18-06-2015, 05:03 AM
Vanessa,
Since you seem to be a proxy for Greg Parker's troll room why don't you pass this on to him and ask him to answer it?
Greg copied one of David Josephs' posts in order to get him in trouble on the EF. I notice he didn't copy this post below and post it (or answer it). I think Greg was saying something about cowardice?:
" All you need to know about Parker and his cult minions is he said Larry Crafard was the man whom Ralph Yates saw and it explained everything. Parker stupidly neglected the fact that if it was Crafard that would prove a direct employee and associate of Jack Ruby was carrying a rifle wrapped in brown paper, backyard photos of Oswald, and speaking of a plot to shoot JFK from an office building with a high-powered rifle 2 days before the assassination. Parker thinks no answer is necessary for this nor could he give any. Meanwhile Parker ignores the fact that Scheim discovered that Crafard was noticeably more sloppy-looking than Oswald and was missing his front teeth. Something Yates would be very unlikely to not notice. Seeing how it is very unlikely that Crafard was the double Yates witnessed, and FBI was so desperate to disprove this sighting, this then begs the question of who exactly it was? And who was the Oswald taken out the back door of the Texas Theater? Parker shows no interest in honestly pursuing this. I'm sorry but these men fail the standard of objective analysis they pretend to uphold right there. What is your opinion of Parker taking a strong FBI position on witness and victim Ralph Yates? Parker stays quiet because his denial method has reached its limit. He can't answer because he would have to admit that he is confirming Yates' witnessing by acknowledging that Crafard was a look-alike to Oswald. You see Parker says Yates fabricated the whole thing because he was mentally ill (just like FBI) but then commits the gaffe of validating Yates' witnessing by admitting he saw the look-alike Crafard. So which was it Greg, mental illness or Crafard? In his zeal to deny Parker lost track of his arguments. None of these denial trolls will honestly admit Yates passed a lie detector test on these details and that's why FBI persecuted and murdered him. Parker is caught by the balls because Dempsey Jones admitted Yates came to him because the hitch-hiker discussed the same shooting JFK from a building subject that Jones and Yates had discussed earlier.
What's your opinion on Parker's hit and run approach to Oswald's driver's license? Do you honestly think it was a registration even though 6 employees whose job it was to know those identification cards by heart identified it as a driver's license. "Speculation"??? And why did it disappear?
Accusing people of lacking strict evidence is a weak and cheap position considering. It's one all deniers depend on. "
Since you seem to be a proxy for Greg Parker's troll room why don't you pass this on to him and ask him to answer it?
Greg copied one of David Josephs' posts in order to get him in trouble on the EF. I notice he didn't copy this post below and post it (or answer it). I think Greg was saying something about cowardice?:
" All you need to know about Parker and his cult minions is he said Larry Crafard was the man whom Ralph Yates saw and it explained everything. Parker stupidly neglected the fact that if it was Crafard that would prove a direct employee and associate of Jack Ruby was carrying a rifle wrapped in brown paper, backyard photos of Oswald, and speaking of a plot to shoot JFK from an office building with a high-powered rifle 2 days before the assassination. Parker thinks no answer is necessary for this nor could he give any. Meanwhile Parker ignores the fact that Scheim discovered that Crafard was noticeably more sloppy-looking than Oswald and was missing his front teeth. Something Yates would be very unlikely to not notice. Seeing how it is very unlikely that Crafard was the double Yates witnessed, and FBI was so desperate to disprove this sighting, this then begs the question of who exactly it was? And who was the Oswald taken out the back door of the Texas Theater? Parker shows no interest in honestly pursuing this. I'm sorry but these men fail the standard of objective analysis they pretend to uphold right there. What is your opinion of Parker taking a strong FBI position on witness and victim Ralph Yates? Parker stays quiet because his denial method has reached its limit. He can't answer because he would have to admit that he is confirming Yates' witnessing by acknowledging that Crafard was a look-alike to Oswald. You see Parker says Yates fabricated the whole thing because he was mentally ill (just like FBI) but then commits the gaffe of validating Yates' witnessing by admitting he saw the look-alike Crafard. So which was it Greg, mental illness or Crafard? In his zeal to deny Parker lost track of his arguments. None of these denial trolls will honestly admit Yates passed a lie detector test on these details and that's why FBI persecuted and murdered him. Parker is caught by the balls because Dempsey Jones admitted Yates came to him because the hitch-hiker discussed the same shooting JFK from a building subject that Jones and Yates had discussed earlier.
What's your opinion on Parker's hit and run approach to Oswald's driver's license? Do you honestly think it was a registration even though 6 employees whose job it was to know those identification cards by heart identified it as a driver's license. "Speculation"??? And why did it disappear?
Accusing people of lacking strict evidence is a weak and cheap position considering. It's one all deniers depend on. "