The evidence they run from:
www.gil-jesus.com
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:03:26?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
The evidence they run from:
www.gil-jesus.com
Gil, I just took target practice at the section of your website that argues Oswald was in the
domino room when the shots were fired.
You couldn't offer a single witness who placed him
there at that time.
You offered several witnesses who saw him at or before noon.
You offered witnesses who said he usually ate his lunch in the
domino room which...
You offered two
statements attributed to Carolyn Arnold. One which said she MIGHT have seen him near the
entrance before 12:15. The other stated she left the TSBD about 12:25 but made no mention
of seeing Oswald when she did. Neither of those statements places Oswald in the domino
room when the shots were fired nor preclude him from being the shooting in the sniper's nest.
What have *YOU* offered?
You've offered no witnesses, no documents, no sworn testimony, no
evidence, no videos, no citations, no exhibits... NOTHING.
Looks like Gil spanked you again!
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 16:08:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:03:26?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
The evidence they run from:
www.gil-jesus.com
Gil, I just took target practice at the section of your website that argues Oswald was in theAnd missed...
domino room when the shots were fired.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
You couldn't offer a single witness who placed himYou couldn't offer a single witness who contemporaneously placed
there at that time.
Oswald in the SN at 12:30.
You offered several witnesses who saw him at or before noon.You don't believe them.
You offered witnesses who said he usually ate his lunch in the
domino room which...
Supports what he said.
You offered twoWhat have *YOU* offered?
statements attributed to Carolyn Arnold. One which said she MIGHT have seen him near the
entrance before 12:15. The other stated she left the TSBD about 12:25 but made no mention
of seeing Oswald when she did. Neither of those statements places Oswald in the domino
room when the shots were fired nor preclude him from being the shooting in the sniper's nest.
You've offered no witnesses, no documents, no sworn testimony, no
evidence, no videos, no citations, no exhibits... NOTHING.
Looks like Gil spanked you again!
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:15:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
What have *YOU* offered?
You've offered no witnesses, no documents, no sworn testimony, no evidence, no videos, no citations, no exhibits... NOTHING.
Looks like Gil spanked you again!Corbett must have flunked math because he'd know that if Oswald was seen on the first floor at 12:25,
he could not have been the killer at 12:30 because it took six minutes to assemble the rifle. ( 2 H 252 )
Corbett only offers comments, no evidence.
Apparently, you never considered the possibility he assembled the rifle earlier that morning.
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:15:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
What have *YOU* offered?
You've offered no witnesses, no documents, no sworn testimony, no evidence, no videos, no citations, no exhibits... NOTHING.
You can't cite one witness who saw Oswald on the first floor at 12:25. Despite what you wrote inLooks like Gil spanked you again!Corbett must have flunked math because he'd know that if Oswald was seen on the first floor at 12:25,
the diagram of the first floor, Carolyn Arnold did not say she saw Oswald at 12:25. She said she
left the building at that time but didn't say she saw Oswald at that time. She said she MIGHT
have seen him BEFORE 12:15. Even if she is right about that, it gives Oswald plenty of time to
reach the 6th floor.
he could not have been the killer at 12:30 because it took six minutes to assemble the rifle. ( 2 H 252 )Apparently, you never considered the possibility he assembled the rifle earlier that morning.
Corbett only offers comments, no evidence.You posted a link to your website. I commented on it by pointing out the flaws. That doesn't
require evidence to point out the flaws in your arguments. You seem unable to respond to the
criticisms I made of your arguments. Why are you unable to defend the claims you make?
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 12:04:13 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 8:22:05 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:15:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
What have *YOU* offered?
You've offered no witnesses, no documents, no sworn testimony, no evidence, no videos, no citations, no exhibits... NOTHING.
You can't cite one witness who saw Oswald on the first floor at 12:25. Despite what you wrote inLooks like Gil spanked you again!Corbett must have flunked math because he'd know that if Oswald was seen on the first floor at 12:25,
the diagram of the first floor, Carolyn Arnold did not say she saw Oswald at 12:25. She said she
left the building at that time but didn't say she saw Oswald at that time. She said she MIGHT
have seen him BEFORE 12:15. Even if she is right about that, it gives Oswald plenty of time to
reach the 6th floor.
he could not have been the killer at 12:30 because it took six minutes to assemble the rifle. ( 2 H 252 )Apparently, you never considered the possibility he assembled the rifle earlier that morning.
You people make me laugh.Corbett only offers comments, no evidence.You posted a link to your website. I commented on it by pointing out the flaws. That doesn't
require evidence to point out the flaws in your arguments. You seem unable to respond to the
criticisms I made of your arguments. Why are you unable to defend the claims you make?
You cry that I don't have a witness.
When I produce a witness, you tell me how unreliable witness testimony is.
ROFLMAO
So let me ask you a question:
What time did Carolyn Arnold leave the building, at 12:15 or 12:25 ?
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:03:26 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:He's claimed, on various and recent occasions, that: the Birchers killed JFK, that they were *allowed* to do so (by among other Earl Warren (!!??)) because the right wing Cold War militarists opposed JFK's foreign policies; then he said the "Russians got
The evidence they run from:
www.gil-jesus.comGil, I just took target practice at the section of your website that argues Oswald was in the
domino room when the shots were fired. You couldn't offer a single witness who placed him
there at that time. You offered several witnesses who saw him at or before noon. You offered
witnesses who said he usually ate his lunch in the domino room which does nothing to establish
he was in the domino room eating his lunch when the shots were fired. You offered two
statements attributed to Carolyn Arnold. One which said she MIGHT have seen him near the
entrance before 12:15. The other stated she left the TSBD about 12:25 but made no mention
of seeing Oswald when she did. Neither of those statements places Oswald in the domino
room when the shots were fired nor preclude him from being the shooting in the sniper's nest.
The other sections of your website are equally lame and illogical. If anybody should be running
from your ridiculous website it's you.
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:09:01 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:got it right" in their "investigation", the "investigation" that said the CIA killed JFK. The same "investigation" that he later admitted he knew nothing about. More recently he said anti-Castro Cubans killed JFK. So we have the Birchers, the CIA and
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:03:26 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
The evidence they run from:
www.gil-jesus.comGil, I just took target practice at the section of your website that argues Oswald was in the
domino room when the shots were fired. You couldn't offer a single witness who placed him
there at that time. You offered several witnesses who saw him at or before noon. You offered
witnesses who said he usually ate his lunch in the domino room which does nothing to establish
he was in the domino room eating his lunch when the shots were fired. You offered two
statements attributed to Carolyn Arnold. One which said she MIGHT have seen him near the
entrance before 12:15. The other stated she left the TSBD about 12:25 but made no mention
of seeing Oswald when she did. Neither of those statements places Oswald in the domino
room when the shots were fired nor preclude him from being the shooting in the sniper's nest.
The other sections of your website are equally lame and illogical. If anybody should be runningHe's claimed, on various and recent occasions, that: the Birchers killed JFK, that they were *allowed* to do so (by among other Earl Warren (!!??)) because the right wing Cold War militarists opposed JFK's foreign policies; then he said the "Russians
from your ridiculous website it's you.
But he's partially correct: someone's brain is not working properly, that's for sure.
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:03:26 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
Gil is an idiot...
He's not to be taken seriously as a researcher...
He is contemptuously ignoring that Jack Dougherty was adamant that Oswald was eating his lunch up in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room while Dougherty ate his down below in the Domino Room...
Gil is an idiot...
He's not to be taken seriously as a researcher...
He is contemptuously ignoring that Jack Dougherty was adamant that Oswald was eating his lunch up in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room while Dougherty ate his down below in the Domino Room...
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 12:49:17 PM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
Gil is an idiot...
He's not to be taken seriously as a researcher...
He is contemptuously ignoring that Jack Dougherty was adamant that Oswald was eating his lunch up in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room while Dougherty ate his down below in the Domino Room...Let the lurkers take note that I asked Corbett a question and he ran from it like the little bitch he is.
It was a perfectly lucid question: "What time did Carolyn Arnold leave the building, at 12:15 or 12:25" ?
Corbett knows she gave two different times, yet he's afraid to answer the question, while Professor Numbnut and Doyle the Dipshit cheer him on.
The Dipshit knows that according to Hosty/Bookhout report, "Oswald claimed to be ON THE FIRST FLOOR when President John F. Kennedy passed this building".
( Oswald 201 file, Volume 3, Folder 9A, Part 1, pgs. 100-101 )
The Dipshit also knows that Dougherty testified that he was ten feet from the elevator on the FIFTH floor when he heard the gunshots, NOT in the Domino Room. ( 22 H 645 )
I'm sure Doyle, being the greatest JFK assassination researcher of all time ( just ask him, he'll tell you ) knows that Dougherty testified that he was only in the Domino Room for, " a short length of time " ( 6 H 378 )
Doyle must also be aware that Dougherty originally testified that he heard the shots BEFORE he had his lunch, meaning that he had his lunch AFTER 12:30, and only after being "corrected" by Commission Counsel Joseph Ball did his testimony change. ( 6 H379 )
Dougherty testified that he didn't see Oswald again after 11:00 am. ( 6 H 378 )
So I asked Doyle how Dougherty on the first floor could be "adamant" that Oswald had lunch on the second floor if he didn't see him after 11am
and he declined to produce any evidence.
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:09:01 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:got it right" in their "investigation", the "investigation" that said the CIA killed JFK. The same "investigation" that he later admitted he knew nothing about. More recently he said anti-Castro Cubans killed JFK. So we have the Birchers, the CIA and
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:03:26 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
The evidence they run from:
www.gil-jesus.comGil, I just took target practice at the section of your website that argues Oswald was in the
domino room when the shots were fired. You couldn't offer a single witness who placed him
there at that time. You offered several witnesses who saw him at or before noon. You offered
witnesses who said he usually ate his lunch in the domino room which does nothing to establish
he was in the domino room eating his lunch when the shots were fired. You offered two
statements attributed to Carolyn Arnold. One which said she MIGHT have seen him near the
entrance before 12:15. The other stated she left the TSBD about 12:25 but made no mention
of seeing Oswald when she did. Neither of those statements places Oswald in the domino
room when the shots were fired nor preclude him from being the shooting in the sniper's nest.
The other sections of your website are equally lame and illogical. If anybody should be runningHe's claimed, on various and recent occasions, that: the Birchers killed JFK, that they were *allowed* to do so (by among other Earl Warren (!!??)) because the right wing Cold War militarists opposed JFK's foreign policies; then he said the "Russians
from your ridiculous website it's you.
But he's partially correct: someone's brain is not working properly, that's for sure.
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 12:49:17 PM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
Gil is an idiot...
He's not to be taken seriously as a researcher...
He is contemptuously ignoring that Jack Dougherty was adamant that Oswald was eating his lunch up in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room while Dougherty ate his down below in the Domino Room...Let the lurkers take note that I asked Corbett a question and he ran from it like the little bitch he is.
It was a perfectly lucid question: "What time did Carolyn Arnold leave the building, at 12:15 or 12:25" ?
Corbett knows she gave two different times, yet he's afraid to answer the question, while Professor Numbnut and Doyle the Dipshit cheer him on.
So let me ask you a question:
What time did Carolyn Arnold leave the building, at 12:15 or 12:25 ?
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:07:56 AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:09:01 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Football season is starting, and Gil has been warming up the arm in anticipation of replacing Tom Brady with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. I'm sure Gil thinks he has a shot. Ben is tinkering with the idea of becoming the NBA's first sub five foot tallplayer. Ben has been working on free throws for almost a week, and thinks he can come off the bench as a free-throw specialist.
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:07:56 AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:got it right" in their "investigation", the "investigation" that said the CIA killed JFK. The same "investigation" that he later admitted he knew nothing about. More recently he said anti-Castro Cubans killed JFK. So we have the Birchers, the CIA and
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:09:01 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:03:26 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
The evidence they run from:
www.gil-jesus.comGil, I just took target practice at the section of your website that argues Oswald was in the
domino room when the shots were fired. You couldn't offer a single witness who placed him
there at that time. You offered several witnesses who saw him at or before noon. You offered
witnesses who said he usually ate his lunch in the domino room which does nothing to establish
he was in the domino room eating his lunch when the shots were fired. You offered two
statements attributed to Carolyn Arnold. One which said she MIGHT have seen him near the
entrance before 12:15. The other stated she left the TSBD about 12:25 but made no mention
of seeing Oswald when she did. Neither of those statements places Oswald in the domino
room when the shots were fired nor preclude him from being the shooting in the sniper's nest.
The other sections of your website are equally lame and illogical. If anybody should be runningHe's claimed, on various and recent occasions, that: the Birchers killed JFK, that they were *allowed* to do so (by among other Earl Warren (!!??)) because the right wing Cold War militarists opposed JFK's foreign policies; then he said the "Russians
from your ridiculous website it's you.
But he's partially correct: someone's brain is not working properly, that's for sure.Gil is essentially a garden-variety kook.
Everyone was in on it, and all of the evidence was planted, forged, altered, destroyed, manufactured, lost, hidden, replaced. Yawn.
At his website, Gil writes, "...I will present the case for the DEFENSE of Oswald. I will act as the lawyer he SHOULD have had at his trial. I will take the Warren Commission’s case apart piece by piece and present evidence that will cast more thanreasonable doubt on whether or not their case against him was valid."
Earth to Gil: NO ONE would EVER hirer you to act as their defense attorney, not even for fun on the internet. You're just not that bright, pal.
The arrogance. Gil is going to act as Lee Harvey Oswald's internet lawyer? It's Dunning-Kruger effect time. Per Wikipedia, the definition is "...defined as the tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessmentsof this ability.[3][4][5] This is often seen as a cognitive bias, i.e. as a systematic tendency to engage in erroneous forms of thinking and judging.[2][6][7] In the case of the Dunning–Kruger effect, this applies mainly to people with low skill in a
Football season is starting, and Gil has been warming up the arm in anticipation of replacing Tom Brady with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
I'm sure Gil thinks he has a shot. Ben is tinkering with the idea of becoming the NBA's first sub five foot tall player. Ben has been working on free throws for almost a week, and thinks he can come off the bench as a free-throw specialist.
These guys are delusional. But entertaining.
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:15:34 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:07:56 AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:Oh good. All the assholes are checking in with their opinons. How entertaining.
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:09:01 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
I've already proven that the FBI reports were altered.
Back in 2011, I gave three examples of how the FBI lied in their reports. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
In addition, there were numerous testimonies in which the witnesses denied saying what the official reports said they said.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CD-5-pg-19-fbi-lies-worrell.png
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/fbi-lies-frazier.jpg
At least one witness denied in testimony what his affidavit said he said. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/affidavit-lies-edwards.gif
Of course the Commission ignored these inconsistencies, much like their supporters ignore any evidence that the case was a sham.
The LNers in this newsgroup are a perfect example of how a brainwashing program can be successful.
You just keep repeating the lie over and over again and people will believe it.
For example, many people still believe "RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA", even though it's been disproven.
Get the press involved. Get the scientists involved. Do documentaries.
Run tests, not with the alleged murder weapon, but one like it.
And if that doesn't work, move the goalposts.
Change the timing from 5.6 seconds to 8.5 seconds.
Dry fire the rifle at the wall. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/media-lies.mp4
You say the bullets don't match the shells ?
Speculate.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-bullets/
You say you found .38 automatic shells and the suspect owns a .38 special ? Oh wait, we made a mistake. The shells were really .38 special shells.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-shells/
You say you found a 7.65 Mauser rifle, but the "record" shows the suspect owned a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano ? Oh wait, we made a mistake. It was really a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano.
https://gil-jesus.com/was-the-rifle-a-mauser/
You say you found a white jacket but the suspect doesn't own one ? Oh wait, we made a mistake. It was really a "tannish-grey" jacket.
https://gil-jesus.com/oswalds-jacket/
You say you need the witnesses to make a "positive identifications" of your suspect ?
Use fillers that don't match the witnesses descriptions. Use blonds, teenagers and a Mexican.
Dress them in sport coats, vests and sweaters. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/lineups-1-2.png
Tamper with witnesses. Threaten witnesses into changing their testimony. https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/
And, by the way, when you conduct your hearings, hold them in executive session. For God's sake, don't be transparent.
Yes, there's nothing to see here folks. Only a "conspiracy kook" would suspect that something else was going on here.
Any reasonable and prudent person knows that governments don't lie, that people can change their sex just by saying so and that men can get pregnant.
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:15:34 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:Russians got it right" in their "investigation", the "investigation" that said the CIA killed JFK. The same "investigation" that he later admitted he knew nothing about. More recently he said anti-Castro Cubans killed JFK. So we have the Birchers, the
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:07:56 AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:09:01 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:03:26 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
The evidence they run from:
www.gil-jesus.comGil, I just took target practice at the section of your website that argues Oswald was in the
domino room when the shots were fired. You couldn't offer a single witness who placed him
there at that time. You offered several witnesses who saw him at or before noon. You offered
witnesses who said he usually ate his lunch in the domino room which does nothing to establish
he was in the domino room eating his lunch when the shots were fired. You offered two
statements attributed to Carolyn Arnold. One which said she MIGHT have seen him near the
entrance before 12:15. The other stated she left the TSBD about 12:25 but made no mention
of seeing Oswald when she did. Neither of those statements places Oswald in the domino
room when the shots were fired nor preclude him from being the shooting in the sniper's nest.
The other sections of your website are equally lame and illogical. If anybody should be runningHe's claimed, on various and recent occasions, that: the Birchers killed JFK, that they were *allowed* to do so (by among other Earl Warren (!!??)) because the right wing Cold War militarists opposed JFK's foreign policies; then he said the "
from your ridiculous website it's you.
reasonable doubt on whether or not their case against him was valid."A vegetable?But he's partially correct: someone's brain is not working properly, that's for sure.Gil is essentially a garden-variety kook.
Everyone was in on it, and all of the evidence was planted, forged, altered, destroyed, manufactured, lost, hidden, replaced. Yawn.It's pretty much what anybody who wants to argue for Oswald's innocence is forced to do since
all the evidence points to Oswald and nobody else. They can't just claim some of the evidence
is planted because why would the planted evidence point to the same person as the legitimate
evidence. It's and all or nothing proposition and they choose to believe it was all planted.
At his website, Gil writes, "...I will present the case for the DEFENSE of Oswald. I will act as the lawyer he SHOULD have had at his trial. I will take the Warren Commission’s case apart piece by piece and present evidence that will cast more than
I missed that part.
I have stated that Gil has acted like Oswald's defense counsel on severalof this ability.[3][4][5] This is often seen as a cognitive bias, i.e. as a systematic tendency to engage in erroneous forms of thinking and judging.[2][6][7] In the case of the Dunning–Kruger effect, this applies mainly to people with low skill in a
occasions. I wasn't aware he has actually admitted to that. A defense counsel should act in
his client's best interests. That's his job. He's not supposed to be objective. What's puzzling is
why Gil thinks that's his job. Why would anyone who wants to know the truth of the assassination
look at the evidence from the perspective of the defense counsel? Why wouldn't someone who
is interested in the truth look at the evidence objectively?
Earth to Gil: NO ONE would EVER hirer you to act as their defense attorney, not even for fun on the internet. You're just not that bright, pal.If Oswald were alive today, he could probably sue Gil for malpractice.
The arrogance. Gil is going to act as Lee Harvey Oswald's internet lawyer? It's Dunning-Kruger effect time. Per Wikipedia, the definition is "...defined as the tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments
Was Gil's picture next to that definition?
Football season is starting, and Gil has been warming up the arm in anticipation of replacing Tom Brady with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.He might actually be a better option than Baker Mayfield, although Baker did play well in the
first exhibition. It's become fashionable to dump on Baker Mayfield because he is an obvious
bust, but he's better than a lot of people give him credit for. The Browns vastly overrated him in
choosing to draft him with the #1 overall pick. They passed on Josh Allen. There were a number
of QBs they could have taken and all of them had question marks. I think they had the first and
fourth picks in that draft. I would have taken Saquon Barkley with that first pick and then chosen
from whoever was left with their next pick. They convinced themselves Baker was the guy.
I remember former Ravens coach Brian Billick saying that need is a very poor judge of talent.
The Browns needed a franchise QB so they convinced themselves Baker would be. In that
regard, they were much like the conspiracy hobbyists. They need the evidence against Oswald
to be phony so they have convinced themselves it is.
I'm sure Gil thinks he has a shot. Ben is tinkering with the idea of becoming the NBA's first sub five foot tall player. Ben has been working on free throws for almost a week, and thinks he can come off the bench as a free-throw specialist.If only Dr. Naismith had made the goal a hole in the floor instead of a hoop ten feet high. Ben
could have been a superstar.
These guys are delusional. But entertaining.No question about that.
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 6:17:08 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:Russians got it right" in their "investigation", the "investigation" that said the CIA killed JFK. The same "investigation" that he later admitted he knew nothing about. More recently he said anti-Castro Cubans killed JFK. So we have the Birchers, the
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:15:34 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:07:56 AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:09:01 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:03:26 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
The evidence they run from:
www.gil-jesus.comGil, I just took target practice at the section of your website that argues Oswald was in the
domino room when the shots were fired. You couldn't offer a single witness who placed him
there at that time. You offered several witnesses who saw him at or before noon. You offered
witnesses who said he usually ate his lunch in the domino room which does nothing to establish
he was in the domino room eating his lunch when the shots were fired. You offered two
statements attributed to Carolyn Arnold. One which said she MIGHT have seen him near the
entrance before 12:15. The other stated she left the TSBD about 12:25 but made no mention
of seeing Oswald when she did. Neither of those statements places Oswald in the domino
room when the shots were fired nor preclude him from being the shooting in the sniper's nest.
The other sections of your website are equally lame and illogical. If anybody should be runningHe's claimed, on various and recent occasions, that: the Birchers killed JFK, that they were *allowed* to do so (by among other Earl Warren (!!??)) because the right wing Cold War militarists opposed JFK's foreign policies; then he said the "
from your ridiculous website it's you.
than reasonable doubt on whether or not their case against him was valid."A vegetable?But he's partially correct: someone's brain is not working properly, that's for sure.Gil is essentially a garden-variety kook.
Everyone was in on it, and all of the evidence was planted, forged, altered, destroyed, manufactured, lost, hidden, replaced. Yawn.It's pretty much what anybody who wants to argue for Oswald's innocence is forced to do since
all the evidence points to Oswald and nobody else. They can't just claim some of the evidence
is planted because why would the planted evidence point to the same person as the legitimate
evidence. It's and all or nothing proposition and they choose to believe it was all planted.
At his website, Gil writes, "...I will present the case for the DEFENSE of Oswald. I will act as the lawyer he SHOULD have had at his trial. I will take the Warren Commission’s case apart piece by piece and present evidence that will cast more
gotten to second floor from the sixth that soon after the shooting" that used to be popular with the conspiracy hobbyists. He may have pled guilty.I missed that part.I did to, but of course I don`t read Gil`s website.
Certain things about his "trial angle" come to my mind...
He drops trial standards and accepts hearsay when it suits his idea.
Had Oswald lived, he would have directed his counsel. He might not have used any of Gil`s nonsense, opting for a completely different course. He might not have used the supposed "first floor alibi" at all, might have opted for the "Oswald couldn`t have
Gil declares all of his nonsense admissible, but since when does a defense attorney get to decide that? But not only does Gil appoint himself counsel and judge, he also appoints himself as the jury. He thinks that because he can convince himself thatso much of the (quoting Corbett) "the evidence was planted, forged, altered, destroyed, manufactured, lost, hidden, replaced", then the jury would be convinced also. He thinks if he can convince himself that a Dallas Police Officer and one of Oswald`s
Gil declares the FBI guilty of tampering with evidence without hearing the FBI agents side of the interview (and why is the FBI intimidating witnesses that had little or no impact on the FBI or WC`s conclusions?). Suddenly due process isn`t such a bigdeal.
Gil pretends to have established things as fact that he hasn`t come near to establishing. That Oswald would have had to assemble the rifle at a certain time. That Oswald wouldn` have been familiar enough with his rifle to assemble it in less that tenminutes (it is only 4 screws and a barrel band, if you are familiar it can probably be done in a minute or so). He is constantly asserting things as fact that just aren`t facts.
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:15:19 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:Russians got it right" in their "investigation", the "investigation" that said the CIA killed JFK. The same "investigation" that he later admitted he knew nothing about. More recently he said anti-Castro Cubans killed JFK. So we have the Birchers, the
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 6:17:08 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:15:34 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:07:56 AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:09:01 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:03:26 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
The evidence they run from:
www.gil-jesus.comGil, I just took target practice at the section of your website that argues Oswald was in the
domino room when the shots were fired. You couldn't offer a single witness who placed him
there at that time. You offered several witnesses who saw him at or before noon. You offered
witnesses who said he usually ate his lunch in the domino room which does nothing to establish
he was in the domino room eating his lunch when the shots were fired. You offered two
statements attributed to Carolyn Arnold. One which said she MIGHT have seen him near the
entrance before 12:15. The other stated she left the TSBD about 12:25 but made no mention
of seeing Oswald when she did. Neither of those statements places Oswald in the domino
room when the shots were fired nor preclude him from being the shooting in the sniper's nest.
The other sections of your website are equally lame and illogical. If anybody should be runningHe's claimed, on various and recent occasions, that: the Birchers killed JFK, that they were *allowed* to do so (by among other Earl Warren (!!??)) because the right wing Cold War militarists opposed JFK's foreign policies; then he said the "
from your ridiculous website it's you.
than reasonable doubt on whether or not their case against him was valid."A vegetable?But he's partially correct: someone's brain is not working properly, that's for sure.Gil is essentially a garden-variety kook.
Everyone was in on it, and all of the evidence was planted, forged, altered, destroyed, manufactured, lost, hidden, replaced. Yawn.It's pretty much what anybody who wants to argue for Oswald's innocence is forced to do since
all the evidence points to Oswald and nobody else. They can't just claim some of the evidence
is planted because why would the planted evidence point to the same person as the legitimate
evidence. It's and all or nothing proposition and they choose to believe it was all planted.
At his website, Gil writes, "...I will present the case for the DEFENSE of Oswald. I will act as the lawyer he SHOULD have had at his trial. I will take the Warren Commission’s case apart piece by piece and present evidence that will cast more
have gotten to second floor from the sixth that soon after the shooting" that used to be popular with the conspiracy hobbyists. He may have pled guilty.I missed that part.I did to, but of course I don`t read Gil`s website.
Certain things about his "trial angle" come to my mind...
He drops trial standards and accepts hearsay when it suits his idea.
Had Oswald lived, he would have directed his counsel. He might not have used any of Gil`s nonsense, opting for a completely different course. He might not have used the supposed "first floor alibi" at all, might have opted for the "Oswald couldn`t
so much of the (quoting Corbett) "the evidence was planted, forged, altered, destroyed, manufactured, lost, hidden, replaced", then the jury would be convinced also. He thinks if he can convince himself that a Dallas Police Officer and one of Oswald`sGil declares all of his nonsense admissible, but since when does a defense attorney get to decide that? But not only does Gil appoint himself counsel and judge, he also appoints himself as the jury. He thinks that because he can convince himself that
big deal.Gil declares the FBI guilty of tampering with evidence without hearing the FBI agents side of the interview (and why is the FBI intimidating witnesses that had little or no impact on the FBI or WC`s conclusions?). Suddenly due process isn`t such a
minutes (it is only 4 screws and a barrel band, if you are familiar it can probably be done in a minute or so). He is constantly asserting things as fact that just aren`t facts.Gil pretends to have established things as fact that he hasn`t come near to establishing. That Oswald would have had to assemble the rifle at a certain time. That Oswald wouldn` have been familiar enough with his rifle to assemble it in less that ten
In Gil's theoretical "If-Oswald-had-lived" trial, in order to establish his client's alibi that he was in
the domino room when the shots were fired, he would have had no choice but to put Oswald
on the stand since there are no other witnesses who could place him there. That would open
Oswald up to a savage cross examination which would have shredded every statement Oswald
made. That is why defense attorneys are reluctant to put their defendants on the witness stand
unless there is no other option. That's why OJ's million dollar dream team didn't put him on the
stand in his own defense. Better just to tell a gullible jury, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must
acquit". Gil expects us to be as gullible as OJ's jury and he gets very frustrated when we don't
cooperate.
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:15:19 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:Russians got it right" in their "investigation", the "investigation" that said the CIA killed JFK. The same "investigation" that he later admitted he knew nothing about. More recently he said anti-Castro Cubans killed JFK. So we have the Birchers, the
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 6:17:08 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:15:34 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:07:56 AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:09:01 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:03:26 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
The evidence they run from:
www.gil-jesus.comGil, I just took target practice at the section of your website that argues Oswald was in the
domino room when the shots were fired. You couldn't offer a single witness who placed him
there at that time. You offered several witnesses who saw him at or before noon. You offered
witnesses who said he usually ate his lunch in the domino room which does nothing to establish
he was in the domino room eating his lunch when the shots were fired. You offered two
statements attributed to Carolyn Arnold. One which said she MIGHT have seen him near the
entrance before 12:15. The other stated she left the TSBD about 12:25 but made no mention
of seeing Oswald when she did. Neither of those statements places Oswald in the domino
room when the shots were fired nor preclude him from being the shooting in the sniper's nest.
The other sections of your website are equally lame and illogical. If anybody should be runningHe's claimed, on various and recent occasions, that: the Birchers killed JFK, that they were *allowed* to do so (by among other Earl Warren (!!??)) because the right wing Cold War militarists opposed JFK's foreign policies; then he said the "
from your ridiculous website it's you.
than reasonable doubt on whether or not their case against him was valid."A vegetable?But he's partially correct: someone's brain is not working properly, that's for sure.Gil is essentially a garden-variety kook.
Everyone was in on it, and all of the evidence was planted, forged, altered, destroyed, manufactured, lost, hidden, replaced. Yawn.It's pretty much what anybody who wants to argue for Oswald's innocence is forced to do since
all the evidence points to Oswald and nobody else. They can't just claim some of the evidence
is planted because why would the planted evidence point to the same person as the legitimate
evidence. It's and all or nothing proposition and they choose to believe it was all planted.
At his website, Gil writes, "...I will present the case for the DEFENSE of Oswald. I will act as the lawyer he SHOULD have had at his trial. I will take the Warren Commission’s case apart piece by piece and present evidence that will cast more
have gotten to second floor from the sixth that soon after the shooting" that used to be popular with the conspiracy hobbyists. He may have pled guilty.I missed that part.I did to, but of course I don`t read Gil`s website.
Certain things about his "trial angle" come to my mind...
He drops trial standards and accepts hearsay when it suits his idea.
Had Oswald lived, he would have directed his counsel. He might not have used any of Gil`s nonsense, opting for a completely different course. He might not have used the supposed "first floor alibi" at all, might have opted for the "Oswald couldn`t
so much of the (quoting Corbett) "the evidence was planted, forged, altered, destroyed, manufactured, lost, hidden, replaced", then the jury would be convinced also. He thinks if he can convince himself that a Dallas Police Officer and one of Oswald`sGil declares all of his nonsense admissible, but since when does a defense attorney get to decide that? But not only does Gil appoint himself counsel and judge, he also appoints himself as the jury. He thinks that because he can convince himself that
big deal.Gil declares the FBI guilty of tampering with evidence without hearing the FBI agents side of the interview (and why is the FBI intimidating witnesses that had little or no impact on the FBI or WC`s conclusions?). Suddenly due process isn`t such a
minutes (it is only 4 screws and a barrel band, if you are familiar it can probably be done in a minute or so). He is constantly asserting things as fact that just aren`t facts.Gil pretends to have established things as fact that he hasn`t come near to establishing. That Oswald would have had to assemble the rifle at a certain time. That Oswald wouldn` have been familiar enough with his rifle to assemble it in less that ten
In Gil's theoretical "If-Oswald-had-lived" trial, in order to establish his client's alibi that he was in
the domino room when the shots were fired, he would have had no choice but to put Oswald
on the stand since there are no other witnesses who could place him there. That would open
Oswald up to a savage cross examination which would have shredded every statement Oswald
made. That is why defense attorneys are reluctant to put their defendants on the witness stand
unless there is no other option. That's why OJ's million dollar dream team didn't put him on the
stand in his own defense. Better just to tell a gullible jury, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must
acquit". Gil expects us to be as gullible as OJ's jury and he gets very frustrated when we don't
cooperate.
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 8:22:05?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:15:09?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
What have *YOU* offered?Corbett must have flunked math because he'd know that if Oswald was seen on the first floor at 12:25,
You've offered no witnesses, no documents, no sworn testimony, no
evidence, no videos, no citations, no exhibits... NOTHING.
Looks like Gil spanked you again!
You can't cite one witness who saw Oswald on the first floor at 12:25. Despite what you wrote in
the diagram of the first floor, Carolyn Arnold did not say she saw Oswald at 12:25. She said she
left the building at that time but didn't say she saw Oswald at that time. She said she MIGHT
have seen him BEFORE 12:15. Even if she is right about that, it gives Oswald plenty of time to
reach the 6th floor.
he could not have been the killer at 12:30 because it took six minutes to assemble the rifle. ( 2 H 252 )
Apparently, you never considered the possibility he assembled the rifle earlier that morning.
Corbett only offers comments, no evidence.
You posted a link to your website. I commented on it by pointing out the flaws. That doesn't
require evidence to point out the flaws in your arguments. You seem unable to respond to the
criticisms I made of your arguments. Why are you unable to defend the claims you make?
Ben the crooked umpire...
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:07:56?AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:got it right" in their "investigation", the "investigation" that said the CIA killed JFK. The same "investigation" that he later admitted he knew nothing about. More recently he said anti-Castro Cubans killed JFK. So we have the Birchers, the CIA and
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:09:01?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:03:26?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:He's claimed, on various and recent occasions, that: the Birchers killed JFK, that they were *allowed* to do so (by among other Earl Warren (!!??)) because the right wing Cold War militarists opposed JFK's foreign policies; then he said the "Russians
The evidence they run from:Gil, I just took target practice at the section of your website that argues Oswald was in the
www.gil-jesus.com
domino room when the shots were fired. You couldn't offer a single witness who placed him
there at that time. You offered several witnesses who saw him at or before noon. You offered
witnesses who said he usually ate his lunch in the domino room which does nothing to establish
he was in the domino room eating his lunch when the shots were fired. You offered two
statements attributed to Carolyn Arnold. One which said she MIGHT have seen him near the
entrance before 12:15. The other stated she left the TSBD about 12:25 but made no mention
of seeing Oswald when she did. Neither of those statements places Oswald in the domino
room when the shots were fired nor preclude him from being the shooting in the sniper's nest.
The other sections of your website are equally lame and illogical. If anybody should be running
from your ridiculous website it's you.
But he's partially correct: someone's brain is not working properly, that's for sure.
Gil is essentially a garden-variety...
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 5:56:29?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:15:34?AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:You don't seem to understand the difference between proving and claiming. You have done
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:07:56?AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote: >>>> On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:09:01?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:Oh good. All the assholes are checking in with their opinons. How entertaining.
I've already proven that the FBI reports were altered.
the latter often and the former never.
Back in 2011, I gave three examples of how the FBI lied in their reports.It's not at all unusual for people to give different accounts at different times. Humans don't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
In addition, there were numerous testimonies in which the witnesses denied saying what the official reports said they said.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CD-5-pg-19-fbi-lies-worrell.png
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/fbi-lies-frazier.jpg
At least one witness denied in testimony what his affidavit said he said.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/affidavit-lies-edwards.gif >>
have perfect memories. They aren't going to remember an event exactly the same each time
they speak about it. They aren't going to always remember what they have said in the past
either.
Of course the Commission ignored these inconsistencies, much like their supporters ignore any evidence that the case was a sham.
It was the Commission's job...
The LNers in this newsgroup are a perfect example of how a brainwashing program can be successful.
You just keep repeating the lie over and over again and people will believe it.
I gave up a long time ago trying to convince doubters of Oswald's guilt. Some people are
unreachable.
For example, many people still believe "RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA", even though it's been disproven.
Get the press involved. Get the scientists involved. Do documentaries.
Run tests, not with the alleged murder weapon, but one like it.
And if that doesn't work, move the goalposts.
Change the timing from 5.6 seconds to 8.5 seconds.
There never was a change in the time because the WC never made a conclusion regarding
the amount of time Oswald took to fire his three shots. They allowed for 5.6 seconds and they
allowed for 8.5. They offered ranges of the elapsed time and came to no conclusions as to
which was correct. The Commssion concluded that the time span between the two shots that
struck JFK was between 4.8 and 5.6 seconds. That is a correct assessment. It is now widely believed that actual time was 4.9 seconds. The range given would only be the total time of
the shooting if the second shot was the one that missed. The WC never concluded that.
Dry fire the rifle at the wall.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/media-lies.mp4
You say the bullets don't match the shells ?A perfectly reasonable explanation...
Speculate.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-bullets/
You say you found .38 automatic shells and the suspect owns a .38 special ? Oh wait, we made a mistake. The shells were really .38 special shells.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-tippit-shells/
Nobody found .38 automatic shells...
You say you found a 7.65 Mauser rifle, but the "record" shows the suspect owned a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano ? Oh wait, we made a mistake. It was really a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano.
https://gil-jesus.com/was-the-rifle-a-mauser/
You say you found a white jacket but the suspect doesn't own one ? Oh wait, we made a mistake. It was really a "tannish-grey" jacket.
https://gil-jesus.com/oswalds-jacket/
You say you need the witnesses to make a "positive identifications" of your suspect ?
Use fillers that don't match the witnesses descriptions. Use blonds, teenagers and a Mexican.
Dress them in sport coats, vests and sweaters.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/lineups-1-2.png
Tamper with witnesses. Threaten witnesses into changing their testimony.
https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/
And, by the way, when you conduct your hearings, hold them in executive session. For God's sake, don't be transparent.
Yes, there's nothing to see here folks. Only a "conspiracy kook" would suspect that something else was going on here.
Pretty much.
Any reasonable and prudent person knows that governments don't lie, that people can change their sex just by saying so and that men can get pregnant.
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 18:47:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Ben the crooked umpire...
Nothing crooked...
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 11:24:59?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 18:47:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Ben the crooked umpire...
Nothing crooked...
Everything crooked. You are incapable of being honest.
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 10:48:03 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 6:27:58 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:Russians got it right" in their "investigation", the "investigation" that said the CIA killed JFK. The same "investigation" that he later admitted he knew nothing about. More recently he said anti-Castro Cubans killed JFK. So we have the Birchers, the
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 7:15:19 AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 6:17:08 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 12:15:34 AM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:07:56 AM UTC-5, Steven Galbraith wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 7:09:01 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:03:26 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
The evidence they run from:
www.gil-jesus.comGil, I just took target practice at the section of your website that argues Oswald was in the
domino room when the shots were fired. You couldn't offer a single witness who placed him
there at that time. You offered several witnesses who saw him at or before noon. You offered
witnesses who said he usually ate his lunch in the domino room which does nothing to establish
he was in the domino room eating his lunch when the shots were fired. You offered two
statements attributed to Carolyn Arnold. One which said she MIGHT have seen him near the
entrance before 12:15. The other stated she left the TSBD about 12:25 but made no mention
of seeing Oswald when she did. Neither of those statements places Oswald in the domino
room when the shots were fired nor preclude him from being the shooting in the sniper's nest.
The other sections of your website are equally lame and illogical. If anybody should be runningHe's claimed, on various and recent occasions, that: the Birchers killed JFK, that they were *allowed* to do so (by among other Earl Warren (!!??)) because the right wing Cold War militarists opposed JFK's foreign policies; then he said the "
from your ridiculous website it's you.
more than reasonable doubt on whether or not their case against him was valid."A vegetable?But he's partially correct: someone's brain is not working properly, that's for sure.Gil is essentially a garden-variety kook.
Everyone was in on it, and all of the evidence was planted, forged, altered, destroyed, manufactured, lost, hidden, replaced. Yawn.It's pretty much what anybody who wants to argue for Oswald's innocence is forced to do since
all the evidence points to Oswald and nobody else. They can't just claim some of the evidence
is planted because why would the planted evidence point to the same person as the legitimate
evidence. It's and all or nothing proposition and they choose to believe it was all planted.
At his website, Gil writes, "...I will present the case for the DEFENSE of Oswald. I will act as the lawyer he SHOULD have had at his trial. I will take the Warren Commission’s case apart piece by piece and present evidence that will cast
have gotten to second floor from the sixth that soon after the shooting" that used to be popular with the conspiracy hobbyists. He may have pled guilty.I missed that part.I did to, but of course I don`t read Gil`s website.
Certain things about his "trial angle" come to my mind...
He drops trial standards and accepts hearsay when it suits his idea.
Had Oswald lived, he would have directed his counsel. He might not have used any of Gil`s nonsense, opting for a completely different course. He might not have used the supposed "first floor alibi" at all, might have opted for the "Oswald couldn`t
that so much of the (quoting Corbett) "the evidence was planted, forged, altered, destroyed, manufactured, lost, hidden, replaced", then the jury would be convinced also. He thinks if he can convince himself that a Dallas Police Officer and one of Oswald`Gil declares all of his nonsense admissible, but since when does a defense attorney get to decide that? But not only does Gil appoint himself counsel and judge, he also appoints himself as the jury. He thinks that because he can convince himself
big deal.Gil declares the FBI guilty of tampering with evidence without hearing the FBI agents side of the interview (and why is the FBI intimidating witnesses that had little or no impact on the FBI or WC`s conclusions?). Suddenly due process isn`t such a
ten minutes (it is only 4 screws and a barrel band, if you are familiar it can probably be done in a minute or so). He is constantly asserting things as fact that just aren`t facts.Gil pretends to have established things as fact that he hasn`t come near to establishing. That Oswald would have had to assemble the rifle at a certain time. That Oswald wouldn` have been familiar enough with his rifle to assemble it in less that
In Gil's theoretical "If-Oswald-had-lived" trial, in order to establish his client's alibi that he was inBTW, I always felt OJ didn't look like he was trying all that hard to get that glove on, and looked more relived (and surprised) than the jury when it didn't.
the domino room when the shots were fired, he would have had no choice but to put Oswald
on the stand since there are no other witnesses who could place him there. That would open
Oswald up to a savage cross examination which would have shredded every statement Oswald
made. That is why defense attorneys are reluctant to put their defendants on the witness stand
unless there is no other option. That's why OJ's million dollar dream team didn't put him on the
stand in his own defense. Better just to tell a gullible jury, "If the glove doesn't fit, you must
acquit". Gil expects us to be as gullible as OJ's jury and he gets very frustrated when we don't
cooperate.
My believe is the leather glove shrunk after being soaked with blood.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 119:12:21 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,367 |
