The embarrassment of being a Lone Nut Troll

Gil Jesus

unread,

Apr 10, 2023, 7:36:05 AM4/10/23

to

LURKERS:

The LN Trolls in this newsgroup post no evidence.
No citations
No documents
No testimony
No exhibits
No witness videos
They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.

What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that doesn't work ) insults. They see themselves as guardians of the truth against those crazy "conspiracy theorists".

They argue that because a conspiracy can't be proven, then none existed.
Does that mean that if a murder is unsolved, the victim was never murdered ? You'll have to ask them, that's their thought process.

They have little or no knowledge of police procedures, like the proper way to conduct a lineup, the proper way to handle evidence, the proper way to interrogate a prisoner and the proper way to protect a prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.
And yet they'll argue and insult someone knowledgeable of such things.

They have little or no knowledge of the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits that they so religiously support. Most of them haven't even read them.

They have little or no knowledge of how "southern justice" worked in the 1960s. How innocent black men never made it to trial and how all-white grand juries refused to indict guilty white men ( like Medgar Evers' murderer Byron DeLa Beckwith ).

They have little or no knowledge of the history of the Kennedy Administration, the powerful enemies he made with his personal behavior and his political policies.

They have little or no knowledge of the atmosphere in the city of Dallas at the time of the assassination. That the President was warned not to go to Dallas or "they" would kill him there begs the question, "how did all of these people know Lee Harvey Oswald was going to kill the President" ?

But not having knowledge is not enough. Even when shown evidence indicating that Oswald was innocent, they ignore it.

They ignore evidence that Oswald was seen on the first floor so soon after the shooting, that he couldn't have possibly come from the sixth floor..
https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/

They ignore evidence that the paper "gunsack" was made by the Dallas Police on the afternoon of the assassination.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job/

They ignore the evidence that the fillers in the police lineups were chosen in such a way as to make Oswald the only choice a witness could make.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/

They ignore the evidence that the scope on the rifle was so defective that it was impossible to hit anything you aimed at.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

They ignore the evidence that Dr. Humes LIED about the location of the back wound.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-back-wound/

They ignore the evidence that no human being, Oswald or anyone else, could have completely fled the Walker shooting in the TWO SECONDS the FBI said it took for Walter Kirk Coleman to reach the fence.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-witness/

They ignore the evidence that the FBI lied in its reports.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M

They ignore evidence that the Tippit witnesses were unreliable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-7ud5FWiR0

They ignore evidence that the limo agents LIED about how they responded when the shooting started.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/

They ignore evidence that witnesses were intimidated by the FBI.
https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

All of this evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical police procedures is ignored and accepted as proper by those who don't know any better.

But this is not what happens in a proper and professional police investigation. This is what happens when you are collecting evidence against one suspect and one suspect only.

In short, this is how you frame an innocent person.

In short, the Lone Nut trolls in this newsgroup are not here to debate evidence because they don't know the evidence. They're not here to learn the truth because they've been systematicly brainwashed by a government with a history of lying to its people.

And speaking of things they don't know about, they don't even know they've been brainwashed. They come in here time and time again and their lack of knowledge of the evidence only leads them to embarrass themselves.

You'll gain no knowledge from their posts.

Stay away from a foolish man; you will gain no knowledge from his speech. ( Proverbs 14:7 )

John Corbett

unread,

Apr 10, 2023, 9:07:54 AM4/10/23

to

On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 7:36:05 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> LURKERS:
>
> The LN Trolls in this newsgroup post no evidence.
> No citations
> No documents
> No testimony
> No exhibits
> No witness videos
> They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.

What would you have us do? Track down witnesses and conduct interviews ala Mark Lane.
The WC laid out the case against Oswald in their 888 page report and provided 26 volumes
of witness testimony and exhibits on which they based that report. It is online for all to see.
If you don't know how to link to it, let us know.

> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
>

Quit making excuses for your silly conclusions.

> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that doesn't work ) insults. They see themselves as guardians of the truth against those crazy "conspiracy theorists".
>

The truth needs no guardians from the crazy conspiracy theorists.

> They argue that because a conspiracy can't be proven, then none existed.

Strawman argument. I've never seen an LN claim that absence of evidence is evidence of
absence. It is theoretically possible that there was a conspiracy for which no evidence has
surfaced in over 59 years. With each passing year, the likelihood of such a conspiracy becomes
evermore remote. Without evidence of a conspiracy, why would someone believe there was one?

> Does that mean that if a murder is unsolved, the victim was never murdered ? You'll have to ask them, that's their thought process.

This is where I get to take a page from Benny's playbook. That is a logical fallacy. There is
evidence of a murder in that case. You have a dead body and a coroner's report indicating
the victim was the victim of a homicide. IOW, you have evidence a murder was committed.
There is no evidence JFK died as the result of a conspiracy. The only evidence we have
implicates one man and one man only.

>
> They have little or no knowledge of police procedures, like the proper way to conduct a lineup, the proper way to handle evidence, the proper way to interrogate a prisoner and the proper way to protect a prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.

Are we supposed to believe a mall cop does?

> And yet they'll argue and insult someone knowledgeable of such things.
>
> They have little or no knowledge of the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits that they so religiously support. Most of them haven't even read them.

The 26 volumes are there as reference material. It makes no more sense to read all 26 volumes
than it would to read the Encyclopedia Brittanica. If someone is inclined to do so, fine, but don't
expect everyone to go to those lengths because it is not necessary to do so to be well informed
about the JFK assassination.

>
> They have little or no knowledge of how "southern justice" worked in the 1960s. How innocent black men never made it to trial and how all-white grand juries refused to indict guilty white men ( like Medgar Evers' murderer Byron DeLa Beckwith ).
>

I didn't know Oswald was a black man.

> They have little or no knowledge of the history of the Kennedy Administration, the powerful enemies he made with his personal behavior and his political policies.
>

All presidents have enemies. Most of those enemies don't try to kill the president they despise.
To the best of my knowledge, no one has tried to kill Trump although I bet a lot of people would
like to.

> They have little or no knowledge of the atmosphere in the city of Dallas at the time of the assassination. That the President was warned not to go to Dallas or "they" would kill him there begs the question, "how did all of these people know Lee Harvey Oswald was going to kill the President" ?
>

How is that evidence of a conspiracy?

> But not having knowledge is not enough. Even when shown evidence indicating that Oswald was innocent, they ignore it.
>

There is no credible evidence Oswald was innocent. As Bugliosi put it, there is almost as much
evidence that Oswald killed JFK as there is that JFK was killed.

> They ignore evidence that Oswald was seen on the first floor so soon after the shooting, that he couldn't have possibly come from the sixth floor..
> https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/
>

This is where your poor analytical skills come into play. Oswald had plenty of time to go from
the sniper's nest following the shots to where he was seen later in the second floor lunchroom
and in the first floor lobby. None of the sightings of Oswald following the shooting preclude him
from having been in the sniper's nest at the time the shots were fired. There is ample evidence
that that's where he was.

> They ignore evidence that the paper "gunsack" was made by the Dallas Police on the afternoon of the assassination.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job/
>

Hilarious.

> They ignore the evidence that the fillers in the police lineups were chosen in such a way as to make Oswald the only choice a witness could make.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/

Was it something like this:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7UPpzI496cQ/Wr54MX3W2RI/AAAAAAAAxuA/mY1t9R2zdMci4EzH4_E7GkFFsfv5h6sWACLcBGAs/s1600/ep735%2B%25282%2529.jpg

>
> They ignore the evidence that the scope on the rifle was so defective that it was impossible to hit anything you aimed at.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

The scope was only slightly misaligned and would not have precluded Oswald from hitting the
target. It seems rather silly to claim it would have been impossible to hit anything you aimed at
with that rifle given that the only recovered bullets were fired by Oswald's Carcano to the
exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Maybe you subscribe to the theory that he was
aiming at Jackie and his scope was so badly aligned that he hit JFK by mistake.

>
> They ignore the evidence that Dr. Humes LIED about the location of the back wound.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-back-wound/
>

More of your poor analytical skills on display.

> They ignore the evidence that no human being, Oswald or anyone else, could have completely fled the Walker shooting in the TWO SECONDS the FBI said it took for Walter Kirk Coleman to reach the fence.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-witness/
>

Apparently somebody fired at Walker without being seen so it seems rather silly to say it
wasn't possible.

> They ignore the evidence that the FBI lied in its reports.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
>

Bullshit.

> They ignore evidence that the Tippit witnesses were unreliable.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-7ud5FWiR0
>

Horseshit piled on top of bullshit.

> They ignore evidence that the limo agents LIED about how they responded when the shooting started.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/
>

Keep piling up the shit.

> They ignore evidence that witnesses were intimidated by the FBI.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
>

Higher and higher.

> All of this evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical police procedures is ignored and accepted as proper by those who don't know any better.
>
> But this is not what happens in a proper and professional police investigation. This is what happens when you are collecting evidence against one suspect and one suspect only.
>
> In short, this is how you frame an innocent person.
>

Anyone who can look at the evidence and conclude Oswald was innocent has no business
lecturing anybody else on their analytical skills.

> In short, the Lone Nut trolls in this newsgroup are not here to debate evidence because they don't know the evidence. They're not here to learn the truth because they've been systematicly brainwashed by a government with a history of lying to its people.
>

Bugliosi identified 53 pieces of evidence of Oswald's guilt. In 59 years, there has been zero
pieces of evidence presented that implicate anybody else.

> And speaking of things they don't know about, they don't even know they've been brainwashed. They come in here time and time again and their lack of knowledge of the evidence only leads them to embarrass themselves.
>

You seem to have brainwashed yourself into believing the silly things you do.

> You'll gain no knowledge from their posts.
>
> Stay away from a foolish man; you will gain no knowledge from his speech. ( Proverbs 14:7 )

But you guys keep giving us chuckles.

Scrum Drum

unread,

Apr 10, 2023, 9:42:21 AM4/10/23

to

On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 7:36:05 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

" They ignore evidence that Oswald was seen on the first floor so soon after the shooting, that he couldn't have possibly come from the sixth floor.. "

Gil once again posits complete bullshit that he refuses to acknowledge the correct evidence over...There were no witnesses who placed Oswald where Gil has him on the map in his link...Gil is stupidly passing along the garbage research of Greg Parker, Sean Murphy, and Bart Kamp...He's doing it in a cowardly way that caters to the Prayer Man crowd by putting Oswald in the neighborhood for politically correct purposes...Even worse, this false claim takes the side of FBI and its deliberate lies against the main conspiracy witness Carolyn Arnold, who made it more than clear that the quotes Gil offers were lies that were fabricated by FBI and that she actually said she saw Oswald in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room at 12:25...So while Gil accuses the Lone Nutters of ignoring evidence he himself ignores some of the most important conspiracy evidence and refuses to account for it or correct his harmful misinformation's affect on knowledge of the assassination...

>
> Stay away from a foolish man; you will gain no knowledge from his speech. ( Proverbs 14:7 )

Translation: " Brian posted the facts and references I called for in the other thread about two stops of Oswald by two cops...So instead of honestly answering him like a man I decided to make another thread accusing others of ignoring evidence...I'm choosing to maximize the dirty censorship that has been aimed at Brian in order to escape the serious flaws in my own offerings... "

Gil walked from the "Two Stops" threads and an examination of Truly in the Lobby...

Gil Jesus...The "Drive By" hypocrite...

Charles Schuyler

unread,

Apr 10, 2023, 9:47:11 AM4/10/23

to

On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 6:36:05 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
> LURKERS:
>
> The LN Trolls in this newsgroup post no evidence.

Never?

> No citations
> No documents
> No testimony
> No exhibits
> No witness videos

You're delusional. LNs post--and have posted--tons of citations, documents, testimony, exhibits, video links, etc.

> They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.

Wow. Jean Davison doesn't count? McAdams? DVP? In the earlier days of this newsgroup (and/or at alt.assassination.jfk), there was sometimes even participation from people directly involved in the events that day or the events surrounding it. People like Hugh Aynesworth, also an author of an assassination-related book, JFK: Breaking the News. Of course, Hank, Bud Big Dog, and many others have posted pieces of testimony, links to exhibits, etc. as well, so you're just wrong in your assertion that no one posts evidence. It's just "evidence" that doesn't sway you, but you never assert what evidence would sway you.

>
> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that doesn't work ) insults.

Isn't that what this discussion board is? In addition to posts portions of testimony, etc. are we not allowed to comment, speculate, offer opinion, and yes, insult? As Ben says, this is the "uncensored" board. Don't you insult people? Does ANYONE throw out more insults than Ben?

Stop acting like this place is where a scholarly pursuit for truth takes place. Some truth is offered, but if you're covering your ears, closing your eyes and saying, "lalalalalala" to drown out what your critics are trying to help you understand, that "truth" isn't going to penetrate. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

>They see themselves as guardians of the truth against those crazy "conspiracy theorists".

Nah. It's a fun place to blow off steam and laugh at the collective inabilities of CTs to understand simple concepts like the burden of proof, the idea that this is an historical event and not a criminal trial requiring reasonable doubt in front of a jury, and so on. Team Oswald is a circus clown car of contradictions, with different theories of what happened and no tests to back up the different theories proposed. The choice isn't Oswald alone or conspiracy; it's Oswald alone or a SPECIFIC conspiracy. When will you be detailing your SPECIFIC JFK assassination theory? We're waiting to hear it.

>
> They argue that because a conspiracy can't be proven, then none existed.

Wrong. The argument centers around the idea I touched on that the burden of proof for a conspiracy falls upon you to make a positive case for what you allege, and not to treat this as if you're Johnny Cochrane, boldly pronouncing that if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. One side has a fully formed case, backed with ballistic tests, interviews, film analysis, testimony, an autopsy report, and on and on, and a POSITIVE case that Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC and killed JDT was made. Team Oswald? Nothing. Something else happened, somehow. You can't even present a BASIC case and provide BASIC research to support, for example, Ben's assertion that up to eight shots were fired in the plaza from at least three different directions. Why did most earwitnesses only report three shots? Silencers? Has Team Oswald tested the viability of this out? Does Team Oswald have no interest in performing any tests? Oliver Stone spent $20M on his movie. He could've diverted $50K-$100K and ran all of the scientific tests required to back the many claims Team Oswald was making in the early 90s. Nothing. He offered the JFK "research community" nothing, although his movie was instrumental in getting the ARRB up and going, so there's that.

Did the WCR even say definitively that there was no conspiracy? Didn't they conclude that based on their investigation no evidence of a conspiracy could be found? Doesn't the autopsy report summary say JFK was shot and killed by a person or PERSONS unknown?

> Does that mean that if a murder is unsolved, the victim was never murdered ? You'll have to ask them, that's their thought process.

More poor thinking from Gil. Silly.

>
> They have little or no knowledge of police procedures, like the proper way to conduct a lineup, the proper way to handle evidence, the proper way to interrogate a prisoner and the proper way to protect a prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.
> And yet they'll argue and insult someone knowledgeable of such things.

I have little or no knowledge of how an airliner is supposed to be maintained and piloted, but I trust that it is mechanically up-to-date, fueled, and has a pilot and crew who know how to do these things when I board one. It would be proper to examine the airliner, the airline, the maintenance records, the pilot's decisions, etc. if the plane crashed, but in the JFK case, you have even never stated exactly what you think occurred or what the "crash" is. You shoot your spitballs at all of the things that you claim weren't done to YOUR standards but, but you can't show the JFK case "crash," so to speak, by making a positive case for something else.

>
> They have little or no knowledge of the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits that they so religiously support. Most of them haven't even read them.

Many people on both sides of the debate have read the WCR and/or many or most of the supporting documents, etc. It's online, Gil. I think most of us here have read big chunks of the WCR, etc.

>
> They have little or no knowledge of how "southern justice" worked in the 1960s. How innocent black men never made it to trial and how all-white grand juries refused to indict guilty white men ( like Medgar Evers' murderer Byron DeLa Beckwith ).

Apples and oranges. Strawman.

>
> They have little or no knowledge of the history of the Kennedy Administration, the powerful enemies he made with his personal behavior and his political policies.

You're like the nerd who writes a book called, "How to pick up Hot Chicks" who's never been laid. Take all of this so-called knowledge you've acquired and put it to work detailing a case we can examine. Based on your superior knowledge of the even, WHAT HAPPENED? We're waiting to hear what you have. The floor is yours. SPEAK UP.

Nearly everyone participating in this forum for any length of time knows 99.99% more than the average American about history in the 60s, including a great deal about JFK's administration and the events surrounding the assassination. It's WHY people participate here.

>
> They have little or no knowledge of the atmosphere in the city of Dallas at the time of the assassination. That the President was warned not to go to Dallas or "they" would kill him there begs the question, "how did all of these people know Lee Harvey Oswald was going to kill the President" ?

They didn't know a wife-beating, loser Commie wannabe was going to kill JFK. That's one of the reasons the assassination was so shocking, and why so many people couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that a "lone nut" with a cheap rifle could damage the country so severely. In the minds of the general public, there HAD to be others involved. Ditto 9/11. How could 19 Muslims with box cutters cause so much damage that resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths on 9/11 and countless billions of dollars in damage, a recession, legislation like the Patriot Act, two wars that killed an additional 6,000 US troops and wounded maybe 40K-50K more, and trillions of dollars in money spent? There HAD to be more than 19 Muslims and some box cutters, thus the 9/11 Truther movement was born. a close cousin to the JFK conspiracy buff's hobby.

>
> But not having knowledge is not enough. Even when shown evidence indicating that Oswald was innocent, they ignore it.

You are on the far fringes of the JFK conspiracy debate if you are asserting Oswald was innocent. Make a positive case for what you allege happened and invite criticism of your case.

>
> They ignore evidence that Oswald was seen on the first floor so soon after the shooting, that he couldn't have possibly come from the sixth floor..
> https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/
>
> They ignore evidence that the paper "gunsack" was made by the Dallas Police on the afternoon of the assassination.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job/
>
> They ignore the evidence that the fillers in the police lineups were chosen in such a way as to make Oswald the only choice a witness could make.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/
>
> They ignore the evidence that the scope on the rifle was so defective that it was impossible to hit anything you aimed at.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/
>
> They ignore the evidence that Dr. Humes LIED about the location of the back wound.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-back-wound/
>
> They ignore the evidence that no human being, Oswald or anyone else, could have completely fled the Walker shooting in the TWO SECONDS the FBI said it took for Walter Kirk Coleman to reach the fence.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-witness/
>
> They ignore the evidence that the FBI lied in its reports.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
>
> They ignore evidence that the Tippit witnesses were unreliable.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-7ud5FWiR0
>
> They ignore evidence that the limo agents LIED about how they responded when the shooting started.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/
>
> They ignore evidence that witnesses were intimidated by the FBI.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
>
> All of this evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical police procedures is ignored and accepted as proper by those who don't know any better.

Misconduct IN YOUR OPINION. Make a positive case for what occurred and STOP SHOOTING SPITBALLS at the case.

It's not about you, Gil.

>
> But this is not what happens in a proper and professional police investigation. This is what happens when you are collecting evidence against one suspect and one suspect only.

How would you have conducted the case? Be specific.

>
> In short, this is how you frame an innocent person.

You don't even think he killed Tippit? C'mon, Gil!!!!!!!

>
> In short, the Lone Nut trolls in this newsgroup are not here to debate evidence because they don't know the evidence. They're not here to learn the truth because they've been systematicly brainwashed by a government with a history of lying to its people.

We're at a JFK assassination discussion board to see if you can detail a case that is better than the historical one against Oswald. When will you be supplying something specific for us to examine?

>
> And speaking of things they don't know about, they don't even know they've been brainwashed. They come in here time and time again and their lack of knowledge of the evidence only leads them to embarrass themselves.

Says the guy who can't cobble together a basic theory for what happened and detail any tests for his claims. That's funny.

>
> You'll gain no knowledge from their posts.
>
> Stay away from a foolish man; you will gain no knowledge from his speech. ( Proverbs 14:7 )

Back at 'ya.

Hank Sienzant

unread,

Apr 10, 2023, 10:36:15 AM4/10/23

to

On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 7:36:05 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> LURKERS:
>
> The LN Trolls

Poisoning the well logical fallacy.

> in this newsgroup post no evidence.
> No citations
> No documents
> No testimony
> No exhibits
> No witness videos

I’ve posted links to the above. Ben deletes them and calls me names. Sky just calls me names. You ignore them.

> They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.

In my case, that’s a lie.

> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.

You can learn how to address points, how to think reasonably, and how to put together a reasoned argument. Or you can ignore all

>
> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that doesn't work ) insults. They see themselves as guardians of the truth against those crazy "conspiracy theorists".

I point out the evidence that conflicts with your pronouncements.

>
> They argue that because a conspiracy can't be proven, then none existed.

Straw man argument.

> Does that mean that if a murder is unsolved, the victim was never murdered ? You'll have to ask them, that's their thought process.

That’s the *conspiracy* viewpoint. I recently discussed history with Ben and Ben wouldn’t even answer the simple question of whether JFK was shot and killed on 11/22/63 in Dallas. Below, you argue for something similar in the Walker shooting, denying the shooting took place because of conflicts in the evidence.

>
> They have little or no knowledge of police procedures, like the proper way to conduct a lineup, the proper way to handle evidence, the proper way to interrogate a prisoner and the proper way to protect a prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.

More poisoning the well.

> And yet they'll argue and insult someone knowledgeable of such things.

You just did exactly that!

>
> They have little or no knowledge of the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits that they so religiously support. Most of them haven't even read them.

I’ve read them twice. From the evidence, I reached my own conclusions.

>
> They have little or no knowledge of how "southern justice" worked in the 1960s. How innocent black men never made it to trial and how all-white grand juries refused to indict guilty white men ( like Medgar Evers' murderer Byron DeLa Beckwith ).

Are you claiming Oswald identified as black, or that the police framed a white male instead of a black one? I don’t see how the race issue advances your argument any.

>
> They have little or no knowledge of the history of the Kennedy Administration, the powerful enemies he made with his personal behavior and his political policies.

All presidents have powerful enemies. Nothing protects them from an assassin willing to trade their own life for the President’s.

>
> They have little or no knowledge of the atmosphere in the city of Dallas at the time of the assassination. That the President was warned not to go to Dallas or "they" would kill him there begs the question, "how did all of these people know Lee Harvey Oswald was going to kill the President" ?

Yes, that is a logical fallacy called Begging the Question. This was rebutted at least twice when you posted this claim on two separate occasions, but you share yet another fringe reset.

You misuse the terminology, but here, two wrongs do make you right, in that you properly identified the logical fallacy of Begging the Question you committed. Do you have another example you can share?

>
> But not having knowledge is not enough. Even when shown evidence indicating that Oswald was innocent, they ignore it.

Another great example of Begging the Question. Thanks again!

What follows is properly called the Gish Gallop logical fallacy. That’s where you throw a bunch of claims against the wall, knowing we cannot rebut them all in the time allotted. If I rebutted them all, you would ignore the rebuttals.

>
> They ignore evidence that Oswald was seen on the first floor so soon after the shooting, that he couldn't have possibly come from the sixth floor..
> https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/

Oswald was seen on the second floor by Officer Baker and Roy Truly approximately 90 seconds after the assassination. It took Secret Service agent Howlett about 78 seconds to descend from the sixth floor window to the second floor lunch room.

>
> They ignore evidence that the paper "gunsack" was made by the Dallas Police on the afternoon of the assassination.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job/

The evidence (including Oswald’s print on the bag) indicates Oswald manufactured the bag and carried his rifle into the Depository.

>
> They ignore the evidence that the fillers in the police lineups were chosen in such a way as to make Oswald the only choice a witness could make.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/

I showed you Ted Bundy lineups where everyone else in the lineup was a police officer. You ignored it.

>
> They ignore the evidence that the scope on the rifle was so defective that it was impossible to hit anything you aimed at.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/

That was the condition of the scope after the assassination, after it was dropped between boxes after the shooting. Your error is assuming it was the condition of the scope during the assassination.

>
> They ignore the evidence that Dr. Humes LIED about the location of the back wound.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-back-wound/

He didn’t.

>
> They ignore the evidence that no human being, Oswald or anyone else, could have completely fled the Walker shooting in the TWO SECONDS the FBI said it took for Walter Kirk Coleman to reach the fence.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-witness/

Two seconds or twelve, both are far shorter than the reality of the situation. More than likely, it took 30 seconds or more for Coleman to reach the fence and look over, which allowed Oswald sufficient time to get away. Other evidence indicates Oswald did the shootin (the “If I am arrested” note ti Marina).

>
> They ignore the evidence that the FBI lied in its reports.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M

The conspiracy theorists pore over those reports to find anything they can use to exclude Oswald. If it indicts Oswald, they ignore it or claim it is a lie.

Further, are you claiming the entire FBI didn’t care if they captured the real assassin of JFK? That they all worked in concert to frame Oswald?

>
> They ignore evidence that the Tippit witnesses were unreliable.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-7ud5FWiR0

All witnesses are unreliable. Including those for shot(s) from the Grassy Knoll. But we seldom hear this argument when discussing those witnesses, do we?

>
> They ignore evidence that the limo agents LIED about how they responded when the shooting started.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/

Lied, or recalled their actions differently than you conclude?

>
> They ignore evidence that witnesses were intimidated by the FBI.
> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/

This is where you (and other CTs) really go off the deep end — when you allege so much evidence against Oswald was planted or forged… you make it so the plot was really about framing Oswald and killing Kennedy was incidental to the frameup of Oswald.

>
> All of this evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical police procedures is ignored and accepted as proper by those who don't know any better.

We know what really happened. Oswald was arrested less than 90 minutes after the assassination as a suspect in the Tippit murder, with the weapon used to kill Tippit pulled from his hand as he assaulted and tried to shoot another police officer. When it was determined he worked in the Depository, it didn’t take a rocket scientist to make him a suspect in the assassination. When the rifle found in the Depository was paid for in his handwriting and determined to have been shipped to his post office box, the conclusion becomes more than reasonable.

>
> But this is not what happens in a proper and professional police investigation. This is what happens when you are collecting evidence against one suspect and one suspect only.

Nobody was collecting evidence against one person. The evidence was collected — it turned out to point to one suspect — Oswald.

>
> In short, this is how you frame an innocent person.

There you go again! Was the plot to kill Kennedy or frame Oswald?

>
> In short, the Lone Nut trolls in this newsgroup are not here to debate evidence because they don't know the evidence. They're not here to learn the truth because they've been systematicly brainwashed by a government with a history of lying to its people.

I’ll await your evidence of any of that. Now you’re back to just making unsupported pronouncements.

>
> And speaking of things they don't know about, they don't even know they've been brainwashed.

Poisoning the well logical fallacy.

> They come in here time and time again and their lack of knowledge of the evidence only leads them to embarrass themselves.
>
> You'll gain no knowledge from their posts.

You should have learned something from this post. But you won’t. That’s not my fault.

>
> Stay away from a foolish man; you will gain no knowledge from his speech. ( Proverbs 14:7 )

But it’s so much fun watching you spew conspiracy points without giving them a second thought, and accusing us of accepting claims without examining the evidence.

Scrum Drum

unread,

Apr 10, 2023, 10:49:07 AM4/10/23

to

On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 10:36:15 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 7:36:05 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Gil uses the Lone Nutter trolls to get around my evidence of Truly not being the "superintendent" who cleared Oswald in the Lobby...

Gil shouts loudly that others ignore his proof but there he is right in broad daylight in the Truly thread doing the same thing...

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 10, 2023, 11:07:32 AM4/10/23

to

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 06:07:53 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 7:36:05?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> LURKERS:
>>
>> The LN Trolls in this newsgroup post no evidence.
>> No citations
>> No documents
>> No testimony
>> No exhibits
>> No witness videos
>> They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
>
>What would you have us do? Track down witnesses and conduct interviews ala Mark Lane.

No, you could actually CITE what the eyewitnesses actually said - not
what the WC claimed they said.

>The WC laid out the case against Oswald in their 888 page report and provided 26 volumes
>of witness testimony and exhibits on which they based that report. It is online for all to see.
>If you don't know how to link to it, let us know.

The WC lied. This is why you rely on the WC rather than the evidence.

>> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that doesn't work ) insults. They see themselves as guardians of the truth against those crazy "conspiracy theorists".

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They argue that because a conspiracy can't be proven, then none existed.

Strawman argument deleted.

>> Does that mean that if a murder is unsolved, the victim was never murdered ? You'll have to ask them, that's their thought process.

>There is no evidence JFK died as the result of a conspiracy. The only evidence we have
>implicates one man and one man only.

"They argue that because a conspiracy can't be proven, then none
existed."

>> They have little or no knowledge of police procedures, like the proper way to conduct a lineup, the proper way to handle evidence, the proper way to interrogate a prisoner and the proper way to protect a prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> And yet they'll argue and insult someone knowledgeable of such things.
>>
>> They have little or no knowledge of the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits that they so religiously support. Most of them haven't even read them.
>
>The 26 volumes are there as reference material. It makes no more sense to read all 26 volumes
>than it would to read the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Yep. Believers are TERRIFIED of the actual evidence.

> If someone is inclined to do so, fine, but don't
>expect everyone to go to those lengths because it is not necessary to do so to be well informed
>about the JFK assassination.

As the WC lied, it absolutely IS necessary to read the actual
testimony.

>> They have little or no knowledge of how "southern justice" worked in the 1960s. How innocent black men never made it to trial and how all-white grand juries refused to indict guilty white men ( like Medgar Evers' murderer Byron DeLa Beckwith ).

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They have little or no knowledge of the history of the Kennedy Administration, the powerful enemies he made with his personal behavior and his political policies.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> They have little or no knowledge of the atmosphere in the city of Dallas at the time of the assassination. That the President was warned not to go to Dallas or "they" would kill him there begs the question, "how did all of these people know Lee Harvey Oswald was going to kill the President" ?

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> But not having knowledge is not enough. Even when shown evidence indicating that Oswald was innocent, they ignore it.
>>
>There is no credible evidence Oswald was innocent.

Can you *CITE* for that unsupported claim? Your naked opinion means
less than nothing.

> As Bugliosi put it, there is almost as much
>evidence that Oswald killed JFK as there is that JFK was killed.

That's a claim you'll never support.

>> They ignore evidence that Oswald was seen on the first floor so soon after the shooting, that he couldn't have possibly come from the sixth floor..
>> https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/
>>
>This is where your poor analytical skills come into play.

Indeed true, you just believe it's not *your* poor analytic skills.

>> They ignore evidence that the paper "gunsack" was made by the Dallas Police on the afternoon of the assassination.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job/
>>

>> They ignore the evidence that the fillers in the police lineups were chosen in such a way as to make Oswald the only choice a witness could make.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/
>>

>> They ignore the evidence that the scope on the rifle was so defective that it was impossible to hit anything you aimed at.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/
>

>The scope was only slightly misaligned...

Slightly?

>> They ignore the evidence that Dr. Humes LIED about the location of the back wound.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-back-wound/
>>

>> They ignore the evidence that no human being, Oswald or anyone else, could have completely fled the Walker shooting in the TWO SECONDS the FBI said it took for Walter Kirk Coleman to reach the fence.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-witness/
>>

>> They ignore the evidence that the FBI lied in its reports.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
>>

>> They ignore evidence that the Tippit witnesses were unreliable.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-7ud5FWiR0
>>

>> They ignore evidence that the limo agents LIED about how they responded when the shooting started.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/
>>

>> They ignore evidence that witnesses were intimidated by the FBI.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
>>

>> All of this evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical police procedures is ignored and accepted as proper by those who don't know any better.
>>
>> But this is not what happens in a proper and professional police investigation. This is what happens when you are collecting evidence against one suspect and one suspect only.
>>
>> In short, this is how you frame an innocent person.

Logical fallacy deleted.

>> In short, the Lone Nut trolls in this newsgroup are not here to debate evidence because they don't know the evidence. They're not here to learn the truth because they've been systematicly brainwashed by a government with a history of lying to its people.
>>
>Bugliosi identified 53 pieces of evidence of Oswald's guilt.

Did he? Or are you simply lying again?

Looks like it's time to review those 53... Look for it.

>> And speaking of things they don't know about, they don't even know they've been brainwashed. They come in here time and time again and their lack of knowledge of the evidence only leads them to embarrass themselves.
>>

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 10, 2023, 11:14:47 AM4/10/23

to

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 06:47:09 -0700 (PDT), Charles Schuyler
<ch...@reducedfeemortgage.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 6:36:05?AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> LURKERS:
>>
>> The LN Trolls in this newsgroup post no evidence.
>
>Never?

As a general rule, no.

Lie, and claim otherwise!

>> No citations
>> No documents
>> No testimony
>> No exhibits
>> No witness videos
>
>You're delusional. LNs post--and have posted--tons of citations, documents, testimony, exhibits, video links, etc.

Notice folks, no citations...

>> They do no research of their own, preferring to take the lazy way out and fall back on the conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.
>> You can gain NO KNOWLEDGE from their posts.
>
>Wow. Jean Davison doesn't count? McAdams? DVP?

All of whom have lied about the evidence.

>> What they DO post are comments, speculation, opinion and ( when that doesn't work ) insults.
>
>Isn't that what this discussion board is?

Not a refutation.

>>They see themselves as guardians of the truth against those crazy "conspiracy theorists".
>>

>> They argue that because a conspiracy can't be proven, then none existed.
>
>Wrong.

Already demonstrated to be true.

>> They have little or no knowledge of police procedures, like the proper way to conduct a lineup, the proper way to handle evidence, the proper way to interrogate a prisoner and the proper way to protect a prosecution case by protecting a suspect's Constitutional rights.
>> And yet they'll argue and insult someone knowledgeable of such things.
>>

>> They have little or no knowledge of the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits that they so religiously support. Most of them haven't even read them.
>>

>> They have little or no knowledge of how "southern justice" worked in the 1960s. How innocent black men never made it to trial and how all-white grand juries refused to indict guilty white men ( like Medgar Evers' murderer Byron DeLa Beckwith ).
>>

>> They have little or no knowledge of the history of the Kennedy Administration, the powerful enemies he made with his personal behavior and his political policies.
>>

>> They have little or no knowledge of the atmosphere in the city of Dallas at the time of the assassination. That the President was warned not to go to Dallas or "they" would kill him there begs the question, "how did all of these people know Lee Harvey Oswald was going to kill the President" ?
>>

>> But not having knowledge is not enough. Even when shown evidence indicating that Oswald was innocent, they ignore it.
>>

>> They ignore evidence that Oswald was seen on the first floor so soon after the shooting, that he couldn't have possibly come from the sixth floor..
>> https://gil-jesus.com/oswald-on-the-first-floor/
>>
>> They ignore evidence that the paper "gunsack" was made by the Dallas Police on the afternoon of the assassination.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-bag-job/
>>
>> They ignore the evidence that the fillers in the police lineups were chosen in such a way as to make Oswald the only choice a witness could make.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-police-lineups/
>>
>> They ignore the evidence that the scope on the rifle was so defective that it was impossible to hit anything you aimed at.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle-tests/
>>
>> They ignore the evidence that Dr. Humes LIED about the location of the back wound.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-back-wound/
>>
>> They ignore the evidence that no human being, Oswald or anyone else, could have completely fled the Walker shooting in the TWO SECONDS the FBI said it took for Walter Kirk Coleman to reach the fence.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-witness/
>>
>> They ignore the evidence that the FBI lied in its reports.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M
>>
>> They ignore evidence that the Tippit witnesses were unreliable.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-7ud5FWiR0
>>
>> They ignore evidence that the limo agents LIED about how they responded when the shooting started.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-agents-in-the-limo/
>>
>> They ignore evidence that witnesses were intimidated by the FBI.
>> https://gil-jesus.com/the-framing-and-murder-of-lee-harvey-oswald/
>>
>> All of this evidence of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical police procedures is ignored and accepted as proper by those who don't know any better.
>>

>> But this is not what happens in a proper and professional police investigation. This is what happens when you are collecting evidence against one suspect and one suspect only.
>>

>> In short, this is how you frame an innocent person.
>>

>> In short, the Lone Nut trolls in this newsgroup are not here to debate evidence because they don't know the evidence. They're not here to learn the truth because they've been systematicly brainwashed by a government with a history of lying to its people.
>
> We're at a JFK assassination discussion board to see if you can
> detail a case that is better than the historical one against Oswald.
> When will you be supplying something specific for us to examine?

>> And speaking of things they don't know about, they don't even know they've been brainwashed. They come in here time and time again and their lack of knowledge of the evidence only leads them to embarrass themselves.
>>

>> You'll gain no knowledge from their posts.
>>
>> Stay away from a foolish man; you will gain no knowledge from his speech. ( Proverbs 14:7 )

(Logical fallacies delieted)

Gil Jesus

unread,

Apr 10, 2023, 11:15:13 AM4/10/23

to

> Gil shouts loudly that others ignore his proof but there he is right in broad daylight in the Truly thread doing the same thing...

Not really. Unlike you, I've posted the links to my evidence and I stand on that evidence.
There's no reason to respond to you.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 10, 2023, 11:15:31 AM4/10/23

to

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 07:36:13 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.

Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.

Which makes who exactly the fool?

Gil Jesus

unread,

Apr 10, 2023, 11:21:01 AM4/10/23

to

On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 11:15:31 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
> testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.
>
> Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.

Three lone nutters all posted a total of ZERO evidence.
Every time they post they prove us right.

John Corbett

unread,

Apr 10, 2023, 12:17:14 PM4/10/23

to

We've learned over the years it is pointless to keep presenting the same evidence over
and over again to the conspiracy hobbyists because all they do is respond with some
cockamamie excuse for disregarding the evidence.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Conspiracy hobbyists have been doing the same thing over and over again for 59 years.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 10, 2023, 12:49:38 PM4/10/23

to

On Mon, 10 Apr 2023 09:17:13 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 11:21:01?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 11:15:31?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>
>>> Curiously, you posted no evidence. no citations, no documents, no
>>> testimony, no exhibits, no witness videos.
>>>
>>> Only comments. We gain nothing from the above.
>> Three lone nutters all posted a total of ZERO evidence.
>> Every time they post they prove us right.
>
>We've learned over the years it is pointless to keep presenting the same evidence over
>and over again to the conspiracy hobbyists because all they do is respond with some
>cockamamie excuse for disregarding the evidence.

You're a liar. You will ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to cite the *FIRST* time
you've presented the evidence.

You can't... you're lying.

>Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
>Conspiracy hobbyists have been doing the same thing over and over again for 59 years.

Can you name this logical fallacy?

Scrum Drum

unread,

Apr 10, 2023, 2:15:13 PM4/10/23

to

You're trolling Gil and self-excusing...

If our discussion were credibly moderated you wouldn't get away with that because there is nothing you could show in my post that was not from the known evidence...You're just not able to answer it so you're lying and saying it isn't credibly referenced...That's what Gordon does...When someone starts disproving his friends and showing how Gordon isn't holding them accountable he accuses you of behavior violations...My posts are more than adequately linked and you are well-versed enough in the material to already know that...

Anyone can see my responses to you in the Truly threads and see that you can't answer the testimony-based material that shows Truly should have been in the Lobby when Jarman tried to leave if he was the "superintendent" who allegedly OK-ed Oswald...You can't answer that because you know as well as I do that it proves my case...You can't answer why Truly would not mention OK-ing Oswald to the Warren Commission if he had...

You are refusing to acknowledge the conflict between Truly telling the Warren Commission that Campbell and Shelley told him they hadn't seen Oswald, with Campbell, Fritz's, Lovelady's, and Oswald's statements that said they had...Or Belin showing no interest in it even though it was the Commission and their interviews that produced the statements in which that fatal conflict was contained...

You're working for the Lone Nutters here Gil...

You're showing your true colors...