Gil Jesus

Researcher / author Harold Weisberg gives his thoughts on the assassination.

In this telephone call to President Johnson, Warren Commission member Sen. Richard Russell ( D-GA ) discusses the Single Bullet Theory and remarks, "I don't believe it" to which Johnson agrees. Commission members Russell, Boggs and Cooper did not accept the Single Bullet Theory.

On 10/3/2023 at 8:23 AM, Chris Scally said:

Gil,

Two observations, if I may -

First, despite what they said, the FBI transcripts were not verbatim by any means. Possibly the nearest to a verbatim transcript you will find is in Larry Sabato's "The Kennedy Half Century" app (working from memory here, but I think that is what it was called); and

Second, the source of your recording is crucial. There are many, many copies of the recordings in circulation, and many of those are of poor quality. Again, going from memory, the best quality recordings of both channels have been made available by Michael O'Dell, and posted on this forum (iirc).

Hope this helps.

 

Thanks for that info. I couldn't find it in a search of this forum but I'll search the web and hope I find it somewhere else.

Thanks again.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I CAN IMAGINE WHAT THIS WILL BE LIKE IF BOBBY DECLARES INDEPENDENT THIS WEEK.

With what the DNC is doing to change the rules regarding delegates and who gets them, he may not have a choice. If you campaign in New Hampshire, you can't get any delegates in Illinois or Georgia ? What is THAT all about ?

He has no chance of getting the Democrat nomination because he's not far enough to the Left. He's old-school Democrat ( what he calls a Kennedy Democrat ) which is like a moderate in today's political area. And he's not a one-trick pony, not some anti-vax nutcase as depicted in the MSM. He's intelligent and very well versed on foreign and domestic policy. His message has gotten the attention of a lot of voters, myself included.

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW its an important point as to who was Carlson's source.

Exactly. And the reason why I suspect Trump as Tucker's source is that Tucker's show was broadcast ( Dec. 2022 ) several months after they spent time together at the LIV Golf Invitational Series Bedminster ( July 2022 ).

In spite of his having the # 1 show on the network, with an average nightly audience of 3 million, Tucker was fired from Fox News four months after that broadcast. I never watched his show, but as I understand it, the excuse for his firing was that he had made false statements about Dominion, the voting machine giant, who sued FOX and won a $ 787.5 million lawsuit.  

And just like that, without warning, Tucker was out at FOX and none of the major news networks picked up his wildly popular show.

One month after Trump and Carlson spoke at the golf tournament, the FBI raided Trump's Mar-a-Lago home to search for documents he may have taken "illegally" when he left office. Did those documents include some he had seen regarding the JFK assassination ? I don't know, but you have to admit, the timeline here is very suspicious.

July 2022: Trump and Carlson spend time together at the golf tournament.

Aug. 2022: Mar-a-Lago raided by the FBI for "documents" Trump illegally took.

Oct. 2022: Mary Ferrell Foundation sues for release of ALL remaining JFK files.

Dec. 2022: Carlson reveals he has a source who has seen the remaining files on the JFK assassination and they implicate the CIA in his assassination.

April 2023: Carlson is fired by FOX News.

June 2023: Trump indicted by a Grand Jury in Miami for, "taking classified national defense documents from the White House after he left office and resisting the government's attempts to retrieve the materials".

July 2023: President Joe Biden issues his final release of the JFK files in July 2023, exempting almost 4,800 pages of files to be retained by the CIA.

RESULT: The CIA and the "deep state" win again.

Whether Trump is credible on this subject or not, I can't say. He says all kinds of wild things that have you shaking your head. But the circumstances here are very suspicious.

All I'm saying is that this is why I suspect Trump is Carlson's source.

2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Gil did nothing wrong and his post was about what Trump claimed he saw as opposed to how you feel about Trumps conduct.   

THANK YOU

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

William, I did not think that was what Gil was saying.

I thought he was drawing a straight line between the Deep State and the JFK case.

EXACTLY. It's getting so you can't even mention anything currently going on in the case without people losing it over Trump. At the mere mention of his name people go into attack mode. It's amazing. I don't think we've had a President so hated by half the country since Lincoln.

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

Do you care about your country? The Constitution? Then stop running defense for Donald Trump, a bonafide enemy of the United States.

I'm not running defense for anybody.

I'm getting sick and tired of you Trump haters accusing me of things I'm not doing. I posted a video and asked a question because I have a sneaky suspicion that Trump is Tucker Carlson's "source". And if that's true, he's already opened his mouth and spilled the beans about the CIA being involved in the assassination and I was wondering if he was going to do it AGAIN with Napolitano. 

And for the record, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I'm an Independent voter and independent thinker and always have been, who votes for the candidate whose policies I agree with. I vote for policies, not parties. In fact, I voted Democrat in 7 of the last 8 Presidential elections.

So don't accuse me of "running defense" for Donald Trump, because you don't know what you're talking about.

Grow up.

6 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

If he's not threatening a judge or intimidating a witness he can say whatever he wants to say. I resent you trying to feed us the baloney that he can't.

I'm not feeding you anything. I posted a video and asked a question.

You hate Trump, I get it.

If you don't believe the judge, that's your business.

If you resent my asking questions, that's just too bad.

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Oh, Gil, don't you know that John Connally, the guy who actually experienced the wounding and who knew himself better than anyone else, could not tell when he was really hit when he studied high-quality enlargements of the Zapruder film, that he was just plain "wrong" when he insisted he was not hit before Z231?! That is the WC apologists' answer to Connally's statements about when he was hit.

According to one WC apologist here, all the autopsy-witness statements that the doctors determined that the back wound was shallow and ended at the lining of the chest cavity merely mean that the doctors so badly butchered the probing of the wound that they tore a false track that went to the lining of the chest cavity! And why didn't they see the track that allegedly went to the throat wound? Well, because they never lifted JFK's right arm during the probing, even though they removed the chest organs and positioned the body "every which way" to determine the wound's track! 

It's amazing how they can deem credible ONE witness who has something to add to Oswald's guilt, but consider multiple, corroborating witnesses who have something that casts doubt on the official story as not credible.

They're like jurors in a murder case who only hear one side of the story: the prosecutor's opening remarks, the witnesses he presents to make his case and his closing remarks.

No defense case, no cross examination, no opportunity to present the defense's own witnesses and experts and no examination of the evidence.

They have "their truth". They don't want to hear it.

People argue, "this wasn't a court case". Then why was it conducted as half of one ?

IMO, it's just BS.

Judge Andrew Napolitano talks about a conversation he had with then President Trump about releasing the JFK files a month before Trump left office. Makes you wonder if the reason they're all hell-bent on throwing his ass in jail is because they're afraid he's going to say something ?

In this interview with ABC's "Nightline" in 1988, former Texas Gov. John Connally finally reveals a shooting sequence that destroys the Single Bullet Theory.

The first shot hit the President

The second shot hit Connally

The third shot hit the President

Hear it from the Governor's own lips:

Corroborated by the Zapruder film

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Z230.mp4

Witnessed by a bystander

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNZ2xCrzulI

Concluded by the FBI

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/page-1.png
 

Dr. Gary Aguillar and Dr. Josiah Thompson discuss the "snowstorm" of fragments in President Kennedy's X-rays and conclude that jacketed ammunition would not leave such a trail.

7 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Everywhere you turn around,something had to be altered,stolen,mishandled,withheld,replaced,omitted,falsified,added or even killed.

The cover-up team had to be shitting their pants with all of the stuff they ended up having to do to.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the dictabelt screwed up during the timeframe which J.D. Tippit was being killed.

I'm also sure that it's just a coincidence that the Bowley broadcast is 39.83 seconds long and the anomaly just happens to be long enough to cover it at 48.13 seconds. I timed both on my Movie Maker.

But they're just coincidences, I'm sure.

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

The Dallas Police dictabelt recording and transcript from 11/22/63, covering the stretch of time that Dallas Police officer J.D.Tippit was shot dead. Note that the there is an anomaly in the dictabelt at 1:12 pm Dallas time. ( around the 5:00 minute mark in the video ) Was the dictabelt altered ?

 

Can anyone with radio broadcast experience or experience with dictabelts explain what happened here ?

Why it kept repeating over and over something that had been previously said, like an old skipping album record ?

Another interesting thing about this is the transcripts, especially the FBI's version, which was supposed to transcribe ALL of the transmissions, but like the Dallas Police version, it left out the broadcasts between Capt. Talbert's 10-4 at 1:11 and unit 212's ( Off. Spradlin) call a 1:14.

( I determined Spradlin called at 1:14 by counting backwards from Barnhart's call at 1:15 )

The FBI never mentioned those broadcasts, including the "skipping" anomaly, and instead noted that timeframe as the "end of belt Six".

I find it strange that both the Dallas Police and the FBI saw fit to not transcribe the radio broadcasts between 1:11 and 1:14 pm. Can any of the Warren Commission's supporters explain why this particular timeframe was omitted from the official transcripts ?

The Dallas Police dictabelt recording and transcript from 11/22/63, covering the stretch of time that Dallas Police officer J.D.Tippit was shot dead. Note that the there is an anomaly in the dictabelt at 1:12 pm Dallas time. ( around the 5:00 minute mark in the video ) Was the dictabelt altered ?

Can anyone with radio broadcast experience or experience with dictabelts explain what happened here ?

Why it kept repeating over and over something that had been previously said, like an old skipping album record ?

20 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

You have np idea what you're talking about (again).  Someone was keying the mic for about ninety seconds before Bowley made his report.  You'd rather run away than learn something.

 

As someone who has had years of experience using two-way communications, including police radios, I suggest it is YOU who has no idea what you're talking about.

Here's the dictabelt recording 31 seconds before Bowley called on the radio. There was no one keying the mic for 90 seconds before his call. The transmissions were loud and clear, which they would not have been had someone been keying the mic. 

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/bowley-call.mp3

4 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

The FBI were acting on a request from the WC to investigate the matter of the Walker photo with the obliterated license plate. It's nicely summarized in CE 1351.

Doesn't matter what they were there for.

All that matters is what the witnesses said.

And once again, your interpretation is wrong.

The witnesses were not talking about the Walker photographs.

And the key phrase is "any particular photograph recovered from this residence".

Allow me to explain it to you.

"ANY" is a word depicting something all-inclusive.

That means ALL of the photographs.

If they had said that the detectives did, "not personally recall any of the photographs they were shown", that would be exclusive to the Walker pics because those were the pictures they were shown.

But they didn't say that.

They said that they did not recall, "any particular photograph recovered from this residence".

I don't understand how you can't grasp the meaning of any photograph from this residence.

In fact, they reported the witnesses' answers to viewing the Walker pics separately.

When the Walker photos are shown to them, they couldn't recall any of them as well.

2 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

…”small German camera and black case on chain with film” is as interesting as ever..

I thought the "Russian 35mm and brown case" might have been a weapon.

LOL. Still waiting for them to answer the question.

Experts discuss the coverup of the assassination of President Kennedy and its implications for the future of America.

On 9/25/2023 at 8:00 AM, Jean Ceulemans said:

1) there is indeed very little information on the negatives PS : when returned, "2 negatives" became "negative" (error in writing or did 1 negative just disappear... ?)

2) some said the pics were "found" on the 22nd... 

3) next, an envelope probably for the re-enactment negatives, but impossible to say for sure... but 4 different positions making it interesting (wouldn't it be nice if D was LHO holding the riffle above his head... Marguerite would be right... again... nope.. not happening

 

I see J.B. Hicks' name there on the CSSS document.

He testified for the Warren Commission.

How many questions did Commission counsel ask him about the "backyard" negatives he received ?

13 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Another way of saying that he wouldn't be able to describe to you what they depicted. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if I were you.

I never lose any sleep over your INTERPRETATIONS of what the witnesses MEANT because your interpretations are usually wrong.

As they are this time.

The document didn't say he couldn't describe them. It said he couldn't recall any of the photographs, even though he testified that, we all looked at it and said, "that looks like the rifle used in the assassination". ( 7 H 209 )

Adamcik's testimony is corroborated by Detective Henry Moore, who testified that, "we all looked and commented on it." ( 7 H 216 )

Like Adamcik, Moore later told the FBI that he, does not recall any particular photograph recovered from that address. ( CD 1066, pg. 255 )

This in spite of looking at the photograph Gus Rose found and commenting on it at the scene. Only a couple of months after their testimony and all of a sudden these two detectives could not "recall any particular photograph" ?

Their statements to the FBI had nothing to do with any description. They all looked at the photo. They all commented on the photo. They mentioned the rifle in the photo. They knew what the photo contained.

A couple of months later, they told the FBI that they didn't know anything about, "any particular photograph recovered from that address."

Sounds to me like they were trying to distance themselves from the discovery of the photographs.

3 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

nutters will never, EVER committ to answering your question, it would commit them to debate. If you remember the .john theory of conspiracy, they (nutters) affirm only what the 1964 WCR report supports in its conclusions. Nothing more. a cowardly tactic, but effective... They know 70% of the WCR case evidence would have a tough time being admitted today, even the Zap film is a toss up....

Our buddy Mark follows that scheme and plan to a 't'. As well as our freshly minted, new, photo expert seen hereabouts...

It seems Marquette is still kicking them out... <sigh>

Thanks Dave. Hope all is well. I'm keeping you in my prayers, buddy.

7 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

By 12/1963 Fritz was very confused (again....), see how he describes picture numbers 46 and 47... 

And 2 Klein's magazine ad's (one of those had it's own story apparently)

 

Funny that you mention John Adamcik's initials on the backyard photographs because he told the FBI after his Warren Commission testimony that, "he does not personally recall any photographs that were obtained from this residence."

9 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

A couple of points. 

1. I was interested in this aspect of the case and bought Studebaker's HSCA testimony from the Archives. I considered it quite important and gave it to Rex Bradford, who eventually put it online on the Mary Ferrell site.

2. I considered it important for a number of reasons. One was that Studebaker claimed he made his copies not from negatives but by taking photos of the photos with a large format camera--what he called a copy camera. This was important because the HSCA photo panel had claimed all the copies of 133 C and the blow-up of 133 - A had been made from the original negatives, and that the DPD must have lost two of the three negatives. IF Studebaker ws telling the truth--and there was in fact no record of the DPD ever having more than two negatives--then it follows that the photo panel was full of crappola, and these photos could have been fakes. There is only one negative for the three photos--and the authenticity of that negative would be called into question as well. I mean, if the FBI and photo panel were blowing smoke about the blow-up of 133-A, well, then, all their testimony about these photos could be smoke. 

3. Studebaker admitted as well that he'd tried to sell a set of crime scene photos in partnership with a local mob figure. I don't think anyone in the research community knew about this prior to my receiving his testimony from the archives. As far as I know, no one has followed up on this. 

Thanks Pat. Can you imagine police making copies of photographs that are evidence in a murder case and selling them for a profit ? Talk about police corruption !!!!