22-06-2015, 04:15 AM
(This post was last modified: 22-06-2015, 05:08 AM by Albert Doyle.)
If you read the above Greg Parker claims that Yates, Ruby, and Crafard were homosexuals and that was the reason for Ralph Yates' trip to Oak Cliff where he picked up the hitch-hiker (whom he claims was Crafard). Greg seems rather dumb because he isn't computing that this doesn't jibe with Yates' story that the hitch-hiker showed him backyard pictures of Oswald, carried a rifle in a brown paper bag, and openly mentioned shooting Kennedy from an office building with a high-powered rifle. How does a homosexual meeting turn into this?
Greg has serious research retardation because he isn't computing into his grotesque calculation that Dempsey Jones confirmed to FBI that Yates did indeed tell him this hitch-hiker had spoken of the exact same subject of shooting Kennedy from a high building just like Jones and Yates had discussed before. Parker practices a Fetzer/Cinque approach where you change the entire reality of the witnessing to fit your theory. So in order to make his bizarre homosexual clan theory work Parker ignores these key pieces of evidence.
It just doesn't make sense that if Yates was in that situation that he would decide to fabricate a tale of a hitch-hiker and decide to handle it that way. That scenario is very forced and bears the aura of contrivance to the point of credulity. Parker knows he's in trouble with this which is why he responds by doubling down on the craziness. He's straight-facedly suggesting that Yates learned of all this through his homosexual activity with Ruby and Crafard and with all at stake decided to handle it by inventing the hitch-hiker story. You can see how Parker continues to grow this incredible homosexual theory in direct proportion to his need to ignore how it clashes with all the rest of the evidence. It doesn't crunch that Yates would be having sex with Crafard but then accuse him of being Oswald. How do you have homosexual sex with someone, Greg, and miss the fact that they are missing their front teeth? Remember Greg Parker is a great condemner of bad research. Why then does Yates go and try to convince the FBI this guy is Oswald? That doesn't make sense.
The problem with all this, that Parker will never admit, and is trying to ignore away, is that FBI gave a lie detector test on the particulars of the hitch-hiker experience to Yates and he passed it. It's funny how such a whopper of a lie managed to get by the polygraph.
It doesn't wash that Yates wouldn't get a good look at Crafard's missing teeth. Remember the hitch-hiker was discussing a seriously disturbing topic. Parker suggests that even though Crafard was allegedly discussing if it would be possible to kill Kennedy on his upcoming trip that Yates never once shot a look over at Crafard and saw his missing teeth. You know, when a hitch-hiker speaks of killing the president there's no need to look over and see if he's nuts. Parker knows it isn't likely that Yates would miss Crafard's missing teeth so he pushes the homosexual angle to cover it. It's an obvious device to compensate for the weakness of his theory.
I don't understand what part of the FBI telling Dorothy Yates that Ralph passed the lie detector test, and that it showed that he thought what he was saying was true, Parker doesn't get? And Parker asks us to side with the FBI and take their word on their interpretation of this? He also asks us to ignore that the passed polygraph confirms the details of the rifle, backyard photos, conversation, and, most importantly, the unknown hitch-hiker. Parker needs to directly answer how Yates could be cracking up from stress over his homosexual activity with Crafard and calmly passing a lie detector test showing this man to be a hitch-hiker and stranger at the same time? When you pull Parker in from his blowhard manic attacks and make him discuss detail he quickly falls apart. The way Parker deals with things like this is to ignore you, turn up the wind, and blow harder.
Finally Parker ignores how his Yates tale has seriously drifted from its original form. The original version had Yates fabricating the entire thing because of mental illness. Like his Oswalt theory that didn't quite work, so he's now altering it to include the mental illness but only in the context of this new homosexual love nest.
Parker's trick is pretending that because he claims he has covered something that therefore it has been disproven and he doesn't have to discuss it. You can see from the above that isn't true and the original story he bastardizes and ignores still holds true and still requires serious answers. Answers he never gives.
.
Greg has serious research retardation because he isn't computing into his grotesque calculation that Dempsey Jones confirmed to FBI that Yates did indeed tell him this hitch-hiker had spoken of the exact same subject of shooting Kennedy from a high building just like Jones and Yates had discussed before. Parker practices a Fetzer/Cinque approach where you change the entire reality of the witnessing to fit your theory. So in order to make his bizarre homosexual clan theory work Parker ignores these key pieces of evidence.
It just doesn't make sense that if Yates was in that situation that he would decide to fabricate a tale of a hitch-hiker and decide to handle it that way. That scenario is very forced and bears the aura of contrivance to the point of credulity. Parker knows he's in trouble with this which is why he responds by doubling down on the craziness. He's straight-facedly suggesting that Yates learned of all this through his homosexual activity with Ruby and Crafard and with all at stake decided to handle it by inventing the hitch-hiker story. You can see how Parker continues to grow this incredible homosexual theory in direct proportion to his need to ignore how it clashes with all the rest of the evidence. It doesn't crunch that Yates would be having sex with Crafard but then accuse him of being Oswald. How do you have homosexual sex with someone, Greg, and miss the fact that they are missing their front teeth? Remember Greg Parker is a great condemner of bad research. Why then does Yates go and try to convince the FBI this guy is Oswald? That doesn't make sense.
The problem with all this, that Parker will never admit, and is trying to ignore away, is that FBI gave a lie detector test on the particulars of the hitch-hiker experience to Yates and he passed it. It's funny how such a whopper of a lie managed to get by the polygraph.
It doesn't wash that Yates wouldn't get a good look at Crafard's missing teeth. Remember the hitch-hiker was discussing a seriously disturbing topic. Parker suggests that even though Crafard was allegedly discussing if it would be possible to kill Kennedy on his upcoming trip that Yates never once shot a look over at Crafard and saw his missing teeth. You know, when a hitch-hiker speaks of killing the president there's no need to look over and see if he's nuts. Parker knows it isn't likely that Yates would miss Crafard's missing teeth so he pushes the homosexual angle to cover it. It's an obvious device to compensate for the weakness of his theory.
I don't understand what part of the FBI telling Dorothy Yates that Ralph passed the lie detector test, and that it showed that he thought what he was saying was true, Parker doesn't get? And Parker asks us to side with the FBI and take their word on their interpretation of this? He also asks us to ignore that the passed polygraph confirms the details of the rifle, backyard photos, conversation, and, most importantly, the unknown hitch-hiker. Parker needs to directly answer how Yates could be cracking up from stress over his homosexual activity with Crafard and calmly passing a lie detector test showing this man to be a hitch-hiker and stranger at the same time? When you pull Parker in from his blowhard manic attacks and make him discuss detail he quickly falls apart. The way Parker deals with things like this is to ignore you, turn up the wind, and blow harder.
Finally Parker ignores how his Yates tale has seriously drifted from its original form. The original version had Yates fabricating the entire thing because of mental illness. Like his Oswalt theory that didn't quite work, so he's now altering it to include the mental illness but only in the context of this new homosexual love nest.
Parker's trick is pretending that because he claims he has covered something that therefore it has been disproven and he doesn't have to discuss it. You can see from the above that isn't true and the original story he bastardizes and ignores still holds true and still requires serious answers. Answers he never gives.
.