Gil Jesus

ROFLMAO...and what evidence do you have regarding the exposure of this specific photo and video ? Exposure has nothing to do with the difference in the color of these two jackets. If the film's exposure was in excess to make a grey jacket appear to be white, then ALL of the items in it would ALSO have been overexposed to some degree. You can't overexpose only the jacket and nothing else in the video. Nothing, however, in the background or foreground of the video indicates that other items were overexposed. IOW, the exposure is correct. But nice try. And there's more evidence that the shooter's jacket was white: a.) the witnesses who described the shooter's jacket as white ( 7 H 69 ) b.) the subsequent Dallas Police broadcast describing the shooter's jacket as white ( 4 H 185 ) and c.) the police witness who described the jacket found in the parking lot as white ( 7 H 30 ) I doubt Ansel Adams would have an answer for those. Do YOU ?

Thanks for those photos. It certainly shows that CE 162 is darker than the jacket depicted in the video. One thing I find interesting is that BOTH jackets appear to have two elastic sections in the back at the waist. When fully contracted, they create creases in the material directly above them. I would say that they appear to be the same KIND of jacket, but I have my doubts about the color based on other evidence.

Maybe this one ? CD 496, pg. 22: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relPageId=22

Two jackets in two black and white films. On the left is a still from a video taken in a parking lot a block from the Tippit murder scene. It shows a policeman displaying what Dallas Police radio broadcasts described as a white jacket which was recovered from underneath a 1955 Olds that was parked in the lot. Initial police broadcasts identified Tippit's murderer as wearing a white jacket. On the right is CE 162, Oswald's grey jacket. The WC said that this was the jacket recovered from under the car. Given that both of these jackets were filmed with black-and-white film, if CE 162 is the jacket on the left, shouldn't it be in the same greyscale as it is on the right ? I can see it being a shade or two off maybe due to lighting, but these two jackets aren't even close. Is there anyone out there who believes that these two are the same jacket ?

John, The Fair Play for Cuba Committee was a PEACE organization that advocated full restoration of diplomatic relations between Castro's Cuba and the United States. Oswald stated this during an interview in New Orleans and this WAS their stated goal. They NEVER advocated an overthrow of the US government nor did they support political assassination. Ironically, a secret course of rapproachment with Castro was one of the courses the Kennedy administration was pursuing in the summer of 1963. JFK used "cutouts" like Jean Daniel and William Attwood in order to give himself some appearance of deniability.

Absolutely. And Jarman's testimony is NOT hearsay evidence. HEARSAY EVIDENCE. The evidence of those who relate, not what they know themselves, but what they have heard from others. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Hearsay+evidence Another way of putting it: Evidence that is offered by a witness of which they do not have direct knowledge but, rather, their testimony is based on what others have said to them. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/Hearsay.aspx Jarman KNEW HIMSELF that Oswald said it because he was present when it was said. He had direct knowledge of the conversation. Which is why it is not hearsay. He wasn't relating what someone told him Oswald said. My goodness, if police were prevented from testifying that a defendant confessed to a murder and supplied them with information that resulted in the recovery of the victim's body, because the police testimony was hearsay, a lot of murderers would be walking out of courtrooms free. Uncorroborated ? Absolutely. But not hearsay. Jarman's testimony of the conversation is what is called first hand evidence. Hearsay evidence is also referred to as second-hand evidence or as rumor or even gossip.

That's incorrect. It's not hearsay evidence, classic or otherwise. If Jarman were relating what a third party told him Oswald said, THAT would be hearsay evidence. For example, Witness A in a murder trial claimed on the stand: "Witness B told me that he heard the defendant admit to killing the victim." Witness "A"'s testimony is hearsay because he didn't hear the defendant admit it, he was told by "B" of the admission. But witness "B"'s testimony is NOT hearsay because he heard the defendant make the admission firsthand. Likewise, Jarman was present when Oswald said it. He heard it firsthand. He didn't hear it from a third party. It isn't hearsay by definition and it would have been admissible for Oswald's defense attorney to use it in a trial. And if you had a full understanding of what hearsay evidence is, you'd never discount the testimony of a witness who was present when something was said. I'm not making any assumptions at all. ME saying Oswald was a shooter ? ME saying that Oswald knew where the rifle was ? ROFLMAO WHERE DO YOU GET THIS STUFF FROM ? WHERE DID I SAY THAT ? I'm the guy saying Oswald was INNOCENT !!!! I'm the guy saying that Oswald DIDN'T know the motorcade route and thus COULDN'T have retrieved the rifle. And I NEVER said that Oswald knew where the rifle was. Unless you have evidence that Jarman lied, your argument is dead. In evaluating uncorroborated evidence it's all about the credibility of the witness and any supporting facts. For example, there's no evidence that Oswald brought a 38" package to work that day. There's no evidence that Oswald brought a 38" package into the building. We've demonstrated that the purchase of the rifle was a fraud. We've demonstrated that the "bag" was made on 11/22. We've demonstrated that Oswald could not have gotten to the second floor lunchroom from the sixth floor in less time than it took Truly and Baker. We've proven that the lineups were slanted toward Oswald and that affidavits were altered. It's all here: http://www.giljesus.com In addition, we've supplied evidence that the FBI LIED in their reports regarding what the witnesses told them: NOW YOU HAVE ME SUPPORTING OSWALD'S GUILT ? Tell me you're not serious !!! To suggest that I, of all people, am a WC supporter, or that I am somehow advocating Oswald's guilt, after all of the writings I've done in support of his innocence over the years, indicates to me that you are either clueless when it comes to my research, you have a problem with me personally, or YOU believe Oswald pulled the trigger. Otherwise, I have no idea why you'd misrepresent what I am saying or suggest I have a lack of understanding when it comes to criminal procedure. I come from a family of police officers and ex-police officers, myself included. I have a degree in criminal justice and I count among my many friends members of police departments, ex-investgators and prosecutors. I've given testimony in criminal cases. I KNOW what hearsay evidence is. There's no evidence that Jarman lied about this encounter, in spite of your suggestion that he could "say whatever he wanted" once Oswald was dead. Why would he lie in defense of Oswald ? IMO, it just doesn't make sense. I believe Jarman's account in accordance with the supporting facts regarding the rifle, the bag and the "escape" and I believe that it is proof that Oswald did not know the motorcade route and thus never brought the rifle into the building and fired at the motorcade. Another point I'd like to make is whether or not it was possible for Oswald to NOT know that the motorcade was coming through Dealey plaza. Jarman testified that he didn't know the President was coming by until the morning of the 22nd. Representative FORD. When did you first learn of the President's motorcade route? Mr. JARMAN. That morning. Representative FORD. Friday morning, November 22d? Mr. JARMAN. Yes, sir. Representative FORD. How did you find out about it? Mr. JARMAN. The foreman of the employees on the first floor. Representative FORD. What is his name? Mr. JARMAN. William Shelley was standing up talking to Mrs. Lee. Representative FORD. To Mrs. Lee? Mr. JARMAN. Miss Lee, or Mrs. Lee, I think, and he was discussing to her about the President coming, asked her was she going to stand out there and see him pass. Representative FORD. About what time Friday morning was this? Mr. JARMAN. I imagine it would be about--I think it was between 8:30 and 9:00. I am not sure. Representative FORD. You hadn't read about it in the papers the night before or that morning? Mr. JARMAN. No, sir. ( 3 H 209 ) BTW, any comments made about me personally are just nonsense.

I would suggest that the proof the conversation DID occur is in the sworn testimony of James Jarman, which I quoted above. And I think it IS a big deal if Oswald was unaware of the direction of the motorcade route, or that it was even going to pass through the plaza. Without this information, there's simply NO MOTIVE for him to retrieve the rifle. More importantly, this conversation occurred AFTER the rifle was allegedly already in the building, meaning that either Oswald was "playing dumb" as someone suggested, or someone else brought the rifle into the building. Although I agree that the record of the interrogations is pretty sad, none of the officers who were present during those interrogation sessions ever quoted Oswald's reference to this Jarman encounter. If Oswald was using this "ace" to prove his innocence, it was a card he never played. To suggest that the topic may have been discussed because the record is incomplete is IMO, speculative. The fact remains that there is no EVIDENCE that Oswald ever brought it up.

Build up an alibi for what? I agree with Mr. Kelly. If Oswald was planning to use this encounter with Jarman as proof of his innocence, why didn't he use it when he was interrogated ????? "How could I have killed the President when I didn't even know the motorcade route----just ask Junior Jarman !!!" There's no evidence that he ever said anything like this during his interrogation or that Oswald tried to use this encounter as proof of his innocence. To believe that this ingenious criminal mind would think of covering his ass BEFORE the event in such a fashion, only to leave behind a rifle connected to him through a paper trail, then kill a policeman and leave his wallet at the scene, is just silly IMO. The Dallas papers posted several versions of the motorcade route before the 22nd. Is it that strange that someone disinterested in the President's arrival would not know the motorcade route ?

I went to see this movie in the theater when it opened in 1973. I remember that we were given a "newspaper"-type publication that accompanied the movie. To me, I still consider it better than Stone's "JFK" because of its from-the-conspirators viewpoint. Plus, some of the early WC critics ( i.e. Mark Lane and Penn Jones ) were consultants on the film. The only part that bogged me down was the necessity for the conspirators to have the support of the Will Geer character, "Harold". Without it, they could not proceed. They made him out to be reluctant at first, then being "forced" to go along with the plot because of Kennedy's disagreeable actions. I'm not so sure that anyone reluctant to kill the President would have done so without first exhausting every other option available to him. But it is a good story and I recommend it. What it does is show you how a conspiracy COULD have existed and been successful.

...comes in the testimony of James Jarman: Mr. JARMAN. Well, he ( Oswald ) was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all. ( 3 H 201 )

Great assessment. The record deficit is a result of spending BILLIONS on financing TWO CONCURRENT WARS FOR 10 YEARS. That's never been done before in history, and now we know why. Add to that the fact that American businesses have moved manufacturing jobs to China and Mexico where the people will work for slave wages, and you can see how their greed has resulted in high unemployment among Americans. New jobs ? Where will they come from ? What corporation is going to create new jobs here when they can do the same overseas and pay $ .35 an hour ? Meanwhile, American families are losing their homes and living in their cars. I sat in a parking lot early one morning and watched a homeless man stop in front of a Aaron's Rental Center and stare into the window looking at the furniture. It was heartbreaking imagining what was going through his mind and at the same time it made me ashamed to live in America. It also awakened me to the fact that I was just a job loss away from being that guy. What has happened to the "American dream" ?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Rowland, a couple of other questions. Are you able to give us any other type of a description of the Negro gentleman whom you observed in the window we marked "A" with respect to height, weight, age? Mr. ROWLAND. He was very thin, an elderly gentleman, bald or practically bald, very thin hair if he wasn't bald. Had on a plaid shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color, that is why I remember it. Mr. SPECTER. Can you give us an estimate as to age? Mr. ROWLAND. Fifty; possibly 55 or 60. Mr. SPECTER. Can you give us an estimate as to height? Mr. ROWLAND. 5'8", 5'10", in that neighborhood. He was very slender, very thin. Mr. SPECTER. Can you give us a more definite description as to complexion? Mr. ROWLAND. Very dark or fairly dark, not real dark compared to some Negroes, but fairly dark. Seemed like his face was either--I can't recall detail but it was either very wrinkled or marked in some way. ( 2 H 188 ) MORE FROM ROWLAND: Mr. ROWLAND. ...Let me see, the exact time I do not remember, but the man, the colored man, was in that window until the procession reached Commerce I mean Main, and Ervay...... Mr. SPECTER. Were you observing the window which you marked "A" at the time he departed? Mr. ROWLAND. No, I didn't. I just know, I was looking at the crowd around. and then I glanced back up again, and neither did I see the man with the rifle nor did I see him. The colored man went away. Mr. SPECTER. How long was that after you first noticed the colored man in the window "A"? Mr. ROWLAND. Fifteen minutes. Mr. SPECTER. Had you looked back at window "A" at any time during that 15 minute interval? Mr. ROWLAND. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. Had you seen anybody in window "A" during that time? Mr. ROWLAND. The colored man was that-- Mr. SPECTER. So how many times did you notice him altogether? Mr. ROWLAND. Several. I think I looked back about two, maybe three times a minute, an average. I was, you know, trying to find the man with the rifle to point him out to my wife. I noticed the colored man in that window. I looked at practically every window in the building but I didn't look at anything with the detail to see what I was looking for. Mr. SPECTER. Over how long a time span did you observe the Negro man to be in the window marked "A"? Mr. ROWLAND. He was there before I noticed the man with the rifle and approximately 12:30 or when the motorcade was at Main and Ervay he was gone when I looked back and I had looked up there about 30 seconds before or a minute before. Mr. SPECTER. How long after you heard the motorcade was at Main and Ervay did the motorcade pass by where you were? Mr. ROWLAND. Another 5 minutes. Mr. SPECTER. So that you observed this colored man on the window you have marked "A" within 5 minutes prior to the time the motorcade passed in front of you? Mr. ROWLAND. Approximately 5 minutes prior to the time the motorcade came, he wasn't there. About 30 seconds or a minute prior to that time he was there. ( 2 H 178 ) I wouldn't be surprised if the "colored man" had seen the gunman and was trying to avoid detection by hiding. It would explain why he appeared in the window, then disappeared, then re-appeared. I don't believe any of the testimony indicated that he had a rifle.

1. JFK was warned to stay out of Dallas or else he'd be killed. 2. JFK went to Dallas anyway and was killed. 3. The authorities whose responsiblity it was to properly investgate the crime failed to do so and instead covered it up.

One wonders if there was any connection between Larrie Schmidt, Bernard Weissman, "The American Fact-Finding Committee" and this group. I agree with your observation of Walker. Walker made sure he had an alibi and when news broke on the plane that the President was shot, he made sure everyone on the plane knew who he was and that he wasn't involved.

On page 5 of CD 1210 Sgt. Gerald Hill says that he was told by another officer that the rifle found on the sixth floor was "made in Argentina". The 1933 7.65 Argentine Mauser had stamped on the receiver "7.65 Mauser". Roger Craig said that the stamping was on the barrel, but he may have mistaken the receiver as part of the barrel. I'm beginning to wonder if this Argentine Mauser was the rifle Warren Caster brought nto the TSBD two days before the motorcade. Willam Shelley testified that one of the rifles Caster brought into the building was originally a foreign-made rifle that had been converted to a 30.06. Mr. BALL. And was there another make of gun too---there was, wasn't there? Mr. SHELLEY. Yes; I believe there was a .30-06 Mauser that had been converted. It was a foreign make converted to a .30-06. ( 7 H 390 ) In his testimony, Caster admitted that the 30.06 was a Mauser that had been sporterized. Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser. ( 7 H 387 ) Caster told the Commission that he had bought the rifle for deer hunting. I had, oh, for several years been thinking about buying a deer rifle and they happened to have one that I liked and I purchased the .30-06 while I was there. ( ibid.) Arnold Rowland described the rifle he saw in the hands of the sixth floor gunman as a 30.06 deer rifle that had been imported. Mr. SPECTER. Can you describe the rifle with any more particularity than you already have? Mr. ROWLAND. No. In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope. Mr. SPECTER. When you say, .30-odd-6, exactly what did you mean by that? Mr. ROWLAND. That is a rifle that is used quite frequently for deer hunting. It is an import. ( 2 H 170 ) Needless to say, I have some serious problems with rifles being brought into the TSBD just days before the President rides by. I have more problems with the lack of proof that they were ever removed. Also, when added to the "rifle practice" seen on the knoll on the same day by a Dallas Police patrol, the description by Rowland of the weapon he saw shooting, the identification of the weapon by Weitzman and Craig, I'm beginning to buy Craig's story of the Mauser more and more. On the day of the assassination, Caster was not at work at the Southwestern Publishing Company inside the Texas School Book Depository. He was at the North Texas State University in Denton, having lunch there with Dr. Vernon V. Payne. ( CE 1381 ) Three weeks earlier, student members of the Young Republican Club at NTSU had heckled UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson during his speech at the Trade Mart and upon leaving the building the Ambassador had been spat on and hit with a picket sign. This "club" was a known satellite of the strident and blustering far-right wing agitator General Edwin A. Walker. Walker made it known at every chance that he regarded JFK as a gutless "Commie-symp" intent on handing the country over to his Kremlin masters. The Dallas Secret Service learned from the Dallas Police, who received information from a student informer, that some of Walker's Denton "troops" were planning something for Kennedy's Dallas visit. One of the suspects that the Dallas Secret Service identified from the Stevenson incident was alleged to have remarked that he and others planned to "drag his [ Kennedy's ] dick in the dirt." Pictures of this student and others who had been involved in the October 24 fracas were circulated to all security personnel at the Trade Mart and a "trip file" was prepared on each subject for use in any future Presidential visits. ( McKnight, Breach of Trust, pg. 249 ) I find it interesting that the very man who brought two rifles into the building just two days before the motorcade, used as an alibi, the very University from which students aligned with General Walker had made threats against the President. And on TOP of all of that, none of these students were placed under surveillance or taken into custody before the Dallas motorcade. No investigation was ever done to determine Caster's political views, the views of Dr. Payne, or if either had any connection with the Young Republican Club or with General Walker.

A 1963 Ford Galaxie.

I think Lifton's research raised the question ( for me at least ) about whether or not the body was hijacked after the assassination. It would certainly make sense for a coverup to remove any bullets which remained in the body and would explain WHY the SS were so hellbent on not allowing the casket to be opened once they started their departure from Parkland. It makes me wonder if the body was even in that casket or if it had already been removed to be whisked out the rear door. I just find that the actions of the SS, to the extent of removing the casket at gunpoint, is somewhat strange. If it had been ordered by RFK as AG, I'd have no problem with it. Perhaps the "Kennedy clan" was so pissed off that they were determined not to let any Dallasite cut him up. "We brought our guy down here and you blew his brains out, now you wanna carve him up ??? No way." I could understand that. But it still makes me wonder.

We're still looking for the reason why Callaway would have asked Benavides which way Tippit's killer went if he observed him fleeing down Patton Ave. and confronted him as he claimed. We're still looking for the reason why Callaway and Guinyard had the gunman fleeing down different sides of the street and crossing on opposite ends of the street. We're still looking for the reason why Callaway would have asked Benavides which way Tippit's killer went if he followed the gunman as Guinyard claimed he did. From Sam Guinyard's testimony: Mr. GUINYARD. Mr. Callaway followed him, you see, we was together--he was my boss at that time and he followed him. Mr. BALL. Callaway? Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; trying to see which way was he going. Mr. BALL. And then, which way did he go after he got to Jefferson? Mr. GUINYARD. He went west on Jefferson--on the right-hand side---going west. Mr. BALL. And what did Callaway do? Mr. GUINYARD. He turned around and run back to the street ..... ( 7 H 398 ) Guinyard's testimony suggests that he and Callaway saw the gunman travel west on West Jefferson, that Callaway actually followed the gunman for a short distance, then ran back to Patton Ave.. Callaway's testimony confirms that the last time he saw the gunman he was travelling west on West Jefferson: Mr. DULLES. May I ask what course he was taking when you last saw him? Mr. CALLAWAY. He was going west on Jefferson Street. Mr. DULLES. West on Jefferson Street? Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes, sir. ( 3 H 354 ) With Guinyard and Callaway that day was B.D. Searcy. Callaway claimed to have told Searcy to follow the gunman. Mr. BALL. Did you ever ask Searcy if he followed him? Mr. CALLAWAY. He didn't follow him. He said something about "Follow him, hell. That man will kill you. He has a gun." So instead of following him, he went back over and got behind the office building. Mr. DULLES. Did he see him at any time? Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes; he saw him the same time I did; yes, sir. I never could figure out why he didn't just follow that man. You could follow 50 yards behind him and keep a guy in sight. Chances are you wouldn't get killed 50 yards away. ( 3 H 356 ) It seems to me that Callaway, Guinyard and Searcy were all "behind the office building" when the gunman passed by, which is why there is so much diversion between the witnesses as to what they saw. It may also be the reason why Searcy " went back over and got behind the office building " where it was safe. BTW, even though Callaway testified that Searcy saw the gunman, Searcy was never called to testify before the Commission. I can find no evidence that he was ever deposed by counsel and no report of any FBI interview of him.

There are people here who don't want us to talk about the evidence. They'll try to get you tangled up in all kinds of nonsense and off-topic bullshizer from personal attacks to spelling ( or in my case typing ) errors. In this thread I've shown where Callaway was a weak witness. I don't believe his story and I find it difficult to believe that he heard the shots, ran to the curb, saw a man coming down the street reloading a gun, and unarmed, didn't run for cover. Instead, he tells us that he confronted the man at nearly point blank range and the man, rather than shoot him, simply mumbled something and ran away. Very difficult to believe. When added to his asking Benavides which way the gunman went, his giving an affidavit before he even saw the lineup and Leavelle's "tip" that the Tippit killer was in the lineup pretty much destroys Callaway as a witness IMO.

I simply asked a question and all of a sudden Duncan attacks me, accusing me of claiming someone else's work as my own. I've challeneged him to prove it by providing us with the video. Let's see if he does it. In the meantime, I guess I have to ask another question: Is making "amendments" to a video an admission of guilt ?

ROFLMAO..the last bastion of a LNer with his back up against the wall. SPELLING How utterly childish.

What a hypocrite. All anyone needs to do is go to your Youtube channel and watch most of your videos which give zero credits to the makers of the original content of your video's. Just because you give a bit of spiel in between clips, doesn't make it your video. Oh, and wasn't your original Youtube account deleted because of copright infringements when some weasel reported you? I've NEVER labelled any of the videos on my Youtube channel produced by someone else as my own. I don't believe that I've ever seen anyone else on Youtube do that. Most of the videos I posted were posted by other Youtubers as well. I don't recall seeing "credits" on any of their videos. Your arguments are weak. There's a BIG difference between not naming the source of a video and claiming it as your own. That's against the law here in the US. If you have a video I posted that was produced by someone else where I claimed or labelled it as my own , let's see it.

Callaway as a witness poses BIG problems. He and Guinyard were supposed to be together, but what they each saw completely contradicted what the other saw. For example: Callaway saw the man with the gun cross the street behind the taxi and come down Patton Ave on the west side of the street. ( 3 H 352, 353 twice ) He estimated that the man passed about 56 ft from him. ( 3 H 355 ) Guinyard saw the man with the gun come down Patton Ave. on the east side of the street and cross over about 5 ft from West Jefferson. ( 7 H 397, 398 ) He estimated that the man passed about 10 ft from him.( ibid.) How can two witness, who were supposed to be together, see the same man with the gun on different sides of the street. One witness has him on the opposite side of the street ( Callaway ) and the other has him on the same side of the street ( Guinyard ). It seems to me that a detail as basic as which side of the street he was on could not be subject to error. And if it was, what does that say about the reliability of whatever else they claimed to have seen ? I doubt that either one of these witnesses saw what they said they saw.

Isn't that a copywright infringement, taking someone else's work and labelling it as your own ?