Cory Santos

Couple of points then. First, Frazier testified that he thought the shots came from the underpass. W.C. Testimony. Page 234. So you evidently believe him when it fits your conclusions but ignore the rest of his testimony. Ok. Second, what was LHO eating on the second floor before the shooting if he did not bring a lunch? LHO eating his lunch was witnessed so do you DVP really think testimony seeing him on the second floor is a lie? At any point was he on the first floor after 11 a.m.? Your logic here does not make sense. Either he was or he was not seen on the second floor. If he was and he was eating, he could have brought his lunch in the package. If he bought his lunch there is no evidence that he did so. So why was he on the second floor before and after the shooting if he was not eating? That makes no sense unless he was eating. Perhaps the better answer is Frazier was honestly mistaken.

Here it is.

Vince where did you get this? I just saw a YouTube show talking about this. Ferrie”s witness stated afterwards as one thing to the affect that “well, we tried.” A little background please.

Quote: It’s difficult to engage in a rational debate with people who either don't read, or don't understand, basic arguments. End quote. As I said, new day, new subject, same attacks. Nothing changes nor is done about it apparently.

New day, new subject, same attacks.

And with that we now have the possibility there were more than one Earlene running around Dallas. That’s right, you heard it first from DVP. A new theory for all. Earlene doppelgängers. Jk.

Just admit you had no clue about this until my prior house guest Cliff schooled you. It’s ok.

But Cliff, Brown knows what Humes thought. Lol! Facts smacts!

Curious, why did he not try to shoot Nixon? His trip to Texas was in the papers. Have you ever questioned that?

It is hearsay. So generally, no. There are a few exceptions. Now, as someone who studied history at the graduate level, a historian might give it some weight but without other support, generally it would not be solely relied on by a historian in the academic field. Lance am I right or wrong here?

Well tomorrow Theresa is preparing fresh boysenberry mimosas.

30th degree is a promotion. I was 15.

Denis I’m jesting. I don’t see it but if you can get better quality pictures I say go for it. I am not demeaning your theory. I just don’t see it. My point above is lots of things can be seen in these photos that look like a face or something but usually I find it’s unproductive without the negatives being worked on. Again, don’t take what I said the wrong way.

Geez David I circled it for you. Can’t you see it?

Well, let me go try but first Cliff is drunk. . . again, so I have to help him to his quarters. Interestingly he mumbled something about shirts and Oswald.

Ron even if those statements are true the statements are not verifiable. Certainly, these points will not convince anyone, well mostly anyone, without verification. In court those statements are hearsay and only admissible in certain situations for a reason. If you want to convince people like DVP you need more than that.

Sorry, I looked and looked. For a second I thought I saw a younger version of my pool guest Mr. Cliff Varnel.

I have never understood this argument about the booth. It is clear it was out to the front. Even if it wasn’t to suggest there was no way Brewer could have seen him go in the theatre is silly and a waste of time. Was Brewer secretly part of the conspiracy? Come on.

You love every second of attention. Your not fooling anyone. Admit it. Admit to your guilt.

Do you see any motive that Soviet and/or Russian persons would have to take out JFK? Would you stipulate that an early release from a government associated organization blamed Oswald as a pro Castro and responsible for the shooting? If so, do you think that Oswald could have acted for any foreign reasons and or persons?

One of my best friends is Jewish and he often mentions at lunch about how the Jewish people have been treated. It is interesting listening and learning from his perspective. I would add one thing Lance, with conspiracy thought, it seems to always indict conservative and/or Republican right wing as being behind conspiracies. Look how many conspiracists think the Bush family is tied to ufos, jfk and, 911. It is truly mind boggling.

I will never understand why certain people project every problem onto Israel and the Jewish people.

I gave it a read and had to stop. Instead of professional discussion and argument it is a hit piece on Stone and DiEugino. Hardly scholarly work. I thought we could not post for others? Why doesn’t he come here and post and debate? Seems like recently several of you do not debate when you post, rather, you just cite to his blog or writings. I will listen to both sides of this debate but your heroic author’s writings are tiresome, un-informative and reads like a broken record.

Why do you think George, not knowing you, would call you back to perform a service he easily could do through his trusted contacts? Did you ever call former Sen. Reid? Did he personally call you back? Do you deem him reputable? FYI, not that I need to defend George, he is very reputable. He appears on local and national news programs. He is regularly on major network programs. He has won a Peabody. I can assure you that also locally, in Nevada, very reputable. You seem to denigrate people who have achieved a high degree of success.

Go read the Omega Conspiracy by reverend IDE Thomas. I found it fascinating.