Greg Parker

Members
  • Content count

    4,266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Greg Parker

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday 04/04/1958

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Australia
  1. This is an unsubstantiated accusation backed only by a patently phony anecdote. Why was my rebuttal removed but this accusation left up? James Gordon responded to why my rebuttal was removed with this: I would have thought it was clear that threads reflecting personal disputes by members are not allowed on the discussion forum. When detected they will be hidden. The PM function is available for that kind of conversation. This is not a matter for discussion: this is an administration privilege and interpretation. Apart from the fact that no one but James knows what an "administration privilege and interpretation" is (although it does sound a bit like "we don't care. Admins can make the rules up as they go along"), the "dispute" was non-existent until Gilbride posted the above false accusations. Based on those comments by James, Gilbride's post should have been deleted immediately. Instead, we have the situation where the accusation is a-okay with the admins - but the rebuttal - along with the evidence supporting that rebuttal given by a third party brought into this by Gilbride, was deleted or otherwise made disappear. It is not just me who is aggrieved by this. I am certain Dawn must be as well, having her named being used in Gilbride's fantasy attempt to shut me down. This deliberate act of supporting a falsehood while deleting the facts, amounts to the Ed Forum being a willing partner in this flagrant attempt at character assassination. If Gilbride's post is not deleted, or alternatively, if the rebuttal is not reinstated along Dawns' post in support of that rebuttal, I will have to take further action. That is not a veiled threat of any kind. Fact is, I have no idea what action I will take - but there will be action - that much I promise. I asked nicely for an explanation in those deleted threads, James. I will be MY "privilege" to keep at this until I get justice.
  2. In a post made on Jan 28, Richard Gilbride made some pretty serious allegations against me and threatened to have criminal charges laid. Twice now I have started threads to rebut those charges. Both times those threads have disappeared while Gilbride's original allegations remain for all to see. The second thread disappearing was particularly troubling because it contained the proof that there was no substance to Gilbride's charges. Given the above, I will make no further posts on this forum until I receive a satisfactory response as to WHO took those threads down - and why. Is this 1984? Sure seems like it.
  3. Slightly out of your order Paul, for better flow 1. 5,000 is just a number. It says nothing of the meat of the question, nor does it compensate for lack of cross-examination. 6. "When you swear to do something, you're saying you will do it. This can be interpreted as a religously backed oath or as a sincere promise. [1] Either way, quakers object because they believe they're supposed to tell the truth at all times, and so they "do not swear, but we 'affirm' that we are being honest, as always". http://www.jefftk.com/p/quakers-and-affirming Paul, I never said she had IMMUNITY from lying. That is your spin. I said as a Quaker she claimed to be incapable of lying. As shown above - that is a fact. That is what she claimed every timed she made an affirmation. 2 & 3. "Further, you're being asked to tell the "whole truth". Quakers who take not lying very seriously have traditionally still occasionally used not telling the whole truth as a way around that strictness. There are stories about people giving intentionally misleading but not technically false responses to questions like "why would you think that?" and non Quakers warning each other to force a Quaker into giving a straight answer and not to be misdirected by apparent denials that aren't actually making any claim. So even if you do believe that you should be always telling the truth and nothing but the truth, I'm not sure about the whole truth." http://www.jefftk.com/p/quakers-and-affirming This nails Ruth Paine's testimony re points two and three to perfection. more later when I'm not juggling half a dozen other things.
  4. Not just flimsy, it's pure balderdash - as expected.
  5. Thank you, Tommy.
  6. 1. Up until she appeared at the Shaw trial, she had not been subjected to cross-examination and her words were left unopposed thanks to the credulousness of the commission. 2. Her memory of the phone call between herself and Michael belies other evidence. 3. Her memory of the phone call from the TEC belies other evidence. 4. Her story about Oswald giving them the phone number to N Beckley in case Marina went into labor, but then neglecting to tell them they should ask for "Mr Lee" lacks internal logic and is most likely self-serving. 5. Her willingness to lie on official government documents is demonstrated via her divorce papers. 6. Her insistence that her religion makes her incapable of lying is shown to be self-serving by the above. 7. Despite your claims that she was a Quaker Charity Voodoo Queen Par excellence! she displayed a clear lack of empathy or charity when she failed to help Oswald secure legal assistance. 8. Despite your claim that the Quaker Charity Voodoo Queen took Marina in due to Marina's desperate need because that is the type of woman Ruth was, you will be unable to come up with a single act of charity in all of the many records concerning her past up until then. She was an evangelical Quaker and as I have already explained to you, evangelical Quakers do not see charity as their business because it was not for God. 9. Your sad tale about Oswald scrounging on her over weekends is belied by her own words - to wit - that it was great to have him around doing all the little chores that needed doing like fixing a door - you know - stuff that the ENGINEER, Mike Paine never got around to doing. 10. Her pants are highly combustible.
  7. Never changed. Kinda like your times tables, eh Paul? Once LEARNED, it can't be unlearned. Pity human memory doesn't work like that. Witness veracity is tested in a number of ways. Is it supported by other evidence? Is it consistent (as opposed to inconsistent or rote)? Has the witness faced cross-examination? Does the testimony pass the smell test (e.g. does it advance personal agendas or is it in any other way, self-serving? ----------------------------------- Ruth's testimony fails on a number of indicators.
  8. Paul, In what way do you believe Oswald was an accomplice in the murder? What evidence is there for that? I would say he believes it in a rather twisted fashion, Sandy. It is really the only way one could believe it.
  9. Larry, What if Oswald wasn't actually standing at the Coke machine, but inside the vestibule, looking through the vestibule's outer door window to see who was coming up the stairs? --Tommy For crying out loud Tommy! Don't you get it by now? He was IN the coke machine. Spying. Oz mistook Craig for Baker later that day in Fritz' office. That's why he said "everyone will know who I am now". His (coke) cover was blown! That's why he had to be killed. He was now a liability to the Evil Geniuses at Pepper. ---------------- Vestibule: "a passage, hall, or room between the outer door and the interior of a building : lobby" Because Oswald (correctly) used the term for the space at the first floor entrance, the builders of the false narrative had to apply it to an area on the 2nd floor so the whole thing could be moved one floor up. There was no 2nd floor vestibule. I know someone has suggested that maybe that is what everyone called it anyway for lack of a better description. Great. Give me a quote showing it's use in any pre-assassination situation or any post assassination situation not describing the 2nd floor encounter. Thanks, "Mr. Hancock." OK, if the small "room" between the second floor lunchroom and the work space / second floor landing isn't a "vestibule," what should we call it? "A small room between the second floor lunch room and the work space / second floor landing"? "The lunchroom's anteroom"? "The lunch room's little annex"? Whatever you want to call it, wouldn't it have been easier for Baker to see someone turning away from the window in that little area's outer door than someone standing by the Coke machine inside the lunchroom proper? --Tommy edited and bumped I like to call it the "little rooms where miracles can happen, if you wish hard enough", Tommy. That's what I call it anyways. But I'm just an old sentimentalist, I guess. Open the door and enter Truly-Land - a land where teleportation is possible. A land where you don't need those x-ray specs you clipped that comic book coupon to buy. Enter Truly-Land and you can see through anything -- but no one can see through you! You will marvel at the show inside the lunchroom! In the blink of eye, now you see him, now you don't! Yes! It's Will-O-the-Wisp Man and his amazing power to jump the time-space continuum and appear almost simultaneously seated at a table, buying a coke from the machine, walking away drinking the coke, drinking from the water cooler and dry firing his elephant gun! Is he a hologram? is he real? Come and see for your self! Ticket agent Is the Brewer Agency. Ticket sales through Postal Services and the concession stand courtesy of Butch's Hard Core Pop Corn! While you're there, take a walk down the expanding and shrinking stairs and see the Amazing Truth Contortionist! Contorting the truth was never this much fun! All this and so much more in Truly-Land -- the Land You Truly Must See!
  10. Larry, What if Oswald wasn't actually standing at the Coke machine, but inside the vestibule, looking through the vestibule's outer door window to see who was coming up the stairs? --Tommy For crying out loud Tommy! Don't you get it by now? He was IN the coke machine. Spying. Oz mistook Craig for Baker later that day in Fritz' office. That's why he said "everyone will know who I am now". His (coke) cover was blown! That's why he had to be killed. He was now a liability to the Evil Geniuses at Pepper. ---------------- Vestibule: "a passage, hall, or room between the outer door and the interior of a building : lobby" Because Oswald (correctly) used the term for the space at the first floor entrance, the builders of the false narrative had to apply it to an area on the 2nd floor so the whole thing could be moved one floor up. There was no 2nd floor vestibule. I know someone has suggested that maybe that is what everyone called it anyway for lack of a better description. Great. Give me a quote showing it's use in any pre-assassination situation or any post assassination situation not describing the 2nd floor encounter.
  11. You or Bob only need to take a leaf out of Tommy's book and it give it a bump. The defeat of the official version of events is spread out over several forums and 15 years worth of threads. That debate is done. The next phase has begun. Showing how the official narrative was created via the Reid Interrogation Technique.
  12. Larry, the debate on this ended long ago. Richard's take, much like McRae's "Prayer Woman" is merely the result of his own emasculation.
  13. That's gotta be worth 5 Stan's right there.
  14. Tommy, as you yourself allow, it may well be a female elvis impersonator - ergo it fails Jon's test of being right now as I type a provable hardcare no-doubt-about-it fact.
  15. Jim, no of course it never happened. I'm saying that the whole idea to claim it happened was taken wholesale from the Stafford case - a case where - yes, it really did happen. There are other instances too, where past cases have been pilfered for ideas to hang falsely on Oswald.