Comment of the week

George – April 26

“where anyone can post.”

At the moderator’s sole discretion, Ronny.

Jefferson claims to be a free speech extremist.

That’s actually what you get at my site. Anyone can become a member if you are sincere about wanting to reopen the case and are supportive of our efforts to do so.

The only restriction on what is posted is that breaks no laws and that the poster is personally responsible for his/her own content.

Nothing has to get past a pumped up hall monitor first.

So yes, there is language. There is also honesty, a lack of bs and a desire to actually do more than simply debate in endless circles.

834 comments

  1. Tom S. says:

    “Oswald is prayerman,” is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Proponents of extraordinary claims should be candid, trustworthy.

    How do JFKfacts.org readers think George and members of his forum who have recently become more active commenters in our comments threads rate generally in the “candid, trustworthy” category?

    How does this week’s “Comment of the week,” rate?

    Does George’s Reopenkennedycase, aka ROKC forum attempt to do what he is claiming it does, and are his criticisms of the support of free expression of commenters on JFKfacts.org trustworthy?

    What could George and ROKC forum members do better than they are presently doing to persuade readers they indeed do present enough evidence to prove prayerman was Oswald, and actually encourage a free speech environment on the ROKC forum?

    What could Jeff Morley and I do on this website to better meet George’s professed expectations of what free speech should result in, in submission and approval of comments, considering JFKfacts.org’s no “real name” or registration requirement for submitting comments?

    -Link to last week’s Cotw – https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-3/

    • PBR says:

      A rapier riposte Tom. I await the reply to your comment with anticipation.

    • ‘What could George and ROKC forum members do better than they are presently doing to persuade readers they indeed do present enough evidence to prove prayerman was Oswald,”

      I think some context would be a good start. How does the PM allegation fit in with the elaborate exercise of linking Oswald to the weapons involved that day? Why would ‘plotters’ go to lengths to position Oswald in the TSBD only to have him photographed on the steps at the time of the assassination? I’ve long wondered if those claiming that Oswald was outside the building at the time the shots were fired had seriously considered the knock on effect; given the vehemence with which they argue their case on any forum that allows them space, I’m not sure they have incorporated the pre and post evidence that indicates Oswald was always intended as a patsy. If not, is their argument that everything about Oswald has always been the distraction, having no relation to the conspiracy? That is such a simple, fundamental question; the answer would end all discussion but I get the sense it is a question that’s being avoided. Why hasn’t it been addressed by the PM crowd on this site?

      ‘and actually encourage a free speech environment on the ROKC forum?’

      metaphors abound: verbal food fights are for frat house, Greg has constructed one; nice restaurants impose standards; what rational researcher would walk into a cage of angry beasts? It can be anticipated that when ill-bred dogs are chained to one another, they may well attack as a pack. It’s endless. But seriously, I have no interest in reverting to the ROKC site; if they want to bring their quality research here, I for one would welcome that with the proviso that this ‘history’ of the ed forum be resolved in private, and ‘they’ get down to the business of building the case sans gutter talk and petty grievances. Is it possible they can’t work from a clean tablet?

      :

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        We always assume the plotters of the assassination to have everything worked out to the last second with clockwork precision. We also assume the plotters to have originally planned an assassination by a lone gunman.

        Think of the venue where this murder took place. Midday in Dallas in front of a crowd. Perhaps it was originally meant to be seen as a murder committed by representatives of a group that was not friendly with the USA. Heck, maybe it WAS committed by a group not friendly with the USA.

        Could Oswald have been a part of that group (or an infiltrator from ONI) and maybe have been just one of a group of patsies that were going to be thrown to the wolves that day? Did the threat of WW III change the plans at the last minute, making Oswald the sole assassin?

        Anyone thinks this was a piece of precision work, intended to lay the blame on a shooter from the rear, think about this. JFK showed up at Parkland Hospital with a great big exit wound in the back of his head. This is professional?

        • “We also assume the plotters to have originally planned an assassination by a lone gunman.”~Bob Prudhomme

          That is certainly not an assumption I have made Bob.
          I propose that the plotters meant for it to APPEAR to be an assassination by a lone gunman. That is an entirely different thing than what you assume.

          The most important thing to the plotters would have been EXTRACTION of the sniper teams. The theatrics meant to frame the patsy needed to hold for only a few hours time. The media was in the pocket of the conspirators, the aftermath could all be managed by the Public Relations Regime.

          The sloppiness of the burlesque meant to frame the patsy is obvious to anyone paying attention.

          Bob asks,
          “Did the threat of WW III change the plans at the last minute, making Oswald the sole assassin?”

          Of course not, that was a cover story prepared long in advance of the executive action. It was after all, a professional operation perpetrated by the System itself. But again that does not mean the plotters of the assassination had everything worked out to the last second with clockwork precision. All it meant was that prepared contingencies were ready for implementation. The most important of these was and remains managing perceptions.
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Willy

            It must be wonderful to be all knowing, and to know exactly what happened on that day.

            I’m surprised you haven’t solved this crime years ago.

          • “I’m surprised you haven’t solved this crime years ago.”~Bob Prudhomme

            It HAS been solved for years Bob. It was a coup d’etat. One needn’t be “all knowing” to grasp this; one need only be sufficient in analysis, critical thinking, and research skills.
            \\][//

        • Val Z says:

          “Heck, maybe it WAS committed by a group not friendly with the USA.” I would say it definitely was committed by a group not friendly with the USA, no matter how “patriotic” they may have considered themselves.

    • George says:

      “Oswald is prayerman,” is an extraordinary claim.” Tom

      Saying it it is an extraordinary claim does not make it one.

      Being on the first floor and out front was his alibi. The fact that his alibi stacks up through a variety of other evidence was the very reason Murphy starting looking for any possible photographic support.

      Someone being where they said they were is not “extraordinary”. Otherwise we throw out everyone’s statements about where they were.

      ——————-
      The plotters didn’t give a hoot where Oswald was. Steven Avery was recorded on the phone to his girlfriend in the local jail at the time he was supposed to be raping and murdering. He was still convicted. If for some reason, Oswald could not be used, what, too difficult to believe they had alternatives? Frazier? Any of a number of the African-American employees?

      This is worth mentioning as well:

      “Prosecute at all costs,” Moore says. “It doesn’t matter what they have as far as evidence. But if they’ve got anything that could tie this person into the case, then they were going to pursue the case against that person, even if it meant that they overlooked other suspects in a crime.”

      “Dallas got a reputation as the hardest, roughest county in the state. This was the one county that you did not wanna get accused of a crime in, because in this county, if you got charged with a crime you were likely gonna go to prison,” Blackburn adds.
      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dna-helps-free-inmate-after-27-years/

      Oswald wasn’t even first choice himself. There was an aborted attempt earlier in the motorcade.
      ———————-
      “nice restaurants impose standards” Yes, Les. And charge a fortune for a portion of food that would not fill a mouse.

      That too, is a metaphor. This community is more concerned about so-called niceties, protocols and rules (that ALWAYS get enforced at best, unevenly…) than you are about any actual research.

      So while the rest of you hold your little pinkies in the air and squirm at the thought of rabble who use bad words invading your debate club… we are putting our necks and money on the line trying to actually do something to get this case solved.

      • “Dallas got a reputation as the hardest, roughest county in the state. This was the one county that you did not wanna get accused of a crime in, because in this county, if you got charged with a crime you were likely gonna go to prison,” Blackburn adds.

        Yes or course Georgie ol’ mate, that would be Dallas and Dallas County where the DPD hung out in the establishments owned by the likes of Jack Ruby, enjoying the attendant favours and turning blind eyes. Not a lot of arrests going down there. The county where independent oil men engaged in illegal gambling in the poshest hotels under the nose of law enforcement. NO arrests going down there. The city where the Campisi brothers’ Egyptian Lounge was known as an underworld hangout that was never raided? Nope, no arrests there. The city that revelled at the opening of the Cabana Motel bought and paid for by underworld crime money? No arrests there either. Yep, you sure don’t want to get arrested in Dallas.

        You know NOTHINg of Dallas County in the 1960’s. In fact, weren’t you living thousands of miles away and perhaps not yet shaving. Are you reading from one of those refrigerator magnets again?

        ‘Oswald wasn’t even first choice himself. There was an aborted attempt earlier in the motorcade.’ — Georgie

        You will of course be providing some links to that episode, right?

        “nice restaurants impose standards” Yes, Les. And charge a fortune for a portion of food that would not fill a mouse. — Georgie

        Quality not quantity ol’ mate. Not everyone needs to shovel copious amounts of empty calories to leave the table knowing one has been nourished.

        ‘This community is more concerned about so-called niceties, protocols and rules (that ALWAYS get enforced at best, unevenly…) than you are about any actual research.’ — Georgie

        Like Dallas and Dallas County, you evidently know nothing about this “community”; For starters, my impression here is that there isn’t one. It’s probably made up of the most independent minded jfk researchers you’ll come across. And you can play this socio-economic activism excuse you use to justify for your adolescent approach all you want, but for those of us who grew up in rural communities where one’s livelihood was not guaranteed from one farm crop to the next, it’s a lazy and offensive excuse. You’re not superior nor are you unique when you refuse to conform to civilized discourse. Have you read the comments of Prince Phiip, Duke of Edinburgh over the years? Bottom line Greg? Both you and he have a serious problem with impulse control.

        ‘ . . . we are putting our necks and money on the line trying to actually do something to get this case solved.

        That would be compared with our host, Jeff Morley? I’ve made no apologies for challenging Jeff Morley on issues, but I’ve never suggested he and those who have represented him haven’t put their collective neck on the line at significant financial and professional expense. If you have the audacity to suggest you and yours have made the equivalent sacrifice, financial or professional, then I challenge you to present an audit of those risks, right here. From there we might ask others who engage on this forum to run a tally, see just how your commitment matches up to theirs. You’ve heard the term “blow in”?

        • George says:

          Sorry Leslie. Missed seeing this.

          The warning given about not being arrested in Dallas was in regard to IF you are arrested – not that you WILL be arrested.

          If you were arrested back them – chances were, you would be convicted. Dallas has the highest number of exonerations of any county in the entire country – and they all trace back to the Wade era.

          Of course independent oil men were not arrested. They were part of the Dallas power structure. It was “outsiders” and minorities who bore the brunt of it. But you knew that, didn’t you Leslie? Your feigned ignorance and deliberate twisting of what has been said t you, is what is telling (yet again). It is opposition for the sake of opposition for your own perverse motives.

      • George/Greg Parker,

        Are you actually claiming that the proximate “Prayerman” claim had nothing to do with the image of the blurred figure on the steps of the Texas Book Depository Building?

        Are you claiming that someone figured out that Oswald was actually outside of the building by some other means, and THEN went in search of images that might prove this theory true?

        If these are your claims, prove them. If not, then explain clearly what you were attempting to say on April 27, 2016 at 5:53 pm.
        \\][//

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Willy, this all started with Bill Kelly posting the picture on the edu forum and asking who’s the guy in the shadows? Sean Murphy took it from there until 11/22/13 then disappeared.

          • Ronnie,

            So who came up with the term “Prayerman”?

            Was it Sean Murphy?

            He disappeared, like “poof!” in some magic act?

            Ronnie, if you are convinced that there is something to this jive, that is your right to your own opinion. But from what I have read here, as well as at their home turf sites, I think the whole thing is a load of BS.
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            No Willy, I am not convinced that Prayerman is Oswald. I am convinced Oswald was not a 6th floor shooter. I am also convinced that there are many conflicting statements about where he was from about noon to about 12:35. Some statements changed over time, or evolved.
            To be honest I question just about everybody’s statements from the time and place. I don’t think everybody was lying.
            I can’t tell you who off the top of my head but I recall reading of a witness who came forward and was told by the FBI or DPD that “If you didn’t see Oswald on the sixth floor you didn’t see anything”.
            I.E., yes I do think some people were coached, led, threatened or whatever.

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22564&hl=prayerman

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21724&hl=prayerman#entry297054

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22600&hl=prayerman

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            For a better perspective of the lunchroom encounter see Jim DiEugenio’s Reclaiming Parkland, Ch 8 pgs 192-196 “Baker vs Baker”.
            It’s the most concise questioning of it I know of. At one point he says “if your counting that’s four different versions of this story”. Regarding Baker’s Warren Omission testimony: “Belin had to admonish him about his revealing body language-he told him to look at him when he answered questions”, and, “Finally, Dulles and Belin took this interview off the record no less than five times”.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            I don’t know who came up with the term, the forum is locked. For good reason ?

      • Bill Clarke says:

        leslie sharp
        April 28, 2016 at 1:06 am

        “Dallas got a reputation as the hardest, roughest county in the state. This was the one county that you did not wanna get accused of a crime in, because in this county, if you got charged with a crime you were likely gonna go to prison,” Blackburn adds.”

        It was rough but I’m not sure it was the roughest. Fort Worth always had a cowboy reputation. This was before Miranda in 1966 so I think it would be hard to pick a “roughest” county in Texas at that time. You certainly didn’t want the Texas Rangers knocking on your door. Especially if you were a person of color. My point being is that at the time it was rough all over in Texas.

        • Bill Clarke, to clarify, Greg Parker included the Blackburn/CBS story in a comment and I referenced it in my response. I’m not clear why he drew attention to the story unless it was to say that Henry Wade unfairly charged Lee Oswald with the crimes. But then I’ve yet to understand exactly what Greg Parker’s argument is about anything. If ever there was a convoluted exchange on this site over it’s 4 year lifetime, this one must surely rank as #1.

        • George says:

          “My point being is that at the time it was rough all over in Texas.” Bill

          I’m sure it was. But my point being Dallas leads any county in the COUNTRY for exonerations of the wrongfully convicted – all convicted during the Wade. The numbers are so high that it is more than most states.

          If Oswald had lived, gone to trial and got convicted – we would be adding him to the ever-growing, Wade-convicted “exonerated” list.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      That ‘maxim’ you cite has no basis in the law of evidence.

      However, we do have evidence that conflicts with the official version, to name a few:

      1. LHO told Fritz that he was “out in front with Shelley” or words to that effect.

      2. The HSCA concluded that there was a movement of boxes within 2 minutes after the last shot was fired. This is inconsistent with the official lone assassin theory that Oswald took off to get downstairs in under 90 seconds after the last shot was fired at President Kennedy; http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4A_Gunmen.pdf

      (248) (1) There is an apparent rearranging of boxes within 2 minutes

      Therefore, somebody else is there, and it CANNOT be Lee Harvey Oswald.

      3. Lillian Mooneyham, Court Clerk, watched the motorcade from the windows of the courthouse and noticed a man standing back from the alleged sniper’s nest a 4 to 5 minutes after the last shot. Here testimony is here:

      http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_4A_Gunmen.pdf

      4. There are more nuggets of circumstantial evidence here:

      http://22november1963.org.uk/how-did-oswald-kill-kennedy#fn03_011

      • 1. LHO told Fritz that he was “out in front with Shelley” or words to that effect.

        No, this is a biased reading of Fritz’ very cryptic notes. His written report is the best source about how to interpret the notes.

        2. The HSCA concluded that there was a movement of boxes within 2 minutes after the last shot was fired.

        And Dale Myers has shown they were wrong about this.

        Why do you think some supposed conspiracy shooter would fool around moving the boxes, rather than hightailing it out of there?

        3. Lillian Mooneyham, Court Clerk, watched the motorcade from the windows of the courthouse and noticed a man standing back from the alleged sniper’s nest a 4 to 5 minutes after the last shot.

        OK, so you think some conspiracy shooter killed Kennedy, and the lollygagged around the Sniper’s Nest for 4 or 5 minutes, doing what?

        Waiting for some cop to come up and confront him?

  2. David Hazan says:

    In case no one has pointed it out yet, this new comment of the week (I assume that is what this thread is) does not have a title. As a result, comments in this thread that appear in the Recent Comments column do not work as clickable links.

    And, on a side note, may I repeat my suggestion to sequentialize the “Comment of the Week” titles, either with a serialized number or a date suffix so that they can be told apart when browsing the site?

  3. The Prayerman image is a BIG ZERO. It is a blur and a smudge, no one in that image is identifiable. Any further discussion of the matter is a waste of time, as we discovered on last week’s Comment of The Week dedicated to this same subject.

    As per the cult promoting the Prayerman, they have a poor grasp of the art of persuasion. They were afforded their ‘Free Speech’ rights on this blog, rather than presenting a coherent case they stooped to denigrating their hosts and making absurd arguments.

    I for one have had enough of their nonsense.
    \\][//

    • George says:

      “no one in that image is identifiable.”

      Dear Willy,

      you may wish to contact Buell Wesley Frazier and point out to him the absurdity that he could identify himself in that image.

      I am certain he will be grateful.

      Kind Regards,
      George

      • Tom S. says:

        George, considering your last post, and this from you….

        Saying it it is an extraordinary claim does not make it one.

        ….you’ve merely reinforced my criticism included in comment #1.:

        http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm

        Mr. BALL – When was the last time you can remember you saw Lee?
        ……
        Mr. FRAZIER – Somewhere between it was after 10 and somewhere before noon, …… and I was on the first floor putting up books all day and I seen him back and forth and he would be walking and getting books and put on the order.
        Mr. BALL – That was the last time you saw him all day?
        Mr. FRAZIER – Right
        Mr. BALL – You didn’t talk to him again?
        Mr. FRAZIER – No, sir; I didn’t.
        Mr. BALL – Did you wear a coat or jacket to work that morning?
        Mr. FRAZIER – Yes, sir; I did.
        ……
        Mr. BALL – When you stood out on the front looking at the parade, where was Shelley standing and where was Lovelady standing with reference to you?
        Mr. FRAZIER – Well, see, I was standing, like I say, one step down from the top, and Mr. Shelley was standing, you know, back from the top step and over toward the side of the wall there. See, he was standing right over there, and then Billy was a couple of steps down from me over toward more the wall also.
        Mr. BALL – Usually when Lee walked in the Building in the morning, when you came to work with him where did he go, do you know?
        ………

        Mr. BALL – And you separated after you got in there?
        Mr. FRAZIER – Yes; after we got into the interior I just went and put my lunch up.
        Mr. BALL – Did you notice where Lee kept his lunch?
        Mr. FRAZIER – No, sir; I didn’t.

        ……..
        Mr. BALL – We have got a picture taken the day of the parade and it shows the President’s car going by.
        Now, take a look at that picture. Can you see your picture any place there?
        Mr. FRAZIER – No, sir; I don’t, because I was back up in this more or less black area here.

        Mr. BALL – I see.
        Mr. FRAZIER – Because Billy, like I say, is two or three steps down in front of me.
        Mr. BALL – Do you recognize this fellow?
        Mr. FRAZIER – That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.
        Mr. BALL – Billy?
        Mr. FRAZIER – Right
        Mr. BALL – Let’s take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?
        Mr. FRAZIER – Right.
        Mr. BALL – That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.
        Mr. FRAZIER – Right.
        Mr. BALL – In front of you to the right over to the wall?
        Mr. FRAZIER – Yes.
        …..
        Mr. BALL – That is written in. The arrow marks Billy Lovelady on Commission’s Exhibit No. 369…

        • George says:

          Wrong picture, Tom.

          • Tom S. says:

            Okay, so you have nothing new…same old spin I replied to last December….:
            (Frazier’s testimony is some of what makes your opinion obviously extraordinary, and yet you quote him after feigning a claim that prayerman is Oswald is not an extraordinary claim.)

            https://jfkfacts.org/in-jfk-lore-who-is-prayer-man/#comment-834354

            Tom S.
            December 2, 2015 at 9:02 pm
            …..
            Vanessa,
            Is it not fact that no witness stated they observed Oswald in the TSBD vestibule, and that Wesley Frazier stated to
            Albert Rossi?:

            Albert Rossi on Tue 30 Sep 2014 said:
            “Hi all. I was at the AARC. I figured I might as well try it again, so I approached Buell with the
            Robin Unger enhancement of the Darnell frame on my laptop desktop, and asked him
            1. if that was him
            2. who the other figure was.
            He admitted 1. was him.
            He said 2. was not clear enough for certain identification, but it probably wasn’t Lovelady
            because by that time he had taken off with Shelley for the RR yard.
            and
            Yes, it was a bit funny because I first asked him if he could identify
            Prayer Man, and while he was mulling it over, I said to him, pointing
            to his image, “By the way, Mr. Frazier, is that you?” To that he
            responded, “very probably … look at the hairline.” So yes, he seemed to be in a more forthcoming mood at that point.”

            You quite enthusiastically believe, yet in fact, you produce no eye witness statement and you admit you have no
            definitive image, yet you repeatedly make an extraordinary claim. Oswald was either present in the TSBD vestibule
            when JFKS’s motorcade passed by, or he was not. Why should your claim be discussed here, again if those who disagree with you and who can produce witness statements of co-workers of Oswald who stated they did not see him in the vestibule, are not permitted to post evidence supported opinions in the threads on the forum in which you are a moderator?

          • “very probably … look at the hairline.”~Wesley Frazier

            That is not “certainly” is it Mr Parker? And that is the subject himself guessing.
            \\][//

        • Vanessa says:

          Tom

          Are you saying that PM was Frazier? If so, it can’t be Frazier as he is visible in Darnell standing near to PM.

          Besides Frazier has been shown a photo of Darnell and has identified himself as the tall guy to the right of the hand rail. The one who looks like Frazier.

          Or are you saying PM is Lovelady? Again, if so, it can’t be him as Lovelady is visible in Weigman next to PM.

          But you already know this Tom. So perhaps you could spell out what you mean a bit more clearly.

          Are you going to post my other comments Tom? Because there are a lot on the other thread that haven’t been posted.

          • Tom S. says:

            Vanessa,

            I’ve got a Randy whatshisname off-topic post criticizing a commentor because Randy is of the opinion this site has gone
            downhill as a consequence of the approval of too many comments from one commentor. Less than two hours ago, you submitted five comments in 43 minutes, and now a sixth one that includes a protest that I have not approved them all fast enough for you? All of them are now visible.

            The questions you’ve posed to me will be left for readers to decide whether they are sincerely asked, or additional examples of the feigning I perceive reading in most comments submitted by you and your teammates. I shared my opinion directly to you in my reply to you of last December 2nd, and I quoted from that reply in my last post in this thread.

          • Vanessa says:

            Tom

            I am not having a go at you at all.

            I’m trying to keep this debate focussed on the PM issues and off the whole JFK-community personal politics issue which I am not interested in and never will be interested in.

            If I read you right, Tom you seem to think I’m a terrible person and you want everyone else to think so – that’s fine, I am.

            Now let’s get back to discussing the documents in the PM case.

            As per your comment you seem to be saying that PM is Lovelady. But he cannot be as I mentioned – they are in the same frame in Weigman.

            In regards to Frazier’s ID of himself. Are you finding it unconvincing because he says ‘probably’?

            I think given that the Frazier figure is wearing the same clothes, same hair and is standing where Frazier said he was standing in his WC testimony and the real Frazier says it’s probably himself is about the best we can expect in an exchange with Albert Rossi that may have only lasted a few minutes.

            Any views on Bookhout and Hosty’s report or the Washington Post item?

            PS Thanks for posting the other comments. I only raised it because some other posts from around the same time or earlier had been posted but mine hadn’t been.

          • Tom S. says:

            Tom

            I am not having a go at you at all.
            ……..
            As per your comment you seem to be saying that PM is Lovelady. But he cannot be as I mentioned – they are in the same frame in Weigman.

            In regards to Frazier’s ID of himself. Are you finding it unconvincing because he says ‘probably’? ….

            Vanessa, no reasonable person would read what I’ve written in my comments in this thread and put the questions you are putting to me, and some of them, for a second time.

    • bart kamp says:

      Frazier
      Molina
      Arnold
      Dean
      Reese
      all ided

      • “all ided”~bart kamp

        Presuming that Mr Kamp means, “ID’d” … where is the proof of this assertion. We have already seen how tentative the ID of Frazier is. Why should we have any confidence that these other’s are any more firm than that?

        It is also entirely preposterous to assert with certainty that some other person might not have emerged from the building or walked up those steps that no one has ever heard of.

        It is the obvious fact that what you present as substantive is in fact subjective numeration, no less blurred intellectually, than the visual image you promote.
        \\][//

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        I’d figured on Frazier and Molina. I would think you would include Reid and Truly. I have a bone to pick about Arnold, are you talking about DPD Patrick Dean?
        A Reese sounds familiar but I can’t place.
        What would Patrick Dean have to do with PM?

        • Bart Kamp says:

          Ruth Dean is the one I am talking about Ronnie.

          Willy, the stranger scenario was killed off with CE1310 where 73 employees were asked 6 questions off which one was whether they had seen any strangers. 72 said no and one of the negros helped an 80 year old and direct him to the restrooms and saw him drive away with three elderly ladies roughly 45 mins before the motorcade passed by.

          Furthermore the deductions only come to one conclusion for Prayer Man: Lee Oswald. It has all been posted inside the Prayer Man thread at ROKC and the Oswald leaving TSBD at EF.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bart,

            Whether you realize it or not, you’ve misstated what CE1361 says. The 73 employees were asked specifically whether they had seen any strangers IN THE BUILDING. The old man was helped to a restroom, which was IN THE BUILDING:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317&search=employee_AND+depository#relPageId=679&tab=page

            The second problem you have is that the employees were also asked if they saw Oswald at the time of the shooting. They said no, including the ones standing on the steps.

            So CE1361 actually strengthens the argument that whoever it was, it wasn’t Oswald. Misstating the question the employees were asked doesn’t help your case, either, imo.

          • Bart Kamp says:

            It’s CE 1381 which was my mistake.

            In the building is as misleading as a question as seeing Lee Oswald AT THAT TIME, when everyone was busy looking out to the motorcade. Quite nifty but it doesn’t wash.

            And on top of the steps, being just outside the front door, well you can argue about that until the cows come as well, but to me that is still part of THE building.

            In the building at the same time is not inside the building!

            If there was a stranger standing there then BWF would have noticed, so would Shelley and so would Molina, Stanton, Dean, Reese, McCully and Lovelady, they would have stated so.

            To me the steps and the landing are part of the building, and if you wish to nitpick about that then fine, those steps are part of the building what you say doesn’t prove anything to the contrary.

            No one in their right mind would stick their neck out for a communist sympathiser, the second Hosty started blabbing to Revill about Oswald in Russia in the parking garage around 3PM, he was thrown under a bus by the DPD and Roy Truly who must have felt stabbed in the back as he thought he was such a good worker “I wish I had 5 of him” (Truly to Otis Williams in No More Silence).

            Frazier was hounded and almost slapped by Fritz as he would not sign a confession, after almost being dropped off home he was hauled back in for a lie detector test, which to this day is ‘gone’
            Molina lost his job pone month later just because they thought he was a subversive and were getting calls from ppl who did not want to buy books from a communist staffed company.
            Officially released due to automation, which wasn’t started until 5/6 months after he was let go.
            Lovelady was chased all over and had to move house a few times due to the hassle he was getting.
            All elements of the strong conservative mentality prevalent in Dallas.

            The stranger scenario is dead in the water
            The woman scenario is dead in the water
            The height of PM is dead in the water as well, and all deductions lead to only one person.

            Lee “out with Bill Shelley in front” Oswald

          • Tom S. says:

            Bart, can you concede, even begrudgingly, that it is reasonable to consider your analysis unpersuasive?

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shelley1.htm
            …..
            Mr. BALL – Why did you go to the front?
            Mr. SHELLEY – Oh, several people were out there waiting to watch the motorcade and I went out to join them.
            Mr. BALL – And who was out there?
            Mr. SHELLEY – Well, there was Lloyd Viles of McGraw-Hill, Sarah Stanton, she’s with Texas School Book, and Wesley Frazier and Billy Lovelady joined us shortly afterwards.
            Mr. BALL – You were standing where?
            Mr. SHELLEY – Just outside the glass doors there.
            Mr. BALL – That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
            Mr. SHELLEY – yes.
            Mr. BALL – Did you see the motorcade pass?
            Mr. SHELLEY – Yes….

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
            …..
            Mr. BALL. On November 22, 1963, the day the President was shot, when is the last time you saw Oswald?
            Mr. SHELLEY. It was 10 or 15 minutes before 12.
            Mr. BALL. Where?
            Mr. SHELLEY. On the first floor over near the telephone.
            Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him again?
            Mr. SHELLEY. At the police station when they brought him in.
            Mr. BALL. Did you see him in the building at any time after 12?
            Mr. SHELLEY. No…

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1381.pdf


            https://books.google.com/books?id=7uT-47ysB5MC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=madie+reese&source=bl&ots=eig5zTgRs5&sig=MRo6ci0-g6Xgfaz5Ampf67Yne2M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq5960sunMAhWDD8AKHQi3DzI4ChDoAQgpMAI#v=onepage&q=madie%20reese&f=true

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0350a.htm

            http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=13114


            …and Bart, are these your own words, on your own website?

            http://www.prayer-man.com/category/dallas-police-department/page/2/
            …….
            It looks, from the paperwork that this is Ruth Dean, although it also could be Sarah Stanton. But I need to see a picture of Sarah Stanton before I lean either way. For now I stick with Ruth Dean, which makes the search for Sarah Stanton just more interesting.

          • “In the building is as misleading as a question as seeing Lee Oswald AT THAT TIME, when everyone was busy looking out to the motorcade. Quite nifty but it doesn’t wash. . . . And on top of the steps, being just outside the front door, well you can argue about that until the cows come as well, but to me that is still part of THE building. . . . To me the steps and the landing are part of the building, and if you wish to nitpick (emphasis mine) about that then fine, those steps are part of the building what you say doesn’t prove anything to the contrary.

            par·a·dox
            ˈperəˌdäks/
            noun
            a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

            Bart, how can you ignore the paradox here? Curry is your proof that Oswald scooted around the door and “INTO the building” just prior to being encountered by Baker and Truly as “they went INSIDE the building” but now you’re here arguing that the top level of the steps leading to the building is actually IN THE BUILDING? How do you rationalize this contradiction, let alone expect others to get on board with your theory when you pose this ludicrous and contradictory defences of your hypothesis? Is this a bluff? Is this a tack to argue that Baker and Truly passed PM/Oswald on the top level and you are now arguing that was the “IN THE BUILDING” that you arugue Curry was referring to? It gets very confusing, don’t you think? Do we see a crack in the armour between your hypothesis and that of Greg Parker and Stan Dane?

          • Bart Kamp says:

            Tom, nice little partial data dump there.
            Referring to a post made by me late Jan 2016 after Linda Z and I had discussed this that month and just after X-Mas. And it was the pic ROKC scanned in from James Murray of Reese and Dean in front of the DalTex building. Reese’s pin on her rain coat led to the recognition of her in the aforementioned Murray pic and then led to the lady in black. That in conjunction with the statements made by both pf them swayed me
            What you forgot to add is the page that is actually about Ruth Dean, and was amended 4th of Feb.
            http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/ruth-dean/
            So I did jump of that fence and supported Linda a few days after the blog entry.

          • Bart Kamp says:

            Leslie, where did I (!!!) use Curry?
            You seem to be so hell bent on being so precise so please point that out for everyone to see.

            And the steps and the landing are part of that building.

            The landing is part of the first floor, no matter of how you try and twist that.

            Enough, I have better things to do, like research things than engage with internet warriors.

          • Bart Kamp says:

            One more thing Leslie, got a question for you.

            You accused ROKC for trying to make money of its research, which of course is a blatant falsehood, it costs money actually. Going to NARA, having other archives make scans for us, setting up a conference and so on. But that aside.

            So instead accusing you of having double standards, can you put the same accusation forward in this thread?
            https://jfkfacts.org/coming-soon-ebook-jfk-cia/

          • “And the steps and the landing are part of that building.
            The landing is part of the first floor, no matter of how you try and twist that.”~Bart Kamp

            Yes obviously…and they are OUTSIDE. Just like the roof Kamp, it is part of the building..and it is OUTSIDE.

            Really, WTF?
            \\][//

          • Bart, I was challenging you to distance yourself publicly from Greg Parker and Stan Dane’s version of Sean Murphy’s account of Oswald as Prayer Man. Suffice to say I believe you have.

            Dane and Parker use Chief Curry’s response to a question related to why Baker failed to stop Oswald “as he went inside the building” as evidence of a lobby encounter. You apparently do not adhere to that assertion. “Leslie, where did I (!!!) use Curry?”

            ‘You seem to be so hell bent on being so precise so please point that out for everyone to see.’ — Bart

            On the contrary Bart, I challenge those who seem obsessed with precision of the statements and affidavits of the first 24 hours with failing to recognize the heightened state of anxiety that can and often does alter consciousness, yet latch on to precision when it suits their hypothesis.

            ‘And the steps and the landing are part of that building.’ – Bart

            Yes Bart, they are part of the EXTERIOR of that building. Have you studied architecture/construction plans? My bona fides includes a 2 year stint with RTKL (the firm that designed the Kennedy memorial in Arlington btw http://tias.tamu.edu/faculty-fellows/2014-15/harold-adams) so I’m fairly familiar with the lingo,; and I can assure you that the steps leading to a building are NOT, I repeat for emphasis, are NOT IN THE BUILDING.

            ‘The landing is part of the first floor, no matter of how you try and twist that.’

            The landing i.e. the top step is part of the EXTERIOR of the building, Bart. Ask any contractor. The concrete is laid separately, the top step or (in the accepted vernacular related to PM) level is separate from the interior/first floor for reasons that only one familiar with construction would understand. Have you been on site when the exterior steps are completed? Do you think they are connected to an interior floor? Really? Do you know what would happen if that were the case? Think about it Bart. And ask a GC whether or not the landing is part of the interior of a building. You might want to rephrase your argument. The top level of those steps was parallel to the interior floor which some call the ground floor and some call the first floor. Confusion reigned for Baker when he wasn’t certain if he had encountered Oswald on the 2nd, or 3rd (or 4th) floor, as long as we’re talking PRECISION here, Bart. Bottom line, the steps leading to the building are part of the EXTERIOR and are costed out and insured accordingly.

            ‘Enough, I have better things to do, like research things than engage with internet warriors.’ — Bart

            Warriors or paper tigers. Time will tell.

            Pls show us where Jeff Morley arrived on your/RoKC site or on Ed Forum to promote his books. There is a distinction. Prove me wrong.

    • Albert Doyle says:

      I’ve already proven Prayer Man cannot be Oswald by height comparison in two photos with persons of known heights.

      The opposition is either in denial of this firm evidence or incompetent to its science.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Hi Albert,

        Would love to see a diagram or photo comparison supporting this, if you can.

        Thank you sir.

        P.S. I’m somewhat impressed with the Prayer Man proposition, but not absolutely convinced.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Willy,

      Frankly, IMHO, I think ‘Prayerman’ looks more like LHO than Billy Lovelady, although I believe the person we see in Altgen’s famous photograph who is watching the motorcade from around the side of the main entrance is Billy Lovelady. From what other Prayerman proponents say, these two persons are not one in the same.

      • “Frankly, IMHO, I think ‘Prayerman’ looks more like LHO than Billy Lovelady”~Gerry Simone

        I never claimed Prayerman looks like Lovelady. I said that Prayerman doesn’t look like ANYBODY. The figures are blurred, you cannot make a positive ID of a single person on those steps.

        That is ALL anyone can honestly say about the image.

        There is absolutely no question that it is Billy Lovelady in the Altgen’s photo that such a silly stink was raised about.

        It is the silly stink that is common to both of these proposition – not that Prayerman might be Lovelady.
        Both issues turn out to be the proverbial “Tempest in a Teapot”.
        \\][//

        • Vanessa says:

          Willy

          “The figures are blurred, you cannot make a positive ID of a single person on those steps”.

          Are you saying that you do not believe that is Buell Wesley Frazier standing near to PM on the steps?

          Even though he is:

          1. wearing the same clothes;
          2. has the same hairline;
          3. same height;
          4. is standing where BWF said he was standing in his WC testimony;
          5. is standing where others on the steps said in their WC testimony BWF was standing; and
          5. BWF says it is probably him?

          How can that figure not be Buell Wesley Frazier?

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Hi Willy. I didn’t say that you said that PM looked like BL.

          In any event, thanks to Tom S.’s photo enhancements, now I’m thinking that PM could be BL.

          If one looks at the enlarged photo of Maddie and Ruth, there’s someone with an open shirt that exposes his white undershirt. It looks like BL.

          PM is about the same, only that the shirt isn’t as open.

          Now this is important. BWF spoke at the Lancer Conference last November (he was with his son). He announced that he was coming out with a new book. He also said that he saw Oswald come around to the front of the TSBD from the east side (perhaps from the rear of the building IIRC).

          So Buell is saying that Oswald was not there.

          I’ve been told by staunch PM advocates that BWF is lying, but other witnesses can’t be all lying or intimidated after so many years (if the latter was the case back then).

  4. David Hazan says:

    This prayer man discussion between people who believe it when they see it, and those who see it when they believe it, has gone too far, too long, and too idiotic.

    This new thread, which is not really directly about prayer man, but about the grievances of the prayer man “believers”, will most certainly provide more undeserved fuel to the fire…

    • George says:

      “will most certainly provide more undeserved fuel to the fire…”

      Which has been Tom’s tactic from the time he moved posts for no logical reason.

  5. “At the moderator’s sole discretion, Ronny.”~George

    I want to point out the putting a comma between the words George is saying to Ronny is confusing construction. It indicates that those words are actually Ronny’s rather than George’s words.

    When one addresses someone it is proper punctuation to write: “Dear So&so,”

    It is proper to sign off with something like, “Yours truly, Willy”.

    Now this may seem like I am being a stickler, or ‘anal retentive’ to point out proper punctuation on a web forum. And it may be such a common mistake that hardly anyone notices or cares. But failing to use simple quotation marks is all to common as well. Put these two errors together in one message, and no one will be able to understand who is saying what.

    Commas serve specific purposes in the written English language. Too often they are either over used, or used improperly. The rules are simple, learn them.
    \\][//

  6. George says:

    “I want to point out the putting a comma between the word George is say to Ronny is confusing construction [sic]. It indicates that those words are actually Ronny’s rather than George’s words.”

    Dear Willy,
    I deny ever putting a comma between the word “George”. Or for that matter, any other word.

    Kind Regards,
    George

    • “At the moderator’s sole discretion, Ronny.”~George

      You have a distinct lack of reading skills George. I did not say you put a comma between between the word “George”. You put a comma after your own words, and placed Ronny’s name after it.

      Perhaps you should take English 101 over again George. Perhaps you never took it at all.

      **And you are obviously responding to the comment I made before I requested the needed edit from Tom. Read what is posted at the present time George, not the version with the typo in it.

      My final approved draft reads:

      > I want to point out the putting a comma between the words George is saying to Ronny is confusing construction. It indicates that those words are actually Ronny’s rather than George’s words.
      \\][//

      • George says:

        Dearest Willy,

        You say, “**And you are obviously responding to the comment I made before I requested the needed edit from Tom. Read what is posted at the present time George, not the version with the typo in it.”

        Which is precisely what I did. That you later amended it is neither here nor there if I did not see the amended version.

        Kind Regards,
        Your new bbf, George

        • Tom S. says:

          So, I was too slow in noticing and responding to Willy’s edit request and George takes advantage of my inattentiveness.
          Meanwhile, another splendid opportunity for George and his teammates to present their passionate, trustworthy, sincere
          details of their prayer man was Oswald theory and the stark differences of the freedom of expression afforded members on George’s ROKC forum, vs. commentors on Jeff Morley’s JFKfacts.org site, is obscured by other priorities.

          That you later amended it is neither here nor there if I did not see the amended version.

          Kind Regards,
          Your new bbf, George

          Note the time stamp on each comment image.:

          This unfortunate situation is all my fault. I will check pending comments every few minutes from now on, instead of every few hours, and attend to comments requesting edits instantly, or sooner.

          • George says:

            Let me get this straight, Tom. You’re okay with nitpicking grammarians who make there own grammatical errors (do I really need t go and find examples to post?)?

            Meanwhile I am apparently supposed to be psychic and realize that gosh darn yes, Willy would realize his errors and will have requested Tom amend them, but gosh darn again, I imagine that Tom is so tied up looking for new and exciting ways to show how deranged and obsessed he is, that he just hasn’t had time to do it yet…

          • Bill Clarke says:

            I will check pending comments every few minutes from now on, instead of every few hours, and attend to comments requesting edits instantly, or sooner.

            Good grief! I hardly think that would be necessary. The moderation here is already the fastest I’ve ever seen on a moderated site. Your satire is so noted.

          • “Let me get this straight, Tom.”~George

            Tom did NOT say “Let me get this straight.” Greg the George did.

            NOTE; Greg/George is actually squawking about a grammarian (yours truly) that just explained that the use of a comma at that position, followed by ‘Tom’ is a proper indicator of ‘Tom’ being the author of those words.

            So obviously Greg/George still hasn’t gotten that much straight. In fact now he is so mixed up that he is imagining; “that Tom is so tied up looking for new and exciting ways to show how deranged and obsessed he is.”

            ANY little excuse sends Mr Parker into hysterical derogatory blathering; which I contend is Parker’s sole purpose for attending this blog site.
            \\][//

        • “Which is precisely what I did. That you later amended it is neither here nor there if I did not see the amended version.
          Kind Regards,
          Your new bbf, George”

          George seems intent on missing every point made to him. I pointed out an error in his use of the comma, and all he does is spin around with more of his denigrating bullfudge.
          \\][//

  7. Brent Craig says:

    Long time visiter/reader. First time poster.

    Moderating is absolutely needed on any forum and this site does an exemplary job.

    IMO: Free speech is a privilege that has given the way to us as a born right. It is not a right, “solely” (although most may think otherwise). Whether in word or in deed, order must be attained and maintained to try and avoid absolute chaos as a whole. Without some form of law we would have lawlessness.

    Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial.

    The moderating on this site is excellent and liberal. May not be perfect at times… but none of us are. If you don’t like the how things play around here… go to another playground.

  8. George says:

    “yes, he seemed
    to be in a more forthcoming mood at that point.”

    Not quite the right way to put it, Tom — since no one had asked him about the Darnell frame before. Why you would post the Altgens6 frame in the context of Frazier identifying himself in the Darnell frame in order to try and prove anything at all, I guess will remain a mystery…

    • Tom S. says:

      George,
      I posted the Warren Exhibit photo associated with Frazier’s testimony after you brought up Frazier and neglected to mention that Frazier testified he did not see Oswald after noon, which obviously supports the well supported and thoroughly investigated conclusion that Oswald was not standing near Frazier on the front steps of the TSBD when the JFK motorcade passed by, but you know this and your stock answer is that official documents are suspect. You profess to possess the discernment necessary to accurately qualify and disqualify officially taken testimony and documents, so I am at a definite disadvantage.

      George, then you have the temerity to declare,

      Not quite the right way to put it, Tom — since no one had asked him about the Darnell frame before.

      …despite the fact that I did not “put it,” I obviously was quoting what Albert Rossi, the person posting to your own forum said in regard to his questioning of Frazier.

      Your criticism of how Albert Rossi recounted his questioning of Frazier, and Frazier’s replies and his manner as he replied, is worth …..what? You were not there, Rossi says he was. How is your opinion of how Rossi “put it,” even relevant?

      You’ve been offered an opportunity to explain to readers of this thread that you are trustworthy in your opinions and interpretations. Yours and Vanessa’s comments so far seem to provide no sign that either of you recognize that you have an opportunity. I am not asserting that prayerman was Oswald, and that no film supporting this is even required to prove it, so how could “Les,” Willie, or I even be objects of your attention or disapproval? You are making two extraordinary claims, actually. The second being that film evidence is not even needed to support your primary claim.

      How do you possibly take time out to criticize the policies of this site, Jeff, other commentors, or me, what with the burden on you to prove your two extraordinary claims?
      http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t388p825-prayer-man-on-the-education-forum

  9. George says:

    “The questions you’ve posed to me will be left for readers to decide whether they are sincerely asked, or additional examples of the feigning I perceive reading in most comments submitted by you and your teammates. I shared my opinion directly to you in my reply to you of last December 2nd, and I quoted from that reply in my last post in this thread.”

    How does a real issue that your writing style borders on the recherché and the incomprehensible become an issue of someone else’s sinceirity?

    You were asked for clarification, not a lecture on anything you “perceive”.

  10. Randy Lombard says:

    Hey Tom this is Randy whatshisname as you rudely called me. My comment was definitely not off topic. I pointed out the sites own policy about over commenting. Yes I included a link to your sites own policies which you appear to apply arbitrarily. Print my comment and let others judge. While I was inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding your numerous detractors, I can see now that you do indeed lack the objectivity and diplomacy needed to be a moderator. I always enjoyed perusing this site and took you at your word that you wanted input so I submitted my very first comment to this site and it is met with the same derision that your detractors have complained about. Kudos to you for so succinctly proving them right. The Warren Commision would be proud of you!

    • Tom S. says:

      Hey Tom this is Randy whatshisname as you rudely called me. My comment was definitely not off topic. I pointed out the sites own policy about over commenting. Yes I included a link to your sites own policies which you appear to apply arbitrarily. Print my comment and let others judge…..

      Randy, actually your very first submitted comment opened with :

      ….and your second comment begins with a demand, order, strong suggestion :

      Print my comment and let others judge

      Randy you introduced yourself by provoking another commentor, you misrepresented in your second comment what it was in your first comment that prevented it from being approved, and you ordered me to print your comment and suspend moderation of your comments. How long do you think such a first and second impression would be tolerated on George’s free expression forum?

      There were only two names you could have included in the first sentence of your first submitted comment, my name or Jeff Morley’s name, if you actually expected your first comment to be approved. I am not convinced either of your two comments was intended for any purpose other than to attempt to derail this thread. You’ve certainly persuaded me you have no ability to determine what is or is not an on-topic comment.

      • Tom S. says:

        Randy, I’ve read your third comment. You persist in criticizing another commentor. Maybe you have a comprehension issue.

        https://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/
        ……
        6. Commenters who use language deemed uncivil by the Comment editor or the site editor will have their comments put on 48 hour delay until such time as the offender acknowledges the offense or the Comments Editor sees fit to remove the delay.


        Randy’s intent was to describe the comment, and thus its author, as he persists in carrying out the intent of his first comment, to derail the thread by generally provoking a commentor he singled out.

  11. Randy Lombard says:

    No Tom, you are trying to hide the fact that you arbitrarily adhere to your own sites comments policies and engage in active censorship. You are a fraud.

  12. Randy Lombard says:

    Tom, while I do not agree about the aforementioned application of your sites comments policies, I would be remiss not to say that I am impressed you printed my last comment. That took balls and I respect that.

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Hello all,

      Get off of Tom’s back. This is nonsense. This is a website dedicated to the investigation of JFK’s murder, NOT the character assassination of Tom S. You could be dealing with McAdams or Photon as moderator. I can promise you that NONE of your comments would ever see the light of day. Is Tom perfect? No, but he is a damn good moderator, weeding out the nonsense and holding everyone to task as best he can regarding some of the more bizarre things that come across this site.

      Prayer Man? Sounds a lot like the Badge Man crap that we had to endure years ago. At the end of the day, while I hope that Prayer Man is Oswald, that will NEVER be proven. Ever. Our last best hope is the release of the CIA documents in 17. I doubt it will happen, but the CIA is the Rosetta Stone in this case, not some blurry photo of someone only known as Prayer Man.

      The great thing—well, it used to be anyway—about this country is freedom. The freedom to visit this site, or you have a personal grudge against someone, the freedom to not visit. The choice is yours.

      • Peter Sellers says:

        Badgeman isn’t anybody. Prayer Man has to be Oswald. It has been proven but you’re too busy squinting to know that.

        • I can only gather that you are reprising your part in DOCTOR STRANGELOVE on this forum.

          You claim that; “Prayer Man has to be Oswald. It has been proven…” And yet nobody is as capable as you in squinting hard enough to see that ‘Prayerman is Oswald’.

          Lets hear the words that go with your stiff arm salute!
          \\][//

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          Peter,

          Proven by whom? Can I see the blow-up or the enhanced version of LHO’s face, please? Otherwise, it is a whole lot of nothing.

          • Peter Sellers says:

            That both you and Willy are only happy to look at a clearer scan before you look or consider the underlying evidence of Prayer Man being Oswald is what’s wrong with this place. We need a better scan?,No ****, Sherlocks. What do you think is being done behind the scenes while you two just sit here making diva demands? A bit of moral and ethical support could go a long way. You know like reading up on Prayer Man and how it leads to it being Oswald. Too much to ask from you two. You’d much rather look at pictures. Simple stuff.

          • Tom S. says:

            You’ve submitted three additional comments complaining (demanding) about the comment above not appearing. I adjusted a word in it, per the change you made in your second “demand” comment, and I thought I had approved it after I duplicated your edit. This happens frequently, comments requiring approval twice, but you’ll have to take my word for it and I expect the chances of that are slim to none. Of course it was delayed through no fault of yours….

            The only recent instance of the word you’ve complained someone else used in last, lengthy complaint comment was found here, in a comment submitted by George, and I doubt you are complaining about something he submitted.:
            https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-3/#comment-872855

            I do not have access to Jeff Morley’s email address, hence any complaint you have addressed to him at the email address he has provided (it says editor because he is this site’s editor) is read only by him. I’ll only see it if he forwards it to me.

            It seemed obvious to me Willy was not calling you a name, why is it not obvious to you? It translates to “Rubbish Sellers.” If he began with “Rubbish” instead of with “Pig Snot” would it have occurred to you that he was responding to and describing something in your comment, and not you?

            Recall how you introduced yourself here at JFKFacts.org. I certainly can. Anyone only has one opportunity to make a first impression, you made a fine one,
            and I approved its appearance.:

            https://jfkfacts.org/a-note-on-comments/#comment-871153
            Peter Sellers
            April 20, 2016 at 6:49 pm
            When personal grievances seeps into your moderating duties, then its fair game to be critical. Tom Scully is renowned for this behavior and its disingenuous to pretend it doesn’t happen on his watch……

            Considering you made your introduction as a commentor to this site in that manner, and you’ve done a set-up tonight submitting a comment obviously intended to have little likelihood of approval and then leveraged it into three additional complaint comments and an email complaint, all in all it is obvious you are here for a purpose other than contributing to discussion. Stir the soup somewhere else!

            https://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/
            …..
            3. Only comments that the moderators think will advance the conversation and enhance the reader experience will be approved.
            …..
            6. Commenters who use language deemed uncivil by the Comment editor or the site editor will have their comments put on 48 hour delay until such time as the offender acknowledges the offense or the Comments Editor sees fit to remove the delay.

          • George says:

            “Proven by whom? Can I see the blow-up or the enhanced version of LHO’s face, please? Otherwise, it is a whole lot of nothing.” Steve

            You have this the wrong way around. As has been pointed out many many times, the starting point was not the still frames – it was the volume of the corroborating alibi evidence. It was that evidence that started the search for possible photographic support. Prayer Man was tentatively ID’d as a possibility. He firmed as being Oswald by a process of elimination.

            Yet for all intents and purposes, PM does not exist at all. No one ever placed themselves in that spot – and no witness ever stated anyone at all was in that spot – not Oswald – not another employee and not a stranger.

            to compare what is undeniably, a real live person, to the mass of pixels that constitutes the Badge Man Rorschach Test is ridiculous – yet a common phenomenon. Why is that? Why HAS no one ever identified anyone at all in the PM position – why did no witness even acknowledge the presence of anyone at all there?

            Maybe it is photographic proof of the existence of ghosts?

            Maybe the film was altered?

            Do you really want to go down either of those lines? Because those are your only viable options if it is not Oswald.

      • Hear, hear, Mr. Stirlen !!

  13. Eddy says:

    It is a strange trait of those interested in the JFK story that they become intolerant of challenge to their theory. I have NEVER read a commentator who fully agrees with another commentator, but read many who would shout ‘the world is flat’ if they had come up with the theory.

    Acceptance of a view has two elements: The facts presented become accepted, and in parallel the presenter of the facts becomes respected. The ROKC team have done well for me in the facts, and bombed in the charm offensive. They could learn a lot in that regard from Jeff Morley, it isn’t easy.

    It would be a great shame if interest in ‘Prayer man’ was diminished merely due to its proponents turning the audience off.

    • Tom S. says:

      It would be a great shame if interest in ‘Prayer man’ was diminished merely due to its proponents turning the audience off.

      Eddy, assuming that these even are its “proponents”. A few examples that influence me to wonder about their actual agenda
      are the incoherent manner in which they have conducted themselves on JFKfacts.org recently. I moved a comment before it appeared in any thread on this site to a thread specifically about prayerman. The thread the author of the comment intended it to appear in was displayed on page 1 of this website and the prayer man thread did not.

      Lee Farley, and administrator of George’s forum, among others in the group, seemed at least as intent on criticizing me, and to an extent, Jeff Morley, as they did about commenting on prayer man. I featured a comment submitted by Farley as last week’s “Comment of the week.” The comment includes a mix of prayer man and criticism of me. That article and thread,
      as all do, began in a position on the top of page 1 of this website and is descending as newer articles/threads are published above it. Mr. Farley has not commented in the thread, but he has stated this in a comment on another thread.:

      https://jfkfacts.org/lee-harvey-oswalds-application-to-work-at-the-texas-school-book-depository/#comment-871974
      Lee Farley
      April 23, 2016 at 6:31 am
      ……
      My reply to the comment of the week will be forthcoming in good time, at my own pace and when I am good and ready to post it.

      Lee “Not an Aussie” Farley

      Today, that “Comment of the week” article is positioned at the very bottom of page 1. It has been positioned on
      page 1 since April 20. There is no indication Mr. Farley is “good and ready,” even as the thread featuring his comment
      is about to descend into the obscurity of page 2 on this website.

      Over on George’s forum, of which Vanessa, Mr. Farley, Bart Kamp, and Mr. Yusuf are all admins or mods of, the second and third most posted in areas of the forum are closed to the public from viewing.:
      http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/ This is a growing trend of restricted viewing at George’s forum, over the last fifteen months.:
      https://web.archive.org/web/20150125233653/http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/

      Anecdotal evidence indicates disruption of JFK Assassination discussion on other websites is a predictable and expected
      priority of team ROKC members, but the mission to reopen the Kennedy case via presentation of prayer man, or by any other evidence is an unpredictable priority of the team.

      That all said, what are they actually here, or on any other website, including George’s, to do? This should go without asking, but it seems it needs to be asked and answered.

      • George says:

        “I moved a comment before it appeared in any thread on this site to a thread specifically about prayerman. The thread the author of the comment intended it to appear in was displayed on page 1 of this website and the prayer man thread did not.”
        Tom.

        It had nothing to do with where the thread was displayed. The grievance was that the thread it was intended for was in regard to the best new evidence. Your justification for moving it was that you decided that the thread was strictly in regard to the “best new evidence” as nominated by one person – even though that particular evidence was not part of the thread title. moreover, the manner in which you displayed those posts made them almost unreadable.

        One of the hallmarks of good moderation is consistency. To be consistent in this instance, you should have moved all LBJ- did-it posts to a dedicated LBJ thread and all Zapruder alteration posts to a dedicated Zapruder thread. You didn’t. You singled out ONE piece of research out for “special” attention and it was for the purposes of provocation spurred by a petty vendetta. You abused your “power” simply because you can and have spent much of your time since in trying provoking certain individuals and attempting to justify your skewed decisions. The latter efforts should have been a revelation for your supporters here, so convoluted, lacking in context, chronology or discernible linkages to this current situation were they.

        You are the epitome of the person desperate to become a prison warden who finally is allowed to become one – and appears to be a popular figure – until pressure or a crisis arises or there is some perceived slight or challenge to him or his authority. It is only at such times true colors emerge.

        • Tom S. says:

          George, what actually happened in the incident you just cannot stop criticizing me about is fully documented in these three linked images of 3 comments. Your opinions in a comment you submitted and is quoted in full in this week’s “Comment of the week,” as well as your claims and observations in your comment I am now replying to heavily influence me to strongly suspect you are either fully divorced from what is accurate and reliable, or you do not even believe what you are asserting in either comment. No matter, the “Comment of the week,” authored by you, as well as your latest, reinforce my reason for asking, are you and the rest of your team actually even proponents of Oswald was prayer man, or is that merely a ruse to gain you entry through the door of each JFK Assassination discussion, armed with matches and flammable liquid?

          https://jfkfacts.org/whats-the-most-important-piece-of-jfk-assassination-evidence-to-surface-in-the-past-5-years/#comment-869932

          https://jfkfacts.org/whats-the-most-important-piece-of-jfk-assassination-evidence-to-surface-in-the-past-5-years/#comment-870073

          https://jfkfacts.org/in-jfk-lore-who-is-prayer-man/#comment-870258
          Tom S.

        • “You are the epitome of the person desperate to become a prison warden who finally is allowed to become one – and appears to be a popular figure – until pressure or a crisis arises or there is some perceived slight or challenge to him or his authority. It is only at such times true colors emerge.”~Greg Parker as ‘George’

          This is simply outrageous slander. Tom did NOT discard any of the comments made by this gang of thugs. He simply moved them to their own heading. And rather than taking the opportunity to make a case for their Prayerman proposition, these clowns have continued bitching and moaning about Tom, about JFKfacts forum, and about anyone disputing what turns out to be their utter BS.

          This is the second page on this forum dedicated to this nonsense, and I certainly hope it is the last.
          Tom offered them the rope, and they duly hanged themselves with it.
          \\][//

          • George says:

            Dearest Willy,

            you’ve had more retirements and comebacks than Dame Nellie Melba and George Foreman combined.

            Fond regards,
            George,
            still your BFF.

      • Eddy says:

        JFK facts is an important facility. I have read to the bottom of this thread. As a user I would like to suggest the Moderator bans the relevant Prayerman followers from the site.
        This thread and others have given an opportunity for views on the topic. Tom the moderator has possibly allowed himself to be a bit drawn in, but it doesn’t detract from his excellent work.
        Developments in the Prayerman story can be viewed on the ROKC site. The zealots pushing the Prayerman story have had enough coverage here.

    • Could it have been different? Could this topic have been discussed in a less combative manner? Could it have been discussed rationally without rancor?

      Of course it could have. That is what is most aggravating of all about the way things did proceed here. I think most people who already think Oswald is innocent, that he cannot possibly have been JFK’s murderer. would be delighted to find definite, unambiguous proof; such as a clear photo of him elsewhere when the shots were fired.

      Therefore it is not the notion itself that brought this kettle to a boil here. It was the manner in which the Prayerman contingent assaulted the site with such determined virulence.

      There is no need at this point to relitigate the steps that led to this unfortunate confrontation. The arguments have been made and exhausted; the record is clear.

      I have had reasonably civil arguments with some proponents of the alteration of the Z-film – I have encountered other alteration proponents who are just as unreasonable and pugnacious as this current group of Prayerman proponents.

      In my experience, those who listen to reason, and learn the facts can be persuaded to change their views. Those who simply enjoy rancorous confrontation do not change their views because their views are secondary to their emotional and egotistical need for one-upmanship and conflict.

      Personally I am not seeking consensus on any of these topics, just reasonable and rational argumentation.
      \\][//

  14. Peter Sellers says:

    52 more years, boys. 52 more years. Its guys like you at JFK facts that keep the lone nutters in business. Rehash after rehash.

    • ed connor says:

      “52 more years, boys. 52 more years.”
      What in the hell are you trying to say, Mr. Sellers?
      BTW, I always thought your Pink Panther movies were insipid.

      • Peter Sellers says:

        I was trying to wish you guys all the best for the next 52 years discussing crumpled shirts and single bullets and fake photos and body snatchers and af1 tapes and Ruby lookalikes and Oswald lookalikes and rifle receipts and zapruder alterations and 2nd floor encounters and bullet trajectories and autopsies and anything else that has already been discussed 100 times over. Have a great time working out whether the CIA or LBJ or the FBI or the Mafia or the Cuban exiles or Castro or the Dallas cabal or the military complex or the Sicilian connection or mossad or anyone else ordered the hit. Good luck with all that, Ed.

        • “I was trying to wish you guys all the best…”~Peter Sellers

          Pig snot Sellers, you were being snide, as the remainder of that current comment becomes.

          This is a blog with hundreds of commentators involved, and millions of views by readers who never comment.
          That you would expect a consensus from such a wide range of commentary is preposterous in itself.

          The only venues where such consensus is achieved is at cultist sites where some specific dogma is enforced. Since you prefer such superstitious dogmatic and dictatorial sites, I suggest you go back to where your heart’s desire resides.
          \\][//

        • David Hazan says:

          And what will you be doing in the next 52 years, Inspector Clouseau?

          • Peter Sellers says:

            I am dead, David (8 September 1925 – 24 July 1980) but your research endeavors are deader than I ever will be. 52 years and counting. Tick, tock, tick,tock, zzzzzzzzzz….
            P.S Tom. When are you going to post my reply to these clowns? I’ve insulted no one and have just been called a pig snot by a guy named Willy. This place is hilarious.

          • ‘I am dead, David (8 September 1925 – 24 July 1980) but your research endeavors are deader than I ever will be.’

            Is it possible that Dr. Strangelove reincarnated as ‘photon’ but when photon goes on a road show engagement, his stand-in is Peter Sellers, the all knowing, the omniscient with his very own cast of characters?

            Peter whoever you are, if you want to be taken seriously, if you are serious about your claim that Lee Oswald was standing on the steps of the building at 411 Elm then why not present a linear, 10 points or less argument that can be considered in earnest? I suggest you can’t do that, otherwise you would have by now. And where is Lee Farley?

        • ‘Have a great time working out whether the CIA or LBJ or the FBI or the Mafia or the Cuban exiles or Castro or the Dallas cabal or the military complex or the Sicilian connection or mossad or anyone else ordered the hit.’ — Peter Sellers

          Apparently you on the other hand can rest easy because you’ve “solved the crime of the century” — you have figured out that Lee Harvey Oswald, the young ex-Marine defector returned to the Dallas area, met up with the Paines, Everett Glover, George deM et al, drifted in and out of New Orleans posing as pro-Castro attracting the attention of authorities at the same time that George Joannides was running a counter intelligence operation there, allegedly ordered weapons (we have Harry Holmes to thank for that identification) that were tied to crimes beginning with a shooting at General Walker’s house on Turtle Creek (no mention in your hypothesis of that particular accusation against Oswald) and culminating with the shooting of a police officer less than an hour before his own arrest the afternoon of November, 22, 1963 that ended with his being charged with the murder in broad daylight of the president of the United States — was (Drum Roll Please) standing on the steps of the building at 411 Elm when the shots were fired.” Q.E.D. Yep, I think a qualified investigator would walk away from the case once he reads your Prayer Man argument, saying ‘you guys figure out the rest’.

          It seems to me you’ve missed some detail and this vociferous grandstanding is not simply naive bravado but as TomS is now questioning, perhaps intended to disrupt serious appraisal of contradictions, including those contradictory issues with your the Prayer Man claim and in your own words, “crumpled shirts and single bullets and fake photos and body snatchers and af1 tapes and Ruby lookalikes and Oswald lookalikes and rifle receipts and zapruder alterations and 2nd floor encounters and bullet trajectories and autopsies.” Folks with impulse control issues want to control and eventually have everything settled according to their reality … anything that insists perseverance let alone suggests the chance they themselves might not be recognized in the pub or bar by the end of the evening – because after all, they’re the life of the party and they’ve yelled the loudest – is an anathema to their fragile Ego. When the Ego is threatened you get the kind of discourse we’ve endured for the last week or so.

          Why not lay out the Prayer Man argument in 10 bullet points or less? We notice that Lee Farley is stage left. What is Mr. Farley he waiting for? .

          • Peter Sellers says:

            You live in the Tom reality, Leslie where all you see are the posts he lets through. My reality is different. I’ve got to put up with his redacting ways. I have a pile of posts awaiting moderation not because they are offensive but because they threaten that reality.
            This place is rigged but you probably know that.

          • Tom S. says:

            I have a pile of posts awaiting moderation not because they are offensive but because they threaten that reality.

            You have a pile awaiting? You do? Really? They must all be gee whiz, explosively controversial, judging by what actually does appear in comments threads
            on this website. I approve all submitted comments critical of me or of Jeff unless they include words of George Carlin’s list that are not of cited quotes.
            Comments that have lesser odds of appearing are provocations of other members accompanied by little or no on topic details or are of four words or less in length, or in excess of 500 words, or included only a link without descriptive text.

            Why not quote from one or more of your claimed “pile of posts” kept from the eyes of Leslie and other readers, or admit your claim is unfounded. The truth is the exact opposite of the atmosphere you described to Leslie. Why would I approve for viewing your baseless claims if they actually were substantive? We are the soup and “the team” takes turns stirring it. It happened to be your turn…..

          • ‘You live in the Tom reality, Leslie’

            Dear dear Peter. I chose this forum for personal and intellectual reasons that are truly none of your business but I can assure you that I’m delighted that TomS is the moderator as I have followed his research for a number of years and highly respect his approach. It is not for the faint of heart, nor is it suited to those who prefer cults. It’s obvious that you have no idea of the reality of this forum and how it has evolved. It is nuanced, it is subtle, it has substance, it will survive the Prayer Man cult. if Oswald was outside the building at the time of the assassination and you Peter Sellers are responsible for opening our eyes, kudos to you. The sad thing is that you and yours have introduced into the presentation of your theory a cult-like thinking and it will require deprogramming of your group in order for anyone with any sense to distinguish what’s factual from what is your religion. Why not list the top 10 bullet points to argue that Oswald was outside the building, succinct, nothing complicated, no emotion? Where is Lee Farley by the way? And where is Sean Murphy in all of this?

          • Tom S. says:

            Below is the introduction Peter Sellers elected to make in the first comment he submitted to JFKfacts.org, at least under the alias he or she is presently using. I approved Peter’s first comment without hesitation. So it is interesting that Peter has elected to submit comments including the allegations he pointed out to Leslie. It is surprising, but not unexpected considering the history of this team on other JFK Assassination discussion sites, that so many members of the same team are all submitting comments including blatantly misleading opinions about JFKfacts.org, and Jeff Morley and I in such a coordinated and persistent (non-stop since April 17th) stream.

            https://jfkfacts.org/a-note-on-comments/#comment-871153
            Peter Sellers
            April 20, 2016 at 6:49 pm
            When personal grievances seeps into your moderating duties, then its fair game to be critical. Tom Scully is renowned for this behavior and its disingenuous to pretend it doesn’t happen on his watch……

          • George says:

            What a lot of posturing, Ms Sharp.

            No one has has said PM solves the whole thing. What does ROKC stand for again? That’s right! REOPEN THE KENNEDY CASE.

            What might reopen the case? Proof that Oswald could not have been the shooter.

            It is NOT mine, yours or Peter Sellers duty or responsibility to SOLVE the case. That is just the parlor game Mr Sellers is referring to, presumably. The onus in a democratic society is for the justice system to solve such cases.

            Our responsibility is to ensure that they do their job.

  15. Brian Joseph says:

    I After first reading about Prayer Man here I checked out the ROKC site and found it interesting. Oswald may or may not have been on the steps. That certainly won’t be proven by the photo or process of elimination. So while it’s interesting I don’t think it is some major break in the case as some apparently do. There does seem to be a bit of religious zeal about the belief that it Oswald is in the photo that seems similar to the conviction of those who identified Lovelady as Oswald on the steps. There also seems to be a bit of smugness like “we discovered something wonderful that you idiots missed.” Maybe the term “Prayer Man is fitting considering the religious zeal and contempt for non-believers.

    • George says:

      “We” didn’t discover PM and never claimed to It was first noticed back in the 1960s by a Canadian academic. In fact, Bart Kamp went t great lengths to trace the history of it so that everyone who got us to this point is acknowledged.

      As for your other comments…

      one man’s smugness is another man’s confidence.

      You claim that the photo (actually movie frame) won’t prove anything is dead wrong. The original or 1st generation copy will give enough detail to show it definitely is (or isn’t) Oswald. We are all quite prepared to get that clear frame and live or die by the results.

      Comparison to “Lovelady in the doorway” is as odorous as the Badge Man comparisons. It has long been established it was Lovelady. No one has ever acknowledged anyone in the PM position, let alone put a name to him. The ONLY interesting thing about the Lovelady fiasco is that according to Lovelady, the FBI was mighty relieved when he id’d himself. He even quotes them as saying they thought it had to be Oswald.

      Why would they be worried it was Oswald? Didn’t they have multiple witnesses placing Oswald on the 2nd and 6th floors – not the 1st floor and the front steps?

      • “We” didn’t discover PM and never claimed to It was first noticed back in the 1960s by a Canadian academic. In fact, Bart Kamp went to great lengths to trace the history of it so that everyone who got us to this point is acknowledged.”~Greg Parker

        Well then where is the info on this “Canadian academic,” that you apparently cannot even name? Where are the links on this “history” that Bart Kamp has supposedly compiled?

        You people don’t seriously suggest that we trudge through countless threads of your back and forth banter to try to glean for ourselves the truth or falsity of your claims above?

        And really Parker, enough of these trite refrigerator magnet blurbs; “one man’s smugness is another man’s confidence.”
        Is such jejune twaddle supposed to read as ‘profound’?
        \\][//

        • Bart Kamp says:

          Willy, give yourself a break dude. Really!

          The name and the material of this Canadian researcher can be easily found at ROKC. But since you won’t put any effort into researching this matter properly I won’t bother handing it to you.

          In due course there will be an online article on him and also feature in V2 of the PM films.

          Until then research on 😉

          • Tom S. says:

            But since you won’t put any effort into researching this matter properly I won’t bother handing it to you.

            Bart,
            The “punisher” attitude is something you seem to share in common with George and Farley, to name just two others of your team. I get that.
            What I don’t get is how your attempt to “punish” Willy, I’m assuming for the perceived offense of impertinence, actually impacts Willy negatively at all. It is you who is foregoing an opportunity to post a link in a comment in a front page article at JFKfacts.org. You reinforce what I have observed in several of my comments in this thread. You and your teammates make it quite obvious you’ve descended en masse in a coordinated effort to disrupt discussion already taking place. I’ve attempted to make room for your team. The response is even more coordinated disruption, increasingly provocative.

            You’ve all had opportunities to support what George claimed in this week’s “Comment of the week”. Your readership here is hardly confined to the commentors.

          • Bart Kamp says:

            Tom, I am not punishing Whitten.
            But nor will I lay it all out on a platter for him either.
            The fact is I already did that with V1 of the Prayer Man movie on Youtube.
            V2 will come out in a month or so and there are a few articles to follow as well.
            Whitten claims to have studied this case for decades but proves to be highly ignorant on many matters, nor do I see ANY attempt from him to educate himself furthe ron this matter, rather belittle our work time and time again. His attitude reaps what he sows.

      • Brian Joseph says:

        How can you know what a first generation copy of the film will show if you haven’t seen it yet? Or have you?

        The issue here isn’t whether or not we were lied to by the government about what actually happened. Most of us here realize that. If it can be proved that Prayer Man was Oswald that would just be one of very many proofs that we were lied to. It doesn’t solve the case.

        And what is meant by Reopen Kennedy Case? Do you think it was ever closed? Not for most of us here. If you mean another official investigation, do you think the truth would be laid bare? I think not.

        While I fin

  16. George says:

    “If I read you right, Tom you seem to think I’m a terrible person and you want everyone else to think so – that’s fine, I am.”

    Since you will likely never get an apology from the accusers, Vanessa, let me say how sorry I am personally, that you continue to be libeled based solely on association.

    And you are most definitely not a bad a person. Despite your tea-totaling ways.

  17. Ronnie Wayne says:

    I’ve not been to ROKC in a week but at that time Stan Dane, the author of PM advised others emphatically to basically ignore JFK Facts. Greg George Parker, owner of the site thinks otherwise.
    His privilege on this site without joining.
    I have been going to say that I Really wish the book had a Name Index. Lack of it makes looking for something a pain in the ass.
    Like this.
    Pg. 46. “Terry Adams supplied information on the Warren Commission testimony of Harry D. Holmes, Postal Inspector on what Lee Oswald said while in custody on Sunday November 24, 1963. 26.
    When Oswald was asked where he encountered the policeman. Oswald said he was in the vestibule or approaching it, said Holmes. Holmes went on to clarify that Oswald was talking about the vestibule on the First Floor by the TSBD Front Entrance.”
    Who was Terry Adams? The “26” reference takes you back to Harry Holmes Warren Omission testimony in the limited end notes.
    How did Holmes clarify the vestibule on the First Floor.
    Gotta link?

    • ‘ . . . Stan Dane, the author of PM advised others emphatically to basically ignore JFK Facts ‘ — Ronnie Wayne

      Cult by definition:

      ‪ The group displays EXCESSIVELY ZEALOUS and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
      ‪ Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
      ‪ Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
      ‪ The LEADERSHIP DICTATES, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
      ‪ The group is elitist, claiming a SPECIAL, EXALTED STATUS for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
      ‪ The group has a POLARIZED US-VS. THEM MENTALITY, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
      ‪ The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
      ‪ The group teaches or implies that its supposedly EXALTED ENDS JUSTIFY WHATEVER MEANS it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
      ‪ The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
      ‪ Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
      ‪ The group is PREOCCUPIED WITH BRINGING NEW MEMBERS.
      ‪ The group is preoccupied with making money.
      ‪ Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
      ‪ Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize ONLY WITH OTHER GROUP MEMBERS.
      ‪ The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

      http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

      • George says:

        Idiocy by definition: see Les Sharp’s latest Divine Spittle.

        • Tom S. says:

          George,
          You are viewing this because I approved your comment for viewing. What on earth do you think you are doing, aside from reinforcing what is attributed to
          you in this week’s “Comment of the week”? You’ve earned a “time out,” but you know that.

          https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-3/#comment-872772
          Leslie Sharp – 2016/04/27 at 12:57 pm
          In reply to George.

          George, if I intended to be addressed as “Les” my account would not read “Leslie”; if this is indicative of how you process detail, I’m more skeptical than I was initially. It appears more and more to me that you have assigned facts to a series of refrigerator magnets, tossed them on the door, and then rearranged them at will to support your hypothesis. Where is the context, the linear approach to the facts let alone your thinking? ….

          https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-3/#comment-872863
          Leslie Sharp – 2016/04/28 at 1:37 am
          ‘You guys have this all wrong. You give the police a free pass despite the mounting evidence of their corruption, while dismissing the mountain of evidence proving that very corruption in their specific denial of Oswald’s alibi.’ — Georgie

          Not sure what “guys’ you’re talking about Greg, but this woman could not be accused of giving the police a “free pass”. Again if you paused long enough – controlled those impulses – to consider the ongoing debate on this site rather than lurching into periodic attacks on how it is run instead of contributing in a responsible fashion, you would know that the “police” have been raked over the coals repeatedly here. ….

      • Is this cult recruitment season, Sean? Excessively Zealous; Leadership Dictates; Special Exalted Status; Polarized US v. THEM mentality; Exalted Ends Justify Whatever Means, Preoccupied with Bringing New Members.

        Jfkfacts frequent commenter John McAdams went dormant a couple of weeks ago for reasons only those who have followed his dispute with wiser heads than he at Marquette University can appreciate; photon went dormant a week ago having intimated in a comment that he would be absent; ironically there has been a very low turn out from Jean Davison during the same time period; and low and behold, the Prayer Man crew surfaced, including Vanessa who had apparently sworn off this site the moment TomS was introduced as the moderator. By process of elimination it is rational to consider the possibility this is not pure coincidence. Perhaps we could reopen a case for the concept of “propinquity”.

        • Bart Kamp says:

          Leslie, take a break as well dude.
          This paranoia is getting hold of you just a little too much.

          Hey Tom, you must be proud of ‘your design’ no?

          • Bart, this forum was inaugurated in late 2012. TomS became moderator a few months ago. What “design” are you attributing to him when many of us have been active here for almost four years?

            I recall that the Prayer Man argument surfaced last year, but the ferocity seemed at the time limited to Vanessa’s (perhaps well-intentioned) devotion to the theory. Was she the advance guard? Had you and yours been as vociferous when the previous moderator was engaged, I’m sure my particular responses would be similar to what they have been the past two weeks. Bring a succinct, 10 points or less argument to the table for consideration.

            You can indulge in your paranoid fantasies about TomS but the fact is you’ve walked into a dynamic that has nothing to do with your grievances against him as new moderator of this site. This is the real world, not the enclave you and yours constructed to indulge a false reality. Read again the signs of a cult.

          • Brian Joseph says:

            I have a simple rule when I visit someone’s home. That rule is: Be polite. If I don’t like the hospitality I don’t visit anymore. Tom is the housekeeper here. It’s not polite to be rude to him. If you don’t like the way that he keeps house there is a simple solution, don’t visit. Attacking Tom does nothing to advance your concept that Prayer Man is Oswald. It actually causes many to take it less seriously. What is accomplished by infighting and attacks on each other by those who question the official story?

          • “Leslie, take a break as well dude.”~Bart Kamp

            If Mr Kamp really hasn’t gleaned that Leslie Sharp is a woman by now, he is really out on the tiles. She has made that clear too many times for anyone but a real dolt to miss it. A dolt, or a provocateur.

            I am in agreement with Leslie and Tom, this Prayerman cult is here for disruption. And as Leslie points out quite likely coordinated with the McAdams group.

            You say we are “paranoid” which is the same term used by the mainstream yahoos that attempt to disparage “conspiracy theorists”.

            Bart Kamp and his comrades have the MO of moles and agents of cognitive dissonance. This is not paranoia, this is the same type of analysis used to assess the Kennedy case generally.

            Either the Prayerman cult are as dumb as rocks, or they are agenteur, there are no other choices.

            See: “Routine Habit Federal Rule 406”, the legal codification of the use of Modus Operandi in critical analysis of crimes.

            The Prayerman cult has blown its cover.
            \\][//

        • Vanessa says:

          Leslie

          I stopped commenting for private reasons which I’m not going to go into.

          For heaven’s sake, I’m sure McAdams, Jean and Photon would be even more appalled than us at being lumped in with them.

          I would more than welcome their return to discuss PM. Jean, Paul, John where are you? But I doubt they wish to discuss PM at all.

          Seriously Leslie, you are letting the JFK paranoia get the better of you.

          • Vanessa, are you familiar with term “false dichotomy”?

            “A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), or that is possibly neither.”

            Example:
            Lee Oswald was inside the building, on the 6th Floor, in the snipers nest and shot President Kennedy — John, Jean, Photon, etc.

            Lee Oswald was standing outside the building so he could not have shot President Kennedy — the Prayer Man Cult

            that is a false dichotomy and those locked in the resultant Chinese handcuffs share in the responsibility for polarizing the investigation, and quite possibly follow one another around – I mean, given those handcuffs would they not have to?

          • You commented that Photon took you as less than logical when he first encountered you Vanessa.

            You stated that as a matter of pride in yourself.

            Perhaps your pride in such is growing a bit tarnished as you discover how others on both side of the isle agree with photon on that.

            From the first conversations with you on the Zapruder Film, I was appalled at your abilities at critical thinking. Being new to the forum at that time I wasn’t as outspoken as I really felt. The term “ditz” has been in my mind from the time of those first encounters. Would “dingbat” fit just as well in what I am saying here? Yes it would.

            I will let Tom chose to publish this or not. But I think someone needs to come out and say it.
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            I will let Tom chose to publish this or not. But I think someone needs to come out and say it.

            Willy this is a borderline call…. what to do….what to do….. If I approve your comment, I expect there will be replies to it. The replies will be off-topic, but has the topic even been thoroughly or even actually addressed despite nearly 100 comments. Are there any mitigating circumstances I can draw upon to help guide me?

            https://jfkfacts.org/introducing-our-new-comments-editor/#comment-821525
            Vanessa – 2015/10/26 at 11:49 pm

            It’s not Tom Scully is it, Jeff? In which case you are nursing a viper to your breast.

            So to speak….

          • Vanessa says:

            Really, Willy if you do not know by now that it is Photon’s favourite ‘go to’ to doubt the credibility of any poster who makes a point against him then I really don’t know what to say to you.

            I was wondering when you were going to bring up the Zapruder Film discussion we had in 2014. I think it’s fair to say that on the topic of the Zapruder Film you are not open to discussion and that that is why that topic is no longer discussed on JFKFacts. Because no-one feels comfortable dealing with you on that issue.

            Call me a ditz or a dingbat, frankly call me whatever you like. But do not make the mistake of shooting the messenger and dismissing the Prayer Man documentary evidence because of what you think of me.

            And it’s ‘aisle’ not isle. If you’re going to insult my intelligence at least get your spelling right.

          • Vanessa says:

            Oh Tom, how you give yourself away.

            It has to be noted that while Willy and Leslie have at least attempted to respond to the documentary evidence on PM you have not made a squeak.

            I hope you and Willy feel better about yourselves now you’ve got your views on me off your chest.

            Are you ready to discuss James Jarman’s HSCA evidence on what Billy Lovelady told him about Oswald meeting the policeman on the steps now? Or not?

          • Tom S. says:

            Oh Tom, how you give yourself away.

            Yeah, I approve all of your comments critical of me. I must seem awful to you for assisting you in presenting yourself to JFKfacts.org readers as who you actually are. You could change that impression. In the meantime, if you choose to abuse, have at it.

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm

            Mr. BALL – When was the last time you can remember you saw Lee?
            ……
            Mr. FRAZIER – Somewhere between it was after 10 and somewhere before noon, …… and I was on the first floor putting up books all day and I seen him back and forth and he would be walking and getting books and put on the order.
            Mr. BALL – That was the last time you saw him all day?
            Mr. FRAZIER – Right
            Mr. BALL – You didn’t talk to him again?
            Mr. FRAZIER – No, sir; I didn’t….

            Sean Murphy lost me here because what he said was conflicted and an extraordinary claim.:

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=12#entry276746
            Edited by Sean Murphy, 21 August 2013 – 01:01 PM.
            ……
            I think it’s a fair assumption, Ray, based on the combination of all the witness statements and testimonies, that there were no strangers on the steps themselves at the time of the assassination. Indeed as far as I can determine, everyone we see on the steps can be accounted for--everyone, that is, bar Prayer Man.

            …and Sean himself later could not account for the presence he described as a woman partially blocking the “torso” of PM in the film frame.

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&p=280507
            Sean Murphy – Posted 06 November 2013 – 11:56 AM

            In studying the Prayer Man figure, it’s important to be aware that there is a lady standing just in front of him:….

            Just 16 days later, Sean Murphy ceased posting on that forum.

            The film evidence is unconfirming, the challenges you are facing to make the record of witness statements and testimony fit your theory is daunting, to put it politely. That is also the feedback you’re receiving in the aggregate, and that general reaction to your claims has little of nothing to do with me.

          • Vanessa says:

            Not at all Tom, fire away. I’m only concerned that JFKFacts readers do not confuse your views (or their views) of me with the evidence in the Prayer Man case.

            So you’re saying that because Frazier claims he didn’t speak to Oswald for the rest of the day that’s that. Case closed?

            There is a video of Frazier on this very website stating that it was best to stay quiet about the assassination out of fear of what could be done to his family.

            https://jfkfacts.org/c-span-to-air-telling-story-from-oswalds-co-worker/

            Who knows what pressure was brought to bear on Frazier but I wouldn’t take his statements on this issue as evidence that PM was not Oswald. Are you really applying that standard to every witness and every bit of evidence in the WC?

            As for Sean’s statements about everyone being accounted for except for the woman in front of PM. I’m assuming he is saying that all male TSBD employees are accounted for as not being PM by their WC testimony and their FBI statements as to where they were.

            Or you saying because Sean has left one woman unaccounted for you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

            I have to say you are expecting a high level of infallibility from your researchers. They are not gods who have the answer to every possible question on the assassination. They sometimes contradict themselves and sometimes get things wrong.

            Sean took the research on PM to a certain point and, in my view, it is up to the rest of the research community to carry that research further. I presume he left the debate because he’d had a gutful of doing it all himself. Who knows?

            Bart Kamp has done great work on identifying others standing on the steps that day. Ed Ledoux has done great work sourcing the original films and attempting to obtain them. Others at RoKC are now in the process of finishing this process.

            It is not game over due to one speedbump.

          • Vanessa says:

            Leslie

            The irony. Someone shows you evidence that could finally prove Oswald’s innocence and you see it as part of the plot to incriminate him.

            The powers that be have done their job too well.

          • ‘The irony. Someone shows you evidence that could finally prove Oswald’s innocence and you see it as part of the plot to incriminate him.’ — Vanessa

            You will have to refresh my memory where I suggested the theory of PM would somehow incriminate Oswald?

            The true irony here is that apparently prior to the PM ‘revelation’ (which is nothing but an unproven theory to date) you did not think there was sufficient evidence to prove that Oswald was set up as the perfect patsy. The flaw, and it is a serious and irreparable flaw imv, in your theory is that it fails to take into account all of the data prior to Oswald being employed by the school depository business and positioned in the building at 411 Elm. I think one of the PM members recently said something to the effect – ‘that’s the responsibility of others to figure out.’ What a foolish statement in my humble opinion. Just one example to illustrate my argument: highly detailed information about Oswald’s history had been flashed within hours. If he had been just some poor dumb bloke standing on the steps – filmed standing on the steps no less – do you think the plotters would risk his not being arrested in the Texas Theatre? What if he hadn’t gone to Oak Cliff but ducked into a theatre in downtown Dallas? Oswald’s history was lined up Vanessa, or do you think they just happened to hit pay dirt, “aha! we have an angry ex-marine, defector, filmed passing out pro-Castro material, who happened to have ordered some weapons we’ve tied to the assassination and murder of Tippitt. I KNOW, let’s just use him?” Is that a plausible scenario for you Vanessa? You and those who argue Oswald was PM would be obliged to take this data into account before you could ever convince me that Oswald was outside the building. And no, I am not alleging Oswald was ‘the lone assassin’. I am saying he was used. Prove me wrong by getting your hands on the film and determining it was Oswald. That’s all you have; I believe that the rest of your argument is contrived at best. Right now, on this site, we can’t even agree on the term “vestibule”.

  18. Randy Lombard says:

    I don’t have a dog in the Prayerman fight, but once people look beyond the photos, which the proponents concede, there is sufficient testimonial evidence to consider its possible it is Oswald. And it deserves to be treated seriously and not dismissed out of hand by hobbyists.

    Based on my own personal experience here, comments critical of the REOKC seem to get posted with all manner of slurs and off topic diversions, but comments critical this sites preferred regular posters are not posted. Just check my prior posts on this thread.

    As a Conspiracy Realist, I hate to admit it, but Alt.jfk and jfkassinationfirum, REOKC and deep politics ALL have more liberal open minded posting policies. IMO this site has nose dived fast in the last few months regarding the class and gravitas it used to have. This used to be a scholarly site. Now it’s just a group of regulars with too much time on their hands patting themselves on the back for how clever they are while discussing banalities. Aside from Morley there are no serious regular CT posters here who seem to have any real grasp of the evidence.

    I thought this was a factual site dedicated to solving the murder of JFK….. Guess not.

    • “I don’t have a dog in the Prayerman fight..”~Randy Lombard

      I don’t believe you for a moment Lombard. I think you are a covert member of the Prayerman cult. You actually think anyone is going to buy that it is just happenstance that you show up with this denigrating crap about JFKfacts, Tom’s moderating, the regulars here?

      This whole Prayerman issue is a ruse, an excuse for attacking the most popular site on the Internet dedicated to the assassination of JFK. All the red flags are waving on this. You Lombard, are no more independent than Vanessa, Bart Kamp, or Greg ‘the George’ Parker.

      What we are curious about now, is how this coordinated assault has been financed.
      \\][//

      • Randy Lombard says:

        Willy,

        I don’t find your satire of serious JFK researchers funny in the least.

        You do however do a spot on impersonation of the tin foil hat crowd.

        • George says:

          Randy,

          He is brilliant isn’t he?

          All the comic timing of a Barney Rubble… and the same strangely pupil-less eyes…

          I guess that’s what happens when you have No Soul.

          • “I guess that’s what happens when you have No Soul.”~Greg “the George”

            Obviously Parker is making it clear he has heard my song, ‘No Soul’, and this means that we are now “intimate buddies” or something equally as preposterous.

            As in many cases, “familiarity breeds contempt”. The more I get to know Parker, the more contempt I have for the creature.
            \\][//

  19. ‘And it deserves to be treated seriously and not dismissed out of hand by ‘hobbyists’.

    “Hobbyist” happens to be a term frequently employed by John McAdams to denigrate fellow citizens who are committed to exposing the failure of the Warren Commission to uncover the conspiracy, and many who sense the injustice perpetrated on Lee Oswald and use this forum to right that wrong.

    The Prayer Man cult has failed to produce a succinct argument on this site in spite of repeated request for a 10 point argument, but instead arrived here this time attacking the moderator. Perhaps they’ll be taken seriously when they focus on their hypothesis instead of digging thru a trash bin of their history with Jeff Morley’s appointed moderator.

    ‘Now it’s just a group of regulars with too much time on their hands patting themselves on the back for how clever they are while discussing banalities. Aside from Morley there are no serious regular CT posters here who seem to have any real grasp of the evidence.’

    As one who spends a significant amount of precious time on this site, I assume I’m in the category you find banal; that “too much time” is laughable, at least in my personal circumstances and in fact it is a daily sacrifice that I particularly resent when people like you arrive with nothing to bring to the party except criticism and support for cult behaviour. Evidently you do have a real grasp of the evidence since you can identify who does and who does not; which prompts the question, why haven’t you been active on this forum? If you’re happy with the other forums, what brought you here?

    • Randy Lombard says:

      Leslie, are you accusing me of being John McAdams? If so, that’s an unsettling level of paranoia.

      I apply the term “hobbyist” to those individuals who think they know more about the case then they do as is betrayed by their juvenile misinformed bleatings on forums. Sheep who have read a few books, watch a few videos and hysterically think they have solved the case People fancy themselves researchers, but have never even been to Dallas, the archives or done any original research. If you feel you belong in that group so be it.

      FWIW Leslie, I personally think you (and very few others) are one of the few bright lights on this forum, though I am perplexed your lack of curiosity into the Prayer Man matter. Didn’t think you were that myopic.

      But then calling everyone who thinks there may be some merit to the Prayer Man research “members of a cult” is pretty juvenile. So maybe…

      I am curious as to why you think anyone owes you “a succinct 10 point argument.” Is that due to sloth or are impaired somehow and in need to be spoon feeding? If so here’s a link. http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13238786-prayer-man-

      BTW I am not a member of ROKC, have never posted there, but have been impressed by their original research on a number of topics.

      As for why I don’t post here, or really anywhere else for that matter, is that I don’t feel the need, to discuss serious matters with people that are obviously incapable of seeing the big picture. People who haven’t done their due research diligence. Dilettantes who do nothing other than muddy the water.

      Aren’t you curious as to why McAdams, Photon, and their posse are oddly silent on the Prayer Man issue? Maybe, just maybe, it’s because Prayer Man touches on an exposed nerve and they get to sit back while hobbyists do their dirty work for them.

      • Randy, obviously you’re a blow in on this site, that or you’ve never bothered to read my comments over the last 4 years: ” but have never even been to Dallas ” — lived there off and on for almost 2 decades, spent hundreds of hours in the West End, and worked for luminaries frequently named in JFK research so I know of what I speak; ‘the archives’ – 5 presidential libraries across the country, 2 universities with well regarded business schools, a summer at Georgetown in and out of NARA and a return trip to College Park/NARA, 3 months stint in Boston, in and out of the Kennedy Library – is that enough to qualify me as anything but banal? all of this at personal expense, Mr. Lombard; or ‘done any original research.’ again you’ve not read my contributions on this site.

        So now that’s out of the way,

        ‘I am curious as to why you think anyone owes you “a succinct 10 point argument.”

        No one owes this site a succinct 10 point argument; I attempted to progress this thread and that would be one way of doing just that, present a concise argument so that one can sink one’s teeth in it. Otherwise, this is a shotgun approach and appears to be designed as such – most of the shot directed at the owner and the moderator until the cult could find other targets; I foolishly walked into the line of fire. So much for discernment.

        ‘Is that due to sloth or are impaired somehow and in need to be spoon feeding? If so here’s a link.

        Aha. And therein lies the rub, Randy. This is a mission to generate traffic at RoKC, a site that most likely is turning in on itself as have several others over the years. I’ve dipped into the site in question, and as I’ve stated repeatedly, I can’t rationalize wading thru the muck on the off chance there’s a pearl. Clean up their act, apologize to individuals and to the public (any that might stumble into the site) for the vulgarities, see what happens. When Sean Murphy returns, that might be impetus enough to consider a brief visit.

        ‘As for why I don’t post here, or really anywhere else for that matter, is that I don’t feel the need, to discuss serious matters with people that are obviously incapable of seeing the big picture. People who haven’t done their due research diligence.’

        So it is a question of superiority? You don’t feel the need to disseminate your superior knowledge of the case on this site? That’s your prerogative. Perhaps you’ve published and would share a link? But it still prompts the question, what compelled you at this hour to lower your standards and engage in this specific discussion? You must have a keen interest in the theory of the Prayer Man?

      • ‘Aren’t you curious as to why McAdams, Photon, and their posse are oddly silent on the Prayer Man issue? Maybe, just maybe, it’s because Prayer Man touches on an exposed nerve and they get to sit back while hobbyists do their dirty work for them.’ — Randy Lombard

        This deserves it’s very own response.

        It could be as simple as photon is off someplace adding to his repertoire of being the “most interesting person in the world”; McAdams could be in the throws of his pathetic defence of how he dealt with a graduate student and called it “freedom of speech” — if you’ve not followed the story it’s somewhat apropos to the discussion here, and it could be he’s been ‘silenced’ by his attorneys until the case makes its way into the courts – now wouldn’t that be an irony?

        Regardless, and including Jean’s one time participation on this topic, the vacuum they left is being filled by what I can only construe as a cult of the Prayer Man. Another irony isn’t it Randy? Polar opposites appearing to argue the only possibilities and locking the conversation in Chinese handcuffs. Perhaps it is George and his team that have done the investigation the greatest disservice. The timing is impeccable I must say. To date no one has touched on the possibility of a third or even a fourth solution to the case.

  20. George says:

    “Either the Prayerman cult are as dumb as rocks, or they are agenteur, there are no other choices.”

    This from my new BFF, Willy, is a perfect example of a false dichotomy, Leslie.

    • “my new BFF”~George

      Don’t even pretend to flatter yourself George. I wouldn’t associate with you as a friend if we were the last two people on Earth.
      \\][//

    • You have a truly dreadful problem George, as Buckaroo Bonzai pointed out; “Where ever you go, there you are.”

      Or as Mark Lindsay sang; “No matter what you do, you can never run away from you.”

      And then there is that constant problem of mirrors…

      Bummer isn’t it Mr Parker.
      \\][//

      • John Rowell says:

        Willy, Leslie, and Tom, at some point, you must stop feeding these trolls.

      • George says:

        You have a truly dreadful problem George, as Buckaroo Bonzai [sic] pointed out; “Where ever you go, there you are.”

        Thank you Willy, Buckaroo Banzai is one of the truly great philosophers from modern history.

        But not quite as good as his contemporary, Lord John Whorfin who said “Sealed with a curse as sharp as a knife. Doomed is your soul and damned is your life.”

        But then, you’re safe, I guess because you don’t have a soul, do you Willy?

        Great song, btw. Love it. Just for that alone, you’re worthy of BFF status.

    • Where is John McAdams? Where is photon? Where is Jean Davison?

      Where is Lee Farley?

      and in particular, where is Sean Murphy?

      And Greg, where is your 10 point or less synopsis of the theory of Oswald as the Prayer Man? The longer you wait the more source material you’ll be expected to present. My understanding is that the bible of this effort is not footnoted or indexed. Perhaps you can at least set that straight?

      • George says:

        I’m still waiting for you to quote what you claim was in the Jackie O article.

        I guess we’re both doomed to live with disappointment, Leslie.

        But unlike your claims bout what was in that article, the information on PM is out there for anyone to go look at.

      • Photon says:

        “Never interfere with an enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself .”
        It’s true-they actually eat their own young.

        • That is a quote from Napoleon Bonaparte, didn’t you know who to attribute it to Photon?

          What is the relevance of that quote to this thread?

          Do you EVER make anything other than vague pronouncements and inappropriate observations?
          \\][//

        • Vanessa says:

          Photon knows exactly what he is saying. He’s having a field day with this discussion.

          But never fear Photon, while some of us chat, the others are working very hard on several projects which you will not find so amusing.

  21. George says:

    “Bart Kamp and his comrades have the MO of moles and agents of cognitive dissonance. This is not paranoia, this is the same type of analysis used to assess the Kennedy case generally.

    Exactly Willy! Brava!

    It IS the same analysis and IS the reason this case has gone around in circles for 52 freakin’ years. With the emphasis on freakin’.

    Thank you, my friend! Well said.

  22. Bob Prudhomme says:

    I’ll say one thing, if there was a photo of a guy in the Sniper’s Nest that looked even half as much like Oswald as PM does, the Lone Nutters would have been shoving it down our throats for the last 53 years as proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor.

    • “I’ll say one thing, if there was a photo of a guy in the Sniper’s Nest that looked even half as much like Oswald as PM does…”~Bob Prudhomme

      Very likely so Mr Prudhomme, and personally I would have made the same arguments against that as I have against the Prayerman assertions. A positive ID is not possible with such a blurry image.

      The there would be all of the bogus arguments that the Warren cult has already made – that are now being made by the Prayerman cult.

      And we end up in the land of subjective interpretation of how much does that image actually look like Oswald? This is the point where the testimonial evidence must be balanced against the blurry photo.

      My analysis concludes that Oswald ate his lunch in the Domino Room from about 11:50 AM, until he went up the stairs through the vestibule to the snack room with the coke machine, where he bought a coke and was confronted by officer Baker at about 12:33–35 PM.

      Oswald then walked from the 2nd floor lunchroom through Mrs Reid’s office and encountered her coming the other way, they passing each other just at the point of where her desk stood.

      I would posit that from this point, Oswald continued on down to the ground floor and left through the front door, assuming no more work would be done that day. By my reckoning, he would have left the building at about 12:42-45 PM.
      \\][//

      • George says:

        “My analysis concludes that Oswald ate his lunch in the Domino Room from about 11:50 AM, until he went up the stairs through the vestibule to the snack room with the coke machine, where he bought a coke and was confronted by officer Baker at about 12:33–35 PM.”

        Willy, please… take it the Comedy Club… my ribs hurt from laughing.

        Yours lovingly,
        George, still your BFF because I forgive you

  23. Antonio D'Antonio says:

    I have only posted on this site a handful of times, but do visit it often to read the discussions. With that being said, I’d still like to put in my one cent concerning the PM posters.
    If it looks like a troll, swims like a troll, quacks like a troll, is arrogant and condescending like a troll and posts like a troll, then it is probably a troll.
    And no, I am not a rocket scientist.

  24. George says:

    “And no, I am not a rocket scientist.”

    Well, at least you got that part right, Antonio. Troll-like behavior is all I’ve encountered from the regulars by way of provocation. My only “sin” in responding.

  25. George says:

    “From the first conversations with you on the Zapruder Film, I was appalled at your abilities at critical thinking. Being new to the forum at that time I wasn’t as outspoken as I really felt. The term “ditz” has been in my mind from the time of those first encounters. Would “dingbat” fit just as well in what I am saying here? Yes it would.”

    Leslie, do you have nothing to say to Willy?

    PS
    Sorry Willy, but friendship or no, you deserve a good tongue-lashing from Leslie for this. I’m sure we can move again from there.

  26. John Kirsch says:

    Off topic, perhaps, but relevant, given the presence John McAdams has had on this site.
    First, “Inside the right-wing lie factory: Secrets of a Koch-funded propaganda machine more insidious than Fox News”, (http://www.salon.com/2016/04/30/inside_the_right_wing_lie_factory_secrets_of_a_koch_funded_propaganda_machine_more_insidious_than_fox_news/)
    Excerpt, “The New York Times has gone through several rounds of buyouts and forced layoffs in the last three years, for instance. Every major newspaper in the country is struggling with the transformation to the digital age of media. An American Journalism Review in 2009 found that the number of reporters covering state capitals had fallen 30 percent since 2003.”
    Yet the Franklin Center flourishes. Why? Because it has deep financial pockets and no worries about its funding. National Journal reported that the Sam Adams Alliance provided the seed money to launch the Franklin Center in the months prior to the Chicago Tea Party event, taking the funding from zero to $2.4 million in 2009, then to $3.7 million the following year.”
    “Besides operating a group of paid national reporters who focus on state capitals as well as a group of citizen journalists blogging in these state capitals, the Franklin Center also supplies grants to each of the fifty-five sites in the thirty-nine state capitals.””
    “Its success—basically, the reason that it has no need to fight for its survival when every other local digital journalism effort does—is almost certainly due to its connection to the Koch donor network. Like other related groups with operations in the DC area, the Franklin Center benefits greatly from the Koch donor network’s Freedom Partners.”
    “The Franklin Center sites also clearly drive follow-on news coverage, often uncritically. Its Wisconsin Reporter, for instance, once sponsored a poll that found more than 70 percent of people in the state supported an effort by Governor Scott Walker to cut the collective bargaining rights of the state’s public sector workers—a fight that angered the unions of teachers and other public sector workers. National news organizations, including MSNBC, picked up the coverage and reported on the poll.”
    Next, “McAdams: Here’s what Marquette president can do with his reinstatement demands”, (http://watchdog.org/261389/marquette-john-mcadams-letter/)
    Two email addresses are listed for the author of the article, M.D. Kittle, mkittle@watchdog.org. AND
    mkittle@wisconsinreporter.com
    WisconsinWatchdog.org has published a number of articles about the dispute between McAdams and Marquette.

    • Tom S. says:

      John, I am approving your comment because even the author of this week’s “Comment of the Week” has shown little inclination to further discuss the particulars of the comment or of my comment introducing this discussion thread.

  27. George says:

    “What we are curious about now, is how this coordinated assault has been financed.”

    Ooooh! Looky Tom! A conspiracy! Willy used the “we” word!

  28. Bob Prudhomme says:

    The key to the whole thing is how fast Mrs. Reid seems to have made it back to the 2nd floor, just in time to see Oswald after the alleged lunch room encounter. Am I the only one who finds her arrival on the 2nd floor, so soon after the assassination, a little bit odd?

    Look at the people going up the front stairs of the TSBD, immediately after the shots. Are they panicking? Are they running into the building? Nope, they all seem to be returning to the building in a slow and orderly fashion.

    Mrs. Reid claimed that she ran back upstairs because she was afraid, yet Geneva Hines said Mrs. Reid came back upstairs with a group of others, including their boss, Campbell, and her fellow worker, Joe Molina.

    Here is an excerpt from Molina’s WC testimony:

    ” Mr. BALL. Did you see anything after that?
    Mr. MOLINA. Well, I heard the shots.
    Mr. BALL. Where–what was the source of the sound?
    Mr. MOLINA. Sort of like it reverberated, sort of kind of came from the west side; that was the first impression I got. Of course, the first shot was fired then there was an interval between the first and second longer than the second and third.
    Mr. BALL. What did you do after that?
    Mr. MOLINA. Well, I just stood there, everybody was running and I didn’t know what to do actually, because what could I do. I was just shocked.
    Mr. BALL. Did anybody say anything?
    Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
    Mr. BALL. Yes, this fellow come to me—Mr. Williams said, somebody said, somebody was shooting at the President, somebody, I don’t know who it was. There was some shooting, you know, and this fellow said “What can anybody gain
    371

    by that”; he just shook his head and I just stood there and shook my head. I didn’t want to .think what was happening, you know, but I wanted to find out so I went down to where the grassy slope is, you know, and I was trying to gather pieces of conversation of the people that had been close by there and somebody said “Well, the President has been shot and I think they shot somebody else”, something like that.
    Mr. BALL. Did you see Mr. Truly go into the building?
    Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
    Mr. BALL. Where were you when you saw him go into the building?
    Mr. MOLINA. I was right in the entrance.
    Mr. BALL. Did you see a police officer with him?
    Mr. MOLINA. I didn’t see a police officer. I don’t recall seeing a police officer but I did see him go inside.
    Mr. BALL. Did you see a white-helmeted police officer any time there in the entrance?
    Mr. MOLINA. Well, of course, there might have been one after they secured the building, you know.

    Continued next post

  29. Bob Prudhomme says:

    WC testimony of Joe Molina continued

    Mr. BALL. No, I mean when Truly went in; did you see Truly actually go into the building?
    Mr. MOLINA. I saw him go in.
    Mr. BALL. Where were you standing?
    Mr. MOLINA. Right at the front door; right at the front door.
    Mr. BALL. Outside the front door?
    Mr. MOLINA. Yes, outside the front door I was standing; the door was right behind me.
    Mr. BALL. Were you standing on the steps?
    Mr. MOLINA. Yes, on the uppermost step.
    Mr. BALL. You actually saw Truly go
    Mr. MOLINA. Yeah.
    Mr. BALL. You were still standing there?
    Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
    Mr. BALL. How long was it after you heard the shots?
    Mr. MOLINA. Oh, I would venture to say maybe 20 or 30 seconds afterwards.
    Mr. BALL. Had somebody come up and said the President was shot before
    you saw Truly go in?
    Mr. MOLINA. No.
    Mr. BALL. Do you know a girl named Gloria Calvary?
    Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
    Mr. BALL. Did Gloria come up?
    Ms.. MOLINA. Yes, she came. I was in the lobby standing there and she came in with this other girl.”

    Here is the problem, in case you cannot see it. Joe Molina, who supposedly came up to the 2nd floor in a group that included Mrs. Reid, had enough time to go “down to the where the grassy slope is”, listen to a few conversations, hang out near the front entrance of the TSBD long enough to see Gloria Calvery enter the building and THEN return to work on the 2nd floor, although his testimony does not actually tell us he returned to the 2nd floor. We have only Geneva Hines’ testimony to tell us that. If Mrs. Reid returned to the 2nd floor in a group that included Joe Molina, how could she possibly have encountered a fleeing Oswald, who should have been long gone before she arrived on the 2nd floor?

    This leaves us three possibilities.
    1. Mrs. Reid is lying about how quickly she returned to the 2nd floor.
    2. Baker is lying, and entered the TSBD much later than the WCR would have us believe. This would, of course, nullify the 2nd floor lunch room encounter unless, of course, Oswald stayed on the 2nd floor much longer than we are told.
    3. Oswald really was a patsy, and continued to hang out in the 2nd floor lunch room after the encounter with Baker.This last does not seem very likely, as there is no evidence Oswald ever did anything in the 2nd floor lunch room other than buying Cokes.

    • Bart Kamp says:

      And if I were to tell you Bob that Molina saw Sorrels appear at the TSBD one should ask themselves how long was Molina down there…….
      The whole timing thing of Baker and Truly going to the 2nd floor for an encounter has gone down the drain, then again this lot think I am disrupting their little ‘fantasy’……

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Then I say it is a sorely needed disruption. Believing in any part of the WC fantasy has kept us from the truth for too long.

      • Bart Kamp, can you identify when you first made this comment at Ed Forum?

        Bart Kamp Posted 16 April 2016 – 04:04 PM
        “The only thing I have found that speaks of a delayed entry of Baker is Eddie Piper’s WC testimony. . . .Still this is no dead cert, but someone like Buell Frazier could confirm this whether Baker went in right away or had a little powwow outside with Roy Truly first.
        Need more evidence.”

        http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21771&page=13

        What evolved from then until you returned to this sight this month with such certitude when at some point you appear to be on the fence whether or not Baker, having dropped his bike and rushed in the direction of the building, went straight up the steps and into the building? You’ve been commenting with such vehemence I’m wondering what specific evidence now bolsters your confidence? If Baker did not pass Oswald on the landing outside the building but encountered him inside, obviously you have to slow Baker down a bit. I presume that is a lynch pink in defence of the entire hypothesis, simply put: ‘Oswald had been on the landing, he is seen as Prayer Man in the film, but he went back in before Baker ascended the steps, meaning Baker did not pass him on the landing’ . . . because if he did, we know the entire theory is in jeopardy.

        Which brings us back to the argument – I believe it is Bob’s or perhaps George’s (all of your comments are blending together, imv) that Oswald only “ducked” out for a short length of time and ducked back into the building — despite Boohout’s official report indicating Oswald told law enforcement he was out with Bill Shelley in front, standing 5 or 10 minutes.

        And as noted in another comment today, on the Ed Forum we have Bob Prudhomme’s interpretation of Shelley’s testimony. Could we have yours as well?

        “Mr. BALL – How did you happen to see Truly?
        Mr. SHELLEY – We ran out on the island while some of the people that were out watching it from our building were walking back and we turned around and we saw an officer and Truly.

        Mr. BALL – And Truly?
        
Mr. SHELLEY – Yes.

        Mr. BALL – Did you see them go into the building?

        Mr. SHELLEY – No; we didn’t watch that long but they were at the first step like they were fixin’ to go in.

        Mr. BALL – Were they moving at the time, walking or running?

        Mr. SHELLEY – Well, they were moving, yes.

        Mr. BALL – Were they running?
        
Mr. SHELLEY – That, I couldn’t swear to; there were so many people around.”

        This contradicts the testimony of Billy Lovelady below: [Bob Prudhomme]

        Mr. BALL – By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building?
        Mr. LOVELADY – As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building.”

        Bart, as you have stated repeatedly, timing is everything. Can you present your Baker timing in a series of succinct bullet points?

        • bart kamp says:

          check Chris Davidson’s gif at EF it clearly shows Baker not going to the stairs but past them
          Molina and BWF saw Truly but not Baker go in
          Only Pauline Sanders did and she was Truly’S secretary.

          In a week or two there will be a massive article about this and the 2nd fl lunchroom encounter

          • What a simple response, which presumes I haven’t looked at Davidson’s “gif”. I have, and I don’t see what you or he tells me I should see. I see the possibility that Baker recognized there was a mash up to his left so he navigated further to the right where he saw an opening on the steps. It’s your subjective argument vs. my subjective argument because we do not have footage to confirm either. We do agree on that point, surely? You and your team have Baker pausing to powwow with Truly, or even more incredible, going to the corner of the building (did he know there was a fire escape on the east end?) when it is just as plausible that he did not stop in midstream and that he and Truly continued their rush into the building.

            “In a week or two there will be a massive article about this and the 2nd fl lunchroom encounter . . .

            You’re such a tease Bart.

            On the one hand you and your cohort Greg insist this site is amateur, and on the other hand you bring this amateurish response to a serious question. What is the time line of Baker dropping his ride, rushing toward the steps, entering the building? A series of single sentence answers should cover the territory.

            Otherwise I contend you and Greg and the team have initiated a Big Bluff on this site to stall until and if you have your beans in a row. No problem, if you have strong evidence, but this “promo” of “coming attraction” smacks of vaudeville and denigrates the efforts of hundreds who for decades have pursued precisely was behind the conspiracy to murder the President of the United.States. You and yours apparently will be satisfied if you can prove Oswald was outside the building; others have known for decades that Oswald did not shoot Kennedy; we’ve been looking far beyond that murky corner of the landing that you’re obsessed with. And please don’t tell me I don’t understand the big picture: I do. Believe me I do. Beginning with Henry Wade did not send Oswald to Minsk, did not orchestrate his activities in NOLA, and did not position him in the building at 411 Elm and all permutations of evidence in between.

  30. Bob Prudhomme says:

    From the WC testimony of Geneva Hine:

    “Mr. BALL. Did you see Mrs. Reid come back in?
    Miss HINE. Yes, sir; I think I felt sure that I did. I thought that there were five or six that came in together. I thought she was one of those.
    Mr. BALL. Mrs. Reid told us she came in alone and when she came in she didn’t see anybody there.
    Miss HINE. Well, it could be that she did, sir. I was talking on the phones and then came the policemen and then came the press. Everybody was wanting an outside line and then our vice president came in and he said “The next one that was clear, I have to have it and so I was busy with the phone.
    Mr. BALL. From the time you walked into the room you became immediately busy with the phone?
    Miss HINE. Yes, sir; sure was.
    Mr. BALL. Did you see Oswald come in?
    Miss HINE. My back would have been to the door he was supposed to have come in at.
    Mr. BALL. Were you facing the door he is supposed to have left by?
    Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BALL. Do you recall seeing him?
    Miss HINE. No, sir.
    Mr. BALL. Do you have any definite recollection of Mrs. Reid coming in?
    Miss HINE. No, sir; I only saw four or five people that came by and they all came and were all talking about how terrible it was.
    Mr. BALL. Do you remember their names?
    Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BALL. Who were they?
    Miss HINE. Mr. Williams, Mr. Molina (spelling), Miss Martha Reid, Mrs. Reid, Mrs. Sarah Stanton, and Mr. Campbell; that’s all I recall, sir.”

    Note that while Miss Hine named Mrs. Reid as one of a group of people (including Joe Molina) that came back to the 2nd floor following the shooting, she did not see Oswald leave the upstairs office, despite the fact she would have been facing the door he exited through.

    • Bart Kamp says:

      Bob I already tried to point this out to Whitten who did not twig it and complained about her testimony appearing 5x here. Rather preferred to be extremely shortsighted and point out contradictions.

      His nitpicking would make MacAdams jealous…..no really!

      Hine did not leave the 2nd floor, Reid did, geddit?
      Hine tried not to trip up Reid during her testimony.

      Whitten and Sharp are not up to this, and Scully has an anti ROKC agenda. Adain all this is Scully’s design.

      Jeff! Pay attention to what is going on here, it is much deeper than is being said here.

      • Tom S. says:

        Adain all this is Scully’s design.

        Jeff! Pay attention to what is going on here, it is much deeper than is being said here.

        Brilliant, Bart! One question though, how do your concerns mesh with this? :

        http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&p=300143
        Ian LLoyd – Posted 08 April 2015 – 08:06 AM
        …..
        I’m not trying to be clever or awkward, just trying to work out the PM and Shelley conundrum in my own mind – I’ve probably missed the absolutely positive ID of Shelley somewhere along the line.

        2013: Research of Tom S. results in undisputed identification of Bill Shelley.
        http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t388p570-prayer-man-on-the-education-forum#4878

        2016:

        Adain all this is Scully’s design.

        You credit me with extraordinary duplicity and diabolical strategy. What is your next accusation going to be, that my latest disinfo Op is leveled at a sincere, innocent Dean Emeritus of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism?

        On display lately in the discussion threads at JFKfacts.org is an interesting example of the lengths to which an agenda will drive a likeminded group to declare the darndest opinions.

        Bart, now you’ve topped the current “Comment of the week” !

        • Bart Kamp says:

          Why is that every time you are put to the task you end up on a smoke and mirrors exercise?
          None of this has anything to do with what I pointed out, and it isn’t the first nor the second time either.

          You move my post yet you let Bill Kelley call us PM disciples, whereas my remark was just a question, a legitimate one if I may add, he did blag a free book and to this day hasn’t bothered posting a review good or bad……

          And again you have to throw all this stuff in like a set of medals. Does anyone besides you care?
          Want kudos for ‘discovering’ Shelley?
          Bravo Tom!!!!!!
          And what did ROKC do since then…pfff I could fill this whole thread with its achievements. No time for backslapping, we have plenty of irons in the fire as we speak and all to be revealed in due course and even the tiniest beats any of your low quality data dumps!

          See your ‘game’ is very transparent and it NEVER deals with the issue(s) at hand, you rather bomb the thread with all kinds of irrelevant toss.0

          ‘Awesome’ job Thomas, real ‘good’!

          Comment of week, assign it to me, go ahead sunshine it would just show how much of an agenda you have, I mean singling out Lee’s post is already plenty of proof of your spite, add me to it.

          You are a real internet warrior Scully!

      • ” . . . Sharp [is] not up to this . . .”

        “Sharp” is still waiting for a clear statement of fact, Kamp. Once you present a concise argument, start wherever you wish but (and call me old fashioned) I think at the beginning might be the most effective. A beginning, a middle, and an end, just like in English class when you were a kid. Tell us the story of the Prayer Man. Then we
        ll see if Sharp is up to it, Kamp.

    • Do you realize how many times this testimony has been presented on the blog Mr Prudnomme? This could be the 7th or even the 8th time now.

      It is NOT going to change!! It is still the same contradictory testimony it was the first time it was shown here.

      **Mr. BALL: Do you have any definite recollection of Mrs. Reid coming in?
      **Miss HINE: “No, sir..”

      Hine responds to a direct question from Ball that she had no “definite recollection of Mrs. Reid coming in”

      And now you want us to consider that maybe it was Mrs Reid that was lying?!?!?

      You say:
      This leaves us three possibilities.
      1. Mrs. Reid is lying about how quickly she returned to the 2nd floor.

      **Her testimony is that immediately after hearing the gunshots and looking up she got frightened and ran back into the building, reaching he office no later than a minute and a half after the shots were fired.
      http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/pdf/WH3_Reid.pdf
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      “2. Baker is lying, and entered the TSBD much later than the WCR would have us believe. This would, of course, nullify the 2nd floor lunch room encounter unless, of course, Oswald stayed on the 2nd floor much longer than we are told.”~Prudhomme
      . . .
      This film that shows Baker sprinting to the front and pushing his way into the building can be easily seen in the Darnell film as being at the same time that Weigman filmed the so-called Prayerman image:

      https://youtu.be/xnhKsIVCd00

      \\][//

      • Bart Kamp says:

        1/Reid lied
        Period!
        2/Baker lied
        Period
        3/Baker did not go on to those steps as you think you see, for that I refer you to the gif by Chris Davidson at EF

        You jumped in this puddle with both feet and boy did you make a nasty landing…..get up and walk away.

        • “Baker did not go on to those steps as you think you see”~Bart Kamp

          As I “THINK I SEE”?

          This takes the cake in audacity Kamp.

          It is as clear as a bell that the officer, who can ONLY be Baker runs through the crowd and up those steps where your mystery man in standing. Same time, same place, same steps.
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Once again, Willy, please point out the part of the Darnell film in which Baker ascends the steps of the TSBD.

            P.S.

            Drug induced hallucinations do not count.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Please point out the part of the Darnell film that shows Baker “pushing his way into the building” or, for that matter, even pushing his way up the stairs.

        It is quite hypocritical, on your part, to demand absolute proof of the ID of Prayer Man, yet you see nothing wrong with the wholesale assumption that Baker actually ascended the TSBD stairs immediately after crossing the Elm St. extension.

        “Mr. BALL. Did you see Mr. Truly go into the building?
        Mr. MOLINA. Yes.
        Mr. BALL. Where were you when you saw him go into the building?
        Mr. MOLINA. I was right in the entrance.
        Mr. BALL. Did you see a police officer with him?
        Mr. MOLINA. I didn’t see a police officer. I don’t recall seeing a police officer but I did see him go inside.
        Mr. BALL. Did you see a white-helmeted police officer any time there in the entrance?
        Mr. MOLINA. Well, of course, there might have been one after they secured the building, you know.”

        “Mr. BALL – Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?
        Mr. FRAZIER – You mean somebody other that didn’t work there?
        Mr. BALL – A police officer.
        Mr. FRAZIER – No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worked there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn’t eat our lunch, and so we stared back into the Building and it wasn’t but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.
        Mr. BALL – Then you went back into the Building, did you?
        Mr. FRAZIER – Right.”

        Geneva Hine specifically named Mrs. Reid as one of a group, including Joe Molina, who returned to the 2nd floor.

        Are you trying to say Geneva Hine was lying?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Besides, Willy, don’t you think you might have an over active imagination? Do you actually see Baker pushing anyone, even as he is crossing the street?

          Let us try to keep our feet on the ground, and stick to what really happened.

          • “Let us try to keep our feet on the ground, and stick to what really happened.”~Prudhomme

            Let us as well be reasonable and adhere to common physics Bob.
            Certainly you know what trajectory and momentum is. Baker was running full speed sprint to those steps, it is physically impossible to stop instantly mid flight like that. He was running directly to those steps, he goes out of frame.

            It is up to you to rebut general Newtonian physics, if you are trying to claim that Baker did not continue his trajectory up those steps. This is the face of his own testimony, and Roy Truly’s testimony, and the LACK OF any direct testimony to the contrary.
            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Newtonian Schmewtonian. You have not one iota of proof Baker went up the steps after crossing the street.

            I recommend you visit the Education Forum/ JFK Debate and look at this thread:

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22784&page=1

            The name of the thread is “Officer Marrion Baker’s mad dash for the….Dal-Tex Building”. Sandy Larsen quite meticulously analyzes the Darnell film, frame by frame, and points out that Baker was still in the street and running parallel to the sidewalk; hardly something he would be doing if he planned to go up the steps.

            I imagine you will find this thread quite a change, as this is the kind of work real researchers do.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            BTW, Willy, you still haven’t told me which part of the Darnell film to look for Baker going up the stairs in, or pushing people out of the way. Perhaps you saw it in a dream?

        • “Are you trying to say Geneva Hine was lying?”~Bob Prudhomme

          Let her testimony speak for itself. No I don’t think she as lying, I think she was confused. You seem to have joined the club of calling everyone liars that don’t spout the poop you want to eat.
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Oh no, Willy, not the “confused witness” card. That has to be the lamest tool in the entire Lone Nutter war chest.

            I really expected better of you.

    • I think that the forum is being given the false impression that Miss Hine never left her office on the 2nd floor. After the shots were fired she did indeed leave that office, trying to find a window to look from to see what was happening:

      [from WCR pg. 396]:

      …Elm away from where his car had gone and my fl:st thought was if I could only see what happened, so I went out our front door into the foyer.
      Mr. BALL. You mean the front door to the office?
      Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
      Mr. BALL. That opens on
      Miss HINE. The foyer, little hall, and
      Mr. BALL. Steps lead down?
      Miss HINE. Yes, sir; but there is a door before the steps and the elevator is to my left and I went past the hall that goes to my right and I knocked on the door of Lyons and Carnahan ; that’s a publishing company.
      Mr. BALL. What did you do then?
      Miss HINE. I tried the door, sir, and it was locked and I couldn’t get in and I called, “Lee, please let me in,” because she’s the girl that had that office, Mrs. Lee Watley, and she didn’t answer. I don’t know if she was there or not, then I left her door. I retraced my steps back to where the hall turns to my left and went down it to Southwestern Publishing Co.% door and I tried their door and the reason for this was because those windows face out.
      Mr. BALK. On to Elm?
      Miss HINE. Yes ; and on to the triple underpass.
      Mr. BALL. I see.
      Miss HINE. And there was a girl in there talking on the telephone and I could hear her but she didn’t answer the door….

      http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Hine.pdf

      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        The only thing the testimony of Geneva Hine does, as it relates to her absence from her desk following the shots, is lengthen the period of time it took for Mrs. Reid to get back to the 2nd floor, as she specifically named Joe Molina and Mrs. Reid as part of a group that came in after she was back at her desk answering phones.

        Here is a little more of Geneva Hine’s WC testimony:

        “Miss HINE. I called and called and shook the door and she didn’t answer me because she was talking on the telephone; I could hear her. They have a little curtain up and I could see her form through the curtains. I could see her talking and I knew that’s what she was doing and then I turned and went through the back hall and came through the back door.
        Mr. BALL. Of your office, the second floor office?
        Miss HINE. Yes; and I went straight up to the desk because the telephones were beginning to wink; outside calls were beginning to come in.
        Mr. BALL. Did they come in rapidly?
        Miss HINE They did come in rapidly.
        Mr. BALL. When you came back in did you see Mrs. Reid?
        Miss HINE. No, sir; I don’t believe there was a soul in the office when I came back in right then.
        Mr. BALL. Did you see anybody else go in through there?
        Miss HINE. No, sir; after I answered the telephone then there was about four or five people that came in.”

        Note that Miss Hine believed she was alone in the office when she returned to her desk, and it was then that the group including Mrs. Reid came into the office.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          You see, Willy, by telling us Geneva Hine did not stay at her desk following the shots (which, by the way, is true) I believe you are inferring Mrs. Reid returned to the 2nd floor while Geneva Hine was pounding on the door of Southwest Publishing Co.

          Am I correct?

          If tat’s the best you can do, here is a question for you. As the 2nd floor office of the TSBD was one large open room, where was Mrs. Reid hiding when Geneva Hine returned to her desk?

          http://alt.assassination.jfk.uncensored.narkive.com/UIY2kqX2/oswald-was-stopped-at-the-tsbd-front-entrance:i.1.1.full

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Of course, though, Geneva Hine believing she was alone in the 2nd floor office, when she returned to her desk, might just be more of her “confusion”, right, Willy?

          My Lord, so many confused people in Dealey Plaza that day. Could it have been something in the water?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Unfortunately I have taken a sip from a fountain at the 6th floor museum more than once. It tasted of coke. It made me feel like a lone nut, was I the only one there that thought it was a conspiracy? That a poorer shot than I could have done this?
            Then I went to the Grassy Knoll and had an awakening, Robert Groden was present.
            Behind the fence I thought, Fish in a barrel?

      • George says:

        Hine of course, is not part of the cover-up and therefore has no idea that what she describes here

        Mr. BALL. You mean the front door to the office?
        Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
        Mr. BALL. That opens on
        Miss HINE. The foyer, little hall, and

        Is what Truly wants everyone to believe is called a vestibule by everyone in the building.

        Also the fact that she went to a window for a second has no impact on her description of seeing Reid come up with 4 others. Nor does it impact her non-sighting of Oswald.

        The police inside the building were tasked with identifying the most important witnesses and getting their statements straight away. If Mrs. Reid’s story was true, she should have been in this “immediate” category. Yet her statement was not taken until the next day – after the 2nd floor story was invented.

        • Tom S. says:

          If Mrs. Reid’s story was true, she should have been in this “immediate” category. Yet her statement was not taken until the next day – after the 2nd floor story was invented.

          “…Mr. BALL. That was which company?
          Miss HINE. Southwestern Publishing Co.
          Mr. BALL. Did you call to her?
          Miss HINE. I called and called and shook the door and she didn’t answer me because she was talking on the telephone; I could hear her. They have a little curtain up and I could see her form through the curtains. I could see her talking and I knew that’s what she was doing and then I turned and went through the back hall and came through the back door.
          Mr. BALL. Of your office, the second floor office?
          Miss HINE. Yes; and I went straight up to the desk because the telephones were beginning to wink; outside calls were beginning to come in.
          Mr. BALL. Did they come in rapidly?
          Miss HINE They did come in rapidly.
          Mr. BALL. When you came back in did you see Mrs. Reid?
          Miss HINE. No, sir; I don’t believe there was a soul in the office when I came back in right then.
          Mr. BALL. Did you see anybody else go in through there?
          Miss HINE. No, sir; after I answered the telephone then there was about four or five people that came in.
          Mr. BALL. Was there anybody in that room when you came back in and went to the telephone?

          396

          Miss HINE. No, sir; not to my knowledge.
          Mr. BALL. Did you see Mrs. Reid come back in?
          Miss HINE. Yes, sir; I think I felt sure that I did. I thought that there were five or six that came in together. I thought she was one of those.
          Mr. BALL. Mrs. Reid told us she came in alone and when she came in she didn’t see anybody there.
          Miss HINE. Well, it could be that she did, sir. I was talking on the phones and then came the policemen and then came the press. Everybody was wanting an outside line and then our vice president came in and he said “The next one that was clear, I have to have it and so I was busy with the phone.
          Mr. BALL. From the time you walked into the room you became immediately busy with the phone?
          Miss HINE. Yes, sir; sure was.
          Mr. BALL. Did you see Oswald come in?
          Miss HINE. My back would have been to the door he was supposed to have come in at.
          Mr. BALL. Were you facing the door he is supposed to have left by?…”

          You assert what is “invented”. You misrepresent what Miss Hine was or was not certain of. Repeating your claims has
          little effect. The actual record of who stated what, when, will not bend far enough to support your interpretations.

          • George says:

            Tom, if people are asked a question multiple times and answer it the same way each time, they eventually understand they need to change their answer. There are other examples in the volumes.

            Eddie Piper was dragged back for a second grilling after being unable to say he saw Baker come in with Truly. He wisely changed his tune the second time around.

            Hine merely conceded she was not percent on it – but then immediately (once again) named Reid as one of those she had seen. There is also her lack of seeing Oswald – a fact none of you ever seem to want to talk about…

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Greg

            As I pointed out in a response further down, Miss Hine is not confused at all. She is merely attempting to answer the questions as meticulously as possible.

            No, she did not see Mrs. Reid come in, for the simple fact she had her back to the entrance, and “coming in” to her meant passing through the entrance.

            However, she did specifically see Mrs. Reid pass by her in a group of five or six people which included the wandering Joe Molina.

            As I have pointed out, the 2nd floor office of the TSBD was one large open room with very few hiding spots. If Geneva Hine found herself still quite alone in that office, after returning to her desk, Mrs. Reid had to come back to the 2nd floor office well after Geneva started answering phones.

            And Geneva never saw Oswald leaving the office, despite the fact he would have been right in front of her, and close enough to touch.

          • bart kamp says:

            Reid was full of it
            Oswald wearing a tshirt?
            Coke?

            But it gets better as I have pointed out about the coincidence of Reid and Sanders and their convo with OV Campbell

            read more and check the documentation
            http://www.prayer-man.com/pauline-sanders-mrs-robert-reid-and-o-v-campbell/

  31. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Here is a skill testing question for you, Willy.

    Name all of the witnesses who saw Baker entering the front entrance of the TSBD.

    • Baker himself says he entered the building:

      https://i2.wp.com/jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0430-001.gif

      Truly confirms Baker in this affidavit:

      http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0487-001.gif
      . . . .

      So now what Prudhomme? Not only Mrs Reid, but Baker and Truly are liars?
      \\][//

      • Tom S. says:

        I ask commentors who they expect their audience is for interpretations thinly or unsupported. Some reply that they do not consider the question before they submit an opinion or interpretation. Do people talk, post, or submit comments simply for the exercise? Attempt to put yourself in a reader’s place. What separates reading what can reasonably be dismissed as nonsense from reading of verifiable claims? What is the intent in presenting what can not be supported and is contradicted by the verifiable record?

        Is it mostly a set up as a basis for claims of unfair treatment or of a conspiracy to silence or to dicredit the teller of unverifiable interpretations supporting unverifiable interpretations of available filmed images?

        George also maintains he is making no extraordinary claims. A much stronger claim than that is that it seems an observable fact from comments submitted to this website since April 17th that the agenda of George and his group is other than attempting to convince JFKfacts.org readers that Oswald was prayer man. Would a less influential impression be made on JFKfacts.org readers if these alleged Oswald was PM proponents were projecting “on message,” cordial, patient, friendly, and accomodating demeanors?

        Either these “messengers” are entirely wrong in their roles of “Oswald was PM” proponents, are they actually are not PM theory proponents. If they are the latter, what are they, and what do they want of JFKfacts.org readers?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          I find your comments a bit odd, Tom. Just how many things in the JFK case can be dismissed or verified?

          • “I find your comments a bit odd, Tom. Just how many things in the JFK case can be dismissed or verified?”~Prudhomme

            I find YOUR comments to be a bit odd Bob. How many things can be dismissed or verified looks like it depends on how biased you are.
            And since Bob has chosen to carry water for the Prayerman crew, he is speaking in the same biased language that they are.

            Why didn’t Oswald say he was outside on the steps when the shots were fired Bob?
            He claimed he was in the building at the press conference at DPD.
            These are some of the few verified words of Oswald himself.
            If you are going to claim now that Oswald was lying too … why would he lie about something that would totally vindicate him?
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Willy, Bob is certainly not alone in presenting as if he fails to grasp that the record is the accepted proof of those who are actually in any position to make an appreciable difference, i.e., drive opinion summoning the political will required to reopen the investigation. Oliver Stone and the screenplay he coauthored with Zacharly Sklar were the last impetus for such Sea change.

            The burden does not rest on anyone called out by Bob or George to “prove” Baker climbed the TSBD front steps and entered the building when he said he did. They are free to demand whatever they please of their readers, but are their demands, or their expectations for that matter, at all reasonable? The vast majority in the U.S. either respond no, or have not noticed their demands. This is the record and their reactions are their reactions, but unless they can drive a Sea change, as Stone managed in late 1991, what are reasonable presentations and expectations.

            Expectations are extraordinary.

            An observation reinforced by overwhelming anecdotal observation; no Sea change in the forecast.

            http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:wFn-6M405FoJ:jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-warren-commission/+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
            Bob Prudhomme – May 13, 2015 at 12:16 pm

            Your beliefs are based on a number o assumptions, none of which can be proven.
            1. We have only Fritz’s hand written notes to tell us where Oswald was at the time of the shooting. Did you know Fritz wrote these notes a week after the assassination, and attempted to make them look like hastily jotted down notes?
            2. We have only Officer Baker’s and Roy Truly’s testimony placing Oswald in the second floor lunch room. Did you know that Baker’s first day statement placed this incident on the third or fourth floor, included no lunch room, and only spoke of a man walking away from the stairs?
            3. Given that your placing of Oswald is based on assumptions, he could have been anywhere in the TSBD, and known far more about the assassination than you are assuming.

            Okay, Bob, it is almost exactly one year since you posted the text displayed above this sentence. How are you
            projecting appreciable influence, how is the ROKC group projecting appreciable influence, Oliver Stone’s JFK, the movie, being a realistic benchmark of comparison in effecting appreciable influence?

            Consider also that Frazier’s son is alive and taking an increased role and interest in representing his father’s views and claims.

            You do not even have the advantage of the most prominent name in the research of your favorite
            theory, Sean Murphy, speaking or doing anything detectable at all to further your goals.

            The author of the most prominent book related to your favorite theory, Stan Dane, where is he? Does Mr. Dane have a professional publicist? What is the name of the publicist’s firm?

            Is their a youtube video of an interview of Stan Dane discussing his book and details of the research that went into its publication?

        • George says:

          Sorry Tom. I don’t have an interpreter handy. Would you like to try and rephrase a couple of those statements for clarity?

          “I ask commentors who they expect their audience is for interpretations thinly or unsupported.” Willy will tell you that what I just copied is not a proper sentence and is unintelligible.

          “What separates reading what can reasonably be dismissed as nonsense from reading of verifiable claims?”

          Nonsense according to you as Omnipotent Hall Monitor and not subject to anything as tacky as objectivity but rather, personal bias and enmity.

          You have zero personal insight, Tom.

          You immediately set out to pick a fight when you moved posts for a bunch of reasons that only you could understand and since then you have constantly allowed others to post the most outlandish claims and name calling. These matters only become an issue when there is any sort of “return fire”.

          “Is it mostly a set up as a basis for claims of unfair treatment or of a conspiracy to silence or to dicredit the teller of unverifiable interpretations supporting unverifiable interpretations of available filmed images?” Tom

          More unintelligible gibberish which your loyal fans and psuedo-grammarians will turn a blind eye to while continuing to look for misplaced commas in everything I send.

          I don’t give a rat’s patootie what you believe. I came here in peace. I did not come looking for a fight. But nor will I ever back away from one. I push back, Tom. Don’t like it, block me. But do note that every time I am addressed in a reasonable way, I reply in kind.

          • “I don’t give a rat’s patootie what you believe. I came here in peace. I did not come looking for a fight.”~Greg the George Parker

            Nonsense. This assertion is belied by the bulk of your postings here. You came here all fire and brimstone, and you are still spewing it.
            \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Unfortunately, this appears to be the case.

      • Vanessa says:

        Willy

        Below is Officer Baker’s WC testimony about seeing LHO at police headquarters:

        Representative BOGGS -Let me ask one other question. You later, when you recognized this man as Lee Oswald, is that right, saw pictures of him?

        Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir. I had occasion to see him in the homicide office later that evening after we got through with Parkland Hospital and then Love Field and we went back to the City Hall and I went up there and made this affidavit.

        Representative BOGGS -After he had been arrested?

        Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir.

        So Baker has seen Oswald after he was arrested and before Baker made his affidavit.

        If Oswald is the man Baker saw ‘walking away from him on the 3rd or 4th floor’ why doesn’t he identify him as the man who has been arrested?

        Boggs says “when you recognised this man Lee Oswald”.

        If Baker recognised Oswald as the 3rd or 4th floor man why doesn’t he name him in his affidavit?

        • Just one more thing here, so that everyone can get a sense of the context this exchange with Boggs and Baker was in:

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm

          Representative BOGGS -After he had been arrested?
          Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir.
          Mr. DULLES – Could you tell us anything more about his appearance, what he was doing, get an impression of the man at all? Did he seem to be hurrying, anything of that kind?
          Mr. BAKER – Evidently he was hurrying because at this point here, I was running, and I ran on over here to this door.
          Mr. BELIN – What door number on that?
          Mr. BAKER – This would be 23.
          Mr. BELIN – All right.
          Mr. BAKER – And at that position there he was already down here some 20 feet away from me.
          Representative BOGGS -When you saw him, was he out of breath, did he appear to have been running or what?
          Mr. BAKER – It didn’t appear that to me. He appeared normal you know.
          Representative BOGGS -Was he calm and collected?
          Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir. He never did say a word or nothing. In fact, he didn’t change his expression one bit.
          Mr. BELIN – Did he flinch in anyway when you put the gun up in his face?
          Mr. BAKER – No, sir.
          Mr. DULLES – There is no testimony that he put the gun up in his face.
          Mr. BAKER – I had my gun talking to him like this.
          Mr. DULLES – Yes.
          Mr. BELIN – How close was your gun to him if it wasn’t the face whatever part of the body it was?
          Mr. BAKER – About as far from me to you.
          Mr. BELIN – That would be about how far?
          Mr. BAKER – Approximately 3 feet.
          Mr. BELIN – Did you notice, did he say anything or was there any expression after Mr. Truly said he worked here?
          Mr. BAKER – At that time I never did look back toward him. After he says, “Yes, he works here,” I turned immediately and run on up, I halfway turned then when I was talking to Mr. Truly.
          . . . . .
          The illustration at the link below shows where this encounter between Baker and Oswald took place, at the doorway to the 2nd floor lunchroom:

          https://i2.wp.com/www.whokilledjfk.net/images/altgen10.jpg

          \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            All well and good Willy.

            But why didn’t Baker NAME Oswald in his 1st day affidavit if Oswald was the man Baker identified at the DPD?

    • John Rowell says:

      Only a fool, or group of fools, would willingly disregard exculpatory evidence provided by the authorities. The second floor encounter is the best we have with regards to an alibi for Oswald, BECAUSE it was entered into evidence by an entity having no interest in providing it. I, for one, am not willing to discard Baker and Truly’s testimony and replace it with blurry speculation. Period.

  32. “Name all of the witnesses who saw Baker entering the front entrance of the TSBD.”~Bob Prudhomme

    The only witness who counts Bob – myself, I can see it perfectly clear on this video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhKsIVCd00&feature=youtu.be

    If you can’t Bob, you need new eyeglasses.
    \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      You are making a fool of yourself, Willy. We both know the Darnell film stops before Baker is even on the sidewalk.

      You really have not researched the witness testimony in order to find out who saw Baker go up the stairs.

      Do you do any research at all, or just watch Youtube videos?

      • “You are making a fool of yourself, Willy. We both know the Darnell film stops before Baker is even on the sidewalk.” ~Prudhomme

        No we both do not know that Bob. Baker certainly reached the bottom of the steps before the end of the frame.

        “Do you do any research at all, or just watch Youtube videos?”~Prudhomme

        A comment like this isn’t worth answering, it is an insult framed as a question. Now I have never found Mr Prudhomme to be the sharpest tool in the shed, but he is reaching rock bottom on this thread.
        \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          At least I take the time to research my material
          , Willy, a step in the procedure you have clearly elected to omit.

          Baker was still out in the street at the end of the Darnell film, with a great big old wide sidewalk, at least ten feet wide, between him and the steps.

          Once again, you have not one iota of proof that Baker went up the stairs after crossing the street. nd wishful thinking simply won’t change that.

          • “Once again, you have not one iota of proof that Baker went up the stairs after crossing the street. nd wishful thinking simply won’t change that.”~Prudhomme

            Preposterous Bob. We have Baker’s own testimony, we have Truly’s testimony. In both first day and second day affidavits and Warren commission testimonies.

            And you are continuing to use hearsay from the so-called interrogation of Oswald.

            Oswald’s own words put him in the building.
            Address that fact without your standard waffle.
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Baker may have ran up the steps but would have to have stopped or slowed down as he opened and entered the door into the vestibule.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Are you seriously going to quote from Baker’s first day statement, Willy? The one in which e encountered a man walking away from the stairs on the 3rd or 4th floor? The one which makes no mention of a 2nd floor lunch room encounter? The one he wrote out mere feet from Oswald, yet did not recognize the “cop killer” as the man he had confronted in the TSBD?

            BTW, how is it coming with the witness list for Baker’s rapid entry into the TSBD? I’ll even give you some clues: Shelley, Lovelady, Sanders, Piper.

            See if you can find a Youtube video on one of them.

          • John Rowell says:

            Bob, if an individual testifies that he engaged in actions “x then y,” video evidence of that individual engaging in action “x” is supporting evidence. The fact that the means by which the same individual accomplishes action “y” can be seen in the same video evidence only serves to buttress that testimony. The only party here guilty of wishful thinking is you.

            You are basing your argument on unsupported eyewitness testimony, which we now know must be taken with a grain of salt.

  33. Now, I want to point out that Oswald said himself that he was in the building when asked by the reporters in the DPD hallways, during a press conference.

    If he were outside on the steps when the shots were fired, why didn’t he say so then and there?

    Several others including Ms Sharp have pointed this out. No one in the Prayerman team has addressed this:

    Why didn’t Oswald say he was out on the steps when the shots were fired?

    What? He had a brainfart and forgot? It would be the perfect alibi. If he was outside when the shots were fired he would have said so.
    \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      “out in front with Bill Shelley”

      I believe Oswald did try to tell everyone where he was, Willy.

      Of course, though, Oswald could have said anything during the interrogation. As nothing was recorded, all we have to go on is hearsay from that interrogation, or notes written by Fritz months after the interrogation took place.

      • “out in front with Bill Shelley”~Bob Prodhomme

        Those are not Oswald’s own words Bob. That is what it is REPORTED by others that he said, as you just admitted yourself.

        Why didn’t Oswald say it himself at the press conference?
        \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Oh Willy, what a tangled web you weave when you try to be clever.

          “out in front with Bill Shelley”

          Are you not aware those are the hand written words of the great Detective Will Fritz, pride of the DPD? Surely, you are not calling him a fabricator and possibly even *GASP* a >LIAR< ?

          Here is a REALLY dumb question, and I would like you to put some thought into it before replying.

          WHY would Det. Will Fritz tell a lie about Oswald that would give Oswald a possible alibi, and put him somewhere besides the 6th floor at the time of the shooting?

          • Bob, I have already told you my position on hearsay, whether it is from Fritz, or Holmes, or any other source.

            You are requesting that I ruminate about such hearsay. I will leave that to you Bob, it is obviously your specialty.
            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Ahh, Willy, you blocked out the main part of my post.

            Okay, try to keep up here.

            1. Detective Will Fritz wrote in his notes “out in front with Bill Shelley”
            2. Being a detective with the DPD, Fritz just MIGHT be intent on getting Oswald convicted, and would not readily provide Oswald with an alibi.
            3. If Oswald did not actually say it, Fritz writing “out with Bill Shelley in front” would be a fabrication or, worse, an outright lie.
            4. Call it hearsay, or whatever you want, don’t you find this a very strange thing for Fritz to write in his notes, considering it has the potential to give Oswald an alibi?

            Who knows? These notes were not written at the time of the interrogation. Did Fritz eventually get a guilty conscience over Oswald being railroaded, and left a cryptic message in his notes (discovered after his death) that would exonerate Oswald?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bob, Fritz’s notes don’t say that Oswald placed himself outside with Shelley at the time of the shooting. That’s your assumption. His notes read:

            claims 2nd floor Coke when
            off came in
            to 1st floor had lunch
            out with Bill Shelley in
            front

            This agrees with FBI agent Bookhout’s 11/22 report, which specifically says that Oswald mentioned the 2nd floor lunch-room encounter, then having lunch on the 1st floor and then:

            “Oswald told Fritz that after lunch he went outside, talked with Foreman Bill Shelley for 5 or 10 minutes and then left for home….”

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946&search=bookhout#relPageId=643&tab=page

            Since Baker got there after the shooting, this had to be after the shooting. No help to Oswald, sorry.

          • Tom S. says:

            Jean, its heads they win, tails you lose. None of the witness testimony detail is reliable unless they endorse it. So many lived out the rest of their lives silently suffering because the consequence of their perjury was that those responsible for the assassination of JFK were not identified or even suspected.

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
            …..
            Mr. BALL. On November 22, 1963, the day the President was shot, when is the last time you saw Oswald?
            Mr. SHELLEY. It was 10 or 15 minutes before 12.
            Mr. BALL. Where?
            Mr. SHELLEY. On the first floor over near the telephone.
            Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him again?
            Mr. SHELLEY. At the police station when they brought him in.

          • WHY would Fritz write, in his own handwriting, “out in front with Bill Shelley” if this was not something told to him by Oswald? . . . If Oswald did not actually say it, Fritz writing “out with Bill Shelley in front” would be a fabrication or, worse, an outright lie.” – Bob Prudhomme

            While it’s reasonable to think Fritz is recording Oswald’s alleged statements in context and in sequence, it is also reasonable to posit that Oswald was asked a question – a particular question – in the middle of the interrogation, perhaps to determine if Oswald knew the whereabouts of other employees, i.e. “where was Truly? or Lovelady”, and Oswald responded “out with Bill Shelley in front”. It’s a hypothesis that could easily be challenged, but no more so than yours that insists Fritz had his facts straight: Oswald said, [I was] “out with Billy Shelley in front”; your dilemma is we don’t have that “I was” clear, do we?

            So how do we know that Fritz’s note “out with Bill Shelley in front” aren’t Oswald’s response to a separate question. It’s a stretch, but a prosecutor would have to answer to the validity of notes made days after the interrogation and extract from Fritz the context of those notes. Logic might insist these were Oswald’s words, but we have no idea how (let alone if) he delivered them, under what conditions, what sequence because of the colossal failure of Fritz and his team. Then we have the FBI rowing in, puffing up the notes with detail that Fritz clearly did not note. It’s a weak soup, and only the film – of the PM in that corner and Baker rushing up the steps will support your argument. The rest is as full of as many holes as is the WC magic bullet claim.

          • Tom S. says:

            WHY would Fritz write, in his own handwriting, “out in front with Bill Shelley” if this was not something told to him by Oswald? . . . If Oswald did not actually say it, Fritz writing “out with Bill Shelley in front” would be a fabrication or, worse, an outright lie.” – Bob Prudhomme

            Bob, you are conveniently forgetting that if what you are quoting from even are in fact Fritz’s interrogation notes, you have no evidence they were offered to
            anyone by Fritz, yet you leap to, “would be a fabrication or, worse, an outright lie.”

            All of this amounts to you sharing your own incompletely thought through impressions, please conserve your outrage. Fritz never presented anything for you
            to label a lie related to interrogation notes. Fritz himself did not complete an act of deception, he offered up nothing, then he died without further comment. Your example, and your reaction to it, “would be a fabrication or, worse, an outright lie.” is all you! I asked before, what is the actual weight of it?

          • “out in front with Bill Shelley” is a dangle with absolutely no context, nor is it specifically attributed to Oswald.

            It is unbelievable that these notes by Fritz are supposed to cover ELEVEN HOURS of interrogation.
            Has everyone taken a look at this jumbled mess?

            See:
            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=29103#relPageId=1&tab=page

            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Come on, Tom, why not come right out and call Fritz’s handwritten notes a fraud, instead of beating around the bush?

            Tell me something. These handwritten notes of the interrogation by Will Fritz are now enshrined in the National Archives. Do you think they do this with every crackpot piece of “evidence” that surfaces, without first checking out its authenticity? They would look just a bit stupid if it turns out Fritz’s handwritten notes are fakes, wouldn’t they?

            So, with that in mind, I would imagine the folks at the National Archives likely had some handwriting experts compare these notes to known samples of Fritz’s handwriting, in order to verify he had actually written them, before letting these notes be admitted to the collection.

            For this reason, there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Fritz actually wrote these notes.

            Therefore, the question still stands, unanswered. WHY would Fritz write “out in front with Bill Shelley” in his interrogation notes, if Oswald had not said these words to Fritz?

          • Tom S. says:

            For this reason, there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that Fritz actually wrote these notes.

            Therefore, the question still stands, unanswered. WHY would Fritz write “out in front with Bill Shelley” in his interrogation notes, if Oswald had not said these words to Fritz?

            Bob, your intent is to call into question the testimonial record of Frazier, Shelley, Lovelady, and of Fritz himself.:

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
            …….
            Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been?
            Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
            Mr. BALL. What did he say?
            Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn’t think–I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that “I didn’t think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don’t punch a clock and they don’t keep very close time on our work and I just left.”
            …….
            Mr. BALL. And you asked him again, didn’t you, what he was doing at the time the President was shot?
            Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
            Mr. BALL. What did he say?
            Mr. FRITZ. Well, he told me about the same story about this lunch.
            Mr. BALL. He mentioned who he was having lunch with, did he not?
            Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; he told me he was having lunch when the President was shot.
            Mr. BALL. With whom?
            Mr. FRITZ. With someone called Junior, someone he worked with down there, but he didn’t remember the other boy’s name.
            Mr. BALL. Did he tell you what he was eating?
            Mr. FRITZ. He told me, I believe, that he had, I am doing this from memory, a cheese sandwich, and he also mentioned he had some fruit, I had forgotten about the fruit until I looked at this report. ….

            Bob, you quite noticeably do not make similar challenges of the provenance or chain of custody of “Fritz’s interrogation notes,” as you have done in consideration of the authenticity of CE399. I showed you that the page devoted to Fritz’s papers on the MF.org website states that Fritz himself donated
            them to NARA in the 1990’s. The “evidence” you repeatedly point readers to is presented by you as authentic beyond your own doubt although Fritz gave quite
            explicit testimony contradicting what you say you have no doubt about the weight and influence of.

            Is your declared lack of doubt reasonable? Did Fritz himself ever specifically represent what you are quoting from is what you’ve decided it is, and means?
            Do you have any proof Fritz intended to put what you are citing into the record, or anticpated anyone else would?

            You actually present nothing rising anywhere near to the weight of influence necessary to counter the testimony of the four witnesses I described in this comment. Your interpretation, anticipation, and your lack of doubt all indicate your approach and analysis are impractical. You completely abandon the burden of proof you require of CE399. You have no other choice since you’ve insisted on presenting on the strength of such meager supporting evidence, compared to the evidence in the record given by Frazier, Fritz, Lovelady, and Shelley.

          • bart kamp says:

            Out with Bill Shelley in front

            that is what it say and not your version Whitten

          • Tom S. says:

            David, your comment exceeds 500 words.:
            http://www.wordcounttool.com/

        • Max says:

          Many of us suspect that Oswald was a low-level intelligence agent, or at least an informer for the FBI….so it makes perfect sense that Oswald was not forthcoming about much of anything in public, or talkative with his interrogators.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Because nobody asked publicly where were you when the President was shot. His reported words on this come from Fritz/Bookout’s notes. The only source I know of.

      • Jean Davison says:

        QUOTE
        I believe Oswald did try to tell everyone where he was, Willy.
        UNQUOTE

        Bob, Oswald told everybody where he was.

        QUOTE
        Reporter: Did you shoot the president?
        Oswald: I work in that building.
        Reporter: Were you in the building at the time?
        Oswald: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.
        UNQUOTE

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbR6vHXD1j0

        Do “prayer man” advocates think he was lying, or what?

        Oswald held a news conference in which he said nothing about having an alibi or being outside the building. What’s the story, folks?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          And, could that be because he was not asked any questions about those things, Jean?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Jean

            Let us not play games here. You know as well as I do that there were about 30-40 reporters present at the news conference, and Oswald was being bombarded with questions.

            ” Reporter: Were you in the building at the time?

            Lee Harvey Oswald: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir. ”

            Now, Jean, take a very careful look at Oswald’s response. I hate to say it but, I don’t really think Oswald understands a) the question or b) the actual predicament he is currently in. His response tells me that it is logical he would be in that building if he worked there, and he has no clue what the reporter meant by “at the time” which is, after all, still quite vague.

            There is a very good chance Oswald did not even hear the last part of the question “at the time”. If you watch the video below, it becomes apparent quickly there were many people asking questions at the same time, as well as a number of other voices speaking of other things. To make matters worse, questions were coming at him from all different directions. Do you think e really had a chance to consider what “at the time” implied?

            Now, if a reporter had asked “Were you on the 6th floor of that building at the time President Kennedy was shot?”, he might still not clue in, should he not happen to know the 6th floor was supposedly where the shots came from.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Oops, I forgot to add the link, Jean.

        • George says:

          Firstly Jean,

          Oswald never held a news conference. What a silly thing to say.

          What you’ve posted is a bunch of rapid fire questions thrown at him as he’s a led up a hallway.

          And the so-called midnight press conference was not supposed have any questions at all. It was the police version of Show but no Tell. It got shut down as soon as he asked for legal assistance and he was hustled off for an illegal arraignment

          So — apart from all of this and the fact that he had no idea his time was limited, I guess there was no reason at all.

          Let me just add that he was not out there for any length of time. He ducked out to see what was happening and then went back in ti be seen by Campbell and Reid near the storeroom.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “What a silly thing to say.”

            Well, you knew what I was talking about, didn’t you? Ask Google to find “midnight press conference” and see who shows up.

            Oswald talked to reporters in the hallway and privately to his mother, wife, brother, and a Dallas lawyer. There’s not a peep about an alibi in their accounts, though he did advise Marina of her right not to testify. He told a reporter, “I’m just a patsy” but he couldn’t tell a soul, “I was outside at the time”?

            IMO, secondhand newspaper accounts don’t cut it, if that’s what you’re referring to with Reid and Campbell. Campbell signed a statement saying that to the best of his recollection he never saw Oswald while he was employed at the TSBD.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317&search=campbell#relPageId=668&tab=page

          • “Let me just add that he was not out there for any length of time. He ducked out to see what was happening and then went back in ti be seen by Campbell and Reid near the storeroom. – George

            He “ducked out”? George, does the film footage you have suggest that someone has just “ducked out” and ends up tucked into what appears to be the corner of that step? Does he appear to be in motion, either ducking out or ducking back in? Is it not miraculous that the one making the film caught PM standing still while he was in the process of ‘ducking’ in and out? This is complete conjecture on your part.

            There’s no reason to not pursue the original footage you believe will be solid proof that Oswald was standing outside the building; the ‘mistake or misstep’ I believe has been a premature and reckless presentation, at least on this site. I recognize the anxiety of having devoted 7 years – some of us many more – and deciding you’ve cracked the case if only you could just get your hands on that footage but lacking the patience to line up your proof. Who or what has that served? This could be compared with the attempts to dislodge the CIA files in 2017; but with respect, those in pursuit of those records have shown a good deal more restraint, imo.

          • ‘He told a reporter, “I’m just a patsy” but he couldn’t tell a soul, “I was outside at the time”? — Jean Davison

            At least now we have Jean quoting Oswald’s “patsy” statement without caveat. I agree Jean, if he could claim that he had been set up, why wouldn’t he defend himself with the claim he was outside of the building at the time the shots were fired?

          • ‘He told a reporter, “I’m just a patsy” but he couldn’t tell a soul, “I was outside at the time”? — Jean Davison

            At least now we have Jean quoting Oswald’s “patsy” statement without caveat. I agree Jean, if he could claim that he had been set up, why wouldn’t he defend himself with the claim he was outside of the building at the time the shots were fired?

            Why indeed? There is a significant chasm between ‘patsy’ and oblivious victim of circumstances.

          • “Let me just add that he was not out there for any length of time. He ducked out to see what was happening and then went back in . . .” — George

            “He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley . . . ” — SA James W. Bookhout
            http://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/000/946/images/img_946_643_300.png

            In your scenario Oswald ‘ducked out’ but, according to SA Bookhout’s extended version of the record of interrogation, Oswald “said” (emphasis mine) that he stood around for five or ten minutes. How do you rationalize your insistence that Fritz’s notes prove Oswald had an alibi, but you don’t seem to place a lot of value in Bookhout’s version, otherwise you would quote him verbatim; instead you interpret his ‘five or ten minutes’ to be the same as ‘ducking out’, ‘not there for any length of time’? This is an example of the frustration your claims bring to this site … a rather careless presentation of your own argument, which makes no sense to me. If you argue the terms are relative, “not there for any length of time” vs. “stood around for five or ten minutes” then why not say so. But if this detail is “relative” then I think almost every claim you make can be considered relative and/or conjecture, with the exception of the film footage which you agree has not yet proven Oswald was outside the building at the time the shots were fired.

        • Vanessa says:

          Jean

          As I’ve noted before there are 2 possible locations for the Oswald/Baker/Truly encounter.

          1. in the PM position outside the door; or

          2. just inside the lobby (as per James Jarman’s HSCA testimony below).

          JJ: “Well there was a Billy Lovelady standing out there, he was on the steps”.

          HSCA Interviewer: Oh

          JJ: “And Oswald was coming out the door and he said the police had stopped and sent him back in the building. Billy Lovelady said that Mr Truly told the policeman that Oswald was alright, that he worked there so Oswald walked on down the stairs”.

          ‘and Oswald was coming out the door’ seems to imply that Oswald was on the inside coming out. Not that Oswald was already in the PM position.

          So Oswald’s statement about being in that building is consistent with Jarman’s testimony.

          Oswald was in the building but he was in the 1st floor vestibule coming out the door.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Hi Vanessa

            Don’t you just love how your post has been completely ignored?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Vanessa,

            Since we’re all fallible, witness testimony is not always accurate to begin with, but you are quoting 15-year-old hearsay. (“He said that he said…”)

            In Australia do children play a game called Telephone or Chinese Whispers? The game illustrates why hearsay is unreliable evidence.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

            Fifteen-year-old memories are also questionable. Memory researchers have demonstrated this in hundreds of studies.

          • “As I’ve noted before there are 2 possible locations for the Oswald/Baker/Truly encounter.”~Vanessa

            “Don’t you just love how your post has been completely ignored?”~Bob Prudhomme

            Vanessa’s post is ignored because there is a third possibility, in fact a more rational probability that Oswald was encountered by Baker and Truly in the second floor lunchroom.
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Jean

            Jarman’s HSCA testimony is too out of date for you?

            How about these contemporaneous accounts then.

            1. Hoover 11/29/63 “At the entrance of the building, he was stopped by a police officer and some manager in
            the building told the police officer, “Well, he’s all right. He works there. You needn’t hold him.”

            2. Bookhout and Hosty 11/22/63 “Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building”.

            3. Curry in DMN 11/23/63 “As an officer rushed into the building Oswald rushed out. The policeman permitted him to pass after the building manager told the policeman that Oswald was an employee”.

            All these accounts put the encounter on the 1st floor.

            What do you make of them Jean?

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Bob – thanks for the prompt it seems to have worked wonders. 🙂

          • “In Australia do children play a game called Telephone or Chinese Whispers? The game illustrates why hearsay is unreliable evidence.’

            Now I’m even more alarmed. I was considering posing a similar question of Vanessa. Is she familiar with the game in America called “gossip”? You whisper a phrase, it passes to your neighbour in the circle, and depending on the number of individuals in the circle you can bet that the original message will have been skewed; to what degree is the variable.

            I predicted this is where this particular conversation was headed.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Jarman’s HSCA testimony is too out of date for you?”

            Jarman reported hearsay (i.e., gossip) from 15 years earlier. With that and five bucks you can buy a latte most places.

            “1. Hoover 11/29/63 “At the entrance of the building, he was stopped by a police officer…”

            Hoover also told LBJ that there was a shootout at the Texas Theater, that the Hidell alias was a woman, that Oswald was living with his mother, among other absurd things. Secondhand hearsay from the head of the FBI, of all people.

            2. Bookhout and Hosty 11/22/63 “Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building”.

            You left out that they also said Oswald claimed “he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom.” They didn’t say the police stopped him there, they said he ate there.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134&relPageId=812&search=“claimed”_AND “first

            3. Curry was relaying secondhand information, like Hoover and Jarman.

          • Vanessa says:

            Jean

            We are not in court (yet) so the rules regarding hearsay do not apply.

            If we were applying that standard then none of Marina Oswald’s testimony would have been allowed. And nor would a great deal of the other evidence – including the magic bullet which had no chain of custody.

            However, now you have brought up the issue of hearsay could you please tell me exactly what official WC evidence you do accept about exactly where Oswald was at the time of the shooting.

            And tell me exactly why that evidence is not hearsay.

            If you are going to cite Oswald’s own comments about being in ‘that building’ then that is not part of the official WC evidence. It was a TV interview.

            As I’ve noted previously Oswald’s comments are also consistent with all the other information that puts him on the 1st floor in the vestibule.

            And if you are going to cite Baker’s evidence could you please explain which version of his evidence you prefer and why you prefer that over his 1st day affidavit.

            ..and have a nice day.

          • Vanessa says:

            Jean

            So the best evidence you can present for Oswald’s whereabouts that day is not actually contained in the WC Report?

            But is from a TV interview not even part of the official investigation.

            Can you cite anything from the WC Report itself that is not hearsay?

            The best you have is Baker and Truly. And Fritz acknowledges in his WC testimony that Baker’s evidence was found to be incorrect by the ‘investigation’.

          • Vanessa says:

            Jean

            Here’s some more documentary evidence placing Oswald on the 1st floor.

            Two Canadian journalists went down to Dallas 6 days after the assassination and wrote a piece called “Too Many Questions Unanswered in the Murder of the President”.

            1. Toronto Daily Star 11/28/63

            “You can get conflicting reports as to whether Oswald was in the building when the police burst in.

            Some policemen say he was seen sulking around the 1st floor but was identified as an employee – which he had been for 2 months – and released after brief questioning.”

          • Vanessa says:

            An interesting 11/23/63 exchange between Jesse Curry and reporters in the hall:

            Q: Did you say, Chief, that a policeman had seen him in the building?

            CURRY: Yes

            Q: After the shot was fired?

            CURRY: Yes

            Q: Why didn’t he arrest him then?

            CURRY: Because the manager of the place told us that he was an employee, that he’s alright, he’s an employee.

            Q: Did he look suspicious to the policeman at this point?

            CURRY: I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building.

            “as he went into the building”

            Not:

            1. checking everyone he found in the building;
            2. checking everyone he found in the lunchroom; and not
            3. checking everyone he found on the 3rd or 4th stairway.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Vanessa,

            Evidently you don’t believe Oswald’s statement (on film) about his whereabouts but you do believe a Canadian newspaper report about his whereabouts. How does that make any sense?

            In addition to the words out of Oswald’s own mouth I think the best evidence about his whereabouts is the sworn testimony of Baker, Truly and Reid. People accuse these three of lying, but how many other people would also have to be lying in order to frame Oswald? How many others would have to help forge, fake, and plant evidence, etc.? Nobody bothers to spell this out for good reason, I think. It’s simply not credible.

            During a crisis reporters hurry to get the story and misinformation often gets published. This has happened many times. The quotes about Oswald being on the first floor aren’t necessarily from independent sources. IMO, they probably all derive from some early inaccurate account that others (including Curry and Hoover) picked up and repeated.

            Baker was on the stairs when he saw Oswald through a window walking away from him (affidavit). He explained this more clearly and fully in his testimony. He got the floor wrong, but it was the same basic story that he testified to.

          • Vanessa says:

            Jean

            I’ve clearly stated (twice now) that there are 2 possible locations for the Oswald/Baker/Truly encounter. One is the PM position and the other is as Oswald was coming out the door (which would put him in the 1st floor vestibule).

            Oswald’s statement about being in ‘that building’ is consistent with being in the vestibule.

            So I do believe Oswald’s own words on film. Oswald was in the vestibule coming out when he had his encounter with Baker.

            I believe we might be having a misunderstanding about the words ‘ground floor’ and ‘1st floor’. I think American usage is that the street level floor in a building is the 1st floor while the Canadians (and Australians) refer to the street level floor as the ‘ground floor’ then we have a 1st floor, 2nd floor and so on.

            So in the article the reference to the ground floor is actually the same floor as the 1st floor.

            Jean, why do you prefer Baker’s other 3 versions of events over his 1st day affidavit? Can you explain why one is true and the others aren’t?

            It’s not the same basic story at all Jean. It’s vastly different. One involves going through a door and having an encounter in a room on the second floor.

            The other versions involve no room, no going through the door and occur on the 3rd or 4th floor. I do not see how anyone could confuse running up 1 flight of stairs with running up 3 flights.

            Finally we are at the crux of the story here. Where DID this story about Baker encountering Oswald at the doorway of the TSBD come from?

            And the answer is in Chief Curry’s answers to the reporters in the hallway. This is the very first mention of the encounter happening at the entrance of the building. It was within hours of the assassination and Baker’s affidavit. Oswald is in custody.

            The exchange between Curry and the reporters bears repeating.

            Q: Did you say, Chief, that a policeman had seen him in the building?

            CURRY: Yes

            Q: After the shot was fired?

            CURRY: Yes

            Q: Why didn’t he arrest him then?

            CURRY: Because the manager of the place told us that he was an employee, that he’s alright, he’s an employee.

            Q: Did he look suspicious to the policeman at this point?

            CURRY: I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building.

            The Chief of Police has confirmed that one of his policemen reported that he encountered Oswald “as he went into the building”.

            Because that is the way it happened.

            And that is why the 2nd floor encounter is not mentioned by DPD Chief Curry (or in Baker’s 1st day affidavit) because it never happened.

          • Tom S. says:

            And that is why the 2nd floor encounter is not mentioned by DPD Chief Curry (or in Baker’s 1st day affidavit) because it never happened.

            Vanessa, can you explain why Chief Curry did not correct the details in the question he was asked?
            (You make declarations as if you do not grasp the futility of doing what you are attempting.)

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/curry1.htm
            …..
            Mr. MCCLOY – There is one element I am not clear on, I may be anticipating, Mr. Rankin. But I believe we have had some testimony heretofore, that Mr.—an officer went in with Mr. Truly into the building.
            Mr. CURRY – Yes, sir.
            Mr. MCCLOY – And started to go upstairs, and they ran into Oswald on the second floor. Was that before the inspector got there?
            Mr. CURRY – Yes, sir; I am sure it was, because this officer was there at the scene.
            Mr. MCCLOY – Do you remember that officer’s name?
            Mr. CURRY – No, sir; I don’t. It is in the record.
            Mr. BELIN – It is officer M. L. Baker. He was in the motorcade.
            Mr. MCCLOY – Did M. L. Baker purport to seal off the building?
            Mr. CURRY – No, sir; he didn’t. The first officers in there were rushing up to the upper floors.
            Mr. MCCLOY – The first man who sealed the building was—-
            Mr. CURRY – I believe will be Inspector Sawyer.
            Mr. MCCLOY – Inspector Sawyer?
            Mr. CURRY – I believe he would be the first to issue orders. I could be mistaken on that but as I recall he was the first officer….

            If everyone lied, covered up, remained silent, as you accuse them, how is the task you’ve assigned yourself any less daunting than if everyone told the truth, opened up, were forthcoming? Curry supported the Baker/Truly testimony, Frazier supported Lovelady and Shelley testifying to Oswald’s absence after 12:10 pm. You do not like where this leaves you. Consider the weight of the evidence you present to the weight of the record of testimony.
            Your evidence is incongruous compared to the testimony which supports other testimony and documentary evidence. Fritz testifies in support of what is attributed to him. Those who agree with you proffer notes donated by ???? attributed to Fritz that there is no evidence he ever intended anyone else to see, let alone corroborate by his own testimony.

            It seems like it will take some more time for you to recognize this isn’t working for you. You are insistent. If you had the evidence required to accomplish what you’re intending, you could whisper it once or twice and still have impact you’re not now achieving.

          • Vanessa,

            The 2nd story lunchroom encounter is in Truly’s next day affidavit. [See link]
            There is NO distinction between ‘ground floor’ and ‘first floor’ in American parlance.

            You are blowing up the significance of the term “as he went into the building” according to your entrenched biases while ignoring relevant testimony that doesn’t fit your contrived story.

            https://i2.wp.com/jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0487-001.gif
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Actually Tom, I think it is up to you to explain why Chief Curry said the encounter happened as Baker entered the building.

            And it’s up to you to explain why Baker didn’t include the 2nd floor encounter in his 1st day affidavit.

            I’m just pointing out Curry’s actual words and Baker’s actual statement.

            The Innocence Project of Texas has already established that the MO of the DPD under Wade was to frame innocent defendants including lying and faking evidence.

            The police and DA worked together to frame innocent people. And they all kept the secret until the invention of DNA testing found them to be liars and worse. Do you dispute that this happened under Wade?

          • “Actually Tom, I think it is up to you to explain why Chief Curry said the encounter happened as Baker entered the building.”~Vanessa

            He did NOT say that Vanessa, and you know it.
            You are spinning his words to fit your own contrived purposes:

            CURRY: “I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building.”

            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Willy

            As I mentioned on the other thread there is some major research on Truly to be published, suffice to say he had connections to the intelligence world. Truly is not the cleanskin you seem to think he is.

            The street level floor of the TSBD is called the ‘1st floor’. Canadians (and Australians) call that floor ‘the ground floor’. I’m not sure what you are disputing here. It’s the same floor.

            The whole topic of the exchange between Curry and the reporters is about a policeman meeting Oswald. There is no mention of the 2nd floor lunchroom. The only mention of location is “as he went into the building”.

            How do you interpret that?

          • Vanessa, I thought the PM crew was focused solely on Henry Wade’s unfounded charges against Lee Oswald? Now you are setting the stage for a revelation that includes Roy Sansom Truly’s intelligence background? I thought that was going to be left up to those whose responsibility it is to solve the crime of the century and that you and yours are committed solely to exonerating Oswald? Are you wandering off reservation with this?

            We know that Roy Truly from Hubbard, Texas was related to Ralph Truly, the tenant of 1412 Ohio, Midland, Texas, the home vacated by George HW Bush. We know that Ralph, also of Hubbard was living in Midland in 1963 and was employed by Jimmy Allison of the Midland-Telegram, and we know that a relative (his mother if memory serves) was assistant to the editor of the Dallas Morning News. We have a propinquity if nothing else. We also know that Roy worked for North American Aviation during WWII (and that his trusted employee Bill Shelley worked in ‘defence plants’ in the area during the war as well) whose board included Brown Brothers Harriman partner Robert Lovett (Yale classmate of John McCloy) whose father was born in Huntsville where Buell Wesley Frazier had lived just prior to arriving on the doorstep of his sister Linnie Randle who lived in the Paine’s neighbourhood just weeks before Lee Oswald was hired by Roy Truly. It should be noted that the most feared juvenile State Penitentiary of Texas was in Huntsville. If you bring evidence that Truly was intel, this propinquity will take on additional significance.

          • CURRY: “I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building.”

            “How do you interpret that?”~Vanessa
            . . .

            As exactly what Curry said; Baker was looking at everyone as he went searching through the building for someone looking suspicious. Curry does not mention an “encounter” Vanessa – YOU are making that up.
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Willy

            Q: Did he look suspicious to the policeman at this point?

            CURRY: I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building.

            The question from the reporter refers to “at this point”. That is a quite specific reference.

            Curry could have said “I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he searched the building”.

            or “I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went through the building”.

            But he doesn’t. He says “I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building”.

          • Vanessa says:

            Leslie

            To the contrary most of the research is new and on areas other than PM.

            Greg Parker has written 2 well regarded books on Oswald’s life and connections to the intelligence world. The revelations on Truly are his.

          • Vanessa, I’m guessing it will be a very interesting read if it lives up to your promotion. I say again however, the approach from your group has the hint of “infomercial” and a large dose of child’s play; the standard on this site for most commenters has been that you link to material when it is available, not allude to it and expect to be taken seriously. However, to each his own and if this passes moderation I guess wiser heads prevail.

          • “But he doesn’t. He says “I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building”. — Vanessa

            When I read that the first time, it never struck me that Curry was suggesting Baker had encountered Oswald before the rush to the stairs, never. In good faith, I considered this current argument and thought perhaps I might be juxtaposing the testimony about the sighting of Oswald thru the door on one of the floors and the mind had played tricks. But it doesn’t wash, and I’ll explain why: I grew up in Texas; I know how men particularly of that ilk phrase things. They, in fact most Texans from the rural areas are not always literal and in fact less so when speaking contemporaneously.

            This will be a stretch for you to accept, but no more so than your interposing your expectation of how Curry should have expressed himself. I think you are, as are others on the PM team at a geographical and colloquial disadvantage. (you’ve said yourself that there is confusion about the ground floor and 1st floor.) There is no reason to expect that a good ol’ boy from Texas would stop to think,’ oh, I’d better say it this way.’

            1. checking everyone he found in the building;
            2. checking everyone he found in the lunchroom; and not
            3. checking everyone he found on the 3rd or 4th stairway.

            Bottom line I believe yours is a weak argument at the very best and asks the reader to accept your expectations of Curry without appreciating the vernacular..

          • Vanessa says:

            Leslie

            Thank you for the interpretation of the Texan woman on Curry’s phrasing. Any Texan men willing to weigh in on what Curry might have meant…..? Just for balance. 🙂

            But you are right I do find it hard to believe that “as he went into the building” doesn’t mean just that. It doesn’t seem like a particular use of the vernacular to me. Seems like very plain English to be honest.

            Leslie, what I’m saying is that Curry and the reporters are talking about a very specific encounter between Oswald and a policeman (Baker). It was a one off and happened with only one policeman that day. Curry could have used any words to describe where it happened but he uses the phrase “went into”.

            I’ve already posted a number of early newspaper reports which have the Baker/Oswald/Truly encounter happening on the 1st floor. There had to be a source for all these early accounts. Even Hoover mentions it while briefing the President. It pops up again in Bookhout and Hosty’s report and Holmes’s account.

            Even the Canadian journalists 6 days later are sourcing the police as saying Oswald was on the 1st floor.

            The 2nd floor lunchroom encounter is not included in Baker’s 1st day affidavit and is absent from Curry’s description of the event with reporters.

            Is this accumulation of 1st floor references coming from the police, journalists and even Hoover not raising some red flags for you?

        • Fearfaxer says:

          “Oswald held a news conference . . .”

          Oswald did not “hold a news conference” in the normal sense of the term. He was placed in front of a room full of reporters after undergoing many hours of questioning by the police, and subjected to even more interrogation by understandably hyper-inquisitive media persons. Under the circumstances, his failure to render a concise statement that provided him with an alibi is certainly not to be taken as proof that he didn’t have one.

          • George says:

            When I read that the first time, it never struck me that Curry was suggesting Baker had encountered Oswald before the rush to the stairs, never. In good faith, I considered this current argument and thought perhaps I might be juxtaposing the testimony about the sighting of Oswald thru the door on one of the floors and the mind had played tricks. But it doesn’t wash, and I’ll explain why: I grew up in Texas; I know how men particularly of that ilk phrase things. They, in fact most Texans from the rural areas are not always literal and in fact less so when speaking contemporaneously.

            You’re sounding more and more like McAadams all the time, Leslie. Do you have any idea how many times I’ve heard the “it’s how Texans speak” argument to cover EVERY single faux pas in testimony and statements?

            Coke doesn’t mean coke
            This doesn’t mean that
            Black really means white
            All Texans exaggerate
            No wait — all Texans are understated

            Still.. you might have sold it here – even with me – except for one small problem – the sheer weight of all other evidence which frames Vanessa’s interpretation as correct – or alternatively, makes it immaterial if by some miracle, you are correct.

          • ‘Do you have any idea how many times I’ve heard the “it’s how Texans speak . .. ” — George

            George, I’m not concerned with how many times you’ve heard this argument; perhaps this time you will grasp it.

            Those familiar with regional dialect might with some authority argue they know for certain what individuals and law enforcement who were present and involved in close proximity to the murder meant in their statements and signed affidavits in the first 48 hours; you however have an obvious handicap in that you never spent any length of time in the city of Dallas in the early ‘60’s to understand the nuance? For example you chide:
            ‘Coke doesn’t mean coke’ — George

            Most Texans in the ’60’s would have said ‘pop’ or ‘soda pop’ when a drink in a bottle came out of an upright dispenser; a ‘coke’ was sold at the Dairy Queen and equivalent, in a cup with ice. Dr. Pepper lost an enormous market when ‘coke’ became the inclusive term for a soft drink – so much for the power of marketing; Pepsi was relegated to the drink of minorities. I assure you, the term ‘Coke’ is not something you or anyone wants to hang a hat on.

            ‘This doesn’t mean that black really means white’ — George

            Generally speaking Texans who moved to the big city would have in the ’60’s related the phrase, ‘black means white” and vice versa as a reference to Revelations in the Bible, and ‘the end times’, i.e. ‘lies will become truth, truth will become lies’ so they would take umbrage with your characterization unless of course they were consciously/ actively involved in the distortion of the facts. You’ve yet to make that specific assertion. Maybe you should do so now and see how it flies.

            (cont.)

          • (cont.)

            ‘All Texans exaggerate [,] No wait — all Texans are understated’ – Greg

            Most often it’s both, Greg, and amalgamation of [the victors determine the reality] exaggeration and [Protestant] understatement in Texas vernacular; regardless, your superficial assertion is not applicable to the debate over how Curry expressed himself. I did not say he exaggerated nor did I say he understated the facts. I said he expressed his version of Baker’s report in a particular vernacular understood by those from the region he lived in. He was not a skilled speaker, he was a country boy who ended up as a local law enforcement officer. Vanessa argued that the precise words that Curry used convinces her that Baker encountered Oswald as he entered the building. I challenged her. Vanessa is not equipped to interpose her expectation of what Curry meant when she is not familiar with the nuance of the vernacular. But if you’ve sorted all this out perhaps you’ll enlighten the natives.

            ‘Still. you might have sold it here – even with me – except for one small problem – the sheer weight of all other evidence which frames Vanessa’s interpretation as correct – or alternatively, makes it immaterial if by some miracle, you are correct.’ — George

            “the sheer weight of all other evidence which frames Vanessa’s interpretation as correct” . . .

            Greg, you have yet to encapsulate the “sheer weight of all other evidence”. Curry’s choice of words is hardly a significant brick; perhaps Vanessa failed the cause by honing in on one of the weaker bricks, and you are obliged to attempt to pick up the pieces.

            Are you saying that the discrepancies in the versions of events — how long it took Baker to climb the outside steps or how many flights of stairs he climbed once he was inside the building can support the argument that Curry meant Baker passed Oswald en route into the building – are sorted out by Chief Curry’s choice of words in the first 24 hours under heightened anxiety? It’s ludicrous and a real wake up call for any who resort to the simplicity Vanessa has employed.

            There is no way to prove your hypothesis, however intriguing, using these arguments. People were signing affidavits and making statements following extraordinary trauma, heightened anxiety, literally breathtaking experiences. The film of PM may or may not be the deciding factor. You can claim that it’s the cherry on the cake but it’s transparent to ANYone paying attention over the last month on this site that the still photo (from film footage) of a character you have named Prayer Man is your foundation, and you’ve embellished your argument with a bunch of cherries that can easily be picked and pitted. Sorry for the silly metaphor but you introduced it.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      BTW, during that press conference, Oswald was being bombarded with questions by several reporters.

      Here is what actually transpired. A reporter asked Oswald “Were you in that building?” to which Oswald replied “I work in that building.” Another reporter repeated the same question, to which Oswald replied “Well, if I work in that building I was in that building.”

      At NO time was Oswald asked if he was in the building AT the time of the assassination. In actuality, Oswald might not have even been aware the alleged shots had been fired from the TSBD. The conclusions jumped to by WC apologists over this vague and pointless line of questioning by reporters are quite pathetic, and a clear sign of just how desperate this group is to destroy any reasonable discussion about the assassination.

      Are you a desperate man?

      • I know exactly what transpired Bob. Oswald said he was in that building. Stop. No doubt about that statement.

        Now you are using hearsay testimony, which you admit yourself it is, to attempt to overcome Oswald’s only known words as to where he was when Kennedy was shot.

        You also ignore that both Baker himself said in his first day affidavit that he jumped off his motor and ran into the building. On record November 22, 1963:

        https://i2.wp.com/jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0430-001.gif

        Also on November 23, 1963 Roy Truly backs up Baker’s assertion in his affidavit of that day:

        https://i2.wp.com/jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0487-001.gif

        And then there is Both Truly and Baker’s WC testimonies that iron out the wrinkles in the affidavits.

        So WHO is the “desperate man?” Aye Bob?

        How many more round’about’s are we going to have to endure of your BS?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          As I queried a couple of posts back, why would Det. Will Fritz tell a lie by writing the words “out in front with Bill Shelley”, if he knew these handwritten words had the potential to give Oswald an alibi and place him somewhere other than the 6th floor at the time of the shooting?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          From the WC testimony of Bill Shelley:

          “Mr. BALL – Do you have any idea how long it was from the time you heard those three sounds or three noises until you saw Truly and Baker going into the building?
          Mr. SHELLEY – It would have to be 3 or 4 minutes I would say because this girl that ran back up there was down near where the car was when the President was hit.”

  34. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Look carefully at this part of Geneva Hine’s testimony again:

    “Mr. BALL. Do you have any definite recollection of Mrs. Reid coming in?
    Miss HINE. No, sir; I only saw four or five people that came by and they all came and were all talking about how terrible it was.
    Mr. BALL. Do you remember their names?
    Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BALL. Who were they?
    Miss HINE. Mr. Williams, Mr. Molina (spelling), Miss Martha Reid, Mrs. Reid, Mrs. Sarah Stanton, and Mr. Campbell; that’s all I recall, sir.”

    What some people have attempted to describe as confusion on the part of Geneva Hine is actually Miss Hine attempting to answer questions as correctly as she can.

    She did not specifically see Mrs. Reid come in, as she had her back to the entrance BUT, she specifically saw Mrs. Reid come by her desk in a group of five or six people. Do you see the difference?

    However, Miss Hine’s testimony has already established that, when she returned from banging on the door of Southwest Publishing Co., she was all alone in that big open office. Unless Mrs. Reid was lying on the floor, how could she not see her?

    Therefore, if Geneva Hine spent any amount of time at all away from her desk (and it appears she was), and she was back at her desk before Mrs. Reid returned to the 2nd floor, too much time would have elapsed for Mrs. Reid to have encountered the “fleeing” Oswald, UNLESS Baker entered the TSBD much later than he claimed. But, wouldn’t Oswald have vanished by then, unless he really was not fleeing from the 2nd floor lunch room but, rather, idly returning with a Coke?

    • To hell with this Bob, this is Space Junk. A load of crap to fill up the space in this forum.

      We have all looked “carefully” at Hine’s conflicting testimony. Countless time now.

      So you grasp this conflicted testimony of Hine’s, and claim EVERYBODY else is a liar; Mrs Reid, officer Baker, Roy Truly, and even Oswald himself.

      Enough of this nonsense! Go play on the Prayerman forums Bob, They need another nutjob to fill out their membership.
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Gone over your head again, have I, Willy?

        Now, why don’t you want to discuss the witnesses who saw Baker going up the steps of the TSBD? You’re not afraid, are you?

        • “Gone over your head again, have I, Willy?”~Bob Prudhomme

          You flatter yourself Prudhomme. You spew a load of delusional nonsense and then pretend you have gone over people’s heads.

          Go ahead and close your eyes and pretend some more. You should be embarrassed to make it public however.

          But it is not my problem Bob, it is YOUR reputation here that is at stake.
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Seriously, Tom? I can be labelled a “nutjob”, but you won’t post my comment to him?

          • Tom S. says:

            Bob, since you do not read comments that are not approved, you don’t have a complete understanding. The submissions of the two of you in these personal exchanges do no service to readers. I try to avoid an outcome of an artificial atmosphere in discussion threads. The challenge is to attempt to approve every comment but to avoid a free for all. If you both post permission permitting me to disclose your email addresses to each other, you can both bypass my judgment/interference and JFKfacts.org readers. Does it matter if readers who do not comment gain an impression that you have fallen one insult behind because I just can’t bring myself to approve another one? If you have an opinion, on the topic, submit it. In your opinion, has the topic of this alleged discussion been mostly addressed or ignored?

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Bob Prudhomme
            May 1, 2016 at 3:06 pm

            “Seriously, Tom? I can be labelled a “nutjob”, but you won’t post my comment to him?”

            That happens to me with Whitten also. I wonder why Whitten would deserve such good treatment when the poor man knows noting about that country I can’t speak of here.

  35. Bob Prudhomme says:

    “I know exactly what transpired Bob. Oswald said he was in that building. Stop. No doubt about that statement.”

    Nope. Oswald was merely clarifying that he worked in that building. The reporters never asked him if he was in the building AT the time of the assassination.

    BIG difference, Willy, although I anticipate you will have your usual difficulties comprehending the difference.

  36. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Strange how all of these arguments seem so familiar. If I close my eyes, I could imagine I was debating Photon or DVP.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Ha, Photon, DVP? The search for Truth has only just begun and may not be fulfilled in our lifetimes. History will prevail if we keep searching.

      • Photon says:

        Not if you keep going down ratholes like the Prayer Man nonsense, the Badgeman fantasy,the “mail order is fake” comedy, the “backyard photos are faked”ridiculousness , the ” Oswald is Innocent” committee that insists that Billy Lovelady’s body was taken over by Lee Oswald, the blind acceptance of Dr. McClelland’s head wound descriptions for 50 years despite him documenting in writing within 4 hours of the assassination a description TOTALLY WRONG-and actually told to him by somebody else! It is amazing to me that these Prayer Man photo experts can identify Lee Oswald in a collection of shadows (that could as easily represent a woman wearing a coat) just as easily as the Badgeman savants can see a shooter in a collection of shadows that by triangulation would have to be about three feet tall.
        The Prayer Man phenomenon is just another example of a CT attempt to find ANYTHING to exonerate Oswald-even to the point of inventing a situation already contradicted by the statements and actions of the individual it is supposed to prove innocent. The infighting about this topic (entirely among the CT community) is reflective of another fact-that after 50 years no plausible alternative shooting scenario to the Warren conclusion that agrees with the facts has been produced by the CT community. If there was the multiple (and often contradictory) “research” conclusions and claims would never be necessary and ” researchers” on this and other blogs would not be engaging in cat fights over which unproven theory must be correct-as seems the norm with the CT community.

        • Photon,

          You are attempting to color all so-called “CTers” with a single brush. It is such an obvious false argument that no one here should be surprised to read you making it; as it is a fact that you are the master of false argumentation and rhetorical BS.

          It was and remains more than obvious that this Prayerman assault is a coordinated attack by the moles and dupes of the Prayerman cult and the Warren Report cult. What could be more blatant evidence of such coordination than today’ sudden opening of a coordinated assault by the Warrenistas as a MAYDAY pincer movement by the two parties?

          Yes, let me read denials all around this mulberry bush, while all the clowns are still popped up grinning from the Jack’n’the box.
          \\][//

  37. The Prayer Man theory is the “single bullet” theory draped in conspiracy.

    Working one’s head around the possibility that Oswald was on the steps when the shots were fired in spite of all of the data about him, not the testimony of those caught in the minutes following the assassination, but the volumes studied and written about his Marine service, his defection, his Russian wife, the Paines, New Orleans, the Fair Play For Cuba, intelligence files with his name in and on them, Jack Ruby, Sylvia Odio , etc. etc. and the fact he miraculously landed in a building in the Kill Zone, is like trying to figure out how that bullet created all those wounds and ended up PRISTINE. These people are presenting a magic bullet of their very own, OSWALD ON THE STEPS, PRISTINE.

    Are those promoting this theory prepared to argue that Harold Weisberg, Vince Salandria, Peter Dale Scott, Gaeton Fonzi, and a host of others who never sought acclaim but contributed mounds of research simply overlooked the possibility that Oswald was standing on the steps, watching the world go by? It’s tantamount to a “Magic Bullet Theory” — “Oswald On The Steps Theory” developed by folks who may well be as frustrated as Arlen Specter was when he lurched and out of desperation (and pressure?) came up with a (preposterous) easy answer. Will the PMT stand the test of time any more than the MBT did?

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Leslie

      Please show me where, even one time, I have stated that I believed PM to be Oswald with no doubt whatsoever. It could very well be Oswald, but I am waiting patiently for a better copy of the Darnell film to surface.

      What I am trying to dispel are all the “facts” surrounding the JFK case that everyone “knows” are true, such as Baker rushing across the street and straight up the stairs.

      • Bob, my comment was intended as a stand alone post. I didn’t deliberately hit the reply button to your comment so I’m not sure how my comment aligned to suggest I was addressing you specifically. Apologies, if appropriate.

        But since I have you on the ‘line’, I’m fascinated by the Officer Baker dispute. I’m one (among others maybe) who linked to the video that has a freeze frame sequence showing Baker approaching the steps. There is another version of the film that is a “loop” of Baker as he approaches the steps which indicated to me that he ascended those steps in the seconds after the filming stopped. I can’t figure out why you would think he didn’t go up the steps immediately? Are you arguing that he turned and rushed elsewhere (when he disappears from the film)? Why would he do that? In fairness, I’ve wondered why of all of the law enforcement within yards of the entrance to the building, only Officer Marion Baker had the prescience to rush into the building? I’m not suggesting that he was anything but a conscientious officer, but I am wondering why no other officer had the sense to rush into the building ahead of him or behind him?

        I have to say that the onus is on others to prove that Baker did not immediately ascend the steps; we have footage of him rushing toward them, we have testimony he was inside the building to do a search. Where would he have diverted before he entered the building? If the argument is that Prayer Man had time to walk inside before Baker made it up the steps, can that be proven or is it an assumption tied to the testimony that is under scrutiny?

        • Tom S. says:

          Leslie (Les, pardon me for butting in, (Mister,) does it look less ridiculous when I mock the “I came in peace,” commentor, than reading it all as originally presented?) but I think Bob might not reply to your specific question…

          ttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22038&p=310027
          Posted 27 July 2015 – 12:38 PM
          …..
          A question for Robert Prudhomme — Even though Baker is not seen running up the steps in Couch / Darnell, isn’t it reasonable to assume that he did so? ….

          I read it all because I’ve volunteered to and the impression it has imparted on me is that it is wooden in
          its presentation, embellished with so much “adjustment,” intended to fit ten lbs. in a five lbs. bag.
          The evil attributed to ordinary people….Frazier dooming his new neighbor’s bread winner and co-worker to
          unending infamy, even as he must live with the knowledge he is at the center of…does it really matter if
          his role is involuntary?…. a plot to facilitate the escape of the actual assassin(s) of the POTUS from identification and accountability. Yet lately Frazier shows up at JFK Assassination seminars and even brings his son.

          I guess if I was pushing this storyline I’d also be reduced to assuring readers I came in peace and firing back at Jean not to say such a silly thing, in place of a reasonable rebuttal because the anger summoned by the frustration of unrealized expectation must be bled off. Thank God almighty he has come to this website in peace.

          But Bob, when you read the following and consider the abuse they’ve rained down on you, antler parody masking a much more nasty layer under the thin veneer (bum… Bob, wasn’t it?) you must really be a believer to permit yourself to come anywhere near this “wave.” If your own experience hasn’t lessened your
          enthusiasm, were you able to avoid reading Gilbride’s comment, you posted in the same thread, after this.:
          http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22616&page=13&#entry328604

          • George says:

            Here you go, dredging the net to find justification for your current actions…. instead of treating everything and everyone on merit. You simply can’t help yourself.

            And did I call June silly? No. I called what she said “silly” because it was VERY silly.

            Here it is again “Oswald held a news conference” Sure he did. His press agent set it up.

            I think Jean may be just a tad more resilient than you give her credit for.

            Meanwhile, please get back to ignoring all the flames being fired from your supporters.

          • Vanessa says:

            Tom

            As you well know Bob was one of the group at the Ed Forum involved in the development of the Prayer Man evidence.

            So he knows that the evidence stands by itself regardless of who may be promoting it.

            To his credit, unlike others, Bob is not so hung up on the personal politics of the research community that he conflates the message with the messenger.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Hi Tom

            Could you be a little more specific with your questions? I understood one of the references to ROKC and no, we are not the best of friends, but the rest of your post is a bit too cryptic to follow; in particular, your vague reference to Richard Gilbride.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Hi Leslie

          Have you ever taken a close look at the witness testimony of those who saw Baker ascending the steps of the TSBD?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Hi Leslie

          I would also be very interesting in discussing the “testimony he was inside the building to do a search” you make reference to, if you would care to reference those witnesses and their testimony.

          Remember, no one is disputing whether or not Baker actually entered the front of the TSBD, the matter in question is precisely when Baker entered the front of the TSBD.

          • Bob Prudhomme, I’ve admired and appreciated your ballistics work. Not for you I for one would be in the dark on the subject. I’m not suggesting I grasp the nuance, but you’ve presented material that makes sense to a layperson and for that we should all be grateful.

            Not meaning to be passive aggressive here, but in light of your ability to present technical material in a way that can be understood by the less informed on a subject that is highly specialized, I’m surprised at how you are approaching the Prayer Man argument on this site. A suspicious person might ask, is this really “Bob the ballistics expert”?

            If you can readily calculate the time lapse of bullets, can you not present a specific time lapse of Baker dropping his cycle, rushing up the steps (how manny steps, height, conditions), encountering whomever (Frazier, Prayer Man, the person who had been holding their hands to shield their eyes, the (apparently) woman in motion, et al) and reporting what he experienced that day?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Leslie

            Why don’t we discuss who saw Baker enter the TSBD, and perhaps I will be able to show you where the WC story begins to fall down. Trust me, there are more holes in the WC story than in a block of Swiss cheese.

            To simply banter back and forth about what Baker might or might not have done is a pointless endeavour. We have to get into the meat of the matter to really learn anything.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Go for it Bob. I’d like to see what you have. Having read the book (trying to do so with an open but critical mind), watched the video, read here, EDU, and a little on ROKC I’d like to hear what you Think happened.
            You are more well read/involved in the subject than I and seem to be somewhat more levelheaded about it than some. I know this will not be a popular request with Tom and several other posters I often agree with. In light of your ballistics postings, as Leslie mentioned, in the interest of open discussion I’d like to hear your considered opinion Please provide as much documentation as possible.

          • “To simply banter back and forth about what Baker might or might not have done is a pointless endeavour. We have to get into the meat of the matter to really learn anything.’

            HUH? Is this the Bob Prudhomme whose essays I’ve read over the last year in order to understand the ballistics? In all fairness and at the risk of being accused of being paranoid, would you – Bob – link to some of your excellent work on the angle of the shot(s) from the 6th floor; would you link to some of your work on the Western Cartridge Co. evidence? Indulge me please, consider it a litmus test.

  38. Jean Davison says:

    IMO, the prayer man theory has the same fatal weakness as other JFK conspiracy theories: Instead of a narrative explaining how the evidence fits together to show what happened, we get a bunch of things that look “suspicious” and unseen plotters who plant evidence, suborn perjury, and do anything else necessary to frame the poor patsy.

    The problem is that the masterminds are, as usual, all-powerful and yet incredibly stupid. They plant a weapon they’ve tied to Oswald yet somehow neglect to keep the patsy from wandering outside to acquire what should’ve been an ironclad alibi.
    So now they have to get anyone who knew the truth to lie about it. But hey, no problem. With the right threats, who wouldn’t agree to help frame an innocent man in a president’s murder and keep quiet about it forever, right? Even better, Oswald doesn’t mention his alibi, either.

    The usual CT explanation, “They lied,” is not the only alternative and not the most sensible one. Mrs. Reid testified that she didn’t stop at her desk when she came back into the office. Instead she kept on walking toward the same door Oswald emerged from at the back of the room. She and Oswald may’ve crossed paths while Hine was still in the front hall knocking on office doors. I don’t know if Reid was ever asked where she was headed, but she may’ve been in the restroom or in the lunchroom getting a snack when Hine returned. IOW, nobody had to be lying to explain why they didn’t see each other.

    Reid entered through the door at the bottom of this chart. Her desk was near the dumbwaiter marked with an arrow near the top. The X and R show where she passed Oswald, which is on the other side of her desk:

    http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1134#relPageId=238&tab=page

    Hines and Reid testimony:
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hine.htm

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/reid.htm

    • Greg/George, Vanessa, Bart, Lee, Stan and Sean wherever you are. This is EXACTLY what I predicted would happen. By not having your beans in a row before you presented your magic prayer man theory on this site, you’ve got a fine kettle of fish to fry. Good luck. Others have spent decades countering the arguments that Jean’s current one symbolizes. “But hey”, you’re the smartest kids on the block, lets hear your response? I warned that hubris would catch up with you:

      “So now they have to get anyone who knew the truth to lie about it. But hey, no problem. With the right threats, who wouldn’t agree to help frame an innocent man . . ” — Jean Davison

      What a fine bowl of spaghetti you have now, and you have no one to blame but yourselves.

    • George says:

      Unseen plotters. No Jean… the same people who locked up at least 24 and counting, innocent people.
      http://www.innocenceproject.org/dallas-county-cases-where-dna-has-proven-innocence/

      This is the biggest number for any county in the country – and bigger than most states.

      Most – if not all, were arrested and prosecuted during the Wade era.

      The jig is up, Jean. They are no longer yours and McAdams “mysterious and unseen plotters”. They are individuals within the DPD and DA’s office.

      You want to talk about consistent narratives? How about the FBI timing 10 different scenarios for Oswald’s alleged descent from the 6th floor and through the the thing you all refuse to call a vestibule because damnit – the only vestibule was on the 2nd floor. How about the fact that only half of those timings included a pit stop in the second floor lunchroom? If there was never any doubt about it – if Baker and Truly were the epitomes of virtue you believe them to be, why bother timing events that you are certain never took place?

      We have Oswald’s alibi. His alibi checks out. He was having lunch in the domino room – went up to the 2nd floor to grab a drink went back down – saw Shorty and Jarnam re-enter the building, then went out to check out the growing noise with the approach of the motorcade. He stood in the shadows and went un-noticed because not only has Oswald never been placed there – NO ONE has been. He then slipped back inside and was seen by Campbell and Reid on their way back up to the second floor. At some point he tried to leave, was stopped by Barnett and asked to stand aside while they got his details. He flashed his library card and then okayed by Truly or Shelley and to leave.

      All of the above is supported by various pieces of evidence.

      I confidently predict none here wll bother looking into it any further – some may demand I provide evidence when there is no editing facility to do so, will attempt yet against to shot the messenger, dredge up past events un-related to this, and try and change the subject and misinterpret some of the scenario laid out. In short, you will all carry on as you have been up to now.

      • Bob, George, Vanessa, and the Prayer Man team:

        Let’s see how this works now that photon and Jean have returned:

        ‘Oswald had every opportunity to tell the world (and the cops) that he was at the Prayer Man position.
He didn’t.’ – photon

        I agree without hesitation with photon’s statement. Oswald could have said, “I was outside on the steps, just ask anyone.” But he did not. The PM retort? He didn’t because the reporters failed to ask the right question. That is a patently absurd argument. Then you counter with pure speculation – that “Fritz” had a crisis of conscience – or Harry Holmes as Oswald’s posthumous spokesperson proves that Oswald said he was outside. In either instance, there IS no proof, only conjecture, so you’ve built the hypothesis on a foundation of sand; then you have had to resort to a conglomeration of employees lying, Baker lying, and the most bizarre of all, that Officer Baker paused in midstream and didn’t make it up those steps before Prayer Man scooted inside the building. This hypothesis is so flawed I can’t understand why you are pursuing it let alone on this site. Yours is the magic bullet theory of conspiracy, and you’ve provided photon and Jean et al with fodder.

        Will you now cease your shotgun approach and provide a distilled version – a beginning, a middle, and an end, perhaps in bullet points, of your theory?

        In good faith, I quote Jean who is posing a similar challenge to the one I have made for days. I endorse Jean’s statement in spite of knowing she may use this opportunity to replay some of our more heated arguments. We’ll have to let the chips fall as they will now, won’t we.

        ‘Instead of a narrative explaining how the evidence fits together to show what happened, we get a bunch of things that look “suspicious” and unseen plotters who plant evidence, suborn perjury, and do anything else necessary to frame the poor patsy.’

        Follow up: I see we at least now have a glimpse of the overall theory, after weeks, from George:

        “We have Oswald’s alibi. His alibi checks out. He was having lunch in the domino room – went up to the 2nd floor to grab a drink went back down – saw Shorty and Jarnam re-enter the building, then went out to check out the growing noise with the approach of the motorcade. He stood in the shadows and went un-noticed because not only has Oswald never been placed there – NO ONE has been. He then slipped back inside and was seen by Campbell and Reid on their way back up to the second floor. At some point he tried to leave, was stopped by Barnett and asked to stand aside while they got his details. He flashed his library card and then okayed by Truly or Shelley and to leave.” – George (aka Greg Parker of RoKC)

        Something to get one’s teeth into, right photon and Jean?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Okay, Leslie, here is one simple question for you. Don’t feel badly if you can’t produce an answer for it, as everyone else here has avoided it like the Black Plague.

          Detective Will Fritz wrote in his notes “out with Bill Shelley in front”. We can debate for the next ten years just precisely what this cryptic message means but, it certainly would seem that there is a possibility Oswald told Fritz he was out in front with Bill Shelley.

          So, let us examine the possibilities.
          1) Oswald actually stated this to Fritz because it really happened.
          2) Oswald was on the 6th floor but somehow knew Bill Shelley was at the top of the TSBD steps, and told this to Fritz as a lie; quite a feat, as the steps are recessed into the entrance, and there is no clear line of sight from the 6th floor window to the top landing on the stairs. Was Oswald psychic?
          3) Oswald was not on the steps, but Fritz fabricated an alibi for him for some bizarre reason known only to Will Fritz, and took this to the grave with him.

          Outside of this, I can think of no other possibilities.

          Here is the question. WHY would Fritz write down “out in front with Bill Shelley” if this was not something told to him by Oswald? If Oswald did not say this, then this was a fabrication on the part of Will Fritz, but for what possible reason?

          Do you see how crucial the writing of these words by Fritz is?

          • Tom S. says:

            You present what Sean presented- http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&p=277795
            2-1/2 years later, three important ingredients are missing-

            1. Confirming film frame evidence
            2. Corroborating eye witness testimony to balance or counter, “I last saw Oswald on 22 November,” or,
            “I was with these names on the stairs, I did not see Oswald.”
            3. Sean

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            In other words, Tom, you also have no answer for the question about Will Fritz’s note “out in front with Bill Shelley”.

          • Tom S. says:

            Bob, you are asking the same questions repetitively and the answers stay the same.
            What is the actual provenance of Fritz’s notes. He denied in his testimony that he possessed
            notes taken in real time. How does your evidence overcome this, in the record?

            https://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-873610
            May 1, 2016 at 3:58 pm
            ……
            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
            …..
            Mr. BALL. On November 22, 1963, the day the President was shot, when is the last time you saw Oswald?
            Mr. SHELLEY. It was 10 or 15 minutes before 12.
            Mr. BALL. Where?
            Mr. SHELLEY. On the first floor over near the telephone.
            Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him again?
            Mr. SHELLEY. At the police station when they brought him in.

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lovelady.htm
            …..
            Mr. BALL – Oswald was standing in front of the east elevator?
            Mr. LOVELADY – East, on back, the elevator back.
            Mr. BALL – Did you see him?
            Mr. LOVELADY – No; I didn’t; I just heard his voice because—where those slats are in back of the elevator.
            Mr. BALL – Did you ever see him again that day?
            Mr. LOVELADY – No.

            vs.:

            Something smells but you all have head colds?

            I keep pointing out that there needs to be a practical approach if you hope to have any actual history making impact. All that is exhibited is enthusiasm, but not even from Sean.

            The most glaring thing I observe is what is obviously missing, self awareness and self conciousness of the most enthusiatic.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Tom S.

            Are you inferring that Will Fritz’s notes of the interrogation are fake? We are all quite aware they were not written at the time of the interrogation but, I thought it was accepted as fact that Will Fritz wrote them.

          • Tom S. says:

            Bob, I quoted linked sworn testimony of two witnesses, Lovelady and Shelley. Their testimony is included in the record of the official inquiry.

            My point does not change. Examine what the people who agree with you are presenting. Vanessa emphasizes that Frazier was quoted as afraid about answering about details related to the length of the fabricated paper bag. She insists this is expandable and transferable to whatever is perceived needed today to impeach Frazier’s past sworn testimony details.

            Bob, I’m asking you to think practically. If you do, you’ll recognize that arguments of the quality and depth of yours and Vanessa’s cannot impeach the record of testimony. How does the following compare to the weight of what you are presenting, and you believe is influential, related to Fritz? Is this inaccurate?:

            http://the-puzzle-palace.com/files/Fritz_ARRB.txt
            …….
            Are we agreed that Fritz took a sworn oath to tell the truth?

            Good, then let’s continue.

            Again, from Fritz’s own sworn testimony:

            “Mr. Ball. Do you remember what you said to Oswald and what he said to
            you?

            Mr. Fritz. I can remember the thing that I said to him and what he
            said to me, but I will have trouble telling you which period of
            questioning those questions were in because I kept no notes at the
            time….”

            Are we agreed that Fritz denied taking any notes contemporaneous to the
            interrogations?

            Good.

            Then what, pray tell, did the ARRB obtain from an anonymous donor 34
            years later?….

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Tom S.

            Also, I have yet to see an answer to my question. That is why I keep repeating it.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            “Fritz told the Warren Commission in 1964 that he took no notes during the Oswald interrogations, but indicated that he later typed a report based on “rough notes” that were made “several days later.” These notes are believed to be the ones acquired by the Review Board. They chronicle all of the key points of the Oswald interrogation, including his denials that he shot President Kennedy or owned a rifle, that he said nothing against the President and claimed that a photo of him holding a rifle was a forgery, with his head was superimposed on someone else’s body. The notes end abruptly, showing the time of the last interrogation session on Sunday morning, November 24 as “10-11:15.” Oswald was shot by Ruby a few minutes later.”

            Tom

            Now that we are in agreement that Fritz took no notes during the interrogation, and prepared rough notes several days later, are you willing to have a go at answering my question, or do you believe Fritz’s notes to be fake? The National Archives certainly believe them to be genuine; do you know something they don’t know?

          • Tom S. says:

            Ronnie, same answer, again. I am not speculating. I am taking a practical (realistic) approach. What I can say unequivocally is that the weight of Fritz’s notes is light. The weight of the sworn testimony of Shelley and Lovelady is heavy. The notes attributed to Fritz more than thirty years after his sworn testimony do not impeach his testimony and certainly do not impeach the testimony of Lovelady or Shelley.

            Ronnie, the world is not warming up to this theory’s merits. The reason is that mostly it a result of analysis that lacks supporting evidence. Ask George about the book sales numbers or the growth stats of his forum’s membership.

            Bill Kelly and Bill Simpich and Bill’s attorney associate who posted here in the last day or so aren’t talking or writing about PM. They’re planning a series
            of mock trials at law schools and an attempt to expunge Oswald’s Texas arrest record based on the evidence record, including some of the testimony you seem to believe was perjured. I try to take everything into account, Ronnie. I don’t just stick my head out the window to determine which way the wind is blowing. I take seemingly unpopular positions, about Janney’s book about Mary Meyer, about Garrison’s sincerity and transparency, but not because I choose to. I am practical and that helps me avoid wasting my time and attention on pursuits I determine are not likely to develop meaningfully.

            I want to avoid the frustration Oswald was PM supporters are facing. What happens when enough time goes by to indicate it is not a temporary condition?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Tom S.

            I’m not sure why you are addressing your response to “Ronnie”, as you seem to be responding to my post.

            If you are putting so much reliance onto the sworn testimony of Capt. Will Fritz, why don’t we see what his testimony has to say about him making handwritten notes?

            “Mr. BALL. Do you remember what you said to Oswald and what he said to you?
            Mr. FRITZ. I can remember the thing that I said to him and what he said to me, but I will have trouble telling you which period of questioning those questions were in because I kept no notes at the time, and these notes and things that I have made I would have to make several days later, and the questions may be in the wrong place.”

            It seems Fritz told the WC that he made notes “several days later”, Tom. Would it not be possible the handwritten notes that showed up after Fritz passed away are the very notes he mentioned in his sworn testimony? Do you not think it likely the National Archives would go to great lengths to verify these handwritten notes were actually written by Fritz, before they accepted them as genuine?

            I really have trouble believing you are referring to the sworn testimony of Shelley and Lovelady as if both were Gospel or something. I invite you or anyone else to compare their “testimony” to their first day statements. These two were either seriously confused or the biggest pair of liars to appear before the WC.

            But, getting back to Fritz’s notes, let’s settle this once and for all.

            Do you believe Fritz’s notes to be fake and, if you do not, how do you explain him writing “out in front with Bill Shelley”?

      • Jean Davison says:

        “The jig is up, Jean. They are no longer yours and McAdams “mysterious and unseen plotters”. They are individuals within the DPD and DA’s office.”

        Please tell me that story. How do you suppose they pulled it off?

        Did Wade and his henchman get Oswald his job? Fake Klein’s records, the BY photos (taken in springtime, according to the evidence)? Did they arrange for Oswald to bring a package to work that day or was that just a lucky coincidence? Did Wade & company control the autopsy, somehow make the “real” bullets disappear — or did someone steal the M-C and use that?

        In your story so far, there were numerous witnesses to Oswald’s “alibi” — Truly, Baker, Barrett, Reid, Campbell, whoever else was nearby and saw Oswald. Were all of them contacted right away and brought onboard? “Listen, Mr. Truly, you’ve got to say you saw him on the second floor….or else!” Etc.

        Just speculate about how it *might* have been done, that’s all I’m asking. No WC critic has ever provided an alternative scenario to explain how all the evidence against Oswald got there if he didn’t do it. You would be the first.

        • George says:

          “Please tell me that story. How do you suppose they pulled it off?” Jean

          The same way they pulled off the other 24 and counting, Jean.

          Let’s try this BEFORE going into specifics. What I want you to do right now is acknowledge that this was a corrupt-to-the-core justice system operating in Dallas. Acknowledgement of the real issue is the first step on the path to rehabilitation – in this case of the real history.

          take that small but important step, Jean, and we can move on to the details.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Sure, I know of Wade’s disgraceful record as a prosecutor and the innocent men who were exonerated through DNA tests. If you can show that Wade framed Oswald, please do.

            Now could you answer the questions I’ve asked, as a start?

        • “No WC critic has ever provided an alternative scenario to explain how all the evidence against Oswald got there if he didn’t do it. You would be the first.”~Jean Davison

          Now you have gone too far Jean. It has been explained to you on numerous threads on this forum, how evidence was tampered with. How the chains of custody of evidence is broken. How the DPD lied. How the ‘snipers nest’ most certainly is a staged theater, how the ballistic evidence proves a shot from the front; how the back and throat wound are not provabley connected, how the “Magic Bullet” theory is utter bunk…etc
          \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Yes, Willy, I know — you don’t get it. WC critics never do, it seems.

    • Vanessa says:

      Jean

      No-one has said everyone lied. You have said that. Instead of painting with a broad brush could you please specifically address BWF’s claims that he was afraid for his family. He has made that statement not anyone else.

      What is your explanation for Frazier’s statement?

      • Vanessa, Frazier did not make that statement about being afraid for his family in connection with the “Prayerman” on the steps.

        It was because Wes Frazier testified that the bag was too short to hold a disassembled rifle.

        It has NOTHING to do with this present conversation.
        \\][//

        • Vanessa says:

          Willy

          Let Jean answer please. You don’t have to do all their work for them.

          Please use some common sense here. Frazier says he was afraid for his family over the paper bag issue. That’s because he maintained (and still maintains today) that it was not long enough to fit the rifle.

          Why did anyone feel the need to threaten Frazier over the paper bag evidence? Weren’t they honest cops with a watertight case?

          Frazier’s statement establishes that when he provided testimony that didn’t suit the official narrative his family was threatened.

          If Frazier says he was afraid for his family over his refusal to say the paper bag was long enough to hold a rifle what on earth do you think was said to him about saying Oswald was standing next to him when the shots were fired?

          • “If Frazier says he was afraid for his family over his refusal to say the paper bag was long enough to hold a rifle what on earth do you think was said to him about saying Oswald was standing next to him when the shots were fired?”~Vanessa

            When did Frazier say that Oswald was standing next to him with the shots were fired?
            ……..
            STATE OF LOUISIANA vs. CLAY L. SHAW

            198-059
            1426 (30)
            SECTION “C”

            EXCERPT OF THE TESTIMONY TAKEN IN OPEN COURT
            February 13, 1969

            B E F O R E: THE HONORABLE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY, JR., JUDGE, SECTION “C”

            BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, after first being duly sworn, was examined and testified on his oath as follows:

            Q: Mr. Frazier, do you recall who you were with during the presidential motorcade?
            A: Yes, sir, I can. When I was standing there at the top of the stairs I was standing there by a heavyset lady who worked up in our office, her name is Sara, I forget her last name, but she was standing right there beside me when we watched the motorcade.
            Q: Do you recall anyone else who may have been with you?
            A: Right down in front of me at the bottom of the steps my foreman Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady were standing there.
            Q: Did you see the presidential motorcade on that day?
            A: Yes, sir, I did.
            […]
            Q: Where did you go after the noise, if anywhere?
            A: I didn’t go anywhere. I just stayed right where I was.
            Q: Did you ever see Lee Harvey Oswald during that time that you were on the steps in front of the Texas School Book Depository?
            A: No, sir, I did not.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ../testimony/frazierb3.htm

            \\][//

          • ‘ . . . what on earth do you think was said to him about saying Oswald was standing next to him when the shots were fired?’

            As emotional as this argument is Vanessa, it is fanciful. Frazier has had decades to ‘come clean’, cognizant that this debate has been in the public domain long enough to ensure him that his, or that of his family’s, safety is guaranteed. It’s a flawed argument Vanessa, there is no context, nothing to distinguish the threat about the brown bag from the allegation that Oswald was standing within feet of Frazier outside the building. Nothing but conjecture. Take us down another path of this theory because the ‘Frazier being frightened of his safety’ argument left the depot long ago

          • Vanessa says:

            Willy and Leslie

            Please let Jean answer this.

            I would like to know what she has to say about BWF saying his family was threatened over his paper bag evidence.

            It provides a clear example of one witness’ experience with the police.

            It provides evidence of their MO when facing conflicting evidence.

            It establishes their willingness to threaten the safety of witnesses families.

        • Jean Davison says:

          “Vanessa, Frazier did not make that statement about being afraid for his family in connection with the “Prayerman” on the steps.

          It was because Wes Frazier testified that the bag was too short to hold a disassembled rifle.”

          Willy,

          Who said Frazier was afraid for his family because of what he said about the paper bag? Do you or Vanessa have a source for this? Or are we witnessing the dawn of a brand-new JFK myth?

      • Jean Davison says:

        Where is the quote from Frazier about being afraid for his family? Frazier has told his bag-too-short story repeatedly, so where’s the direct quote, please?

        • Vanessa says:

          Jean

          Here is the link to the Frazier interview where he says he was afraid for his family.

          https://jfkfacts.org/c-span-to-air-telling-story-from-oswalds-co-worker/#more-6018

          • Vanessa, that link from the old JFKfacts thread is dead.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            What I see there is this: “In closing, the reader reports that ‘Frazier said it was best to stay quiet about the assassination out of fear of what could be done to his family.'”

            Vanessa, there is a big difference between “Frazier said” and “The reader reports that …” I still don’t know what Frazier actually said, if anything.

            It’s highly ironic that this comes from an article about a C-span interview with Frazier, the guy who’s supposedly afraid to talk about the assassination. He has been doing just that for decades — countless interviews and appearances at JFK conferences. His latest is a scheduled appearance at the Lancer powwow later this year.

            Afraid to talk? Yeah, right.

        • Vanessa says:

          Jean

          Right at the end of this video Buell says this.

          http://www.c-span.org/video/?313792-1/lee-harvey-oswald-kennedy-assassination

          Interviewer: You’ve given a few interviews over the years but not that many. Why have you been so reluctant to share your story?

          BWF: When this all happened I was terrified. Some people believe in a conspiracy and some don’t. Well you can believe whatever you like, this is America.

          That I knew there was people behind this – you best keep silent. Not go around talking cause I didn’t want anything to happen to my family.

          I can accept a lot of things happening to me but not my family.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Thanks for that link, Vanessa. If you’ll listen to the video, there’s an error in the closed captioning transcript.

            Frazier actually said “…I knew that *IF* there was people behind this…”

            Another example of how a secondary source can misstate the original one.

    • Don’t you dare attempt to wrap all of us up in these dirty swaddling clothes of the Prayerman idiots Jean, it does not mend any of your former nonsense to be correct in this instance.
      \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      If Geneva Hine had been pounding on the door of Southwest Publishing Co. and “calling and calling” when Mrs. Reid returned to the 2nd floor office, and Mrs. Reid had returned to the office via the front stairs, the two ladies would have been looking right at each other, roughly 40-50 feet apart. Do you not think Mrs. Reid might have remembered such a spectacle, a woman pounding on an office door and calling and calling? Wouldn’t that narrow hallway have acted as a large echo chamber?

      When Geneva Hine left her desk to first go to an eastern window, and then to the office door of Southwest Publishing Co., she would never have been in a position where she could not have been seen by a returning Mrs. Reid.

      But, let us assume Mrs. Reid did manage to sneak in while Geneva was away from her desk, and Oswald did manage to sneak out the front door, avoiding Geneva and encountering Mrs. Reid in the process. What became of Mrs. Reid after this encounter? She mentions nothing about going to the ladies’ room, only about opening the conference room much later after other police have begun searching the floor.

      So, if Mrs. Reid entered the large office area, encountered a fleeing Oswald and then stayed in the office area, why did Geneva Hine not see her when she returned to answer phones?

      “Mr. BALL. When you came back in did you see Mrs. Reid?
      Miss HINE. No, sir; I don’t believe there was a soul in the office when I came back in right then.”

  39. Eddy says:

    All JFK theories battle unnecessarily with burden of proof issues, This is my take on Prayerman:

    1. The film footage shows an unidentified man. There is NO cast iron evidence of who it is.
    2. Oswald’s own statements and alleged statements can be construed to place him in the Prayerman location.
    3. Statements of others cast large doubt as to the alleged lunchroom encounter. There is doubt as to its location and doubt as to its actual occurrence.(For me Marion Baker’s testimony stinks)
    4. Statements of others support the case that Prayerman is Oswald. Statements of Wesley Buell Frasier are equivocal.

    The case made for Oswald being Prayerman in my view is sufficient to take very seriously. The burden of proof in the research community in my view rests with those who reject it to provide better supporting evidence it isn’t Oswald. So far I note here two poor arguments.

    1. The Picture is too fuzzy to tell.
    2. The evidence puts him elsewhere.

    In response to these two poor arguments I say; read what I wrote at the top of this thread and persuade me the burden of proof (in the research community) lies with The Prayerman supporters.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Well said, Eddy. However, neither side of this argument will ever make any progress until a better quality frame of PM is unearthed.

      For myself, I would like to believe PM is Oswald, as much evidence points to this being a possibility, but I will never be convinced 100% until a) a better quality picture shows up or b) someone, such as Buell Wesley Frazier, ID’s PM as Oswald on his deathbed.

      I’m sure that, with either one of these occurrences, the naysayers will still be in complete denial, as usual.

    • “So far I note here two poor arguments.
      1. The Picture is too fuzzy to tell.
      2. The evidence puts him elsewhere.”~Eddy

      How can they be “poor arguments” when they are both true? If you cannot see that by your own reasoning, then persuading you that the burden of proof lies with The Prayerman supporters, will be an exercise in futility; as YOU are obviously a Prayerman supporter.
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Okay, I get it now, Willy!

        Them’s not fer us is agains’ us, right?

        This is just like Dubya on his way to Iraq!

        🙂

      • Photon says:

        Since when have true statements been an obstacle to Conspiracy buffs? Oswald had every opportunity to tell the world ( and the cops) that he was at the Prayer Man position.
        He didn’t.
        He was never aware that there was an individual in the shadows at the front of the TSBD that was not identified; if he had been he would have been singing about it to every reporter that he came into contact with.
        He wasn’t aware because he was still in the TSBD- and stuck with his story that he never went out to watch the motorcade nor the reaction to the shooting.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Not a Prayer Man diehard, but what if Oswald told Fritz more than Fritz jotted down on paper?

          What if he sang but nobody listened or repeated what he said?

          Fritz is not without suspicion.

      • Eddy says:

        I thought I was fairly clear, but I’ll try again. You CANNOT reject that Prayerman is Oswald because the picture is fuzzy. I took a fuzzy picture of myself once, guess what ? It was me! To say that ‘the evidence’ puts him elsewhere is ‘true’ is sloppy and lazy. An enquiring mind would struggle to be convinced as to where Oswald was in(or nearly in) the TSBD at the time of the shooting. I find the Prayerman argument persuasive enough to be seriously considered. I find the Oswald/Lovelady mix-up theory less so.

        • “I find the Prayerman argument persuasive enough to be seriously considered.”~Eddy

          It HAS been considered for two threads and hundreds of comments Eddy. I find your comment about being identifiable in your own fuzzy self portrait a most tepid and weak proposal.

          I also find the arguments placing Oswald on the steps at the time the rifle shots were fired as utterly unconvincing. It is not that the points have gone unconsidered Eddy, it is that the points for Oswald being Prayerman are found wanting.
          \\][//

        • Paulf says:

          Eddy:

          As someone who is not a serious researcher in this community, I’m amazed at how much energy is spent arguing this. Without a clear picture, PM as Oswald is a possibility, maybe a tantalizing theory, but not one that can ever be proved and it makes no sense to put much stock in it without more evidence.

          I don’t think Oswald was the shooter, but I would never argue he was PM without something more to go on. Besides, focusing so much on that puts the burden of proof on the people who think he didn’t do it to prove where he was. Wherever he was, more important is the fact that there is no proof he was in the snipers nest doing the shooting.

    • Max says:

      Another important point about the prayerman saga: The FBI questioned every worker in the TSBD over & over again asking if they had seen any “strangers” inside the building that morning, and to a man, not one person reported seeing any stranger in the TSBD on that fateful day.

      Most likely, whoever was standing in those shadows that day, worked at TSBD.

      • “not one person reported seeing any stranger in the TSBD on that fateful day.”~Max

        You might have noticed Max, that the so-called Prayerman was NOT in the TBDB, he/she was standing outside on the steps…that is the whole issue here.
        \\][//

        • Max says:

          I did notice Willy. It’s doubtful that anyone but an employee was standing on those steps since ALL of the other people on those steps worked at TSBD.

          Another interesting fact is that the position Prayerman was in made it very difficult to see the president passing by. So it defies common sense that a passerby would take up such a poor position to view the motorcade.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            There you go again, Max, trying to infuse logic and common sense into the argument.

            You know they frown upon that kind of behaviour around here, don’t you?

          • “I did notice Willy. It’s doubtful that anyone but an employee was standing on those steps since ALL of the other people on those steps worked at TSBD.”~Max

            You continue on in the same vein with your further remarks above. My point is that it is supposition. There is already enough supposition being offered to prove Oswald was Prayerman to choke a whale.
            \\][//

          • “There you go again, Max, trying to infuse logic and common sense into the argument.”~Bob Prudhomme

            You mean like the logic displayed in the argument that even though Baker was running full bore towards the steps just as the frame cuts off, but he didn’t keep on going for some inexplicable reason?

            Logic dictates that he must have continued, because of his own testimony that he jumped off his motor and ran into the building.
            \\][//

          • ‘I did notice Willy. It’s doubtful that anyone but an employee was standing on those steps since ALL of the other people on those steps worked at TSBD.’ — Max

            Max, with respect that logic doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. “Doubtful” is the first ‘tell’ particularly in light of the direction the PM figure appears to be facing; is it not possible someone other than an employee sought an angle facing the turn from Houston on to Elm to witness the president’s limousine. In fact, has that not long been an argument – why didn’t a lone shooter from the 6th floor take the first shot from that angle? That would offer a possibility in answer to your question related to the position the Prayer Man was in that made it very difficult to see the president passing by. He had already seen him? Film footage has surely proven or disproven that sequence, but there must be an explanation for the direction PM is facing.

            We could compare the position that the image in the corner of the top level of the steps leading to the building on 411 Elm took with that of say, the Umbrella Man or the Dark Complected Man. Who can explain why any of the people that day assumed their positions. Arguing that PM was an employee of the school book depository business begs a statistical study, does it not, instead of a knee jerk assumption that suits a hypothesis. I’ve made similar arguments related to FBI SA Bardwell Odum, but my parameters are far more constrictive.

  40. Eddy says:

    It is alleged that David Phillips stated that Oswald ‘made a mistake’. I have often wondered what that alleged statement referred to. Perhaps he made a mistake as to his desired location?

  41. Bob Prudhomme says:

    I have offered several times to members here to discuss the testimonies and statements of those who witnessed Baker entering the TSBD but, so far, there have been no takers.

    Are we all really that afraid to open that can of worms up?

    • Eddy says:

      I respect your analysis of Baker’s movements Bob and I follow the thread on the Edforum with interest. I do however think it is an element of the story that is lost to time. You present well that Baker may not have entered when he is assumed to have from the film footage. But I cannot see how it can be demonstrated that he didn’t (off camera as it were)stop for 1 second to remove his helmet, and then veer back into the front entrance with everyone on the steps distracted. I don’t think there is any way of tracing and timing his movements.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        You’re absolutely right, Eddy. Baker may very well have veered back to the left and gone straight up the stairs. I’ve often wished I could have met Darnell and given him heck for not tracking Baker for just a few more seconds.

        We know that Baker kept his helmet on, as Bonnie Ray Williams was able to see the top of his helmet as Baker made his way to the 5th floor elevator, after leaving the stairwell.

        The only thing we can do is look at the testimony of the witnesses who would have seen Baker ascending the steps.

        • George says:

          Bob, Bonnie Ray testified that he never saw anyone with Mr Helmet. I know Truly was shorter, but at the very least, he would have HEARD two people – had there actually been two.

          You mention no one seeing Baker going in – but then you also have this Eddie Piper testimony:

          Mr. BALL. You mentioned you saw Truly?
          Mr. PIPER. I don’t know whether it was a policeman or FBI or who it was,
          but another fellow was with him.
          Mr. BALL. And where were you?
          Mr. PIPER. Standing right there where they make coffee.
          Mr. BALL. What did they do?
          Mr. PIPER. He ran in and yelled, “Where is the elevator?” And I said, “I
          don’t know, sir, Mr. Truly.”
          They taken off and went on up the stairway and that’s all I know about
          that.
          ———————–
          The person Piper describes as being with had to be in plain clothes- otherwise how could he possibly think it might be an FBI agent? Piper also has Truly asking where the elevator is, but Truly testified that he looked up to see it was stuck on the 5th floor. He mentions no one there and is not asked if anyone was there.

          Baker WAS asked — and he states he saw two WHITE males.

          That alone puts the time back quite a bit.

          SENATOR COOPER – Did you see anyone else while you were in the building, other than this man you have identified later as Oswald, and Mr. Truly?
          Mr. BAKER – On the first floor there were two men. As we came through the main doorway to the elevators, I remember as we tried to get on the elevators I remember two men, one was sitting on this side and another one between 20 or 30 feet away from us looking at us.

          Mr. DULLES – Were they white men?
          Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir.

          No further questions on that can of worms.

          The whole thing smells – and it is not of roses as some here would have us all believe.

          Piper’s testimony was so problematic for the commission that they called him back for a second round:

          This time, not surprisingly, he told them he thought it was an officer. But then spoiled it by saying he did not recall a helmet – though added he wasn’t paying much attention.

          Mr. PIPER. Mr. Truly and some fellow—I really don’t know who it was; like I say, it was some fellow that was with Mr. Truly.
          Mr. BALL. Some fellow; how was he dressed?
          Mr. PIPER. Oh, I don’t know.
          Mr. BALL. Was he an officer?
          Mr. PIPER. Yes; I believe he was an officer.
          Mr. BALL. A police officer?
          Mr. PIPER. Yes; a police officer.
          Mr. BALL. Did he have a white helmet on?
          Mr. PIPER. No; I don’t think so. I didn’t pay any attention to it. I was already excited over the shooting or something when he came running into the building.
          Mr. BALL. And what did Truly and this–some fellow do?
          Mr. PIPER. Well, Mr. Truly and this fellow run up the steps. He just hollered for the elevator and I said, “I don’t know where it is at,” and I’m still standing over there by that table and he ran up on up the steps with this police officer–him and another fellow and I was standing there and the people began swarming out and around–different ones coming in, but it was where nobody could come out.

          ——————–

          Was Piper there?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Thank you, Greg. Nice to see someone willing to discuss the eyewitness evidence regarding Baker entering the TSBD.

            Bonnie Ray’s WC testimony is rather interesting:

            “Mr. BALL. Now, when you were questioned by the FBI agents, talking to Mr. Odum and Mr. Griffin, they reported in writing here that while you were standing at the west end of the building on the fifth floor, a police officer came up on the elevator and looked all around the fifth floor and left the floor. Did you see anything like that?
            Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I was up there I saw a motorcycle policeman. He came up. And the only thing I saw of him was his white helmet.
            Mr. BALL. What did he
            Mr. WILLIAMS. He just came around, and around to the elevator.
            Mr. BALL. Which elevator?
            Mr. WILLIAMS. I believe it was the east elevator.
            Mr. BALL. Did you see anybody with him?
            Mr. WILLIAMS. I did not.
            Mr. BALL. You were only able to see the top of his helmet?
            Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.”

            Unfortunately for our argument, it appears Bonnie Ray was only able to see the top of the officer’s helmet, making it distinctly possible he was unable to see the shorter Truly.

            The important thing here is to try to gauge how much time had elapsed, since the last shot, before Bonnie Ray saw the helmeted police officer’s helmet.

  42. Present a fuzzy picture, then back it up with fuzzy reasoning, and you have the Prayerman argument. Absurdity stacked on absurdity now become a bonfire of lunacy.

    It would be better to wait for a clearer picture. This nonsense has gone much too far here. Let it be, until it is actually something.
    \\][//

    • Albert Doyle says:

      Thank you Willy. Except you don’t need a clearer photo. The available resolution in both the Darnell and Wiegman film frames is good enough to compare the heights of known individuals to Prayer Man. In Darnell it is the 6 foot tall Frazier, who is visibly 7 inches taller than Prayer Man. This makes Prayer Man 5 foot 5. Low and behold in Unger’s Wiegman GIF we benefit from a triangulation created by Lovelady going from the landing to the first step down. This double comparison shows Lovelady is 2-3 inches taller than Prayer Man when on the landing and 4 inches shorter when on the first step down. These height differences, when compared to the known 5 foot 8 height of Lovelady, are a second corroborating source for Oswald being 5 foot 5. Two confirming pieces of evidence usually constitutes proof in court.

      There has been a notable lack of honesty involved with this issue. ROKC’s Bart Kamp lied. He tried to say Lovelady and Prayer Man were both on the first step down and of equal height (He realizes he’s got a problem with Prayer Man’s height, so he solves it by incorrectly placing Prayer Man on the step). When I told him that would require a 7 inch difference when Lovelady was on the landing Kamp refused to answer. Prudhomme tried to get around it by changing Prayer Man to a 5 foot 9 Oswald and arguing from there. However that is not the terms we were arguing. If Prudhomme had honestly answered them he would see that all the evidence proves Prayer Man is 5 foot 5 when compared to Lovelady and Frazier. Both Kamp and Prudhomme failed to notice the height of the people to the right on the landing shows Lovelady was on the landing.

      Josephs lied when he said you can’t compare people’s heights in these 2d photos. The Unger gif creates technical geometric 3d that must be answered to. Josephs ignores it. The real science involved proves Frazier and Prayer Man are only 12 inches apart in depth at the most and are therefore validly comparable by eye. Prayer Man is clearly too short to be Oswald no matter how much contrived wishful thinking evidence-hacking ROKC tries to force.

      DiEugenio has decided to forfeit his credibility entirely.

      • “DiEugenio has decided to forfeit his credibility entirely.”
        ~Albert Doyle

        Are you saying that DiEugenio supports the Oswald as Prayerman assertions? I didn’t know that.

        It seems out of character for DiEugenio, as far as I have read most of his contributions.
        \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Oh great, Albert and Willy agreeing with each other.

        As they say, great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ.

        • Albert Doyle says:

          You can see what Bob offers towards intelligently-argued facts. He thinks he’s above answering provable arguments and can answer with what is basically trolling. Bob is making the mistake of thinking he still has any credibility left after entering such an intellectually self-destructive reply. What he’s really saying is he can’t refute anything I wrote. He’s been filling websites and wasting people’s time with pro-Prayer Man garbage for several years and when called on it basically gives a school girl answer while assuming credibility. He groups up with people for unfair action against you not caring that you are correct and he is offering wrong information. That’s a sign of bad character.

          DiEugenio doesn’t want to admit he backed the wrong horse with Murphy on his CTKA website. Like Bob he refuses to give any direct answer and plays dumb. Bob forgets he himself posted in the Education Forum Murphy thread that he thought Prayer Man was too short in Wiegman. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned the rank dishonesty involved with this subject and I’m glad Bob stepped up to show us a good example. Bob thinks he’s above facts.

          His reply above doesn’t necessarily say I’m wrong. Sorry Bob, you have to have a harder spine and better character to deal at this level and your troll replies ain’t cutting it. Try honestly answering what was written.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Such a bitter little man you are, Albert.

            Yes, I did ask, at the Ed Forum, if PM might not be a bit too short to be Oswald, in comparison to the six foot tall Frazier, but I also asked the members to pursue a line of investigation to determine if something about the perspective of the camera might have created this illusion.

            As far as I know, no satisfactory conclusion was ever drawn on the matter, and the jury is still out on this matter.

            Just as the Darnell still is too fuzzy to confirm PM’s identity or gender, it is also too fuzzy to determine if we are seeing a true height difference between Oswald and Frazier, or merely an illusion.

            Of course, for “researchers” such as yourself, Willy and MacRae, no real investigation is necessary, as the three of you already know the answer to every question there ever was concerning the JFK investigation.

            What is truly comical is MacRae’s “ID” of PM as Prayer Woman, complete with coiffed hair, giant buttons on an overcoat and a handbag, no less. I’m willing to concede that determining the true identity of PM may be impossible from this photo but, the last person I knew that was able to see so many things like that was high on LSD.

          • Albert Doyle,

            I am not sure what the problem Prudhomme has with you is, but your presence here certainly seems to cause a hysterical reaction in him.

            I don’t know enough about the measurement process used to come to the conclusions you have to agree with you or not.

            But I will say that I have found Prudhomme’s arguments here far from rational. There has certainly been nothing in them to convince me in them.

            He seems to mention LSD quite a bit. Curious, I wonder if he may have had a bad trip at some point in his life? It could be he is having flashbacks now for some reason, some abstract association with something here…???

            \\][//

        • “Oh great, Albert and Willy agreeing with each other.”
          ~Bob Prudhomme

          Where do you read I am agreeing with Albert Bob?

          I did not agree with anything, I simply asked a question: Are you saying that DiEugenio supports the Oswald as Prayerman assertions?
          \\][//

          • Albert Doyle says:

            ” Just as the Darnell still is too fuzzy to confirm PM’s identity or gender, it is also too fuzzy to determine if we are seeing a true height difference between Oswald and Frazier, or merely an illusion. ”

            This is an unsubmittable level of argument and is false. Anyone can go to Murphy’s own Darnell image and see there are no clarity issues that would disallow the clearly visible 7 inch height difference. Prudhomme is the only person whom I’ve ever seen claim that the Darnell image is too fuzzy to see the 7 inch height difference between Frazier and Prayer Man. Frankly I think it is obvious he is lying exactly because he knows if he publicly admits this he’ll also have to admit that Oswald can’t be Prayer Man.

            If we were in a court in front of a jury I would ask the jury to look at Mr Prudhomme’s very precise analysis of the Wiegman shot on the Education Forum where, using a much more obscure photo than Darnell, Mr Prudhomme had no problem precisely identifying the 2-3 inch height difference seen in that image. So while Mr Prudhomme is asking us to believe he thinks the fairly clear Murphy Darnell enlargement is too fuzzy to see the obvious 7 inch height difference in that image he had no such problem identifying the height difference in an image of much poorer resolution. The jury would make quick work of fuzzy Bob. Bob, like DiEugenio and Kamp, suddenly gets very poor vision when asked to look at our proof.

            I think the jury would also not miss the fact that Bob makes a strong case in his statement that the Darnell image is too fuzzy but then has no problem making a definite claim that Prayer Man is Oswald. Too fuzzy to see the most basic image level of block height but not too fuzzy to see the precise details, he just said were not visible, that prove it was Oswald.

            Bob has entered a falsehood above and any examiner will see that Darnell is not too fuzzy to determine height. Mr Prudhomme is not being honest. There’s a clearly-visible 7 inch height difference between Frazier and Prayer Man that would be proven so by credible vetting. You are getting a good example of Mr Prudhomme’s character here.

  43. Max says:

    Leslie: Since the Warren Commission butchered the case all researchers & interested parties are forced to use various investigative modalities. Sometimes all we have is guesswork & common sense.

    When you are trying to put a case like this together there are going to be areas of the case that are lost to us forever due to time, death & shoddy investigation of the source material back when the case was solvable.

    I’m satisfied that the Prayerman figure was most likely a worker at TSBD since it’s unlikely a passerby mixed himself in with the work crowd. I’m also very leery of Frazier & his inability to identify who is standing right next to him, yet he can name everyone else on the steps. I also have some issues with other statements by Frazier, but that’s for another thread.

    I’m impressed by Sean Murphy’s work on this & his systematic elimination, one by one, of all the other white males workers at TSBD until we are left with Oswald.

    I trust my own eyes….the clear frames of Prayerman, especially looking at that hairline & shirt, look shockingly like Oswald. To state the obvious. None of us have solved this case, and unless we get some kind of breakthrough, it will never be solved. Will Prayerman break the case….who knows ? Tell you what: Nothing else in over the last 50 years have solved this case. So in my mind, this research has its place in trying to figure out what happened that day.

    • “I’m also very leery of Frazier & his inability to identify who is standing right next to him, yet he can name everyone else on the steps. I also have some issues with other statements by Frazier, but that’s for another thread.”~Max

      Aren’t you aware of Frazier’s testimony at the Clay Shaw trial where he says very clearly that Oswald was NOT out on the steps with him and the other people when the motorcade went by, and the shots were fired?
      . . . . .

      Q: Did you ever see Lee Harvey Oswald during that time that you were on the steps in front of the Texas School Book Depository?
      A: No, sir, I did not.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ../testimony/frazierb3.htm
      \\][//

      • Max says:

        I’m aware that Frazier has said that, and I’m aware that Frazier is now saying he seen Oswald leave the building & walk down the street after the shooting….something he did not say in the past. Did he forget that for 50 years, or is he lying now, or then ?

        • Albert Doyle says:

          ” I trust my own eyes….the clear frames of Prayerman, especially looking at that hairline & shirt, look shockingly like Oswald. ”

          Mr Prudhomme did not protest this claim, which makes him a hypocrite. He just spent a full post claiming that the detail level for the most basic determination of height was not available yet has no problem with this detail level which is of an order requiring a much deeper level of clarity than the simple observation of height.

          Max, you are ignoring valid proof that Oswald can’t be Prayer Man by height comparison, and then entering claims that are inherently flawed as shown by that same proof.

          • Max says:

            There is conflicting data on the height issue. It’s by no means settled, Albert.

          • Peter Sellers says:

            Albert, your simple observation of height is just that. Simple. The bottom line is that Prayer Man looks a lot like Oswald or you couldn’t be here arguing your inanities on the subject. You should be grateful.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            This arrangement of stills from the Wiegman film clearly shows two things; the 5’9″ Oswald (if PM is Oswald) and the 5’8″ Lovelady appear very similar in height, when both are standing on the top step. It also appears to show that PM is at the rear of the 4 foot wide landing, while Lovelady is out at the front of the landing. As Wiegman is below both figures, this could easily make the shorter Lovelady appear to be taller than PM/Oswald.

            http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Steps_1.gif

          • Albert Doyle says:

            No, Max. Sorry. You can’t get away with that. We have proven this and you are failing to live up to it in your answer. It can correctly be said that those who still back Prayer Man as Oswald are contemptuously ignoring our proof. If we brought this to a courtroom level a judge would make quick work of you flagrant deniers. There’s no conflicting data on the height evidence and if we were to force you out of your obviously self-serving one line answers and into credible vetting you would be shown as the excuse-maker you are who was ignoring good evidence. You can’t get away with that. Our evidence is firm and easily understandable. So much so that the opposition is only left with dishonest answers like yours. It’s obvious you people just want to believe Oswald is Prayer Man no matter what you’re shown.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Who has proven what, Albert? You and Duncan MacRae, one of the biggest shills this investigation ever attracted? Don’t make me laugh.

        • Albert Doyle says:

          Peter Sellers is a good example of the deniers. I’ve made the best, most intelligent, scientific argument of evidence on the Prayer Man issue in the world. Peter Sellers, who is used to getting away with clownish posts, dares come in and ignore the clearly stated terms of that argument, entering a silly dodge instead of a credible answer to what I wrote. He’s a perfect example of the ROKC clowns that have hijacked this issue away from those with the better minds and approaches. All ad hom no substance. It’s silly. All he’s telling us is that he can’t give any direct or serious answer to what I wrote. These people are quite arrogant because they think they are above good arguments. Prudhomme couldn’t answer my last post but that doesn’t affect his attitude one bit. He thinks he’s above that and privileged to give the snipes he offers despite offering nothing to back them. The reason my height argument is final proof is because these guys can’t answer it. There’s just fools who haven’t caught up yet because they want to believe Prayer Man is Oswald.

          • Tom S. says:

            ….that have hijacked this issue away from those with the better minds and approaches. All ad hom no substance. It’s silly….

            Care to respond to this?:

            http://www.amazon.com/Prayer-Man-Shadows-Into-Light/product-reviews/1944205012/
            Prayer Man: Out of the Shadows and Into the Light › Customer Reviews

            https://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-873740
            George – May 2, 2016 at 6:14 am
            ……
            Three of those reviews are by the same person using different names – 2 negative – one positive (that one being under his real name, Brian Doyle aka Albert Doyle aka Ralph Yates)

          • Albert Doyle says:

            You can tell when you made a good post by Tom’s switching the subject to you instead of admitting your good science.

          • David Hazan says:

            “You can tell when you made a good post by Tom’s switching the subject to you instead of admitting your good science.” ~ Albert Doyle

            Albert… Even if I were to assume what you are saying about what Tom is doing there is true , I’d still be very curious to see what your answer is to Tom’s question.

            How come three reviews? How come the favorable one is with your own name, and the others fake?

          • Bart Kamp says:

            Doyle,
            keep on denying, like Whitten does.
            Fact is you nitpick about something you are absolutely clueless about nor provide anything by yourself to provide to the contrary. NADA!!!!.
            You have lied your way though this the second the stranger scenario was killed off in Sept. 2015
            No Cter or LNer is taking you seriously, leave it out son. Get your self another bowl at MacRae’s

          • Albert Doyle says:

            Kamp is obviously intellectually challenged. He lied, claiming Prayer Man and Lovelady were on the first step down in Wiegman. He also lied, saying Lovelady was about the same height as Prayer Man. I answered that science requires that if that is true therefore when Lovelady was on the landing he would be 7 inches taller than Prayer Man. But in Unger’s gif we don’t see that. Instead we see Lovelady is 2-3 inches taller when on the landing and 4 inches shorter when on the first step down. This is exactly what you would see if Lovelady was framing a 5 foot 5 Prayer Man from two positions. There’s nothing wrong with this simple practical science argument, nor can Kamp show where it’s wrong. The assassination community has no credibility because it allows this level of stupidity and doesn’t call Kamp on it. He simply can’t answer it and therefore concedes. Go ahead Kamp, back up what you say and show what is wrong with my 7 inch argument. You’re all wind no substance.

            Kamp ignored that the figures to the right in the portal prove Prayer Man is on the landing.

          • Bart Kamp,

            The ‘Prayerman’ argument is all based on empty conjecture, supposition, and presumption. The theory defies and disregards the known facts. In aggregate, the Prayerman proposal is argumentum verbosium, and an endless circular argument ad nauseam.
            \\][//

  44. George says:

    “When did Frazier say that Oswald was standing next to him with the shots were fired?”

    Dearest Willy,

    I do not believe anyone said he did say that. Quite the opposite. He has said he is sure Oswald was not on the steps.

    What he DID say of relevance here is “If I had seen him out there I would’ve told the Police when they asked”.

    WHEN THEY ASKED. Why did they ask if they had such a great case that he was elsewhere, Willy?

    George,
    Your BFF

    • George,

      Frazier was on the steps as the motorcade went by. He said he did not see Oswald on the steps. The shots were fired while Frazier was on the steps.

      Now you posted this quote:

      “When did Frazier say that Oswald was standing next to him with the shots were fired?”

      I am not aware of Frazier ever saying that? Are you claiming he did?
      If so give us a citation.
      \\][//

  45. George says:

    “‘ . . . what on earth do you think was said to him about saying Oswald was standing next to him when the shots were fired?’

    As emotional as this argument is Vanessa, it is fanciful. Frazier has had decades to ‘come clean’, cognizant that this debate has been in the public domain long enough to ensure him that his, or that of his family’s, safety is guaranteed. It’s a flawed argument Vanessa, there is no context, nothing to distinguish the threat about the brown bag from the allegation that Oswald was standing within feet of Frazier outside the building. Nothing but conjecture. Take us down another path of this theory because the ‘Frazier being frightened of his safety’ argument left the depot long ago”

    “Frazier has had decades to come clean, cognizant that this debate has been in the public domain long enough… tada yada yada…”

    Firstly — what debate are you referring to Leslie? The PM debate? There was no debate until a couple of years ago.

    The Altgens6 debate? That was settled decades and only in recent years has it been resurrected to any noticeable degree.

    Secondly, you don’t know his level of cognizance. You think whatever pops into your head is a fact.

    He has now been asked about PM by at least 4 people I know oF. In one of those interviews, he was asked if he was aware of all the controversy on the web. According to Frazier himself, he wasn’t. He claims not follow it. You can choose to doubt him if you want.

    Another thing he has said in one of those interviews (which I think is a good indicator of how his mind works), was that he would have been happy for Lee to be on the steps next to him because that not only would be Lee’s alibi – it would be his own. He was referring to the fact that he was under pressure to sign a false confession as co=conspirator that night. That is another of his recent claims, btw. And I don’t doubt it for a second. It is exactly what Rose tried to do to the patsy in the Thin Blue Line case.

    But back to the way Buell’s mind works. Why does he need an alibi? If he was innocent, there would be NO evidence of his guilt, would there?

    No. Suggesting he could have used an alibi as well, despite knowing for a stone cold fact that he was innocent, is prima facie evidence that Buell knew how the justice system worked – that if they wanted to put you in jail, they would do that by any means available – including planting evidence and coercing witnesses etc.

    Which brings us back to the question of pressure and how much… on each witness, and what the authorities would settle for by way of what goes into a statement – and what doesn’t.

    • Jean Davison says:

      “Suggesting he could have used an alibi as well, despite knowing for a stone cold fact that he was innocent, is prima facie evidence that Buell knew how the justice system worked – that if they wanted to put you in jail, they would do that by any means available – including planting evidence and coercing witnesses etc.”

      That’s your interpretation, but not necessarily a fact. In a article I just found, Frazier said that some people blamed him for “helping” Oswald by giving him a ride to work. He said that at times he’d been “afraid that he might be killed by people seeking revenge for JFK’s death…” If Oswald had been outside with him, Frazier wouldn’t have had that problem.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3326233/I-drove-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-book-depository-don-t-believe-shot-JFK-52-years-assassination-Oswald-s-friend-says-convinced-patsy-real-gunman-grassy-knoll.html

      • George says:

        “That’s your interpretation, but not necessarily a fact. In a article I just found, Frazier said that some people blamed him for “helping” Oswald by giving him a ride to work. He said that at times he’d been “afraid that he might be killed by people seeking revenge for JFK’s death…” If Oswald had been outside with him, Frazier wouldn’t have had that problem.” Jean

        No. It just becomes a conspiracy of nuts with neither of those two being a shooter – but maybe lookouts. So it doesn’t necessarily get him off the hook with vengeful nuts, either.

        But thank you for making Vanessa’s point. What may have begun as fear over one thing from one source, apparently morphed into a more generalized fear – as can happen in cases of PTSD.

    • George.

      Do you know the difference between empty supposition and stated facts?

      You are making suppositions here that have absolutely no basis in the facts. Frazier states very clearly that he was on the steps to the TBDB when the motorcade went by. He states very clearly that Oswald was not among the people on the steps with him. He states clearly that he heard the shot as the motorcade passed.

      Now both you and Vanessa are making assertions that have no basis for even the suspicion that Frazier was lying in his testimony.

      Now many years after the event, Frazier has been involved in discussing things about that day. But ALL of this falls into the category of HEARSAY. And YOU and your comrades are obviously counting on hearsay from every direction, from Holmes, to Frazier’s latter day musings to make a case. This is utter nonsense. It is just the type of “bla bla bla” you and Vanessa spout and turn around and accuse your adversaries of.
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        If it comes from Frazier, and involves Frazier’s personal recollections, how can it be hearsay?

        hear·say
        ˈhirˌsā/
        noun
        information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.

        • “information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.”

          It can be legally deemed “hearsay” if the commentary is in conflict with earlier testimony under oath, and it cannot be adequately substantiated, it is the same as rumor at that point.
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Would you consider a statement given to the DPD as being testimony under oath, Willy?

        • The Federal Rules of Evidence (See Article VIII) provide a general definition of hearsay as a “statement, other than one made by the declarant *while testifying at the trial or hearing*, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted”.
          \\][//

  46. George says:

    Tom, in relation to your copying in something on Fritz’ notes from the Puzzle Palace.
    ————————-
    Mr. BALL. That was about what time you heard that? You have a little notebook there.
    Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I have a notebook.
    Mr. BALL. Did you make notes as of that time?
    Mr. FRITZ. We made this, not at that time, we made this after the tragedy.
    Mr. BALL. How long after?
    Mr. FRITZ. We started on it real soon after, and we have been working on it ever since.
    Mr. BALL. Did somebody assist you in the preparation of that notebook?
    Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BALL. Who was that?
    Mr. FRITZ. I had several officers assist me with this, and some secretaries, of course, that helped us with it. I had my lieutenant, T. L. Baker, help me to put this book together, this larger book, I think you have a copy of it there, and to make some additional books like this.
    Of course, we worked the whole office ever since it happened so it is hard to say just who helped.
    Mr. BALL. Now, the book you are talking about is a notebook that you have with you, the book at which you are looking now?
    Mr. FRITZ. This is the book I am talking about.
    Mr. BALL. You made a formal report, didn’t you, to the attorney general of Texas?
    Mr. FRITZ. We, we didn’t make it for the attorney general of Texas. At the time we made this we were just making, we were told that we would probably need a report for this investigation, and we started immediately to making this. We didn’t know at that time the attorney general would need one of these but when we were told he would need one we, of course, sent him one, too.
    Mr. BALL. What I want to do is distinguish between the books you are looking at for this record.
    Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BALL. You have a book that is of some size there?
    Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
    Mr. BALL. And you call that what?
    Mr. FRITZ. Well, “Investigation of the Assassination of President Kennedy.”
    Mr. BALL. That is the same as Commission’s Document No. 81B. Now, then, you have a smaller book before you, haven’t you?
    Mr. FRITZ. Yes; a little index book.
    Mr. BALL. An index.
    Mr. FRITZ. It really is an index book for this larger file but it is kind of a quick reference book.
    ———————–
    The notes that were given to the ARRB were NOT taken directly during testimony by Fritz.

    They were notes cribbed from Bookhout’s notes for use in the above-mentioned report.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Hi Greg

      Back a little on this thread, Tom S. and I have been having a rather strange debate about Fritz’s handwritten notes, given to the ARRB some thirty odd years after the assassination by an anonymous donor. Without actually coming out and saying so, Tom has been inferring that Fritz’s handwritten notes are not genuine, and that we should be relying solely on his sworn testimony, despite the fact that Fritz testified to making notes about the interrogation of Oswald several days after the interrogation.

      I have never heard anyone suggest these notes of Fritz’s are not genuine, and the mere fact they are presently in the National Archives tells me they would have been gone over very carefully in order to ascertain they were actually written by Fritz.

      • If one reads and comprehends Captain Fritz’s Warren Commission testimony, he clearly stated that they were compiled by committee.
        Tom is not claiming they are not the product of Fritz’s endeavors, and not “genuine” in that sense. What Tom is saying is that they are not solely Fritz’s memories, and most importantly that they can only be considered paraphrased commentary ATTRIBUTED to Oswald, and NOT Oswald’ words themselves.
        \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Willy

          Please explain to me how a committee can compile a page of handwritten notes for Capt. Will Fritz that are in Capt. Will Fritz’s handwriting.

          Then explain to me WHY Fritz would write the words “out in front with Bill Shelley” if Oswald had not actually spoken those words.

          • Read Fritz’s testimony to the Warren Commission Bob.

            The notes are another matter than the Report Fritz refers to in his testimony.
            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Willy

            I do not know if you are just particularly thick, or if you are putting on an act.

            I am not discussing the typed Report Fritz refers to in his testimony to the WC.

            I am referring to his handwritten notes, which he also refers to in his testimony as being written, by him, several days later.

            Capiche?

            One question, and one question only.

            WHY would Fritz write, in his own handwriting, “out in front with Bill Shelley” if this was not something told to him by Oswald?

        • George says:

          “If one reads and comprehends Captain Fritz’s Warren Commission testimony, he clearly stated that they were compiled by committee.”

          Willy, my dearest friend, I took your advice and read it, but all I could find was this, which says he had help in doing it.

          Mr. BALL. Did somebody assist you in the preparation of that notebook?
          Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
          Mr. BALL. Who was that?
          Mr. FRITZ. I had several officers assist me with this, and some secretaries, of course, that helped us with it. I had my lieutenant, T. L. Baker, help me to put this book together, this larger book, I think you have a copy of it there, and to make some additional books like this.
          Of course, we worked the whole office ever since it happened so it is hard to say just who helped.

          • com·mit·tee
            kəˈmidē/
            noun
            1.
            a group of people appointed for a specific function, typically consisting of members of a larger group.
            “the housing committee”
            synonyms:board, council, brain trust
            “she appointed a committee to look into the busing issue”
            2.
            LAW
            a person entrusted with the charge of another person or another person’s property.
            ….
            Recall that these words in this report, even in the notes are NOT Oswald’s direct recorded words, but instead paraphrased by Fritz and his group AFTER THE FACT.
            \\][//

          • Let’s get this straight once and for all:

            The very reason for a court stenographer, or electronic recording of testimony is due to the fact that human recall cannot cite verbatim testimony.

            It is preposterous that Fritz could write down what Oswald had answered verbatim, especially several days later. We will never know what Oswald’s actual words were, nor the context they were put.

            This is why the testimony of other witnesses takes precedence over any second hand reconstructions created after the fact.

            This is the point that both Tom Scully and myself have been making throughout this thread.
            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Let’s see if I understand what you are saying here, Willy.

            When Fritz made his handwritten notes several days after the interrogation, his memory was nowhere near as good as witnesses who did not testify until several months after the assassination?

          • Tom S. says:

            When Fritz made his handwritten notes several days after the interrogation,

            Bob, how are you linking the notes you are quoting to a specific week or month in which they were actually committed to paper,
            and to Fritz? Please post the documentation attesting to Fritz handing the original documents displaying the notes you are quoting to an individual qualified to assign an identifiers (a CE, followed by a number, for example, but not restricted to the Warren Inquiry). As you would demand of CE399, what is the documented origin and chain of custody of what the ARRB described as Fritz’s notes, proffered years before to the ARRB, or to somebody, by an anonymous donor.
            Twenty years later, can you describe the name of the donor of Fritz’s notes and a direct quote from that source?

            Do you have a double standard as to the provenance of evidence, or is it more like you need supporting evidence and this is what you are able to cite?
            You appear to be making a big leap, describing with any confidence that you are quoting from Fritz’s notes, written in a time frame you can link what you
            are quoting to. You get as far as your argument will take you, if it is supported by a chain of custody beginning with authorship, recovery, donation to
            the ARRB. You argue as if you’ve presented all of that detail. Maybe you did, and I missed it?

          • Tom S. says:

            Bob, three additional observations you could consider. Fritz’s notes are a tough row to hoe. The chain of evidence, from proven authorsip to NARA:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_Fritz_Papers.html
            Featured: The papers of Capt. Will Fritz
            Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz donated these documents to the National Archives in the 1990s during the tenure of the Assassination Archives Review Board. …
            http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=9809&PIpi=20591305

            Someone donated the notes, but the donor was not Fritz. The intent of Fritz, related to the notes is not known, nor
            his opinion of the accuracy of them, or more than assumption that he was the actual author. All we know for sure is
            the notes were not made public before Fritz died. The record describes twelve hours of interrogating Oswald, but do the brief notes support that length of time? What were they discussing during all that time, as much of it certainly isn’t accounted for in the brief, abbreviated scrawl described as Fritz’s interrogation notes.

            2. No one has done well touting Fritz’s notes….just as Jim Fetzer how quoting Fritz’s notes advanced his theories

            3.

            The first page of these includes the notation “two negr. came in…..one Jr. + short negro.” This simple notation can be plausibly interpreted as an alibi for Oswald for the time of the shooting. It corroborates FBI Agent Bookhout’s account, and contradicts other accounts including that of Fritz himself that Oswald had said he had eaten lunch with two negros (see Fritz’s Interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, p.7 in these papers, and also in the Warren Report, p.605). – https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_Fritz_Papers.html

          • Oswald’s interrogation sessions lasted at least eleven hours, no recordings or transcripts were made of his interrogation sessions.
            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Tom

            The handwritten notes of the interrogation by Will Fritz were given first to the ARRB and then they ended up at the National Archives.

            Do you think the people running the ARRB and NARA were children? Seriously, Tom, an anonymous donor drops off Fritz’s handwritten notes of the interrogation, and nobody checks out its authenticity? Do you have any idea how many crackpots and pranksters were likely dropping off “evidence” related to the assassination?

            Just deal with it, Tom. For these notes to get through the ARRB and end up enshrined at NARA, some group checked out their authenticity six ways from Sunday. So, why don’t we just drop the vague inferences to fakery regarding the notes. It may take some time, but I will find information on the verification of these notes.

          • bart kamp says:

            Whiiten seems to forget about Sorrels and Hosty’s notes………..

  47. George says:

    “Ronnie, same answer, again. I am not speculating. I am taking a practical (realistic) approach. What I can say unequivocally is that the weight of Fritz’s notes is light. The weight of the sworn testimony of Shelley and Lovelady is heavy. The notes attributed to Fritz more than thirty years after his sworn testimony do not impeach his testimony and certainly do not impeach the testimony of Lovelady or Shelley.”

    Fritz’s notes were never meant for public consumption – and that adds weight to them. Moreover, as I said in a previous post, the notes were cribbed from Bookhout’s notes to be used in the report he had with him while testifying.

    I’d like to an idea on how far you’re willing to stretch credulity with this emphasis on the swearing aspect of testimony as if that automatically and magically imbues it with truthfulness.

    So.. Marina’s testimony has the same 100% weighting with Tom’s Used Car Yard Seal of Approval? Yes or no?

    Ruth Paine gets the 100% weighting with Tom’s Used Car Yard Seal of Approval? Yes or No?

    Mike Paine gets the 100% weighting with Tom’s Used Car Yard’s Seal of Approval? Yes or No?

    J Edgar Hoover gets the 100% weighting with Tom’s Used Car Yard Seal of Approval? Yes or no?

    How many people do you believe lied under oath to the WC, Tom? Give me a number between 0 and a hundred.

    How many people were charged with perjury Tom? Give me a number between 0 and 100.

    How many people had their testimony tested under that old-fashioned thing called cross-examination, Tom? Give me a number between 0 and 100.

  48. George says:

    “Ronnie, the world is not warming up to this theory’s merits. The reason is that mostly it a result of analysis that lacks supporting evidence. Ask George about the book sales numbers or the growth stats of his forum’s membership.” Tom

    From Amazon reviews of Stan Dane’s book. All quotes from people not associated with the author or with ROKC and I am not limiting it positive ones:

    “The most significant recent development in the JFK case”

    “A mystery solved”

    “Personally, this book has established a legitimate level of belief that Prayer Man can be predicted as Oswald”

    “This book is interesting but the conclusion requires lies by at least 3 people with no real reason to lie or maintain that lie. Let’s hope the images get clearer in the future.”

    “The new evidence we’ve all been waiting for.”

    “I have read enough to be convinced author Stan Dane has a winner!”

    “Ignore the naysayers, this is a great book.”

    “How ridiculous. Talk about a bunch of people chasing their own tails.”

    “The Reopen The Kennedy Case (ROKC) website is behind this book as Stand Dane and Greg Parker are regular organizing members. A month ago Assassination researcher Duncan MacRae posted a blow-up of the film frame image of Prayer Man taken by WBAP camera-man James Darnell. The blow-up image clearly shows the long dark hair and arm posture of a woman, therefore refuting the thesis of this book that Prayer Man is Lee Harvey Oswald.”

    “Is it Oswald? You bet it is.”

    “If only I could give 0 stars or negative stars, I would.”

    “Don’t make the mistake of taking this book or its author seriously.”

    “I honestly liked the what the author had to convey. It was a little hard to read because the author kept quoting and referring to another person in Sean Murphy who did all the research”

    Three of those reviews are by the same person using different names – 2 negative – one positive (that one being under his real name, Brian Doyle aka Albert Doyle aka Ralph Yates) Another negative on is by Ralph Cinque. No surprise there.

    Apart from that we have had positive feedback from authors, journalists, photographers and other influential and interested parties.

    Your little inner world may not be warming to it, but a significant number of the remaining population are. Views for example of Bart Kamp’s FREE video is fast approaching 100,000 hits. Bart’s interview on the subject on Rob Clark’s podcast broke records for listeners to Rob’s show. The MFF named both Stan’s and my book among the 8 most valuable for 2015.

    But of course, you want it both ways – suggesting on the one hand that no one is paying any attention while on the other, trying to say we are just cynically in it to sell lots of books. All that does is show how low you’re willing to go. I don’t see the same criticism of other authors or film-makers and is an insult to industries that have contributed greatly to a better understanding of the world we live in. What should we do? Ban books and films? Just a cheap shot from a very disturbing individual.

    As for site membership — I have never – until today at the request of other members – solicited any members at my site. I posted on my own at my original site when I started, content just to use it as a repository for my own research. That people slowly started joining is as much a shock to me as it is to you. But you know what? I wouldn’t swap the membership I have now for all the tea in China. They “get it”.

  49. “The notes that were given to the ARRB were NOT taken directly during testimony by Fritz.
    They were notes cribbed from Bookhout’s notes for use in the above-mentioned report.”~George

    So what we have in this “book” attributed to Fritz, are in fact the product of a committee written after the fact by memory. I think this can be justly characterized as hearsay. It may be rather formalized hearsay, but it is not a ‘certain’ record. As such, accepting it as if it were the actual words spoken by Oswald, rather than a log of paraphrases would be in error.

    There is no valid excuse for this situation. Everyone must certainly recognize this as a fact. They might have well have been playing checkers with Oswald since they did no contemporaneous recording, neither by stenographer or tape recorder.

    DPD – Fail…one more time.
    \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Very pathetic attempt at diverting attention away from the topic at hand, Willy. You get a D+ on that one.

      • What is the “topic at hand” Prudhomme?

        1. Do you refer to the “Prayerman” topic?

        2. Do you refer to the Will Fritz “Report” as explained to the Warren Commission?

        3. OR do you refer to the “hand written notes” which is in fact only one short note, and the rest a reworking of those “notes” by Bookhout?

        The first is predicated on a blurry image.

        The second is indeed a work of paraphrases written by committee

        The third is a series of paraphrases written by Bookout, perhaps with input from Hosty.
        \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          The “topic at hand” is Capt. Will Fritz’s handwritten notes, written by Will Fritz, in Will Fritz’s handwriting.

  50. “Oh show me the way to the next whiskey bar…”~Cabaret

    It would be delightful to move on. The “Prayerman” issue was dead on arrival. Resurrection is only possible if a ‘clearer’ image is made available. This likelihood seems to be dwindling with each passing day.

    There are many other more reasonable arguments that have been made towards exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald. They have been made on these very pages.

    George claims he came in peace. Perhaps George would be willing to go in peace.
    \\][//

  51. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Okay, yes there was a book put together by Fritz and his staff as a report on their investigation into the assassination of JFK.

    However, that is not what we are currently discussing. What we are discussing is a page of handwritten notes that are in Capt. Will Fritz’s handwriting.

    Call me stupid but, I do not see how anyone on Fritz’s staff could have helped Fritz write those notes in Fritz’s handwriting.

    Therefore, the inescpable conclusion (although I’m sure it will go right over Willy’s head) is that Will Fritz wrote these notes, all by himself and without assistance.

    The question still stands, children. WHY would Capt. Will Fritz write “out in front with Bill Shelley” if that was not a piece of information Oswald gave to him?

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      I am prepared to keep asking this question until I receive a satisfactory answer.

      “I propose to fight it out on this line, if it takes all summer.”

      ~~ Ulysses S. Grant ~~

    • “WHY would Capt. Will Fritz write “out in front with Bill Shelley” if that was not a piece of information Oswald gave to him?”~Prudhomme

      The essential question is the time frame that Fritz is referring to.
      Eventually Oswald did leave the building. This cannot be shoehorned into Oswald being out front on the steps as “Prayerman”.
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        You are avoiding the question, Willy, for the simple fact you are unable to answer it.

        We both know there is only one answer, don’t we?

        Are you afraid of that answer?

        • Prudhomme,

          I gave you my answer. If it is unsatisfactory to you, then you can wait all summer. You can wait until Hell freezes over. I really don’t care.

          Just remember; Frazier, Lovelady, and Shelley testified for the record, i.e., they gave evidence that none of them saw Oswald after 12:00 noon, at or near TSBD. All three mention seeing each other on the TSBD front steps.
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Shelley and Lovelady both gave testimony to the WC concerning Baker’s entry into the TSBD.

            Care to discuss their testimony or is everyone at this site afraid of that too?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            I’ll bite. They said they hung around 2-3 minutes on the steps before heading to the railroad yard to the Warren Omission.
            Film shows them taking off almost immediately. They were persuaded to delay leaving the steps by the WO Lawyers, DPD, FBI, or who knows who.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Hi Ronnie,

            Despite the enthusiastic reception the news received when it was announced, there is no proof whatsoever that the two men seen walking down the Elm St. extension are Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady. Anyone who claims the two vague and fuzzy persons are Shelley and Lovelady is guilty of the same sin you are currently branding supporters of the “PM is Oswald” group.

            If you watch the film closely, instead of merely looking at the one still extracted by Gerda Dunckel, it is possible to see the two men are not even walking together, and that one man catches up to and passes the other man without so much as a glance at him, as he goes by him.

            And, if that is not enough, there is the first day affidavit of Shelley from 22/11/63.

            http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Affidavit-In-Any-Fact-by-William-H.-Shelley-4-2.jpg

            Following the shots, Shelley states he ran across the street to the little concrete island where he met a crying girl by the name of Gloria Calvery. She had run up the street from down near the Stemmons sign, where she had witnessed the assassination. Following a brief chat with her, Shelley stated he went back inside the TSBD, and phoned his wife.

            No trip to the rail yard with Billy Lovelady, no witnessing Baker and Truly running up the steps of the TSBD together.

            It appears Shelley not only lied, in his testimony to the WC, about how long he remained on the steps, he also lied about a number of other things.

            “Mr. BALL – Do you have any idea how long it was from the time you heard those three sounds or three noises until you saw Truly and Baker going into the building?
            Mr. SHELLEY – It would have to be 3 or 4 minutes I would say because this girl that ran back up there was down near where the car was when the President was hit.”

            Three or four minutes, and yet Baker testified to being on the 2nd floor in under two minutes after the last shot.

            Guess how many believable witnesses that leaves who saw Baker dash across the street and immediately run up the stairs of the TSBD?

          • “It would have to be 3 or 4 minutes I would say because this girl that ran back up there was down near where the car was when the President was hit.”~Shelley

            Think about this seriously. 3 or 4 minutes to run about 100 feet?! Preposterous.

            http://www.mapmanusa.com/images/book-maps/bill-oreilly-killing-kennedy-dealey-plaza.jpg

            \\][//

          • Here is a frame from the Zapruder film showing the women from the TSBD standing just to our left of the sign:

            http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z100.jpg

            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Well, that’s where the whole story starts to go down the rabbit hole, Willy.

            According to her FBI statement of March 19, 1964

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0334b.htm

            Gloria Calvery was standing in a group of five women, just east of the Stemmons Freeway sign, that included four other ladies by the names of Westbrook, Hicks, Dishong and Reed. Their FBI statements confirm she was in their group. Some of them can be found here:

            http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/first_shot_location_witnesses.PDF

            This group of five women was identified in the Zapruder film as the first people visible, to Zapruder’s left, of the Stemmons Freeway sign. Gloria Calvery is ID’ed as the lady in the dark top and white skirt.

            http://i.imgur.com/4OGyXca.jpg

            Now, here is our problem, Willy. The lady ID’ed as Calvery can be seen in the Darnell film, along with Dishong and Westbrook, standing on the grass near the Stemmons sign, long after the last shot and well after Baker was supposed to have entered the TSBD.

            http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Image9.jpg

            Calvery is also ID’ed in another still (possibly Darnell again?) alongside Hicks and Reed, once again near the Stemmons sign, long after Baker would have gone inside the TSBD.

            http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/3-women.jpg

            Now, before the argument begins, remember that it was Darnell who filmed Baker making his mad dash across the Elm St. extension. Darnell then jumped out of the press car he was riding in and ran down toward the Grassy Knoll, where his camera captured Gloria Calvery.

          • “Calvery is also ID’ed in another still (possibly Darnell again?) alongside Hicks and Reed, once again near the Stemmons sign, long after Baker would have gone inside the TSBD.
            http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/3-women.jpg“~Prudhomme

            I don’t know where that still above comes from, but it is definitely NOT the Darnell Film:

            https://youtu.be/PCHTdTF7YbE?t=1

            \\][//

          • Nor is that frame from the Dave Wiegman Film:

            https://youtu.be/UdRr4KHbhqg?t=141

            \\][//

          • “Now, here is our problem, Willy. The lady ID’ed as Calvery can be seen in the Darnell film, along with Dishong and Westbrook, standing on the grass near the Stemmons sign, long after the last shot and well after Baker was supposed to have entered the TSBD.”~Bob Prudhomme

            No you are wrong Calvery is not in either the Darnell nor the Weigman films. I just watched both of them, and posted links to both films.

            Whoever titled that one shot of close-ups of the three women’s faces and titled it “Darnell Frame” is mistaken. It is not from the Darnell film.
            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Willy

            I’m not sure I understand you. Are you saying that is not Calvery captured in that Darnell still?

            If this is actually Calvery, I don’t see how she could possibly make it back in time to chat with Shelley before Baker dashes across the street.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Willy, despite the possible error made in the origin of these two stills, the women in these stills are clearly the same women ID’ed as Hicks, Reed, Dishong, Westbrook and Calvery in the Zapruder film. They seem to be wandering around the grass near the Stemmons sign, and enough time has elapsed for at least two persons with cameras to arrive and take their photos.

            Clearly, this has to be several minutes after the last shot was fired, and Calvery is nowhere near the entrance of the TSBD and Bill Shelley.

          • “I’m not sure I understand you. Are you saying that is not Calvery captured in that Darnell still?”~Prudhomme

            You are right Bob, you don’t understand me, that is NOT a Darnell still. If you had actually watched the Darnell film you would see there is no such image in that film, nor in the Weigman film.

            I explained very clearly why you are WRONG Prudhomme. Now you are grasping at straws again. YES those are the women in the Zapruder film. They are NOT seen in the Darnell film. PERIOD.
            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Willy

            Can you put your ego aside long enough to admit that, if those women on the grass include Gloria Calvery, there is a distinct possibility she did not make it up to the area in front of the steps in time to make either Shelley’s testimony OR his statement true, in relation to how it attempts to verify Baker’s early entry into the TSBD?

            Do you know how many witnesses that leaves to verify Baker’s story, should Shelley and Lovelady be discredited as the liars they are?

          • The photo of the three women, Calvary, Hicks, and Reed (side view), were taken by Harry Cabluck, just after the limo sped away, seconds after the head shot.

            http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/thumbnails.php?album=39

            \\][//

          • Watch the Darnell film again Bob, You will not see the three women in any of those frames. What you WILL SEE however is the bus that Harry Cabluck was riding in when he took those pictures. It is just going under the overpass behind the motorcade.
            \\][//

          • ‘Guess how many believable witnesses that leaves who saw Baker dash across the street and immediately run up the stairs of the TSBD?’ — Bob Prudhomme

            You are not the first on this site to assert you can determine without doubt which witnesses are believable and which are not. The Warren Commission set the standard for this investigation. It seems to come with the territory when one has an end game in sight.

            Related to Bill Shelley’s testimony, on another forum you say “it turns out he did not actually see Baker and Truly enter the TSBD”. Evidently you failed to ponder Shelley’s full statement which includes:

            ‘we didn’t watch that long but they [an officer and Mr. Truly] were at the first step like they were fixin’ to go in . . . . well, they were moving, . . . ‘that [were they running?’I I couldn’t swear to. “

            This from Ed Forum, the full context:
            Bob Prudhomme:
            After scrutinizing Bill Shelley’s WC testimony more closely, it turns out he did not actually see Baker and Truly enter the TSBD.

            Mr. BALL – How did you happen to see Truly?
            Mr. SHELLEY – We ran out on the island while some of the people that were out watching it from our building were walking back and we turned around and we saw an officer and Truly.

            Mr. BALL – And Truly?
            
Mr. SHELLEY – Yes.

            Mr. BALL – Did you see them go into the building?

            Mr. SHELLEY – No; we didn’t watch that long but they were at the first step like they were fixin’ to go in.
            
Mr. BALL – Were they moving at the time, walking or running?
Mr. SHELLEY – Well, they were moving, yes.

            Mr. BALL – Were they running?

            Mr. SHELLEY – That, I couldn’t swear to; there were so many people around.”

            This contradicts the testimony of Billy Lovelady below:

            “Mr. BALL – By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building?
            Mr. LOVELADY – As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building.”

            Are you arguing there is a discrepancy in the timing, and if so can you present your version in a series of bullet points? For now it seems you are shadow boxing and avoiding being tied down to specifics, content with this shot gun approach.

          • “Clearly, this has to be several minutes after the last shot was fired…”Bob Prudhomme

            Why are you thinking in matters of minutes Bob?

            It took approximately 6 seconds for those shots to be fired. The photo taken by Harry Cabluck from the bus was clearly just seconds after the last shot. There are no images of these women in either the Darnell or the Weigman film.

            It is empty conjecture to assume that these women lingered around for minutes before running back to the building.

            What we DO see in the Darnell film is Baker running balls out to the steps.

            It is not my ego Bob. It is my pointing out what is actually seen in the footage we are discussing.
            \\][//

      • George says:

        The essential question is the time frame that Fritz is referring to.
        Eventually Oswald did leave the building. This cannot be shoehorned into Oswald being out front on the steps as “Prayerman”.
        \\][//

        Willy, Shelley left at 1:30 according to CE 1381. Are you saying that’s when Oswald left? If not, what exactly are you suggesting?

        • “what exactly are you suggesting?”~George

          I am suggesting that Oswald was not out on the steps with Frazier, Shelly and Lovelady when the the shots rang out. I don’t know when Oswald left.
          \\][//

          • George says:

            Someone was out on those steps, Willy. The films prove that. Yet no one saw ANYONE there. Not Oswald. Not anyone.

            Clearly if someone was there who has yet to be identified, and all other males from the TSBD are accounted for except ONE – and the person we see on the film has the same build, hairline and clothing as the ONE not accounted for, and there is other evidence suggesting the one “unaccounted for” was out front, then it is reasonable to suggest that the one unaccounted for is in fact our mystery man.

            By the way, he height thing was resolved without trigonometry. The heater on the other side of the glass is 2.5 ft tall. Using that as the comparison, PM comes out at approx. 5′ 9″.

            It’s as simple as this. Two of those suckers stacked up comes to PM’s chin area. The average human head is 9″ long. 2.5ft + 2.5ft + 9 inches is…?

            Now who do we know that was that height?

            The fact that all other males are accounted for except Oswald btw, is the very reason for the birth of the Prayer Woman nonsense started by MacRae and scooped up in a pooper-scooper to hurled around by your other friend, Albert D.

  52. As Shakespeare said, “Hell is empty, the devils are here.”
    \\][//

  53. Ronnie Wayne says:

    So all Oswald said that is verifiable on tape is “I’m a Patsy” and “I didn’t shoot anybody” basically.
    Where did Mae Brussels find all of this?

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

    Many years ago.

    • “Mae Brussell, to compile every known statement or remark made by Oswald between his arrest and death. The quotes, edited for space and clarity, are based on the recollections of a variety of witnesses present at different times and **are not verbatim transcripts.**”
      \\][//

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Greg, I think Curry still knew what Y’et yet means. (Have you eaten yet). He was a Texan and would have understood regional terminology. I’m a Texan too though I also Love Colorado. Into a building means entering it to me. usually with a destination in mind. If I remember right Baker saw the pigeons fly off the roof of the TSBD at the sound of the shots was why he stopped and ran in.
        Through ALL of a building means just that. A thorough look of the facility.
        Vanessa’s tease about new information on Truly and possible intelligence ties is intriguing. But it better be well documented.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          I don’t know how my comment wound up here. I was responding to a post by Greg Parker.

        • Vanessa says:

          Thanks Ronnie

          So as a Texan you’re saying that “into a building means entering it”.

          Any other Texans like to weigh in on what “as he went into the building” might mean?

          • Vanessa, you extracted a version of Curry’s statement that matches the your subjective version. Ronnie Wayne = 1; Leslie Sharp = 1. If I hire Roger Stone to orchestrate this campaign do you think the dirty trickster would be able to skew your poll to your advantage? It still will not establish legitimacy of your interpretation or expectation of Curry’s words, and I trust that Ronnie Wayne would agree. Curry’s statement is not evidence, and certainly your subjective interpretation is just that. I believe it’s logical to conclude that we can strike Curry’s statement from your stack of ‘evidence’ that Oswald was outside the building. That does not mean Oswald was not outside the building; it means you cannot use Curry’s statement as a cornerstone of your proof.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          So, the two Baker stories as I understand them are… Either way he heard the shots, saw the pigeons fly off the roof, ditched his bike and ran to the TSBD entrance. Truly saw him running and caught up at the entrance.
          Officially Truly stopped Baker just inside the door to tell him he is the building manager. Baker asked where the stairs were, apparently intent on going to the roof where the pigeons had flown off of. Which he eventually did. After seeing Oswald through the lunchroom door going to buy a coke, he went to investigate, Truly vouched for Oswald. Baker saw another man on the 3rd or 4th floor walking away from him who Truly also vouched for. Truly and Baker went to the 7th floor by elevator from the 5th.
          Baker went on to the roof and found nothing.
          They went back down, no mention of further searching of any floors.
          The other version is Baker encountered Oswald among others re entering the building most likely just inside the front door, just as Truly arrived and vouched for him, and possibly others. Documentation for this is Ochus Campbell’s secretary Carolyn Arnold being pretty sure she saw Oswald inside the entry door, from the curb(? – this is from memory). VP of the TSBD Campbell himself is quoted as seeing Oswald in a storage room by the stairs as he rushed back into the building in a New York newspaper, and possibly the Dallas Times Herald.
          In his statement to the Warren Omission he claimed to not know who Oswald was, had never seen him.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Willy, so none of Mae Brussels work on this is reliable?
        Or, just “proceed with caution”?

        • “so none of Mae Brussels work on this is reliable?”
          ~Ronnie Wayne

          Ronnie I was referring to that specific article. Mae did some important early work. I would just keep in mind updating what we know now with what she knew then.
          \\][//

  54. George says:

    “Bill Kelly and Bill Simpich and Bill’s attorney associate who posted here in the last day or so aren’t talking or writing about PM. They’re planning a series of mock trials at law schools and an attempt to expunge Oswald’s Texas arrest record based on the evidence record, including some of the testimony you seem to believe was perjured. I try to take everything into account, Ronnie. I don’t just stick my head out the window to determine which way the wind is blowing. I take seemingly unpopular positions, about Janney’s book about Mary Meyer, about Garrison’s sincerity and transparency, but not because I choose to. I am practical and that helps me avoid wasting my time and attention on pursuits I determine are not likely to develop meaningfully.

    I want to avoid the frustration Oswald was PM supporters are facing. What happens when enough time goes by to indicate it is not a temporary condition?” Tom

    Were you under the misapprehension this is some new initiative? Bill has been talking about doing something like this for a long long time. You in your great practicality, would no doubt have thought it a waste of time ages ago as “not likely to develop meaningfully”. I hope he makes it – and always have supported his efforts in that direction. The more irons in the fire, the better. You’re a sad and uniformed man whose opinions reflect just that.

    ROKC is facing frustration? In your dreams, Tom. Things couldn’t look rosier from our perspective. But then, you are pontificating once again from the vantage point of ignorance.

    • Tom S. says:

      Were you under the misapprehension this is some new initiative? Bill has been talking about doing something like this for a long long time. You in your great practicality, would no doubt have thought it a waste of time ages ago as “not likely to develop meaningfully”. I hope he makes it – and always have supported his efforts in that direction. The more irons in the fire, the better. You’re a sad and uniformed man whose opinions reflect just that.

      You feign that you understand what I wrote as casting doubt on Bill’s efforts? Each time I expect you’ve sunk to a new low, somehow you demonstrate an ability to descend even further. From the “Comment of the week,” capping this discussion thread, through almost everything in your comments since, “Oswald was prayer man is not an extraordinary claim,” “we do not require film evidence to prove our theory,” etc.. the consistent ingredient that is missing is sincerity.

  55. George says:

    “You feign that you understand what I wrote as casting doubt on Bill’s efforts?”

    Nope. I’m pointing out the foolishness of your position. You claim what ROKC is doing is almost certain to fail and over a long period of time we’ll understand that the frustration caused is not temporary. You were obviously not aware of how long Bill has been on his mock trial trail – otherwise you would no doubt have warned him ages ago that he’ll get no where and is doomed to frustration. Just like you claim for ROKC. I then pointed out that this is not MY position with Bill. I have actually supported his efforts since I became aware of them many year ago. What you done? Nothing! Because you cannot have been aware of this effort by Bill until just recently! Unlike you, I hope he is NOT doomed to frustration just because it is taking a long time, but succeeds.

    Look, reading our word soups, I’m not surprised you have difficulty in comprehension as well, but in future, just ask for clarification if you’re unsure of meaning. Don’t guess. You suck at that too.

    And never doubt my sincerity, Tom. I don’t know how to fake anything. It is not in my DNA.

    You do need to examine your own motivations here, though.

  56. George says:

    “Sure, I know of Wade’s disgraceful record as a prosecutor and the innocent men who were exonerated through DNA tests. If you can show that Wade framed Oswald, please do.

    Now could you answer the questions I’ve asked, as a start?” Jean

    It’s impossible to do as you request here because of the word limit.

    Luckily I’ve already done it elsewhere 😉

    It is my contention that had Oswald not been killed, but had gone to trial and lost, we would n talking about Innocent Project exonerations now – not 24.

    That you can admit the corruption is good, but you need to take the next step. Admit there are some genuine doubts about some of the evidence. Whether those doubts pan out or not is not the point. The point is that any cases handled by the DPD and Wade during that error, where any doubt exists, should automatically be reviewed by Innocent Project experts.

    Anyhow… here is how it was done.
    http://gregparke4.wix.com/gregrparker#!oswalds-alibi-and-the-reid-technique/c1ltw

    Cluck on the sergeant stripes on the right and then click on “current view”.

    • Jean Davison says:

      QUOTE:
      Now could you answer the questions I’ve asked, as a start?” Jean

      It’s impossible to do as you request here because of the word limit.
      UNQUOTE
      ———————-

      Nonsense, Greg. The questions I asked are straightforward and don’t require long answers. If you do run out of space, start a second post.

      Besides, that’s not what you said yesterday (4:40 p.m.). You asked me to comment on Wade’s wrongful prosecutions, saying, “…take that small but important step, Jean, and we can move on to the details.” I did as you asked, and now you’re backing out with this lame excuse?

      “Luckily I’ve already done it elsewhere ?”

      No. The article at your link doesn’t answer any of the questions I asked. It doesn’t show how Wade & co. framed Oswald.

      Has it occurred to you yet that framing Oswald wouldn’t have been nearly as simple as CTs typically assume?

      • George says:

        The word limit here along with the lack of editing tools makes this nothing but a discussion/opinion board, Jean.

        The fact is, I HAVE answered your question. You obviously didn’t bother reading, or you just don’t like the answer.

        Moreover — you expose your real agenda by on the one hand claiming it could easily be explained here on this limited opinion board and then conclude the answer is not as simple as “CTs typically assume”! Good one Jean.

        The answer is the answer you got. The same Reid technique was used on Oswald as was used on Avery and countless other innocent people behind bars.

        I’m sorry you didn’t get your expected “stock” CT reply so you could give your “stock” LN response, but don’t you think it’s about time we dumped that game and started looking at what actually happens to innocent victims of the system in the real world?

        • “The word limit here along with the lack of editing tools makes this nothing but a discussion/opinion board”
          ~George

          You have been invited to pack your gripes and ride away many times Mr Parker.

          Most of the commentators here would be delighted if you and your Prayerman clique would take a hike.
          \\][//

          • George says:

            “Most of the commentators here would be delighted if you and your Prayerman clique would take a hike.” Willy (where’s your Poor Boys?)

            Thank you, Willy – you always jump in to prove my point.

            “The word limit here along with the lack of editing tools makes this nothing but a discussion/opinion board”

            Your opinion means a lot to us and will be attended to right after that Flying Pig goes past again.

        • George, if the format of this site doesn’t work for you, why are you still commenting? Why not just link to your site periodically and leave it at that. These are the same feathers you attempted to ruffle several weeks ago, attacking the site, the host, the moderator and the commenters instead of bringing your hypothesis along with supporting arguments here in a cogent fashion.

          You’re familiar with the concept: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” I think you’ve done yourself – and those who have obviously put in extraordinary effort into collecting the data that is available related to the PM hypothesis – a huge disservice by your approach here. Your response to Jean (and Jean, please don’t faint) is an example of not only conflating issues, Henry Wade, current DPD corruption, the Innocent Project – all noble causes – but when Jean agrees, you throw at her: ‘don’t you think it’s about time we dumped that game and started looking at what actually happens to innocent victims of the system in the real world? ‘ She has indicated she agreed (in fact twice I think) there are injustices and that Wade was a perpetrator of many, George.

          Personally I’ve yet to understand whether you allege that the DPD was behind the conspiracy to murder Kennedy or were they solely behind a conspiracy to falsely charge Oswald with the crime? Do you argue they are one and the same and if so, where is that in your presentation? What is the context of Wade’s charges against Oswald in the bigger picture?

          • George says:

            “George, if the format of this site doesn’t work for you,” Leslie

            It’s not fit for alleged purpose – fact-based research. Makes no difference to me, personally. I don’t see any research being done here, anyway.

            “If this site doesn’t work for you, why are you still commenting? Why not just link to your site periodically and leave it at that.”

            That is only the second time I have linked to one of my sites. I guess you call that spamming?

            “These are the same feathers you attempted to ruffle several weeks ago”

            That’s because I’m a counter-puncher.

            “You’re familiar with the concept: “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.””

            You should join forces with Tom. He wants to rid the world of books as well. Don’t know that the site owner would be too thrilled though. Oh wait. Maybe you’re okay so long as the book hasn’t got more than 20 pages, is in large print, has words of less than 3 syllables — and plenty of colorful illustrations? Here – try this: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=4htx62wIXIgC&lpg=PA79&ots=Mbei8DYWLy&dq=jfk%20for%20dummies&pg=PA79#v=onepage&q=jfk%20for%20dummies&f=false

            “I think you’ve done yourself – and those who have obviously put in extraordinary effort into collecting the data that is available related to the PM hypothesis – a huge disservice by your approach here. Your response to Jean (and Jean, please don’t faint) is an example of not only conflating issues, Henry Wade, current DPD corruption, the Innocent Project – all noble causes – but when Jean agrees, you throw at her: ‘don’t you think it’s about time we dumped that game and started looking at what actually happens to innocent victims of the system in the real world? ‘ She has indicated she agreed (in fact twice I think) there are injustices and that Wade was a perpetrator of many, George.”

            Jean did not agree at all. She agrees she has heard of the issues re Wade and the Innocence Project. She – like you (apparently) think it is a separate issue to what happened with Oswald. Which is why we’re still going 52 years later. What Jean wanted was the same tired arguments she has developed stock standard replies to over many years in CT vs LN debate clubs. She is not happy that she was not given the opportunity to trot them out here. She needs to suck it up, as do you.

            “Personally I’ve yet to understand whether you allege that the DPD was behind the conspiracy to murder Kennedy or were they solely behind a conspiracy to falsely charge Oswald with the crime? Do you argue they are one and the same and if so, where is that in your presentation? What is the context of Wade’s charges against Oswald in the bigger picture?”

            You don’t deserve to understand. You deserve the ignorance you wallow in.

            And 52 more years of Purgatory in JFK LN vs CT Debate Clubs.

          • ‘She agrees she has heard of the issues re Wade and the Innocence Project.’ — George

            ‘Sure, I know of Wade’s disgraceful record as a prosecutor and the innocent men who were exonerated through DNA tests.’ — Jean Davison

            You would have to have followed my history with Jean on this site to appreciate the irony here, me defending her. Why are you misrepresenting her words? She states that she knows Wade’s record is disgraceful related to the prosecution of innocent men. ‘Disgraceful’ indicates that she finds it unacceptable. She simply does not agree with you that Oswald was innocent so she does not include him in the category of those worthy of exoneration. I vehemently disagree with her, as well as with your accusation that Henry Wade falsely charged Oswald because it was a ‘pattern’ for him to charge innocent men. That is a very weak position to take, imo. I argue Wade charged Oswald because he rowed in with or succumbed to a cabal of conspirators behind the assassination. There is a distinct difference if you could only get that chip off your shoulder long enough to recognize it.

            The other irony is that I respect your passion and fully agree that 52 years and counting is 52 years too long; the conspiracy should have been exposed with the Warren Report. But do you think that Henry Wade orchestrated the decades long cover up and passed on the responsibility to Jean Davison? There is a much bigger picture here George, and if If this instance with Jean is how you tackled analysis of witness testimony, I realize why the whole thing has seemed a “bit off”, and more and more it appears there is a Big Bluff in play to bide time until the film has been secured that might prove without doubt that Oswald was outside the building. An understandable tactic, but not a very wise one?

          • “That’s actually what you get at my site. Anyone can become a member if you are sincere about wanting to reopen the case and are supportive of our efforts to do so.
            The only restriction on what is posted is that breaks no laws and that the poster is personally responsible for his/her own content.
            Nothing has to get past a pumped up hall monitor first.”~George

            That is from the comment that began this thread. Have you lost your way home George?
            Birds ate the trail of breadcrumbs and you can’t find your way back?

            If it is so great there, what are you doing here bitching about the policies, moderator, owner, and commentators on this site?

            The answer is obvious. You are an evangelist, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses passing out their junk at the doorstep — You are a religious fanatic, only your religion is the Myth of Prayerman. What an appropriate title that turned out to be aye?

            ‘The Knights of the Mystic Prayerman’ have arrived to save our souls…

            I consider you and your tribe nothing but trespassers. I am sick of your sermons, and your holier than thou attitude.

            Be gone interlopers.
            \\][//

        • Jean Davison says:

          “I’m sorry you didn’t get your expected “stock” CT reply so you could give your “stock” LN response….”

          On the contrary, you gave me exactly the stock CT reply I expected — evasion.

          The word limit and “lack of editing tools” have nothing to do with it. There’ve been hundreds of JFK conspiracy books, decades of internet chat — but still no frame-up narrative detailing just how it might’ve been done.

          “The fact is, I HAVE answered your question. You obviously didn’t bother reading, or you just don’t like the answer.”

          Nonsense. You certainly have NOT answered what I asked. Your article is about Oswald’s interrogation and the alibi you claim he had. My questions were about the “unseen plotters” who framed Oswald, starting with the purchase of the M-C. “The Reed technique” didn’t place the order or fake the records, get Oswald his job, etc., etc.

          “Moreover — you expose your real agenda by on the one hand claiming it could easily be explained here on this limited opinion board….”

          I certainly didn’t claim it was “easily explained.” That would be you, who said “the jig is up,” implying it was a simple matter. You’ve just demonstrated (again) that it isn’t.

          • George says:

            “On the contrary, you gave me exactly the stock CT reply I expected — evasion.”

            Of your expected argument – yes. Because it is meaningless and circular.

            “The word limit and “lack of editing tools” have nothing to do with it.”

            It has everything to do with not trying to lay it all out here. Leslie’s latest response is a case in point. To cover her objections would take a book. Yet she has been insisting it can be done in 10 dot points.

            You guys want it both ways. You want it simple so you can pick it apart from the holes that will necessarily not be covered in such a layout.

            Then complain because a more complete answer linked to, doesn’t cover what YOU imagine a frame-up should look like or include.

            Moreover, wanting a detailed description of the HOW is completely irrelevant. Did the makers of Making a Murderer discover the “how” of blood being planted? No. Yet the case put for it having been done was no less compelling for that omission.

            You did not get evasion, Jean. You got a new paradigm.

            To conclude that Wade and the DPD gets a pass on the Oswald case is ludicrous. You know there are issues with a lot of the evidence – you simply deny such issues get Oswald off. Which is fine – but you should still support that all cases under Wade that have even the merest hint of problems with them, should be reviewed. I don’t know how anyone can argue against that. It’s no different that say investigation of all suspect cases under a particular surgeon where you note a couple of patients have died on the operating table while undergoing routine surgery. So the relevant authorities scan through his complete record in the operating theater looking for past issues – finding them – with that in turn, causing a more in-depth review.

          • Vanessa says:

            Jean

            If you want evidence of a frame up it’s clearly it’s in the same interview with Buell Frazier where he says he was afraid for his family.

            Earlier on in the video BWF says that Fritz tried to threaten him into signing a false confession that he was involved in the assassination.

            Why would BWF, of all people, be threatened like that?

          • If you want evidence of a frame up it’s clearly it’s in the same interview with Buell Frazier where he says he was afraid for his family. — Vaness

            What frame up is clear Vanessa? of Oswald? Of Frazier? Are you arguing it was a toss up in the early hours of the investigation – Oswald or Frazier? Was this the time frame that Oswald’s history was being gathered and disseminated? Where is the history of Frazier in this process? In fact do you know anything of Frazier’s history? Is it likely you too have been duped into thinking that the Frazier interview has merit?

            Fritz confronted Frazier on behalf of whom, and based on what evidence could Fritz have charged Frazier? Proximity? Fritz was shaking down Frazier for a reason. What was it Vanessa?

          • Vanessa says:

            Leslie

            Frazier says he was pressured by Fritz to sign a confession that he was involved in the assassination (not that he was the lone assassin).

            The two people we know that were threatened to sign confessions that weekend were Buell Frazier and Joe Molina.

            Both were standing in close proximity to PM on the steps at the time of the assassination.

            BWF and Molina both had rock solid alibi’s by being on those steps in full view of their co-workers who saw them and named them in WC testimony.

            Why would the police threaten those two into signing false confessions when they were demonstrably innocent?

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Why would the police threaten those two into signing false confessions when they were demonstrably innocent?”

            You’re jumping to the wrong conclusions, Vanessa. It was natural that the police would initially suspect Frazier might be an accomplice because as they saw it, he’d given Oswald and his murder weapon a ride to work. They couldn’t know that Frazier wasn’t involved.

            Molina was pressured to sign a statement about his membership in a veterans’ organization that was considered to be
            “subversive.” Have you read Molina’s testimony?

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/molina.htm

            Who told you that Molina was pressured to sign a false confession?

          • Vanessa says:

            Jean

            Here’s where Molina says he was threatened by DPD Police Special Service Unit Offier Gannaway.

            The DPD raided Molina’s home at 2 o’clock in the morning to question him about his membership in a veteran’s group which may have had communist members and take any literature and correspondence he had.

            Joe Molina: “He (Gannaway) said. ‘Well,
            what do you know about this fellow
            Oswald?’ I said I don’t know anything. He
            was just a fellow who worked in shipping
            and I worked in the second floor in the
            office…

            “They said you had something to do
            with Oswald so you better tell as if
            you don’t it’s gonna go bad for you.
            My response was still the same. I didn’t
            know’ anything. They had it all wrong.” (Dallas Morning News JFK 25th Anniversary edition).

            When Molina was brought in for questioning at the same time as Oswald he was referred to on the TV as “the second man” apart from Oswald being questioned over the assassination.

            And here are Wade’s own words about how he was told to conduct the case.

            “Cliff Carter on behalf of President Lyndon B. Johnson, phoned Wade three times on the night of the assassination. According to Wade, Carter said that “any word of a conspiracy – some plot by foreign nations – to kill President Kennedy would shake our nation to its foundation. President Johnson was worried about some conspiracy on the part of the Russians… it would hurt foreign relations if I alleged a conspiracy – whether I could prove it or not… I was to charge Oswald with plain murder.”

            ” – whether I could prove it or not…I was to charge Oswald with plain murder”.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Greg, your never going to get anywhere arguing with Jean, it’s a pointless endeavor. I’ve witnessed it for years now from Willy to, if I recall right 2-3 years ago, Jim DiEugenio.
          Jim quit wasting his time.

  57. “And never doubt my sincerity”~Greg ‘the George’ Parker

    That’s like saying, “I didn’t do it, and I’ll never do it again!”
    \\][//

  58. “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it.”~Voltaire
    \\][//

  59. David Hazan says:

    Troll Attributes

    Supreme point of view
    The troll knows best
    Condescending & Patronizing
    Internet experts
    Narcissistic
    Provocative
    Dis-ruptive
    Like to ask the questions, not answer questions
    Control freaks
    Inflamed by anyone being critical of ___________
    ‘Moral’ Guardians
    Classic insults
    Adept with social networks well trained on IT

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      You forgot “anyone that disagrees with my ignorant redneck point of view”.

      • David Hazan says:

        “You forgot “anyone that disagrees with my ignorant redneck point of view”. – Bob Prudhomme

        I was going to try to resist asking… But, as you can see, I seem to have failed…

        Who is the “my” adjective referring to, Bob?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          It’s all just a matter of perspective, isn’t it.

          Know how to define the truth? My neighbour leans over the fence and tells me something, and I reply, “Aint it the truth?”

          That is what truth boils down to. As long as two people agree on something, it must be true.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Or, one man’s troll is another man’s crusader for the truth. Get it?

    • Mr Prodhomme,
      Do you recall discussing this testimony previously on the Education Forum site?
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      From Lovelady’s WC testimony:

      Mr. BALL – Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken?
      Mr. LOVELADY – Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the the step, would be here (indicating).
      Mr. BALL – You were standing on which step?
      Mr. LOVELADY – It would be your top level.
      Mr. BALL – The top step you were standing there?
      Mr. LOVELADY – Right.
      Mr. BALL – Now, when Gloria came up you were standing near Mr. Shelley?
      Mr. LOVELADY – Yeah.
      Mr. BALL – When Gloria came up and said the President had been shot, Gloria Calvary, what did you do?
      Mr. LOVELADY – Well, I asked who told her. She said he had been shot so we asked her was she for certain or just had she seen the shot hit him or–she said yes, she had been right close to it to see and she had saw the blood and knew he had been hit but didn’t know how serious it was and so the crowd had started towards the railroad tracks back, you Mr. BALL – Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken?
      Mr. LOVELADY – Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the the step, would be here (indicating).
      Mr. BALL – You were standing on which step?
      Mr. LOVELADY – It would be your top level.
      Mr. BALL – The top step you were standing there?
      Mr. LOVELADY – Right.
      Mr. BALL – Now, when Gloria came up you were standing near Mr. Shelley?
      Mr. LOVELADY – Yeah. [“Yeah” sounds like a prevarication here. Why not, “Yes”, “Right”, or “Yes, sir” like all of his other affirmative answers? This is the only “yeah” in his testimony.]
      Mr. BALL – When Gloria came up and said the President had been shot, Gloria Calvary, what did you do?know, behind our building there and we run towards that little, old island and kind of down there in that little street. We went as far as the first tracks and everybody was hollering and crying and policemen started running out that way and we said we better get back into the building…
      […]
      http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22197&page=6

      \\][//

      • Also Mr Prodhomme,

        Do you recall the addition to this part of that testimony by a Thomas Graves:

        Mr. BALL – Now, when Gloria came up you were standing near Mr. Shelley?
        Mr. LOVELADY – Yeah. **[“Yeah” sounds like a prevarication here. Why not, “Yes”, “Right”, or “Yes, sir” like all of his other affirmative answers? This is the only “yeah” in his testimony.]**

        What do you suppose the purpose of Mr Graves’ commentary was at the time he presented this testimony by Mr Lovelady?

        It seems to me that Mr Graves is attempting to malign Lovelady. Do you know what might motivate Mr Graves to do such a thing?

        Do you Mr Prodhomme have any further comments or opinions to add here that you did not make at the time of this discussion on the Education Forum?
        \\][//

        • bart kamp says:

          Read Shelley’s first statement
          Where did he encounter GC?
          exactly after! he left the steps and made his way to the railrd yard
          evidence enough for you?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Yes, I recall discussing Lovelady’s testimony many times. And thank you for posting it. It is a perfect example of one of the timing snafu’s that makes a mockery of Shelley’s and Lovelady’s statements and testimonies, as well as a mockery of Baker entering the TSBD as early as he claimed.

        • In other words Prudhomme, your entire argument rests on the assertion that Lovelady, Shelley, Baker, and Truly are all lying.

          And further down the line here, you are proposing that Darnell, after getting to the pagoda area on Elm and filming there, circled back, and THEN caught the sequence with the Prayerman on the steps and Baker jumping off his bike and running to the steps.

          I wonder if you actually think anyone but your crew of crackpots are going to take any of this crap seriously.
          \\][//

  60. Albert Doyle says:

    ” This arrangement of stills from the Wiegman film clearly shows two things; the 5’9″ Oswald (if PM is Oswald) and the 5’8″ Lovelady appear very similar in height, when both are standing on the top step. ”

    Bob Prudhomme is a liar. If you go to the Murphy thread on the Education Forum he was very definitely stating that Prayer Man was noticeably shorter than Lovelady. It’s right there in his own words. Prudhomme said that the height difference between Lovelady and Prayer Man was so noticeable that it was a threat to the Murphy theory. Realizing he trapped himself with own words he is now revising that and lying, saying that Lovelady and Prayer Man are now similar in height. This is the character of Bob Prudhomme who goes around sniping at good posters. If you’ll notice, while claiming Darnell was too fuzzy to see Prayer Man was 7 inches shorter than Frazier, Bob doesn’t answer my reply but then pops up making firm observations from the Wiegman frame which is much less clear than Darnell. Typical of Prayer Man advocates, when caught Bob simply ignores it and will pop up later flaming your posts. Using the face ovals in Wiegman, facial recognition software will show Prayer Man is 2-3 inches shorter than Lovelady in Wiegman, despite Prudhomme’s false damage control attempts. Bob is a silly hypocrite whose research integrity is so poor that he doesn’t notice the serious gaffes he’s committing.

    I caught Bart Kamp making a post on ROKC saying that he clearly saw Prayer Man manipulating something with two hands (a purse perhaps?). This, of course, diametrically conflicts with ROKC’s claim that Prayer Man was Oswald leaning against the wall with crossed arms. When I busted Kamp saying this he made a proclamation saying he would not post any more on websites and would only post on his website. Bart is a silly boy and never followed-through. It was obvious he reacted that way because of the embarrassment of being busted.

    ROKC is so dumb and so incompetent that it posted that Prayer Man was on the first step down. They are too dumb/incompetent to realize geometric triangulation requires that if Prayer Man is on the first step down it pulls him two and a half feet away from the wall and proves he can’t be leaning. When you demand an answer from ROKC on this they respond with a schoolboy troll pack attack and never answer or admit to their fatal conflicts. They also refuse to admit that if Prayer Man was on the first step down science requires he would be 7 inches taller when on the landing. But we don’t see that. In the dozens of times I have presented this irrefutable science to ROKC, like Prudhomme, they refuse to answer it. Their website is a festering infection of good science and should be removed from the internet. They are a contagion to which it is impossible to present good evidence.

  61. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Albert

    I will thank you, in advance, for not continuing to label me a liar. It is very fortunate for you that you live in Florida, and I in northern Canada, as I would have “mopped up the hacienda” with you ages ago, should we ever have met in the same room.

    I will point out to you again that, yes, I noticed a severe difference in height between PM and Frazier and, in the interests of good honest research, I pointed it out to my colleagues at the Ed Forum. However, while I pointed out this might be somewhat detrimental to the case of PM being Oswald, I also pointed out this could be an illusion, and there might be a perfectly logical reason for this illusion, and we should be pursuing that.

    FWIW, I would say, using your method of measurement, that PM is actually slightly taller than Lovelady at one point in the Wiegman film. There is certainly no doubt PM is standing at the rear of the landing, possibly leaning against the wall in a slouch, and Lovelady is standing at the front of the landing.

    If the camera is in the street, and much lower than the people up on the landing, do you not think this difference in positioning might make the closest person appear taller than he really is, at least in comparison to the other person in the back?

    • Photon says:

      Prayer man, Badge man,Beverly Oliver, Gordon Arnold-what’s the difference? It is the same old CT nonsense in different packages without a shred of real physical evidence to prove any of these fables.
      It is all the same -a frankly desperate effort to exonerate JFK’s killer: Oswald. I can’t believe how anybody can continue to swallow up the most convoluted and complex theories that have to be invented to even hint that Oswald was not involved -or framed, or made a patsy, or a secret agent, etc.
      Nobody who believes the Prayer man baloney wants to face the fact that Oswald NEVER SAID that he was in the Prayer man position-if he was , he would have an alibi. Instead he came up with the ” eating in the TSBD with nobody” myth.
      This blog is turning into alt. assassination -a site taken over by a few crackpots pushing ridiculous claims. It is no fun any more.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        I hear a broken record repeating the same lines over and over.

      • Photon,

        Your attempt to wad everybody up in the same ball of wax is the same disingenuous crap you pull on this forum all the time.

        Do you not note the intense disagreement that many of us have with this Prayerman lunacy here?

        For you to assert that we are all cut from the same irrational “CT” cloth is as preposterous as the boneheads pushing the Prayerman nonsense.
        \\][//

  62. Tom S. says:

    RE:

    If you were more competent Bob and entered less bs posing as good argument you would have already realized Gilbride’s diagram disproved what you said. ….

    Brian,
    There is a limit of 500 words per comment.: http://www.wordcounttool.com/

  63. Albert Doyle says:

    If you were more competent Bob and entered less bs posing as good argument you would have already realized Gilbride’s diagram disproved what you said. Don’t forget, Mr Prudhomme, you are a person who instead of answering my argument hid behind the moderators at Deep Politics and asked if I was banned instead of answering what I wrote. I find that quite cowardly and dishonest. If you viewed Gilbride’s camera distance diagram it clearly shows, by protractor, that Prayer Man was no more than 1 foot further away from Darnell’s camera than Frazier. There are no credible perspective distortion claims that can be made from this proven configuration and you are clearly seeking excuses instead of observing what Mr Gilbride and myself have already illustrated. There are serious competency issues with the assassination research community because I really shouldn’t have to spell this out.

    Forget the thuggish threats Bob, you have just explained why you haven’t told the truth in your own post. You deniers don’t seem to be connected to reality because you posted Prayer Man as being “similar in height” with Frazier as well as having a “severe difference in height” in the same breath and then try to pass it off on an obviously bogus perspective distortion claim that any simple photo science will disprove. The hard truth is there is no perspective distortion in Darnell and science will bear that out. You also noticed a visible height difference between Lovelady and Prayer Man in Wiegman. You can look at your posts on the Education Forum and see that. You voiced zero concern about clarity issues etc, like the transparent excuses you are using here, even though Wiegman is much more obscure. You didn’t have any problem with clarity then, even though it was a much less clear image.

    Mr Prudhomme, if you bothered to look, Mr Gilbride and myself have been pursing that perspective information. And we have reasonably shown that there is no perspective distortion in either Darnell or Wiegman. It is obvious to me that you height argument deniers are seeking an excuse to avoid examining the true evidence and science that disproves Murphy. You in particular have been flooding the internet in the last few years with rubbish content trying to match evidence in the Depository to the existence of Oswald as Prayer Man.

  64. Albert Doyle says:

    Again, you are only giving us an example of your dishonest methods when you say Prayer Man was taller at one point in Wiegman. The only pertinent evidence is when Lovelady is taller when both individuals are flat-footed on the landing. You are only showing the public your need to evade the legitimate arguments. Good science would take the facial ovals seen in Wiegman and use them to extrapolate height (since the facial ovals can be anatomically related to height). Very slippery Bob. Prayer Man IS taller when Lovelady is on the first step down. 4 inches to be precise, and YOU are conspicuously avoiding giving an honest answer to this.

    Bob, you are simply an uncredible, incompetent analyzer talking to someone who has run circles around you, only you don’t realize it. You are clearly not answering what I wrote in my post to you and dismissing yourself from credibility. If you honestly answered what I wrote it would conclusively show that the height comparison of Prayer Man with two individuals of known height in the portal scientifically indicates a person of 5 foot 5 height. You have created a “perspective illusion” boogeyman you are hiding behind in order to avoid our science that has disproven that claim. Both Wiegman and Darnell are good, straight-shot photo comparisons of height and they prove Prayer Man is too short to be Oswald, as you yourself admit you saw.

    Photo science will prove Darnell’s camera height has ZERO effect on perspective.

    Just look at our posts. We are pursuing hard facts and good science and you are making fuzzy excuses.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Tell me, Albert, or Brian, or which ever name you are going by this week, are you still able to see an overcoat with large buttons, long hair in a coif and a hand bag on Prayer Man? Do you not recall how you were run off of the Deep Politics Forum for your insane antics? You and Richard Gilbride doing serious research? Indeed.

      • Albert Doyle says:

        Only an incompetent would offer what you do Mr Prudhomme. A more credible and capable researcher would fear exposing himself with such a petty answer.

        What you just dodged above – which is classic of you but doesn’t seem to trim your attitude, is the fact your camera level and perspective claims only exhibits your incompetency. You ignore good arguments and then respond with the lowest level of discourse by simply impugning the researcher instead of answering his arguments. Gilbride offers a very high level of competency and analysis that you skipped and responded basically with defamation and no response to the actual substance being argued. You certainly haven’t disproven anything Gilbride offered with your crude dismissal.

        You’re done Bob. I made some very clear observations about the fatal conflicts in what you offered. You couldn’t answer it and changed the subject. Your claim that Darnell was too fuzzy was disproven by your own definite claims from much less clear photos where you had no such problem. You only used it as an excuse to not answer our science. That’s dishonest. Frankly you sound like the ROKC clowns above.

        No, you can’t switch the subject. You failed to answer my points in my last post, therefore conceding their merit. Bob, you have an annoying tendency to assume a position the content of your posts doesn’t justify. What this comes down to is after your fuzzy image and perspective excuses are disallowed you then have no excuse for ignoring our science. What this shows is you have an agenda that is separate from credible objective pursuit of the evidence and are perfectly willing to ignore the real facts. You have real balls speaking to me that way considering how badly you are losing this discussion and how bad it makes you look.

        Our height argument is good and your bilious evasions are not. If you paid credible attention to them instead of offering the ignorant resistance you do you would find they prove Prayer Man isn’t Oswald. I have very little respect for someone who cites unfair site action against an innocent person who happens to be in the right. It is quite cowardly.

        Smart people will see Bob is not necessarily saying I’m wrong here in his less than honest reply.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Like everyone on Deep Politics Forum, I eventually grow tired of attempting to reason with a hateful lunatic such as yourself, Brian or Albert.

          • Albert Doyle says:

            Bob, you got caught saying Lovelady was of similar height and had a severe height difference with Prayer Man in the same breath. You tried to pass off this fatal conflict on perspective but credible photo science disallows that obvious excuse. You’re not fooling anyone Bob. Anyone reading this can see you have been out-argued and can’t answer. You are obviously not interested in the facts on this and do not care how badly you mislead the public on this issue or its impact on the credibility of conspiracy research. Or your fantasy scenarios that try to rework the evidence in favor of this now-debunked Murphy thesis. Who do you think you’re fooling here? You offer weak excuses and petty defamation while I offer firm arguments and science you can’t answer in public. You’re a name-caller Bob and I’m an issue-solver. You have real hubris considering. My science is good, which is why you are unable to answer it. If we could get this to credible vetting your name-calling level entries would be out on the first round. When not protected by unfair moderators you don’t do that well in a straight-out real man’s argument of facts.

        • Bart Kamp says:

          Your height argument is baseless and above all useless.
          You provide not a shred of evidence, and forget about Gilbride’s neat little lines which amount to nothing.
          It has already been proven that Gilbride lies, just like you if I may add.
          Pure disinfo!

          • Albert Doyle says:

            The fact Bart Kamp has never once made any attempt to directly answer my science says all you need to know. So “baseless” that Kamp is unable to directly answer it.

          • Bart Kamp says:

            You have no science, you provided no evidence at any time, the only thing you provided in heaps is trolling. At DPF at JFKASSforum and now here.
            I don’t answer to trolls who just spout an opinion.
            Buttons?
            Purse?
            Handbag?
            Height?
            Based on absolutely nothing, everyone seems to know this except you.

  65. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Okay, I found the source of one photo showing Gloria Calvery and some of the four women she was standing with, just east of the Stemmons Freeway sign, when JFK was assassinated. The uncropped photo is at this link:

    http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=39&pos=1

    This photo was taken by Harry Cabluck, a photographer with forty years experience who worked for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. He covered JFK’s visit to Dallas, and was riding in the press bus near the tail end of the motorcade. Cabluck took this photo trough a window of the press bus as it passed through Dealey Plaza.

    Looking at this uncropped version of the photo, it is possible to make several observations that give us clues about how much time has elapsed since the last shot was fired. First, Zapruder and his secretary are absent from their perch on the concrete pedestal, and are nowhere in sight. Second, Gloria Calvery, Westbrook and Dishong have moved from their position on the curb, and appear stalled as they stand on the grass, possibly watching onlookers running up the Grassy Knoll.

    With this evidence alone, I would say at least a minute, if not more, has passed since the last shot.

    However, we can go much further with this. As Bill Shelley seeing Baker running up the steps of the TSBD is chronologically dependent, in both his WC testimony and his first day statement, on him conversing with Gloria Calvery first, let’s compare the timing of the Darnell film of Baker rushing to the steps with the Cabluck photo.

    According to this site http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/Motorcade%20Route/Item%2015.pdf
    James Darnell was in the rear seat of Camera Car #3, and filmed Baker dashing across the Elm St. extension as this car was making the left turn from Houston onto Elm St. Harry Cabluck was in the White House Press Bus #1, five vehicles behind Camera Car #3, and possibly still on Main St. at the time Darnell filmed Baker.

    Therefore, if Baker is already at the steps before Darnell’s car is finished turning onto Elm St., how long does it take for Cabluck’s press bus to be far enough down Elm St. in order for Cabluck to photograph Calvery standing on the lawn near the pergola?

    Continued next post….

    • “With this evidence alone, I would say at least a minute, if not more, has passed since the last shot.”~Bob Prudhomme

      I disagree, it could be as little as 15 seconds. I think you are again stretching time frames out of your bias.
      What would be Shelly and Lovelady’s motive for lying as to Gloria Calvary running back to the TSBD while they were both still on the steps?

      Harry Cabluck took those shots just seconds after the Presidential Limo sped off from the spot where JFK was hit. NOT minutes Bob.
      Darnell had already been by the TSBD and filmed Baker running to the steps at this time. As you can see the bus in the Darnell just as it is going under the triple overpass at the end of his film; this was after officer Baker ran to the steps.
      \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Willy

        It is very simple. Baker estimated it took twenty to twenty-five seconds, after the last shot, to reach the front door of the TSBD. If the press bus, with Cabluck in it, is five vehicles behind Darnell’s camera car and likely rounding the turn from Main to Houston, and Darnell’s car is still rounding the corner as Baker is at the foot of the stairs, how long does it take the press bus to reach the point on Elm St., near the pergola, where Cabluck takes a photo of Gloria Calvery?

        Give up? The answer is, it doesn’t really matter, because Baker is already in the building before Cabluck’s bus even turns onto Elm St.

        • “The answer is, it doesn’t really matter, because Baker is already in the building before Cabluck’s bus even turns onto Elm St.”~Bob Prudhomme

          But that is MY argument Bob. grin
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            What?? You mean we actually agree on something?

            *faints*

          • As I said all along Bob, Baker ran straight up the steps just like he said he did. He and Truly went up the stairway and encountered Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom where he had just bought a coke from the machine.
            Simple\\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Just like the Warren Omission said?
            Why did Truly say Oswald had nothing in his hands in his WO testimony.
            When Baker walked into the lunchroom did he see Oswald walking away from him towards the coke machine, standing in front of it, sitting at a table or leaning against the counter?

          • “Just like the Warren Omission said?”~Ronnie Wayne
            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            Although the coke in Oswald’s hand is not of the essence of the encounter, it is important to note that the issue of the coke is not derived from the hearsay of Fritz’s notes and report. Mrs Reid says in her testimony that she encountered Oswald while passing by her desk on the 2nd floor, and at that time he had a coke in his hand.

            And of course as we have seen on this thread; anyone who was a witness backing up the encounter with Oswald by Baker and Truly is automatically pronounced a “liar” by the Prayerman fanatics. OR as Ronnie has done here, makes the blanked claim that this is part of the “Warren Omission”, which is meant as an incantation of ‘magical words’ to blunt all arguments, whether reasonable or not.

            It is this magical thinking, that should be deplored in serious discussions among adults.
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            No magic here Willy. I’ve been legally an adult for 40 years. I like to think I’ve grown (up?) some in some respects, but I keep learning new things. I hope I never grow old enough to stop learning.
            FREETHEFILES.

      • Bart Kamp says:

        Shelley and Lovelady left the steps almost immediately after the final shot.Read their statements, and dude forget about the WC testimony, they, Reid and Truly lied through their teeth.

        • “Reid and Truly lied through their teeth.”~Bart Kamp

          But Shelley and Lovelady are totally believable, even though their saying that Gloria Calvery spoke to them while they were on the steps squats on your lickspittle theories:

          Mr. BALL – You were standing on which step?

          Mr. LOVELADY – It would be your top level.

          Mr. BALL – The top step you were standing there?

          Mr. LOVELADY – Right.

          Mr. BALL – Now, when Gloria came up you were standing near Mr. Shelley?

          Mr. LOVELADY – Yeah.

          Mr. BALL – When Gloria came up and said the President had been shot, Gloria Calvary, what did you do?

          Mr. LOVELADY – Well, I asked who told her. She said he had been shot so we asked her was she for certain or just had she seen the shot hit him or–she said yes, she had been right close to it to see and she had saw the blood and knew he had been hit but didn’t know how serious it was and so the crowd had started towards the railroad tracks back, you …
          \\][//

          • bart kamp says:

            both of them lied too
            read the statements before the wc testimony
            they lied about them staying on the steps longer than actually happened, they left almost immediately
            nor did they see Baker go in, in Couch neither is seen looking back
            Shelley’s first statement says he met GC after they left the steps

            Then they lied about seeing Vicky Adams as well.

            She spoke the truth and they inserted this meet w Shelley afterwards, for this I refer to Barry Ernest’s book The girl on the stairs

          • I see Bart,

            Anyone who says anything that knocks down your theory is a liar.

            I am not buying your nonsense Kamp. You should ramble on and sell it to the chumps that attend your own carnival.
            \\][//

          • Bart Kamp says:

            Whitten, I am not surprised at all, but then again you are so badly misinformed when it comes to their statements.And when it comes to that I do not theorise, you on the other hand……..

          • Bart Kamp has a video on the web titled ‘JFK Assassination: Prayer Man is Lee Harvey Oswald’.
            However, the title of this video should be, ‘JFK Assassination: Prayer Man is an Unidentifiable Blur’
            The collected imagery of Bart Kamp is worthy of being looked at. However his commentary is irrational and incoherent; very much the same sort of biased commentary we encounter on this thread.

            I think it is a mistake to pump up Kamp’s presence in the ‘JFK research community’, and give him and the various disciples of the Prayerman myth more attention than they deserve.

            “Who is Prayerman?” – Only The Shadow knows, and he’s not saying, because he is just a comic book character.
            \\][//

  66. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Continued….

    It is quite simple, Gloria Calvery did not run up Elm St., before Baker ran into the TSBD, and converse with Shelley before Shelley witnessed Baker going into the TSBD. She may have run up later, but not before Baker would have already been on his way up the inside stairs of the TSBD. Shelley lied about this, in both his first day statement AND his WC testimony. The pictures prove it.

    However, if we change one factor of the equation, it might all just work. If Baker did not go up the TSBD steps immediately but, instead, went to look at something on Houston St., and entered the TSBD much later than he and Truly claimed, this would not only give Calvery enough time to return to the TSBD steps, it would make sense of Shelley’s claim that Baker did not enter the TSBD until 3-4 minutes after the last shot, despite having parked his motorcycle on the Elm t. curb within 15 seconds of the last shot.

    • Bob,

      What you are proposing here is preposterous. The Darnell film is the film that has your so-called Prayerman at the top of the steps. That same film shows Baker dismount and run to the steps. Then as Darnell and Weigman go on further up Elm they come to the pagoda area.

      What do you propose, that Darnell went back to the TSBD and filmed the Prayerman-Baker sequence AFTER he had been to the Pagoda area?
      THAT would be absurd.

      • Bart Kamp says:

        Whitten, it is really time you read ALL the statements/testimony by Shelley and Lovelady.
        You sound so ignorant with the usage of their testimonies that it really beggars belief.

  67. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Prayerman can’t be proved at this point in time, nor can he be disproved. After all this discussion I still don’t Know where Oswald was when the shots were fired, shortly before or afterward.
    That’s the real issue to me.
    Vince Palamara’s Survivor’s Guilt, pgs. 326-329. Secret Service Report 491: On 12/2-12/5/63 (Agent Elmer) Moore, along with fellow agents Arthur Blake and William Carter, began a series of interviews with the employee’s of the Texas School Book Depository over a four day period. Three of the witnesses interviewed, Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams and Charles Givens, gave totally new evidence to Moore & co. that conflicted dramatically with earlier statements made by each of them to the FBI.”
    Howard Brennan in particular made a positive ID of Oswald after this that he wouldn’t do before.
    This changing of a first day impression after Agent Moore visited is not unique. He’s the same Secret Service Agent that convinced Dr. Malcom Perry his experienced impression of a entry wound in the throat was in error.
    A week and a half after the Assassination the Secret Service took four days to “interview” the employee’s of the TSBD.
    In four days three agent’s “interviewed” well more than four people.
    The point is how do you know who to believe here?
    “Statements” taken in Dallass by the DPD, FBI, and WC were edited, changed and ignored. Warren Omission testimony was coached in advance BY the WO attorney’s, taken off the record multiple times.
    Witnesses from Dealy Plaza changed their stories over time.
    Intimidation of them by the above organizations is documented.
    E.G Fritz raised a fist at Wesley Buell Fraizer over signing a confession on 11/22/63. Then much later in life he say’s he was worried about his family’s safety regarding saying anything more.
    Which testimony, statements, evidence etc. are most truthful, reliable, provable.

    • Albert Doyle says:

      ” Prayerman can’t be proved at this point in time, nor can he be disproved. ”

      This is false. My height argument conclusively proves Prayer Man cannot be Oswald by comparison to Frazier and Lovelady. Scientific analysis proves beyond a doubt that Prayer Man measures as 5 foot 5 inches when compared to Lovelady in Wiegman, and Frazier in Darnell.

      • Bart Kamp says:

        You have no scientific proof, if you had you would have posted it months ago. No need to harp on about it, everyone knows what your ‘game’ is.
        Your height comparison is based on nothing, it is merely an opinion nothing more.

        Why don’t we ask you a scientific question, no dodging here this time ‘Albert’

        What mm lens did Wiegman use? Now then if you have scientific proof regarding measurements etc. then you would have no problem answering this.

      • Doyle,

        Why don’t you and your adversaries take your crap out of here and back where it belongs; on the blog sites your arguments began on.

        You have ALL overstayed your welcome here.
        \\][//

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Gentlemen, you all miss or ignore my point. If three Secret Service Agents spent four days interviewing TSBD employee’s they most likely spoke with virtually all of them, Truly, Reid, Shelly and Lovelady included. One of the Agents, Moore, while in Dallas managed to convince an experienced ER Doctor he was wrong about his initial impressions of a throat wound were incorrect. It Sounds like he/they had an agenda.
      Might one or two of them have spoken with Baker while in town?
      Why did the Secret Service destroy their records on all this shortly after the formation of the ARRB which specifically restricted them from doing so by law?
      BTW Albert, height from a fuzzy picture is even less conclusive to me than the claim that it Might be prayerman.

      • Tom S. says:

        ….Might one or two of them have spoken with Baker while in town?
        Why did the Secret Service destroy their records on all this shortly after the formation of the ARRB which specifically restricted them from doing so by law?

        Ronnie, your POV is skewed and not on a well supported foundation. How did you come to infer above, to your readers, that you have evidence the Secret Service is known to have destroyed the type of JFK Assassination investigation records you associated, interviews of witnesses you are attempting to impeach the testimony of? Over on the Ed Forum, you’ve made a veiled attempt to make it appear you are not defending the authority of your interpretation of Fritz’s notes. You act as if you know for a fact what Fritz or whoever put the phrases to paper meant to communicate via the phrases, and even to whom. You support weighing those notes as an equal or heavier indicator of what Fritz heard and documented than he described in his WC testimony, despite knowing Fritz never shared them in the form they were donated in by an anonymous donor. You weigh the phrases in the notes at least equal to what Frazier, Shelley, and Lovelady gave as evidence in their testimony.

        There is a pattern in your presentation, Ronnie. Consider who is fully in agreement with you and the way you filter information.

        The details at these links support only that the SS destroyed some records in 1995, but not of post assassination witness interviews.-
        https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=3611#relPageId=170
        &
        http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2012/12/xsecret-service-records-thought.html

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Tom, I’ve never been a member of the education forum. Why did the SS destroy any records about the assassination when the act instructed them by law. Why did they do this shortly after the ARRB was created? Records they had apparently kept for 30 years by that time?
          If not destroyed, where are the records of the interviews at the TSBD?

          • Tom S. says:

            Tom, I’ve never been a member of the education forum.

            Ronnie, sorry, it was Bob Prudhomme I was the author of the Ed Forum thread I mistakenly associated you with.

            As far as Secret Service interviews of TSBD employees and other assassination witnesses, I was pointing out to you that there seems to be no accusation that documents already in the record of the WC, Church Committee, or HSCA were destroyed by Secret Service during the ARRB records gathering effort in the 1990’s.

            Your claim was vague because any SS interview document known to exist would be part of the archive of one of the investigations I mentioned above, and the ARRB report described the SS records destruction of 1995, here – https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=3611#relPageId=170 , yet you stated, “Might one or two of them have spoken with Baker while in town?
            Why did the Secret Service destroy their records on all this shortly after the formation of the ARRB which specifically restricted them from doing so by law?”.

            Yes, SS interview reports are difficult to isolate in the documents at maryferrell.org but any SS document already known of would have been part of the record of one of the investigations of the 1960’s or 70’s. Are you speculating about interview documents that were never disclosed by SS? The ARRB described destroyed documents of that sort at the page I linked above.

            Beyond that, is your point that the SS destroyed 1960’s documents in 1995, so this supports suspicions that the SS of 1963 conducted interviews of assassination witnesses and probably withheld interview documents containing witness responses SS did not like and you suspect SS withheld those documents permanently?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Tom I suspect the SS, like the CIA and FBI destroyed many records well prior to the 90’s. I’m a conspiracy realist and I guess naturally suspicious. Of course if files were destroyed by any of the above it’s impossible to prove. About all we have to go on is witnesses saying their testimony or statements were changed. That doesn’t stop me, you or a lot of other people from trying to connect the dots.

  68. George says:

    “You can’t understand JFK’s assassination without reading Our Man in Mexico, Jefferson Morley’s critically-acclaimed biography of Winston Scott, chief of the CIA’s Mexico City station in 1963.”

    I demand to know why Scott is critical to understanding this case in 10 dot points.

    Be warned: the 10 points have to cover everything I think should be covered – not what YOU think. And I want citations, links, diagrams and photos with circles and paragraphs under each one and etc…

  69. George says:

    ‘She agrees she has heard of the issues re Wade and the Innocence Project.’ — George

    ‘Sure, I know of Wade’s disgraceful record as a prosecutor and the innocent men who were exonerated through DNA tests.’ — Jean Davison

    You would have to have followed my history with Jean on this site to appreciate the irony here, me defending her. Why are you misrepresenting her words? She states that she knows Wade’s record is disgraceful related to the prosecution of innocent men. ‘Disgraceful’ indicates that she finds it unacceptable. She simply does not agree with you that Oswald was innocent so she does not include him in the category of those worthy of exoneration.

    I did not misrepresent her. I stated she acknowledged knowing about the problems with Wade and of the work done by the Innocence Project. Her belief that Wade’s record is “disgraceful” is meaningless in the context of this discussion since she believes this disgraceful conduct of the office of the DA and of the DPD has no bearing on the Oswald case. It is akin to saying the atrocities committed under a despot cannot all be blamed on said despot unless you can show a direct hands-on linkage – to which I say – balderdash. Jean is confronted now with something which she is not used to – she cannot dispute Wade’s appalling record, yet must defend it all costs regarding Oswald to keep on the standard LN message.

    One MUST keep on message. But to do that, one MUST make sure the opposition is keeping on THEIR designated message.

    Like I said, not playing that game. This a new paradigm. Get used to it.

    • Jean Davison says:

      “Her belief that Wade’s record is “disgraceful” is meaningless in the context of this discussion since she believes this disgraceful conduct of the office of the DA and of the DPD has no bearing on the Oswald case.”

      I’ve said no such thing and that’s not my belief. Here’s what I said: “If you can show that Wade framed Oswald, please do.”

      Well? Can you? What are you accusing him of, specifically?

      • George says:

        As of right now, Jean, do you, or do you not believe that the DA’s office and the DPD’s disgraceful record has any bearing on the Oswald case?

        Unless you say you DO believe it had a bearing, then my claim that you believe it DOES NOT have any bearing, was quite correct. You are simply arguing from both sides of your mouth (again).

        • Jean Davison says:

          “Unless you say you DO believe it had a bearing, then my claim that you believe it DOES NOT have any bearing, was quite correct.”

          Bad reasoning, Greg. Neither alternative is correct. It had no bearing THAT I KNOW OF. Why don’t you enlighten me, as I asked? What are you accusing Wade of doing, specifically?

          Speaking of “arguing from both sides of your mouth,” please don’t tell me you can’t answer this because you need editing tools or more than 500 words.

          • George says:

            Bad reasoning, Greg. Neither alternative is correct. It had no bearing THAT I KNOW OF. Why don’t you enlighten me, as I asked? What are you accusing Wade of doing, specifically?

            Speaking of “arguing from both sides of your mouth,” please don’t tell me you can’t answer this because you need editing tools or more than 500 words.

            “That you know of”. Nice dodge.

            Let’s get real. The honest answer from you would be “it had no bearing that I will ever admit to publicly”

            This is not about Wade per se. It is about a technique used by the police, Wade’s office, the FBI and USSS among others.

            You know… the technique which is actually part of the name o the paper?

            http://gregparke4.wix.com/gregrparker#!oswalds-alibi-and-the-reid-technique/c1ltw

          • Jean Davison says:

            QUOTE:
            “That you know of”. Nice dodge.

            Let’s get real. The honest answer from you would be “it had no bearing that I will ever admit to publicly”
            UNQUOTE

            Very poor response. What’s your excuse for not explaining what bearing it had? Because you can’t and don’t want to admit it?

    • Sorry Greg, I will never get used to the presentation of subjective interpretation of facts as if it is proof, so if that is your new paradigm it will collapse under the weight of close scrutiny, something you do not experience on your own site. Your logic is: Wade sometimes falsely prosecuted individuals who have since been exonerated ergo he falsely accused Oswald; what about the hundreds perhaps thousands he did not falsely prosecute – who were in fact guilty of the crime as charged – could Oswald have been in that number? I’m not suggesting he was, I am challenging your logic that appears designed to support your theory. It doesn’t stand up under close scrutiny.

      • George says:

        “Sorry Greg, I will never get used to the presentation of subjective interpretation of facts as if it is proof, so if that is your new paradigm it will collapse under the weight of close scrutiny, something you do not experience on your own site. Your logic is: Wade sometimes falsely prosecuted individuals who have since been exonerated ergo he falsely accused Oswald” Leslie

        You clearly have not read the paper I did on this. Which is fine, but please do not misrepresent the argument based on your ow ignorance of it.

        • George says:

          And as for the crack about scrutiny… you again are misrepresenting the facts. Members at my site are free to criticize me and/or my posts – and do.

          If any of them feel that they can’t, then that in itself would be a valid criticism of me.

        • Paradigm

          “The most annoying and misused word in the English language; used intentionally by stupid people to sound smart or by smart people to sound unintentionally stupid.”

          http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Paradigm

          \\][//

          • George says:

            urbandictionary: Urban Dictionary is a satirical crowdsourced online dictionary of slang words and phrases that was founded in 1999 as a parody of Dictionary.com and Vocabulary.com by then-college freshman Aaron Peckham and referenced by stupid people who don’t get that it’s a parody site.

          • “urbandictionary: Urban Dictionary is a satirical crowdsourced online dictionary…”~George

            REALLY George!!! Wow, the things one learns on JFKfacts … aye??? Lol
            \\][//

          • ‘Delusions of Grandeur’

            1. a false impression of one’s own importance.

            People with a delusion of grandeur often have the conviction of having some great but unrecognized talent or insight, such as establishing a brand new paradigm in a subject they are total amateurs in.
            \\][//

  70. George says:

    Beginning with Henry Wade did not send Oswald to Minsk, did not orchestrate his activities in NOLA, and did not position him in the building at 411 Elm and all permutations of evidence in between.

    And you accuse me of conflating?

    Oswald was a creature of the espionage industry. Setting him up as a patsy had a LOT of pluses – one being that it would mean a knee-jerk reaction for different agencies to aid in the cover-up.

    I have explained this before, but in case you’ve forgotten (I don’t think you missed it), it is not mine, your’s, Whitten’s, Morley’s or anyone else’s responsibility to solve this case. The most we should be required to do is force the proper authorities t re-open it and then keep their feet to the fire to ensure it is FINALLY a proper investigation.

    You may already “know” Oswald did not shoot JFK – but the authorities need more than your say-so, or a bunch of conjecture. Yes, some of us are positive PM is Oswald – but we also know we will need the clear frame from Darnell to convince the PTB.

  71. Albert Doyle says:

    Here is a good example to show what a dishonest incompetent Bart Kamp is. In his need to evade he banks too heavily on excuse-making and fails to realize how he has trapped himself. David Josephs tried to get away with saying there were too many possible lenses, with their accompanying focal points, to make any definite judgments from Darnell. David thought he was clever, but he was obviously just concocting an excuse to deny our argument. A more competent and credible analyst would realize Darnell’s hand-held news camera was photographed in the Plaza. It was the same standard news camera and lens he always used for his news shots on the same setting as usual. When I pointed this out to Josephs he refused to answer.

    The reason Kamp is foolish is because simple logic dictates that Darnell’s camera and lens could be easily determined. I have posted many times that the image seen in Darnell aligns with known dimensions gridded by Robardeau and therefore accurately illustrates the focal point Josephs is using as an excuse to not answer our good science. Frankly, it is obvious to me that Kamp doesn’t have the skill to comprehend this and shouldn’t be allowed to participate at analysis levels that are obviously beyond his ability.

    Darnell’s camera is the common news footage camera it is that is set at its normal news shot setting. It is a falsehood to say the entire issue depends on precise knowledge of this camera. These liars are only trying to set the terms for their excuses and nothing else and should not be served. The correct photo science terms tell us that there is no focal point issue in Darnell and no legitimate reason why a direct height comparison cannot be made between Frazier and Prayer Man in it. Once done – and this is what these liars are avoiding – it clearly shows Prayer Man is 7 inches shorter than Frazier, who is 6 foot tall. ROKC is clearly not credible on this because of their need to deny it due to their banking their entire organization on the Oswald as Prayer Man issue. Once you corroborate Prayer Man’s 5 foot 5 height in comparison to Lovelady in Wiegman it cinches it. ROKC is just in plain contempt and defiant denial and should not be taken seriously. Kamp doesn’t realize he is only showing the public his feeble excuses don’t disprove our claim. Like Prudhomme. These people are rogues ignorantly in denial of science they don’t realize has already refuted them.

    • Bart Kamp says:

      Utter rubbish, keep at it by all means.
      1/State what camera Darnell used, common news camera is way too vague.Since it is so easy tbd it should be of no problem whatsoever for you to mention this for all to see.
      2/State what camera was Wiegman using and what lens!
      3/Present your science, link to it, don’t just fairy tale your way out of this, show everyone what YOU and YOUR calculations prove. Don’t come with the WE answer since no one wishes to be connected to you.
      4/Show us the sun plane analysis!
      5/You now state that PM is 5 5″, yet for months you stated 5 6″, explain the difference and where this is based on.

      Should I go on?

      • Albert Doyle says:

        No, you are in no position to set ever-increasing hoops and hurdles in order to avoid answering what we reasonably showed. It’s a dishonest tactic Mr Kamp and is being used to hide from the fact that it is YOU who hasn’t answered the questions here. You show me why that wasn’t Jimmy Darnell’s regular camera and lens?

        Your answers only prove my incompetency claims against you Mr Kamp. As I stated clearly, the visual image seen in Darnell corresponds to the known dimensions of the Plaza as plotted out by Robardeau. So we have a pretty good idea of the focal point setting enough to determine that there are no extreme lens settings that would skew perspective. Your answers, as usual, conspicuously do not respond to what was said and you are obviously well out of your league. You cannot ignore a valid forensic point and then answer it with your own inadequate, self-serving counter as you do. Once we establish the gridded orientation seen in Darnell corresponds to Robardeau’s map we can reasonably determine that the image appears in normal scale and, therefore, there is no significant perspective distortion that would affect any height comparison. It is common sense that Darnell did not use any abnormal lenses or settings for his ordinary news shot that day. So while Josephs and Kamp scurry for excuses, and ask moot questions to avoid admitting the obvious, more reasonable, honest, and rational observers would see that there is no valid claim to perspective skewing in Darnell and that Kamp has uncredibly not answered the valid points here.

        I think most intelligent people would see from Kamp’s style that he isn’t a serious analyzer. You can see he’s shaken because he asks in his question #1 what kind of camera it was. He then asks the same question in question #2. Mr Kamp is quite foolish and setting up his own destruction because persons with more sense would realize when we find out about Darnell’s equipment it will turn out that it was his normal camera, with his normal lens, set at a normal setting.

        This reply above is typical of Kamp, who exists in a very low peer review environment at ROKC. He asks me to state my science right in front of his being publicly unable to answer that science, as already stated in numerous places Mr Kamp is well aware of, including here.

        After stating “utter rubbish” it will turn out my claims are all correct. Again, the sun plane analysis was already shown. Mr Kamp’s response was “show us your sun plane analysis”. Time to make a judgment on Mr Kamp and his fitness.

  72. Albert Doyle says:

    Bart Kamp’s entries are dishonest and do not deserve comment. He claims we haven’t entered any science while ignoring good science he hasn’t been able to answer in public short of his crude entries. I caught him confirming on ROKC that he saw Prayer Man manipulating something with two hands – something that was exactly what MacRae was claiming and opposite ROKC’s ‘James Dean Cool’ leaning against the wall claim. You can see what kind of a person Kamp is in his ignoring this and not honestly responding to how it affects his claims.

    For Kamp to claim we have shown no science is one of the most outrageous statements I’ve ever seen. We have shown nothing but science that Kamp has been unable to respond to short of sick bathroom humor on ROKC. Kamp has not been able to disprove any of our scientific measurements based on the firm dimensions and distances of the Depository and Plaza. Kamp is a joker who ignores your good science and then comes on websites to claim you haven’t offered any science. He’s an incompetent fool.

    We have very provably shown that there are no perspective shifts in Darnell or Wiegman that would prohibit any direct height comparison between Frazier and Prayer Man in Darnell or Lovelady and Prayer Man in Wiegman. Once these obvious excuses are disallowed our clearly stated science in the height argument proves Prayer Man is 5 foot 5 and therefore can’t be the 5 foot 9 Oswald.

    Kamp has not made even the first effort to answer our science. The only thing he offers are simple-minded denials like the above. The research community has shamed itself on this matter. Read ROKC and their sick comments if you want to judge whether to take Bart Kamp seriously or not. Our arguments are good. Smart people would realize that’s why ROKC is only left with the stupidity they post.

    • Bart Kamp says:

      1/Link to both entries where I say that PM is manipulating somehting with both hands and that MacRae did it before me. Not that the issue actually matters, but a bold claim by you needs to be supported by evidence, so let’s have it!
      2/You have not shown anything to support you lies, as a matter of fact I urge anyone who is interested, won’t be many but that aside, to go to the JFKASSforum and check out the Who Is Prayer Person thread and check out what you have posted over roughly 200 (!!!) pages. Anyone determined enough sees that you lie your way through these pages and that LNers and Cters have become united in condemning your antics over these pages.
      3/I have not bothered to disprove the lalaland Cinquesque (!) writings of you, as they don’t amount to anything Brian, time to call you by your real name again.
      4/Perspective shifts? Really? Again what lens did Wiegman shoot with and then tell me if, that standard lens as you have said so, is actually standard.
      5/Sick comments are reserved for liars only.
      6/Our arguments? You are completely on your own.

      Not answering the questions in this post and the one above will confirm your agenda.
      Man up just this once!

      • Albert Doyle says:

        ROKC forum – Prayer Person GIFs thread – Bart Kamp – April 5 2015:

        ” Great work Stan, well done!
        It does look like he is holding something in his hands and not buttoning his shirt any more which I previously thought was the case.
        🙂 Excellent! 🙂 ”

        ” I have just retired from ROKC and will have to do this here as well. My forum days are over.
        Too bad, I had a nice bit planned for tomorrow but my position at ROKC is untenable so there is no need to continue for me here either.
        I am ending my forum life so to speak.
        Thank you all and all the best.

        Bart Kamp. ”

        Mr Kamp was already aware of his quotes because I posted them elsewhere and he already responded to them. This is a good example to show how Mr Kamp calls for things that he is already aware of. He knows he posted this but he shows little respect for the public and uses the dishonest defense lawyer tactic of making you prove it.

        His second quote was right after I busted him with this proof of him agreeing with Duncan MacRae and contradicting ROKC’s leaning Oswald claim. It is very obvious he reacted so in realization he had been demolished and exposed. He never followed through. Then and now, his position is untenable as I’ve proven.

        What the readers in this comments section don’t realize is Kamp is offering these aggressive questions because he himself has refused to answer the basic 7 inch question I have posed repeatedly. What Mr Kamp does is post things like “Time to man up” with mushy evasive demands like the above but its real motive is to get out of not answering my 7 inch argument that exposes Kamp just like my quotes above.

        Kamp falsely claimed that Lovelady and Prayer Man were both on the first step down and equal in height. I responded that if that were true when Lovelady was on the landing he would be noticeably 7 inches higher. Kamp refuses to answer this basic evidence that proves our height argument. ROKC admitted it places Prayer Man on the first step because of his lack of height compared to Frazier. When I pointed-out Prayer Man is equal in height to those on the right in the portal, and therefore proves Prayer Man is on the landing, our great answer-demander Kamp ignored it.

        It is kind of obvious who isn’t answering the questions here.

        • Bart Kamp says:

          Show MacRae’s quote with the date stamp Brian.
          You have nothing to compare with until proven otherwise. No doubt MacRae will help you editing one of his posts and you will present it as evidence, because if you had it you would have presented it by now. This how all this works Brian, links/documents not just constant yapping, as you have already noticed no one takes you seriously.
          Just another diatribe Brian, filled with untold amounts of lies. Slander nothing else.

          Out of all you claim, the only thing you do is quote an observation by me from a year ago, well done Brian. Nice try………

          Furthermore although I have said Oswald (!) is on the first step down, it is an observation, I am more than willing to revise that observation, were there any proof of him not being there and on the top landing instead, perhaps he was on the top landing in Wiegman and one step down in Darnell, solely a photographic interpretation. You cannot see his legs/feet.

          You don’t even know what lenses were used by the cameramen, you don’t know where they were, Gilbride himself says approximate position of the cameramen, nor mentioning lenses and so forth in his post at EF, approximately? Wiegman in a moving vehicle!!! Right, yet you can see how tall all these people are and where they are standing exactly. Too bad you use junk science for these conclusions.

          But when it comes to yapping over 200 pages about buttons, handbag and purse (all retracted by MacRae if I may add since it was only a wind up) and which I debunked and then some you took it as gospel and you filled post after post with this rubbish, this attitude actually got you chucked out of DPF for a month only for you to fill 200+ pages with this dross.
          Back allowed in you went back at it and managed to get the threads closed (mission accomplished aye?)
          You have failed to submit any proof, otherwise you would have linked to it, nor has Gilbride (anyone can draw lines on a pic., doesn’t mean it’s true) or anyone else. Instead you just post that one little interpretation. I am repeating myself here….

          While we are at it answer all the other questions, so far all I and everyone else sees is hot air. You have been asked by several others to supply all this proof yet you fail miserably.

          Now as much as I like to rectify you there’s only that many hours in the day. So unless you answer those questions there won’t be a reply from me, as a matter of fact a wall of silence will meet you instead. Life’s too short and this debate is becoming mega boring since you keep lying and twisting things around.

          • Albert Doyle says:

            Kamp: All you need to reference is your own post. You asked me to link the posts and I did. You can read them yourself and they very clearly say you saw Prayer Man holding something with 2 hands and manipulating it. That’s exactly what MacRae was saying. I don’t have to link MacRae saying it because it is common knowledge and if you aren’t aware of it then you aren’t qualified to argue this subject and need to study it better before you post. I have documented that you enthusiastically agreed with MacRae’s claim, counter to what ROKC was claiming with its ‘James Dean Cool’ leaning claim. Kamp precisely described the very holding of a purse with 2 hands that MacRae did. Well, done. Kamp slipped and accurately observed what was there.

            Next, Kamp admits that Prayer Man is standing on the landing. Only he doesn’t do the necessary follow-through and compute how then ROKC’s own admission that Prayer Man was too short, and that is why they placed him on the step, necessitates an accounting for that admitted lack of height once you place him on the landing. You cannot place Prayer Man on the landing, as Kamp does, and not then account for their own admitted lack of height once you place him there. In doing this Kamp fails the argument and therefore proves our evidence. What he isn’t following-through on is once you place Prayer Man on the landing, and admit he’s too short, that it disproves him being Oswald.

            That is why it is proof.

  73. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Hi Tom

    How long do you plan to allow Albert’s defamation campaign to continue?

    • Tom S. says:

      Hi Pot ….errr I mean Bob,

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Tom S.

        Most people would have enough sense to understand that my deliberate use of a profane word in that post was in order to ensure the post never passed moderation, and that my comment was intended for your eyes only.

        Obviously, your lack of discretion is matched only by your verbosity.

        • Tom S. says:

          Obviously, your lack of discretion is matched only by your verbosity.

          From the time my son was a very small boy, I reminded him he was responsible for what he said and did.
          Are you passing responsibility for the appearance of both your comments in this discussion onto me, or
          only the one you are embarrassed to see appear?

          Do not play me. If you assumed I’m a good natured punching bag, maybe you’ll reconsider. You put no restriction on your comment when you submitted it. I am happy to err on the side of caution and assume none of the comments you submit are intended to appear. I attempt to approve all comments critical of my judgment because I accept I have an advantage and endeavor to level the playing field. I expect to please no one, but manipulation or abuse cross a line beyond criticism.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            It’s your circus, Tom, and you are welcome to it. Have at it.

          • George says:

            From the time my son was a very small boy, I reminded him he was responsible for what he said and did.

            You do understand Tom, that this is not just legally wrong, it is morally wrong. You may as well hold someone with Tourette’s personally responsible for swearing.

            Very young kids do not understand the concepts for which you wish to hold them accountable, let alone the potential consequences.

            Hope your day job isn’t in Daddy Day Care 🙂

          • It is a shame that Greg the George’s father did not teach him to be responsible for what he says and does.

            You obviously can’t teach that old dog new tricks now.

            “Legally and morally wrong” to teach a child responsibility for his words and actions???
            Your comment is again utterly preposterous ‘George’.
            \\][//

          • ‘From the time my son was a very small boy,I reminded him he was responsible for what he said and did.’ — TomS

            ‘Very young kids do not understand the concepts for which you wish to hold them accountable, let alone the potential consequences.’ — George

            Greg, are you intimating that you consider Bob Prudhomme comparable to a very young kid who does not understand cause and effect, or is this just another example of your rai·son d’ê·the on this site: to attack TomS on general subjects because you have yet to figure out the system of debate on the forum he moderates?

    • Albert Doyle says:

      This is the problem with those who deny the height argument, as well as Bob in particular. The claim that I am a paid disinformationist or offering defamation is something that should be accompanied by credible proof if being offered in the mainstream assassination world. This is what I mean by Bob speaks in a way that his material hasn’t earned him the right to. It’s paranoia. Accusing me of being a paid government op is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen written. It speaks volumes about the judgment of those who suggest Prayer Man is Oswald.

      Once gotten to a fair playing field where Mr Prudhomme cannot enjoy the unfair protection of moderators, you can see he doesn’t do so well in defending his Prayer Man claims. The fair terms are right in front of you and Mr Prudhomme has clearly failed them. Once we dismiss the perspective and fuzziness excuses as the invalid claims they are there is no excuse for not following-through on our arguments. That follow-through will show that the 7 inch difference between Frazier and Prayer Man in Darnell and the triangulation between Lovelady and Prayer Man, as Lovelady changes steps in Wiegman, proves Prayer Man is too short to be Oswald by science. The opposition simply refuses to admit this because, as Mr Prudhomme shows us, they have an agenda that does not include honestly admitting facts. No amount of using words like “defamation” or “hateful insanity” will compensate for their failure to answer this obvious science and it is silly to try to ignore/deny it in public.

      It’s clear Bob can’t answer when forced to answer serious arguments of good science and has been spoiled by moderators who have helped him avoid it up to now. The real question is how long will the community allow people like Bob to get away with ignoring good arguments that prove a contentious issue once and for all? They’re clearly not interested in the proof.

      • Tom S. says:

        Mr. Doyle, in your comment you immerse yourself in what I am attempting to moderate/minimize. My comment showcased Bob’s hypocritical attempt to persuade readers I am favoring you. I put it in perspective because I thought readers might find a bigger perspective interesting.
        This discussion thread is more about commenters criticizing each other than criticizing each other’s arguments. I don’t think readers find it interesting. I think readers are interested in becoming better informed and if they have to read your opinions of each other instead of your opinions, in this thread for example, of whether the ROKC forum is indeed the place for free speech enthusiasts to express themselves, I anticipate readers will not stick around to read post # 500 or even # 50.

        • Albert Doyle says:

          I think your comment that readers do not find it interesting isn’t credible moderation Mr Scully. It’s subjective and, in this case, clearly guards those not wanting to admit the truths they refuse to acknowledge. If you were more honest you would admit this whole issue arises exactly because those other parties refuse to be informed by the good facts surrounding the Prayer Man issue. Typical of internet moderation on this subject, you have turned against the victim and are favoring those who are actually doing what you accuse me of. This whole thing would be over by now if they simply admitted the facts.

          • “I think your comment that readers do not find it interesting isn’t credible moderation Mr Scully.”
            ~Albert Doyle

            Mr Doyle,

            From the perspective of one reader, myself, I have to agree that this is NOT interesting. It is merely aggravating that you and your adversaries have brought your ongoing dispute to these pages on this forum.

            I do not understand why you think the issues between you and they would be resolved here any better than where the dispute began.

            Both sides have flooded this forum with recriminations at each; insults are hurled back and forth here in a juvenile tug of war over an issue that is based entirely on a blurry image.

            The fact is Mr Doyle, “This whole thing would be over by now” if it had never been brought to this forum. Both sides pushed themselves onto us here. You were NOT invited, you INSISTED on this contest along with those you have the dispute with.

            It is my firm conviction that both sides of this debate are dealing out irrational arguments based in bias, hyperbole and emotional hysteria.

            Prayerman is nothing but a blurry image. All of the verbiage attendant to it is overwrought speculation and conjecture.

            ENOUGH!
            \\][//

          • Albert Doyle says:

            What speaks the loudest is Mr Whitten’s inability to present any direct arguments towards my evidence to show why they aren’t credible. That’s usually how these things are done, and, in normal venues of credible vetting, that evidence which cannot be disproven normally prevails. As I said before, the degree of intellectual dishonesty involved with this subject is remarkable. I think most people are smart enough to see someone whose depth is limited to the blurry photo excuse and not much more. Persons of my capability need to be protected from this less skilled mob and those who deny good evidence should be the ones with the pressure put on them, that is if they intend to practice credible assassination research. A credible poster would go for the proof I just showed instead of long-winded editorials. A more credible analyzer would realize we have shown more than adequate evidence to disprove the blurry photo dismissal, which is rather crude, considering, and is the real offense here.

          • “What speaks the loudest is Mr Whitten’s inability to present any direct arguments towards my evidence to show why they aren’t credible.”
            ~Albert Doyle

            Mr Doyle, it is not my “inability” to present such arguments, it is my unwillingness to encourage your nonsense by engaging you thus.

            What you fail to grasp is that none of you, your adversaries nor yourself deserve the amount of attention you have already enjoyed here.

            I have extensive experience in the field of photography and photographic analysis.

            It is my CHOICE not to engage your jejune and naive attempts at photo analysis of an image that hasn’t the clarity to be analyzed. Your points of reference in measurements cannot be but guesses and estimates due to that fact. You could be wildly off in both estimations of depth and angular assessments because of this.

            I will give a clue to Mr Kamp however. The lens issue he brings up has no bearing on any of this. You are both struggling together in the darkness.
            \\][//

          • Albert Doyle says:

            Willy said: ” It is my CHOICE not to engage your jejune and naive attempts at photo analysis of an image that hasn’t the clarity to be analyzed. Your points of reference in measurements cannot be but guesses and estimates due to that fact. You could be wildly off in both estimations of depth and angular assessments because of this. ”

            You are full of wind and bluff Mr Whitten. You are also repeating ground already covered. You are just repeating the blurry photo cop-out and ignoring everything else. We need to take this to mediation to get experts to judge whether the Darnell photo is too blurry to judge Frazier’s height. You are in denial of reality Mr Whitten because anyone can look at the Darnell image and plainly see with their own eyes that Frazier is not too blurry to judge his height. The blurry excuse was used to deny MacRae’s Prayer Woman evidence but it cannot be used to deny the height argument. Frankly I think you don’t know what you are talking about and hoping to bluff your way out of giving a credible answer via this silly blurriness excuse. You are telling a falsehood there and it is more than apparent that Darnell is not too blurry to see the clearly visible height of Frazier which is known to be 6 feet. Your statement does not make sense by its own internal logic because Frazier’s 6 foot height is known and is independent of any phony blurriness claims.

            If you bothered to actually analyze our height argument you would see that the distances and measurements have been vetted by those with the best knowledge of the Portal and Plaza. They are basic known entities that have not been challenged by anyone and your cheap evasion of them certainly doesn’t refute them. You deniers are hand waving and name-calling. You say my efforts are “jejune and naive” yet there’s not one single claim I have made that you were able to show was wrong or based on faulty observations. We are talking a very simple comparison between Frazier and Prayer Man and Lovelady and Prayer Man. Our numbers are good and you haven’t shown otherwise.

            You’re bluffing Mr Whitten. You are using the most basic cop-out to avoid answering our arguments. It is false to say the Wiegman and Darnell images lack the clarity to determine height by comparison. Our arguments have proven why, and you were unable to answer them. Gilbride had no problem seeing them. Frankly I think you are bluffing and simply can’t answer. Our measurements are highly precise and based on tight confirmable calibration via known objects and dimensions. You’re just claiming they are off with no argued reason why according to our detailed arguments. Not good enough. You can’t show anything that is off directly.

          • Doyle,

            Repetition–repetition does not strengthen your argument, it just makes it redundant.
            \\][//

          • Albert Doyle says:

            This is why our height argument is proof. As Mr Whitten shows, its deniers cannot credibly refute it.

            Thank You. The assassination research world has shamed itself on this matter.

          • Brian Doyle says:

            I gave Stan Dane’s book a positive review on Amazon.com and I have opinions about Prayerman but I am reluctant to publicly debate my late father. I do not accept that anyone can claim with such certainty that buttons of a woman’s coat or dress are determinant.

          • Albert Doyle says:

            You can see the desperate measures ROKC will use to avoid answering the simple height argument evidence. The only reason they got as far as they did in the assassination research world is because of the bias towards Murphy. It is more than clear to any credible researcher that they resort to the low blow stuff because they can’t honestly answer the height argument. The moderator also approves it. This is why ROKC is banned from most forums.

    • George is far behind the curve with his Open Letter. He is addressing a pathological society, of which he is a well adjusted participant.
      Thus he is blind to how much deeper the problems are in not only Amerika, but the entire planet under the sway of Amerikan social influence.

      Behold the larger picture:

      COMPULSORY SCHOOLING – INDOCTRINATION

      Naïveté is not innocence, it is gross and moribund ignorance.~ww

      It is not education, of course, but as political indoctrination it will be highly effective.
      Blame it on the early indoctrination in the imperial system.
      The results of this indoctrination campaign are already evident.

      https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/compulsory-schooling-indoctrination/

      \\][//

      • George says:

        Willy,

        In my former life in the welfare sector in the way way way outback, I had to deal with a young man incapable of looking after himself in any way that would make his life less hazardous and difficult than it was.

        I interviewed him together with a social worker. His life story was as follows:

        His father had been an itinerant miner. His mother was from one of the Scandinavian countries. His parents did not believe in government “interference” in their lives to any degree at all. Hence, his birth was not registered, and he was home schooled. One day as a young teen, he came home from an errand to find a note from his parents saying they had gone to Europe and wouldn’t be back. He thereafter did the only thing he knew – wandered the outback surviving on theft, the charity of individuals and the occasional bit of work. Now I don’t know whether the issues he developed were due to genetics, or nurture and lifestyle or a bit of both… but throughout the discussion, he kept returning to the subject of his girlfriend… so eventually I asked where she was… his reply… they hadn’t seen each other in a while because she lived on a planet 20 light years away…

        Who knows? The outback has a long history of alleged UFO activity… and a big secretive US surveillance base.

        • This is a list of notable autodidacts which includes people who have been partially or wholly self-taught. Autodidacticism is self-education or self-directed learning.

          Engineers and inventors[edit]
          Leonardo da Vinci was an Italian polymath: painter, sculptor, architect, musician, scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, botanist, and writer. However, Leonardo was not autodidactic in his study of the arts, as he was trained through the Guild system, just as other Renaissance artists had been.
          John Smeaton, who was the first civil engineer.
          James Watt, the mechanical engineer who improved the steam engine, was “largely self taught.”
          Oliver Evans trained as a millwright, inventor of the high pressure steam engine (independently of Richard Trevithick and with a more practical engine). Evans developed and patented the first known automated materials handling system.
          Thomas Alva Edison
          The Wright Brothers, especially Wilbur Wright. Neither brother graduated high school. Wilbur in fact had completed all the course requirements, but his family moved to Ohio in 1885 before graduation. Both brothers were mechanically inclined, with Orville running his own printing press in his teens. They entered the bicycle business as a team in 1892, selling existing models and creating their own brand, the Van Cleve, named after a relative. Wilbur made the first inroads in seriously studying aeronautics and the development of the world’s first successful airplane.
          John Harrison, a carpenter by education, built the first marine chronometers enabling navigators to determine a ship’s longitudinal position.
          R. G. LeTourneau, prolific inventor of earthmoving machinery.
          Granville T. Woods, an inventor in electrical and mechanical engineering with more than 50 patents, only went to school until he was ten years old. Learning on the job, he began as a blacksmith’s apprentice and continued as a machinist, an electrician, a railroad fireman, a locomotive and steamship engineer. In his free time, he kept reading, especially on the subjects of electricity and mechanics. During the 1860s and 1870s, because he was black, he was not allowed to borrow books from the local libraries so he would ask white friends to borrow them for him. Every time he saw a new piece of technology, he would ask questions about it. Years later, in an 1886 cross-examination for a patent dispute, he said that he was self-taught.[27][28]
          Konstantin E. Tsiolkovsky, a Russian and Soviet rocket scientist and pioneer of the astronautic theory, who is considered to be one of the founding fathers of rocketry and astronautics. He was not admitted to elementary schools because of his hearing problem, so he was self-taught.
          Henry Ford billionaire founder of Ford Motor Company. Did not attend college.[29]
          Oliver Heaviside who was an electrical engineer, mathematician, and physicist, developed mathematical techniques to solve differential equations, expressed Maxwell’s equations in vector notation, and made significant contributions to transmission line theory. He had no formal education beyond his sixteenth year.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts

          \\][//

          • George says:

            Wiki left one off:
            Lee Harvey Oswald

            Autodidactism and Asperger’s Syndrome (AS) go hand in hand.

            From Asperger’s Syndrome: A Gift or a Curse: “Due to his poor grades Stanley did not gain entry to College and like many individuals with AS he was an autodidact …”

            The people on your list known or suspected of having AS

            Leonardo Da Vinci
            Thomas Edison
            The Wright Brothers
            Henry Ford
            Oliver Heaviside

            Aspergers is how Oswald learned Russian so quickly. Morever, they often sound like a native in the learned languages (see The Complete Guide to Asperger Syndrome by Toly Attood, p225)

    • Greg, No doubt you’re familiar with half truths:

      half-truth
      a statement that conveys only part of the truth, especially one used deliberately in order to deceive someone.

      “Dallas police repeatedly (and in my opinion, spuriously) claimed Oswald wanted no one but John Abt – attorney to the Communist Party. But when Oswald was put before the press, he begged for someone (anyone!) to come forward and represent him. He made no mention of Abt at all. At that, the press show was quickly ended by police.” – Greg Parker

      This episode has been debated a number of times on this site, in spite of the 500 limit word count and technical impediments that you claim constrict you from having a cogent debate here. Louie Nichols, the president of the Dallas Bar Association went to the station to offer his and/or that of the association’s legal services to Oswald. Oswald turned Nichols away. He apparently wanted a lawyer with expertise in civil liberties, and he had a name, John Abt (note: are you arguing that the police emphasized that Abt was with the “Communist Party” or are you informing that Abt was a member of the Communist Party? there is a subtle distinction). You also inserted “(anyone!)”, an appeal to the emotion of the uninformed? You follow with “At that, the press show was quickly ended by police”. That’s your interpretation and a transparent appeal to the sensational.

      Nichols is one half of the truth you fail to include in your “Open Letter to the People of America”: Oswald had been offered the services of the most powerful attorneys in the city. Nichols was not the prototype of a civil liberties lawyer. I speculate his profile as a Dallas luminary was an alarm for Oswald.
      http://www.dallasnews.com/obituary-headlines/20100428-Dallas-lawyer-H-Louis-Nichols-2802.ece
      The other half of the truth you fail to mention in your letter to America: Ruth Paine and her husband Michael assured Marina/Marguerite they would see to it that Lee was adequately represented. Who did they send to the police station?

      Big picture, Greg, big picture.

      The dynamics around Louie Nichols and by extension a character, Robert Storey, are worthy of a thread all their own. Storey served as liaison between Henry Wade and WC member Allen Dulles during the Asst. DA Alexander saga. Storey, in spite of being a central character at the time, remained in the shadows of the investigation for years. I wrote about him on this site several years ago. I see that his name has surfaced recently on other forums represented as a ‘eureka’ moment. As someone on this site suggested today, ‘Prayer Man’? deja vous all over again.

  74. George says:

    Nobody bothers to spell this out for good reason, I think. It’s simply not credible.

    No one thought that Steven Avery being framed a SECOND time was credible either, Jean. But look at the situation now. Can anyone actually spell out the mechanics of the frame in the type of minute detail you require of CT? Evidently you don’t require this level of detail from the WC who couldn’t even spell out a cogent motive, let alone explain little details like why no oil on the bag or blanket, why no GSR on the cheeks, and why 10 different “escape” scenarios were timed, only half of which included a stop on the second floor. Yet from day one they were saying the case was cinched.

    • Tomatoes are not, strictly speaking, vegetables.
      Convicts did not, strictly speaking, establish Australia.
      A peanut is not, strictly speaking, a nut.

      [Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States … Botanically, a tomato is a fruit because it is a seed-bearing structure growing from the flowering part of a plant.]

      [The botanical definition of a “nut” is a fruit whose ovary wall becomes very hard at maturity. Using this criterion, the peanut is not a nut, but rather a legume.]
      \\][//

  75. Randy Lombard says:

    Very impressive letter George! We’ll said!

  76. Ronnie Wayne says:

    I had to laugh at the irony though it regards a sad subject.
    I ordered a book I can’t afford through the Inter Library Loan program. I received the 1976 version rather than the revised early 90’s version I hoped for (a used copy is $84 on Amazon). Copy # 2160 of 3000 arrived today of Cover Up: The Governmental Conspiracy to Conceal the Facts About the Public Execution of John Kennedy by Gary Shaw and Larry Harris.
    Prayerman the book it’s self and it’s proponents mention the subject coming up in the late 60’s then being dropped until Sean Murphy.
    ” Just where was Oswald when those rifles in Dealy Plaza took life of John Kennedy? … told police he was eating lunch on the first floor. … Arnold – Oswald between front doors and double doors … Campbell told the DALLAS TIMES HERALD immediately after the shots he ‘raced’ into the building and noticed Oswald in a storage room on the First Floor.
    Is it possible Oswald observed the ambush from the steps of the School Book Depository?”.
    This has been gong on for 40 years.
    We just didn’t have the internet discuss it on.
    Almost funny.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Thank you ILL and D’Amour Library, Western New England University.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      What is really interesting is their suspicion at the time and how much was known but was suppressed or ignored. Before the HSCA. The CIA, FBI, Anti Castro Cubans, the Mafia.
      That and it has what looks like the Weigman frame with an arrow pointing to the black hole on the steps.
      Documented notes at the end of each chapter.
      It ought to be in print now for reference and discussion.

  77. Ronnie Wayne says:

    BTW, the Dallas Times Herald went out of business in in the late 7o’s or 80’s I think, I don’t know if their archives from the early 60’s are available or not.

  78. George says:

    Mr. WADE. For every year I have been in the office down there. And I assume you have taken their depositions. I don’t know what the relations–the relations are better between Curry and Fritz than between Hanson and Fritz, who was his predecessor. But Fritz runs a kind of a one-man operation there where nobody else knows what he is doing. Even me, for instance, he is reluctant to tell me, either, but I don’t mean that disparagingly. I will say Captain Fritz is about as good a man at solving a crime as I ever saw, to find out who did it but he is poorest in the getting evidence that I know, and I am more interested in getting evidence, and there is where our major conflict comes in.

    So Fritz was secretive and terrible with evidence.

    Yet had a strangle high conviction rate.

    And best of all, like a bad surgeon, he got to bury is “mistakes”.

    Mr. WADE. Bill Alexander. There was another one of–another man there, Jim Alien, who was my former first assistant who is practicing law there in Dallas and frankly I was a little surprised of seeing him there, he is a real capable boy but he was there in homicide with Captain Fritz. They were good friends.
    And I know there is no question about his intentions and everything was good, but he was just a lawyer there, but he had tried many death penalty cases with Fritz—of Fritz’s cases.
    But he was there. Your FBI was there, your Secret Service were there in the homicide.

  79. George says:

    Delusions of Grandeur’

    1. a false impression of one’s own importance.

    People with a delusion of grandeur often have the conviction of having some great but unrecognized talent or insight, such as establishing a brand new paradigm in a subject they are total amateurs in.

    Since Willy is determined to turn the word “paradigm” into a pejorative, let’s look at some standard dictionary definitions:

    “a typical example or pattern of something; a pattern or model.”

    “a framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of a scientific community.”

    “a new way of looking or thinking about something.”

    The word was used correctly. Prayer Man is one part of a larger view through the prism of Oswald’s alibi, the Reid Interrogation Technique and the larger picture of the Dallas Justice System under Wade.

    I did look up the word “wanker” in Willy’s favored “dictionary”. All I got was this photo. https://hybridrogue1.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/no-soul-cover_2.jpg?w=700

    Psychological projection:is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is delusional may constantly accuse other people of being delusional.

    Willy’s delusions have extended into previously declaring I must have not only listened to his song, “No Soul” but LIKED it.

    No Willy — it wasn’t me who gave it that lonely thumbs up. 😉

    • “Since Willy is determined to turn the word “paradigm” into a pejorative..”~Greg the George Parker

      But of course this is a classic straw man argument from our pompous arrogant guest.
      I think that the term “paradigm’ is a very important concept in sociological thought. Too important to misuse for a theory based on a blurry photograph, that simply has nothing but conjecture to support it.

      “The word was used correctly. Prayer Man is one part of a larger view through the prism of Oswald’s alibi..”~George

      George’s use of the word degrades the term. Prayer Man is a smoke screen to cover up Oswald’s established solid alibi, which must be stripped away to be replaced with a bogus unconfirmed and most likely to remain unconfirmed. Which will leave Oswald’s real alibi in a limbo of doubt generated by the Blurry Picture Gang.

      George and his comrades pretend that their arguments have been persuasive here, when in reality we have been treated to nothing but hyperbole, conjecture, and argumentum verbosium, mixed with vitriol and proximate insults.

      This Prayerman jive has really gone on too long just spinning in circles.
      \\][//
      \\][//

  80. George says:

    [quote]George’s use of the word degrades the term. Prayer Man is a smoke screen to cover up Oswald’s established solid alibi[.quote]

    So solid as evidence of innocence, the authorities were determined to have it enshrined as part of the TSBD mythos.

    Of course, a real exculpatory alibi would have been hidden, obscured, obliterated, changed, rearranged, added to, subtracted from, or forgotten about by this mob of criminals involved in the arrest and interrogations.

    Oh wait! That’s exactly what happened! His REAL alibi was swept under the carpet and you – in all your denial about being fooled by government propaganda and inculcation, have swallowed the replacement lie hook, line and sinker…

    But you’re not alone there. Are you Willy? This joint is full of people who swallowed the lies.

  81. George says:

    [quote]This Prayerman jive has really gone on too long just spinning in circles.[/unquote]

    On the contrary Willy – there has been 52 years of spinning wheels under the old paradigm of concocting theories around the spinner’s favorite villain/s.

    52 years of parlor games and still no evidence it was Colonel Mustard.

    • “52 years of parlor games and still no evidence it was Colonel Mustard.”~G G Parker

      Col Mustard is as fictitious as your Prayerman. The perpetrators are proven; Gen Landsdale and Gen Curtis LeMay as operation designers, under the orders of the oligarchy referred to as “The Military Industrial Complex”

      A 7th generation image. 48 years of rumination over globs of grain structure emulsion on celluloid…
      And these clowns expect us to take them seriously!

      This Prayerman nonsense is the biggest hoax attempted on JFKfacts since I have been a member.
      \\][//

      • Bart Kamp says:

        Your denials have been duly noted.
        Not that they amount to much.

      • George says:

        “Col Mustard is as fictitious as your Prayerman.”

        So desperate, you’re willing to pretend not to recognize a metaphor as you trip over it.

        So desperate, you’re willing to call a real person captured on film as fictitious.

        The perpetrators are proven; Gen Landsdale and Gen Curtis LeMay as operation designers, under the orders of the oligarchy referred to as “The Military Industrial Complex”

        Yes. As expected. Automatic reversion to the comfort of your old paradigm. Pointing to your favorite villains and screaming “it was them!”

        Willy wants to play parlor games.

  82. George says:

    “From the time my son was a very small boy, I reminded him he was responsible for what he said and did.” Tom

    “It is a shame that Greg the George’s father did not teach him to be responsible for what he says and does.” Willy

    “Greg, are you intimating that you consider Bob Prudhomme comparable to a very young kid who does not understand cause and effect, or is this just another example of your rai·son d’ê·the on this site:” Leslie
    ——————–
    Why am I not surprised that this trio don’t understand the difference between teaching a concept to a child and telling that child they are personally responsible fr something?

  83. George says:

    Vanessa failed the cause by honing in on one of the weaker bricks, and you are obliged to attempt to pick up the pieces.

    You under-estimate Vanessa at your own peril. Smart and perceptive are the first words that come to mind. And you can put a “very” in front of them for good measure.

    you however have an obvious handicap in that you never spent any length of time in the city of Dallas in the early ‘60’s to understand the nuance?

    Okay. Here is your chance to prove your point. Show some examples in Texan vernacular where “going into” a multi-story building actually means “going all through” a multi-story building.

    Here is Curry again: “I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building.”

    From where I sit, it looks an awful lot like you are playing this EXACTLY as McAdams would. You are trying to get away with explaining away all evidence you don’t like from the cops and witnesses by playing the “vernacular” card.

    So go ahead, Leslie. Let’s not keep talking about generalities. Give me some specific examples. I want to see hard evidence that when a Good Ol’ boy from Rural Texas says “I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building.” he REALLY means, “I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went THROUGHOUT the building.”

    Greg, you have yet to encapsulate the “sheer weight of all other evidence”

    And I have told you from the start I am not going to attempt to reproduce a whole book-load of evidence here. You have been told where the evidence you require can be found. I’m sure even a Texan is aware of the old saying about leading a horse to water. You don’t me to pour you little glassfuls at a time. You seem to want everyone to believe that if it can’t be found on this site, it simply doesn’t exist.

    • Bart Kamp says:

      They want the specifics Greg so they can deny even more, they rather stick to the coup d’etat scenario till the end of days than actually looking deeper into this case and trying to solve something.

    • Give me some specific examples. I want to see hard evidence that when a Good Ol’ boy from Rural Texas — Greg

      First Greg, you’re making a fool of yourself suggesting I was speaking to the issue of parody or caricature of a Texan. I’m discussing how Curry, given his background and the milieu he worked in would respond to an intense and highly charged question. He would process his words thru his own crucible including his geographical roots.

      You argue that when Curry said “I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building.” he could not have possibly meant, “I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went THROUGHOUT the building.”

      I challenge you and I challenge Vanessa. You cannot interpose your expectation that Curry would or would not use the word “throughout” or lunchroom or 1st or 2nd floor. It’s actually a ludicrous point, and as stated before, surely you’re not using Curry’s statement as a cornerstone of your argument?

      He was ridin’ out to where the cattle were and came up on a buncha rattlesnakes in the herd’
      The Trail Boss (Curry) reports that he ‘imagines’ (therein is a term that should have caught your attention from the outset. It is in fact a word that indicates he endorses Baker, not ‘is curious’ about what Baker meant) that Rowdy (Baker) was “checking every rattlesnake as he rode into the herd.” That means he checked for rattlesnakes throughout the herd, Greg, in spite of whether or not Rowdy and the Trail Boss used the word ‘throughout’ or Cookie’s Studebaker chuckwagon, or the upper or lower mesa lookin’ for those snakes. He didn’t just check for a rattlesnake at the door and then stop checking. He had ridden up to the herd, and he started checking the minute he approached the herd, and he continued checking for rattlesnakes ‘throughout’ the herd.

      I’m actually not sure what your point is here, Greg?

      ‘There was a buncha wheat crop in the Panhandle that year,’ translates to ‘There was a good deal of wheat being grown throughout the Panhandle.”

      ‘When we first got ‘inta’ San Antonio we ate in a buncha fancy restaurants’, translates to “When first we arrived in San Anonio, we ate in a number of fine restaurants throughout the city.”

      I warned you that it’s subtle.

      • George says:

        Leslie, you claim you are not using parody while illustrating your point with what for the life of me, looks like lines from a parody western…

        All of your examples have exactly the same verbatim meaning as the intended meaning. This is not the case when you try and claim “into” would be used instead of “throughout”.

        You also need to read up on Curry. He was not semi-literate or given to speaking in any vernacular.

        Thanks for the warning about making a fool of myself, Leslie. In some places, that’s what they will always say about anyone seeing past the veneer.