Gil Jesus

The Commission's speculation that the rifle was the "mechanism" that transferred the fibers from the blanket into the bag was based on the fact that the bag and the blanket never had contact. This photograph found by researcher John Hunt in the National Archives shows that not to be true. While the photograph shows contact between the bag and blanket, the contact is in the middle of the bag, not on the open end. While some researchers are convinced that this shows how the fibers got into the bag, I am not. What I see is a possibility that blanket fibers could have been found on the OUTSIDE of the bag. This leaves only two possibilites in my mind: either the rifle transferred the fibers into the bag, ( which the Commission never proved ) or the fibers were intentionally plucked from the blanket and placed into the bag by authorities.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the bag was made by police. If Oswald had made the bag, it would have been over 40 inches long. He would have measured the rifle and made the bag to fit it. The police, however, never measured the C2766 rifle. They thought they had a 36 inch rifle because that's what they were told was ordered. So they never measured it. They didn't know that Klein's had sent a 40 inch rifle in its stead. So they made the 38 inch bag to fit the assembled 36 inch rifle. The police never considered that the rifle was more than 36 inches. Even Chief Curry told the press that, "the package was large enough for the rifle to be intact". https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/rifle-was-intact.mp4 He told the press that, because that's what they thought they had: a 36 inch rifle and a 38 inch bag. If you and I are correct and police made the bag, it means that police knew on the afternoon of 11/22 that a 36" rifle had been ordered, well before Oswald's "ownership" was established. That rifle was never disassembled because if it were, it would have left scratch markings inside the bag, which it didn't. There's no evidence that the rifle was ever inside the bag and thus it's not possible for the rifle to have been the "mechanism" to transfer the fibers from the blanket into the bag. And because Stombaugh found so few fibers in the bag, we must consider the possibility that the fibers were manually and intentionally plucked from the blanket and placed into the bag by authorities.

And to add insult to injury, the FBI found NO EVIDENCE that ANY RIFLE was ever in the bag. "There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument." ( Testimony of John Cadigan, 4 H 97 ) Cadigan testified that only two ways the rifle could have been in this bag and left no markings: a.) if the metal parts were wrapped in cloth preventing them from having contact with the bag, or b.) if the rifle had been nearly still in the bag. "it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn’t moved too much." ( ibid. ) Neither of these were the case. The rifle was never wrapped in cloth and a broken-down 34 inch rifle would have had 4 inches to move around in a 38 inch bag. It would have moved around in the bag as Oswald hand carried it to the Randle residence. It would have bounced around in the back seat of Wesley Frazier's car as he drove through the dirt parking lot of the TSBD. Then it would have moved around as Oswald removed it from the back seat and hand carried into the building. A lot of moving around and no markings. So the absence of markings is proof that the rifle was never in the bag. And because the rifle was never in the bag, it was never the transfer vehicle of the blanket fibers into the bag. Without evidence that the “gunsack” ever contained the depository rifle, there's no evidence that the rifle transferred the blanket fibers into the bag. How do you get the fibers from the rifle into the bag if you can't prove that the rifle was ever in the bag ? You speculate. And that's what the Commission's supporters do.

https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1791/fiber-evidence

Good luck

The Google group is a format I started for critics and researchers to post their research into the assassination. The content is not moderated, ( how's that for covering up the truth ? Are you listening, John McAdams ? ) but membership must be approved by me. Are you a critic of the Warren Commission ? Are you a researcher ? When you applied, you stated that you wanted to "discuss the JFKA". It's not a discussion group or a format for debate like this forum. And since I am not familiar with your research and you offered no insight into it, I assumed you were neither a researcher nor a critic of the Warren Commission. So your request was denied. For example, Pamela Brown recently requested membership and was approved because I'm familiar with her research on the JFK limo. PS: For anyone interested, the group can be found at this link: https://groups.google.com/g/jfk-assassination-not-moderated The postings can be read by anyone, but in order to post you must be a member. If I am not familiar with your research, it might be a good idea to fill me in as to what it involves. A link to your website or work online would be helpful. Since you consider your denial for membership a big enough deal to post it here, maybe you or your Lone Nut buddies can explain how your failure to qualify for acceptance "covers up the truth" or translates into my wanting to prevent "true facts getting in the way". SMH

Dellarosa wasn't the only one to claim that he saw a different version of the Zapruder film. The description of what he saw is corroborated by at least one other person.

Well Don, let's look at the facts. He didn't join the EF until last month, after Google ended free access to the Usenet. He's promoting the same "Alan Smith as Allen Tippit" as "No True Flags Here/Sky Throne/19efppp" did in the a.c.j. newsgroup. And now that he's been outed by me, he's edited out many of his posts on his "Who was Alan Smith" topic and replaced them with single letters. Check it out. Why would he do that if he hadn't been exposed ? All of a sudden he doesn't want people to know his thoughts on Alan Smith ? Sound like I'm blowing smoke or is he acting llike someone who is guilty as charged ?

Well said. Anyone looking for a motive to assassinate the President need to study American history after WWII and the history of his Administration. When you put the assassination in the context of history, it's easy to see that this was a political murder. Some call it a coup d'etat, but I believe it was a counter-coup, the coup being Kennedy's victory in 1960. His policies and his behavior while in office were seen by the security state as a threat to the nation. How would the country's institutions react if faced with a President who they feared was a serious threat to the National Security ? We see how today political differences can create hate among folks. Was there enough hate for Kennedy in the CIA, FBI, Military and Secret Service to bring these elements together ? Were their political views the cement that joined them in a plot to remove his protection and drive him into an ambush in the "City of Hate" ? Did they prefer the foreign policies of LBJ over JFK ? And what of all the warnings to Kennedy not to go to Dallas ? Did all of these people know beforehand of Oswald's plan to kill the President ? I have documents of people who stated as early as mid-April 1962 that there was a plan to "get rid" of Kennedy in Dallas. Oswald wasn't even in the US in April of 1962. He didn't return until June. How could Oswald plan this murder "weeks or months in advance" ( as Henry Wade claimed ) when the motorcade route wasn't made public until three days before the assassination ? How could this genius Oswald, who was smart enough to get the gun into the building without anyone seeing it and hide it in a place where no one would find it, be stupid enough to throw away his jacket and keep on his person the very handgun that tied him to the Tippit murder ? Why after a successful "escape" from the TSBD via bus and cab, did he not flee the Tippit murder scene the same way ? Why did his M.O. change ? They were looking for a cop killer on foot. Why did he flee on foot ? Why didn't he hail a cab on East Jefferson ? Why did he choose to draw attention to himself by trying to beat the Texas Theater out of a 90 cent ticket when he had $ 13.87 in his pocket ? No, none of it makes sense.

Very sad news for anyone interested in truth. I attended his 2003 symposium at Duquense University. One of the nation's leading pathologists, he saw something was amiss in the medical autopsy from day one. Here is Dr. Wecht back in 1988 warning us of the danger of coup d'etats in America. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/wecht_expose-elements.mp4 He truly was a great man and my condolences go out to his family and friends.

Aren't you the guy who propagates that Allen Smith was really Allen Tippit ? Aren't you the same guy who propagated in the newsgroup alt. conspiracy.jfk back February '22 that James Jarman was shooting from the 5th floor window ? https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/Ns0OUTPTlxA/m/kmPGwqePAAAJ And you have the nerve to question the credibility of Oliver Stone ? A reference for anything serious ? There's a lot of historical FACT in this scene. Where do you get your references from ? If you wanna trash what Stone says in this scene, then feel free to post evidence to refute it.

The "Mr. X" scene from Oliver Stone's 1991 hit "JFK" where "Mr. X" ( played by Donald Sutherland ) explains to Jim Garrison ( Kevin Costner ) why JFK was killed. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/JFK Mr. X scene.mp4

Absolutely. This was never a criminal investigation. This was a collection of evidence against one suspect. Everything that pointed to his guilt was presented as fact, anything that pointed to his innocence was ignored or suppressed. A Commission outline dated January 11, 1964 determined that Oswald was the assassin before the Commission heard its first witness.

Thank you Ben. It's important for folks to know that the reason why there was conflict in the evidence between the DPD and the FBI in the first 48 hours. It was because the FBI was not "on board" with a coverup. It wasn't until they took over the case and received the evidence a second time, ( Nov. 27th ) that they became involved in a coverup to hide the fact that the DPD had arrested the wrong man for the crime. PS: FWIW, Lt. Day also handled the Walker bullet. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96433#relPageId=11

You make a good point Tom. Lt. Day was also one of two officers who allegedly "found" the paper "gunsack". As you know, that piece of evidence, like the jacket found under the Oldsmobile, the Tippit shells and the palmprint, was never photographed as found. They photographed the three shells on the sixth floor and the rifle as found. Why not those pieces of evidence ?

https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1778/nasty-palm-print

I believe Trump was Carlson's original source. I believe that Trump got his information from Pompeo. I believe that Carlson ( or his producers ) went to Pompeo and got confirmation of what Trump told him. That would put Pompeo on the hot seat. It coincides with what Trump told Judge Napolitano. That's my opinion, FWIW. You're going to find out in the long run that it was the CIA's Cubans who pulled the trigger. Of the Cuban groups, my main suspects are the DRE. Oswald was an FBI informant who tried to infiltrate their group in New Orleans and in retribution, they set him up as their "patsy". The whole things smells of a CIA operation: Create an atmosphere of hate. Arm the opposition group. Let the opposition group do their thing. The CIA set it up, with help from their pals in the US Military and the Secret Service. In the aftermath, the Dallas cops arrested the wrong guy ( Oswald ) and the FBI and Warren Commission covered up the whole sordid affair. The American government is run by the CIA. It started back after the second world war ended. The National Security Act of 1947 created the CIA. Truman thought when he signed the act into law that the CIA's purpose would be to collect information. He never thought it would be an operational arm of the US Government. But the CIA also became an operational arm of American business, creating changes in foreign governments who were not friendly to our corporations. The CIA started by subverting governments in foreign countries in tha 1950s. On November 22, 1963, they brought their expertise home. Kennedy's election in 1960 was a coup d'etat. The Joint Chiefs, who had taken orders from the Supreme Allied Commander of WWII for eight years, were now going to take orders from a PT boat commander. The White House Detail, the most elite assignment in the Secret Service, would now become errand boys, babysitters and lookouts for Jackie whenever the President was engaged in infidelities with other women. These were deeply degrading and depressing times for the military and the Secret Service. This BS had to end and in my opinion, when the opportunity presented itself, last minute changes were made to the motorcade route to make it easier for the gunman to hit the President. When the shooting started, the driver even slowed the limo down, not accelerating until after he saw the President's head explode. They had intentonally taken the President into an ambush. Kennedy was a dead man in a matter of seconds. JFK's assassination was a counter-coup to return the Presidency to the power elite that controlled it prior to 1960. In allowing the President to be killed, the pre-1960 status quo had been re-establshed and the Cold War continued. It meant billions for the military contractors and jobs for their employees. Kennedy's doctors said he wouldn't live to the age of 45. When Johnson saw the doctor's reports, he changed his mind about taking the # 2 spot. Once JFK was elected, the CIA now had their man Johnson waiting in the wings. But Kennedy didn't die as his doctors had thought. He proved the doctors wrong and a 45th birthday party was given to him at Madison Square Garden in May of 1962, highlighted by Marilyn Monroe singing , "Happy Birthday to You ". From the CIA to Soviet Premier Khrushchev, everyone thought they could push the young President around. They thought they could get him to do their will. They quickly found out different. Unable to control him, they had to remove him from office. Kennedy was seen by the most extreme of his political enemies as a coward and a traitor. His desire to peacefully coexist with Communists was seen as an anathema. It was a departure from George Kennan's policy of "containment" which had been the foundation of American Foreign Policy since 1947. They saw themselves as patriots. In their view, Kennedy's policies and his behavior while in office presented a serious threat to the securty of the country. He had to be removed from office.

That sounds about right. Mr. Brown makes up a lot of things, like Tippit was killed at 1:17. Lone Nut supporters have to make up things because the evidence doesn't add up. They're left with "filling in the holes" with opinion, speculation, conjecture and what they call, "common sense". Their speculations and wild guesses only serve to raise more questions, questions they can't answer. For example, Mr. Brown puts Helen Markham on the corner witnessing a murder at 1:17, when she should be on her 1:15 bus. Mr. Brown suggests that Tippit was shot at or after 1:15 and killed instantly. If that's true, how did a doctor at Methodist Hospital know the exact minute he was killed ? Not even a coroner can tell you the exact minute a victim was killed. He can narrow it down to a timeframe, but he can't tell you the exact minute. There is corroborating evidence that Tippit was killed before 1:15. There's corrborating evidence that documents were altered by the FBI to show Tippit was pronounced dead at 1:25 instead of 1:15. Mr. Brown and his allies choose to ignore this evidence. Lone Nutters grab on to one piece of evidence and the hang onto it like their lives depended on it. They do it with the dictabelt. They do it with the "backyard photographs". They do it with the Tippit shells. They claim Oswald received the murder weapons, but can't tell us on what date he received them or who in the Post Office and REA Express office handed him those weapons. They can't tell us how Oswald allegedly ordered a 36" troop special and got a 40" short rifle in its stead. They can't tell us why the shells found at the Tippit murder scene don't match the bullets removed from his body. They can't tell us how Oswald purchased a postal money order and mailed it in an envelope that was post-marked at a time when his work sheets proved he was at work. They can't tell us why the only stamp on the money order is a stamp for deposit and why there are no stamps indicating that payment was made on that money order. They can't tell us why the "fillers' in the police lineups in no way resembled the descriptions of the witnesses to the Tippit murder. They can't tell us why Oswald was not allowed to see his family until Saturday. They can't tell us why Oswald was not allowed to use a phone until Saturday afternoon. They can't tell us why the back of head autopsy photo shows the scalp intact, when the autopsy report notes that there was a hole that extended into the "occipital region" where there was an "absence of scalp". ( 16 H 980 ) And there are plenty more. They can't explain the gaps in the chain of custody for much of the evidence. You'll notice, as I do, that 90% of what these Lone Nutters post is comments. They can speculate, but they can't provide the proof to back it up.

That is correct. In fact, Kennedy attended Rayburn's funeral in 1961. Sounds like this author didn't do his research.

One of those officers who DID ride at the rear corner of the limousine, B.J. Martin, testified that, "they instructed us that they didn't want anyone riding past the President's car and that we were to ride to the rear, to the rear of his car, about the rear bumper." ( 10 ) Not only were they reduced in number and moved to the rear corners of the car, the four who were positioned at the rear of the limo were told not to react if anyone assaulted the President. Martin said that, "at morning muster the four Presidential motorcycle officers were ordered that under no circumstances were they to leave their positions regardless of what happened." ( 11 ) Sound like they were interested in protecting the President ? Martin also said that, "while Kennedy was busy shaking hands with all the well wishers at the airport, Johnson's Secret Service people came over to the motorcycle cops and gave us a bunch of instructions...We were to stay well to the back and not let ourselves get ahead of the car's rear wheels under any circumstances." ( 12 ) These last minute changes were made to keep the motorcycle officers out of the line of fire. It indicates that "Johnson's Secret Service people" were well aware from which direction the shots would be fired. And it also indicates that the Secret Service played a role in the assassination. Sources: ( 10 ) 6 H 293 ( 11 ) "Murder From Within" by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p.33 ( 12 ) Jean Hill, "JFK: The Last Dissenting Witness" (1992), pp. 112-114

I once asked the Warren Commission supporters what standard they used to determine a witness' credibility. I got no answer. Because the answer is that their standard is this : any witness who adds to Oswald's guilt is credible and any witness that adds to his innocence is not. Witnesses who have come forward years later ( like Paul Landis and Jack Ray Tatum ) are still measured according to that standard. That's the standard they use. It doesn't matter if the physical evidence supports the witness or not. It's all about what the witness has to say in relation to the guilt or innocence of Oswald. These people have their own truth and are not open minded or willing to accept new evidence. You can show them testimony after testimony and document after document and they still won't accept it. Corroborating evidence means nothing to these folks. Witnesses and physical evidence that corrobrates what you say is nothing more to these folks as "kook sh*t". Many of them are driven by a hatred for "conspiracy theorists". They don't care that they've only heard one side of the story. They've only heard the prosecution's side of the case. Many of them haven't even read the 26 volumes, only the Report. That's like being a juror in a murder case, never hearing any of the testimony and only hearing the prosecution's final summation. What kind of a reasonable and prudent juror ( or judge ) would be satisfied never hearing from the defense and only deciding the guilt or innocence of an accused based solely on the prosecution's summation ? But, in effect, that's the stand these people have taken. Guilty until proven innocent. And even after you cast a reasonable doubt on his guilt, he's still guilty. If anyone has any doubt on the success of brainwashing, they only need to engage one of these folks to see it. The Dallas Police, the FBI and the Warren Commission started with a conclusion ( that Oswald was guilty ) and worked backwards to try to prove that. That's not the way a criminal investigation is conducted. If this case were legitimate and the evidence authentic, then everything should add up. There should be NO questions. The bullets that killed Tippit should match the shells found at the scene. The rifle should have been able to hit the sillouette targets in the head. The ammunition tests should have produced a bullet like CE 399. The wounds tests should have produced head wound like the one the President suffered. Not one of the tests conducted for the Warren Commission produced results that supported its conclusions. There should be no questions about the chain-of-custody of any of the evidence. The fact that there are nothing but questions about the evidence is troubling. But it's not just about the evidence. In a normal investigation, witnesses are not harassed into changing their stories, like W.W. Litchfield or Dr. Malcolm Perry. Witnesses are not warned to keep their mouths shut like Richard Randolph Carr or Acquilla Clemmons. Witnesses are not threatened with deportation like Marina Oswald or with death like Orest Pena. These are things you would do in a coverup. In a normal investigation, a suspect would not have been questioned after he asked for a lawyer. He would not have been held incommunicado from his family for 24 hours. He would not have been delayed a phone call until the next day. His lawyer would have been present when he was shown in a lineup. The "fillers" in that lineup would not have been teenagers and a Mexican. They would not have been men whose appearances automatically eliminated them from being chosen. Witnesses would not have told the suspect was in the lineup. These are things you would do if you were trying to frame an innocent man for a crime he did not commit. But none of this matters to people who think that your Constitutional rights are granted by Supreme Court decisions and that those rights are not in effect until the court says so. So I'm going to put these people on ignore and post what I post and I'm not going to respond to them. It's a total waste of time that could be better used for something else.

Witnesses who viewed Abraham Zapruder's original film at Kodak described what they saw. https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/first-showing.mp4

I was very disappointed for a couple of reasons when I saw the part in Episode 3 where they claim the extant Zapruder-film has been altered. #1 The female reporter claims to have been shown a version of the film where the driver shoots the President. In this film, she describes her host slowing it down and demonstrates how "the bullet comes out of the gun this slow". Those of us who have done the calculations on bullet speed and Zapruder frames know that this is not possible. Only a high speed camera can film a bullet in flight. Zapruder's camera at 18.3/fps simply was not fast enough. The film she was being shown was obviously an altered film, a fake. #2 She was told that the bootleg Groden version, the version that the public has seen, is an altered film and the proof is that in that version there is a tree in mid-air. I had never seen this before and found this interesting so I went back to my copy of the Zapruder film and it shows the tree intact. Upon closer look, the so-called "floating tree" version is the obvious fake, because the shadow of the tree trunk is visible where no trunk is apparent. If they had said that the "floating tree" version was the original and that some anomaly in the camera caused the tree to appear to have no trunk, they might have had me, because I had gone over the Z-film a hundred times and had never seen that version before. But to say that the "floating tree version" is the bootlegged public version shown by Bob Groden in 1975 is not true. This is a frame from Groden's 1975 "Goodnight America" presentation showing the tree trunk intact. And to suggest that Zapruder's camera was fast enough to pick up a bullet in flight and film it in several frames is not true as well. I believe the reporter saw what she said she saw. To her credit, she was skeptical. But I'm disappointed that the producers didn't call out the "floating tree" film and "the bullet travelling through the air" film as fakes. The version shown to the reporter of the driver shooting the President and the bullet travelling through the air IMO, is an obvious fake. As is the version with the "floating tree". Yes, what the reporter was shown were two fakes, one presented as the "original" with the driver shooting the President and the "bullet travelling through the air", and the other presented as the altered public version with the tree trunk missing. Speaking of fake versions of the Zapruder film, the revelation that there ARE altered versions out there may serve the CIA's purpose very well in the long run. The more fakes out there, the easier it would be for the Agency and its allies to reject a copy of the original film as a fake should one ever surface.

Good story teller, but provides no evidence. This guy's full of baloney. A police officer picked up Oswald, but he never tells you who. Only that it wasn't Tippit. How does he know ? Who's his source ? And who is Mr and Mrs. Malcolm, who allegedly witnessed the murder of Tippit but are never mentioned in the official records ? Who was the blonde in the '62 Ford who smashed into the back of Tippit's cruiser ? Why isn't she mentioned by any of the witnesses ? Why is there no accident report in the Dallas police files ? And why isn't there any damage in the rear of the cruiser ? He claims that the limo had a glass partition between the front seat and the rest of the car. But it didn't. This guy tells a good story but it's the official version with some of his BS speculation added in. He interviewed people but he presents no recordings, no videos and no documents to prove his case. Mr. Down writes : "JFKA researcher Michael Brownlow investigated the Tippit shooting for many years and interviewed many of the witnesses. He confirmed Oswald shot Tippit." If he "confirmed Oswald shot Tippit" I'd have no questions. I guess you have to buy his books to find out the answers to your questions. That should tell you something. SMH.