In answer to Andy Holmes bewilderment ....

Round and round they go, still asking the same questions and still finding the same old tired newspaper clippings and videos, which of course only tell them what they have been told by the same old tired newspaper clippings and video recordings many, many times before.

They are the anoraks who are fast heading for the exit to life. Oh won't that be a relief as more and more of them pop off to oblivion. Not one of them came up with answers, not one of them.

Sad bunch that Garry Stevens and Dave Martin and Malcolm Smith have herded together to fight each other about absolutely nothing at all.

If you had the power reincarnation, would you reincarnate that bunch?

Yes, if your name is Andy Holmes, because he wrote  the following in response to the original comments above ....

"Posted by Andy Holmes on 18/5/2022, 19:39:55 .... Wishing people dead does seem rather extreme."

The first question is this: Can Andy Holmes read?

There is no "wish" expressed, only a statement about reality.

The problem seems to be that Andy Holmes thinks that he should never die, never mind be 'reincarnated'.

Well Andy, you can take up the issue of life and death with God, and I don't mean Ronan O'Rahilly, or for that matter with Ian Anderson to whom your comments were directed. Ian is a nice guy, a little too narrow in his thinking on some issues, but a nice guy, except that he cannot give you the eternal life you seem to believe is your entitlement.

Isn't it funny how you could zero in on part of the paragraph, twist it and still ignore its main point?

The main point is in the words that followed those you reinterpreted. These are the words that followed: "Oh won't that be a relief as more and more of them pop off to oblivion. Not one of them came up with answers, not one of them."
​
The fact of the matter is that not one of the anoraks has come up with answers. What they have done is produce people like Paul Rusling who takes (steals) from us and then twists our research to fit his own half-baked and childish storyline in support of Malcolm Smith. That is a fact. Malcolm Smith meanwhile calls the already deceased O'Rahilly a bum, in American slang. Malcolm wrote that O'Rahilly scrounged around for a cup of coffee and a slice of cake, but the anoraks think that this anti-social idiot had the money to buy and equip a radio ship with the help of 'Jimmy' who never existed. (O'Rahilly was accused by an MP of pushing drugs to kids at about the time that this useless individual was bumming around for coffee and cake.)

In response to that facts, Andy Holmes wrote: "No wonder he has alienated just about everyone, and it really is a shame when he clearly needs help to resolve his issues. I hope he finds it."

Well Andy, the reason why it will be a good thing when the last of the close-minded and cult-like anoraks shuffle into oblivion, is because while we continue to resolve issues without their help, if the anoraks are no longer around, we won't have to worry about them stealing our research, will we? So the more of them who pop off into oblivion, the better off this entire world will be, and we can continue to resolve issues without becoming the victims of anorak theft, once again.

Thank God that Ronan has already departed: he won't be missed in the radio library marked 'truth telling'.

But the gutter crawling of these anoraks now casts around with this by self-appointed "Board Expert RogerT on 18/5/2022, 20:04:57 .... :  I believe that some of his behaviour can be attributed to him losing a daughter in suspicious circumstances and being convinced that there was a cover up. No proof of this, just remember it being reported on a forum last year."

RogerT, the "Board Expert" reveals how vile these anoraks are. He now implies that a family related matter explains why Ronan O'Rahilly was a con man, and Paul Rusling is a thief. No, it doesn't. Malcolm Smith described O'Rahilly as a bum, and Paul Rusling has spewed out volumes of words in print to show why he was entitled to steal.

Keep it coming RogerT your words are condemning you.

Then there is an absurd question posed in response to nonsense posted by "Chris Edwards on 18/5/2022 .... : A December 1965 newspaper reports that as well as John Sheffield, one of the other financiers was Jimmy Ross. But if you believe a "forensic investigator" then Jimmy didn't exist and was only created in 1991 as a character in a ficticious book.''

This is followed by another anonymous anorak question from "Zeezender on 18/5/2022 .... Hi Chris. Was that 1965 anomaly ever addressed by MH?"

Of course, Chris should respond that this issue has been explained over and over and over and over again .... "Jimmy Ross" was a made-up name. No such person ever existed in 1965 or in 1991.

Never means never. Fake means fake.

You lot really do need to be terminated as soon as possible.