Greg Parker

Yeah, sure, Greg. You keep saying that week after week. It's carnival barker writing. If you haven't said anything yet, the likelihood that you have ANYTHING substantial is mighty slim. Regards, --Paul Trejo Like you're an expert on anything slim?

Dear Greg, Unlike you, I'm not a very good writer, and in addition to that, I'm often thinking of things to add to or take away from my posts. I hope that's okay. Does that seem ... uhhh .... suspicious to you? --Tommy Only when you have a list of names you want to have a sly comment about - and then later edit to add my name. Dear Greg, Well, I might as well admit it. You were an afterthought. But regardless, you should count your blessings -- at least I didn't give you any buttons. You already have more than enough that are incredibly easy to "push". And by the way, regarding my so-called perceived "relationship" with Trejo, you're starting to sound not only envious, but downright jealous, as well. I mean, you do have a significant other in your life, don't you? --Tommy I am. I always wanted an ewok.

Dear Greg, Unlike you, I'm not a very good writer, and in addition to that, I'm often thinking of things to add to or take away from my posts. I hope that's okay. Does that seem ... uhhh .... suspicious to you? --Tommy Only when you have a list of names you want to have a sly comment about - and then later edit to add my name.

I see Tommy has also been indulging in some non-typo typing editing just like his new bro.

I see Mr Trejo has been making use of the edit function for non-typo related edits. That's the measure of the man. I'll leave you to flail and make back-dated corrections to your arguments through your edit function. In the meantime, choke on this: Ruth Paine is toast. I'll be spreading the butter later this year...

1. The change of thread title was changed because several same topic threads were merged, and required a new neutral title. 2. As per the article: In Simple English - No claim is being made here. Quote from article: "Prayer woman being identified as being Pauline Sanders is only a considered possibility." 3. One has to assume in any analysis of such a poor quality image, that there is no other alternative. You are also making assumptions. You assume that the mystery person may have been standing one or two steps down, and you assume that the mystery person may have been drinking from a bottle. Photographs of an empty bottle hours after the event is proof of nothing 4. So only one John Mytton exists or has ever existed on planet Earth? Amazing!!! 5. The close up of the Darnell image has not been debunked. An opinion from you based on the same crappy image, and that's all it is, is not a debunking, it's an opinion... Gimme a break!!! 6. Some researchers do claim that Oswald is the mystery person, and that his hairline can be seen in the Darnell images. This is a fact. 7. Regarding your linked articles and irrelevant link promotion to the review and purchase page at Amazon for the Stan Dane's book Everything contained within the book and these articles is speculative, and not proof of anything. Until people like you learn that speculation is not proof, you will get nowhere with your research. BIG claims about the gender identity of the mystery person require BIG proof. You have no BIG proof, and neither have i EVERYONE is merely guessing the gender identity of Prayer Person.......This a fact!!! You are admitting that what you present is not research, but merely guesswork? You have proven nothing. Which is why I don't take credit for it and won't try and reinvent it. Sean Murphy however, did prove that Oswald's alibi was altered by Bookhout, with Fritz cribbing from Bookhout's alteration Numerous first day news accounts quoting police sources and TSBD officials support Oswald's alibi No one admitting seeing anyone at all in the PM position No one admitted being in the PM position No one admitted seeing any strangers that day Notwithstanding that no one saw any strangers, no stranger would have been likely to take up the PM position anyway, since it meant battling past a crowd to take up a worse position than any on the street The gender is a given The body shape is a given The hairline is a given All signposts point to one man. That is what has been proven.

That this "research' should have been legitimized by granting inclusion here was a mistake imho - and this result was inevitable. MacRae only insisted upon this because he was harboring the mistaken belief that I would be reinventing the wheel on Prayer Man. That fight is done and dusted over hundreds of pages here and neatly summarized in book and video form. After agreeing to the initial request to do this, I decided it was a pointless exercise. What I will be presenting will not be an attempt to "prove" what's already been proven. It instead, will place PM into the proper context of police methodology. MacRae missed the boat again.

It's difficult to have a proper debate as envisaged when the proposer of the debate refuses to engage in it when confronted with rebuttal.

Dear Greg, I've got some sad news for you. Despite what you dream, Trejo and I are not "a pair". At least not officially. You see, The Agency told me a long time ago to disassociate myself from "WT" so that we could spread disinformation here more effectively. --Tommy You are "paired" on this issue, Tommy, by your own words. Of course, if you want an annulment, I happen to know there is a member here who is a bona fide online Minister and has the certificate to prove it. I'm sure she will grant the divorce for the proper fee.

This is just a classic example of trying to move your own goal posts. Here is what you said, and I what I very specifically rebutted: "Common sense tells me that when the police descend upon an unsuspecting person, the first reaction of that person is to deny EVERYTHING." So once again--what happened when the police descended upon this unsuspecting person? Did she deny he owned a rifle, or freely admit it? Your MO is entirely transparent and you are nothing but a self-appointed spin doctor for a person whose world is going to collapse if the actual facts ever come out. No, Greg, you're the one trying to move the goal posts. You're agreeing with me, actually -- you know that Marina didn't feel overwhelmed by the DPD when they first came politely ringing the doorbell at Mrs. Paine's house one hour after the JFK assassination. There is no way that Ruth or Marina even DREAMED that LHO was the killer of JFK at that moment. Both of them say so in their WC testimony. So, there was no DESCENT of authorities down upon the head of Marina Oswald at that moment. And you know it. Just admit it. Regards, --Paul Trejo CEO Pug's Irving Spin Services, Inc (PISSI) All I know is that you prove my point every time you post.

This is just a classic example of trying to move your own goal posts. Here is what you said, and I what I very specifically rebutted: "Common sense tells me that when the police descend upon an unsuspecting person, the first reaction of that person is to deny EVERYTHING." So once again--what happened when the police descended upon this unsuspecting person? Did she deny he owned a rifle, or freely admit it? Your MO is entirely transparent and you are nothing but a self-appointed spin doctor for a person whose world is going to collapse if the actual facts ever come out.

I gotta agree with "W. T." Trejo on one thing here. (Heaven forbid! DiEugenio will never forgi)ve me!) Marina may have lied in her early statements out of fear (irrational? maybe not -- she had grown up in a police state known as Russia, and may have assumed that the same things happened here) of being deported back to The Worker's Paradise, and thence, perhaps, to a "gulag" in Siberia, or even to a certain ... basement in the Kremlin. If so, she may have been more truthful later when she realized that that wasn't gonna happen, and especially when she was put under oath by the WC... --Tommy Those sorts of arguments work both ways. It is my contention she was not quarantined for her own protection, but to get her "mind right". According to Robert Oswald, she was threatened. There was no need for that until they got her initial statements.When those statements were not favorable to the developing government narrative... Or are you seriously suggesting she lied in a manner that went AGAINST the government so that the government would not send her packing back to Russia? I'm glad you note how irrational that is - because it most assuredly is. That you even have to posit she was irrational to try and get this "logic" accepted says it all. You have no evidence of that - none whatsoever. The Big Bad Government does not threaten or torture people who are already being cooperative. They're not sadists, after all. Dear Greg, Please fill me in. Did Marina's early statements tend to help or hurt the US Government's (i.e., the FBI's and CIA's) position on her dead husband's alleged role in the assassination of JFK? If I remember correctly, they didn't help it very much, or did they? Regardless, I would imagine that those early statements were made according to what she believed was in the best interest of her and her babies' well-being and safety. Maybe she believed, irrationally by our standards, there was a good chance she and her babies would be deported back to Russia if she said "the wrong thing," whatever that was, or, conversely, made statements which she thought could somehow make her look complicit in the assassination of the most powerful (and perhaps the most popular) man in the world. --Tommy You're simply forcing the rationale. Her very first statement HELPED the government. "Yes, he owns a rifle. Come, I show you". This alone makes a mockery of Paul's claim. Later when interviewed in depth, suddenly she was not being helpful. No he didn't go to Mexico. No, he good man. etc etc... so she was held until they got her straightened out for her star turn before the Malignant Seven. By the way... I don't buy that she admitted the rifle... I think that was all retrospective. But she's your witness, so I'll run with the rifle story just for you pair. I wouldn't make that concession for just anyone, Tommy. Paul is special. In a very special way.

Really? Allegedly when the police descended on this unsuspecting person did she deny Oswald owned a rifle? Later, did she deny taking a photo of him holding a weapon? The ONLY person making stuff up is YOU. -------------- Common sense tells you. This coming from You? Very scientific.

I gotta agree with "W. T." Trejo on one thing here. (Heaven forbid! DiEugenio will never forgi)ve me!) Marina may have lied in her early statements out of fear (irrational? maybe not -- she had grown up in a police state known as Russia, and may have assumed that the same things happened here) of being deported back to The Worker's Paradise, and thence, perhaps, to a "gulag" in Siberia, or even to a certain ... basement in the Kremlin. If so, she may have been more truthful later when she realized that that wasn't gonna happen, and especially when she was put under oath by the WC... --Tommy Those sorts of arguments work both ways. It is my contention she was not quarantined for her own protection, but to get her "mind right". According to Robert Oswald, she was threatened. There was no need for that until they got her initial statements.When those statements were not favorable to the developing government narrative... Or are you seriously suggesting she lied in a manner that went AGAINST the government so that the government would not send her packing back to Russia? I'm glad you note how irrational that is - because it most assuredly is. That you even have to posit she was irrational to try and get this "logic" accepted says it all. You have no evidence of that - none whatsoever. The Big Bad Government does not threaten or torture people who are already being cooperative. They're not sadists, after all.

The problem with your approach, Paul, can be summed up in one word. YOU. Issuing edicts about what people MUST believe and MUST do. Ptui. You'd have been sent to the Colonies for the theft of oxygen once upon a time. No, Greg, it's basic logic. Your material, like Carol Hewett's and James DiEugenio, invents all the material you bloody well feel like inventing. You're smart enough to avoid the Harvey and Lee fiction, but you make up your own fiction. In your fiction, LHO was purely a victim of some US Government plot -- and that included Ruth and Michael Paine, but also Marina Oswald, George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, and anybody else they knew who was cited in the Warren Report. You don't have sworn evidence to go on -- you reject 90% of it, and use the other 10% to construct a fiction. You're left with no alternative than to invent fictions. For you, LHO was never in Mexico City -- he was in Houston like he told Ruth Paine and Marina. SEEMS LIKE YOU'VE NEVER READ THE LOPEZ-HARDWAY REPORT, am I right? Go on, admit it. You're not many steps removed from "Harvey and Lee," IMHO. Also, your harsh language and bluster don't influence my opinion in the slightest. Regards, --Paul Trejo Tell me what I have invented, Paul. This should be good. In the meantime, let me explain something yet again. I follow the Golden Rule about witness statements. What is the Golden Rule? That initial statements are more reliable than latter statements - including those made under oath. That is borne out by every single study on this issue. Are there exceptions? Of course there are. But you want to make those exceptions the rule. You have no case otherwise...

The problem with your approach, Paul, can be summed up in one word. YOU. Issuing edicts about what people MUST believe and MUST do. Ptui. You'd have been sent to the Colonies for the theft of oxygen once upon a time.

I don'r recall having seen it before, and I once went through the entire DPD collection. Despite any claims of authenticity, I wouldn't be surprised if it was written specifically to add to the retirement funds of the 4 fat flatfooters signing it.

Completely at odds with the final version... as usual... here they don't seem to know who they are looking for, shaking down random patrons. Final version - Oswald was pointed out to them by Johnny Brewer or someone presumed to be Brewer...

There goes the neighborhood...

Among other nonsense, Lifton believes Marina denied the rifle, the photos and the MC trip initially in order to protect Lee. Forget about her changed stories for the WC being due any coercion from your friendly government agents... what she told the WC was the truth! As you can see in the linked thread, Lee and I kicked his butt from here to Buffalo and back. His is the most disturbing of all the propaganda to be found in this place simply because he is so practiced at it, with it's most insidious side being how well disguised it is. You could learn a lot, Paul. Good luck at getting him to show you the Paine interview -- or any of the others he has stashed away that have never seen the light of day.

It seems to me then that you should be able to back that up with documentary evidence.

Okay. I found it. It was not the rifle as such -- it was allegedly one of the BYP: So it was also 2 years after Russo...

Lifton has claimed it here on this very forum and was challenged by Lee Farley to produce the tape - a challenge he refused to accept. Just one of a series of claims he refuses to back up. That little debate seems to have disappeared... or at least I can't find it now. Did Russo question him about what he'd said previously about NOT seeing any rifle?

David Lifton is a genius in my book. I'd love to have documentation about any David Lifton interview of Michael Paine. Any links? Regards, --Paul Trejo Genius at self-promotion. Links? Lifton? Why don't you just ask him? Good luck!

Actually I've been reminded that David Lifton claimed he taped Michael Paine in an interview making the same claim well before 1993.