https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
are actually qualified to make these judgements. Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
evidence of Oswald's guilt on his bogus claim that it would be inadmissible in a court of law, yet
he has no problem with presenting his and Michael Griffith's laymen's opinions regarding the
authenticity of the photos, opinions that would never be accepted in a court of law.
Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise, I'm going to have to rule
yours and Griffith's opinions as inadmissible since neither of you are qualified to give expert
testimony. The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of
evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:"Chain of custody! The evidence is corrupt!! It's not been authenticated!! Throw it out!!" he says in his fantasy court. Then he finds some 12th generation photo off the internet and thinks he can analyze it and use it in his fantasy court. When it's
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
are actually qualified to make these judgements. Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
evidence of Oswald's guilt on his bogus claim that it would be inadmissible in a court of law, yet
he has no problem with presenting his and Michael Griffith's laymen's opinions regarding the
authenticity of the photos, opinions that would never be accepted in a court of law.
Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise, I'm going to have to rule
yours and Griffith's opinions as inadmissible since neither of you are qualified to give expert
testimony. The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of
evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
are actually qualified to make these judgements. Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
evidence of Oswald's guilt on his bogus claim that it would be inadmissible in a court of law, yet
he has no problem with presenting his and Michael Griffith's laymen's opinions regarding the
authenticity of the photos, opinions that would never be accepted in a court of law.
Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise, I'm going to have to rule
yours and Griffith's opinions as inadmissible since neither of you are qualified to give expert
testimony. The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of
evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
are actually qualified to make these judgements.
Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
evidence of Oswald's guilt
Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise...
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:evidence against Oswald it must meet the highest standards; when it's evidence they think clears him they have none at all. I used to believe that was deliberate, they knew they had two standards; but now I realize they don't even see their inconsistency.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
are actually qualified to make these judgements. Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
evidence of Oswald's guilt on his bogus claim that it would be inadmissible in a court of law, yet
he has no problem with presenting his and Michael Griffith's laymen's opinions regarding the
authenticity of the photos, opinions that would never be accepted in a court of law.
Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise, I'm going to have to rule"Chain of custody! The evidence is corrupt!! It's not been authenticated!! Throw it out!!" he says in his fantasy court. Then he finds some 12th generation photo off the internet and thinks he can analyze it and use it in his fantasy court. When it's
yours and Griffith's opinions as inadmissible since neither of you are qualified to give expert
testimony. The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of
evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 02:58:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, andDid you bother to actually read the above cite? It's not clear if you
that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
are actually qualified to make these judgements.
did or not. If you did, then you didn't understand what you were
reading.
If you didn't - and just did a fast skim without trying to understand
what you were reading - it merely illustrates your inherent
dishonesty.
Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensicYou want to dismiss virtually all of the forensic evidence that
evidence of Oswald's guilt
exculpates Oswald. Indeed, you even DENY it's existence.
Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise...
Sorry Corbutt - unless you can provide any evidence of honesty, I'm
going to have to rule you out of order...
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
are actually qualified to make these judgements. Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
evidence of Oswald's guilt on his bogus claim that it would be inadmissible in a court of law, yet
he has no problem with presenting his and Michael Griffith's laymen's opinions regarding the
authenticity of the photos, opinions that would never be accepted in a court of law.
Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise, I'm going to have to rule
yours and Griffith's opinions as inadmissible since neither of you are qualified to give expert
testimony. The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of
evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.
And Griffith...
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 05:23:44 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:Logical fallacies deleted.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
"Chain of custody! The evidence is corrupt!! It's not been
authenticated!! Throw it out!!" he says in his fantasy court.
Then he finds some 12th generation photo off the internet and thinks
he can analyze it and use it in his fantasy court.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 06:24:06 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
are actually qualified to make these judgements. Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
evidence of Oswald's guilt on his bogus claim that it would be inadmissible in a court of law, yet
he has no problem with presenting his and Michael Griffith's laymen's opinions regarding the
authenticity of the photos, opinions that would never be accepted in a court of law.
Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise, I'm going to have to rule
yours and Griffith's opinions as inadmissible since neither of you are qualified to give expert
testimony. The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of
evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.
And Griffith...
Logical fallacies deleted.
You lose!
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:05:11?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 02:58:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Did you bother to actually read the above cite? It's not clear if you
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
are actually qualified to make these judgements.
did or not. If you did, then you didn't understand what you were
reading.
Unsupported assertion by Ben.
If you didn't - and just did a fast skim without trying to understand
what you were reading - it merely illustrates your inherent
dishonesty.
Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
evidence of Oswald's guilt
You want to dismiss virtually all of the forensic evidence that
exculpates Oswald. Indeed, you even DENY it's existence.
What forensic evidence exculpates Oswald? Be specific.
Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise... >>
Sorry Corbutt - unless you can provide any evidence of honesty, I'm
going to have to rule you out of order...
Another unsupported assertion by Ben.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:05:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
Gil doesn't understand the law regarding chain of custody.What a kook! Nothing but throwing slime...
Can't you deal with the evidence, coward?
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:16:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:24:25 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:07:52 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:05:11?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 02:58:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:Did you bother to actually read the above cite? It's not clear if you
https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-iv
So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
are actually qualified to make these judgements.
did or not. If you did, then you didn't understand what you were
reading.
Unsupported assertion by Ben.Supported by what Corbutt wrote.
And when *YOU* have to lie to support Corbutt - you merely support
what I stated.
If you didn't - and just did a fast skim without trying to understand
what you were reading - it merely illustrates your inherent
dishonesty.
Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
evidence of Oswald's guilt
You want to dismiss virtually all of the forensic evidence that
exculpates Oswald. Indeed, you even DENY it's existence.
What forensic evidence exculpates Oswald? Be specific.ARE YOU A MORON OR JUST SENILE???
You could easily answer this question you ask of me, since you know
full well what forensic evidence a defense would bring up.
But just for you, I'm going to post one of the answers, that you've
ALREADY run from:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/g8d4WE9-p5M/m/X5EAoHlsAAAJ
Run again, coward, and prove your cowardice yet again.
Sorry, Gil. Unless you can provide credentials in photographic expertise...
Sorry Corbutt - unless you can provide any evidence of honesty, I'm
going to have to rule you out of order...
Another unsupported assertion by Ben.Sorry Huckster, unless you can provide any evidence of honesty, I'm
going to just laugh at you!
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:39:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Huckster simply ran again... as predicted right here:
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
How's that working out for you?
Gil doesn't understand the law regarding chain of custody.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:39:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Huckster simply ran again... as predicted right here:
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
How's that working out for you?
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:02:42?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:39:47 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Huckster simply ran again... as predicted right here:
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
How's that working out for you?
Ben to respond with more logical fallacies, but he wont address the points made above ever.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 08:08:56 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.
Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:34:01 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 07:07:52 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:05:11?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 02:58:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:38:41?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote: >>>> https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1685/another-backyard-photographs-ivDid you bother to actually read the above cite? It's not clear if you >> did or not. If you did, then you didn't understand what you were
So once again, Gil demonstrates his double standards by trying to substitute his judgement, and
that of Michael Griffith's, about the authenticity of the backyard photos for those of people who
are actually qualified to make these judgements.
reading.
Another unsupported assertion by Ben.Unsupported assertion by Ben.Supported by what Corbutt wrote.
How so? Explain. Be specific. Make an argument contrasting what I wrote with what Corbett wrote, showing how the evidence supports what you’re claiming Corbett wrote.
Go ahead, we’ll wait.
And when *YOU* have to lie to support Corbutt - you merely supportAnother unsupported assertion by Ben. Show my supposed lies, don't just allege them.
what I stated.
If you didn't - and just did a fast skim without trying to understand >> what you were reading - it merely illustrates your inherent
dishonesty.
Gil wants to dismiss virtually all of the forensic
evidence of Oswald's guilt
You want to dismiss virtually all of the forensic evidence that
exculpates Oswald. Indeed, you even DENY it's existence.
What forensic evidence exculpates Oswald? Be specific.ARE YOU A MORON OR JUST SENILE???
You could easily answer this question you ask of me, since you knowAnother unsupported assertion by Ben.
full well what forensic evidence a defense would bring up.
Ben attempts to shift the burden of proof (logical fallacy #1), telling me I need to support his claims.
And of course, calls me names (logical fallacy #2).
And resorts to a false dilemma, where he limits the choices to me being “A MORON OR JUST SENILE” (logical fallacy #3).
You alleged there is forensic evidence that exculpates Oswald. Your claim is unsupported. List it here. Let’s discuss. You won't, of course. Unsupported assertions are more your thing.
But just for you, I'm going to post one of the answers, that you've ALREADY run from:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/g8d4WE9-p5M/m/X5EAoHlsAAAJThis link deals with the Paraffin tests on Oswald’s hand and face.
So a clear attempt by you to change the subject once more.
Yet another logical fallacy by you (this fallacy is also called a red herring).
Note that I point out Ben’s logical fallacies as they occur. Ben merely alleges logical fallacies by me as an excuse to delete and ignore everything I write.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:rephotograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749." ( ibid. )
The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms ofI'm glad you said that because FBI agent Lyndal Shaneytfelt, testified that, "I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite". ( 4 H 288 )
evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.
He went on to explain how it could be done:
"...for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and them
And the House Select Committee's Panel achieved its conclusion by means that were less than honest. It seems that it avoided addressing certain measurements of facial features of the "Oswald" in the photographs that had been brought to its attention,like the ear lobes, nose and especially the chin.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/HSCA-penrose.mp4
So you have YOUR truth and the world has its.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:30:10 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:rephotograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749." ( ibid. )
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms ofI'm glad you said that because FBI agent Lyndal Shaneytfelt, testified that, "I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite". ( 4 H 288 )
evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.
He went on to explain how it could be done:
"...for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and them
Which means he found no evidence of a fake, which means any such argument is speculation.like the ear lobes, nose and especially the chin.
And the House Select Committee's Panel achieved its conclusion by means that were less than honest. It seems that it avoided addressing certain measurements of facial features of the "Oswald" in the photographs that had been brought to its attention,
"Your honor, the State would like to introduce our expert John Corbutt. Mr. Corbutt take it away......."https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/HSCA-penrose.mp4
Still no evidence of fakery. Just wild speculation by you and Griffith.
So you have YOUR truth and the world has its.
The truth is you and Griffith are speculating in absence of any evidence of fakery. Can you tell
us why any of us should give more weight to yours and Griffith's opinions than to that of real
experts in the field.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:30:10?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:rephotograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749." ( ibid. )
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms ofI'm glad you said that because FBI agent Lyndal Shaneytfelt, testified that, "I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite". ( 4 H 288 )
evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.
He went on to explain how it could be done:
"...for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and them
Which means he found no evidence of a fake...
like the ear lobes, nose and especially the chin.And the House Select Committee's Panel achieved its conclusion by means that were less than honest. It seems that it avoided addressing certain measurements of facial features of the "Oswald" in the photographs that had been brought to its attention,
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/HSCA-penrose.mp4
Still no evidence of fakery. Just wild speculation by you and Griffith.
So you have YOUR truth and the world has its.
The truth is...
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:02:20 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:them rephotograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749." ( ibid. )
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:30:10 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms ofI'm glad you said that because FBI agent Lyndal Shaneytfelt, testified that, "I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite". ( 4 H 288 )
evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.
He went on to explain how it could be done:
"...for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and
attention, like the ear lobes, nose and especially the chin.Which means he found no evidence of a fake, which means any such argument is speculation.
And the House Select Committee's Panel achieved its conclusion by means that were less than honest. It seems that it avoided addressing certain measurements of facial features of the "Oswald" in the photographs that had been brought to its
Yes, I spelled it Corbutt. Hah. Corbett. Both of them.https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/HSCA-penrose.mp4
Still no evidence of fakery. Just wild speculation by you and Griffith.
So you have YOUR truth and the world has its.
The truth is you and Griffith are speculating in absence of any evidence of fakery. Can you tell"Your honor, the State would like to introduce our expert John Corbutt. Mr. Corbutt take it away......."
us why any of us should give more weight to yours and Griffith's opinions than to that of real
experts in the field.
Defense: "Your honor, the defense objects."
Judge: "Overruled. Sorry, these are your rules buddy....."
"Your honor, the State would like to introduce our expert John Corbutt. Mr. Corbutt take it away......."
Defense: "Your honor, the defense objects."
Judge: "Overruled. Sorry, these are your rules buddy....."
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:08:26?PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:them rephotograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749." ( ibid. )
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:02:20?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:30:10?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>>>> The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of
evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.I'm glad you said that because FBI agent Lyndal Shaneytfelt, testified that, "I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite". ( 4 H 288 )
He went on to explain how it could be done:
"...for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and
like the ear lobes, nose and especially the chin.
Which means he found no evidence of a fake, which means any such argument is speculation.
And the House Select Committee's Panel achieved its conclusion by means that were less than honest. It seems that it avoided addressing certain measurements of facial features of the "Oswald" in the photographs that had been brought to its attention,
Yes, I spelled it Corbutt. Hah. Corbett. Both of them."Your honor, the State would like to introduce our expert John Corbutt. Mr. Corbutt take it away......."https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/HSCA-penrose.mp4
Still no evidence of fakery. Just wild speculation by you and Griffith. >>>>
So you have YOUR truth and the world has its.
The truth is you and Griffith are speculating in absence of any evidence of fakery. Can you tell
us why any of us should give more weight to yours and Griffith's opinions than to that of real
experts in the field.
Defense: "Your honor, the defense objects."
Judge: "Overruled. Sorry, these are your rules buddy....."
"Your honor, the State would like to introduce our expert John Corbutt. Mr. Corbutt take it away......."
Defense: "Your honor, the defense objects."
Judge: "Overruled. Sorry, these are your rules buddy....."
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 09:02:18 -0700 (PDT), John Corbettthem rephotograph it with this camera, which is Commission Exhibit 750, in order to have this negative which we have identified with the camera, and is Commission Exhibit 749." ( ibid. )
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:30:10?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:59:01?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: >>> The expert opinions rendered for the WC and the HSCA are acceptable forms of
evidence. Their opinions trump those of you and Griffith.I'm glad you said that because FBI agent Lyndal Shaneytfelt, testified that, "I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite". ( 4 H 288 )
He went on to explain how it could be done:
"...for this to be a composite, they would have had to make a picture of the background with an individual standing there, and then substitute the face, and retouch it and possibly rephotograph it and retouch that negative, and make a print, and
Which means he found no evidence of a fake...
ARE YOU STUPID, OR WHAT???
You acknowledge part of what he said, and refuse to accept the rest...
like the ear lobes, nose and especially the chin.And the House Select Committee's Panel achieved its conclusion by means that were less than honest. It seems that it avoided addressing certain measurements of facial features of the "Oswald" in the photographs that had been brought to its attention,
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/HSCA-penrose.mp4
Still no evidence of fakery. Just wild speculation by you and Griffith. Still no acknowledgement of the truth... just sticking your head inthe sand, and refusing to address the point made.
So you have YOUR truth and the world has its.
The truth is...
Lie deleted.
Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they weren’t composites.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they werent composites.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
You posted it Hank.
He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
Exactly what I said.
Thank You.
"Chain of custody! The evidence is corrupt!! It's not been authenticated!! Throw it out!!" he says in his fantasy court. Then he finds some 12th generation photo off the internet and thinks he can analyze it and use it in his fantasy court. When it'sevidence against Oswald it must meet the highest standards; when it's evidence they think clears him they have none at all. I used to believe that was deliberate, they knew they had two standards; but now I realize they don't even see their inconsistency.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they weren’t composites.Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
You posted it Hank.
He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
Exactly what I said.
Thank You.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:59:51?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they werent composites.Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
You posted it Hank.
He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
And you're relying on that?????? Good grief.
Exactly what I said.
Thank You.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:42:14?AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:evidence against Oswald it must meet the highest standards; when it's evidence they think clears him they have none at all. I used to believe that was deliberate, they knew they had two standards; but now I realize they don't even see their inconsistency.
"Chain of custody! The evidence is corrupt!! It's not been authenticated!! Throw it out!!" he says in his fantasy court. Then he finds some 12th generation photo off the internet and thinks he can analyze it and use it in his fantasy court. When it's
Who said anything about chain of custody ?
Try to keep up, Professor Numbnut.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:07:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:59:51?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote: >>> Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they weren’t composites.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
You posted it Hank.
He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
And you're relying on that?????? Good grief.
Of course Gil isn't. Did you even bother to read his cited post???
Of course, Chuckles also shows his dishonesty in rejecting expertExactly what I said.
Thank You.
opinion with no reason other than he doesn't like it.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:13:50 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
Of course Gil isn't. Did you even bother to read his cited post???This?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:13:50?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:07:08 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:59:51?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote: >>>>> Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they werent composites.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
You posted it Hank.
He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
And you're relying on that?????? Good grief.
Of course Gil isn't. Did you even bother to read his cited post???
This?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites
Exactly what I said.
Thank You.
Of course, Chuckles also shows his dishonesty in rejecting expert
opinion with no reason other than he doesn't like it.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they weren’t composites.Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
You posted it Hank.
He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
Exactly what I said.
Thank You.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:42:14 AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:evidence against Oswald it must meet the highest standards; when it's evidence they think clears him they have none at all. I used to believe that was deliberate, they knew they had two standards; but now I realize they don't even see their inconsistency.
"Chain of custody! The evidence is corrupt!! It's not been authenticated!! Throw it out!!" he says in his fantasy court. Then he finds some 12th generation photo off the internet and thinks he can analyze it and use it in his fantasy court. When it's
Who said anything about chain of custody ?
Try to keep up, Professor Numbnut.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 09:59:49 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they weren’t composites.
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
You posted it Hank.Huckster, like all liars, cannot accept expert testimony if it
He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
Exactly what I said.
Thank You.
contradicts their faith. No other reason.
Critics are happy to accept expert opnion, unless there are actually
REAL reasons not to.
This difference is a matter of honesty.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:02:01 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesuss evidence against Oswald it must meet the highest standards; when it's evidence they think clears him they have none at all. I used to believe that was deliberate, they knew they had two standards; but now I realize they don't even see their
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:42:14?AM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote: >> "Chain of custody! The evidence is corrupt!! It's not been authenticated!! Throw it out!!" he says in his fantasy court. Then he finds some 12th generation photo off the internet and thinks he can analyze it and use it in his fantasy court. When it'
Who said anything about chain of custody ?Steven often gets stuck in past topics, and can't deal with current events... No doubt his seniity is to blame...
Try to keep up, Professor Numbnut.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:20:08 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:13:50 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
You know asshole, when make up shit, nobody takes you seriously, as they shouldn't.Of course Gil isn't. Did you even bother to read his cited post???This?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites.
Now go sit in the corner and behave.
If we want any shit out of you, we'll squeeze your head.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they weren’t composites.Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
You posted it Hank.
He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
Exactly what I said.
Thank You.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:59:51 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:I cannot entirely eliminate the possibility I will win the Powerball lottery, but that is no reason
Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they weren’t composites.Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
You posted it Hank.
He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
Exactly what I said.
Thank You.
to think that I will. This is where Gil demonstrates his poor reasoning skills. Just because
someone acknowledges a theoretical possibility is not evidence that is what happened.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they weren’t composites.Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
You posted it Hank.
He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
Exactly what I said.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:59:51?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:48:30?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
Shaneyfelt found no evidence of compositing in the backyard photos. And in his expert opinion, they werent composites.Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite.
You posted it Hank.
He gave an opinion and added, " I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite."
Exactly what I said.
Thank You.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 126:00:22 |
Calls: | 6,663 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,212 |
Messages: | 5,334,951 |