See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2913366/posts?page=1826#1826
FN corrects BD who hasn’t been paying as close attention to FN as I have!
In Comment 1824 BD implies that the younger boy, David in the studio pictures, is Mark, but FN has always claimed that David is Barry in the studio pics.
So in comment 1826, FN chimes in with a wall of pictures to straighten BD out and reassert that in the studio pictures, David is Barry, not Mark, and Mark is insinuated by FN to be Roman. FN erroneously claims that the studio boys only appear to be one year apart in age, obviously to comply with the Mal-Val narrative.
Once again, who are the Mal-Val Cult followers going to believe? Will it be their cult guru or their lyin’ eyes?
Note that FN asserts that in the FAMILY picture (everyone standing) FN claims that David is now MARK (not Barry as in the studio picture) and the “dark boy” is insinuated to be Roman. These same boys that FN says are one year apart in the studio picture, are three or more years apart in the standing family picture.
Note that Ruth is notably older when holding baby David in the standing family photo with the shorter hair of a working mom on the go, than she is when holding baby Mark five years earlier in their studio picture.
ping...
That's a joke. If you had been paying attention you wouldn't be still going on about your stupid Val-Mal Cult Narrative as you are. Your vested interest is showing.
Can't count to three? Never mind, it will all become clear one day and I can wait. Have a nice day!
Are you talking LIES about people behind their back?
If you don’t have the gonads to address me, in your sissy gossip about me, then don’t be posting nonsense BS about me!