Questions for Gil #2

[Chuck Schuyler]

Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.

Is Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
Is Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?

Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
Is Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?

Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition.

Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.

Historically:

1
: in accordance with or with respect to history
a historically accurate account

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historically#:~:text=1,%3A%20in%20the%20past

Guilty:

1
: justly chargeable with or responsible for a usually grave breach of conduct or a crime
Does the defendant plead guilty or not guilty?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guilty

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 8:26:29 AM UTC-5, Chuck Schuyler wrote:
< bullshit >

No, I'm not looking for the defintions of the words separately.
I'm looking for the defintition of the PHRASE "historically guilty".

I believe there's no such phrase and it's something you made up, so I'm asking for the link to the definition of the PHRASE.
If you can't provide a link to the definition of the PHRASE, then I can't answer your question.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Post by Gil Jesus
< bullshit >
No, I'm not looking for the defintions of the words separately.
I'm looking for the defintition of the PHRASE "historically guilty".
I believe there's no such phrase and it's something you made up, so I'm asking for the link to the definition of the PHRASE.
If you can't provide a link to the definition of the PHRASE, then I can't answer your question.

Whether you want to answer the question is one thing, but I can find your logical fallacy right here: Argumentum ad Dictionariam.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium

We all know what "historically" is, and we all know what "guilty" is. We all combine words to get ideas across, whether the specific combination of words has a dictionary definition or not.

And aren't you conceding the point at your own website? Didn't you write this?

"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."

What did you mean by the above passage?

https://gil-jesus.com/

[JE Corbett]

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
< bullshit >
No, I'm not looking for the defintions of the words separately.
I'm looking for the defintition of the PHRASE "historically guilty".
I believe there's no such phrase and it's something you made up, so I'm asking for the link to the definition of the PHRASE.
If you can't provide a link to the definition of the PHRASE, then I can't answer your question.

Whether you want to answer the question is one thing, but I can find your logical fallacy right here: Argumentum ad Dictionariam.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium
We all know what "historically" is, and we all know what "guilty" is. We all combine words to get ideas across, whether the specific combination of words has a dictionary definition or not.
And aren't you conceding the point at your own website? Didn't you write this?
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."

History and the MSM have accepted Oswald's guilt because they would look like idiots if they denied it given the wealth of
evidence of his guilt.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
< bullshit >
No, I'm not looking for the defintions of the words separately.
I'm looking for the defintition of the PHRASE "historically guilty".
I believe there's no such phrase and it's something you made up, so I'm asking for the link to the definition of the PHRASE.
If you can't provide a link to the definition of the PHRASE, then I can't answer your question.

Whether you want to answer the question is one thing, but I can find your logical fallacy right here: Argumentum ad Dictionariam.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium
We all know what "historically" is, and we all know what "guilty" is. We all combine words to get ideas across, whether the specific combination of words has a dictionary definition or not.
And aren't you conceding the point at your own website? Didn't you write this?
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."

History and the MSM have accepted Oswald's guilt because they would look like idiots if they denied it given the wealth of
evidence of his guilt.

I'm giving him a lay-up here and he can't even score the point.

[JE Corbett]

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
< bullshit >
No, I'm not looking for the defintions of the words separately.
I'm looking for the defintition of the PHRASE "historically guilty".
I believe there's no such phrase and it's something you made up, so I'm asking for the link to the definition of the PHRASE.
If you can't provide a link to the definition of the PHRASE, then I can't answer your question.

Whether you want to answer the question is one thing, but I can find your logical fallacy right here: Argumentum ad Dictionariam.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium
We all know what "historically" is, and we all know what "guilty" is. We all combine words to get ideas across, whether the specific combination of words has a dictionary definition or not.
And aren't you conceding the point at your own website? Didn't you write this?
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."

History and the MSM have accepted Oswald's guilt because they would look like idiots if they denied it given the wealth of
evidence of his guilt.

I'm giving him a lay-up here and he can't even score the point.

This is about the point in the conversation where Giltardo elects to bail out.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by JE Corbett
This is about the point in the conversation where Giltardo elects to bail out.

If you can't provide a link to the definition of the PHRASE, then I can't answer the question.
PERIOD.

[JE Corbett]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
This is about the point in the conversation where Giltardo elects to bail out.

If you can't provide a link to the definition of the PHRASE, then I can't answer the question.
PERIOD.

You finally said something I can agree with. You can't answer questions. PERIOD.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by JE Corbett
You finally said something I can agree with. You can't answer questions. PERIOD.

FINAL TOTALS FOR QUESTIONS 1-40
CORBETT --- 55 responses, 3 correct answers, 5.5 % score, grade F

Corbett couldn't answer 37 of the 40 questions --- that's 92.5 % !!!!!

It's all here:
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uh6y9B38wYw/m/F7Jospt8BgAJ

[JE Corbett]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
You finally said something I can agree with. You can't answer questions. PERIOD.

FINAL TOTALS FOR QUESTIONS 1-40
CORBETT --- 55 responses, 3 correct answers, 5.5 % score, grade F
Corbett couldn't answer 37 of the 40 questions --- that's 92.5 % !!!!!
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/uh6y9B38wYw/m/F7Jospt8BgAJ

It's the first time I ever got graded by the class dunce.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 08:47:18 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

It's the first time I ever got graded ...

Blaming your teachers for YOUR failures?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 08:27:19 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
This is about the point in the conversation where Giltardo elects to bail out.

If you can't provide a link to the definition of the PHRASE, then I can't answer the question.
PERIOD.

You finally said something I can agree with. You can't answer questions. PERIOD.

I find it amusing that you agree with a lie.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 08:23:01 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

This is about...

Your cowardice.

You run.

EVERY'

SINGLE

TIME!

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Chuck Schuyler
I'm giving him a lay-up here and he can't even score the point.

You make up a phrase, then you want me to tell you if its true.
ROFLMAO

[Chuck Schuyler]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
I'm giving him a lay-up here and he can't even score the point.

You make up a phrase, then you want me to tell you if its true.
ROFLMAO

Argumentum ad Dictionarium.

You wrote:

"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."

What does that mean if not HISTORICALLY GUILTY?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 08:55:12 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
I'm giving him a lay-up here and he can't even score the point.

You make up a phrase, then you want me to tell you if its true.
ROFLMAO

Chuckles ran again...

[Bud]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
I'm giving him a lay-up here and he can't even score the point.

You make up a phrase, then you want me to tell you if its true.
ROFLMAO

It`s a concept, stupid.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 12:12:04 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 07:57:12 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

I'm giving him ...

An obvious lie...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 07:35:46 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

History and the MSM have accepted Oswald's guilt....

Cite for your lie.

Oh... you can't.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 07:18:36 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus
< bullshit >
No, I'm not looking for the defintions of the words separately.
I'm looking for the defintition of the PHRASE "historically guilty".
I believe there's no such phrase and it's something you made up, so I'm asking for the link to the definition of the PHRASE.
If you can't provide a link to the definition of the PHRASE, then I can't answer your question.

Whether you want to answer the question is one thing, but I can find ....

A reason to run.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.

"Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
While cementheads like yourself would label him an "assassin", the fact is that he was the ACCUSED assassin of the President and Tippit.
The fact that they had evidence against him is meaningless, because that evidence was never challenged in court.
But I challenege it on my site:
www.gil-jesus.com

Now, if you're asking me if the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy, then the answer is yes.
That's what they concluded.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.

"Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
While cementheads like yourself would label him an "assassin", the fact is that he was the ACCUSED assassin of the President and Tippit.
The fact that they had evidence against him is meaningless, because that evidence was never challenged in court.
www.gil-jesus.com
Now, if you're asking me if the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy, then the answer is yes.
That's what they concluded.

Argumentum ad Dictionarium.

And you wrote that history will judge Oswald as JFK's killer. True?

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Chuck Schuyler
And you wrote that history will judge Oswald as JFK's killer. True?

Citation ?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 09:47:01 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.

"Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
While cementheads like yourself would label him an "assassin", the fact is that he was the ACCUSED assassin of the President and Tippit.
The fact that they had evidence against him is meaningless, because that evidence was never challenged in court.
www.gil-jesus.com
Now, if you're asking me if the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy, then the answer is yes.
That's what they concluded.

Chuckles HATES facts...

[JE Corbett]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.

"Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

No he isn't because he's dead. Presumption of innocence is something afforded to the accused by our legal system. The
accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence because the Constitution prohibits from depriving the accused of life,
liberty, or property without due process. Until the government has met its burden, the accused is presumed innocent. Dead
people have no rights that need to be protected. The dead have no life, liberty, or property that they can be deprived of by
the government and are therefore not entitled to due process. Oswald is no more entitled to a presumption of innocence
than John Wilkes Booth. This has all been explained to you numerous times in the past but for some reason, it never sinks in.

Post by Gil Jesus
While cementheads like yourself would label him an "assassin", the fact is that he was the ACCUSED assassin of the President and Tippit.

No, we KNOW he was the assassin because we know what the evidence of that is and we have the ability to reason, which
is more than we can say for you.

Post by Gil Jesus
The fact that they had evidence against him is meaningless, because that evidence was never challenged in court.

Ditto for John Wilkes Booth. Do you presume he was innocent of assassinating Lincoln?

Post by Gil Jesus
www.gil-jesus.com

Even Oswald deserves a better defense than what you have given him.

Post by Gil Jesus
Now, if you're asking me if the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy, then the answer is yes.
That's what they concluded.

They were right.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by JE Corbett
Ditto for John Wilkes Booth. Do you presume he was innocent of assassinating Lincoln?

Did witnesses see him perform the act ?

[JE Corbett]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
Ditto for John Wilkes Booth. Do you presume he was innocent of assassinating Lincoln?

Did witnesses see him perform the act ?

You continue to show your preference for asking questions over giving answers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 11:49:09 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
Ditto for John Wilkes Booth. Do you presume he was innocent of assassinating Lincoln?

Did witnesses see him perform the act ?

You continue to show your preference for asking questions over giving answers.

You continue to run from questions.

As believers do.

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!

[Chuck Schuyler]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
Ditto for John Wilkes Booth. Do you presume he was innocent of assassinating Lincoln?

Did witnesses see him perform the act ?

What did you mean when you wrote that history and the mainstream media will always regard Oswald as JFK's assassin? You wrote it at your website.

Isn't that the same as "historically guilty," which you're giving me a hard time about?

[Gil Jesus]

What did you mean when you wrote that history and the mainstream media will always regard Oswald as JFK's assassin? You wrote it at your website.
Isn't that the same as "historically guilty," which you're giving me a hard time about?

No, it's not. You didn't tell the whole story.

From my website:
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the ACCUSED assassin."

It's a comparison between the misidentification of Oswald as the assassin and the technically correct label of ACCUSED assassin.
It says nothing about "historically guilty".

Stupid.

[JE Corbett]

Post by Gil Jesus

What did you mean when you wrote that history and the mainstream media will always regard Oswald as JFK's assassin? You wrote it at your website.
Isn't that the same as "historically guilty," which you're giving me a hard time about?

No, it's not. You didn't tell the whole story.
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the ACCUSED assassin."
It's a comparison between the misidentification of Oswald as the assassin and the technically correct label of ACCUSED assassin.
It says nothing about "historically guilty".
Stupid.

So you think history books should refer to John Wilkes Booth as the accused assassin of Lincoln. Or maybe you think even
that goes to far since he was killed before being formally charged.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 15:15:45 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

What did you mean when you wrote that history and the mainstream media will always regard Oswald as JFK's assassin? You wrote it at your website.
Isn't that the same as "historically guilty," which you're giving me a hard time about?

No, it's not. You didn't tell the whole story.
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the ACCUSED assassin."
It's a comparison between the misidentification of Oswald as the assassin and the technically correct label of ACCUSED assassin.
It says nothing about "historically guilty".
Stupid.

So you think...

Yes. We do. You should try it.

[Chuck Schuyler]

Post by Gil Jesus

What did you mean when you wrote that history and the mainstream media will always regard Oswald as JFK's assassin? You wrote it at your website.
Isn't that the same as "historically guilty," which you're giving me a hard time about?

No, it's not. You didn't tell the whole story.
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the ACCUSED assassin."
It's a comparison between the misidentification of Oswald as the assassin and the technically correct label of ACCUSED assassin.
It says nothing about "historically guilty".

Wow.

I'm giving you a slow pitch right down the middle of the plate and you can't even foul it off.

Here's your answer:

"Yes, Oswald is historically guilty of killing JFK, even if I--Gil Jesus--disagree with this."

You say so at your own website.

Post by Gil Jesus
Stupid.

Indeed.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Chuck Schuyler
"Yes, Oswald is historically guilty of killing JFK, even if I--Gil Jesus--disagree with this."
You say so at your own website.

My website has been changed to eliminate any misunderstanding by cementheads like you who can't comprehend what they're reading.

"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always misidentify Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."

I never used the term "historically guilty". That's YOUR creation.
A creation that YOU can't prove is even a real phrase. But a couple of words you put together.
I can put words together to describe something as well, like "Chuck Schuylerly stupid" and it would make more sense to more people than your bullshit.

And the fact that you've been proven to be a liar and a coward in the past should be no surprise to anyone when you try to put words into people's mouths.
YOU'RE A LOSER, CHUCK. You prove it every day.
And the world knows it.

[JE Corbett]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
"Yes, Oswald is historically guilty of killing JFK, even if I--Gil Jesus--disagree with this."
You say so at your own website.

My website has been changed to eliminate any misunderstanding by cementheads like you who can't comprehend what they're reading.
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always misidentify Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."
I never used the term "historically guilty". That's YOUR creation.
A creation that YOU can't prove is even a real phrase. But a couple of words you put together.
I can put words together to describe something as well, like "Chuck Schuylerly stupid" and it would make more sense to more people than your bullshit.
And the fact that you've been proven to be a liar and a coward in the past should be no surprise to anyone when you try to put words into people's mouths.
YOU'RE A LOSER, CHUCK. You prove it every day.
And the world knows it.

The pot and the kettle syndrome.

[Bud]

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
"Yes, Oswald is historically guilty of killing JFK, even if I--Gil Jesus--disagree with this."
You say so at your own website.

My website has been changed to eliminate any misunderstanding by cementheads like you who can't comprehend what they're reading.
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always misidentify Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."
I never used the term "historically guilty". That's YOUR creation.
A creation that YOU can't prove is even a real phrase. But a couple of words you put together.
I can put words together to describe something as well, like "Chuck Schuylerly stupid" and it would make more sense to more people than your bullshit.
And the fact that you've been proven to be a liar and a coward in the past should be no surprise to anyone when you try to put words into people's mouths.
YOU'RE A LOSER, CHUCK. You prove it every day.
And the world knows it.

The pot and the kettle syndrome.

Yes, very strange. Like being called a sissy by Dylan Mulvaney.

[JE Corbett]

Post by Bud

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
"Yes, Oswald is historically guilty of killing JFK, even if I--Gil Jesus--disagree with this."
You say so at your own website.

My website has been changed to eliminate any misunderstanding by cementheads like you who can't comprehend what they're reading.
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always misidentify Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."
I never used the term "historically guilty". That's YOUR creation.
A creation that YOU can't prove is even a real phrase. But a couple of words you put together.
I can put words together to describe something as well, like "Chuck Schuylerly stupid" and it would make more sense to more people than your bullshit.
And the fact that you've been proven to be a liar and a coward in the past should be no surprise to anyone when you try to put words into people's mouths.
YOU'RE A LOSER, CHUCK. You prove it every day.
And the world knows it.

The pot and the kettle syndrome.

Yes, very strange. Like being called a sissy by Dylan Mulvaney.

Great analogy. I'll drink a Bud Light to that, Bud.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 05:45:33 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
Great analogy.

Can you define the term?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 04:53:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 04:53:25 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Bud]

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
"Yes, Oswald is historically guilty of killing JFK, even if I--Gil Jesus--disagree with this."
You say so at your own website.

My website has been changed to eliminate any misunderstanding by cementheads like you who can't comprehend what they're reading.
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always misidentify Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."
I never used the term "historically guilty". That's YOUR creation.
A creation that YOU can't prove is even a real phrase. But a couple of words you put together.
I can put words together to describe something as well, like "Chuck Schuylerly stupid" and it would make more sense to more people than your bullshit.
And the fact that you've been proven to be a liar and a coward in the past should be no surprise to anyone when you try to put words into people's mouths.
YOU'RE A LOSER, CHUCK. You prove it every day.
And the world knows it.

The pot and the kettle syndrome.

More like the pot calling the toilet black.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 07:55:28 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 04:36:01 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
"Yes, Oswald is historically guilty of killing JFK, even if I--Gil Jesus--disagree with this."
You say so at your own website.

My website has been changed to eliminate any misunderstanding by cementheads like you who can't comprehend what they're reading.
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always misidentify Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the accused assassin."
I never used the term "historically guilty". That's YOUR creation.
A creation that YOU can't prove is even a real phrase. But a couple of words you put together.
I can put words together to describe something as well, like "Chuck Schuylerly stupid" and it would make more sense to more people than your bullshit.
And the fact that you've been proven to be a liar and a coward in the past should be no surprise to anyone when you try to put words into people's mouths.
YOU'RE A LOSER, CHUCK. You prove it every day.
And the world knows it.

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 16:49:04 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus

What did you mean when you wrote that history and the mainstream media will always regard Oswald as JFK's assassin? You wrote it at your website.
Isn't that the same as "historically guilty," which you're giving me a hard time about?

No, it's not. You didn't tell the whole story.
"Perhaps the greatest injustice of all is that because of that shoddy investigation, history and the Mainstream Media will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy, instead of the ACCUSED assassin."
It's a comparison between the misidentification of Oswald as the assassin and the technically correct label of ACCUSED assassin.
It says nothing about "historically guilty".

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 11:49:13 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
Ditto for John Wilkes Booth. Do you presume he was innocent of assassinating Lincoln?

Did witnesses see him perform the act ?

What did you mean ...

Are you too stupid to be able to answer the question?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 11:07:23 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.

"Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

No he isn't ...

You're lying again, moron.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.

"Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.

You wrote: “…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"

What did you mean by that?

Post by Gil Jesus
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.

What a bizarre argument. So Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold aren’t historically guilty of killing fellow students at Columbine High School, because they committed suicide after they shot up the school, and were never tried.

And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, because he too committed suicide after shooting people from the Texas Tower?

Is that your final answer?

Post by Gil Jesus
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

That applies to living defendants, not dead people. Dead people don’t have rights. You don’t understand the law.

Post by Gil Jesus
While cementheads like yourself would label him an "assassin", the fact is that he was the ACCUSED assassin of the President and Tippit.
The fact that they had evidence against him is meaningless, because that evidence was never challenged in court.
www.gil-jesus.com
Now, if you're asking me if the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy, then the answer is yes.
That's what they concluded.

[JE Corbett]

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.

"Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.

You wrote: “…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
What did you mean by that?

Post by Gil Jesus
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.

What a bizarre argument. So Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold aren’t historically guilty of killing fellow students at Columbine High School, because they committed suicide after they shot up the school, and were never tried.
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, because he too committed suicide after shooting people from the Texas Tower?

Actually, he was killed by the cops. You might argue it was suicide by cop.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Is that your final answer?

Post by Gil Jesus
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

That applies to living defendants, not dead people. Dead people don’t have rights. You don’t understand the law.

That has been explained to Giltardo many times. It has never sunk in. Presumption of innocence is a legal principle that grew
out of the constitutional requirement that the government must afford a person accused of a crime due process before
depriving him of life, liberty, or property. Until that is done, the accused is presumed innocent. Since the dead have no life,
liberty, nor property to be deprived of, there is no need for due process nor presumption of innocence.

[BT George]

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.

"Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.

You wrote: “…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
What did you mean by that?

Post by Gil Jesus
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.

What a bizarre argument. So Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold aren’t historically guilty of killing fellow students at Columbine High School, because they committed suicide after they shot up the school, and were never tried.
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, because he too committed suicide after shooting people from the Texas Tower?

Actually, he was killed by the cops. You might argue it was suicide by cop.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Is that your final answer?

Post by Gil Jesus
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

That applies to living defendants, not dead people. Dead people don’t have rights. You don’t understand the law.

That has been explained to Giltardo many times. It has never sunk in. Presumption of innocence is a legal principle that grew
out of the constitutional requirement that the government must afford a person accused of a crime due process before
depriving him of life, liberty, or property. Until that is done, the accused is presumed innocent. Since the dead have no life,
liberty, nor property to be deprived of, there is no need for due process nor presumption of innocence.

And at *ITS* best, it is just that. A LEGAL PRESUMPTION! Indeed it has *nothing* do with the actual facts of guilt or innocence. In fact even if someone if *found* innocent, they can later be charged and found guilty an be punished for committing perjury if later unassailable evidence of guilt comes out even though the person cannot actually be retried for guilt or innocence in. See the Mel Ignatow case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow

[JE Corbett]

Post by BT George

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.

"Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.

You wrote: “…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
What did you mean by that?

Post by Gil Jesus
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.

What a bizarre argument. So Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold aren’t historically guilty of killing fellow students at Columbine High School, because they committed suicide after they shot up the school, and were never tried.
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, because he too committed suicide after shooting people from the Texas Tower?

Actually, he was killed by the cops. You might argue it was suicide by cop.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Is that your final answer?

Post by Gil Jesus
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

That applies to living defendants, not dead people. Dead people don’t have rights. You don’t understand the law.

That has been explained to Giltardo many times. It has never sunk in. Presumption of innocence is a legal principle that grew
out of the constitutional requirement that the government must afford a person accused of a crime due process before
depriving him of life, liberty, or property. Until that is done, the accused is presumed innocent. Since the dead have no life,
liberty, nor property to be deprived of, there is no need for due process nor presumption of innocence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow

Then we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said the
prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had murdered two people. Later, OJ faced a wrongful
death lawsuit. That jury decided by the preponderance of evidence that it was more likely than not that he had caused the
deaths of those same two people. So what should we conclude from those two verdicts?

[BT George]

Post by JE Corbett

Post by BT George

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.

"Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.

You wrote: “…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
What did you mean by that?

Post by Gil Jesus
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.

What a bizarre argument. So Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold aren’t historically guilty of killing fellow students at Columbine High School, because they committed suicide after they shot up the school, and were never tried.
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, because he too committed suicide after shooting people from the Texas Tower?

Actually, he was killed by the cops. You might argue it was suicide by cop.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Is that your final answer?

Post by Gil Jesus
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

That applies to living defendants, not dead people. Dead people don’t have rights. You don’t understand the law.

That has been explained to Giltardo many times. It has never sunk in. Presumption of innocence is a legal principle that grew
out of the constitutional requirement that the government must afford a person accused of a crime due process before
depriving him of life, liberty, or property. Until that is done, the accused is presumed innocent. Since the dead have no life,
liberty, nor property to be deprived of, there is no need for due process nor presumption of innocence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow

Then we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said the
prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had murdered two people. Later, OJ faced a wrongful
death lawsuit. That jury decided by the preponderance of evidence that it was more likely than not that he had caused the
deaths of those same two people. So what should we conclude from those two verdicts?

Well I personally conclude the first jury was determined to let him off, pretty much no matter what!

[JE Corbett]

Post by BT George

Post by JE Corbett

Post by BT George

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.

"Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.

You wrote: “…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
What did you mean by that?

Post by Gil Jesus
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.

What a bizarre argument. So Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold aren’t historically guilty of killing fellow students at Columbine High School, because they committed suicide after they shot up the school, and were never tried.
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, because he too committed suicide after shooting people from the Texas Tower?

Actually, he was killed by the cops. You might argue it was suicide by cop.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Is that your final answer?

Post by Gil Jesus
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

That applies to living defendants, not dead people. Dead people don’t have rights. You don’t understand the law.

That has been explained to Giltardo many times. It has never sunk in. Presumption of innocence is a legal principle that grew
out of the constitutional requirement that the government must afford a person accused of a crime due process before
depriving him of life, liberty, or property. Until that is done, the accused is presumed innocent. Since the dead have no life,
liberty, nor property to be deprived of, there is no need for due process nor presumption of innocence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow

Then we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said the
prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had murdered two people. Later, OJ faced a wrongful
death lawsuit. That jury decided by the preponderance of evidence that it was more likely than not that he had caused the
deaths of those same two people. So what should we conclude from those two verdicts?

Well I personally conclude the first jury was determined to let him off, pretty much no matter what!

They were looking for an excuse to exonerate him and the prosecution handed it to them on a silver platter when they had
OJ try on the gloves. The never considered that the leather gloves could have shrunk in the year between the murder and the
trial. Leather will due that when it gets soaked and then is allowed to dry out. A good attorney is never surprised by anything
that is revealed in court.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 12:50:59 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
They were looking for an excuse to exonerate him and the prosecution handed it to them on a silver platter when they had
OJ try on the gloves. The never considered that the leather gloves could have shrunk in the year between the murder and the
trial. Leather will due that when it gets soaked and then is allowed to dry out. A good attorney is never surprised by anything
that is revealed in court.

You've just demonstrated extraordinary ignorance of the facts. And
you'll never figure out why...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 07:21:09 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
Then we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said the
prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had murdered two people. Later, OJ faced a wrongful
death lawsuit. That jury decided by the preponderance of evidence that it was more likely than not that he had caused the
deaths of those same two people. So what should we conclude from those two verdicts?

You won't be able to do it. It requires thought.

[Gil Jesus]

Post by JE Corbett
Then we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said the
prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had murdered two people.

Another one of Corbett's lies. Verdicts don't include the jury's review of the prosecution's case or WHY the jury came to the decision that it did.
Verdicts only declare the defendant guilty or not guilty.
In keeping with that, this verdict said no such thing.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 09:47:19 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
Then we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said the
prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had murdered two people.

Another one of Corbett's lies. Verdicts don't include the jury's review of the prosecution's case or WHY the jury came to the decision that it did.
Verdicts only declare the defendant guilty or not guilty.
In keeping with that, this verdict said no such thing.
http://youtu.be/rurKd569xRw

This is the basic problem with believers - they substitute their
thinking & speculation for the facts. And then believe them.

[JE Corbett]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
Then we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said the
prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had murdered two people.

Another one of Corbett's lies. Verdicts don't include the jury's review of the prosecution's case or WHY the jury came to the decision that it did.
Verdicts only declare the defendant guilty or not guilty.

If the jury believes the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt, they are obligated to render a verdict of not
guilty. That is all that can be concluded from a not guilty verdict. In some cases, the jury might actually believe the accused
was innocent, but in others the not guilty verdict only indicates the prosecution has failed to prove its case. There are cases
where the jury believes it is more likely than not the accused committed the crime(s) they are charged with but there was
enough doubt that they rule not guilty. Without polling individual jurors, there is no way to know which mindset led them to
a not guilty verdict. A not guilty verdict doesn't mean they jury thought the accused was innocent. It only indicates the jury
had doubts about his guilt.

The conflicting verdicts in the OJ case can be attributed to the different levels of proof required for a criminal trial as opposed
to civil trial. It might also be a reflection on the skill of the lawyers in the two cases.

Post by Gil Jesus
In keeping with that, this verdict said no such thing.
http://youtu.be/rurKd569xRw

The verdict only indicates that the jury were unanimous in their opinion that the prosecution had not proven OJ's guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt. Individual jurors might have had different levels of doubt. Some might have actually believed he was
innocent. Some might have been completely undecided whether or not OJ had committed. Some might have thought he was
guilty but not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 10:44:00 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by JE Corbett
Then we have the case of OJ. He was found not guilty by the jury. The verdict didn't say he was innocent. It said the
prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ had murdered two people.

Another one of Corbett's lies. Verdicts don't include the jury's review of the prosecution's case or WHY the jury came to the decision that it did.
Verdicts only declare the defendant guilty or not guilty.

If ...

Nope. Your "thinking" and speculation not needed.

Post by Gil Jesus
In keeping with that, this verdict said no such thing.
http://youtu.be/rurKd569xRw

The verdict only indicates ...

There you go again, speculating.

[Hank Sienzant]

Post by JE Corbett

Post by Hank Sienzant

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.

"Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.

You wrote: “…history … will always refer to Oswald as the assassin of President Kennedy…"
What did you mean by that?

Post by Gil Jesus
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.

What a bizarre argument. So Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold aren’t historically guilty of killing fellow students at Columbine High School, because they committed suicide after they shot up the school, and were never tried.
And Charles Whitman isn’t historically guilty of being the Texas Tower shooter, because he too committed suicide after shooting people from the Texas Tower?

Actually, he was killed by the cops. You might argue it was suicide by cop.

Post by Hank Sienzant
Is that your final answer?

Post by Gil Jesus
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

That applies to living defendants, not dead people. Dead people don’t have rights. You don’t understand the law.

That has been explained to Giltardo many times. It has never sunk in. Presumption of innocence is a legal principle that grew
out of the constitutional requirement that the government must afford a person accused of a crime due process before
depriving him of life, liberty, or property. Until that is done, the accused is presumed innocent. Since the dead have no life,
liberty, nor property to be deprived of, there is no need for due process nor presumption of innocence.

And, as I like to point out (Gil is not the first CT to argue Oswald is historically innocent because he had no trial), there is no point to trying a dead person, because if they find him guilty, what are they going to do, dig him up and stick him in a jail cell?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 20:37:06 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 04:36:18 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
That has been explained to Giltardo many times.

When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you. -
Huckster Sienzant

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 20:19:25 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 08:59:48 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.

"Historically guilty" makes no sense. That's why you can't post the link that defines it. There's no such thing. It's a phrase you made up.
A phrase you made up out of ignorance, because history cannot determine a person's guilt or innocence. Neither can the media. In America, only a judge or jury can do that.
And because Oswald was never TRIED, he is therefore entitled to a presumption of innocence under the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.
While cementheads like yourself would label him an "assassin", the fact is that he was the ACCUSED assassin of the President and Tippit.
The fact that they had evidence against him is meaningless, because that evidence was never challenged in court.
www.gil-jesus.com
Now, if you're asking me if the Warren Commission concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy, then the answer is yes.
That's what they concluded.

You're whacking them with truth...

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 05:26:27 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Chuck Schuyler

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
Is Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?

Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition.

Asking for your opinion or take on the matter. Feel free to define it or interpret it as you may.
1
: in accordance with or with respect to history
a historically accurate account
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historically#:~:text=1,%3A%20in%20the%20past
1
: justly chargeable with or responsible for a usually grave breach of conduct or a crime
Does the defendant plead guilty or not guilty?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guilty

Notice folks, that Chuckles was unable to cite for his wacky term
"historically guilty."

[BT George]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
Is Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?

Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition.

Did LHO actually fire the wounding bullets? It's the *same* question as, "Did OJ *actually* kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, regardless of the criminal trials outcome or "Was Hitler ultimately responsible the Holocaust *regardless* of the lack of a trial at all?"

[Gil Jesus]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
Is Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?

Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition.

Did LHO actually fire the wounding bullets? It's the *same* question as, "Did OJ *actually* kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, regardless of the criminal trials outcome or

It is ? Since when ? Was Simpson tried ?

"Was Hitler ultimately responsible the Holocaust *regardless* of the lack of a trial at all?"

Was Hitler guaranteed rights under the US Constitution ?

[JE Corbett]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
Is Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?

Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition.

Did LHO actually fire the wounding bullets? It's the *same* question as, "Did OJ *actually* kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, regardless of the criminal trials outcome or

It is ? Since when ? Was Simpson tried ?

"Was Hitler ultimately responsible the Holocaust *regardless* of the lack of a trial at all?"

Was Hitler guaranteed rights under the US Constitution ?

The US Constitution does not grant rights. Rights are unalienable. The Constitution and specifically the Bill or Rights
protect rights. JFK made that distinction in his inaugural speech when he said:

"The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."

So, yes, had Hitler lived, he would have been entitled to due process and a presumption of innocence just as Herman Goehring
and the rest of the Nazi defendants at the Nuremberg trials received. Once Hitler took his own life, he forfeited those rights.
It was then left to history to pass judgement on Hitler and it has properly found him to be a despicable despot responsible for
the deaths of millions of people.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 11:59:06 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by JE Corbett
The US Constitution does not grant rights. Rights are unalienable.

Go to North Korea and pont that out. PLEASE!!!

[BT George]

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Gil Jesus

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
Is Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?

Define the term, "historically guilty" by posting a link to its definition.

Did LHO actually fire the wounding bullets? It's the *same* question as, "Did OJ *actually* kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, regardless of the criminal trials outcome or

It is ? Since when ? Was Simpson tried ?

Are you unaware of his criminal trial. ..Did you leave the country in 1994-1995 or what?

Post by Gil Jesus

"Was Hitler ultimately responsible the Holocaust *regardless* of the lack of a trial at all?"

Was Hitler guaranteed rights under the US Constitution ?

Would be any *less* guilty if he were? Give an *honest* answer here. You see to think right and wrong reside with a court. ...I don't.

[JE Corbett]

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
Is Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?

Giltardo only knows how to ask questions. He's stumped when asked to answer them. Since he refuses to provide his own
definition of what historically guilty means, I'll help him out. Historically guilty means there is a consensus among reputable
historical sources that Oswald was JFK's assassin and the murderer of J. D. Tippit. Most will acknowledge there is
widespread belief that he didn't act alone, but none that I know of have exonerate him of either killing. Perhaps Giltardo
knows of a recognized historical reference material that indicates Oswald was an innocent man but I doubt he'll even attempt
to respond. I doubt there is any such resource.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2023 07:31:16 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
Is Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?

Giltardo...

When you start with ad hominem we know it won't go well for you. -
Huckster Sienzant.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 21:46:59 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler

Post by Chuck Schuyler
Okay Gil, this one should be a lay-up for even you.
Is Lee Harvey Oswald HISTORICALLY guilty of murdering John F Kennedy and JD Tippit and wounding Governor John Connally?

History doesn't think, it doesn't judge, it doesn't do *ANYTHING*. It
changes as people change.

The question is silly. There's no such thing as "historically
guilty," and as usual, Chuckles will be completely unable to cite for
such a wacky claim.