Fuck You Gil

[Scrum Drum]

How dare you dishonestly say you are not going to get involved with my fight with James Gordon...That's a completely cowardly and dishonest way to put it that makes it sound like there is some fault on my side...

This whole issue can be summarized by saying where is the person who asks Jim DiEugenio in public what his opinion is on the Prayer Man subject?...Or, more precisely, what his opinion is on my evidence...No one is doing that because they are protecting their cowardly dishonesty and hypocrisy that was achieved by banning me and removing the one guy who settled the issue...

It is that asshole James Gordon's job as moderator to resolve this and force the issue in the direction of resolution but, typical of the British, he stays safely away from committing to any responsibility himself and works directly in the shadow of cowardly banning to avoid doing so and therefore moderates backwards...

It is not a credible position for any researcher to weasel out of this by saying "I am not interested in the Prayer Man subject"...That's a cop out that is used by those who refuse to hold Gordon accountable for his bullshit moderation and persecution of a researcher who was basically doing the job he refused to do...

Jim DiEugenio is a dirty, dishonest son of a bitch who has fatally corrupted the research community by inducing people to back him politically for the purpose of avoiding admitting his research failures and false claims...Jim knows, and admitted to me, that I had proven Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton but he ducked out of honest admission by making a cowardly move and getting his personal servant James Gordon to ban me and forbid my material...

The JFK research community has shown cowardice and a betrayal of its own research ethics by tolerating and even enforcing this move...Truth is that community does not stand up for one of its own when they are unfairly removed from their rightful place all for the purpose of upholding the personal ambitions of certain self-entitled individuals...Those researchers are afraid to call out Gordon and DiEugenio and make them honestly answer this...The truth of this and final answer comes from one simple question to those two scofflaws that the community is afraid to ask and isn't honestly interested in the answer to...

Where does the JFK research community earn its salt by asking Jim D "Did you tell Brian Doyle that you thought Prayer Man was too stocky to be Oswald when you first saw Prayer Man in Darnell?...Is it really fair then to ban a person for showing the correct evidence?"...Those are the questions James Gordon is responsible for asking Jim D but he's too busy kissing Jim's butt to bother doing his moderator duty along with the rest of the ball-less community...Jim is great at pointing out these kind of dishonesties in others but he comes up a little short of keeping himself honest on the same count...

The ROKC knuckleheads are over on their troll farm asking why Oliver Stone didn't include Prayer Man in his documentary and why Jim D didn't answer their e-mails on it?...The answer is pretty fucking obvious...It is because both Stone and DiEugenio know it is bullshit...Jim D already admitted to me on Facebook that Prayer Man was too stocky to be Oswald when I discovered Stanton's family photo showing her obesity...These scumbags are guarding their dishonesty by getting an ignorant, incompetent, and dishonest moderator (James Gordon) to personally persecute and destroy me...And he's doing it in order to work directly against his publicly stated purpose of credible debate oversight while the people he dishonestly assisted stay quiet and keep their dirty win...When I asked Jim to be forthcoming and admit it in public he put me on block...Apparently he forgot the ethics he posts daily when criticizing others...

"Your fight with James Gordon"...

[Gil Jesus]

No you can't and don't ask again.

[Scrum Drum]

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:58:57 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:



> No you can't and don't ask again.

A dirty moderator can destroy an entire research community....But epic-ly so when combined with a dirty membership...

[David Healy]

when ya gotta put Fuch You in the header, you've already lost asshole. And, you had promise at one rime,,,,

[Chuck Schuyler]

TRUNALIMUNUMAPRZURE!

((!!**HICCUP**!!))

[Scrum Drum]

No my troll boy Healy...


When you have to avoid what you know to be true you prove your opinion isn't worth anything and you are a member of the clique...


If the community collectively ignores the most important discovery in 40 years for booby purposes of domination it isn't credible...


It will have chosen Bart Kamp, Jim D, and its cheap excuses over truth and good research and betrayed its own cause...


The bar here is a simple, perfectly reasonable question to Jim D on the Education Forum asking him if BD has already solved Prayer Man and why he isn't admitting he thought Prayer Man was too stocky to be Oswald when he saw Stanton's obese photo...Why is Gordon allowed to protect Jim D with dirty moderation and why do the Education Forum members stay quiet and therefore line up behind dishonesty and bad research (and trolling as in Healy's case)?...


When you have to publicly dodge this it is YOU who has already lost...You look like petty punks and not real men researchers like myself who stand up for truth and suffer the consequences from organized dishonest people and hypocrites...

[Scrum Drum]

On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 12:48:54 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 8:46:42 PM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:18:22 PM UTC-8, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:58:57 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:

Gil -


I appreciate your standing up for me and mentioning me over there on the Education Forum...


Especially since I am by far the best researcher on the Prayer Man subject whose evidence is now verifying in spades...


I mean how dare you go over there and quote the FBI as the final word on Prayer Man when the FBI were exposed for being some of the biggest evidence alter-ers and liars of all those who investigated...The fucking nerve of you man...


Pauline Sanders did not see Oswald because he was out hiding on the 2nd Floor staircase landing where Sarah Stanton would see him and confront him...It is nice to know that the most important discovery in 45 years, and it significance towards Prayer Man, is being ignored so people can enter regressive stupidity...Thanks a lot buddy...


Oswald was not in the Domino Room because Jack Dougherty told Gil Toff that he was there eating lunch himself and Oswald wasn't there...Dougherty said Oswald was up eating in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...How dare you ignore that...


Also, James Hosty told Nigel Turner with emphasis that Oswald told them he was alone in the Lunch Room during the assassination...That had to be the 2nd Floor Lunch Room because Oswald could not be alone in the Domino Room if Dougherty was down there...You get away with the pure bloody murder of ignoring that Carolyn Arnold also saw Oswald ALONE in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...


Captain Fritz told Warren Commissioner Ball that Oswald told him he was eating his lunch in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the shots...Fritz further elaborated "Yes, sir; second floor; yes, sir. He said he usually worked on the first floor"...There is no doubt the context that Fritz is conveying to Ball is that Oswald confirmed it was the 2nd Floor by saying he usually worked on the 1st Floor but was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room at the time of the shots...

[robert johnson]

Best researcher in lone nutter terms or dumb ass Cter?
Do tell!

Where are those tits!

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 1:32:54 PM UTC-4, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 12:48:54 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 8:46:42 PM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:18:22 PM UTC-8, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:58:57 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> Gil -
>
>
> I appreciate your standing up for me and mentioning me over there on the Education Forum...

I'm not sure I'm standing up for you. I'm not saying that the figure known as "Prayerman" is Sarah Stanton, I can't tell who it is.
I can't even tell if its male or female. But the evidence tells me that it's not Oswald.

I've got the statements from 31 TSBD witnesses who were on the steps, in front of the building and across the street from the building, not one said they saw Oswald watching the motorcadefrom the steps.
Not one single witness out of 31.
One might argue that their statements have been altered, but not one of the 31 has ever come forward in almost 60 years to refute what the public record indicates they said.
And to even consider that all 31 of these witnesses conspired to hide the fact that Oswald was on the steps at the time of the shooting is ludicrous.

Of course, people are going to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of what the evidence says.
Like Bill Greer shooting Kennedy left-handed over his right shoulder. Or George Hickey accidently killing Kennedy with his AR-15.
Or that the three tramps were Howard Hunt, Charles Harrelson and Daniel Carswell.
Or that a gaping hole the size of a fist at the rear of JFK's skull was a wound of entrance.
They'll take heresay evidence of two FBI agents who said Oswald SAID he was outside the building watching the "P. Parade" over 31 witnesses,
all of whom knew him certainly by March 1964 ( when they were interviewed ) , who said they never saw him.

In the end, you may be right that it was Stanton. I haven't seen enough evidence for me to say that it positively was.
But I've seen enough evidence to see that it wasn't Oswald.
I'll take the statements of the 31 who had no reason to lie over the guy ( Hosty ) who destroyed evidence ( the Oswald note ) any day of the week.
And if that ruffles some feathers, I'm sorry but that's my opinion.

[Greg Parker]

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:43:34 AM UTC+10, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 1:32:54 PM UTC-4, Tropp...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 12:48:54 PM UTC-5, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 8:46:42 PM UTC-5, David Healy wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 12:18:22 PM UTC-8, Scrum Drum wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:58:57 PM UTC-5, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Gil -
> >
> >
> > I appreciate your standing up for me and mentioning me over there on the Education Forum...
> I'm not sure I'm standing up for you. I'm not saying that the figure known as "Prayerman" is Sarah Stanton, I can't tell who it is.
> I can't even tell if its male or female. But the evidence tells me that it's not Oswald.

I can tell it is NOT female and the evidence indicates to me that the most likely candidate IS Oswald.

> I've got the statements from 31 TSBD witnesses who were on the steps, in front of the building and across the street from the building, not one said they saw Oswald watching the motorcadefrom the steps.
> Not one single witness out of 31.

In CE 1381, the FBI asked a set of 6 questions of each of 73 persons. One of those questions was whether they had seen Oswald "at the time of the shots". They all answered truthfully that they had not seen him "at that time".
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=662

Firstly, he appears to have gone out seconds prior to Darnell panning the steps - which would make it after the shots, albeit not by much. Secondly, who would be looking at the back of the steps nat that time anyway?

> One might argue that their statements have been altered, but not one of the 31 has ever come forward in almost 60 years to refute what the public record indicates they said. |

Nope. One might argue that the statements are true and accurate. One might also argue that there he is , on the steps mere seconds after the shots before realizing he couldn't see anything and going back in and seen moments later by a re-entering Ochus Campbell.

> And to even consider that all 31 of these witnesses conspired to hide the fact that Oswald was on the steps at the time of the shooting is ludicrous.

Nope. That is an assertion that no one has ever made, You atre making it up for the purpose of knocking down a straw man. I had thought better of you than that.

> Of course, people are going to believe whatever they want to believe,

Which you are amply demonstrating. The only "belief" on our side of this debate is that Oswald is the best candidate and that the original film will settle the issue. All else is similar straw to the one you introduced above, by people who don't know, don't care, but you have a gripe against me or my forum, or else are shit scared that getting the original film and showing it really was Oswald, will spoil there parlor games or profits from books. Fuck 'em all. The facts WILL come out. If I and others are shown wrong by the original film, so be it. We are prepared to fail. It is a necessary risk to correcting history - and anyway, fail or not, it isn't about us.

<snip>

> And if that ruffles some feathers, I'm sorry but that's my opinion.

What ruffles my feathers is people making up shit in order win an online debate.

Brian is prisoner to his own venom. He doesn't have to be. He can drop this bullshit anytime without me bearing any grudges, and help us out instead of trying to take us down - which he will never do, anyway.

[Gil Jesus]

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:23:27 AM UTC-4, clarence...@gmail.com wrote:
> What ruffles my feathers is people making up shit in order win an online debate.

I don't care about "winning" an on line debate. I'm not here to feed my ego, I'm here to get at the truth.
I may not be right all the time, but to suggest that I intentionally try to deceive people is bullshit.
And I don't make shit up. I post evidence.
Out of the 31 witnesses, there were 12 witnesses on the steps who did not see Oswald outside the building.

Avery Davis ( 22 H 642 )
Wesley Frazier ( 22 H 647 )
Carl Jones ( 22 H 657 )
Roy Lewis ( 22 H 661 )
Billy Lovelady ( 22 H 662 )
Judith McCully ( 22 H 663 )
Joe Molina ( 22 H 664 )
Madie Reese ( 22 H 669 )
Pauline Sanders ( 22 H 672 )
William Shelley ( 22 H 673 )
Sarah Stanton ( 22 H 679 )
Otis Williams ( 22 H 683 )

The whole "Prayerman" theory is based on the notes of FBI agent James Hosty, who claimed that Oswald said he was outside watching the "P.Parade".
The same James Hosty that destroyed evidence in the case.
The same James Hosty that was reprimanded by the Bureau after the assassination.
This is your "he said, he said" witness.
Yeah, he's credible.

You people make me laugh. On the one hand you cry out to ReOpen the Kennedy Case, the case which I agree the FBI f**ked up badly,
and on the other hand you cling to what that same f**ked up FBI said about Oswald being outside.
Did it ever occur to you that Oswald said no such thing ?
Fritz took notes. Do Fritz's notes substantiate Hosty's ?

I've posted my OPINION that the evidence indicates to me that it wasn't Oswald.
That you decided to respond to me for posting an opinion indicates that no matter what screenname you use, you still need to work on your people skills.
You just can't stand it when someone expresses an opposing viewpoint.
That's why I quit your forum months ago. The tone there is one of anger and intolerance.

You believe whatever you want to believe and I'll believe whatever I want to believe.
And if you don't like it, that's YOUR problem.

[Greg Parker]

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 8:20:26 PM UTC+10, gjjma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 12:23:27 AM UTC-4, clarence...@gmail.com wrote:
> > What ruffles my feathers is people making up shit in order win an online debate.
> I don't care about "winning" an on line debate. I'm not here to feed my ego, I'm here to get at the truth.

Great! Then stop making shit up.

> I may not be right all the time, but to suggest that I intentionally try to deceive people is bullshit.
> And I don't make shit up. I post evidence.

Great! Post your evidence that anyone ever said your 31 witnesses conspired to hide the truth.

> Out of the 31 witnesses, there were 12 witnesses on the steps who did not see Oswald outside the building.
>
> Avery Davis ( 22 H 642 )
> Wesley Frazier ( 22 H 647 )
> Carl Jones ( 22 H 657 )
> Roy Lewis ( 22 H 661 )
> Billy Lovelady ( 22 H 662 )
> Judith McCully ( 22 H 663 )
> Joe Molina ( 22 H 664 )
> Madie Reese ( 22 H 669 )
> Pauline Sanders ( 22 H 672 )
> William Shelley ( 22 H 673 )
> Sarah Stanton ( 22 H 679 )
> Otis Williams ( 22 H 683 )

These are all from CE 1381 which I have already explained to you contains answers to 6 specific questions - one being "Did you see Oswald during the shooting". None of them did. Oswald was not out there DURING the shooting. He missed it by seconds.

But I will add that Bily Lovelady was about to name the prerson standing behind him but was cut off before he could. I am not suggesting he was about to name Oswald - he wasn't that stupid. But I AM suggesting that Ball cut him off because he knew Oswald had said he was out there "along with Shelley".

Mr. BALL - Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me---
Mr. BALL - What was that last name?
Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton.

> The whole "Prayerman" theory is based on the notes of FBI agent James Hosty, who claimed that Oswald said he was outside watching the "P.Parade".

Backasswards.

The PM theory evolved from the Darnell frame - and that was found due to a search for evidence of Oswald being on the first floor and/or outside. The Hosty note was additional support.

> The same James Hosty that destroyed evidence in the case.

Yep. That may have been destructive of the lone nut theory.. He withheld the information about Oswald saying he went out to watch the parade for the same reason. So I agree. He was a piece of shit.

> The same James Hosty that was reprimanded by the Bureau after the assassination.

One of Hoover's scapegoats. Or do you hoinestly believe Hoober thought he should have NOT destroyed notes that may have gone against the LN theory?

> This is your "he said, he said" witness.
> Yeah, he's credible.

There ya go again. Creating another strawman. Mr Integrity you aint.

No, he was NOT credible. A CREDIBLE agent wanting to get the truth out would have put the information about Oswald watching the parade in his fucking report.

> You people make me laugh. On the one hand you cry out to ReOpen the Kennedy Case, the case which I agree the FBI f**ked up badly,

Why do so many Americans swear with letters missing. What the fuck is the difference? We all know what you mean . What is the point of a half-hearted attempt to disguise it., Are we all fucking year olds? Do the ** make it somehow more acceptable in polite society - which this certainly isn't?

So no. YOU make me laugh.

> and on the other hand you cling to what that same f**ked up FBI said about Oswald being outside.
> Did it ever occur to you that Oswald said no such thing ?

No. Why should it? There is a shitload of evidence supporting it.

> Fritz took notes. Do Fritz's notes substantiate Hosty's ?

Yes. Except Fritz made an addition that made it nonsensical.

Fritz note

Claims (getting a) 2nd floor coke when off[icer] came in, THEN
(Went) to 1st floor (and) had lunch, THEN
(Went) out (and stood) with Bill Shelley in front

Hosty note

He went to 2nd floor to get coca cola to eat [sic] with lunch
returned to 1st floor to eat lunch,
then went outside to watch P[resident's] parade."

It should be immediately obvious that both contain the exact same elements, in the same order. Oswald goes to the 2nd floor to get a coke, then goes to the first floor to have lunch and then goes outside to watch. The one difference - Fritz has Officer Baker encountering Oswald when Oswald is on the 2nd floor to get his coke. This is a crucial difference and makes them chalk and cheese because one is exculpatory, the other supports the prosecution - despite the claims of some, This is because the timing issue they cite as exculpatory in getting from the 6th to the 2nd floor was made a non-isuue after the authorities accomplishing the feat in reconstructions.

The insertion of Baker by Fritz means

Either

Baker raced into the building BEFORE the assassination, OR

Oswald decided to grab a coke and have lunch AFTER the assassination and then go out to watch a parade that was now over, while standing near a person who by that person's account, was no longer there, OR

Fritz was "verballing"* Oswald with the intent of both obscuring Oswald's real alibi, and having him agree with a scenario that would have, according to reconstructions, allowed him to get down from the 6th to the 2nd floor within the timeframe set by the authorities.

In short, yes Oswald said it according to both Fritz and Hosty. But they dealt with the covering up the issue differently. Fritz simply changed it slightly to fit HIS scenario and Hosty just left it out of his report altogether.

> I've posted my OPINION that the evidence indicates to me that it wasn't Oswald.

I thought you started out saying you posted evidence?

> That you decided to respond to me for posting an opinion indicates that no matter what screenname you use, you still need to work on your people skills.

LOL

> You just can't stand it when someone expresses an opposing viewpoint.

Nope. I can't stand it when people lie and then double -down by claiming they never lied - even after the lie has been proven.

We'd get along fine if you'd simply deal with me in a more honest fashion.

> That's why I quit your forum months ago. The tone there is one of anger and intolerance.

Well, thanks for sharing.

> You believe whatever you want to believe and I'll believe whatever I want to believe.
> And if you don't like it, that's YOUR problem.

If you lie to me, that is going to become YOUR problem.

[Scrum Drum]

The communal denial over this is bizarre...


People are pretending that they haven't seen Davidson's enhancement of Wiegman and that it doesn't how a clearly-seen woman's face...


No proper Peer Review was done of Davidson's enhancement...If it were it would show that Davidson did indeed satisfy the qualifications of "better image" and the enhancement does indeed show the face of Sarah Stanton on Prayer Man...

[David Healy]

sit Puppy...

[David Healy]

sorry to bust your bubble there Sherlock, there will be no peer review of the *enhanced* Weigman film clip or portions thereof. Why? No one can verify and prove what those enhancements are. Before that, what is the lineage of the film clip being enhanced is and where is that jewel located... so kiss it good-bye...

[robert johnson]

Clarence and Healey just knocked the other two flat on their assess.
Fuck you Doyle!

[Scrum Drum]

Healy: Just like 6 years ago, you're just an asshole who defends his friends while not caring how stupid he looks in the process...This is the product of the JFK internet being hijacked by a friend's club and enforced by favoring moderators...


What you are saying is false and Davidson already answered the bluffing ignorance of his detractors when he posted his metadata...When he posted a screen shot of his metadata not one single Prayer Man person could answer it, so what you are saying here is stupidly false...And like usual, just like Gil and Greg, whenever you are totally refuted you disappear and don't honestly own up to it because you know you'll always win thanks to that dirty friend's club you have permanent membership in...

Apparently typing sound evidence on JFK discussion boards is useless because it gets ignored by assholes like yourself who just ignore skilled argument and re-post the same ignorant shit over and over...If Jim DiEugenio had done what I asked him and gotten Stone to obtain the NBC scans of Prayer Man we could exactly reproduce Davidson's woman's face off of the NBC scan...What that would tell you is the woman's face was a real and existing feature on Wiegman's original celluloid and would therefore prove it is Stanton's face...Any researcher who was qualified participate in this subject would already know that and not need it explained to him...You're a lying little piece of shit Healy...You are obviously looking for excuses...

Davidson already went through all these false challenges and responded...He posted his screen shot of his settings and proved that all he did was drop the best frame of Wiegman, gotten from a Discovery Channel documentary, in to his digital photography software and adjust for brightness and contrast in order to make things more visible...The exact same process that British NASA film enhancer Andy Saunders applied...Don't play dumb and pretend you don't understand this you lying piece of shit Healy...I have posted this to you at least a half dozen times in the past years, yet you ignore it and still come back with the same stupid excuse that doesn't realize I have already refuted it...You have failed to answer the fact that the NBC scan of that same frame will reproduce Davidson's woman's face precisely if the same digital enhancement process is applied to it, therefore proving the face is real and is a part of Wiegman's original film (which was already obvious)...You are lying and you are lying stupidly, because, just the opposite, that image can be verified and proven at a Peer Review level as I just explained - well, that is, of course, if the person trying to do it isn't unjustly banned and ignored by a stupid bastard moderator who uses his own frustration over his own stupidity in his moderator actions and bans the best and brightest...Or that same researcher isn't ignored by the dominating Prayer Man hijackers who don't want to hear the evidence that refutes them...

You are just in stupid denial because any credible film analyst would realize it would be impossible to get such a perfect woman's face by random chance or pareidolia...It would be impossible to have perfect symmetry between the facial features like is seen in Davidson where the eyes, nose, and mouth are all at perfect symmetrical distance from each other...The face itself is also centered on Prayer Man exactly where a face should be - which would be impossible for randomly-occurring pareidolia...And the facial expression is one of Sarah Stanton peering down in to her purse, as she was seen doing in the Darnell close-up motion clip...The Prayer Man assholes are pretending they can't see Sarah's chubby cheeks in Davidson's image...Sorry Mr phony photo expert Healy...If you had the photo analysis skill you claim, instead of making up phony technical excuses to cover your friends, you would realize all these "hits" place Davidson's enhancement beyond the range of possible for chance or pareidolia and prove it is real at the Peer Review level you are obviously too stupid to understand...You liars also ignore the multiple layers of other evidence that reinforce Prayer Man being Stanton like the spoken testimony etc...

[robert johnson]

Well if there is one thing quite clear Doyle it is you who are NOT an expert, you are a promoter of fake evidence, nutcase conspiracy theories at best.
It is you & Cinque who have been on top of the nutty people leader board. The damage you do to serious research resembles the mess the Russians have left behind while running away in the Ukraine.
Forget Davidson, he even disputed you quite a few times so try not to drag him into this even with his observations are also dead wrong.
I wonder what made you such a clueless bitch, but worse is that you do not understand how bad, no terrible you are at this and instead of learning from it you keep that holocaust or climate change style denial going strong. You useless motherfucker!!!

Show Stanton's tits!!!

[robert johnson]

SHOW US THOSE OBESE FEATURES DOYLE AND THOSE FLABBY TITS.
COME ON GIVE THE PUBLIC WHAT THEY DESERVE YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT.
YOU DELUSIONAL CUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[robert johnson]

Still nothing as you ain't got anything!

[Brian Doyle]

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:58:57 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:



Gil sides with Parker's gutter trolls and their disruption of good research and lines up against one of the most skilled conspiracy researchers to ever post on the Kennedy internet...

[robert johnson]

On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 2:56:27 PM UTC+1, Brian Doyle wrote:
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:58:57 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>
>
>
> Gil sides with Parker's gutter trolls and their disruption of good research and lines up against one of the most skilled conspiracy researchers to ever post on the Kennedy internet...

[Gil Jesus]

On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 9:56:27 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:58:57 PM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>
>
>
> Gil sides with Parker's gutter trolls and their disruption of good research

I don't side with anybody, but I know what I see with my own two eyes.
Sarah Stanton has her hair combed back. "Prayerman" has a receding hairline.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Stanton-Sarah-head-comparison2.jpg

No matter how much you want them to be the same person, it's clear to anyone with 20-20 vision they're not.

> and lines up against one of the most skilled conspiracy researchers to ever post on the Kennedy internet...

Researchers have files. You have no files.
Researchers post links. You post no links.
Researchers don't post shit. You post a lot of shit, but don't tell people where you get it.
Researchers don't speculate. You speculate about things that there is no evidence of, like Carolyn Arnold seeing Oswald eating a chesse sandwich and an apple.
You're not a researcher, you're an asshole with an opinion who can't prove anything he says.
You may be a legend in your own mind, but in reality you're an embarrasment to the JFK research community.
NOBODY in the JFK research community has a favorable opinion of you.
Just yourself.
And you're a total waste of time to argue with.

[robert johnson]

There you have it folks in a quick capsule!
Only one missing bit, so do allow me to add to this discussion.

BRIAN DOYLE IS A DIRTY ROTTEN LIAR!!!!!

[robert johnson]

FUCK BRIAN DOYLE WHO IS A DIRTY ROTTEN LIAR!!!!!

[robert johnson]

FUCK BRIAN DOYLE
SHIT POSTER AND SHIT STAIN RESEARCHER

[Brian Doyle]

On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 4:07:09 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:



> I don't side with anybody, but I know what I see with my own two eyes.

Yes you do and you are playing up to the clique...

> Sarah Stanton has her hair combed back. "Prayerman" has a receding hairline.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Stanton-Sarah-head-comparison2.jpg
>
> No matter how much you want them to be the same person, it's clear to anyone with 20-20 vision they're not.

I don't have my usual computer because my house is still ripped in half by Hurricane Ian and I'm posting on a borrowed lap top...

If you had better photo analysis skills you would recognize Sarah Stanton's obese arm and hand on Prayer Man in the Darnell photo you linked...If you could take Oswald and place him at the same distance from Darnell's camera you would automatically see his arm and hand were visibly much thinner than that seen on Prayer Man...Your idiotic analysis does not make this evidence go away nor does it dispense with the need for you to credibly answer for it...The problem with the Prayer Man evidence is it has always been under the control of idiots like Sean Murphy and Bart Kamp and it has never undergone the scrutiny of photogrammetry experts who would confirm Stanton's obese arm being visible on Prayer Man...But, while you try to force your idiot's version, you fail to discuss the fact that Prayer Man only comes up to Sarah Stanton's 5 foot 4 height on Frazier...That evidence doesn't go away simply because you ignore it nor does it dispense with the need for you to discuss it...Oswald was 5 foot 9...Prayer Man being Stanton's 5 foot 4 means Prayer Man isn't Oswald...There's no need to further waste the research community's time on this Greg Parker-originating bullshit theory...

Because of corrupted moderators and idiot hijackers, Davidson's enhancement never went to Peer Review on the Education Forum...The Prayer Man idiots were never forced to explain why they did not recognize Sarah Stanton's clearly-seen face staring back at them from Wiegman...If Davidson's enhancement were brought to credible Peer Review it would be established that Davidson credibly brought out Stanton's face on Prayer Man and ended the issue...I was banned in 2016 when I tried to force Peer Review...That liar Gordon said I had failed the standards of Peer Review on the Education Forum...Gordon later left the moderation for stealing funds...

You're a dishonest asshole Gil because you are playing trolling games here instead of seriously addressing the evidence...If you were a serious researcher you would not ignore that Lovelady made it more than clear that Stanton was next to him to the far right of the entranceway when the limousine passed the front steps...Hughes shows a blur behind Lovelady and that blur is Stanton...So Stanton was in the Prayer Man position 9 seconds before Wiegman showed Stanton's face on Prayer Man...The Prayer Man idiots are saying Stanton was to Frazier's left during the Prayer Man photography however they are ignoring all the witnessing that put her to Frazier's right...When asked to show Stanton to Frazier's left in the clear Altgens 6 shot they can't do it...The reason for that is because Stanton is Prayer Man to Frazier's right and is hidden by the wall...Otherwise Altgens' high resolution shot would have shown Stanton in clear visibility...Peer Review would not allow them to ignore that they have failed to show Stanton to Frazier's left...

There is no credible reason why I should not be able to present this highly skilled analysis on the Education Forum except for the fact that the moderator, James Gordon, is an unintelligent asshole who is abusing his power and doesn't give a damn about the correct evidence...Gordon is a coward and a crook who bans the person with the correct evidence in order to protect his pet theory and friends and then lies about the reason for their banning...If Davidson and my other evidence were ever brought to credible Peer Review like it deserves on the Education Forum the Prayer Man theory would be over...It's just that the low lives over there are not beneath banning an innocent person in order to preserve their bullshit theory...

With-holding evidence is a serious offense in a court room...So much so that cases are reversed because of the wrong-ness of it...What you have with the Prayer Man hijackers is Davidson and the other members hold back their input and skills on the Prayer Man subject...Davidson could apply his digital enhancement process to other Prayer Man images but he doesn't because the dishonest bastard knows what he will find and doesn't want to disprove any fellow clique members...These people are dirty as they come...The research community could recognize Morissette's recent discovery that Sarah Stanton's dress sleeve ended at her elbow exactly like Prayer Man's, as seen in Owens...But it doesn't do that because the clique is dirty and operates like a pack...It ignores that confirming proof in order to allow Odisio to argue already disproven claims...

You've had circles argued around you Gil so you don't get to pick and choose what evidence you discuss and what evidence you don't...Proper Peer Review would force you to recognize all the rest of the evidence you are gas-lighting me by ignoring...The Education Forum forfeited its credibility on the Prayer Man issue with their use of cheap censorship against me in order to ignore the proof...

The problem here isn't a "Shit-Poster"...

It's "Shit-Moderators" and "Shit-Members"...

Why are Gordon, Beckett, and Knight allowed to have the final censoring word on this when they are obviously clueless on the subject? (And just protecting their friends)...

[robert johnson]

FUCK YOU DOYLE

YOU HAVE NO SKILLS

OTHER THAN BEING A DUMB RETARDED DELUSIONAL CUNT

[Brian Doyle]

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:52:13 PM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:
> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 4:07:09 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>

Can we make it official that Gil runs from my Prayer Man evidence like a silly High School kid every time I post it and that therefore Gil is not credible...


Proper Peer Review and moderation would not let Gil get away with that and he would lose posting privileges until he honestly attempted to answer...


Gil isn't credible and when you nail him he trolls like most of the hacks in the clique...

[robert johnson]

Gil is more credible than you will ever be.

He posts evidence for people to check, an alien thing for your Brian Doyle.

There is your peer review you small cocked cunt!

[Brian Doyle]

On Monday, July 10, 2023 at 6:52:13 PM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:

> On Monday, July 3, 2023 at 4:07:09 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

As Gil always does in every posts he debates me in - he ran from my last post and was unable to answer it...

[robert johnson]

TRANSLATION!!!!!!

AS BRIAN CUNTING DOYLE ALWAYS DOES IN HIS POSTS WITH HIS USUAL BORING DENIALS AND LIES THROUGH HIS ROTTING TEETH

CUT OF THAT PHILTY PONYTAIL SCUMCUNT!!!!!