First, the Ripley's affidavit, which you claim is fake (without support), does indeed "identify the notary".  The signature is there for all to see.  We have verified that the I.O. Fowler was a notary in Texas at the time.  We know his full name and where he worked, etc... More to come (once we have all of our ducks in a row).

Last month, we did confront Frazier with the affidavits.  More to come on that, too.

Patients Grasshopper.  And stop being so fcukin' hateful.

You've already had three months to verify....

You sound like Trump. Stop being evasive and delaying and simply present the evidence that the "affidavits" are authentic!

The mere fact that you feel that holding you to the same standard you constantly demand from others is being hateful says everything anybody needs to know about you.

Oh, dear, TG doesn't react well when caught with his pants down and egg on his weenie, does he?

Dear MGFPR,

Do you often find yourself thinking of weenies?

-- Tom

We have failed to mention wacky Mary's FBI interview of 12/7/63. It's clear she crossed from Houston to Elm. Nothing about the grassy knoll. It conveniently omits the timing of the second and third shots. Now she first thought the shots had come from "above and possibly behind" her. Then she thought they might have come from the overpass. All she can really say is that the shots came from above her head. She had seen five or six people on the overpass, and this may be why her "first reaction" (what?) was to look there. However, she never saw anything in the hands of those people.

She's worthless.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0269b.htm

Dear MGFPR,

What happens to traumatized peoples' memories over time regarding what it was that traumatized them, especially if it occurred over about 10.2 seconds (the length of time from "Z-124" to Z-313), occurred close to them, affected them viscerally, and occurred in a confusing, chaotic context?

More clarification with time?

In Mary Woodward's case, traumatized though she was, she managed to write down correctly, a couple of hours after the assassination, the fact that the first of three shots sounded like a backfire to her, that it missed everyone, that JFK and Jackie turned their heads in response to it, and at some point JFK and Jackie waved to her and her colleagues.

Question:

When's the last time you saw, from fifty feet away, or so, the head of a friendly acquaintance of yours -- maybe even the most powerful person in the world -- get blown off by a high-powered rifle shot?

Did it traumatize you, MGFPR?

If that's never happened to you, do you think it might traumatize you if it did -- or would you just "suck it up" and go drink some more bortsch and/or vodka?

-- Tom

Wipe that egg off your weenie and pull your pants back up, you're starting to embarrass yourself worse than usual.

What she got RIGHT, at least insofar as her location goes, was in 1993 and 2015. What she got absurdly, completely WRONG was MINUTES AFTER THE JFKA. If her statements in 1993 strike you as problematical, then you must think her 1963 article was correct. Hello? Or is it "Mary was soooooooo traumatized, dude, that she forgot where the hell she was and made numerous other misstatements based on being at that location, but by God she was rock-solid on her description of the shots" - hello, really, ya think?

What a bizarro. Let it go.

Dear MGFPR,

Why are you so riled up?

-- Tom

  STEVE - Remember that there are Very Young Newbes to the JFK Assassination among us. They might think your visual aid/pic above was actually taken on 11/22/63. In the future, please attach some sort of disclaimer to posted pics that were Not taken on 11/22/63. PS - (The background scenery is way off)

 
 Thanks much, Royell.  I corrected my mistake of forgetting to include he caption.