1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. ALT.CONSPIRACY.JFK

  • Re: Another Look at the "Backyard Photographs" --- Part III

    From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Fri Sep 15 03:01:36 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 5:25:11 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1683/another-backyard-photographs-iii

    I'm sorry, Gil.. Unless you can present your credentials as a photographic expert, I'm afraid we
    are going to have to rule your opinions about the backyard photographs inadmissible. Rules are
    rules. Dismissed.

    Now if you can cite a real photographic expert who shares your opinion of these photographs,
    we will have something to discuss.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 15 03:09:55 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:01:38 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    < bullshit deleted >

    I don't need to be a photographic expert to tell you what I see with my own two eyes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 15 02:25:09 2023
    https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1683/another-backyard-photographs-iii

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Fri Sep 15 03:18:36 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:09:57 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:01:38 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    < bullshit deleted >

    I don't need to be a photographic expert to tell you what I see with my own two eyes.

    You made the rules, Gil. You want to be able to reject any and all evidence based on its
    inadmissibility in court. By your rules, we can't consider your opinions regarding the backyard
    photos because you are not an expert in photographic analysis. The courts do not allow laymen
    to give expert testimony.

    Now if you want to change your position and acknowledge that those of us who are looking at
    this case from a historical perspective can consider any and all information available without
    regard to whether or not it would be admissible in court, we can discuss your opinions of these
    photographs. But as long as the Gil Jesus Rule is in effect, we have nothing to talk about.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tim Brennan@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Fri Sep 15 03:32:52 2023
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 19:25:11 UTC+10, Gil Jesus wrote:
    https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1683/another-backyard-photographs-iii

    Hi Gil,

    LOL! What a DUD presentation you have just made!

    The WC, employing FBI Lyndal Shaneyfelt, made AMAZING efforts in clarifying where the backyard photos were taken.

    Shaneyfelt was able to identify the two papers that Oswald is holding in the photo, down to the issue date.

    One of those Leftist leaning papers EVEN appeared to print a letter written by Oswald himself!

    Shaneyfelt was unable to CONCLUSIVELY conclude that the rifle in the photos was the same one found on 11/22/63.

    Later on the HSCA, around 1978, concluded that the rifle Oswald was holding in the photos WAS the murder weapon.

    This was due to a DISTINCTIVE gouge in the stock of the weapon, not apparent to Shaneyfelt in 1963/64.

    Photo enhancement techniques had moved on had moved on, proving it WAS Oswald's rifle.

    These people actually KNEW what they were doing, Gil. As opposed to YOU!

    You try to cut the moral high ground but you are just another JFK-CT blowhard, Gilly.

    Your work is worthless as are your conclusions.

    Informative Regards,

    Tim Brennan
    Sydney, Australia
    *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

    *...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
    neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
    Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

    And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head... http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

    X marks the spot where Mark (Hearse Chaser) Lane LIED!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to John Corbett on Fri Sep 15 03:37:10 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:18:38 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:09:57 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:01:38 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    < bullshit deleted >

    I don't need to be a photographic expert to tell you what I see with my own two eyes.
    You made the rules, Gil. You want to be able to reject any and all evidence based on its
    inadmissibility in court. By your rules, we can't consider your opinions regarding the backyard
    photos because you are not an expert in photographic analysis. The courts do not allow laymen
    to give expert testimony.

    ROFLMAO
    One doesn't have to be an expert to give testimony.
    I'm "testifying" as a witness to what I see, not as an expert.
    Now if you have an expert who can refute what I've "testififed" to, produce him.
    Otherwise, sit in the corner like a nice little asshole troll and STFU.

    Your comments carry no weight here.

    To get back on the subject of CE 133-A, ( which is what that link is about ) since you think CE 133-A is legit, maybe you or the other asshole trolls in this newsgroup
    can tell us what happened to the negative of CE 133-A ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to Tim Brennan on Fri Sep 15 03:44:51 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:32:54 AM UTC-4, Tim Brennan wrote:
    On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 19:25:11 UTC+10, Gil Jesus wrote:
    https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1683/another-backyard-photographs-iii
    Hi Gil,

    LOL! What a DUD presentation you have just made!

    The WC, employing FBI Lyndal Shaneyfelt, made AMAZING efforts in clarifying where the backyard photos were taken.

    Shaneyfelt was able to identify the two papers that Oswald is holding in the photo, down to the issue date.

    One of those Leftist leaning papers EVEN appeared to print a letter written by Oswald himself!

    Shaneyfelt was unable to CONCLUSIVELY conclude that the rifle in the photos was the same one found on 11/22/63.

    Later on the HSCA, around 1978, concluded that the rifle Oswald was holding in the photos WAS the murder weapon.

    This was due to a DISTINCTIVE gouge in the stock of the weapon, not apparent to Shaneyfelt in 1963/64.

    Photo enhancement techniques had moved on had moved on, proving it WAS Oswald's rifle.

    These people actually KNEW what they were doing, Gil. As opposed to YOU!

    You try to cut the moral high ground but you are just another JFK-CT blowhard, Gilly.

    Your work is worthless as are your conclusions.

    Informative Regards,

    Tim Brennan
    Sydney, Australia
    *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*


    ROFLMAO.
    Don't like getting spanked on the X spots, do you ?
    You looked really stupid on that one.
    Maybe you shouldn't depend on what you read on the internet and stick to the evidence.
    Any idiot could see that the X shots were made from the irons sights.
    But you're just not any idiot are you ?
    You're a special kind of idiot.

    These people knew what they were doing ?
    Then tell us what happened to the negative of CE 133-A.
    Enlighten us.

    Inquiring regards,
    Gil Jesus
    USA
    Lone nut troll spanker

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Fri Sep 15 07:13:45 2023
    On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 03:18:36 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:09:57?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:01:38?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    < bullshit deleted >

    I don't need to be a photographic expert to tell you what I see with my own two eyes.

    You made the rules, Gil.

    Then follow them, moron!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to gjjmail1202@gmail.com on Fri Sep 15 07:13:45 2023
    On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 03:44:51 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
    <gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:


    ROFLMAO.
    Don't like getting spanked on the X spots, do you ?
    You looked really stupid on that one.


    Trolls don't like getting spanked, yet they continue to post their
    nonsense... regardless of the spanking they get.

    The few who rise somewhat above troll status simply refuse to post.

    Chickenshit, Chuckles, Corbutt, and Von Penis come to mind.


    Maybe you shouldn't depend on what you read on the internet and stick to the evidence.
    Any idiot could see that the X shots were made from the irons sights.
    But you're just not any idiot are you ?
    You're a special kind of idiot.


    And amusingly, I've yet to meet a believer who BELIEVES the WCR when
    they said that they thought the scope had been used.

    Every belever I know thinks that the iron sights were used.

    Yet they REFUSE to assert the obvious. The WCR was wrong.


    These people knew what they were doing ?
    Then tell us what happened to the negative of CE 133-A.
    Enlighten us.

    Inquiring regards,
    Gil Jesus
    USA
    Lone nut troll spanker


    ROTFLMAO!!! This is certainly correct!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Steven Galbraith@21:1/5 to John Corbett on Fri Sep 15 07:41:04 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:18:38 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:09:57 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:01:38 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    < bullshit deleted >

    I don't need to be a photographic expert to tell you what I see with my own two eyes.
    You made the rules, Gil. You want to be able to reject any and all evidence based on its
    inadmissibility in court. By your rules, we can't consider your opinions regarding the backyard
    photos because you are not an expert in photographic analysis. The courts do not allow laymen
    to give expert testimony.

    Now if you want to change your position and acknowledge that those of us who are looking at
    this case from a historical perspective can consider any and all information available without
    regard to whether or not it would be admissible in court, we can discuss your opinions of these
    photographs. But as long as the Gil Jesus Rule is in effect, we have nothing to talk about.
    It's "Conspiracy Calvinball." Calvinball is the game that the cartoon characters "Calvin and Hobbes" play where they just make the rules up. They improvise as they go along. Anything is allowed. He thinks that the defense (that would be him) can simply
    ask him/any person (that would be him again) to give an opinion on the evidence. Just walk in off the street. And the Judge (that would be him once again) will allow it.
    His Calvinball Conspiracy rule is that he can act as defense attorney for Oswald, the trial judge, the prosecutor, the jury, and as a unchallenged witness for Oswald. And of course, in each case he wins. But nobody else can play by these rules. Because
    you're a Neo Nazi violating Oswald's rights if you do. Please tell me this is a person pretending to believe this?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Fri Sep 15 07:44:41 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:37:11 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:18:38 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:09:57 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:01:38 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: < bullshit deleted >

    I don't need to be a photographic expert to tell you what I see with my own two eyes.
    You made the rules, Gil. You want to be able to reject any and all evidence based on its
    inadmissibility in court. By your rules, we can't consider your opinions regarding the backyard
    photos because you are not an expert in photographic analysis. The courts do not allow laymen
    to give expert testimony.
    ROFLMAO
    One doesn't have to be an expert to give testimony.

    Here's where you display your ignorance...AGAIN. You do have to be an expert to give expert
    testimony. Photographic analysis is a field which requires expertise. Tim Brennan did a fine job
    summarizing what a real expert has to say about those photos. His opinions trump yours.

    I'm "testifying" as a witness to what I see, not as an expert.

    Courts do not allow any schmuck to testify on matters which require professional expertise.
    Your opinions on what those photos show are hereby dismissed.

    It is a common trait among conspiracy hobbyists to try to substitute their judgement for that
    made by real experts. Most often we see this with their FUBAR analysis of what the medical
    evidence shows. They will dismiss the opinions of real experts in field of forensic medicine and
    claim their findings based on a handful of leaked photos and x-rays should carry more weight
    than that of the people who do that sort of thing for a living.

    Now if you have an expert who can refute what I've "testififed" to, produce him.

    Why would we need an expert to refute your layman's opinion? We can dismiss that out of hand.

    Otherwise, sit in the corner like a nice little asshole troll and STFU.

    I love the double standards you have created for yourself. You allow yourself to throw any shit
    against the wall you choose. Then you turn around and want to limit the LNs to only evidence
    which would be admissible in court. Furthermore, you appoint yourself judge of what would and
    would not be admissible. Nothing like having a rigged game. Is there any reason anyone should take
    you seriously?

    Your comments carry no weight here.

    The rest of Gil's post has been ruled inadmissible and deleted based on Gil's own rules of
    evidence.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Fri Sep 15 07:48:33 2023
    On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 07:44:41 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:37:11?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:18:38?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:09:57?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 6:01:38?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>>> < bullshit deleted >

    I don't need to be a photographic expert to tell you what I see with my own two eyes.
    You made the rules, Gil. You want to be able to reject any and all evidence based on its
    inadmissibility in court. By your rules, we can't consider your opinions regarding the backyard
    photos because you are not an expert in photographic analysis. The courts do not allow laymen
    to give expert testimony.
    ROFLMAO
    One doesn't have to be an expert to give testimony.


    Logical fallacy deleted. The above is a self-evidently true
    statement.

    The dishonesty of believers is well illustrated here.


    I'm "testifying" as a witness to what I see, not as an expert.

    Courts do not allow any schmuck to testify ...


    Again, logical fallacies simply deleted. The dishonesty being shown
    here is truly amazing...

    Gil - you need to assert that water is wet.


    Now if you have an expert who can refute what I've "testififed" to, produce him.

    Why would we need an expert to refute your layman's opinion? We can dismiss that out of hand.


    A self-refuting argument.


    Otherwise, sit in the corner like a nice little asshole troll and STFU.


    Logical fallacy deleted.


    Your comments carry no weight here.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to stevemgalbraith@yahoo.com on Fri Sep 15 07:49:10 2023
    On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 07:41:04 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemgalbraith@yahoo.com> wrote:


    It's "Conspiracy Calvinball."

    Such AMUSING cowardice!!!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to Ben Holmes on Fri Sep 15 08:30:23 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:13:53 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    ROTFLMAO!!! This is certainly correct!

    These trolls think they're getting the best of me while I sit here at my keyboard laughing my ass off at their silly comments and insults.
    All I have to do is post a LINK and they completely lose their shit !!!!!!
    I'm in their heads. I own them.
    Even Professor Shit-for-Brains
    ROFLMAO

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sky Throne 19efppp@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Fri Sep 15 08:16:08 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 5:25:11 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1683/another-backyard-photographs-iii

    I have great sympathy for the seasonal argument displayed therein. The landlord of the building did tell the FBI that somebody had been using the apartment, even though it had not been rented. Oswald, apparently, denied living there, which doesn't make
    any sense once the police have proof. The denial just makes him look bad. Something funny went on there at 214 West Neely.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to gjjmail1202@gmail.com on Fri Sep 15 08:36:15 2023
    On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 08:30:23 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
    <gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:13:53?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 03:44:51 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
    <gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

    Lone nut troll spanker

    ROTFLMAO!!! This is certainly correct!

    These trolls think they're getting the best of me while I sit here at my keyboard laughing my ass off at their silly comments and insults.
    All I have to do is post a LINK and they completely lose their shit !!!!!! >I'm in their heads. I own them.
    Even Professor Shit-for-Brains
    ROFLMAO

    Seriously Gil - you need to post that water is wet, and watch their
    denials...

    These morons have no idea how the average lurker views their nonsense.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Fri Sep 15 08:38:48 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:30:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:13:53 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    ROTFLMAO!!! This is certainly correct!
    These trolls think they're getting the best of me while I sit here at my keyboard laughing my ass off at their silly comments and insults.
    All I have to do is post a LINK and they completely lose their shit !!!!!! I'm in their heads. I own them.
    Even Professor Shit-for-Brains
    ROFLMAO

    You must be a Democrat, Gil. You want to make rules for other people that you won't live by
    yourself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Fri Sep 15 08:44:56 2023
    On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 08:38:48 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:30:25?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:13:53?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    ROTFLMAO!!! This is certainly correct!
    These trolls think they're getting the best of me while I sit here at my keyboard laughing my ass off at their silly comments and insults.
    All I have to do is post a LINK and they completely lose their shit !!!!!! >> I'm in their heads. I own them.
    Even Professor Shit-for-Brains
    ROFLMAO

    Logical fallacy deleted.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Steven Galbraith@21:1/5 to John Corbett on Fri Sep 15 08:57:10 2023
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:38:49 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:30:25 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:13:53 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
    ROTFLMAO!!! This is certainly correct!
    These trolls think they're getting the best of me while I sit here at my keyboard laughing my ass off at their silly comments and insults.
    All I have to do is post a LINK and they completely lose their shit !!!!!! I'm in their heads. I own them.
    Even Professor Shit-for-Brains
    ROFLMAO
    You must be a Democrat, Gil. You want to make rules for other people that you won't live by
    yourself.
    Him: "If you say the evidence is that Oswald, with no help, killed JFK then you're a Neo Nazi who is violating Oswald's due process rights."
    Him again: "I can say everyone but Oswald was involved, directly or indirectly, in the assassination and coverup. I am not violating anyone's rights when I do so."
    Conspiracy Calvinball at its finest.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to stevemgalbraith@yahoo.com on Fri Sep 15 09:00:28 2023
    On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 08:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemgalbraith@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:38:49?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

    Logical fallacies deleted...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)