TESTIMONY OF HOW MARINE CORPS SHOOTING SCORES WERE FAKED
Gil Jesus
Mr. LIEBELER. You did not tell the FBI that in your opinion Oswald
had
penciled in his qualifying score, did you? Or did you tell them that?
Mr. DELGADO. He may have done, you know; but if you got away with it
you were more than lucky.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you talk to the FBI about that possibility?
Mr. DELGADO. Yes, I told him he ,nay have, to qualify, because there
was a lot of "Maggie's drawers" on his side. Now, he may have had
some
way of knowing who was pulling, that is another thing. Yon don't know
who is out there in the pits, pulling it, see; and it could be a
buddy
of yours or somebody you know, and they will help you out. you know,
get together, like before we all go and separate, you know, and I
will
say to my buddy, "Well, look, I want to try and get on line 22, you
get on target 22 and I will try to be the first one on line"; so help
each other like that. And when they 7.o to the pits, they have their
choice of getting on the lines, you know, so I will try to work it
out
with the fellow out there. But sometimes it doesn't work out that
way.
You just have to take your chances.
Mr. LIEBELER. You told us that in this particular rifle practice, or
firing, that the scores were kept by NCOs.
Mr. DELGADO. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Was it a common practice for the privates to make deals
like this with the noncommissioned officers in connection with a
thing
like this?
Mr. DELGADO. They are making a deal with the other guys pulling the
targets. See, the guy back there is also keeping a score.
Now, your NCO, particularly your NCO, may want to push you or make
you
qualify, because he doesn't want to spend another day out there on
the
rifle range, see; so it's not all that strict. Like if I was line
NCO
and I had five men in my section, and four of them qualified, that
means that some other day, maybe on my day off, I will have to come
in
with this other fellow, so I will help him along and push each other
along. You don't try to mess nobody up, but you can't take a man that
is
shooting poorly and give him a 190 score, see; you could just give
him
the bare minimum, 170 or 171, to make it look good.
Mr. LIEBELER. Just to qualify him?
MR. DELGADO. Just to qualify him.
MR. LIEBELER. So it is a possibility that that might have happened
even in this?
MR. DELGADO. Right.
( 8 H 238-239 )
justm...@gmail.com
This entire testimony is full of "might", "could", "may". This isn't
proof of anything. Because Delgado states that this type of thing
occurs does not mean it was done to Oswalds score. Nice try
though...but no cigar.
Gil Jesus
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Joey:
If ANY cheating was done in the scoring process, it renders Oswald's
score as useless for evidentiary value.
The only way Oswald's score could be used as evidence is if the
scoring was done honestly.
You obviously have no clue as to what does and does not constitute
evidence.
Perhaps you should change your major to criminal justice.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nor do you have proof that it occured just because Delgado said that
it has happened. One persons testimony against the entire Marine
Corp...and no proof other then hearsay.
No thanks on the criminal justice thing Gilda, then I'd be a halfwit
moron like you who was a failure at it but thinks he knows everything
there is to know about the law.
Keep addressing me as Joey....I love watching you make an ass of
yourself
Gil Jesus
wrote:
>
> Nor do you have proof that it occured just because Delgado said that
> it has happened. One persons testimony against the entire Marine
> Corp...and no proof other then hearsay.
Joey:
How can you be qualified to discuss evidence when you don't even know
the definition of what hearsay evidence is ?
Hearsay evidence is evidence from one who claims to have heard it from
another source, hence hear/say.
Delgado didn't HEAR about the cheating, he was THERE and knew about it
first hand.
In his and Oswald's OWN group.
His testimony about Oswald's lack of shooting skills, combined with
his FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE of inflated scoring, casts doubts on the
accuracy of Oswald's test scores.
Now go sit down and play nice.
justm...@gmail.com
Go sit down and play with yourself Jesus.....and thanks again for
calling me Joey...you love making an ass of yourself don't you?
Gil Jesus
wrote:
>
> Go sit down and play with yourself Jesus.....and thanks again for
> calling me Joey...you love making an ass of yourself don't you?-
I love making an ass out of you more. It's obvious that you've reached
the end of discussing the evidence civilly.
Have a nice day, Joey.
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b1039ba5-83d4-4dae...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
justm...@gmail.com
Keep trying moron, you've yet to do it except with your other idiotic
kooks that drop to their knees for you and I don't mean to praise you
either.
Gil Jesus
Looks like I'm going to have to make as ass out of you one more time
before you learn.
THE MENTAL CASE KNOWN AS JUSTME1952
yoharvey/justme1952 accused an "imposter" of posting a post of hers to
other newsgroups, when in fact HE/SHE was the one who cross-posted
it:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a1714b6d2ffd26fd
then when she found out that his/her post was on other newsgroups, he/
she flipped out, blaming the "imposter" for creating "bogus"
newsgroups :
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/55eea239ebd9c15d
These unbelievable posts from a self described "Information
Technology" EXPERT with over 12 years experience. Since, then, he/
she's seen Gil Jesuses everywhere. Every new poster using AOL has been
accused of being me. In addition, she was so convinced that I was the
imposter, she complained to AIOE, the news server that I was using at
the time, then announced that she had received an e-mail from them
advising that I had been banned from the newsserver.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b6ffb12116db4645
When she announced I had been banned, I went to my newsreader to
connect to AIOE and it asked me for a screenname and password, so
naturally, I thought they had changed to a pay server. During that
general timeframe, I must have used another server in search of other
newsgroups (not all servers carry ALL newsgroups) because I found out
months later that my newsreader was configured for a screenname and
password. Once she announced that the server was still free, I went to
my newsreader and found the glitch. Then I posted from the AIOE server
to prove that her claim that I was banned wasn't true, she flipped out
and sent another letter of complaint to the newsserver.
Once again she announced that I had been re-banned.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ba22348fc749b3a9
I once again posted from the newsserver 5 hours after her announcement
in order to prove that I had, in fact, NOT been re-banned.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b6ffb12116db4645
Not only has this nutcase LIED about getting me bounced off of a
server, she's also accused me of being Robcap and provided "evidence"
to support her contention, something that I have already proven to be
false.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a13cb7015cb7f9ab
THE LIES OF JUSTME 1952
LIE #1
We know that he's not a 55 year old woman.
How do we know ?
55-year old women are the "grandma" types.
They don't troll newsgroups.
They don't insult people.
They don't talk like longshoremen.
They don't search the internet for people's personal information and
then post it in newsgroups.
In short....they don't act like adolescents.
LIE #2
We know he's not an Information Technology Tech with 12 years'
experience.
How do we know ?
No one with 12 years experience in IT would have panicked like he did
when he cross-posted to several newsgroups and blamed it on an
"imposter" he said had created "bogus newsgroups". If he had 12
years experience in IT, he would have known the procedure for
starting a new newsgroup and never would have made that statement.
When he panicked, did he call a colleague for advice ? Did he
search the internet where EXPERTS could have answered his questions ?
Nope. He sought out John Mc Adams, hardly one who might be considered
expert enough to advise one with 12 years experience in IT such as
Joey Justme.
And then McAdams checked and said that the posting had come from HIS
server (Roadrunner) , no one else's.
I still chuckle when I read that response of his.
That episode pretty much showed how little he knew about computers
and the internet.
LIE #3
We know that he didn't get ME bounced from AIOE, and I doubt that he
got ANYBODY bounced from AIOE.
How do we know ?
Newsservers don't e-mail complainants with the results of
disciplinary
actions against users. They may e-mail complainants to verify their
complaint or if additional information is needed regarding the
complaint. But they are prohibited BY LAW from notifying complainants
about disciplinary action against other users.
It's called internet PRIVACY.
All they can say is that they are investigating.
Meaning that his little e-mail from AIOE was a fake. Just like him.
In addition, I'm still able to post from AIOE, an IMPOSSIBILITY if I
were on their "banned" list. To suggest that I or anyone else could
fool their servers, again, shows how little he knows about the
internet or the usenet.
LIE #4
We know that he's a 20-year old atheist named "Joe" from Liverpool,
New York.
How do we know ?
When he said that he couldn't post a comment on one of my videos, I
went back to my e-mail list. You see, Youtube always e-mails me when
someone wants to comment on my videos. The only one I rejected was
from a youtube user "Boyoben" AND IT WASN'T REJECTED FOR CONTENT, IT
WAS REJECTED FOR VULGARITY.
I went back and checked on "Boyoben's " Youtube profile and come to
find out, he was a 20-year-old atheist named "Joe". Verry strong
atheist, even to the extent of advocating atheism for children. The
amazing thing about this youtube channel was that the following day
after I revealed Justme's Youtube "identity", as Boyoben, the Youtube
account was closed.
I understand that like AIOE, this "Boyoben" sent him an e-mail that
seemed to clear the whole matter up as to why he closed the Youtube
account. However, his e-mail, is probably as fake as the one Justme
said
had been sent to him from AIOE.
Seems like everybody e-mails JUSTME.
In addition, this lying mental case from Liverpool, NY has his own
opinions
about other topics as well.
JUSTME IMPLIES THAT AMERICAN VETERANS ARE DRUG ABUSERS
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/547f9d650b435b33
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/71cc811985a632b8
BIGOT JUSTME's USE OF THE WORD "FAGGOT"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f6f01f17e7576000
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4603e6fc16667f80
BIGOT JUSTME'S USE OF THE TERM "SISSY"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d6f13999639fc587
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f94449ca6cb9b275
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ee148ec2ece0a2d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4603e6fc16667f80
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b5496d84d37e49a9
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e446a3f76ab693ce
GARBAGE-MOUTHED JUSTME
Chico? KISS MY ASS!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/95aa53d256afdb6b
----------------------------------------------------
Healy? Even your ebonics don't make any sense....just shows how
fucking stupid you really are. You know nothing about the internet
asshole, I've worked in IT for 12 years...now go sit in a corner
somewhere and stfu!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b946643ba77b9449
-------------------------------------------------------
I have all the proof i need, shit for brains and its been sent to the
proper authorities. As I said before go find a corner to sit in and
stfu...this doesn't concern you.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0446347a2e4d4f1c
--------------------------------------------------------
The cloned posts and emails are coming from that server...got it
fucktard??????
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7711bee62d00a4cb
---------------------------------------------------------
I receive my email back I'll make sure and post it for the entire
newsgroup to see who the asshole is that started something as a game
and now is in deep shit.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7711bee62d00a4cb
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chico can stuff the other foot in his mouth now for accusing YoHarvey
and I of being the same person. Shit for brains that he is.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3b809c36b0bcdacf
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two words for you Rossely...FUCK OFF!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/99e4a71907a439ee
---------------------------------------------------------------
I could have cared less that someone was posting with my name or any
other LN's on this newsgroup UNTIL they used the word "Cunt" in their
last post. That was where I drew the line. I can tolerate any other
cuss word there is, name calling and insults, but that one was the end
of the road...and it wouldn't have mattered who was being called it.
That post was downright disgusting and the person that posted it will
pay.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5efe57ff9a4455ab
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I could have cared less that someone was posting with my name or any
other LN's on this newsgroup UNTIL they used the word "Cunt" in their
last post. You can see what a fucking moron Rossely is as hes
mentioned the word at least 12 times in his repeated posts that say
nothing
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5efe57ff9a4455ab
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Holmes uses Healys ass to park his tricycle now...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6f7339640cb6b21e
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bigdog thinks you're a fucking asshole, so do the rest of the LN's on
this group.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/94a5c013c9cde673
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*sniff, sniff*...got that nose right up Bens ass again huh Healy??
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/81d9781ab384e808
SOUND LIKE A 55 YEAR OLD WOMAN TO YOU ?
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Gil,
Say, isn't the problem with your logic here, though, that Oswald shot
a 212 and qualified as a sharpshooter in December 1956. That's miles
before he ever knew Delgado, who is talking about a later occasion, in
May 1959, when Oswald only achieved a marksman qualification.
Delgado's recollections have nothing to do with Oswald shooting a 212.
He wasn't even there!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Bud
How could this apply to Oswald, who never had a recorded shooting
score that low?
Bud
> TOP POST
>
> Hi Gil,
>
> Say, isn't the problem with your logic here, though, that Oswald shot
> a 212 and qualified as a sharpshooter in December 1956. That's miles
> before he ever knew Delgado, who is talking about a later occasion, in
> May 1959, when Oswald only achieved a marksman qualification.
>
> Delgado's recollections have nothing to do with Oswald shooting a 212.
> He wasn't even there!
Hi Tim,
A little interjection here. Something that always struck me in
Delgado`s testimony is where he recounts how half the company he and
Oswald were in (about 40 men) put up money, and the top five shooters
got money. Delgado said he was one of those who won money, that he
came in "about third", with a paltry "about 192". You have 40 of the
best shooters in the company (I imagine only those who shot well
enough to think they had a chance to win entered the contest), and
around 192 got Delgado "about third" place, out of 40 shooters in the
contest. This always struck me as strange that such a poor score would
earn Delgado "about third" place, against the best shooters in the
company. I think Oswald shot something like 190 when he could care
less.
Gil Jesus
>
> � �How could this apply to Oswald, who never had a recorded shooting
> score that low?
===============================================
ROFLMAO.....I'm glad you used the word "recorded".
Bud, does anything NOT get by you ?
we've established that Oswald was a poor shot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKZbSUm2eFY
we've established that poor shots were having their scores inflated
before they were "recorded".
8 H 238-239
therefore........
Gil Jesus
> >> � �How could this apply to Oswald, who never had a recorded shooting
> score that low?
How do you know how low he shot ? Were you there ? Or are you going by
the "recorded" score ?
Maybe you should watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKZbSUm2eFY
Gil Jesus
>
> Hi Gil,
>
> Say, isn't the problem with your logic here, though, that Oswald shot
> a 212 and qualified as a sharpshooter in December 1956. That's miles
> before he ever knew Delgado, who is talking about a later occasion, in
> May 1959, when Oswald only achieved a marksman qualification.
>
> Delgado's recollections have nothing to do with Oswald shooting a 212.
> He wasn't even there!
Not really, Tim.
If you read the testimony, Delgado says that another way to achieve a
false score is by "pencilling in" one's score on the scorecard. He
also said that he spoke to the FBI about the possibility that Oswald
had done this. Delgado needn't have been around the first time Oswald
recorded a score. Oswald could very well have "cheated" with the help
of a fellow Marine.
I'd be interested to know if the other Marine who was "pulling" for
him in the "pits" was Martin Schrand.
Bud
> On Sep 4, 4:48 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > How could this apply to Oswald, who never had a recorded shooting
> > score that low?
>
> ===============================================
>
> ROFLMAO.....I'm glad you used the word "recorded".
>
> Bud, does anything NOT get by you ?
>
> we've established that Oswald was a poor shot
Experts rated his ability as "Sharpshooter".
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKZbSUm2eFY
>
> we've established that poor shots were having their scores inflated
> before they were "recorded".
We`ve established that you have poor reading comprehension. Delgado
said that NCOs would give the MINIMUM to poor shots, to get them off
the line (and the NCO out of the hot sun). You can`t show where Oz
ever got the MINIMUM, so what Delgado is relating cannot apply to
Oswald. Jeez, you guys are stupid.
> 8 H 238-239
>
> therefore........
Bud
> On Sep 4, 4:48 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> How could this apply to Oswald, who never had a recorded shooting
> > score that low?
>
> How do you know how low he shot ?
Let me explain it to you like you are stupid. Delgado related how
NCOs would give a certain score in a certain situation. Since Oswald
never received the score that Delgado says a person would receive if
they didn`t shoot well, and the NCO wanted the person to qualify, than
this situation cannot apply to Oswald.
Let me dumb it down even further. If Oswald shot so badly, he
couldn`t qualify, Delgado says an NCO might pass him by giving him a
just barely passing score. But you can`t show that Oz ever received
this just barely passing score.
> Were you there ? Or are you going by
> the "recorded" score ?
Of course I am. Don`t you think that was what Delgado was referring
when he said an NCO would give a bad shooting Marine a 170 or 171, a
recorded score of those numbers? Did Oswald have have a recorded score
of these numbers?
Bud
> On Sep 4, 4:34 pm, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > TOP POST
>
> > Hi Gil,
>
> > Say, isn't the problem with your logic here, though, that Oswald shot
> > a 212 and qualified as a sharpshooter in December 1956. That's miles
> > before he ever knew Delgado, who is talking about a later occasion, in
> > May 1959, when Oswald only achieved a marksman qualification.
>
> > Delgado's recollections have nothing to do with Oswald shooting a 212.
> > He wasn't even there!
>
> Not really, Tim.
>
> If you read the testimony, Delgado says that another way to achieve a
> false score is by "pencilling in" one's score on the scorecard. He
> also said that he spoke to the FBI about the possibility that Oswald
> had done this. Delgado needn't have been around the first time Oswald
> recorded a score. Oswald could very well have "cheated" with the help
> of a fellow Marine.
If you read his testimony, you`d know that your witness, Delgado
testified that you COULD NOT cheat when you fired for record...
"It doesn`t work that way when you go to fire for record, like we
did, because they have an NCO line, and they got a pit NCO. Now they
have a man at the target down there, and they also have a man back
here keeping score, and when both those score cards are turned in to
the line officer, they had better both correspond, and you have no way
of communicating with the man down the pit."
Gil`s witness, Delgado gave testimony that supports that Oswald`s
RECORDED shooting scores are legitimate, as no hanky panky is possible
when shooting for record.
Bud
Notice, Gil, that Delgado says that an NCO *WOULD NOT* give a poor
shooting Marine a recorded score *AS HIGH* as 190. Oswalds *LOWEST*
recorded shooting score was 191.
Boy, are you kooks stupid.
Gil Jesus
Yeah, you'd give the guy a 170 (minimum) if he couldn't qualify the
first time.
Could they give him a 170 after he'd "shot" a 212 ?
Boy, you nuts are stupid.
Gil Jesus
Split the difference between the minimum 170 and the first score of
212 and what do you get ?
Boy are you nuts stupid.
Bud
<snicker> You do realize that your witness, Delgado, said there could
be no hanky panky when you shot for record. Oz`s 212 and 191 scores
were when Oz shot for record. Your witness indicated that recorded
scores are accurate, because of the system of checking they had in
place when shooting for record.
Bud
> Hey Bud, here's something to think about:
>
> Split the difference between the minimum 170 and the first score of
> 212 and what do you get ?
Another day explaining testimony to kooks. Your witness, Delgado,
supports the idea that Oswald`s scores when shooting for record are
accurate, because the system they have in place when shooting for
record prevents cheating.
> Boy are you nuts stupid.
Not stupid enough to bring up a witness who doesn`t support my
premise. This witness does harm to the idea the Oz`s recorded scores
could be the result of cheating.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Bud,
That's an interesting point. I will have to go back and read the
testimony again. Oswald could still shoot a 191 and qualify as a
Marksman, even though the little Marxist malcontent was losing
interest in his career in the USMC, by the looks of things.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Gil,
Your argument is the usual mish mash of wild speculations,
spectacularly undermined by the testimony of your own witness, Nelson
Delgado, as pointed out below by Bud.
There is no evidence that Oswald's December 1956 score of 212,
qualifying him as SHARPSHOOTER, was fabricated in any way.
That means he was a fairly good shot, according to USMC standards.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Bud,
Excellent point you make there! Well done! Gil's argument is
undermined by his OWN witness, Nelson Delgado.
Bottom line is, Oswald shot a 212 on 21 December, 1956 and that
qualified him as a Sharpshooter in a score of record.
According to Lieutenant Colonel A. G. Folsom Jr, keeper of USMC
records in these matters in 1964, this means Oswald was a fairly good
shot as far as the US Marines were concerned.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Bud
> Hey Bud, here's something to think about:
>
> Split the difference between the minimum 170 and the first score of
> 212 and what do you get ?
Do you have a witness that says NCOs would give the midpoint
between the minumum and highest shooting score to poor shooters?
> Boy are you nuts stupid.
I know information a kook pulled out of his ass when I see it.
aeffects
YANK those Lone Nut chains! LMFAO
Baldoni
> Here's testimony of how Marine Corps shooting scores were faked:
>
feat. I don't think a guy like Oswald with his poor eyesight could
have hit the President if he was stationary.
Welles on the other hand was used to shooting moving objects and in
1956 he shot a couple of Mexicans on the wrong side of Jaurez roughly
30 klicks from the city.
--
Count Baldoni
Gil Jesus
> � �I know information a kook pulled out of his ass when I see it.
Being all ass from ear to ear should make you an expert.
Bud
Are you saying you have a witnesses who testified to your "An
officer bestowed the 191 score on Oswald because it was half the
difference between the minimum shooting score and the highest recorded
shooting score they had for Oswald" theory? Or was it totally the
product of your imagination?