My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I >asked it the following question:Kennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
"Did Oswald kill JFK?"
This was its response:
"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of
I hope this helps!"
What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.
My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I >asked it the following question:Kennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
"Did Oswald kill JFK?"
This was its response:
"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of
I hope this helps!"
What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 15:53:45 -0700 (PDT), John CorbettKennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I >asked it the following question:
"Did Oswald kill JFK?"
This was its response:
"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of
I hope this helps!"
What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.I asked AI:
"Would I get a flat tire by bicycling over a bridge that is suspended
over nails, screws, and broken glass?"
AI answered:
It is very likely that you would get a flat tire if you bicycled over
a bridge that is suspended over nails, screws, and broken glass. The
sharp objects on the ground would easily puncture your tires, causing
them to go flat. Even if you were able to avoid the sharp objects, the vibrations from riding over them could also cause your tires to go
flat.
If you must cross a bridge that is suspended over sharp objects, it is
best to walk your bike across the bridge to avoid getting a flat tire.
You can also try to find a different route that does not cross the
bridge.
Here are some tips to help you avoid getting a flat tire:
Keep your tires properly inflated.
Use tires that are designed to resist punctures.
Avoid riding over sharp objects.
Be aware of your surroundings and watch for potential hazards.
If you do get a flat tire, you can try to repair it yourself or call a
bike shop for help.
Clearly, Corbutt's head is filled with nails, screws, and broken
glass.
My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I >asked it the following question:Kennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
"Did Oswald kill JFK?"
This was its response:
"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of
I hope this helps!"
What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.
On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 7:34:00 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:Kennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 15:53:45 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I >asked it the following question:
"Did Oswald kill JFK?"
This was its response:
"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of
I hope this helps!"
What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.I asked AI:
"Would I get a flat tire by bicycling over a bridge that is suspended
over nails, screws, and broken glass?"
AI answered:
It is very likely that you would get a flat tire if you bicycled over
a bridge that is suspended over nails, screws, and broken glass. The
sharp objects on the ground would easily puncture your tires, causing
them to go flat. Even if you were able to avoid the sharp objects, the vibrations from riding over them could also cause your tires to go
flat.
If you must cross a bridge that is suspended over sharp objects, it is best to walk your bike across the bridge to avoid getting a flat tire.
You can also try to find a different route that does not cross the
bridge.
Here are some tips to help you avoid getting a flat tire:
Keep your tires properly inflated.
Use tires that are designed to resist punctures.
Avoid riding over sharp objects.
Be aware of your surroundings and watch for potential hazards.
If you do get a flat tire, you can try to repair it yourself or call a bike shop for help.
Clearly, Corbutt's head is filled with nails, screws, and brokenhttps://youtu.be/m2eyq9qTOQY
glass.
Clearly human beings could not have put a man on the moon.
Wow. This is classic.
Wow. This is classic.
On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 7:48:49 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:Kennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 7:34:00 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 15:53:45 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I
asked it the following question:
"Did Oswald kill JFK?"
This was its response:
"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of
I hope this helps!"
What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.I asked AI:
"Would I get a flat tire by bicycling over a bridge that is suspended over nails, screws, and broken glass?"
AI answered:
It is very likely that you would get a flat tire if you bicycled over
a bridge that is suspended over nails, screws, and broken glass. The sharp objects on the ground would easily puncture your tires, causing them to go flat. Even if you were able to avoid the sharp objects, the vibrations from riding over them could also cause your tires to go
flat.
If you must cross a bridge that is suspended over sharp objects, it is best to walk your bike across the bridge to avoid getting a flat tire. You can also try to find a different route that does not cross the bridge.
Here are some tips to help you avoid getting a flat tire:
Keep your tires properly inflated.
Use tires that are designed to resist punctures.
Avoid riding over sharp objects.
Be aware of your surroundings and watch for potential hazards.
If you do get a flat tire, you can try to repair it yourself or call a bike shop for help.
Clearly, Corbutt's head is filled with nails, screws, and brokenhttps://youtu.be/m2eyq9qTOQY
glass.
Clearly human beings could not have put a man on the moon.Wow. This is classic.
On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:46:10 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
Wow. This is classic.
Corbett certainly doesn't know WTF he's talking about, that's for sure.
And yet he'll argue about things he has no knowledge of.
He's one of the most stubborn, cement-headed, uninformed, ignorant people I've ever encountered online.
And his "oh yeah, what about" approach to arguing the merits of the case is weak.
He thinks the role of the defense counsel is PROVE something
Prove Oswald innocent.
Prove someone else did it.
Prove there were more shots.
Prove they came from other locations.
In Corbett's Amerika, a defendant is guilty until proven innocent.
In Corbett's Amerika, police don't lie.
In Corbett's Amerika, governments don't cover things up.
In Corbett's Amerika, governments don't hide things from its people.
In Corbett's Amerika, evidence often changes.
In Corbett's Amerika, witnesses are threatened to keep their mouths shut about what they saw.
In Corbett's Amerika, motorcade documents disappear.
In Corbett's Amerika, witnesses are ignored.
In Corbett's Amerika, "fillers" in police lineups are chosen to make sure they would never get picked.
In Corbett's Amerika, it's ok to violate a defendant's Constitutional rights.
In Corbett's Amerika, hearsay evidence is allowed in testimony.
In Corbett's Amerika, wives can testify against their husbands.
In Corbett's Amerika, witness intimidation is ok.
In Corbett's Amerika, FBI reports can lie about what the witnesses said.
In Corbett's Amerika, there is no such thing as conspiracies.
In Corbett's America, the defendant is considered guilty as soon as the prosecution rests its case.
Nothing to see here, folks. Time to move on.
"This case is cinched"..... Dallas Police Capt. J. Will Fritz
INDEED
On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:46:10 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
Wow. This is classic.
Corbett certainly doesn't know WTF he's talking about, that's for sure.
And yet he'll argue about things he has no knowledge of.
He's one of the most stubborn, cement-headed, uninformed, ignorant people I've ever encountered online.
And his "oh yeah, what about" approach to arguing the merits of the case is weak.
He thinks the role of the defense counsel is PROVE something
Prove Oswald innocent.
Prove someone else did it.
Prove there were more shots.
Prove they came from other locations.
In Corbett's Amerika, a defendant is guilty until proven innocent.
In Corbett's Amerika, police don't lie.
In Corbett's Amerika, governments don't cover things up.
In Corbett's Amerika, governments don't hide things from its people.
In Corbett's Amerika, evidence often changes.
In Corbett's Amerika, witnesses are threatened to keep their mouths shut about what they saw.
In Corbett's Amerika, motorcade documents disappear.
In Corbett's Amerika, witnesses are ignored.
In Corbett's Amerika, "fillers" in police lineups are chosen to make sure they would never get picked.
In Corbett's Amerika, it's ok to violate a defendant's Constitutional rights.
In Corbett's Amerika, hearsay evidence is allowed in testimony.
In Corbett's Amerika, wives can testify against their husbands.
In Corbett's Amerika, witness intimidation is ok.
In Corbett's Amerika, FBI reports can lie about what the witnesses said.
In Corbett's Amerika, there is no such thing as conspiracies.
In Corbett's America, the defendant is considered guilty as soon as the prosecution rests its case.
Nothing to see here, folks. Time to move on.
"This case is cinched"..... Dallas Police Capt. J. Will Fritz
INDEED
torsdag den 27. juli 2023 kl. 12.07.53 UTC+2 skrev Gil Jesus:
On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:46:10 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
Wow. This is classic.
Corbett certainly doesn't know WTF he's talking about, that's for sure. And yet he'll argue about things he has no knowledge of.
He's one of the most stubborn, cement-headed, uninformed, ignorant people I've ever encountered online.
And his "oh yeah, what about" approach to arguing the merits of the case is weak.
He thinks the role of the defense counsel is PROVE something
Prove Oswald innocent.
Prove someone else did it.
Prove there were more shots.
Prove they came from other locations.
In Corbett's Amerika, a defendant is guilty until proven innocent.
In Corbett's Amerika, police don't lie.
In Corbett's Amerika, governments don't cover things up.
In Corbett's Amerika, governments don't hide things from its people.
In Corbett's Amerika, evidence often changes.
In Corbett's Amerika, witnesses are threatened to keep their mouths shut about what they saw.
In Corbett's Amerika, motorcade documents disappear.
In Corbett's Amerika, witnesses are ignored.
In Corbett's Amerika, "fillers" in police lineups are chosen to make sure they would never get picked.
In Corbett's Amerika, it's ok to violate a defendant's Constitutional rights.
In Corbett's Amerika, hearsay evidence is allowed in testimony.
In Corbett's Amerika, wives can testify against their husbands.
In Corbett's Amerika, witness intimidation is ok.
In Corbett's Amerika, FBI reports can lie about what the witnesses said. In Corbett's Amerika, there is no such thing as conspiracies.
In Corbett's America, the defendant is considered guilty as soon as the prosecution rests its case.Your "client" forfeited the right to a fair trial the moment he died.
Nothing to see here, folks. Time to move on.
"This case is cinched"..... Dallas Police Capt. J. Will Fritz
INDEED
On Sat, 22 Jul 2023 15:53:45 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett ><geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:Kennedy, but he denied responsibility for the killing, claiming that he was a "patsy"1. Despite forensic, ballistic, and eyewitness evidence supporting the official findings, public opinion polls have shown that most Americans still do not believe that
My bing browser now has an AI feature that answers questions put to it. I >>asked it the following question:
"Did Oswald kill JFK?"
This was its response:
"Yes, Oswald killed JFK. He shot and killed Kennedy on November 22, 1963, from a sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas1. Oswald was charged with the assassination of
I hope this helps!"
What we can conclude from this is AI is smarter than the conspiracy hobbyists.
I asked AI the following question:
"Five wet clothes were left in the sun to dry. It took 5 hours. If I
left 30 wet clothes in the sun, how long would it take for them to
dry?"
AI's answer:
Each wet clothes takes 5 hours / 5 clothes = 1 hour to dry in the sun.
So 30 wet clothes will take 1 hour/clothes * 30 clothes = 30 hours to
dry in the sun.
So the answer is 30
What we can conclude from this is that Corbutt is dumber than wet
clothing.
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 6:07:53?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 9:46:10?PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote: >> > Wow. This is classic.
Corbett certainly doesn't know WTF he's talking about, that's for sure.
And yet he'll argue about things he has no knowledge of.
He's one of the most stubborn, cement-headed, uninformed, ignorant people I've ever encountered online.
And his "oh yeah, what about" approach to arguing the merits of the case is weak.
He thinks the role of the defense counsel is PROVE something
Prove Oswald innocent.
Prove someone else did it.
Prove there were more shots.
Prove they came from other locations.
In Corbett's Amerika, a defendant is guilty until proven innocent.
In Corbett's Amerika, police don't lie.
In Corbett's Amerika, governments don't cover things up.
In Corbett's Amerika, governments don't hide things from its people.
In Corbett's Amerika, evidence often changes.
In Corbett's Amerika, witnesses are threatened to keep their mouths shut about what they saw.
In Corbett's Amerika, motorcade documents disappear.
In Corbett's Amerika, witnesses are ignored.
In Corbett's Amerika, "fillers" in police lineups are chosen to make sure they would never get picked.
In Corbett's Amerika, it's ok to violate a defendant's Constitutional rights.
In Corbett's Amerika, hearsay evidence is allowed in testimony.
In Corbett's Amerika, wives can testify against their husbands.
In Corbett's Amerika, witness intimidation is ok.
In Corbett's Amerika, FBI reports can lie about what the witnesses said.
In Corbett's Amerika, there is no such thing as conspiracies.
In Corbett's America, the defendant is considered guilty as soon as the prosecution rests its case.
Nothing to see here, folks. Time to move on.
"This case is cinched"..... Dallas Police Capt. J. Will Fritz
INDEED
You've admitted
to what your mission is, Gil. You are acting as Oswald's defense counsel rather
than someone seeking the truth of the assassination.
When a defense counsel is defending a guilty client, their job is
to obscure the evidence.
They don't want the truth to come out. They
want to create doubt in the minds of the jury that their client
committed the crime with which they are accused.
They do that even though they know their client committed the crime. OJ's >lawyers knew he killed two people yet they defending him to the best of their ability because
that was their duty.
The question now is, why do you think that is your role? Why aren't you more interested in knowing
the truth than in trying to create doubt that Oswald was guilty. Oswald isn't on trial here. He
is not entitled to a trial or a defense counsel. The truth is now what is on trial. Anyone who
wants to know the truth of the assassination is going to look at the evidence and follow it
to where it leads. They aren't going to argue that various pieces of evidence would be
inadmissible because that is a moot point. You obviously aren't someone who is interested
in the truth. You want to argue for the fiction that Oswald was framed. What a silly hobby.
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.
Then why don't you do that?
What did the NAA results on Oswald's cheek suggest?
Your refusal to answer is PROOF that you aren't interested in seeking
the truth, but merely to validate your faith.
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.Then why don't you do that?
Your "client" forfeited the right to a fair trial the moment he died.
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 11:14:24 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
What did the NAA results on Oswald's cheek suggest?
Your refusal to answer is PROOF that you aren't interested in seekingApparently, the positive results on the hands from the "unreliable" paraffin test was enough for Chief Curry to conclude that it "proved he fired a gun".
the truth, but merely to validate your faith.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c8_7gNwI8o
Apparently the cops put some faith in that test, the same test that showed the right cheek to be negative. ( Dallas Police Box 8, pg. 577 )
But other things could have caused the positive reading on the hands, like printed paper. ( 20 H 1 )
Charles Givens told the FBI that he saw Oswald reading a newspaper in the Domino room at 11:50 am. ( CD 5, pg. 329 )
And that certainly would have caused a positive reading on the hands.
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:08:59 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
That's what we're doing and what you're arguing against:Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.Then why don't you do that?
the right to seek the truth.
And it all begins here:
www.gil-jesus.com
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 7:47:06 AM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
Your "client" forfeited the right to a fair trial the moment he died.Sorry pal the truth is the truth whether you and your CIA buddies like it or not.
No foreigner supports the Warren Commission.
So you're either faking who you are, or you're working for American Intelligence or both.
Either way, nobody gives a shit about your opinions.
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:02:26?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 11:14:24?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
What did the NAA results on Oswald's cheek suggest?Apparently, the positive results on the hands from the "unreliable" paraffin test was enough for Chief Curry to conclude that it "proved he fired a gun".
Your refusal to answer is PROOF that you aren't interested in seeking
the truth, but merely to validate your faith.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c8_7gNwI8o
Apparently the cops put some faith in that test, the same test that showed the right cheek to be negative. ( Dallas Police Box 8, pg. 577 )
But other things could have caused the positive reading on the hands, like printed paper. ( 20 H 1 )
Charles Givens told the FBI that he saw Oswald reading a newspaper in the Domino room at 11:50 am. ( CD 5, pg. 329 )
And that certainly would have caused a positive reading on the hands.
The Warren Commission laid out the evidence of Oswald's guilt and they made it a point to say
neither the paraffin test for nitrates nor the NAA test for barium and antimony had much
probative value.
Neither the presence of nitrates on Oswald's hands nor barium and antimony on >his cheek are indications of whether Oswald did or did not fire a gun. Why would anyone even
bring up these meaningless tests?
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 11:43:47?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:08:59?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote: >>>That's what we're doing and what you're arguing against:
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.Then why don't you do that?
the right to seek the truth.
How can you objectively seek the truth if you are looking at the evidence from the perspective
of Oswald's defense counsel?
And it all begins here:
www.gil-jesus.com
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:11:35?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 7:47:06?AM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:
Your "client" forfeited the right to a fair trial the moment he died.Sorry pal the truth is the truth whether you and your CIA buddies like it or not.
No foreigner supports the Warren Commission.
Really, Gil. None of them? Did you take a poll?
So you're either faking who you are, or you're working for American Intelligence or both.
Either way, nobody gives a shit about your opinions.
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 12:11:35 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Fred Litwin has written some excellent books on the disgraceful Garrison investigation. He supports the WC conclusion.
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 7:47:06 AM UTC-4, Mark Ulrik wrote:Really, Gil. None of them? Did you take a poll?
Your "client" forfeited the right to a fair trial the moment he died.Sorry pal the truth is the truth whether you and your CIA buddies like it or not.
No foreigner supports the Warren Commission.
So you're either faking who you are, or you're working for American Intelligence or both.Gil's imagination is getting the best of him again.
Either way, nobody gives a shit about your opinions.Irony alert.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 07:08:57 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.
Then why don't you do that?What did the NAA results on Oswald's cheek suggest?
Your refusal to answer is PROOF that you aren't interested in seeking
the truth, but merely to validate your faith.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 09:44:52 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 11:43:47?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:08:59?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:That's what we're doing and what you're arguing against:
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.Then why don't you do that?
the right to seek the truth.
How can you objectively seek the truth if you are looking at the evidence from the perspective
of Oswald's defense counsel?
How can you objectively seek the truth if you are looking at the
evidence from the perspective of the prosecution?
Logical fallacy deleted.And it all begins here:
www.gil-jesus.com
Fred Litwin has written some excellent books on the disgraceful Garrison investigation. He supports the WC conclusion.
He's Canadian.
But you are working for American intelligence. I just looked over my cubicle and saw you at your desk typing away.
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:08:59 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
That's what we're doing and what you're arguing against:Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.Then why don't you do that?
the right to seek the truth.
And it all begins here:
www.gil-jesus.com
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:43:47 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:of its Camelot King by the shadowy forces of government evil, and imagine your website as the start of a great journey to right a wrong. You act as Oswald's unappointed legal emissary and treat this fading piece of history as if a criminal trial with
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:08:59 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
That's what we're doing and what you're arguing against:Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.Then why don't you do that?
the right to seek the truth.
And it all begins here:Such pomposity. You sit at your computer and think you're actually accomplishing something in your quixotic campaign to seek the "truth" about 11/22/63. In your pretend world, you are the holder of a tremendous accuracy about "Amerika" and the killing
www.gil-jesus.com
Man, you guys are all delusional, but Gil, you might be the most delusional of the bunch.
Earth to Gil: There's not going to be a trial, pal. Oswald is dead.
Tell us what you think happened that day. Be specific.
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:43:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:08:59?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote: >>>That's what we're doing and what you're arguing against:
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.Then why don't you do that?
the right to seek the truth.
And it all begins here:
www.gil-jesus.com
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:43:47 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:of its Camelot King by the shadowy forces of government evil, and imagine your website as the start of a great journey to right a wrong. You act as Oswald's unappointed legal emissary and treat this fading piece of history as if a criminal trial with
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:08:59 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
That's what we're doing and what you're arguing against:Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.Then why don't you do that?
the right to seek the truth.
And it all begins here:Such pomposity. You sit at your computer and think you're actually accomplishing something in your quixotic campaign to seek the "truth" about 11/22/63. In your pretend world, you are the holder of a tremendous accuracy about "Amerika" and the killing
www.gil-jesus.com
Man, you guys are all delusional, but Gil, you might be the most delusional of the bunch.
Earth to Gil: There's not going to be a trial, pal. Oswald is dead.
Tell us what you think happened that day. Be specific.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:51:14 -0700 (PDT), John Corbettkilling of its Camelot King by the shadowy forces of government evil, and imagine your website as the start of a great journey to right a wrong. You act as Oswald's unappointed legal emissary and treat this fading piece of history as if a criminal trial
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 4:09:31?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:43:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:08:59?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:Such pomposity. You sit at your computer and think you're actually accomplishing something in your quixotic campaign to seek the "truth" about 11/22/63. In your pretend world, you are the holder of a tremendous accuracy about "Amerika" and the
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:That's what we're doing and what you're arguing against:
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.Then why don't you do that?
the right to seek the truth.
And it all begins here:
www.gil-jesus.com
Man, you guys are all delusional, but Gil, you might be the most delusional of the bunch.
Earth to Gil: There's not going to be a trial, pal. Oswald is dead.
Tell us what you think happened that day. Be specific.
Gil thinks...
Logical fallacies deleted.
If you can't refute what Gil points out, just admit it.
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 4:09:31?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:of its Camelot King by the shadowy forces of government evil, and imagine your website as the start of a great journey to right a wrong. You act as Oswald's unappointed legal emissary and treat this fading piece of history as if a criminal trial with
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:43:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:08:59?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:Such pomposity. You sit at your computer and think you're actually accomplishing something in your quixotic campaign to seek the "truth" about 11/22/63. In your pretend world, you are the holder of a tremendous accuracy about "Amerika" and the killing
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote: >>>>That's what we're doing and what you're arguing against:
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.Then why don't you do that?
the right to seek the truth.
And it all begins here:
www.gil-jesus.com
Man, you guys are all delusional, but Gil, you might be the most delusional of the bunch.
Earth to Gil: There's not going to be a trial, pal. Oswald is dead.
Tell us what you think happened that day. Be specific.
Gil thinks...
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 4:09:31 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:killing of its Camelot King by the shadowy forces of government evil, and imagine your website as the start of a great journey to right a wrong. You act as Oswald's unappointed legal emissary and treat this fading piece of history as if a criminal trial
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:43:47 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:08:59 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10 AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
That's what we're doing and what you're arguing against:Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.Then why don't you do that?
the right to seek the truth.
And it all begins here:Such pomposity. You sit at your computer and think you're actually accomplishing something in your quixotic campaign to seek the "truth" about 11/22/63. In your pretend world, you are the holder of a tremendous accuracy about "Amerika" and the
www.gil-jesus.com
"Shits and Giggles (which coincidentally are the Secret Service's codenames for Joe andMan, you guys are all delusional, but Gil, you might be the most delusional of the bunch.
Earth to Gil: There's not going to be a trial, pal. Oswald is dead.
Tell us what you think happened that day. Be specific.Gil thinks he is creating reasonable doubt about Oswald's guilt with all of his objections. Just
for Shits and Giggles (which coincidentally are the Secret Service's codenames for Joe and
Kamala), let's say Gil was right about all his objections to the evidence. Let's say in Oswald's
hypothetical trial, the judge sided with Gil and threw out all the evidence that Gil claimed was
inadmissible. Let's say the prosecution, stripped of all that evidence, was forced to drop the
case against Oswald. That still would not change the fact that Oswald had shot and killed
JFK. Even though all that evidence that indicated his guilt had been thrown out, it would not
alter the reality. Two things could be concurrently true. Oswald was the assassin and the
evidence and the investigators mishandled the evidence so badly it could not have been used
in court. Looking back at the event in 2023, we would still want to know who killled JFK. We
would want to use all that evidence that Gil got thrown out in order to determine that and any
reasonable person would look at the evidence and conclude Oswald got away with murdering
JFK.
Of course all of this is hypothetical. Little of the evidence would have been ruled inadmissible
because the courts are not bound by Gil's rules of evidence. Oswald would have been convicted
and sentenced to die. There's a good chance he could have forestalled his execution until the
Supreme Court invalidated all death penalty statutes in 1971. In that case, Oswald might still
be sitting in his jail cell at the age of 84, thumbing his nose at the rest of us. That's why I don't
regret that Jack Ruby did what he did. Good old fashioned frontier justice.
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 7:44:29 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:killing of its Camelot King by the shadowy forces of government evil, and imagine your website as the start of a great journey to right a wrong. You act as Oswald's unappointed legal emissary and treat this fading piece of history as if a criminal trial
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:51:14 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 4:09:31?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:43:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:08:59?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:Such pomposity. You sit at your computer and think you're actually accomplishing something in your quixotic campaign to seek the "truth" about 11/22/63. In your pretend world, you are the holder of a tremendous accuracy about "Amerika" and the
That's what we're doing and what you're arguing against:
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.Then why don't you do that?
the right to seek the truth.
And it all begins here:
www.gil-jesus.com
Man, you guys are all delusional, but Gil, you might be the most delusional of the bunch.
Earth to Gil: There's not going to be a trial, pal. Oswald is dead.
Tell us what you think happened that day. Be specific.
Gil thinks...
Logical fallacies deleted.
If you can't refute what Gil points out, just admit it.You removed where he did that.
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 7:44:29?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:killing of its Camelot King by the shadowy forces of government evil, and imagine your website as the start of a great journey to right a wrong. You act as Oswald's unappointed legal emissary and treat this fading piece of history as if a criminal trial
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:51:14 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 4:09:31?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:43:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:08:59?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:Such pomposity. You sit at your computer and think you're actually accomplishing something in your quixotic campaign to seek the "truth" about 11/22/63. In your pretend world, you are the holder of a tremendous accuracy about "Amerika" and the
That's what we're doing and what you're arguing against:
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.Then why don't you do that?
the right to seek the truth.
And it all begins here:
www.gil-jesus.com
Man, you guys are all delusional, but Gil, you might be the most delusional of the bunch.
Earth to Gil: There's not going to be a trial, pal. Oswald is dead.
Tell us what you think happened that day. Be specific.
Gil thinks...
Logical fallacies deleted.
If you can't refute what Gil points out, just admit it.
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:01:07?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:killing of its Camelot King by the shadowy forces of government evil, and imagine your website as the start of a great journey to right a wrong. You act as Oswald's unappointed legal emissary and treat this fading piece of history as if a criminal trial
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 7:44:29?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:51:14 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 4:09:31?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:43:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:08:59?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:Such pomposity. You sit at your computer and think you're actually accomplishing something in your quixotic campaign to seek the "truth" about 11/22/63. In your pretend world, you are the holder of a tremendous accuracy about "Amerika" and the
That's what we're doing and what you're arguing against:
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.Then why don't you do that?
the right to seek the truth.
And it all begins here:
www.gil-jesus.com
You removed where he did that.
Man, you guys are all delusional, but Gil, you might be the most delusional of the bunch.
Earth to Gil: There's not going to be a trial, pal. Oswald is dead.
Tell us what you think happened that day. Be specific.
Gil thinks...
Logical fallacies deleted.
If you can't refute what Gil points out, just admit it.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 17:01:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>killing of its Camelot King by the shadowy forces of government evil, and imagine your website as the start of a great journey to right a wrong. You act as Oswald's unappointed legal emissary and treat this fading piece of history as if a criminal trial
wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 7:44:29?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:51:14 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 4:09:31?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:43:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:08:59?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:Such pomposity. You sit at your computer and think you're actually accomplishing something in your quixotic campaign to seek the "truth" about 11/22/63. In your pretend world, you are the holder of a tremendous accuracy about "Amerika" and the
That's what we're doing and what you're arguing against:
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.Then why don't you do that?
the right to seek the truth.
And it all begins here:
www.gil-jesus.com
Cowardice deleted.
Man, you guys are all delusional, but Gil, you might be the most delusional of the bunch.
Earth to Gil: There's not going to be a trial, pal. Oswald is dead. >>>>
Tell us what you think happened that day. Be specific.
Gil thinks...
Logical fallacies deleted.
If you can't refute what Gil points out, just admit it.
Amusingly, Chuckles **STILL** refuses to answer.
On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 8:58:01?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:killing of its Camelot King by the shadowy forces of government evil, and imagine your website as the start of a great journey to right a wrong. You act as Oswald's unappointed legal emissary and treat this fading piece of history as if a criminal trial
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 17:01:06 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 7:44:29?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 15:51:14 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 4:09:31?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:43:47?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 10:08:59?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:
Such pomposity. You sit at your computer and think you're actually accomplishing something in your quixotic campaign to seek the "truth" about 11/22/63. In your pretend world, you are the holder of a tremendous accuracy about "Amerika" and theThat's what we're doing and what you're arguing against:
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.Then why don't you do that?
the right to seek the truth.
And it all begins here:
www.gil-jesus.com
Man, you guys are all delusional, but Gil, you might be the most delusional of the bunch.
Earth to Gil: There's not going to be a trial, pal. Oswald is dead. >>>>>>
Tell us what you think happened that day. Be specific.
Gil thinks...
Logical fallacies deleted.
If you can't refute what Gil points out, just admit it.
Cowardice deleted.
Amusingly, Chuckles **STILL** refuses to answer.
Then move on.
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 11:14:24?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 07:08:57 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote: >>>What did the NAA results on Oswald's cheek suggest?
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.
Then why don't you do that?
Ben is petrified to make an actual argument himself.
Your refusal to answer is PROOF that you aren't interested in seeking
the truth, but merely to validate your faith.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 10:41:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 11:14:24?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 07:08:57 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote: >>>What did the NAA results on Oswald's cheek suggest?
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.
Then why don't you do that?
Ben is petrified to make an actual argument himself.I just did.
I demonstrated your abject fear of confronting the actual
evidence.
Still true.Your refusal to answer is PROOF that you aren't interested in seeking
the truth, but merely to validate your faith.
On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 10:01:57?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 10:41:28 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 11:14:24?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:I just did.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 07:08:57 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, July 27, 2023 at 8:34:10?AM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote: >>>>>What did the NAA results on Oswald's cheek suggest?
Oswald did not "forfeit" anything. He was murdered. He lost his right to a fair trial because he was murdered. And we still have the right to seek the truth of the matter.
Then why don't you do that?
Ben is petrified to make an actual argument himself.
What was it?
I demonstrated your abject fear of confronting the actual
evidence.
Instead of ...
Your refusal to answer is PROOF that you aren't interested in seeking
the truth, but merely to validate your faith.
Still true.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 126:05:31 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,951 |