Cory Santos

5. Interaction with a higher intelligence or a higher level of reality - perhaps a manipulative "control system" as postulated by Jacques Vallee - is a plausible explanation. Are you referring to God? Angels?

If only I could see that picture from the side and front to know whose head it was. It would be really nice. Too bad the photographers were taking the least effective photos that day.

Bravo David, bravo.

So you wrote an explanation, you said things, I read them, yet that which you wrote means nothing. You believe in things-which you dare not explain which supports my position. You then say you do not believe in a, b, or c. So why not put your big boy pants on and admit to the world today on this platform what you believe about ufos. You have opinions on everyone else yet do not want to put yourself under the microscope. 🤮

Well Lance, I merely come here extolling nothing. I bring joy and peace and enlightenment for the likes of you and company. You have delighted in spreading your advice here-like you apparently did when you were drug attorney of the year. So I see you don’t want to answer any questions but merely deflect. I must say that having practiced criminal defense if you were opposite me in court that deflecting would be a problem for you. Oh wait you didn’t practice in criminal law right? What did you do again to be drug attorney of the year? Ok, you seem to now not want to address your ufo beliefs. It’s ok because you do not want to open yourself up to being called a conspiracist by anyone lol.

Hi 1) I edited quote just to note 2) yes he should be proud and not always try to bring up Mr. Lear. I am proud to have represented the Lear family. 3) no “e” in my name. I am more than enough. Lol. Common mistake.

Yes it seems for Lance to get drug attorney of the year for his work in the fight against the cartels, per the article, in Arizona is a well deserved honor so he should try not to not worry about the achievements of an American legend like Mr. Lear. Nor people like Mr. Stone or Jim DiEugino who agree with them or not are highly respected.

Never mind I found it. Drug attorney of the year. Lance this is is a quote to be proud of: In our war against the drug cartels, one of the people I want at my side giving legal advice is Lance Payette. https://www.wmicentral.com/news/navajo_county/lance-payette-named-drug-attorney-of-the-year/article_e5dffa72-d247-5c80-80f3-a6175bdb44ca.html so no you have not served our country like Mr. Lear, set any aviation records, been interviewed over and over by mainstream media and other outlets, but you should not always bring him up. You have done important things too.

That’s it?

Odd, I have many good friends yet you always bring up John Lear. What is this fetish you have for him? Is it he had a platform and people listen to him, like DiEugino and Stone but you, Lance, do not? Did you not get enough praise when you assisted with getting bad drug peddlers off the streets? What was that award for again that you received for work you did?

you still did not answer the question, ie, what should he have put in there?

So what new lone nut evidence should he have considered in your opinion? It sounds like you haven’t watched the two films. Usually when I present my case in court I argue my clients position rather than that of the other party.

He read the Warren commission. Is that not enough wacky for one day?

Again you claim to be “done” or “through” yet here you are ……. Odd you attack conspiracists yet your ufo beliefs could make one view you as a conspiracist. Feel free to stop anytime. Help is out there. Oh and Cliff says: “6.5mm FMJ don’t leave shallow wounds in soft tissue. Ergo, the evidence is phony...See how easy this is?“

Ok. So your lay person opinion on this matter is not settled science. It is YOUR opinion based on one doctor’s opinion. Hardly case closed as one author laughably put it. In the legal realm we call this a medical question, not fact, when two experts disagree on a point. Additionally, we then look at the basis of the doctors conclusions and the methods they used to arrive at their conclusions. Here, by your own admission “Nobody on Earth” knows. As such, why any wc defender would argue this matter is closed factually, other than to mislead people, seems odd. It is certainly incorrect. Unless you believe a scientific factual conclusion can be based upon a great deal of speculation. I can assure you that in the courtroom it does not work that way. Please add this to your blog so other opinions can be considered by the public.

Thank you David. I read it all but it is really just you saying you agree with Dr. Gregory’s assessment. Maybe I missed it but where do you specifically address Col. Fink’s testimony? If you did not address it in your cited blog, do you therefore disagree with him based upon Dr. Gregory’s opinion?

Still waiting for a wc defender to respond. My popcorn has gone cold.

Just read this and got a chuckle from your reply. Good and calm response Lawrence.

Any wc Oswald did it response to the testimony?

I give up. Which kind?

Waiting with popcorn for a wc is right reply? Anyone?

Then you can’t logically fault conspiracists for doing that. You alone can’t determine what is reasonable.

David, David. . . in another thread you stated: Just goes to show that people enjoy wallowing in fantasy-filled speculation and conjecture End Quote. Yet here, you just based your argument based on speculation and conjecture the second you said “probably” above. You have zero evidence to document exactly when the bullet (which was allegedly still in his leg later on per report-evidence which you ignore) fell out. Thus, say what you like, however, the WC requires quite a bit of accepting speculation and conjecture as you have just proven again.

Cliff your not answering. We are staying out a little later then coming back. Btw Oswald did it.

Yes. I agree.