Gil Jesus

Thank you and Oliver for getting Talbot on video saying the same thing he wrote in his book. These video clips are critical for future generations. We owe you both a debt of gratitude. Thank you again.

Witnesses describe Robert Kennedy's reaction to the Warren Commission findings and reveal his intent to re-investigate the assassination once elected President.

Witnesses describe the reactions of the Kennedy family when told that RFK would seek the Presidency in 1968. Those reactions imply that the family did not believe that Oswald had killed the President and that the parties responsible for the assassination were still at large.

Let's see what the witnesses testified to when they were shown the grayish tan jacket ( CE 162 ) : Wesley Frazier testified that he had never seen CE 162 before. ( 2 H 238 ) Linnie Mae Randle testified that CE 162 was NOT the jacket Oswald wore that morning. ( 2 H 250 ) Helen Markham testified that she had never seen CE 162 before. ( 3 H 312 ) William Scoggins testified that the killer's jacket was "a little darker" than CE 162. ( 3 H 328 ) Barbara Davis testified that CE 162 didn't look anything like the jacket the Tippit killer wore. ( 3 H 347 ) Ted Callaway testified that the Tippit killer's jacket had "a little more tan to it. " ( 3 H 356 ) Earlene Roberts, Oswald's housekeeper, testified that the jacket he put on when he left the roominghouse, "was darker than that." ( CE 162 ) ( 6 H 439 ) None of these eyewitnesses who were shown CE 162, positively identified it as the jacket Tippit's killer wore. Maybe the Warren Commission supporters can address this evidence. PS: Virginia Davis was never shown the CE 162 jacket and asked tro identify it and Domingo Benavides identified the bluish-grey jacket ( CE 163 ) as the jacket the killer wore. ( 6 H 453 )

I think that when it's all said and done, it will be revealed that the CIA was supporting Anti-Castro Cubans in training "kill teams" to get Kennedy. This always was the CIA's "M.O." for dealing with regime change: contact the opposition group, supply them with weapons, remove the target's security and let them have at it. During the Missile Crisis, Kennedy had promised the Russians that the US would not invade Cuba or aid any third party ( exiles ) in doing so. Those promoting the theory that the Kennedys were planning a "second invasion of Cuba" don't understand that if Kennedy were to go back on his word to the Russians and invade, he'd never get them back to the bargaining table again. And they had just signed a Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The Russians were willing to deal. There's no way in hell Kennedy would have jeopardized that or any future agreements. I believe that the "second invasion of cuba" was a codename for the assassination of the President. During the first invasion ( the Bay of Pigs ), Castro was supposed to be killed. In the "second invasion", the target was to be Kennedy. Why ? Kennedy was using the FBI to shut down the CIA's domestic "training" camps ( like the one outside New Orleans ). I believe Carlos Bringuier had it right: Oswald was an FBI informant trying to infiltrate one of these camps. When the CIA's allies in New Orleans found out about what he was up to, they decided to set him up as the patsy. I believe that the record will show that at least one of those camps was re-located to Mexico City and Oswald travelled there to find out what he could about it. I suggest as proof eyewitnesses who saw Oswald at Banister's office and in the company of FBI agent Warren DeBrueys. When Oswald was arrested, he asked to speak to an FBI agent. The agent he spoke to, John Lester Quigley, testified that on the day after the Bay of Pigs invasion, ( April 18, 1961 ) he was asked by the Dallas FBI office to search the ONI records at the Naval Station at Algiers, La. for information they had on Oswald. ( 4 H 438 ) Also, the HSCA found that Oswald had visited neither the Soviet Embassy nor the Cuban Consulate ( Lopez Report ). The man shown in the photographs supplied by the CIA and identified as being Oswald was not, in fact, Oswald. Their recording of the phone call allegedly made by Oswald was determined by the FBI to not be Oswald. The CIA's narrative of Oswald's trip to Mexico City was one big lie. I'm interested in seeing if the remaining files contain connections between the CIA and Ruth Paine, Roy Truly or Warren Caster.

Ventura doesn't need credibility because the evidence supports what he said. Marina Oswald was originally uncooperative with the FBI. "....they were implying that if she did not cooperate with the FBI agent there, that this would perhaps–I say, again, I am implying–in so many words, that they would perhaps deport her from the United States and back to Russia." ( Testimony of Robert Oswald in 1 H 410 ) June was born in Russia and Rachel in the US, making her a US citizen. Had Marina been deported, she would never see Rachel again. They didn't fly an INS agent all the way from New York just to tell her she'd have more rights in the US than in Russia. She KNEW that. Marina Oswald was being threatened with deportation if she didn't tell the FBI what they wanted to hear. For the sake of her children, she went along. I find what Jesse Ventura said totally consistent with that. That makes him, IMO, credible ( at least in this instance ). And it makes Marina Oswald's testimony uncredible.

Jesse Ventura tells of a phone conversation he had with Marina Oswald and how she implied that she chose keeping custody of her children over telling the truth.

One thing I find interesting about the fake Hidell ID is that it contains the exact same photo as Oswald's military ID.

Anyone travelling internationally in 1963 had to have a certificate saying they were vaccinated against smallpox.

I don't see anyone in the political arena that could be their next target, so I'm guessing it will be someone from outside that enters it, like Trump.

To answer the question posed, yes Oswald was truly innocent. The proof of that lies in the way the Dallas Police handled Oswald, the way they handled the evidence and the way they handled the witnesses. www.gil-jesus.com

Thank you.

I agree Ben. The release of these files goes beyond politics, Republican or Democrat and right or left.

There's another reason why the CIA would want the records to remain classified: survival. The motive ( I believe ) behind the assassination. If the Agency's involvement is finally revealed, it would result in a public outcry to have it disbanded. People lose their jobs. The Agency loses its ability to influence who rules foreign countries and here at home. American corporations abroad are at the mercy of the host state. Whether we realize it or not, the CIA is the most powerful US government agency because its influence reaches far beyond our borders. It's true that in a dangerous world the US needs an intelligence agency with the means to provide information that will assist the President with important decisions. But what it doesn't need is an agency that chooses who that President is. It doesn't need an agency whose tactics include assassination of its duly elected leaders. And it doesn't need an agency actively engaged in brainwashing the public. And yes, the public is brainwashed. They're brainwashed into believing that a biological male who says he is a female, is the same as a female and thus can compete in women's sports. As a result, women are getting destroyed by "trans women" in their own sports. Why not give the trans their own sports ? Why not give the trans their own restrooms ? Doesn't that make more sense than allowing biological men into ladies rooms used by 8 year old girls ? People are brainwashed into believing that a male can get pregnant, but fail to show us an example. Show us someone born of a male. They're brainwashed into believing that a 3 or 4 year old is mature enough to understand the consequences and risks of sex change and is capable of choosing his or her sex, when in fact a kid can't even make the right choice between Oreo cookies and $10,000. But they can make a choice so life changing as sex change ? People are ready to lop off a kid's penis just because he likes the color pink or he plays with dolls. It's ridiculous. The problem isn't with the kids, it's with the adults. People were brainwashed into believing the COVID-19 "vaccine" prevented them from catching the virus. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1139513946631676 That was a lie. The "vaccine" never prevented infection or transmission. It only lessened the severity of the infection. Fear of death caused people to accept having this "vaccine" injected into their bodies without knowing what the side effects were or how it would affect them in the long term. It's as chilling as the scene from "The Manchurian Candidate" when Raymond Shaw kills Bobby Lembeck without any thought, just because he was told to. How many Raymond Shaws ended up Bobby Lembecks ? I know a guy who got the vaccine and was dead three weeks later from COVID. And now young people ( especially athletes ) are suddenly dropping dead at a rate never seen before. The fact that the drug companies were absolved of total liability for the development of these vaccines by Trump is one of the mistakes I believe he made during his administration. It never should have been rushed into production. I'm not against vaccines. I get my flu shot every year. But it'll be a cold day in hell when I put something in my body that isn't approved by the FDA or that I haven't been warned what the side effects are. Especially for a virus with a 99.97 % chance of survival. And the "my body, my choice" crowd seemed to abandon that philospohy when it came to taking the COVID vaccine. All of a sudden, those who chose not to get the vaccine were demonized as selfish and blamed for the spread of the virus, ( "A pandemic of the unvaccinated" -- Joe Biden ) even though they knew the vaccine didn't stop transmission. Will common sense ever make a comeback ? Who knows ? Maybe sometime, in the future, some little innocent kid will challenge us to think for ourselves by yelling out that the Emperor has no clothes. Until that day comes, half the country will continue to believe what they're told. Just like the Warren Commission supporters. I'll leave you with this final thought: If we live in a country where we can no longer decide what we will put into our bodies, choose for whom we will vote, question authority or express our opinions without being demonized, then freedom is an illusion that our grandchildren and great grandchildren will never know and this country is no longer the land of the free. And that America died on November 22, 1963.

And that's a fact. I got a kick out of Schiff claiming that Trump told Zelenski, "don't call me, I'll call you." I wondered, who talks like that ? Like a mafia kingpin ? So I obtained a copy of the transcript of that call and read it, and Trump said no such thing. What Trump DID ask Zelensky to do was to investgate why the prosecutor who was investigating Biden's son's company was fired. Schiff's whole version of the exchange was received by a third party who allegedly was listening in on the call. You wanna talk misinformation. The whole thing ended up being a lie. Even Zelensky said so at the time. The Democrat House took the allegation as fact and either a.) never corroborated it, or b.) knew it wasn't true and went ahead anyway out of hatred for the guy. Either way, the phone call was the basis for the first impeachment. My God, even Constitutional expert and famed attorney Alan Dershowitz, a lifelong liberal, came to Trump's defense. What does that tell you ? Do you have to be a "Trump fan" to stick up for what's right ? Of course not.