I've listened to the entire interview Doyle claimed to have conducted with the relatives of Sarah Stanton.

This is my peer review of that interview:

1. Witness said she was told by Sarah Stanton that she ( Stanton ) encountered Oswald on the stairs. ( 2:08 )

The witness never said that Stanton said she saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom.

This was interjected by Doyle who suggested it to the witness using Carolyn Arnold's alleged sighting of Oswald in the second floor lunchroom. Doyle assumed that it was the second floor stairway and that it was the stairway closest to the lunchroom. But
the witness never said any such thing.

In her statement to the FBI on November 23, 1963 ( CD7, pg. 20 ), Stanton said that she, "did not see Oswald on November 22, 1963". She repeated this in her sworn affidavit of March 18, 1964 , written and signed by her, in which she states that, "I did
not see Lee Harvey Oswald...at any time that day." ( CE 1381 / 22 H 675 )

Doyle can fall back on his imagination, but the evidence is the evidence. Stanton never said she saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom. Not on paper and not to her relatives.

2. The witness remembered being told Oswald was holding a Pepsi. ( 3:18 ) She was then corrected by Doyle that it was a Coke.

3. The witness was told Oswald hadn't come down to eat, he just came down to get the soda ( 5:00 ) and that he was going back to "his room". ( 5:50 ) She said after Stanton encountered Oswald, "he went upstairs" ( 8:14 ) and that he "went upstairs"
before the motorcade came by. ( 13:00 )

An allegation not supported by the evidence.

4. Finally, when the relatives were shown Chris Davidson's enhanced picture purportedly of Stanton as "Prayerman", they said that it wasn't her. ( 21 :10 )

This was a witness who was unreliable. She stammered and stumbled her way through questions. Her memory was in and out. Doyle had to repeatedly inject the experiences of Carolyn Arnold to get the witness to agree with his narrative. He repeatedly had to
correct her facts and it's obvious to any researcher worth his salt that this witness offered little in the way of evidence.

Doyle is a terrible interviewer. He sends witnesses copies of what other witnesses say in order to influence their accounts.

And he's a terrible researcher. Researchers don't tell the witnesses the facts, they let the witnesses tell them the facts. And they certainly don't tell witnesses what other witnesses said. And they don't jump to conclusions.

I invite all interested parties to listen to the inteview and peer judge this interview for yourselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYpjGBg5cDU

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 9:18:41 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

I've listened to the entire interview Doyle claimed to have conducted with the relatives of Sarah Stanton.

This is my peer review of that interview:

1. Witness said she was told by Sarah Stanton that she ( Stanton ) encountered Oswald on the stairs. ( 2:08 )

The witness never said that Stanton said she saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom.

This was interjected by Doyle who suggested it to the witness using Carolyn Arnold's alleged sighting of Oswald in the second floor lunchroom. Doyle assumed that it was the second floor stairway and that it was the stairway closest to the lunchroom.

But the witness never said any such thing.

In her statement to the FBI on November 23, 1963 ( CD7, pg. 20 ), Stanton said that she, "did not see Oswald on November 22, 1963". She repeated this in her sworn affidavit of March 18, 1964 , written and signed by her, in which she states that, "I did

not see Lee Harvey Oswald...at any time that day." ( CE 1381 / 22 H 675 )

Doyle can fall back on his imagination, but the evidence is the evidence. Stanton never said she saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom. Not on paper and not to her relatives.

2. The witness remembered being told Oswald was holding a Pepsi. ( 3:18 ) She was then corrected by Doyle that it was a Coke.

3. The witness was told Oswald hadn't come down to eat, he just came down to get the soda ( 5:00 ) and that he was going back to "his room". ( 5:50 ) She said after Stanton encountered Oswald, "he went upstairs" ( 8:14 ) and that he "went upstairs"

before the motorcade came by. ( 13:00 )

An allegation not supported by the evidence.

4. Finally, when the relatives were shown Chris Davidson's enhanced picture purportedly of Stanton as "Prayerman", they said that it wasn't her. ( 21 :10 )

This was a witness who was unreliable. She stammered and stumbled her way through questions. Her memory was in and out. Doyle had to repeatedly inject the experiences of Carolyn Arnold to get the witness to agree with his narrative. He repeatedly had

to correct her facts and it's obvious to any researcher worth his salt that this witness offered little in the way of evidence.

Doyle is a terrible interviewer. He sends witnesses copies of what other witnesses say in order to influence their accounts.

And he's a terrible researcher. Researchers don't tell the witnesses the facts, they let the witnesses tell them the facts. And they certainly don't tell witnesses what other witnesses said. And they don't jump to conclusions.

I invite all interested parties to listen to the inteview and peer judge this interview for yourselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYpjGBg5cDU

Apparently, I didn't listen very carefully.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 9:18:41 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

I've listened to the entire interview Doyle claimed to have conducted with the relatives of Sarah Stanton.

This is my peer review of that interview:

1. Witness said she was told by Sarah Stanton that she ( Stanton ) encountered Oswald on the stairs. ( 2:08 )

The witness never said that Stanton said she saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom.

This was interjected by Doyle who suggested it to the witness using Carolyn Arnold's alleged sighting of Oswald in the second floor lunchroom. Doyle assumed that it was the second floor stairway and that it was the stairway closest to the lunchroom.

But the witness never said any such thing.



You still haven't given adequate answer to the fact it couldn't be the front stairs because those stairs were separated from the passenger elevator by a wall and Stanton would have used the elevator due to her obesity...It is common sense that it was the
NW staircase because Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald carry out his stated intention when she saw Oswald in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room alone at 12:25...By the way - you ducked out of the last thread where you failed to come back and answer the significance of "12:
25" being on Arnold's March 1964 FBI statement...You cut and ran from that but here you pop up again having failed the last time and dishonestly run away...It was the NW stairs because Intel operative Mrs Reid was exciting the ladies in the 2nd Floor
Lunch Room to all get up and go watch the motorcade with her reports of the motorcade's progress...Oswald was waiting for Mrs Reid to clear the Lunch Room and was doing so near by right outside on the 2nd Floor staircase landing...You're dishonest Gil
because I never said Stanton saw Oswald in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room...You are using that as a cheap strawman in order to avoid answering the greater evidence...

"Peer Review" means you have a right to be reviewed by equals or better...Sorry Gil, but idiotic trolling and obnoxious dismissal doesn't meet that requirement...Those researchers who line up behind Gordon's censorship also relinquish their right to
considering themselves Peers...

In her statement to the FBI on November 23, 1963 ( CD7, pg. 20 ), Stanton said that she, "did not see Oswald on November 22, 1963". She repeated this in her sworn affidavit of March 18, 1964 , written and signed by her, in which she states that, "I did

not see Lee Harvey Oswald...at any time that day." ( CE 1381 / 22 H 675 )




Gil quotes the FBI's lies straight-faced as if several decades of exposing the FBI's lies and alteration of witness statements never happened...He then has the balls to pose himself as a CT-er when his material places him more in the Lone Nutter camp...
Like Arnold and Adams, FBI lied and altered Stanton's statement...No serious CT researcher would quote FBI under these circumstances...Gil is saying Stanton or her relatives decided to perpetuate a hoax and make up a crazy Oswald witnessing story and
that FBI can be trusted...What an asshole...

Doyle can fall back on his imagination, but the evidence is the evidence.

Stanton never said she saw Oswald in the second floor lunchroom. Not on paper and not to her relatives.

Yes she did...In a preliminary phone call Wanda Daniel told me that the way she remembered it was Sarah said Oswald told her he was going back in to the "Break Room" and would not go downstairs to watch the motorcade...Rosa was difficult to interview
because of her English as a second language issues...I decided not to introduce Wanda's telling me that in Rosa's interview because Rosa would only makes things worse than she already had...A post-analysis made me realize Rosa thought Oswald had gone up
to the 6th Floor from his encounter with Sarah and shot Kennedy...It looks like I'll have to try to get another recorded interview from Wanda to deal with idiot deniers and nay-sayers like brain-less Gil here...No serious CT researcher would deal with my
discovery the way Gil does...He's an asshole...

2. The witness remembered being told Oswald was holding a Pepsi. ( 3:18 ) She was then corrected by Doyle that it was a Coke.

Maybe it was a Pepsi...No serious researcher would ignore the significance of how Oswald having a soda tells us where he was and what he did...Gil isn't interested...He's more interested in trolling...

3. The witness was told Oswald hadn't come down to eat, he just came down to get the soda ( 5:00 ) and that he was going back to "his room". ( 5:50 ) She said after Stanton encountered Oswald, "he went upstairs" ( 8:14 ) and that he "went upstairs"

before the motorcade came by. ( 13:00 )



Obviously Rosa heard the "Break Room" story too but confused it...

Here is the Latina Rosa going along with the official story and having Oswald go up to the Sniper's Nest...What she probably meant to say was Oswald "stayed upstairs" (in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room or Break Room)...

4. Finally, when the relatives were shown Chris Davidson's enhanced picture purportedly of Stanton as "Prayerman", they said that it wasn't her. ( 21 :10 )

They didn't have enough information to make the decision...We know Davidson shows Stanton because it was proven by the rest of the evidence that Gil has skipped out on in every thread he tried to deny it...

Contrary to Gil's false assertion above Wanda told me "Prayer Man has to be Sarah because Prayer Man is the biggest one out there"...

This was a witness who was unreliable. She stammered and stumbled her way through questions. Her memory was in and out. Doyle had to repeatedly inject the experiences of Carolyn Arnold to get the witness to agree with his narrative. He repeatedly had

to correct her facts and it's obvious to any researcher worth his salt that this witness offered little in the way of evidence.




Gil is making excuses because, as poor a witness as Rosa was, she was good enough to refute Gil's assertion that Oswald was on the 1st Floor...Gil also fails to explain what was wrong with using Carolyn Arnold's witnessing as supporting evidence...Wanda
is a much better witness but it is obvious that Gil has no credible interest in hearing what she had to say...I guess Gil don't want to hear what he don't want to know...

Doyle is a terrible interviewer. He sends witnesses copies of what other witnesses say in order to influence their accounts.

These witnesses need to be taught the true context of what they witnessed in order for them to realize the potential of other things they might have witnessed...There's no crime in that...Gil is trying to make corroborating witnesses and evidence
something wrong...

And he's a terrible researcher. Researchers don't tell the witnesses the facts, they let the witnesses tell them the facts. And they certainly don't tell witnesses what other witnesses said. And they don't jump to conclusions.

Credible researchers don't make up excuses to ignore serious evidence like you do Gil...You are ignoring that Wanda and Rosa both produced enough facts on their own, without prompting, that your cheap trolling excuse-making doesn't get around...
They produced of their own volition that Oswald was on the 2nd Floor staircase landing when Sarah left the Depository...That he had a soda...That he declined to accompany Sarah down to the 1st Floor...

Wanda was even more factual on her own when she told me in a separate phone call that the way she remembered it Oswald told Sarah he was not going downstairs to watch the motorcade but was going back in to the "Break Room" instead...That Break Room
was obviously the 2nd Floor Lunch Room where Carolyn Arnold would see Oswald shortly after...

I invite all interested parties to listen to the inteview and peer judge this interview for yourselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYpjGBg5cDU

Is that while the clique intentionally ignores Hosty telling Nigel Turner that Oswald said he was alone in the Lunch Room during the assassination or not Gil?...Or why Hosty left that admission out of his notes?...Or why Murphy left it out of his "
research"?...Still waiting for the research community to answer that and where Stanton is to Frazier's left in Altgens...Haven't gotten an answer to either of those two yet...

No serious Conspiracy researcher would react to the important evidence I have discovered the way Gil does...

Please let us know if you need another 3 years to finally locate the link to one of the most important interviews in research history...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:30:32 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:

Doyle's fake indignation is a hoot.
The bottomline is:

1/ Doyle stole the info from Linda Zambanini something he denied and only took him 203 years before he admitted it.

2/ Doyle manipulates the interviewees and tries to lead them to HIS theory instead of asking exactly what she had told them.

3/ Doyle is a terrible liar

4/ Doyle should wear a wig himself for professional reasons.

Doyle is only in favor of peer review when he's doing the reviewing.
If someone peer reviews his "work", he doesn't like it.
The biggest loss of his life is being "peer reviewed" right off the Education Forum.
He's still bad-mouthing people. He hasn't learned after being banned for 7 years. He'll never learn.
He's right, everybody else is wrong. The world is against him.
Nobody takes him seriously.
He's such a silly goose.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Doyle's fake indignation is a hoot.
The bottomline is:

1/ Doyle stole the info from Linda Zambanini something he denied and only took him 203 years before he admitted it.

2/ Doyle manipulates the interviewees and tries to lead them to HIS theory instead of asking exactly what she had told them.

3/ Doyle is a terrible liar

4/ Doyle should wear a wig himself for professional reasons.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:39:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:




Once you quote FBI's obvious lies and alteration of Stanton's true witnessing you forfeit any right to refer to yourself as qualifying for Peer Review...


Credible Peer Review actively seeks good evidence and doesn't troll it like you do Gil...


When I called Wanda Daniel to get the interview with Rosa Wanda told me "The way I remember it is Sarah said Oswald told her he was going back in to the Break Room"...


This is one of the most important evidence discoveries in Kennedy research history and tips the scale towards Oswald being in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the assassination...


Gil posts many videos showing witnesses who said FBI altered their statements and witnessing yet he goofily turns around and quotes FBI and its obvious lies that were used to cover-up Sarah Stanton's damning witnessing of Oswald...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:59:54 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:39:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

This is always the point where Gil skips out of the thread and disappears...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:09:02 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:59:54 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:39:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Let it be known that Gil Jesus tried one of his classic idiotic denials of my interview with Sarah Stanton's relatives and then when I responded he cut and ran like he always does...

Both the interview and the earth-shattering witnessing they revealed are real and represent a serious break-through that Gil attacks like the false Conspiracy researcher he is...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 9:30:32 PM UTC+10, robert johnson wrote:

Doyle's fake indignation is a hoot.
The bottomline is:

1/ Doyle stole the info from Linda Zambanini something he denied and only took him 203 years before he admitted it.

2/ Doyle manipulates the interviewees and tries to lead them to HIS theory instead of asking exactly what she had told them.

3/ Doyle is a terrible liar

4/ Doyle should wear a wig himself for professional reasons.

You mean that's his REAL hair in the car wash video? Egad!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:59:54 AM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:39:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

Once you quote FBI's obvious lies and alteration of Stanton's true witnessing you forfeit any right to refer to yourself as qualifying for Peer Review...

Credible Peer Review actively seeks good evidence and doesn't troll it like you do Gil...

When I called Wanda Daniel to get the interview with Rosa Wanda told me "The way I remember it is Sarah said Oswald told her he was going back in to the Break Room"...

This is one of the most important evidence discoveries in Kennedy research history and tips the scale towards Oswald being in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the assassination...

Gil posts many videos showing witnesses who said FBI altered their statements and witnessing yet he goofily turns around and quotes FBI and its obvious lies that were used to cover-up Sarah Stanton's damning witnessing of Oswald...

Here are the different types of peer reviews https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/what-is-peer-review/types-of-peer-review.html

I got your work a double anonymized review (ie, the reviewer was unaware of the name of the researcher and you are unaware of the name of the reviewer). This prevents any possibility of bias creeping in.

Here is the result:

QUOTE ON
The interview that underpins the conclusions made by this person, is staggering. As a journalist who covers criminal matters, I can confirm that the techniques used are those favored in yellow journalism. I should also add that they have not been well
executed.

My review is therefore not going to be lengthy. There is no need for it to be. The interviewer has obviously and blatantly started with a set of conclusions, and basically herded the witness to the needed "supporting" statements.

Unfortunately for the interviewer, the witness was more like a stray cat than a sheep, and the interviewer more like a yappy terrier than a sheep dog.

I do give my permission to publish this review.
QUOTE OFF

There is your peer review, Brian. I think it is a bit harsh myself. You're more of a Good German Shepherd / Poodle cross (known as a Pooman) than a "yappy terrier".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:03:07 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

The interviewer has obviously and blatantly started with a set of conclusions, and basically herded the witness to the needed "supporting" statements.

EXACTLY.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 16, 2023 at 7:12:30 PM UTC+10, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:03:07 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

The interviewer has obviously and blatantly started with a set of conclusions, and basically herded the witness to the needed "supporting" statements.

EXACTLY.

Two peer reviews in one thread. It seems to have been too much for him. He's probably out celebrating finally getting what he asked for.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:03:07 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:59:54 AM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:39:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

I got your work a double anonymized review (ie, the reviewer was unaware of the name of the researcher and you are unaware of the name of the reviewer). This prevents any possibility of bias creeping in.

The interview that underpins the conclusions made by this person, is staggering. As a journalist who covers criminal matters, I can confirm that the techniques used are those favored in yellow journalism. I should also add that they have not been well

executed.

My review is therefore not going to be lengthy. There is no need for it to be. The interviewer has obviously and blatantly started with a set of conclusions, and basically herded the witness to the needed "supporting" statements.

Unfortunately for the interviewer, the witness was more like a stray cat than a sheep, and the interviewer more like a yappy terrier than a sheep dog.

I do give my permission to publish this review.

The reason Greg is not giving the identity of his reviewer is because it is one of the nuts and kooks that frequent his troll farm and he doesn't want to reveal it...

The Kennedy Assassination suffers from true academic Peer Review not being available because when you get to that level you will not find them participating because the consequences are too high and they will suffer career problems...So you get nuts like
Greg Parker who fill in that void and get taken seriously...

Greg shows that he is focusing on the person instead of the evidence when he goes right to the anonymity issue...That's what Prayer Man trolls like Greg do...They immediately switch to the personal or ad hom in order to avoid discussing the evidence...

This kind of trolling shit is what fills Greg's ROKC troll farm...Once they sense they have enough support from idiots like Gil Jesus and others, the Prayer Man people use ridicule to disparge those who out argue them in order to evade their material...
It is swarm, or gang, trolling outside of true Peer Review...

In any case what speaks the most here is none of the Prayer Man hijackers ever bothered to interview Wanda Daniel because they knew what she would say and knew she disproved that bullshit Prayer Man theory...Wanda is a major break-through and her
interview is important...The fact her interviewer and discoverer of her evidence would have to go through the insult of this kind of treatment and ignoring from the research community is sick...And do so so hack researchers could enforce their bias
towards that credulous theory and dominate the JFK internet with their corrupted clique...

THE most important discovery of our time in JFK research is being hidden all so Gil Jesus can exploit the clique to compensate for his weak research by sucking up to it...And so the blowhard crank theorist and evidence revisionist gremlin Greg Parker can
troll and get attention...The research community is being held hostage by the Prayer Man hijackers so they can indulge themselves with Greg's bullshit in order to enforce a dumb-down level of research accumen and enforce the clique...All so they can call
Sarah Stanton Oswald...This is all being enforced by one censoring British asshole named James Gordon who has way too much power and is only in it for the personal control and helping his favorites...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 1:40:55 AM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:03:07 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:59:54 AM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 7:39:02 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

I got your work a double anonymized review (ie, the reviewer was unaware of the name of the researcher and you are unaware of the name of the reviewer). This prevents any possibility of bias creeping in.

The interview that underpins the conclusions made by this person, is staggering. As a journalist who covers criminal matters, I can confirm that the techniques used are those favored in yellow journalism. I should also add that they have not been

well executed.

My review is therefore not going to be lengthy. There is no need for it to be. The interviewer has obviously and blatantly started with a set of conclusions, and basically herded the witness to the needed "supporting" statements.

Unfortunately for the interviewer, the witness was more like a stray cat than a sheep, and the interviewer more like a yappy terrier than a sheep dog.

I do give my permission to publish this review.

The reason Greg is not giving the identity of his reviewer is because it is one of the nuts and kooks that frequent his troll farm and he doesn't want to reveal it...

Nope. Local reporter for a local paper, No interest in the Kennedy assassination. This is where you go wrong, my man. You get a thought in your head, and just because you think it, it must be true!

The reason I did not give his identity is as I already explained. It is a double-anonymized - which is recognized as the least likely to be influenced by anything outside the work itself.

The Kennedy Assassination suffers from true academic Peer Review not being available because when you get to that level you will not find them participating because the consequences are too high and they will suffer career problems...So you get nuts

like Greg Parker who fill in that void and get taken seriously...

That is a Peer Review. A local reporter for a mid sized town paper has nothing to fear making an anonymous report. Again. you are conjuring excuses up in your mind and to you, that makes them true. Your mind is a lot of things, Brian -- but a
repository of truth and wisdom, it is not.

Greg shows that he is focusing on the person instead of the evidence when he goes right to the anonymity issue...That's what Prayer Man trolls like Greg do...They immediately switch to the personal or ad hom in order to avoid discussing the evidence...

Nope. What the peer review talks about is your METHODOLOGY, not YOU.

This kind of trolling shit is what fills Greg's ROKC troll farm...Once they sense they have enough support from idiots like Gil Jesus and others, the Prayer Man people use ridicule to disparge those who out argue them in order to evade their material...

It is swarm, or gang, trolling outside of true Peer Review...

Brian, what we do is parody. If you would stop acting like a spoiled brat and quite the tantrums, we'd have nothing to parody.

In any case what speaks the most here is none of the Prayer Man hijackers ever bothered to interview Wanda Daniel because they knew what she would say and knew she disproved that bullshit Prayer Man theory...Wanda is a major break-through and her

interview is important...The fact her interviewer and discoverer of her evidence would have to go through the insult of this kind of treatment and ignoring from the research community is sick...And do so so hack researchers could enforce their bias
towards that credulous theory and dominate the JFK internet with their corrupted clique...

What speaks most here is you. Full stop.

Wanda has nothing to add to the case. Your interview proved that.

THE most important discovery of our time in JFK research is being hidden all so Gil Jesus can exploit the clique to compensate for his weak research by sucking up to it...And so the blowhard crank theorist and evidence revisionist gremlin Greg Parker

can troll and get attention...The research community is being held hostage by the Prayer Man hijackers so they can indulge themselves with Greg's bullshit in order to enforce a dumb-down level of research accumen and enforce the clique...All so they can
call Sarah Stanton Oswald...This is all being enforced by one censoring British asshole named James Gordon who has way too much power and is only in it for the personal control and helping his favorites...

Another tantrum, which is probably being parodied as I type back at ROKC. The difference between you and a 2 year old? A 2 year old eventually learns.

I recommend you watch all 3 seasons of Bluey, my friend. It will help you learn about getting along, playing well, the consequences of farting, why Hendrix was only an average guitarist, and many other valuable life lessons. Be sure to have an adult with
you so you can ask questions.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 11:21:58 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 1:40:55 AM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:03:07 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

Nope. Local reporter for a local paper, No interest in the Kennedy assassination. This is where you go wrong, my man. You get a thought in your head, and just because you think it, it must be true!

Nope. What the peer review talks about is your METHODOLOGY, not YOU.

Greg...You chose someone who had no knowledge of the Prayer Man issue because you were trying to avoid facts you didn't want to admit...You were trying to keep it as shallow as possible...Sorry Greg but Peer Review requires people who have the best
knowledge of the issue...But I guess we both know that you're an obnoxious clown and you are trolling anyway...You are too obnoxious to realize you are disqualifying yourself by your own words and only an ROKC crazy would try to get away with what you
are doing here...This is the advantage of the get out of evidence card all clique members carry...

Brian, what we do is parody. If you would stop acting like a spoiled brat and quite the tantrums, we'd have nothing to parody.

Your ROKC website is a well-known troll pit...You and your members are mostly banned from serious JFK websites...The problem here is Jim DiEugenio gives support to your troll site and its bullshit content so Jim's sycophants grant it immunity from
accountability...Politics over academic rigor...What you and your website does, Greg, is troll...

Wanda has nothing to add to the case. Your interview proved that.

Wanda has provided the most important break-through in 45 years...She has told me that Sarah told her that she heard Oswald say he wasn't going down to the 1st Floor to watch the motorcade but was "Going back in to the Break Room instead"...That Break
Room was the 2nd Floor Lunch Room where Carolyn Arnold would see Oswald sitting eating lunch alone at 12:25...I don't have time right now but this witnessing not only debunks the bullshit Prayer Man theory, and not only shows that Hosty told Turner
Oswald was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room, but it also makes me the guy who is trying to rescue the credible JFK research world from its own insane alliance with the Prayer Man trolls... Greg thinks his trolling takes precedent over reality however the
failure of the research world to pursue or even contact Wanda Daniel tells credible researchers all they need to know...They ignored Wanda just like they do me because they operate by censorship and don't hear what they don't want to know...They know
what she'll tell them so they don't contact her...What kind of research community ignores a discovery like that and destroys its discoverer?...(In order to support idiots like Greg and Bart?)...Cheerleading Kamp is not Peer Review...

Another tantrum, which is probably being parodied as I type back at ROKC. The difference between you and a 2 year old? A 2 year old eventually learns.

Peer Review is not parody...Once again Greg, you are so used to trolling that it is literally all you are capable of...You are only proving in your own words why your obnoxious response here disqualifies you from Peer Review...Credible Peer Review doesn'
t parody...It deals seriously with the issue in order to understand it at the best academic level...You guys are internet trolls and internet trolls are not Peer Review...Proper Peer Review would realize that the Prayer Man people cannot find Stanton to
Frazier's left in either Altgens or Wiegman and that point alone ends the Prayer Man issue and proves Prayer Man is to Frazier's right and is Sarah Stanton...Anyone can see the Prayer Man people running from Peer Review of the Davidson enhancement and
Stanton in Owens...As long as you can't show Stanton to Frazier's left I own you...Banned and ignored or not...You guys have hijacked the JFK internet and are using Odisio's calling for the NBC films to avoid answering this or what Hosty told Nigel
Turner...You are cowards who gang troll and ban people whose questions you know you can't answer...

I recommend you watch all 3 seasons of Bluey, my friend. It will help you learn about getting along, playing well, the consequences of farting, why Hendrix was only an average guitarist, and many other valuable life lessons. Be sure to have an adult

with you so you can ask questions.



Credible researchers can see you show your true feathers every now and then in your contempt for Kennedy and now Jimi...The community is pretty sick and doesn't ask DiEugenio why he praises someone who shows real hate for Kennedy in his trolling...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 1:16:39 AM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 11:21:58 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 1:40:55 AM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:03:07 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

Nope. Local reporter for a local paper, No interest in the Kennedy assassination. This is where you go wrong, my man. You get a thought in your head, and just because you think it, it must be true!

Nope. What the peer review talks about is your METHODOLOGY, not YOU.

Greg...You chose someone who had no knowledge of the Prayer Man issue because you were trying to avoid facts you didn't want to admit...You were trying to keep it as shallow as possible...Sorry Greg but Peer Review requires people who have the best

knowledge of the issue...But I guess we both know that you're an obnoxious clown and you are trolling anyway...You are too obnoxious to realize you are disqualifying yourself by your own words and only an ROKC crazy would try to get away with what you
are doing here...This is the advantage of the get out of evidence card all clique members carry...

Brian, what we do is parody. If you would stop acting like a spoiled brat and quite the tantrums, we'd have nothing to parody.

Your ROKC website is a well-known troll pit...You and your members are mostly banned from serious JFK websites...The problem here is Jim DiEugenio gives support to your troll site and its bullshit content so Jim's sycophants grant it immunity from

accountability...Politics over academic rigor...What you and your website does, Greg, is troll...

Wanda has nothing to add to the case. Your interview proved that.

Wanda has provided the most important break-through in 45 years...She has told me that Sarah told her that she heard Oswald say he wasn't going down to the 1st Floor to watch the motorcade but was "Going back in to the Break Room instead"...That Break

Room was the 2nd Floor Lunch Room where Carolyn Arnold would see Oswald sitting eating lunch alone at 12:25...I don't have time right now but this witnessing not only debunks the bullshit Prayer Man theory, and not only shows that Hosty told Turner
Oswald was in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room, but it also makes me the guy who is trying to rescue the credible JFK research world from its own insane alliance with the Prayer Man trolls... Greg thinks his trolling takes precedent over reality however the
failure of the research world to pursue or even contact Wanda Daniel tells credible researchers all they need to know...They ignored Wanda just like they do me because they operate by censorship and don't hear what they don't want to know...They know
what she'll tell them so they don't contact her...What kind of research community ignores a discovery like that and destroys its discoverer?...(In order to support idiots like Greg and Bart?)...Cheerleading Kamp is not Peer Review...

Another tantrum, which is probably being parodied as I type back at ROKC. The difference between you and a 2 year old? A 2 year old eventually learns.

Peer Review is not parody...Once again Greg, you are so used to trolling that it is literally all you are capable of...You are only proving in your own words why your obnoxious response here disqualifies you from Peer Review...Credible Peer Review

doesn't parody...It deals seriously with the issue in order to understand it at the best academic level...You guys are internet trolls and internet trolls are not Peer Review...Proper Peer Review would realize that the Prayer Man people cannot find
Stanton to Frazier's left in either Altgens or Wiegman and that point alone ends the Prayer Man issue and proves Prayer Man is to Frazier's right and is Sarah Stanton...Anyone can see the Prayer Man people running from Peer Review of the Davidson
enhancement and Stanton in Owens...As long as you can't show Stanton to Frazier's left I own you...Banned and ignored or not...You guys have hijacked the JFK internet and are using Odisio's calling for the NBC films to avoid answering this or what Hosty
told Nigel Turner...You are cowards who gang troll and ban people whose questions you know you can't answer...

I recommend you watch all 3 seasons of Bluey, my friend. It will help you learn about getting along, playing well, the consequences of farting, why Hendrix was only an average guitarist, and many other valuable life lessons. Be sure to have an adult

with you so you can ask questions.

Credible researchers can see you show your true feathers every now and then in your contempt for Kennedy and now Jimi...The community is pretty sick and doesn't ask DiEugenio why he praises someone who shows real hate for Kennedy in his trolling...

I don't have contempt for either, dear boy. Where do you get such notions? I think overall, Kennedy did a good job as prez and that Jimi, despite his lack of talent, was still a decent guy.

This is what a genius guitarist sounds like https://www.facebook.com/PeterDicksonGuitar/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 1:16:39 AM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 11:21:58 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 1:40:55 AM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 11:03:07 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

Nope. Local reporter for a local paper, No interest in the Kennedy assassination. This is where you go wrong, my man. You get a thought in your head, and just because you think it, it must be true!

Nope. What the peer review talks about is your METHODOLOGY, not YOU.

Greg...You chose someone who had no knowledge of the Prayer Man issue because you were trying to avoid facts you didn't want to admit...You were trying to keep it as shallow as possible...Sorry Greg but Peer Review requires people who have the best

knowledge of the issue...But I guess we both know that you're an obnoxious clown and you are trolling anyway...You are too obnoxious to realize you are disqualifying yourself by your own words and only an ROKC crazy would try to get away with what you
are doing here...This is the advantage of the get out of evidence card all clique members carry...

Knowledge of PM - completely unnecessary. His expertise is in interviewing witnesses. That is what he was reviewing - your interview technique. Your style got the thumbs down.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:05:36 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 1:16:39 AM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 11:21:58 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 1:40:55 AM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

Knowledge of PM - completely unnecessary. His expertise is in interviewing witnesses. That is what he was reviewing - your interview technique. Your style got the thumbs down.

You're only proving my point Greg...Style is not Peer Review...

Peer Review is asking your critic to look at Davidson's enhancement and determine if it looks like a man or a woman...

Peer Review is consulting photo analysis experts and asking them if Davidson's process was scientifically valid and if the obvious female face Davidson discovered is therefore validly gotten?...

Greg is obviously research-challenged and has trouble answering my points of evidence above...

Greg is the source of the Prayer Man theory and his answers here explain a lot...



--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:39:34 PM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:05:36 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 1:16:39 AM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 11:21:58 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 1:40:55 AM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

Knowledge of PM - completely unnecessary. His expertise is in interviewing witnesses. That is what he was reviewing - your interview technique. Your style got the thumbs down.

You're only proving my point Greg...Style is not Peer Review...

Peer Review is asking your critic to look at Davidson's enhancement and determine if it looks like a man or a woman...

Peer Review is consulting photo analysis experts and asking them if Davidson's process was scientifically valid and if the obvious female face Davidson discovered is therefore validly gotten?...

Greg is obviously research-challenged and has trouble answering my points of evidence above...

Greg is the source of the Prayer Man theory and his answers here explain a lot...

FFS Brian. What you're asking for here is a review of Davidson, not the World's Greatest Detective, Brian De Man Doyle.

You got two peer reviews of your Wanda interview - one for content (Gil) and one for technique (anonymous reporter). You should be happy. You got what you wanted - yet you still whine and moan. I'm beginning to think whining and moaning is what you get
up for every day. That's no way to live, Brian. You need to build a bridge and get over it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 10:18:00 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:39:34 PM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:05:36 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 1:16:39 AM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

That's not Peer Review...

It is two jokers trolling my call for real Peer Review...

Francois Carlier is saying the same thing and pointing out the damage that has been done to credible JFK research by the Prayer Man mob...

The clique is avoiding Wanda because they know she is devestating to the idiotic, Greg Parker-originating Prayer Man theory...

Seeking and investigating Wanda is Peer Review...

Trolling it is not...

If Davidson were ever seriously Peer Reviewed it would be proven that his image is legitimate and does legitimately prove Sarah Stanton is Prayer Man...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

You have been peer reviewed and that is the end of it you wanna be neo nazi cunt!
Your sources are shit, your presentation(s) are shit, you are shit.
Now go and suck off Richard Gllbride!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 1:46:16 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:



Robert represents the thuggish scum generated by Greg Parker and his ROKC website...

He always ignores the intelligent arguments in order to mire the thread in gutter trolling...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Now then Doyle, intelligent?
You?

That must be a mistake from your side since everyone at the JFKA/EF/ROKC/DP forums think you are a complete moron.
You made everyone forget about Cinque.
That is an amazing achievement by itself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:25:57 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:



The issue here is my interview with Wanda Daniel and what it revealed...

Apparently some people are desperate to deny it and use boyish tactics to avoid it like name-calling trolling like Robert here...

That interview is one of the most important evidence discoveries ever in Conspiracy history...Jim D sanctimoniously chides people for not reading books before criticizing them but he himself has denied my discovery without ever looking at it or admitting
it...Instead that stupid bastard backs one of the biggest trolls in JFK research named Bart Kamp...These people have hijacked all JFK forums and reduced them to popularity clubs...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:54:34 PM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:25:57 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:

The issue here is my interview with Wanda Daniel and what it revealed...

Apparently some people are desperate to deny it and use boyish tactics to avoid it like name-calling trolling like Robert here...

That interview is one of the most important evidence discoveries ever in Conspiracy history...Jim D sanctimoniously chides people for not reading books before criticizing them but he himself has denied my discovery without ever looking at it or

admitting it...Instead that stupid bastard backs one of the biggest trolls in JFK research named Bart Kamp...These people have hijacked all JFK forums and reduced them to popularity clubs...

Nice Police Officer: "Brian, everything will be alright if you just come down off that ledge."

Brian: "Okay". Then jumps.

Brian, you are not now, and will never be David Lee Roth.

Tiny Tim, maybe.

Some say he was the greatest ukulele player in history. But really, he was just average.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 7:20:59 PM UTC-4, Greg Parker wrote:

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 10:54:34 PM UTC+10, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 6:25:57 AM UTC-4, robert johnson wrote:

Greg is basically a bully and a troll...

When you corner him with evidence he either trolls or leaves the thread...

Truth is the general internet research community is not credible...They avoid true academic Peer Review by means of controlling content by the bottle neck of a few limited moderators who reduce everything to personal feelings and not merit...The ability
to exist on the JFK internet comes down to the decisions of UK-sourced Lauren Johnson, Duncan MacRae, Greg Parker, and James Gordon...The first and fourth make their decisions on what Jim DiEugenio prefers...The third, Greg Parker, is an evidence-hacker
and charlatan running a troll site who has been highly damaging to credible JFK research...

No credible Peer Review has ever been done of my discovery of Wanda Daniel hearing Sarah Stanton say she heard Oswald say he wasn't going down to the 1st Floor to watch the motorcade but was going back in the the Break Room instead...This is one of the
most important evidence discoveries of our time and it is being uncredibly denied mostly so the Prayer Man clique can dominate the JFK internet and ignore the evidence that Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

TRANSLATION

Truth is you have been peer reviewed.
Truth is no one believes you.
Truth is you lie so much you yourself believe it to be true.
Truth is whenever cornered you deflect and have bored everyone to death with whatever feeble excuse, still nobody buys what you are 'selling'.
Truth is Kamp, Ledoux, Parker, Dane, Wilson, Iacoletti and many others have sent you packing many times over and exposed your garbage for what it exactly is; GARBAGE!!!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 9:48:29 AM UTC-4, Brian Doyle wrote:

No credible Peer Review has ever been done of my discovery of Wanda Daniel hearing Sarah Stanton say she heard Oswald say he wasn't going down to the 1st Floor to watch the motorcade but was going back in
the the Break Room instead...This is one of the most important evidence discoveries of our time and it is being uncredibly denied mostly so the Prayer Man clique can dominate the JFK internet and ignore the
evidence that Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton...

She never said anything about any Break Room.
She said Oswald told Stanton that he was, "going back to the room where he was working".

She says it here at the 2:25 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYpjGBg5cDU

Stop lying about what she said.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)