission had a mandate according to the Katzenbach memo to present a case in which,
"the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial".
But they allowed all kinds of evidence that would have been inadmissible at trial.
Every time the flaws in your ideas are shown you disappear.
and the memos prove THEY FUCKING KNEW IT.
It's only numbskulls like yourself that can't see that you were conned.
Sky throne is right.
You act as if you care about something you claim you don't care about! >>>>> That makes you a liar, as usual.
Here is LBJ's Executive Order creating the commission. There is
nothing in his "mandate" about what type of evidence they could or
couldn't use or what standards they needed to follow.
Name this logical fallacy, or run away again like the proven coward
you are.
The logical fallacy of...
Plonk! You lose!
Keep in mind that *YOU* cannot stand in for Steven,
and prove that
*HE* is not a coward.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-11130-appointing-commission-report-upon-the-assassination-president-john-f
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 12:47:38 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:32:18 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:33:53 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: <bullshit comments deleted>
The Warren Commission had a mandate according to the Katzenbach memo to present a case in which,You have made no persuasive arguments that this is true.
"the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial". But they allowed all kinds of evidence that would have been inadmissible at trial.
Every time the flaws in your ideas are shown you disappear.
and the memos prove THEY FUCKING KNEW IT.
Here is LBJ's Executive Order creating the commission. There is nothing in his "mandate" about what type of evidence they could or couldn't use or what standards they needed to follow.It's only numbskulls like yourself that can't see that you were conned. Sky throne is right.
You act as if you care about something you claim you don't care about! That makes you a liar, as usual.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-11130-appointing-commission-report-upon-the-assassination-president-john-f
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 1:01:37?PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 12:47:38?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:32:18?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Here is LBJ's Executive Order creating the commission. There is nothing in his "mandate" about what type of evidence they could or couldn't use or what standards they needed to follow.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:33:53?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:You have made no persuasive arguments that this is true.
<bullshit comments deleted>
The Warren Commission had a mandate according to the Katzenbach memo to present a case in which,
"the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial". >>>> But they allowed all kinds of evidence that would have been inadmissible at trial.
Every time the flaws in your ideas are shown you disappear.
and the memos prove THEY FUCKING KNEW IT.
It's only numbskulls like yourself that can't see that you were conned. >>>> Sky throne is right.
You act as if you care about something you claim you don't care about! >>>> That makes you a liar, as usual.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-11130-appointing-commission-report-upon-the-assassination-president-john-f
This is the key sentence in the directive:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 3:42:38 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< more bullshit opinion deleted >
The Katzenbach memo to Bill Moyers outlined the foundation of the coverup:
"That the public must be satisfied that.......the evidence was such that Oswald would have convcited at trial".
This "insignificant document" ( according to Corbett ) is posted on line as an FBI file, with an FBI file number.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/62-109060-sec-18-pg.-29-katzenbach-memo.png
Something they don't usually do for documents that are "irrelevent".
On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 6:40:41 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Notice how his demanding legal/court standard of evidence for Oswald disappears? There's a memo and he shows no evidence that it was followed up, that others received it, that it influenced the WC investigation (or even read). But he accepts it as proof
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 3:42:38 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
< more bullshit opinion deleted >
The Katzenbach memo to Bill Moyers outlined the foundation of the coverup:How can you cover-up by making "all the facts" public?
What was Moyer`s part in the cover-up?
"That the public must be satisfied that.......the evidence was such that Oswald would have convcited at trial".
This "insignificant document" ( according to Corbett ) is posted on line as an FBI file, with an FBI file number.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/62-109060-sec-18-pg.-29-katzenbach-memo.png
Something they don't usually do for documents that are "irrelevent".
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 7:32:18?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 6:33:53?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
<bullshit comments deleted>
The Warren Commission had a mandate according to the Katzenbach memo to present a case in which,
"the evidence was such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial".
But they allowed all kinds of evidence that would have been inadmissible at trial.
You have made no persuasive arguments that this is true.
Every time the flaws in your ideas are shown you disappear.
and the memos prove THEY FUCKING KNEW IT.
It's only numbskulls like yourself that can't see that you were conned.
Sky throne is right.
You act as if you care about something you claim you don't care about!
That makes you a liar, as usual.
Notice how his demanding...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 124:20:52 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,761 |
