NEW GIL JESUS WEBSITE

[Gil Jesus]

Inspired by our recent debate with David Von Pein and the pipe dreams of Francois Carlier:

Finally the world will see the three-ring circus that was the case

against Lee Harvey Oswald.

SPECIAL THANKS TO TOM ROSSLEY FOR HIS HELP GETTING IT ON LINE.

Now under construction

http://giljesus.com

[Bernice Moore]

Many thanks gil...take care...b

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Good man. Though you might want to enquire off Websense, if you're interested, why their software excludes this site for reason 'potentially damaging content'.

[Richard Hocking]

Just Bookmarked your new site, Gil.

Looking forward to seeing it develop, and good luck!

[John Simkin]

Good man. Though you might want to enquire off Websense, if you're interested, why their software excludes this site for reason 'potentially damaging content'.

My security software said it was ok to enter.

[Evan Burton]

Good man. Though you might want to enquire off Websense, if you're interested, why their software excludes this site for reason 'potentially damaging content'.

My security software said it was ok to enter.

Ditto, though I still have scripts disabled.

[Gil Jesus]

Good man. Though you might want to enquire off Websense, if you're interested, why their software excludes this site for reason 'potentially damaging content'.

My security software said it was ok to enter.

Ditto, though I still have scripts disabled.

Thanks, I'm just getting it started, so it's going to be awhile until its done.

And there'll be links to ctka.net, this forum, blackop and some others that are cool.

Needless to say, the Von Pein disinformation sites will NOT be included.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[David Von Pein]

Needless to say, the Von Pein disinformation sites will NOT be included.

I'm heartbroken.

Edited April 1, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

Needless to say, the Von Pein disinformation sites will NOT be included.

I'm heartbroken.

...

do you have "proof" LHO was at the 6th floor, TSBD window Nov 22nd 1963 1230PM? Let's start there hon.

Edited April 2, 2011 by David G. Healy

[David Von Pein]

do you have "proof" LHO was at the 6th floor, TSBD window Nov 22nd 1963 1230PM? Let's start there hon

Of course. The proof has been on the table since 1963-1964. You just refuse to accept

the obvious, honey lamb.

Edited April 2, 2011 by David Von Pein

[William Kelly]

do you have "proof" LHO was at the 6th floor, TSBD window Nov 22nd 1963 1230PM? Let's start there hon

Of course. The proof's been on the table since 1963-1964. You just refuse to accept

the obvious, honey lamb.

Okay David,

Convince me Oswald was on the Sixth Floor at 12:30 PM 11/22/63

Bill Kelly

[David Von Pein]

Convince me Oswald was on the Sixth Floor at 12:30 PM 11/22/63.

If you can't figure out that easy one, Bill, then I feel sorry for you.

1.) Oswald's prints are on rifle #C2766.

2.) Rifle C2766 killed JFK.

3.) Oswald was in the building at the time when HIS OWN RIFLE (C2766) was being used by someone to kill JFK from the sixth floor of the Book Depository.

4.) Oswald's prints were on an EMPTY PAPER BAG found in the same area where someone was using Rifle C2766 to kill JFK.

5.) Oswald's fresh prints were on two boxes that were located DEEP WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST on the sixth floor.

6.) An eyewitness made a (post-11/22) positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin in the sixth-floor corner window of the Depository.

And there is lots of additional circumstantial evidence that indicates the fact that Lee Oswald killed John Kennedy, including not only the Tippit murder (which was, of course, committed by the same man whom you aren't convinced killed JFK).

A piece of circumstantial evidence that is rarely discussed when it comes to talking about things Oswald did that would certainly lead to the idea of his guilt and not innocence is the following evidence (which was corroborated by multiple TSBD employees--and not just Charles Givens):

Lee Oswald was attempting to get an elevator sent back up to him on the SIXTH FLOOR of the Book Depository within only about a half-hour of the President being murdered from that very same SIXTH FLOOR of that building.

Now, that piece of evidence (if we can call it "evidence") doesn't prove Oswald to be guilty of shooting the President, no. But it does, in my opinion, show Oswald's desire to "control" one of those two freight elevators at about 12:00 on November 22.

He very likely wanted to do two things by having the elevator sent back up to him (which it never was, per the available testimony from witnesses): He wanted to lock that elevator on the sixth floor, thus shutting down one of the elevators during an important time after the noon hour when he (LHO) was making his plans to shoot Kennedy.

And, number two, he likely wanted to be able to use that same elevator as a quick means of escape after firing his shots at the President.

Let me ask you this Bill -- Don't you find Oswald's request to have an elevator sent back up to him on the sixth floor a little bit of an odd request if Oswald merely was going through an ordinary day at work?

In other words, why didn't he simply go downstairs with the other employees during the elevator race at about 11:50 AM?

And why did he then not go downstairs with Charlie Givens at approximately 11:55 AM when Givens came back up to the sixth floor to retrieve his cigarettes from his jacket?

Oswald had TWO opportunities to go to lunch just before 12:00 noon that day--but he did not do it. Instead, he STAYED UPSTAIRS ON THE SIXTH FLOOR.

Why do you think he did that, Bill?

Was he really so anxious to fill those book orders that he had on his clipboard?

And those were book orders, btw, that HE NEVER DID FILL, which is another important point in this dicussion, IMO. For, if he merely was delaying going to lunch with the other boys at 11:50 and 11:55 AM in order to DO MORE WORK, then the question should be asked: Why didn't he do that work?

There were multiple unfilled orders attached to his clipboard when that clipboard was discovered in early December 1963 (and it was found in a location, btw, that was right next to where the C2766 rifle was stashed after the shooting).

Now, Bill, just exactly how much MORE stuff would you require in order for you to be willing to hang a "Guilty" tag around the neck of Lee H. Oswald?

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com

Edited April 2, 2011 by David Von Pein

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Convince me Oswald was on the Sixth Floor at 12:30 PM 11/22/63.

If you can't figure out that easy one, Bill, then I feel sorry for you.

5.) Oswald's fresh prints were on two boxes that were located deep within the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor.

No qualified person ever described these prints as FRESH, if I recall correctly.

My memory is reinforced by Wesley Liebeler, who pointed out that these prints PROVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

6.) An eyewitness made a (post-11/22) positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin in the sixth-floor corner window of the Depository.

(Post 11/22) is the keyword here. When confronted with Oz in person on the night of 11/22, your "eyewitness" did not recognize him. THe reason being? He had never seen the man before in his life.

And there is lots of addition circumstantial evidence that indicates the fact that Lee Oswald killed John Kennedy.

A circumstantial case is like a three-legged stool. All three legs are needed at the same time, MOTIVE, means and opportunity.

Even if we grant you means and opportunity just for the sake of argument, you still don't have the makings of a circumstantial case, because Lee Oswald was an admirer of JFK and of most of his policies. SO HE HAD NO MOTIVE, and you have no case.

[David Von Pein]

J. Raymond,

You don't need to PROVE motive to prove Lee Oswald's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

You know that, of course. You just want to play games (as usual).

[J. Raymond Carroll]

J. Raymond,

You don't need to PROVE motive to prove Lee Oswald's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

You know that, of course. You just want to play games (as usual).

It is true that motive is not an element of the crime of murder, but no prosecutor would bring a circumstantial case consisting only of proof that the defendant had the MEANS and the OPPORTUNITY to commit the crime. If the defendant had no reason to feel animus towards the victim, and if evidence showed that the defendant was well-disposed towards the victim, then A judge could well decide to dismiss the case, before a jury got the chance to laugh the prosecutor out of court.

This would be particularly true in a case where the victim HAD REAL ENEMIES who had REAL MOTIVES to want the victim dead, just as we have in this case.