Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
claim.
"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
(WCR 61)
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
lying. ...
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:17:22 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
(WCR 61)
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC makeHere are some of those witnesses in their OWN words, not hearsay :
a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does* accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying. ...
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/the-witnesses.mp4
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:05:37?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 11:17:22?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from theHere are some of those witnesses in their OWN words, not hearsay :
railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
(WCR 61)
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
lying. ...
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/the-witnesses.mp4
Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was not made under oath and therefore
inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
(WCR 61)
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does*
accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
lying. ...
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
claim.
I invite everyone to try to QUOTE me where I made such a claim.
Huckster couldn't do it.
Huckster Sienzant's a proven liar.
"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
(WCR 61)
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
a statement such as this.
And since the legal system in America *does*
accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply
lying. ...
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
claim.
I invite everyone to try to QUOTE me where I made such a claim.
Huckster couldn't do it.
Huckster Sienzant's a proven liar.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:17:17 -0700, Ben Holmes <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the
railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
(WCR 61)
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does* >accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply >lying. ...
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
claim.
I invite everyone to try to QUOTE me where I made such a claim.
Huckster couldn't do it.
Huckster Sienzant's a proven liar.And, let's not forget, a proven coward. He read this, then simply
turned and ran.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 4:54:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:17:17 -0700, Ben Holmes <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the >railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
(WCR 61)
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make
a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does* >accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply >lying. ...
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system
accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
claim.
I invite everyone to try to QUOTE me where I made such a claim.
Huckster couldn't do it.
How many times has he addressed this?Huckster Sienzant's a proven liar.And, let's not forget, a proven coward. He read this, then simply
turned and ran.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:11:23 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 4:54:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:17:17 -0700, Ben Holmes <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the >railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards >or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." >(WCR 61)
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make >a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does* >accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply >lying. ...
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system >> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
claim.
I invite everyone to try to QUOTE me where I made such a claim.
Huckster couldn't do it.
At least three times.How many times has he addressed this?Huckster Sienzant's a proven liar.And, let's not forget, a proven coward. He read this, then simply
turned and ran.
First time was on the defunct Amazon forums.
There may have been more times on Amazon, but since those boards are gone, I can’t establish how many. But given Ben’s penchant for reposting (fringe resets), probably more than one.
Then 9/4/2019: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ
Then 6/3/2021: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7mArzvrHZH8/m/AVojxOdOAAAJ
Hell, I see where you addressed this issue *16 YEARS AGO* this week back on 8/7/2007:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Pifyxn6UVBw/m/2BQO_kq_TaMJ
And numerous times since. Ben is a walking conspiracy theorist fringe reset.
Hank
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:11:23 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 4:54:44 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:17:17 -0700, Ben Holmes <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the >railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards >or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." >(WCR 61)
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make >a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does* >accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply >lying. ...
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system >> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
claim.
I invite everyone to try to QUOTE me where I made such a claim.
Huckster couldn't do it.
At least three times.How many times has he addressed this?Huckster Sienzant's a proven liar.And, let's not forget, a proven coward. He read this, then simply
turned and ran.
First time was on the defunct Amazon forums.
There may have been more times on Amazon, but since those boards are gone, I can’t establish how many. But given Ben’s penchant for reposting (fringe resets), probably more than one.
Then 9/4/2019: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ
Then 6/3/2021: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7mArzvrHZH8/m/AVojxOdOAAAJ
Hell, I see where you addressed this issue *16 YEARS AGO* this week back on 8/7/2007:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Pifyxn6UVBw/m/2BQO_kq_TaMJ
And numerous times since. Ben is a walking conspiracy theorist fringe reset.
Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and therefore
inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and thereforeThere you go lying again.
inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and therefore
inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
There you go lying again.
When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and thereforeThere you go lying again.
inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
inconsistent.
You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available
information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:11:23?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 4:54:44?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:17:17 -0700, Ben HolmesHow many times has he addressed this?
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the >>>>railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yardsAnd, let's not forget, a proven coward. He read this, then simply
or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." >>>>(WCR 61)
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make >>>>a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does* >>>>accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply >>>>lying. ...
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system >>>>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
claim.
I invite everyone to try to QUOTE me where I made such a claim.
Huckster couldn't do it.
Huckster Sienzant's a proven liar.
turned and ran.
At least three times.
First time was on the defunct Amazon forums.
There may have been more times on Amazon, but since those boards are gone, I cant establish how many. But given Bens penchant for reposting (fringe resets), probably more than one.
Then 9/4/2019: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ
Then 6/3/2021: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7mArzvrHZH8/m/AVojxOdOAAAJ
Hell, I see where you addressed this issue *16 YEARS AGO* this week back on 8/7/2007:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Pifyxn6UVBw/m/2BQO_kq_TaMJ
And numerous times since. Ben is a walking conspiracy theorist fringe reset.
Hank
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:31:11?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:11:23?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:AKA a liar and a coward.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 4:54:44?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:At least three times.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:17:17 -0700, Ben HolmesHow many times has he addressed this?
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the >>>>>railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards >>>>>or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." >>>>>(WCR 61)And, let's not forget, a proven coward. He read this, then simply
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make >>>>>a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does* >>>>>accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply >>>>>lying. ...
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system >>>>>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
claim.
I invite everyone to try to QUOTE me where I made such a claim.
Huckster couldn't do it.
Huckster Sienzant's a proven liar.
turned and ran.
First time was on the defunct Amazon forums.
There may have been more times on Amazon, but since those boards are gone, I cant establish how many. But given Bens penchant for reposting (fringe resets), probably more than one.
Then 9/4/2019: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ
Then 6/3/2021: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7mArzvrHZH8/m/AVojxOdOAAAJ
Hell, I see where you addressed this issue *16 YEARS AGO* this week back on 8/7/2007:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Pifyxn6UVBw/m/2BQO_kq_TaMJ >>
And numerous times since. Ben is a walking conspiracy theorist fringe reset. >>
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:31:11?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:11:23?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 4:54:44?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:At least three times.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:17:17 -0700, Ben HolmesHow many times has he addressed this?
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from theAnd, let's not forget, a proven coward. He read this, then simply
railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards
or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building."
(WCR 61)
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make >> > > >a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does* >> > > >accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply >> > > >lying. ...
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system >> > > >> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you
claim.
I invite everyone to try to QUOTE me where I made such a claim.
Huckster couldn't do it.
Huckster Sienzant's a proven liar.
turned and ran.
First time was on the defunct Amazon forums.
There may have been more times on Amazon, but since those boards are gone, I cant establish how many. But given Bens penchant for reposting (fringe resets), probably more than one.
Then 9/4/2019: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ
Then 6/3/2021: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7mArzvrHZH8/m/AVojxOdOAAAJ
Hell, I see where you addressed this issue *16 YEARS AGO* this week back on 8/7/2007:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Pifyxn6UVBw/m/2BQO_kq_TaMJ >>
And numerous times since. Ben is a walking conspiracy theorist fringe reset. >>
Hank
Found a response from Bud back in 2006 17 years ago! >https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/AXYsC_iPqjQ/m/sFiRffS1CdkJ
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and thereforeThere you go lying again.
inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
inconsistent.
You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available
information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:16:03?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and thereforeThere you go lying again.
inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
inconsistent.
You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available
information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?
Like most CTs, Gil seems oddly disinterested...
You'll never get Gil to lay out what he thinks happened that day
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 03:18:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:31:11?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:Lies will only work for fellow believers, who believe them.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:11:23?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:AKA a liar and a coward.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 4:54:44?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:At least three times.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:17:17 -0700, Ben HolmesHow many times has he addressed this?
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the >>>>>railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards >>>>>or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." >>>>>(WCR 61)And, let's not forget, a proven coward. He read this, then simply
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make >>>>>a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does* >>>>>accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply >>>>>lying. ...
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system >>>>>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you >>>>>> claim.
I invite everyone to try to QUOTE me where I made such a claim.
Huckster couldn't do it.
Huckster Sienzant's a proven liar.
turned and ran.
First time was on the defunct Amazon forums.
There may have been more times on Amazon, but since those boards are gone, I can’t establish how many. But given Ben’s penchant for reposting (fringe resets), probably more than one.
Then 9/4/2019: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ
Then 6/3/2021: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7mArzvrHZH8/m/AVojxOdOAAAJ
Hell, I see where you addressed this issue *16 YEARS AGO* this week back on 8/7/2007:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Pifyxn6UVBw/m/2BQO_kq_TaMJ
And numerous times since. Ben is a walking conspiracy theorist fringe reset.
But Huckster is smart enough to know that I've PROVEN him a liar.
But that's clearly not true. Henry simply lied in order to disagree
with my post.
What I stated is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The U.S. Judicial system does indeed
accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence."
And since Henry couldn't publicly disagree with the truth, he was
forced to lie about what I'd clearly stated in order to disagree.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 9:50:05?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 03:18:33 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 1:31:11?AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:Lies will only work for fellow believers, who believe them.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 5:11:23?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:AKA a liar and a coward.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 4:54:44?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:At least three times.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 08:17:17 -0700, Ben HolmesHow many times has he addressed this?
<Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
"No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the >>>>>>>railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards >>>>>>>or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." >>>>>>>(WCR 61)And, let's not forget, a proven coward. He read this, then simply
Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make >>>>>>>a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America *does* >>>>>>>accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply >>>>>>>lying. ...
Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system >>>>>>>> accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you >>>>>>>> claim.
I invite everyone to try to QUOTE me where I made such a claim.
Huckster couldn't do it.
Huckster Sienzant's a proven liar.
turned and ran.
First time was on the defunct Amazon forums.
There may have been more times on Amazon, but since those boards are gone, I cant establish how many. But given Bens penchant for reposting (fringe resets), probably more than one.
Then 9/4/2019: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/QcNR5sq_Xu8/m/IKwSNHFhAgAJ
Then 6/3/2021: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/7mArzvrHZH8/m/AVojxOdOAAAJ
Hell, I see where you addressed this issue *16 YEARS AGO* this week back on 8/7/2007:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Pifyxn6UVBw/m/2BQO_kq_TaMJ
And numerous times since. Ben is a walking conspiracy theorist fringe reset.
But Huckster is smart enough to know that I've PROVEN him a liar.
What part of your claim and my rebuttal didn't you understand
But that's clearly not true. Henry simply lied in order to disagree
with my post.
What I stated is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The U.S. Judicial system does indeed
accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence."
Not true.
And since Henry couldn't publicly disagree with the truth, he was
forced to lie about what I'd clearly stated in order to disagree.
I wasn't forced to lie about anything...
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:16:03 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:but the disease of conspiracism has him locked in a death grip. Getting Gil to "convert" from his view that thousands killed JFK and covered it up would be as likely as your average Muslim terrorist converting from Islam to Judaism.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and thereforeThere you go lying again.
inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
inconsistent.
You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all availableLike most CTs, Gil seems oddly disinterested in what happened that day, historically. His focus is on testimony or accounts or pieces of evidence that--in his layman's opinion--wouldn't be allowed to be used against Oswald in a criminal trial.
information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?
You'll never get Gil to lay out what he thinks happened that day because, as Bud has pointed, Gil--like Ben--is actually ashamed of what he believes. Intellectually he knows that what he thinks happened is an impossibility so he wisely stays silent,
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 15:06:17 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:but the disease of conspiracism has him locked in a death grip. Getting Gil to "convert" from his view that thousands killed JFK and covered it up would be as likely as your average Muslim terrorist converting from Islam to Judaism.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:51:00?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:16:03?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Like most CTs, Gil seems oddly disinterested in what happened that day, historically. His focus is on testimony or accounts or pieces of evidence that--in his layman's opinion--wouldn't be allowed to be used against Oswald in a criminal trial.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and thereforeThere you go lying again.
inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
inconsistent.
You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available
information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?
You'll never get Gil to lay out what he thinks happened that day because, as Bud has pointed, Gil--like Ben--is actually ashamed of what he believes. Intellectually he knows that what he thinks happened is an impossibility so he wisely stays silent,
Gil's greatest sin...
Is that he tells the truth you can't face.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:51:00?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:but the disease of conspiracism has him locked in a death grip. Getting Gil to "convert" from his view that thousands killed JFK and covered it up would be as likely as your average Muslim terrorist converting from Islam to Judaism.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:16:03?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Like most CTs, Gil seems oddly disinterested in what happened that day, historically. His focus is on testimony or accounts or pieces of evidence that--in his layman's opinion--wouldn't be allowed to be used against Oswald in a criminal trial.
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and thereforeThere you go lying again.
inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
inconsistent.
You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available
information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?
You'll never get Gil to lay out what he thinks happened that day because, as Bud has pointed, Gil--like Ben--is actually ashamed of what he believes. Intellectually he knows that what he thinks happened is an impossibility so he wisely stays silent,
Gil's greatest sin...
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:16:03 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:but the disease of conspiracism has him locked in a death grip. Getting Gil to "convert" from his view that thousands killed JFK and covered it up would be as likely as your average Muslim terrorist converting from Islam to Judaism.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and thereforeThere you go lying again.
inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
inconsistent.
You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all availableLike most CTs, Gil seems oddly disinterested in what happened that day, historically. His focus is on testimony or accounts or pieces of evidence that--in his layman's opinion--wouldn't be allowed to be used against Oswald in a criminal trial.
information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?
You'll never get Gil to lay out what he thinks happened that day because, as Bud has pointed, Gil--like Ben--is actually ashamed of what he believes. Intellectually he knows that what he thinks happened is an impossibility so he wisely stays silent,
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 07:50:59 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:16:03?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and thereforeThere you go lying again.
inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
inconsistent.
You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available
information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?
Like most CTs, Gil seems oddly disinterested...
Blatant logical fallacy as well as a rather stupid lie... deleted.
You'll never get Gil to lay out what he thinks happened that day
I've REPEATEDLY asked you this exact question, and you've REPEATEDLY
run away.
Why won't you answer YOUR OWN QUESTION?
Go ahead... ANSWER IT RIGHT NOW!
Or run away like the coward you provably are...
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and thereforeThere you go lying again.
inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
inconsistent.
You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available
information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 7:16:03?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and thereforeThere you go lying again.
inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
inconsistent.
You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available
information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?
I guess the answer is Gil can't pick one. Gil doesn't want to be held to the same rules of
evidence he imposes on the LNs. I'm not surprised Gil seems to have bailed out of this
thread. It's what he does when faced with questions he doesn't want to answer.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 10:08:18?AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 07:50:59 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:16:03?AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 6:53:26?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Monday, July 31, 2023 at 12:21:37?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:You have used the excuse that most of the evidence against Oswald would have been
Sorry, Gil. The statements made on these videos was ( sic ) not made under oath and thereforeThere you go lying again.
inadmissible in court. Your rules, Gil.
When did I say that ALL statements had to be made under oath to be considered evidence ?
inadmissible in court so that you don't have to address it. Then you turn around and point
to these unsworn statements as evidence to support your narrative. You are consistently
inconsistent.
You seem to have very flexible standards. My question to you is this:
In 2023, should those who want to know the truth of the JFK assassination weigh all available
information or should we limit ourselves just to what we believe would be admissible in court?
It's a binary choice, Gil. Can you pick one?
Like most CTs, Gil seems oddly disinterested...
Blatant logical fallacy as well as a rather stupid lie... deleted.
You'll never get Gil to lay out what he thinks happened that day
I've REPEATEDLY asked you this exact question, and you've REPEATEDLY
run away.
Silly. You know my position.
Why won't you answer YOUR OWN QUESTION?
Go ahead... ANSWER IT RIGHT NOW!
Or run away like the coward you provably are...
Just saw this quote, that make me think of the conspiracy folk...
Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.
Miyamoto Musashi
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 119:30:01 |
Calls: | 6,662 |
Files: | 12,210 |
Messages: | 5,334,369 |