Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Questions for Gil
96 views
Skip to first unread message
John Corbett
Oct 13, 2023, 6:22:32 PM10/13/23
to
Gil, you think it is significant that there isn't a public record of the forms
documenting the chain of custody for various pieces of evidence in the
JFK assassination. Why would you think there should be a public record of
those forms? Where do you suppose those records should be? Have you
looked there to see if the records are there? Do you think such records
are stored indefinitely? Do you think that such records are kept for cases
that don't go to trial? In the 60 years since the assassination, I'm sure there
are many thousands of cases that didn't go to trial. Many got plea bargained.
I'm sure there are some where the accused died before trial. Probably some
where the accused jumped bail and was never brought to justice. So where
do you think they store the chain-of-custody documents for all those cases?
Answer that and you'll probably have the answer to where that documentation
is for the JFK evidence.
If you really are obsessed with knowing what became of the chain of custody
paper trail, why don't you look into it? Why do you keep pestering people who
know it's not important to have that documentation in order to consider it.
If you're going to keep acting as Oswald's defense attorney, you need to get
off your ass and do some leg work. Oswald deserves better than what you
have given him so far. In fact, I'll bet if he knew what you've been doing, he'd
be pissed as hell. Killing JFK was the one big success he had in his otherwise
pathetic life, and you want to deny him the credit. Some attorney you are.
documenting the chain of custody for various pieces of evidence in the
JFK assassination. Why would you think there should be a public record of
those forms? Where do you suppose those records should be? Have you
looked there to see if the records are there? Do you think such records
are stored indefinitely? Do you think that such records are kept for cases
that don't go to trial? In the 60 years since the assassination, I'm sure there
are many thousands of cases that didn't go to trial. Many got plea bargained.
I'm sure there are some where the accused died before trial. Probably some
where the accused jumped bail and was never brought to justice. So where
do you think they store the chain-of-custody documents for all those cases?
Answer that and you'll probably have the answer to where that documentation
is for the JFK evidence.
If you really are obsessed with knowing what became of the chain of custody
paper trail, why don't you look into it? Why do you keep pestering people who
know it's not important to have that documentation in order to consider it.
If you're going to keep acting as Oswald's defense attorney, you need to get
off your ass and do some leg work. Oswald deserves better than what you
have given him so far. In fact, I'll bet if he knew what you've been doing, he'd
be pissed as hell. Killing JFK was the one big success he had in his otherwise
pathetic life, and you want to deny him the credit. Some attorney you are.
Ben Holmes
Oct 13, 2023, 7:14:18 PM10/13/23
to
On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 15:22:30 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gil, you think it is significant that there isn't a public record of the forms
>documenting the chain of custody for various pieces of evidence in the
>JFK assassination.
I think it's significant that you lied about this... and claimed that
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gil, you think it is significant that there isn't a public record of the forms
>documenting the chain of custody for various pieces of evidence in the
>JFK assassination.
the paperwork actually existed.
> Why would you think there should be a public record of
>those forms?
>Where do you suppose those records should be?
>Have you
>looked there to see if the records are there?
>Do you think such records
>are stored indefinitely?
>Do you think that such records are kept for cases
>that don't go to trial?
to trial.
Does that answer your question? Or do I need to be more explicit?
>In the 60 years since the assassination, I'm sure there
>are many thousands of cases that didn't go to trial. Many got plea bargained.
>I'm sure there are some where the accused died before trial. Probably some
>where the accused jumped bail and was never brought to justice. So where
>do you think they store the chain-of-custody documents for all those cases?
where they re-investigate a crime from decades ago - and pull up ALL
THE EVIDENCE ORIGINALLY COLLECTED. Take your time, go to Youtube,
educate yourself.
>Answer that
Just did.
> and you'll probably have the answer to where that documentation
>is for the JFK evidence.
online now.
>If you really are obsessed with knowing what became of the chain of custody
>paper trail, why don't you look into it?
> Why do you keep pestering people who
Tut tut tut, tell the truth coward... "Why do you keep pestering
people who HATE THE EVIDENCE?"
>If you're going to...
Logical fallacy deleted.
If you're going to lie about the evidence, you shouldn't pick lies
that are so easily dismantled and proven to be lies.
Gil Jesus
Oct 14, 2023, 5:26:28 AM10/14/23
to
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:22:32 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> Why would you think there should be a public record of those forms?
Because there is a public record of all the other forms in this case.
> Why would you think there should be a public record of those forms?
> Where do you suppose those records should be?
> Have you looked there to see if the records are there?
> Do you think such records are stored indefinitely?
> Do you think that such records are kept for cases that don't go to trial?
In the 60 years since the assassination, I'm sure there
> are many thousands of cases that didn't go to trial. Many got plea bargained.
> I'm sure there are some where the accused died before trial. Probably some
> where the accused jumped bail and was never brought to justice. So where
> do you think they store the chain-of-custody documents for all those cases?
> Answer that and you'll probably have the answer to where that documentation is for the JFK evidence.
You claimed that there was documentation for ALL of the chain of custody.
I listed some pieces of evidence and asked you to produce the chain of custody forms and you couldn't.
Now you're:
a.) either admitting that the forms do not exist and speculating that the forms were destroyed because Oswald was not going to trial, or
b.) you're speculating that the forms exist but are hidden away in some secret location apart from the other forms in this case.
Yet, there's no evidence to support either of those wild speculations.
The point is that you have a reputation of making statements which are not true, and which you cannot prove.
You ask the silliest questions and even when you're given the answers, you can't accept them. You keep asking them over and over again.
You remind me of Doyle, repeating the same falsehoods over and over in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary.
One time is an error, but when you intentionally tell the same falsehoods over and over again after being shown the truth, that makes you a liar.
This issue is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned. You want keep beating it, that's up to you, but like a dead horse, it's not going anywhere.
The bottom line is that:
You claimed there was no problem with the chain of custody of ANY of the evidence and that it was ALL documented.
Claims, in the end, you could not prove.
YOU LOSE.
And this is the last posting I'll make on this issue.
END OF STORY.
NoTrueFlags Here
Oct 14, 2023, 5:57:46 AM10/14/23
to
John Corbett
Oct 14, 2023, 7:08:37 AM10/14/23
to
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 5:26:28 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:22:32 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> > Why would you think there should be a public record of those forms?
> Because there is a public record of all the other forms in this case.
> > Where do you suppose those records should be?
> In the public record.
Could you be a bit more specific? If it is routine to store these records indefinitely for cases
> > Why would you think there should be a public record of those forms?
> Because there is a public record of all the other forms in this case.
> > Where do you suppose those records should be?
> In the public record.
that don't go to trial, tell us where those records should be. If you don't know where those
records should be, you have no idea whether they are there or not.
> > Have you looked there to see if the records are there?
> Already answered in another thread.
> > Do you think such records are stored indefinitely?
> All the records in this case are stored indefinitely. It's called the National Archives.
and it would have been up to them to store them if necessary.
> > Do you think that such records are kept for cases that don't go to trial?
> Already answered twice in two different threads.
> In the 60 years since the assassination, I'm sure there
> > are many thousands of cases that didn't go to trial. Many got plea bargained.
> > I'm sure there are some where the accused died before trial. Probably some
> > where the accused jumped bail and was never brought to justice. So where
> > do you think they store the chain-of-custody documents for all those cases?
> In what they call, "case files".
> > Answer that and you'll probably have the answer to where that documentation is for the JFK evidence.
> In this case, the "case files" are the Warren Commission files.
require the chain-of-custody forms. There was no reason for them to store something they
never received. They used testimony from the investigators to establish the validity of the
evidence.
>
> You claimed that there was documentation for ALL of the chain of custody.
> I listed some pieces of evidence and asked you to produce the chain of custody forms and you couldn't.
Once again, you twist my words. I said that had the case gone to trial, the DPD and the
> You claimed that there was documentation for ALL of the chain of custody.
> I listed some pieces of evidence and asked you to produce the chain of custody forms and you couldn't.
prosecutors would have produced them. You make the assumption that those documents
would have been prepared at the time the evidence was gathered. You have no idea if that
was the normal routine or not. The documentation would not have been required until the
case went to trial. It is rather silly to assume it would have been done during the first few
days following the assassination. That's why I am asking you all these questions. I am asking
you establish what the normal routine was for creating and storing the documentation for
cases that never went to trial. In absence of your ability to do that, it seems to me you are just
making assumptions as to what documentation we should have and where it should be. All
you can give us is the vague "public record".
>
> Now you're:
> a.) either admitting that the forms do not exist and speculating that the forms were destroyed because Oswald was not going to trial, or
I am not speculating anything. I'm not the one pretending to know what the normal routine
> Now you're:
> a.) either admitting that the forms do not exist and speculating that the forms were destroyed because Oswald was not going to trial, or
would be. You are. I'm asking you to establish that something is missing that should be there.
Until you can establish what the normal routine was at the time and that the DPD and/or the
prosecutor's office did not follow that routine, you have nothing but another empty excuse to
disregard the evidence that proves the guilt of your client.
> b.) you're speculating that the forms exist but are hidden away in some secret location apart from the other forms in this case.
immediately after the evidence is gathered or done so later in preparation for the trial. I don't
pretend to know what the normal routine was. You are the one claiming there is something
missing that should be there. It is up to you to establish that the DPD and prosecutor's office
failed to do something they were required to do. It seems rather silly to me to believe that in the
most important criminal case in the history of Dallas, the cops and prosecutors would have
failed to do the most basic things to validate the evidence.
> Yet, there's no evidence to support either of those wild speculations.
>
> The point is that you have a reputation of making statements which are not true, and which you cannot prove.
no proof of what those standard procedures would have been. All you offer are your baseless
assertions. I have asked you basic questions regarding how and when these documents should
have been produced and where and how they would be stored once they were no longer needed.
You dodged each an every question.
> You ask the silliest questions and even when you're given the answers, you can't accept them. You keep asking them over and over again.
creation and filing of these documents.
>
> You remind me of Doyle, repeating the same falsehoods over and over in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary.
You have been repeating the same falsehoods in the 15 years I have participated in this forum
> You remind me of Doyle, repeating the same falsehoods over and over in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary.
and probably long before that.
> One time is an error, but when you intentionally tell the same falsehoods over and over again after being shown the truth, that makes you a liar.
>
> This issue is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned.
assertions subjected to critical questioning.
> You want keep beating it, that's up to you, but like a dead horse, it's not going anywhere.
on your futile snipe hunt until the plant you on the other side of the grass.
>
> The bottom line is that:
> You claimed there was no problem with the chain of custody of ANY of the evidence and that it was ALL documented.
Again you twist my words. I'm saying it is ridiculous to believe the DPD and prosecutors would
> The bottom line is that:
> You claimed there was no problem with the chain of custody of ANY of the evidence and that it was ALL documented.
not have produced that documentation had the case gone to trial.
> Claims, in the end, you could not prove.
to prove that assertion.
> YOU LOSE.
Gil declares victory prior to his retreat.
>
> And this is the last posting I'll make on this issue.
Unable to take the heat, Gil leaves the kitchen. One of his wiser moves.
> And this is the last posting I'll make on this issue.
> END OF STORY.
Yes it is. Until Gil wants to bring up his bogus claim in another thread.
Ben Holmes
Oct 16, 2023, 11:32:12 AM10/16/23
to
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 02:26:27 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
You can spank Corbutt with his lies repeatedly, but he just keeps
right on lying.
You can answer every question he asked, credibly and capable of
support, but you can't get answers from him.
He's a coward.
And... as all believers are...
A liar.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:
right on lying.
You can answer every question he asked, credibly and capable of
support, but you can't get answers from him.
He's a coward.
And... as all believers are...
A liar.
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME!
Ben Holmes
Oct 16, 2023, 11:32:14 AM10/16/23
to
On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 04:08:35 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 5:26:28?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
records in this case?
YOU CAN'T ANSWER THAT!
> If it is routine to store these records indefinitely for cases
>that don't go to trial, tell us where those records should be. If you don't know where those
>records should be, you have no idea whether they are there or not.
The answer's been given - run coward... RUN!!!
>>> Have you looked there to see if the records are there?
>> Already answered in another thread.
>
>The standard online copout when one doesn't have an answer. "I already posted it".
When believers say it, yes.
But when critics say it, we can CITE for it.
Publicly state that it wasn't posted, and I'll spank you with the
citation.
>>> Do you think such records are stored indefinitely?
>> All the records in this case are stored indefinitely. It's called the National Archives.
>
>At the time, this was a state crime. The forms would have been produced by local officials
>and it would have been up to them to store them if necessary.
Notice folks, that once again, Corbutt got spanked.
>>> Do you think that such records are kept for cases that don't go to trial?
>
>> Already answered twice in two different threads.
>
>Another copout.
Another implied lie.
>>> In the 60 years since the assassination, I'm sure there
>>> are many thousands of cases that didn't go to trial. Many got plea bargained.
>>> I'm sure there are some where the accused died before trial. Probably some
>>> where the accused jumped bail and was never brought to justice. So where
>>> do you think they store the chain-of-custody documents for all those cases?
>> In what they call, "case files".
>
>So tell us where to look for the records in those "case files".
You've been repeatedly answered. The DPD and the National Archives.
Are you stupid? Or can you just not read?
>>> Answer that and you'll probably have the answer to where that documentation is for the JFK evidence.
>> In this case, the "case files" are the Warren Commission files.
>
>Since the Warren Commission was a fact finding body ...
If they wanted to find facts, having a chain of custody for the
evidence they considered would be CRUCIAL.
>> You claimed that there was documentation for ALL of the chain of custody.
>> I listed some pieces of evidence and asked you to produce the chain of custody forms and you couldn't.
>
>Once again, you twist my words.
Once again, you run away from your posted lies.
Did you, or did you not originally try to claim that there was no
problem with any evidence in this case regarding chain of custody?
>> Now you're:
>> a.) either admitting that the forms do not exist and speculating that the forms were destroyed because Oswald was not going to trial, or
>
>I am not speculating anything.
Yes, you most certainly are.
>> b.) you're speculating that the forms exist but are hidden away in some secret location apart from the other forms in this case.
>
>Again, I'm not speculating anything.
Then cite.
CITE FOR YOUR CLAIMS.
But you can't.
So yes, you're lying.
>> Yet, there's no evidence to support either of those wild speculations.
>>
>The wild speculations are all yours.
Says the person proven to be lying.
>> The point is that you have a reputation of making statements which are not true, and which you cannot prove.
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> You ask the silliest questions and even when you're given the answers, you can't accept them. You keep asking them over and over again.
>
>So you think...
Yes, Gil does. You should try it.
>> You remind me of Doyle, repeating the same falsehoods over and over in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary.
Logical fallacy deleted.
>> One time is an error, but when you intentionally tell the same falsehoods over and over again after being shown the truth, that makes you a liar.
>>
>> This issue is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned.
>
>Gil is signaling he is about to bail out of this thread because he can't stand having his
>assertions subjected to critical questioning.
Of course, Corbutt did that long ago when he realized that he was
getting spanked on the wacky unsupportable claims of Bugliosi.
>> You want keep beating it, that's up to you, but like a dead horse, it's not going anywhere.
>
>You and the rest of the conspiracy hobbyists have gone nowhere in 60 years ...
Of course, that's proven a lie by public polling...
>> The bottom line is that:
>> You claimed there was no problem with the chain of custody of ANY of the evidence and that it was ALL documented.
>
>Again you twist my words.
That *IS* what you stated.
This is what you do frequently, I notice - you make a claim, you get
spanked, then you try to re-write the claim so that it might be true.
>> Claims, in the end, you could not prove.
>
>You are the one claiming documentation is missing that should be there. You have failed badly
>to prove that assertion.
Oh? Did you cite any of this missing documentation?
>> YOU LOSE.
>
>Gil declares victory prior to his retreat.
Actually, he merely states the obvious.
>> And this is the last posting I'll make on this issue.
>
>Unable to take the heat, Gil leaves the kitchen. One of his wiser moves.
Said the coward who ran and refuses to respond to any of my posts!!!
>> END OF STORY.
>
>Yes it is. Until Gil wants to bring up his bogus claim in another thread.
What's "bogus" about it? There is CLEARLY problems with chain of
custody with much of the evidence in this case.
You've not been able to refute that fact.
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 5:26:28?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 6:22:32?PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>>> Why would you think there should be a public record of those forms?
>> Because there is a public record of all the other forms in this case.
>>> Where do you suppose those records should be?
>> In the public record.
>
>Could you be a bit more specific?
Why? He gave a perfectly correct answer. Where are all the other
>>> Why would you think there should be a public record of those forms?
>> Because there is a public record of all the other forms in this case.
>>> Where do you suppose those records should be?
>> In the public record.
>
>Could you be a bit more specific?
records in this case?
YOU CAN'T ANSWER THAT!
> If it is routine to store these records indefinitely for cases
>that don't go to trial, tell us where those records should be. If you don't know where those
>records should be, you have no idea whether they are there or not.
>>> Have you looked there to see if the records are there?
>> Already answered in another thread.
>
>The standard online copout when one doesn't have an answer. "I already posted it".
But when critics say it, we can CITE for it.
Publicly state that it wasn't posted, and I'll spank you with the
citation.
>>> Do you think such records are stored indefinitely?
>> All the records in this case are stored indefinitely. It's called the National Archives.
>
>At the time, this was a state crime. The forms would have been produced by local officials
>and it would have been up to them to store them if necessary.
>>> Do you think that such records are kept for cases that don't go to trial?
>
>> Already answered twice in two different threads.
>
>Another copout.
>>> In the 60 years since the assassination, I'm sure there
>>> are many thousands of cases that didn't go to trial. Many got plea bargained.
>>> I'm sure there are some where the accused died before trial. Probably some
>>> where the accused jumped bail and was never brought to justice. So where
>>> do you think they store the chain-of-custody documents for all those cases?
>> In what they call, "case files".
>
>So tell us where to look for the records in those "case files".
Are you stupid? Or can you just not read?
>>> Answer that and you'll probably have the answer to where that documentation is for the JFK evidence.
>> In this case, the "case files" are the Warren Commission files.
>
If they wanted to find facts, having a chain of custody for the
evidence they considered would be CRUCIAL.
>> You claimed that there was documentation for ALL of the chain of custody.
>> I listed some pieces of evidence and asked you to produce the chain of custody forms and you couldn't.
>
>Once again, you twist my words.
Did you, or did you not originally try to claim that there was no
problem with any evidence in this case regarding chain of custody?
>> Now you're:
>> a.) either admitting that the forms do not exist and speculating that the forms were destroyed because Oswald was not going to trial, or
>
>I am not speculating anything.
>> b.) you're speculating that the forms exist but are hidden away in some secret location apart from the other forms in this case.
>
>Again, I'm not speculating anything.
CITE FOR YOUR CLAIMS.
But you can't.
So yes, you're lying.
>> Yet, there's no evidence to support either of those wild speculations.
>>
>The wild speculations are all yours.
>> The point is that you have a reputation of making statements which are not true, and which you cannot prove.
>> You ask the silliest questions and even when you're given the answers, you can't accept them. You keep asking them over and over again.
>
Yes, Gil does. You should try it.
>> You remind me of Doyle, repeating the same falsehoods over and over in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary.
>> One time is an error, but when you intentionally tell the same falsehoods over and over again after being shown the truth, that makes you a liar.
>>
>> This issue is a dead horse as far as I'm concerned.
>
>Gil is signaling he is about to bail out of this thread because he can't stand having his
>assertions subjected to critical questioning.
getting spanked on the wacky unsupportable claims of Bugliosi.
>> You want keep beating it, that's up to you, but like a dead horse, it's not going anywhere.
>
Of course, that's proven a lie by public polling...
>> The bottom line is that:
>> You claimed there was no problem with the chain of custody of ANY of the evidence and that it was ALL documented.
>
>Again you twist my words.
This is what you do frequently, I notice - you make a claim, you get
spanked, then you try to re-write the claim so that it might be true.
>> Claims, in the end, you could not prove.
>
>You are the one claiming documentation is missing that should be there. You have failed badly
>to prove that assertion.
>> YOU LOSE.
>
>Gil declares victory prior to his retreat.
>> And this is the last posting I'll make on this issue.
>
>Unable to take the heat, Gil leaves the kitchen. One of his wiser moves.
>> END OF STORY.
>
>Yes it is. Until Gil wants to bring up his bogus claim in another thread.
custody with much of the evidence in this case.
You've not been able to refute that fact.
Gil Jesus
Oct 16, 2023, 12:47:23 PM10/16/23
to
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 7:08:37 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 5:26:28 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > You claimed that there was documentation for ALL of the chain of custody.
>> On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 5:26:28 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > You claimed that there was documentation for ALL of the chain of custody.
> Once again, you twist my words.
I don't think so.
Here's the post where you claimed there wasn't any issue with "ANY of the forensic evidence" and
that there is "documentation that spells out every person who handled the evidence."
This post proves that you're lying once again, this time about me twisting your words.
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 7:12:17 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> There is no chain-of-custody issue with ANY of the forensic evidence. There is DOCUMENTATION THAT SPELLS OUT EVERY PERSON WHO HANDLED THE EVIDENCE.
>Who found it. Whom they gave it to. Whom that person gave it to and so on. That is how chain of custody is established.
And the link to that post that proves you're a liar and I didn't twist your words can be found here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/6XMI-cxztKo/m/ETkARmrNAwAJ
I asked you to provide that documentation and you failed, meaning that you lied when you stated there was documentation.
If it existed, you would have been able to provide it.
Instead, you speculate that because there was no trial, there was no need to establish a chain of custody.
You provide no evidence in support of this speculation.
Since the chain of custody forms are normally filled out by police when the first person handles the evidence,
I asked you how the police knew on 11/22 there was going to be no trial and they didn't need to document the chain of custody
even though the suspect ( Oswald ) was still alive when the evidence was first discovered.
You failed to answer that question.
As an example of a broken chain of custody, I cited the intitals "RD" on the two R-P shells recovered from the Tippit murder scene and asked you to identify the officer who marked them.
Those initials belong to no officer known to have been in the chain of custody of those shells.
Their presence indicates that there was at least one person who handled the shells who was not accounted for.
And that breaks the chain of custody for those shells.
Of course, you could not tell us who "RD" was, so you could not prove that the chain was not broken.
You make a lot of comments that are falsehoods ( lies ) and provide no proof in support of them.
In addition, you flat out lie about things that provably false.
You lie about everything.
You lie about what I said.
You lie about what you said.
You lie about the evidence.
You just lie about everything.
You call it running, but what I'm really doing is refusing to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Be it yourself, or your intellectual equivalents "Bud" or "Chuckles".
The three of you combined have an IQ less than that of a stump.
Chuck Schuyler
Oct 16, 2023, 1:07:19 PM10/16/23
to
Will Gil get off his lazy ass and actually research this "important" (to him) issue?
Of course not.
LAAAAAAAAZZZZZZYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steven Galbraith
Oct 16, 2023, 2:24:44 PM10/16/23
to
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 7:08:37 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
Here: https://tinyurl.com/2musdedj
Maybe they would they show up/be referenced in discovery but not during the trial?
Steven Galbraith
Oct 16, 2023, 2:38:26 PM10/16/23
to
Still nothing about "forms", et cetera. None I can find.
Gil Jesus
Oct 16, 2023, 3:12:36 PM10/16/23
to
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
< the usual stupid shit deleted >
Ok, who left the idiot bag open ?
< the usual stupid shit deleted >
Ok, who left the idiot bag open ?
John Corbett
Oct 16, 2023, 5:00:19 PM10/16/23
to
This is why Gil is never going to go anywhere with his silly hobby. People who have strong
positions welcome critical questioning. Answering the tough questions enhances the strength
of one's arguments. Gil takes the opposite approach. He deletes the tough questions or just
declares victory and bails out of the discussion.
Chuck Schuyler
Oct 16, 2023, 11:50:35 PM10/16/23
to
Can anyone imagine Gil doing something similar with his so-called research? I have NEVER seen lazier people than Gil or Ben. It's really astounding. Why doesn't Gil send an email to the 6th Floor Museum on the subject? Why doesn't Gil track down people in Dallas knowledgeable about the procedures that have him so flummoxed and listen to what they say? He has no clue about these so-called evidence chain of custody forms and expects his critics to do his legwork.
Lazy, lazy, lazy.
John Corbett
Oct 17, 2023, 6:09:45 AM10/17/23
to
On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:50:35 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 4:00:19 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > > < the usual stupid shit deleted >
> > >
> > > Ok, who left the idiot bag open ?
> > Looks like Gil is turning into a Ben Holmes wannabe. He deletes the stuff he has no answer for.
> >
> > This is why Gil is never going to go anywhere with his silly hobby. People who have strong
> > positions welcome critical questioning. Answering the tough questions enhances the strength
> > of one's arguments. Gil takes the opposite approach. He deletes the tough questions or just
> > declares victory and bails out of the discussion.
> There was a guy at .john's site right before John passed who put together a really interesting animation using all of the known film and photo clips of the motorcade as it snaked through Dealey Plaza at 1230pm 118/22/63, and he positioned the limo, motorcycle escort, follow-up vehicles, etc. as best as he could, calculating the whereabouts of witnesses, the various automobiles in the procession, etc. The dude leaned CT, but what impressed me was his pro-research attitude; he INVITED comments on his work from the posters at aaj, and asked for their HELP fixing flaws in the methodology, etc. that he had used to create his animation. Do you remember this guy's work?
I do remember it and it was impressive. I was unaware he leaned to the CT side.
> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 4:00:19 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
> > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:12:36 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 1:07:19 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
> > > < the usual stupid shit deleted >
> > >
> > > Ok, who left the idiot bag open ?
> > Looks like Gil is turning into a Ben Holmes wannabe. He deletes the stuff he has no answer for.
> >
> > This is why Gil is never going to go anywhere with his silly hobby. People who have strong
> > positions welcome critical questioning. Answering the tough questions enhances the strength
> > of one's arguments. Gil takes the opposite approach. He deletes the tough questions or just
> > declares victory and bails out of the discussion.
> There was a guy at .john's site right before John passed who put together a really interesting animation using all of the known film and photo clips of the motorcade as it snaked through Dealey Plaza at 1230pm 118/22/63, and he positioned the limo, motorcycle escort, follow-up vehicles, etc. as best as he could, calculating the whereabouts of witnesses, the various automobiles in the procession, etc. The dude leaned CT, but what impressed me was his pro-research attitude; he INVITED comments on his work from the posters at aaj, and asked for their HELP fixing flaws in the methodology, etc. that he had used to create his animation. Do you remember this guy's work?
>
> Can anyone imagine Gil doing something similar with his so-called research? I have NEVER seen lazier people than Gil or Ben. It's really astounding. Why doesn't Gil send an email to the 6th Floor Museum on the subject? Why doesn't Gil track down people in Dallas knowledgeable about the procedures that have him so flummoxed and listen to what they say? He has no clue about these so-called evidence chain of custody forms and expects his critics to do his legwork.
>
> Lazy, lazy, lazy.
Gil takes the easy way out by recycling all the popular myths from decades ago. He's still
> Can anyone imagine Gil doing something similar with his so-called research? I have NEVER seen lazier people than Gil or Ben. It's really astounding. Why doesn't Gil send an email to the 6th Floor Museum on the subject? Why doesn't Gil track down people in Dallas knowledgeable about the procedures that have him so flummoxed and listen to what they say? He has no clue about these so-called evidence chain of custody forms and expects his critics to do his legwork.
>
> Lazy, lazy, lazy.
stuck in the 1990s, polishing up the turds the Oliver Stone threw out in his shitass movie. Gil,
like most CTs, seems to be comfortable in his own little world where he can pretend he is
actually accomplishing something with his silly little website which is nothing more than a
repository of long age debunked CT claims.
NoTrueFlags Here
Oct 17, 2023, 6:38:47 AM10/17/23
to
Ben Holmes
Oct 18, 2023, 9:58:26 AM10/18/23
to
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
Lies and logical fallacies deleted.
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
Lies and logical fallacies deleted.
Ben Holmes
Oct 18, 2023, 9:58:26 AM10/18/23
to
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 14:00:17 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:12:36?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
Corbutt just can't get me out of his mind...
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:12:36?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 1:07:19?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>> < the usual stupid shit deleted >
>>
>> Ok, who left the idiot bag open ?
Logical fallacies deleted.
>> < the usual stupid shit deleted >
>>
>> Ok, who left the idiot bag open ?
Corbutt just can't get me out of his mind...
Ben Holmes
Oct 18, 2023, 9:58:27 AM10/18/23
to
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 11:38:24 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Still nothing about "forms", et cetera. None I can find.
So you agree with Gil. Good to know.
<stevemg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Still nothing about "forms", et cetera. None I can find.
Ben Holmes
Oct 18, 2023, 9:58:27 AM10/18/23
to
On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 03:09:43 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:50:35?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 4:00:19?PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
>> > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:12:36?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 11:50:35?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 4:00:19?PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
>> > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:12:36?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> > > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 1:07:19?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>> > > < the usual stupid shit deleted >
>> > >
>> > > Ok, who left the idiot bag open ?
Logical fallacies deleted.
>> > > < the usual stupid shit deleted >
>> > >
>> > > Ok, who left the idiot bag open ?
Ben Holmes
Oct 18, 2023, 10:00:08 AM10/18/23
to
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 20:50:33 -0700 (PDT), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 4:00:19?PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
>> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:12:36?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 4:00:19?PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote:
>> On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 3:12:36?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> > On Monday, October 16, 2023 at 1:07:19?PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
>> > < the usual stupid shit deleted >
>> >
>> > Ok, who left the idiot bag open ?
>> Looks like Gil is turning into a Ben Holmes wannabe. He deletes the stuff he has no answer for.
>>
>> This is why Gil is never going to go anywhere with his silly hobby. People who have strong
>> positions welcome critical questioning. Answering the tough questions enhances the strength
>> of one's arguments. Gil takes the opposite approach. He deletes the tough questions or just
>> declares victory and bails out of the discussion.
Logical fallacies deleted.
>> > < the usual stupid shit deleted >
>> >
>> > Ok, who left the idiot bag open ?
>> Looks like Gil is turning into a Ben Holmes wannabe. He deletes the stuff he has no answer for.
>>
>> This is why Gil is never going to go anywhere with his silly hobby. People who have strong
>> positions welcome critical questioning. Answering the tough questions enhances the strength
>> of one's arguments. Gil takes the opposite approach. He deletes the tough questions or just
>> declares victory and bails out of the discussion.
0 new messages