Which witness(es) said they saw Oswald on the first floor at 12:25.
Which witness(es) reported seeing the confrontation between Oswald and
Baker in the first floor storage room?
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:52:15 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:to the warehouse ON THE FIRST FLOOR.” FBI report indicated that she claimed to have seen Oswald “a few minutes before 12:15″. ( CD 5, pg. 41 ) But that time was altered by the FBI, who needed Oswald in the window at 12:15.
Which witness(es) said they saw Oswald on the first floor at 12:25.Carolyn Arnold told the FBI that as she had left the building and was ”standing in front of the building”, "she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading
As it turns out, she left the building at 12:25 ( CD 706, pg. 7 ) and the FBI alteration was exposed by her affidavit of 3/18/64.
Her description of Oswald's location, "between the front doors and the double doors leading to the warehouse", means that she got more than a fleeting glimpse.
She didn't just catch him out of the corner of her eye, SHE SAW HIM. AND SHE SAW WHERE HE WAS.
And it exposes the FBI's trying to downplay her sighting of Oswald to, "she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse".
More FBI bullshit that fools morons like you but those of us who know better can see right through it.
And while you cry for witnesses, witnesses who you have deemed in the past to be the least credible of ALL evidence, you seem to be unable to understand that the TIMING is the evidence, not the number of witnesses.
You don't need witnesses if the timing doesn't add up.
How many witnesses saw Oswald coming down the rear stairs after the shooting ?
None. But you believe that he did.
If a witness says she saw Oswald on the first floor after she left the building, then says she left the building at 12:25, that's huge.
The FBI knew that so they had to downplay her sighting.
Which witness(es) reported seeing the confrontation between Oswald and Baker in the first floor storage room?It's all on my website. If you read the page, you've seen the evidence.
Why you need to keep asking for things you've already seen ?
It shows the world what an asshole you really are.
Here they are ( again, for the lurkers ) with the quotations:give testimony because their accounts made it physically impossible for Oswald to have been in the sixth floor window with a rifle at 12:30.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Ochus_campbell.png https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/kentbiffle_DMN.png Corroboration https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/WC_Vol7_302-Holmes.gif https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Jarman-HSCA-pg2-3.jpg
The Commission didn’t hear from witnesses who placed Oswald on the first floor five minutes before and seconds after the shooting. Witnesses who had evidence of Oswald’s innocence, Carolyn Arnold, Ochus Campbell and Kent Biffle were never called to
The Commssion also never asked Mrs. Robert Reid, the TSBD Clerical Supervisor, who had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30, ( 3 H 271-272 )
if Oswald was present eating his lunch at that time.
Mrs. Reid testified that, “the girls who work under me”, were in the second floor lunchroom at the same time she was,
but that the, “younger girls had gone” before she left the lunchroom at 12:30 and that she “left alone”. ( 3 H 272 )
In fact, there were so many women in the lunchroom, that she testified, “it is all hard for me to remember how many there were,
but the general ones who usually eat there with me every day.” ( 3 H 271 )
None of those women ever reported that they had seen Lee Harvey Oswald in the second f;loor lunchroom that day.
Not surprisingly, none of those women were called to give testimony to the Warren Commission or asked in their FBI interviews
whether or not they had been among the people who had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30.
Apparently, there were some things the Commission did not want to know.
Finally, while there is overwhelming evidence that Oswald ate his lunch on the first floor and was on the first floor at the time of the shooting,
there is NO evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 pm.
It's all here and it's got Corbett's panties in a bind, along with his cheering section of mental midgets:
https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/
Behold conspiracy hobbyist thinking, nothing is something, something is nothing.
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 4:29:40 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Behold conspiracy hobbyist thinking, nothing is something, something is nothing.And here's another revelation: your opinions are nothing.
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 4:00:53 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:to the warehouse ON THE FIRST FLOOR.” FBI report indicated that she claimed to have seen Oswald “a few minutes before 12:15″. ( CD 5, pg. 41 ) But that time was altered by the FBI, who needed Oswald in the window at 12:15.
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:52:15 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Which witness(es) said they saw Oswald on the first floor at 12:25.Carolyn Arnold told the FBI that as she had left the building and was ”standing in front of the building”, "she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading
Nonsense. Thinking people understand these times are mush. There is no reason a person should catch a glimpse of some co-worker and then nail the time this took place when asked about it much later.around dozens of coworkers there is no reason to know when you saw any particular one of them, there is no reason to think this is something someone would nail.
As it turns out, she left the building at 12:25 ( CD 706, pg. 7 ) and the FBI alteration was exposed by her affidavit of 3/18/64.Gil is pretending that 12:25 is some solid information. Conspiracy folks have been playing these kinds of games for decades, pretending certain information is solid so they can take great leaps from it.
Her description of Oswald's location, "between the front doors and the double doors leading to the warehouse", means that she got more than a fleeting glimpse.
She didn't just catch him out of the corner of her eye, SHE SAW HIM. AND SHE SAW WHERE HE WAS.
And it exposes the FBI's trying to downplay her sighting of Oswald to, "she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse".
More FBI bullshit that fools morons like you but those of us who know better can see right through it.You only betray that you have no business looking into these things at all. It wouldn`t matter if she was adamant, there would still be no compelling reason to believe her, the information would still be mush. Because in the real work, if you are
to give testimony because their accounts made it physically impossible for Oswald to have been in the sixth floor window with a rifle at 12:30.And while you cry for witnesses, witnesses who you have deemed in the past to be the least credible of ALL evidence, you seem to be unable to understand that the TIMING is the evidence, not the number of witnesses.What times have you established?
You don't need witnesses if the timing doesn't add up.So is he still on the upper floors of the TSBD where people saw him before lunch? How could he get to the first floor if nobody saw him going down the steps or down on the elevator?
How many witnesses saw Oswald coming down the rear stairs after the shooting ?
None. But you believe that he did.
If a witness says she saw Oswald on the first floor after she left the building, then says she left the building at 12:25, that's huge.It`s nothing.
The FBI knew that so they had to downplay her sighting.Nonsense. They weren`t idiots like you are.
It shows Corbett asked the right question when you go into a spiel like that rather than answering him.Which witness(es) reported seeing the confrontation between Oswald and Baker in the first floor storage room?It's all on my website. If you read the page, you've seen the evidence. Why you need to keep asking for things you've already seen ?
It shows the world what an asshole you really are.
Here they are ( again, for the lurkers ) with the quotations:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Ochus_campbell.png https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/kentbiffle_DMN.png Corroboration https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/WC_Vol7_302-Holmes.gif https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Jarman-HSCA-pg2-3.jpg
The Commission didn’t hear from witnesses who placed Oswald on the first floor five minutes before and seconds after the shooting. Witnesses who had evidence of Oswald’s innocence, Carolyn Arnold, Ochus Campbell and Kent Biffle were never called
Quote these people, show the information you have that makes this "impossible".
The Commssion also never asked Mrs. Robert Reid, the TSBD Clerical Supervisor, who had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30, ( 3 H 271-272 )Does that mean he was?
if Oswald was present eating his lunch at that time.
Mrs. Reid testified that, “the girls who work under me”, were in the second floor lunchroom at the same time she was,
but that the, “younger girls had gone” before she left the lunchroom at 12:30 and that she “left alone”. ( 3 H 272 )
In fact, there were so many women in the lunchroom, that she testified, “it is all hard for me to remember how many there were,
but the general ones who usually eat there with me every day.” ( 3 H 271 )
None of those women ever reported that they had seen Lee Harvey Oswald in the second f;loor lunchroom that day.Because he didn`t go there until after he shot the President. Duh!
Not surprisingly, none of those women were called to give testimony to the Warren Commission or asked in their FBI interviews
whether or not they had been among the people who had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30.
Apparently, there were some things the Commission did not want to know.Why would they think when these women ate would give insight into the assassination.
This is "conspiracy of the gaps", no information somewhere and the idiots break out t6heior crayons start filling it in.
Finally, while there is overwhelming evidence that Oswald ate his lunch on the first floor and was on the first floor at the time of the shooting,Behold conspiracy hobbyist thinking, nothing is something, something is nothing.
there is NO evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 pm.
It's all here and it's got Corbett's panties in a bind, along with his cheering section of mental midgets:
https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:52:15 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:to the warehouse ON THE FIRST FLOOR.” FBI report indicated that she claimed to have seen Oswald “a few minutes before 12:15″. ( CD 5, pg. 41 ) But that time was altered by the FBI, who needed Oswald in the window at 12:15. As it turns out, she left
Which witness(es) said they saw Oswald on the first floor at 12:25.Carolyn Arnold told the FBI that as she had left the building and was ”standing in front of the building”, "she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading
Her description of Oswald's location, "between the front doors and the double doors leading to the warehouse", means that she got more than a fleeting glimpse.
She didn't just catch him out of the corner of her eye, SHE SAW HIM. AND SHE SAW WHERE HE WAS.
And it exposes the FBI's trying to downplay her sighting of Oswald to, "she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse".
More FBI bullshit that fools morons like you but those of us who know better can see right through it.
And while you cry for witnesses, witnesses who you have deemed in the past to be the least credible of ALL evidence, you seem to be unable to understand that the TIMING is the evidence, not the number of witnesses.
You don't need witnesses if the timing doesn't add up.
How many witnesses saw Oswald coming down the rear stairs after the shooting ?
None. But you believe that he did.
If a witness says she saw Oswald on the first floor after she left the building, then says she left the building at 12:25, that's huge.
The FBI knew that so they had to downplay her sighting.
Which witness(es) reported seeing the confrontation between Oswald and Baker in the first floor storage room?It's all on my website. If you read the page, you've seen the evidence.
Why you need to keep asking for things you've already seen ?
It shows the world what an asshole you really are.
Here they are ( again, for the lurkers ) with the quotations:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Ochus_campbell.png
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/kentbiffle_DMN.png
Corroboration https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/WC_Vol7_302-Holmes.gif
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Jarman-HSCA-pg2-3.jpg
The Commission didn’t hear from witnesses who placed Oswald on the first floor five minutes before and seconds after the shooting. Witnesses who had evidence of Oswald’s innocence, Carolyn Arnold, Ochus Campbell and Kent Biffle were never called togive testimony because their accounts made it physically impossible for Oswald to have been in the sixth floor window with a rifle at 12:30.
The Commssion also never asked Mrs. Robert Reid, the TSBD Clerical Supervisor, who had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30, ( 3 H 271-272 )
if Oswald was present eating his lunch at that time.
Mrs. Reid testified that, “the girls who work under me”, were in the second floor lunchroom at the same time she was,
but that the, “younger girls had gone” before she left the lunchroom at 12:30 and that she “left alone”. ( 3 H 272 )
In fact, there were so many women in the lunchroom, that she testified, “it is all hard for me to remember how many there were,
but the general ones who usually eat there with me every day.” ( 3 H 271 )
None of those women ever reported that they had seen Lee Harvey Oswald in the second f;loor lunchroom that day.
Not surprisingly, none of those women were called to give testimony to the Warren Commission or asked in their FBI interviews
whether or not they had been among the people who had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30.
Apparently, there were some things the Commission did not want to know.
Finally, while there is overwhelming evidence that Oswald ate his lunch on the first floor
and was on the first floor at the time of the shooting,
there is NO evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 pm.
It's all here and it's got Corbett's panties in a bind, along with his cheering section of mental midgets:
https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 4:29:40 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:leading to the warehouse ON THE FIRST FLOOR.” FBI report indicated that she claimed to have seen Oswald “a few minutes before 12:15″. ( CD 5, pg. 41 ) But that time was altered by the FBI, who needed Oswald in the window at 12:15.
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 4:00:53 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:52:15 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Which witness(es) said they saw Oswald on the first floor at 12:25.Carolyn Arnold told the FBI that as she had left the building and was ”standing in front of the building”, "she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors
around dozens of coworkers there is no reason to know when you saw any particular one of them, there is no reason to think this is something someone would nail.Nonsense. Thinking people understand these times are mush. There is no reason a person should catch a glimpse of some co-worker and then nail the time this took place when asked about it much later.
As it turns out, she left the building at 12:25 ( CD 706, pg. 7 ) and the FBI alteration was exposed by her affidavit of 3/18/64.Gil is pretending that 12:25 is some solid information. Conspiracy folks have been playing these kinds of games for decades, pretending certain information is solid so they can take great leaps from it.
Her description of Oswald's location, "between the front doors and the double doors leading to the warehouse", means that she got more than a fleeting glimpse.
She didn't just catch him out of the corner of her eye, SHE SAW HIM. AND SHE SAW WHERE HE WAS.
And it exposes the FBI's trying to downplay her sighting of Oswald to, "she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse".
More FBI bullshit that fools morons like you but those of us who know better can see right through it.You only betray that you have no business looking into these things at all. It wouldn`t matter if she was adamant, there would still be no compelling reason to believe her, the information would still be mush. Because in the real work, if you are
called to give testimony because their accounts made it physically impossible for Oswald to have been in the sixth floor window with a rifle at 12:30.And while you cry for witnesses, witnesses who you have deemed in the past to be the least credible of ALL evidence, you seem to be unable to understand that the TIMING is the evidence, not the number of witnesses.What times have you established?
You don't need witnesses if the timing doesn't add up.So is he still on the upper floors of the TSBD where people saw him before lunch? How could he get to the first floor if nobody saw him going down the steps or down on the elevator?
How many witnesses saw Oswald coming down the rear stairs after the shooting ?
None. But you believe that he did.
If a witness says she saw Oswald on the first floor after she left the building, then says she left the building at 12:25, that's huge.It`s nothing.
The FBI knew that so they had to downplay her sighting.Nonsense. They weren`t idiots like you are.
It shows Corbett asked the right question when you go into a spiel like that rather than answering him.Which witness(es) reported seeing the confrontation between Oswald and Baker in the first floor storage room?It's all on my website. If you read the page, you've seen the evidence. Why you need to keep asking for things you've already seen ?
It shows the world what an asshole you really are.
Here they are ( again, for the lurkers ) with the quotations:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Ochus_campbell.png https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/kentbiffle_DMN.png Corroboration https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/WC_Vol7_302-Holmes.gif https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Jarman-HSCA-pg2-3.jpg
The Commission didn’t hear from witnesses who placed Oswald on the first floor five minutes before and seconds after the shooting. Witnesses who had evidence of Oswald’s innocence, Carolyn Arnold, Ochus Campbell and Kent Biffle were never
Quote these people, show the information you have that makes this "impossible".
The Commssion also never asked Mrs. Robert Reid, the TSBD Clerical Supervisor, who had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30, ( 3 H 271-272 )Does that mean he was?
if Oswald was present eating his lunch at that time.
Mrs. Reid testified that, “the girls who work under me”, were in the second floor lunchroom at the same time she was,
but that the, “younger girls had gone” before she left the lunchroom at 12:30 and that she “left alone”. ( 3 H 272 )
In fact, there were so many women in the lunchroom, that she testified, “it is all hard for me to remember how many there were,
but the general ones who usually eat there with me every day.” ( 3 H 271 )
None of those women ever reported that they had seen Lee Harvey Oswald in the second f;loor lunchroom that day.Because he didn`t go there until after he shot the President. Duh!
Not surprisingly, none of those women were called to give testimony to the Warren Commission or asked in their FBI interviews
whether or not they had been among the people who had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30.
Apparently, there were some things the Commission did not want to know.Why would they think when these women ate would give insight into the assassination.
This is "conspiracy of the gaps", no information somewhere and the idiots break out t6heior crayons start filling it in.I read your reply to Gil after posting my own. It seems we have touched on most of the same
Finally, while there is overwhelming evidence that Oswald ate his lunch on the first floor and was on the first floor at the time of the shooting,Behold conspiracy hobbyist thinking, nothing is something, something is nothing.
there is NO evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 pm.
It's all here and it's got Corbett's panties in a bind, along with his cheering section of mental midgets:
https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/
points although you always seem to be a bit more concise than I am. I wish I could learn that
skill as it would save me quite a bit of time.
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:18:15 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
We both wasted more time on Gil than he is worth. In the land of the stumps, he is the stumpiest, the guy brings nothing to the table as far as reasoning, so all the evidence in the world can`t help him.Thank you for that endorsement. Coming from an asshole like you, it will only enhance my standing with the lurkers.
You ARE right about one thing though, unlike you, I don't deal in reasoning.
I deal in evidence.
Your "reasoning" means you don't have a problem with the FBI lying in their reports.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
Your "reasoning" means you don't have a problem with witnesses denying 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
Your "reasoning" means you don't have a problem with a witness in testimony denying what his affidavit said he said.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/affidavit-lies-edwards.gif
Your "reasoning" means that you don't have a problem with revision after revision of the evidence against Oswald.
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/
And your "reasoning" certainly doesn't have a problem with police using 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
Dress them up as Santa Claus.
It's all good.
And your "reasoning" certainly has no problem with authorities tampering with witnesses.
Threatening witnesses into changing their testimony. https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/
Just another day in the office.
And finally, your "reasoning" has no problem holding the hearings in Executive Session.
Yes you are correct. I don't deal in reasoning, which is another word for speculation.
You're idea of "looking at the evidence correctly" is to "fill in the blanks" with speculation.
Unlike you, I deal in evidence.
And the evidence in THIS case indicates to me that there was enough doubt to question Oswald's guilt.
And the fact that you can't accept that is YOUR problem and the problem of your nutcase buddies.
Not mine.
And while we're on the subject of "stumps", maybe you should look between your legs.
Rumor has it that if you had a half inch less, you'd have two bellybuttons.
<snicker>
We both wasted more time on Gil than he is worth. In the land of the stumps, he is the stumpiest, the guy brings nothing to the table as far as reasoning, so all the evidence in the world can`t help him.
On Sunday, August 13, 2023 at 8:23:59 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:18:15 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
We both wasted more time on Gil than he is worth. In the land of the stumps, he is the stumpiest, the guy brings nothing to the table as far as reasoning, so all the evidence in the world can`t help him.Thank you for that endorsement. Coming from an asshole like you, it will only enhance my standing with the lurkers.
You ARE right about one thing though, unlike you, I don't deal in reasoning.Truer words have never been spoken.
Reasoning is...
" the process of thinking about something in a logical way in order to form a conclusion or judgment."
Nobody would ever accuse you of doing that.
I deal in evidence.
Your "reasoning" means you don't have a problem with the FBI lying in their reports.Quote the part of the report that says it is a lie. If the report doesn`t say it is a lie, then it is *you* saying it is a lie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
A distinction you can`t seem to make.
Your "reasoning" means you don't have a problem with witnesses denying 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
Your "reasoning" means you don't have a problem with a witness in testimony denying what his affidavit said he said.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/affidavit-lies-edwards.gif
Your "reasoning" means that you don't have a problem with revision after revision of the evidence against Oswald.
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.Human beings are fallible and make mistakes. Idiots want to carve those mistakes into stone when the more rational approach is to correct them.
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.What rifle is shown in the film taken of the sixth floor?
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.That was also filmed.
https://gil-jesus.com/oswalds-jacket/
And your "reasoning" certainly doesn't have a problem with police using fillers that don't match the witnesses descriptions.You don`t understand lineups. You think they are an attempt to fool witnesses into selecting someone other than the suspect.
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
Dress them up as Santa Claus.
It's all good.
And your "reasoning" certainly has no problem with authorities tampering with witnesses.
Threatening witnesses into changing their testimony. https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/
Just another day in the office.
And finally, your "reasoning" has no problem holding the hearings in Executive Session.
Yes you are correct. I don't deal in reasoning, which is another word for speculation.I`m not seeing that...
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/reasoning
You're idea of "looking at the evidence correctly" is to "fill in the blanks" with speculation.Pretty ironic. Where would your hobby be without doing just that?
Produce all the evidence you have of Oswald using the stairs or elevators. If you don`t have this and you aren`t allowed to speculate he used either one, how is he getting from floor to floor?
Unlike you, I deal in evidence.Which means nothing without the application of reason. And you seem proud of not applying reason to the evidence.
And the evidence in THIS case indicates to me that there was enough doubt to question Oswald's guilt.So it really isn`t the evidence at all, it is what the evidence indicates to Gil "I don`t deal in reason" Jesus.
And the fact that you can't accept that is YOUR problem and the problem of your nutcase buddies.Your self delusion is your problem, not ours.
Not mine.
And while we're on the subject of "stumps", maybe you should look between your legs.Lame dad joke. At least steal something clever.
Rumor has it that if you had a half inch less, you'd have two bellybuttons.
<snicker>
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 7:18:15 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
We both wasted more time on Gil than he is worth. In the land of the stumps, he is the stumpiest, the guy brings nothing to the table as far as reasoning, so all the evidence in the world can`t help him.Thank you for that endorsement. Coming from an asshole like you, it will only enhance my standing with the lurkers.
You ARE right about one thing though, unlike you, I don't deal in reasoning. I deal in evidence.
Your "reasoning" means you don't have a problem with the FBI lying in their reports.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
Your "reasoning" means you don't have a problem with witnesses denying 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
Your "reasoning" means you don't have a problem with a witness in testimony denying what his affidavit said he said.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/affidavit-lies-edwards.gif
Your "reasoning" means that you don't have a problem with revision after revision of the evidence against Oswald.
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/
And your "reasoning" certainly doesn't have a problem with police using 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
Dress them up as Santa Claus.
It's all good.
And your "reasoning" certainly has no problem with authorities tampering with witnesses.
Threatening witnesses into changing their testimony. https://gil-jesus.com/evidence-of-witness-harrassment/
Just another day in the office.
And finally, your "reasoning" has no problem holding the hearings in Executive Session.
Yes you are correct. I don't deal in reasoning, which is another word for speculation.
You're idea of "looking at the evidence correctly" is to "fill in the blanks" with speculation.
Unlike you, I deal in evidence.
And the evidence in THIS case indicates to me that there was enough doubt to question Oswald's guilt.
And the fact that you can't accept that is YOUR problem and the problem of your nutcase buddies.
Not mine.
And while we're on the subject of "stumps", maybe you should look between your legs.
Rumor has it that if you had a half inch less, you'd have two bellybuttons.
<snicker>
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:52:15 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 6:08:23?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 4:29:40?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
Behold conspiracy hobbyist thinking, nothing is something, something is nothing.And here's another revelation: your opinions are nothing.
As if yours are. Just like the rest of us, your opinions will die with you. Your silly website will
likely survive you by a few years, just as Rossley's and apparently Marsh's have. None of that
will matter. Oswald has gone down in history as the assassin of JFK and there is nothing you
or any of your airhead cohorts can do to change that. History will report that a lot of people
don't believe Oswald acted alone but it seems highly unlikely that history will ever identify any
accomplices because there is no credible evidence there were any and it is highly improbable
any such evidence will ever surface. But don't let that stop you. Continue on your futile snipe
hunt. It does provide entertainment for the intelligent people.
We both wasted more time on Gil than he is worth. In the land of the
stumps, he is the stumpiest, the guy brings nothing to the table as
far as reasoning, so all the evidence in the world can`t help him. As
I like to say (and drives Ben nuts because he know it is true), you
have to look at information correctly, for what it is and what it
isn`t, in the correct context, with the proper application of critical >thinking. This approach is of no use to conspiracy hobbyist ideas, so
they just abandon any attempt.
On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 16:18:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
We both wasted more time on Gil than he is worth. In the land of the >stumps, he is the stumpiest, the guy brings nothing to the table asSo, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
far as reasoning, so all the evidence in the world can`t help him. As
I like to say (and drives Ben nuts because he know it is true), you
have to look at information correctly, for what it is and what it
isn`t, in the correct context, with the proper application of critical >thinking. This approach is of no use to conspiracy hobbyist ideas, so
they just abandon any attempt.
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 11:25:24?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 16:18:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
We both wasted more time on Gil than he is worth. In the land of the >>>stumps, he is the stumpiest, the guy brings nothing to the table asSo, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
far as reasoning, so all the evidence in the world can`t help him. As
I like to say (and drives Ben nuts because he know it is true), you
have to look at information correctly, for what it is and what it
isn`t, in the correct context, with the proper application of critical >>>thinking. This approach is of no use to conspiracy hobbyist ideas, so >>>they just abandon any attempt.
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
You and Gil are quite proud of your inability to reason.
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 4:00:53 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:to the warehouse ON THE FIRST FLOOR.” ]
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:52:15 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:[ Carolyn Arnold told the FBI that as she had left the building and was ”standing in front of the building”, "she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading
Gil is ignoring the evidence that Carolyn Arnold insisted to Earl Golz that she told FBI 12:25 in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...
Gil is giving red meat to the Lone Nutters and threatening Conspiracy research by backing obvious FBI lies against a dangerous Conspiracy witness...
You can see the Lone Nutters jump right on it and try to take advantage...
We know Arnold's version of her own witnessing is accurate because Arnold's March 1964 FBI statement that she was allowed to proofread says "12:25"...
Gil ignores this and backs the FBI's obvious lies and evidence alteration...
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 10:37:06?AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:the warehouse ON THE FIRST FLOOR. ]
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 4:00:53?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:52:15?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:[ Carolyn Arnold told the FBI that as she had left the building and was standing in front of the building, "she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to
Gil is ignoring the evidence that Carolyn Arnold insisted to Earl Golz that she told FBI 12:25 in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...
Gil is giving red meat to the Lone Nutters and threatening Conspiracy research by backing obvious FBI lies against a dangerous Conspiracy witness...
You can see the Lone Nutters jump right on it and try to take advantage... >>
We know Arnold's version of her own witnessing is accurate because Arnold's March 1964 FBI statement that she was allowed to proofread says "12:25"...
Gil ignores this and backs the FBI's obvious lies and evidence alteration...
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 11:45:48 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
On Monday, August 14, 2023 at 3:31:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 11:45:48 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 4:29:40 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:leading to the warehouse ON THE FIRST FLOOR.” FBI report indicated that she claimed to have seen Oswald “a few minutes before 12:15″. ( CD 5, pg. 41 ) But that time was altered by the FBI, who needed Oswald in the window at 12:15.
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 4:00:53 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:52:15 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Which witness(es) said they saw Oswald on the first floor at 12:25.Carolyn Arnold told the FBI that as she had left the building and was ”standing in front of the building”, "she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors
around dozens of coworkers there is no reason to know when you saw any particular one of them, there is no reason to think this is something someone would nail.Nonsense. Thinking people understand these times are mush. There is no reason a person should catch a glimpse of some co-worker and then nail the time this took place when asked about it much later.
As it turns out, she left the building at 12:25 ( CD 706, pg. 7 ) and the FBI alteration was exposed by her affidavit of 3/18/64.Gil is pretending that 12:25 is some solid information. Conspiracy folks have been playing these kinds of games for decades, pretending certain information is solid so they can take great leaps from it.
Her description of Oswald's location, "between the front doors and the double doors leading to the warehouse", means that she got more than a fleeting glimpse.
She didn't just catch him out of the corner of her eye, SHE SAW HIM. AND SHE SAW WHERE HE WAS.
And it exposes the FBI's trying to downplay her sighting of Oswald to, "she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse".
More FBI bullshit that fools morons like you but those of us who know better can see right through it.You only betray that you have no business looking into these things at all. It wouldn`t matter if she was adamant, there would still be no compelling reason to believe her, the information would still be mush. Because in the real work, if you are
called to give testimony because their accounts made it physically impossible for Oswald to have been in the sixth floor window with a rifle at 12:30.And while you cry for witnesses, witnesses who you have deemed in the past to be the least credible of ALL evidence, you seem to be unable to understand that the TIMING is the evidence, not the number of witnesses.What times have you established?
You don't need witnesses if the timing doesn't add up.So is he still on the upper floors of the TSBD where people saw him before lunch? How could he get to the first floor if nobody saw him going down the steps or down on the elevator?
How many witnesses saw Oswald coming down the rear stairs after the shooting ?
None. But you believe that he did.
If a witness says she saw Oswald on the first floor after she left the building, then says she left the building at 12:25, that's huge.It`s nothing.
The FBI knew that so they had to downplay her sighting.Nonsense. They weren`t idiots like you are.
It shows Corbett asked the right question when you go into a spiel like that rather than answering him.Which witness(es) reported seeing the confrontation between Oswald and Baker in the first floor storage room?It's all on my website. If you read the page, you've seen the evidence. Why you need to keep asking for things you've already seen ?
It shows the world what an asshole you really are.
Here they are ( again, for the lurkers ) with the quotations:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Ochus_campbell.png https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/kentbiffle_DMN.png Corroboration https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/WC_Vol7_302-Holmes.gif https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Jarman-HSCA-pg2-3.jpg
The Commission didn’t hear from witnesses who placed Oswald on the first floor five minutes before and seconds after the shooting. Witnesses who had evidence of Oswald’s innocence, Carolyn Arnold, Ochus Campbell and Kent Biffle were never
Quote these people, show the information you have that makes this "impossible".
The Commssion also never asked Mrs. Robert Reid, the TSBD Clerical Supervisor, who had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30, ( 3 H 271-272 )Does that mean he was?
if Oswald was present eating his lunch at that time.
Mrs. Reid testified that, “the girls who work under me”, were in the second floor lunchroom at the same time she was,
but that the, “younger girls had gone” before she left the lunchroom at 12:30 and that she “left alone”. ( 3 H 272 )
In fact, there were so many women in the lunchroom, that she testified, “it is all hard for me to remember how many there were,
but the general ones who usually eat there with me every day.” ( 3 H 271 )
None of those women ever reported that they had seen Lee Harvey Oswald in the second f;loor lunchroom that day.Because he didn`t go there until after he shot the President. Duh!
Not surprisingly, none of those women were called to give testimony to the Warren Commission or asked in their FBI interviews
whether or not they had been among the people who had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30.
Apparently, there were some things the Commission did not want to know.Why would they think when these women ate would give insight into the assassination.
This is "conspiracy of the gaps", no information somewhere and the idiots break out t6heior crayons start filling it in.I read your reply to Gil after posting my own. It seems we have touched on most of the same
Finally, while there is overwhelming evidence that Oswald ate his lunch on the first floor and was on the first floor at the time of the shooting,Behold conspiracy hobbyist thinking, nothing is something, something is nothing.
there is NO evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 pm.
It's all here and it's got Corbett's panties in a bind, along with his cheering section of mental midgets:
https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/
points although you always seem to be a bit more concise than I am. I wish I could learn that
skill as it would save me quite a bit of time.
No answer from Gil on Carolyn Arnold's March 1964 FBI statement saying "12:25" and therefore proving her 2nd Floor Lunch Room claim to be true...
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 5:48:36 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:leading to the warehouse ON THE FIRST FLOOR.” FBI report indicated that she claimed to have seen Oswald “a few minutes before 12:15″. ( CD 5, pg. 41 ) But that time was altered by the FBI, who needed Oswald in the window at 12:15.
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 4:29:40 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 4:00:53 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:52:15 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Which witness(es) said they saw Oswald on the first floor at 12:25.Carolyn Arnold told the FBI that as she had left the building and was ”standing in front of the building”, "she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of Lee Harvey Oswald standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors
around dozens of coworkers there is no reason to know when you saw any particular one of them, there is no reason to think this is something someone would nail.Nonsense. Thinking people understand these times are mush. There is no reason a person should catch a glimpse of some co-worker and then nail the time this took place when asked about it much later.
As it turns out, she left the building at 12:25 ( CD 706, pg. 7 ) and the FBI alteration was exposed by her affidavit of 3/18/64.Gil is pretending that 12:25 is some solid information. Conspiracy folks have been playing these kinds of games for decades, pretending certain information is solid so they can take great leaps from it.
Her description of Oswald's location, "between the front doors and the double doors leading to the warehouse", means that she got more than a fleeting glimpse.
She didn't just catch him out of the corner of her eye, SHE SAW HIM. AND SHE SAW WHERE HE WAS.
And it exposes the FBI's trying to downplay her sighting of Oswald to, "she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse".
More FBI bullshit that fools morons like you but those of us who know better can see right through it.You only betray that you have no business looking into these things at all. It wouldn`t matter if she was adamant, there would still be no compelling reason to believe her, the information would still be mush. Because in the real work, if you are
called to give testimony because their accounts made it physically impossible for Oswald to have been in the sixth floor window with a rifle at 12:30.And while you cry for witnesses, witnesses who you have deemed in the past to be the least credible of ALL evidence, you seem to be unable to understand that the TIMING is the evidence, not the number of witnesses.What times have you established?
You don't need witnesses if the timing doesn't add up.So is he still on the upper floors of the TSBD where people saw him before lunch? How could he get to the first floor if nobody saw him going down the steps or down on the elevator?
How many witnesses saw Oswald coming down the rear stairs after the shooting ?
None. But you believe that he did.
If a witness says she saw Oswald on the first floor after she left the building, then says she left the building at 12:25, that's huge.It`s nothing.
The FBI knew that so they had to downplay her sighting.Nonsense. They weren`t idiots like you are.
It shows Corbett asked the right question when you go into a spiel like that rather than answering him.Which witness(es) reported seeing the confrontation between Oswald andIt's all on my website. If you read the page, you've seen the evidence.
Baker in the first floor storage room?
Why you need to keep asking for things you've already seen ?
It shows the world what an asshole you really are.
Here they are ( again, for the lurkers ) with the quotations:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Ochus_campbell.png https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/kentbiffle_DMN.png Corroboration https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/WC_Vol7_302-Holmes.gif
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Jarman-HSCA-pg2-3.jpg
The Commission didn’t hear from witnesses who placed Oswald on the first floor five minutes before and seconds after the shooting. Witnesses who had evidence of Oswald’s innocence, Carolyn Arnold, Ochus Campbell and Kent Biffle were never
supposed claims are perhaps my weakest point of the assassination, though CT's major in them. I wish I was more like you or Hank who are so versed in these claims as to be able to show--even from the nature and timing of the claims--the various delusionsQuote these people, show the information you have that makes this "impossible".
The Commssion also never asked Mrs. Robert Reid, the TSBD Clerical Supervisor, who had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30, ( 3 H 271-272 )Does that mean he was?
if Oswald was present eating his lunch at that time.
Mrs. Reid testified that, “the girls who work under me”, were in the second floor lunchroom at the same time she was,
but that the, “younger girls had gone” before she left the lunchroom at 12:30 and that she “left alone”. ( 3 H 272 )
In fact, there were so many women in the lunchroom, that she testified, “it is all hard for me to remember how many there were,
but the general ones who usually eat there with me every day.” ( 3 H 271 )
None of those women ever reported that they had seen Lee Harvey Oswald in the second f;loor lunchroom that day.Because he didn`t go there until after he shot the President. Duh!
Not surprisingly, none of those women were called to give testimony to the Warren Commission or asked in their FBI interviews
whether or not they had been among the people who had lunch in the second floor lunchroom between 12:00 and 12:30.
Apparently, there were some things the Commission did not want to know.Why would they think when these women ate would give insight into the assassination.
There is a value to conciseness, but also a value to providing details. I read Bud's post and was satisfied, but felt even better after reading yours because you saved me the effort of filling in some of the blanks in Gil's nonsense. Witness claims andThis is "conspiracy of the gaps", no information somewhere and the idiots break out t6heior crayons start filling it in.I read your reply to Gil after posting my own. It seems we have touched on most of the same
Finally, while there is overwhelming evidence that Oswald ate his lunch on the first floor and was on the first floor at the time of the shooting,Behold conspiracy hobbyist thinking, nothing is something, something is nothing.
there is NO evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 pm.
It's all here and it's got Corbett's panties in a bind, along with his cheering section of mental midgets:
https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/
points although you always seem to be a bit more concise than I am. I wish I could learn that
skill as it would save me quite a bit of time.
I wish I had a nickel for every time over the past three decades I have read a claim by a CT about
something I didn't know and accepted it at face value, only to find out later it was a bogus claim.
I've learned to be skeptical on even the minor points because these are the ones I am most likely
to be taken in by. The more fantastic claims I am more apt to get confirmation for but I still
occasionally get fooled my the little stuff.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 9:32:31 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
No answer from Gil on Carolyn Arnold's March 1964 FBI statement saying "12:25" and therefore proving her 2nd Floor Lunch Room claim to be true...That was an affidavit, not an FBI statement, which means she wrote it out by hand.
If you were any kind of researcher, you'd know the difference.
This is her affdavit.
Show us where she said anything about the second floor lunchroom.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/carolyn-arnold-2nd-aff.png
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:52:15 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Which witness(es) reported seeing the confrontation between Oswald and Baker in the first floor storage room?
It's all on my website. If you read the page, you've seen the evidence.
Why you need to keep asking for things you've already seen ?
It shows the world what an asshole you really are.
Here they are ( again, for the lurkers ) with the quotations:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Ochus_campbell.png https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/kentbiffle_DMN.png
Corroboration https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/WC_Vol7_302-Holmes.gif https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Jarman-HSCA-pg2-3.jpg
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 3:00:53 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:52:15 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:[...]
Which witness(es) reported seeing the confrontation between Oswald and Baker in the first floor storage room?
It's all on my website. If you read the page, you've seen the evidence. Why you need to keep asking for things you've already seen ?
It shows the world what an asshole you really are.
Here they are ( again, for the lurkers ) with the quotations:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Ochus_campbell.png https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/kentbiffle_DMN.pngThe first article has Campbell immediately rushing into the building with Truly.
In the second, Campbell runs to the GK, while Truly re-enters the building. Both can't be right. The first article is something put together out of wire reports and Morgue retrievals by someone in New York. We don't know exactly what the writer used for his Campbell quote. The DMN article was written by Kent
Biffle, a senior reporter working for AH Belo, who was based a few blocks from
the TSBD. Biffle had direct access to Campbell, so his quoting of Campbell is
far, far, far more likely to be the correct one.
As far as the Biffle story goes, notice how it's always "Campbell said" and the Truly side of the Oswald-Baker-Truly encounter is related as "Truly reportedly said." That is, the Truly quotations are hearsay, and Campbell appears to be the source of this hearsay. But Campbell wasn't in the building
at the time by his own account, so cannot be a witness.
Corroboration https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/WC_Vol7_302-Holmes.gif https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Jarman-HSCA-pg2-3.jpgHolmes is relating what Oswald said, so this is another round of hearsay, and Holmes is not a witness. Plus, Oswald describes the confrontation happening near the front door, not in a storage room.
Likewise, Jarman is only relating something he heard someone else say. He doesn't say who said this or when or where he heard it. Like Holmes and Campbell, he is not a witness to the event. So Corbett's question stands, and
you have not answered it.
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 3:00:53 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:52:15 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:[...]
Which witness(es) reported seeing the confrontation between Oswald and Baker in the first floor storage room?
It's all on my website. If you read the page, you've seen the evidence. Why you need to keep asking for things you've already seen ?
It shows the world what an asshole you really are.
Here they are ( again, for the lurkers ) with the quotations:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Ochus_campbell.png https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/kentbiffle_DMN.pngThe first article has Campbell immediately rushing into the building with Truly.
In the second, Campbell runs to the GK, while Truly re-enters the building. Both can't be right. The first article is something put together out of wire reports and Morgue retrievals by someone in New York. We don't know exactly what the writer used for his Campbell quote. The DMN article was written by Kent
Biffle, a senior reporter working for AH Belo, who was based a few blocks from
the TSBD. Biffle had direct access to Campbell, so his quoting of Campbell is
far, far, far more likely to be the correct one.
As far as the Biffle story goes, notice how it's always "Campbell said" and the Truly side of the Oswald-Baker-Truly encounter is related as "Truly reportedly said." That is, the Truly quotations are hearsay, and Campbell appears to be the source of this hearsay. But Campbell wasn't in the building
at the time by his own account, so cannot be a witness.
Corroboration https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/WC_Vol7_302-Holmes.gif https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Jarman-HSCA-pg2-3.jpgHolmes is relating what Oswald said, so this is another round of hearsay, and Holmes is not a witness. Plus, Oswald describes the confrontation happening near the front door, not in a storage room.
Likewise, Jarman is only relating something he heard someone else say. He doesn't say who said this or when or where he heard it. Like Holmes and Campbell, he is not a witness to the event. So Corbett's question stands, and
you have not answered it.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 7:18:33?PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 3:00:53?PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:52:15?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:[...]
The first article has Campbell immediately rushing into the building with Truly.Which witness(es) reported seeing the confrontation between Oswald and >>>> Baker in the first floor storage room?
It's all on my website. If you read the page, you've seen the evidence.
Why you need to keep asking for things you've already seen ?
It shows the world what an asshole you really are.
Here they are ( again, for the lurkers ) with the quotations:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Ochus_campbell.png
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/kentbiffle_DMN.png
In the second, Campbell runs to the GK, while Truly re-enters the building. >> Both can't be right. The first article is something put together out of wire >> reports and Morgue retrievals by someone in New York. We don't know exactly >> what the writer used for his Campbell quote. The DMN article was written by Kent
Biffle, a senior reporter working for AH Belo, who was based a few blocks from
the TSBD. Biffle had direct access to Campbell, so his quoting of Campbell is
far, far, far more likely to be the correct one.
As far as the Biffle story goes, notice how it's always "Campbell said" and >> the Truly side of the Oswald-Baker-Truly encounter is related as "Truly
reportedly said." That is, the Truly quotations are hearsay, and Campbell
appears to be the source of this hearsay. But Campbell wasn't in the building
at the time by his own account, so cannot be a witness.
CorroborationHolmes is relating what Oswald said, so this is another round of hearsay,
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/WC_Vol7_302-Holmes.gif
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Jarman-HSCA-pg2-3.jpg
and Holmes is not a witness. Plus, Oswald describes the confrontation
happening near the front door, not in a storage room.
Likewise, Jarman is only relating something he heard someone else say. He
doesn't say who said this or when or where he heard it. Like Holmes and
Campbell, he is not a witness to the event. So Corbett's question stands, and
you have not answered it.
Nor will he.
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 7:18:33 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 3:00:53 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:52:15 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:[...]
Which witness(es) reported seeing the confrontation between Oswald and Baker in the first floor storage room?
It's all on my website. If you read the page, you've seen the evidence. Why you need to keep asking for things you've already seen ?
It shows the world what an asshole you really are.
Here they are ( again, for the lurkers ) with the quotations:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Ochus_campbell.png https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/kentbiffle_DMN.pngThe first article has Campbell immediately rushing into the building with Truly.
In the second, Campbell runs to the GK, while Truly re-enters the building.
Both can't be right. The first article is something put together out of wire
reports and Morgue retrievals by someone in New York. We don't know exactly
what the writer used for his Campbell quote. The DMN article was written by Kent
Biffle, a senior reporter working for AH Belo, who was based a few blocks from
the TSBD. Biffle had direct access to Campbell, so his quoting of Campbell is
far, far, far more likely to be the correct one.
As far as the Biffle story goes, notice how it's always "Campbell said" and
the Truly side of the Oswald-Baker-Truly encounter is related as "Truly reportedly said." That is, the Truly quotations are hearsay, and Campbell appears to be the source of this hearsay. But Campbell wasn't in the building
at the time by his own account, so cannot be a witness.
Corroboration https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/WC_Vol7_302-Holmes.gif https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Jarman-HSCA-pg2-3.jpgHolmes is relating what Oswald said, so this is another round of hearsay, and Holmes is not a witness. Plus, Oswald describes the confrontation happening near the front door, not in a storage room.
Likewise, Jarman is only relating something he heard someone else say. He doesn't say who said this or when or where he heard it. Like Holmes and Campbell, he is not a witness to the event. So Corbett's question stands, and
you have not answered it.
Nor will he.
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 3:00:53 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
You may be right. So far, all we got from him on this subject is.....crickets.And GiI is still ....silent. I guess he done R U N N O F T
On Thursday, August 17, 2023 at 5:10:01 AM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
On Wednesday, August 16, 2023 at 7:18:33 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 3:00:53 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 8:52:15 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:[...]
Which witness(es) reported seeing the confrontation between Oswald and
Baker in the first floor storage room?
It's all on my website. If you read the page, you've seen the evidence.
Why you need to keep asking for things you've already seen ?
It shows the world what an asshole you really are.
Here they are ( again, for the lurkers ) with the quotations:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Ochus_campbell.png https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/kentbiffle_DMN.pngThe first article has Campbell immediately rushing into the building with Truly.
In the second, Campbell runs to the GK, while Truly re-enters the building.
Both can't be right. The first article is something put together out of wire
reports and Morgue retrievals by someone in New York. We don't know exactly
what the writer used for his Campbell quote. The DMN article was written by Kent
Biffle, a senior reporter working for AH Belo, who was based a few blocks from
the TSBD. Biffle had direct access to Campbell, so his quoting of Campbell is
far, far, far more likely to be the correct one.
As far as the Biffle story goes, notice how it's always "Campbell said" and
the Truly side of the Oswald-Baker-Truly encounter is related as "Truly reportedly said." That is, the Truly quotations are hearsay, and Campbell
appears to be the source of this hearsay. But Campbell wasn't in the building
at the time by his own account, so cannot be a witness.
Corroboration https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/WC_Vol7_302-Holmes.gifHolmes is relating what Oswald said, so this is another round of hearsay,
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Jarman-HSCA-pg2-3.jpg
and Holmes is not a witness. Plus, Oswald describes the confrontation happening near the front door, not in a storage room.
Likewise, Jarman is only relating something he heard someone else say. He
doesn't say who said this or when or where he heard it. Like Holmes and Campbell, he is not a witness to the event. So Corbett's question stands, and
you have not answered it.
Nor will he.
You may be right. So far, all we got from him on this subject is.....crickets.
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:15:57 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 3:00:53 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
Crickets on 12:25...You may be right. So far, all we got from him on this subject is.....crickets.And GiI is still ....silent. I guess he done R U N N O F T
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 9:15:57 PM UTC-4, recip...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 3:00:53 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
Crickets on 12:25...You may be right. So far, all we got from him on this subject is.....crickets.And GiI is still ....silent. I guess he done R U N N O F T
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 115:36:00 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,132 |
