On one side we have a message from her son (which you claim without an ounce of evidence is fraud) and on the other side we have rabble rousing rhetoric from Dr Paul who has not talked to anyone in the family.
Interesting you prefer to believe the rhetoric despite it lacking any validation at all.
On one side we have a message from her son (which you claim without an ounce of evidence is fraud) and on the other side we have rabble rousing rhetoric from Dr Paul who has not talked to anyone in the family.
Interesting you prefer to believe the rhetoric despite it lacking any validation at all.
The fact that not a single person who knows the son has spoken up saying it's not him. The fact that if it was a fraud, the real son could clear it up in seconds.
On one side we have a message from her son (which you claim without an ounce of evidence is fraud) and on the other side we have rabble rousing rhetoric from Dr Paul who has not talked to anyone in the family.
Interesting you prefer to believe the rhetoric despite it lacking any validation at all.
What evidence do you have the person in the video really is her son? It isn’t enough evidence for him to just claim to be.
The fact that not a single person who knows the son has spoken up saying it's not him. The fact that if it was a fraud, the real son could clear it up in seconds.
Seems Breggins is convinced. Why aren't you convinced? Do you have information no one else has?