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.
‘So when you are saying Mr X you mean there was a single individual driving the whole thing?’ – “Alan” from Ireland, Reopen the Kennedy Case website
Greg Parker, Owner of RoKC website responds: (misspellings are Mr. Parker’s responsibility, not mine)
Alan, either Mr X was tapped to get on board because of his connectons to certain individuals by using his personal problems which would be fixed with an assassination as the bait, or Mr X tapped into his military/intel/cuban connections using an invasion of Cuba as bait. Either way, fixing his own problems was his main priority. Any other outcomes were just cream. Using Cubans would also help muddy the waters.
Alan, I’m saying Mr X was involved – whether he drove the whole thing, or was tapped to get on board, I don’t know,
Again, there was no all-powerful individual or group who planned this like unseen pupper-masters. That is a fallacy that has become entrenched.
Strip this case of the dimensions caused by the name of the murder victim, and it really is not much different than the Avery case.
With Avery, he was framed for personal reasons in the original case, and then framed again because of his pending civil action over the first case. All very human and even mundane n human history and behavior, even as it was devestating for the individuals involved.
The person I have in mInd had the means, motive, opportunity and importantly, the connections. Whether he instigated the plan or was brought on board is the only question. Truly was the “inside man”. His job was simply to set the rabbit running (or appearing to be) and then set the hounds after him. The police would do what the police in Dallas always did. They got their man, and the Reid Technique took care of making the case against him.”
Aside from Mr. Parker’s “tease” that – here we are in 2016 – he knows the one person who (unless I’m misreading his assertion) has never been named as having the means, motive, opportunity and importantly, the connections’, this statement of his is stunning: “Strip this case of the dimensions caused by the name of the murder victim [President Kennedy], and it really is not much different than the Avery case.” For those unfamiliar with the Avery case, it involves a US citizen who was accused and found guilty of rape and later exonerated based on DNA results, and accused again of another rape and murder. Tragic as the Avery case may be (Greg fails to include the contradictions throughout the saga), how can a thinking person equate this with the Kennedy assassination and the charges against Oswald. It boggles the mind.
Well Leslie, let’s look at it:
1. Neither murder was a federal offence
2. Both suspects were patsies
3. Neither case had anything to do with national security and everything to do with revenge and avoidance of sanction. Piggy-backing that motive was anti-Communism
4. In both cases, the framing of the patsy was poorly done, yet effective
What boggles the mind is that there are those who imagine unseen puppet-masters controlling everything, and that the assassination can be solved by the simple means of declaring it a coup d’etat.
There was a murder in Dealey Plaza.
Someone was charged with that murder.
His alibi was materially altered so as to make it ineffective using the tried and true Reid Technique – the same technique used against Avery and many many others.
The charged man had ties to one or more intelligence agency which forced those agencies to aid in the cover-up.
Those ties and the unrelated projects causing those ties, have helped muddy the waters.
While-ever the myths surrounding this case are perpetuated, justice will remain unattainable, because justice is a product of the real world, not the vivid imaginations of CTs or the cringing compliance and apologia of LNs.
I’m seeing “stuff” I do not appreciate learning of.
Who would be sharing someone else’s yet to be approved, Jfkfacts.org submitted comment, unless…?
“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.” Jean
Why do you suppose those standing on the steps would be asked if they had seen Oswald at the time of the shooting unless he stated that’s where he was? What would be the point?
So CE1361 [1381] 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.
It does NOT strengthen the argument at all, Jean. That’s just wishful thinking. If anyone had given a name to the individual, or simply described someone as standing there that does not fit Oswald, then you have a strong case.
But the fact is, no one saw ANYONE in that spot. Yet there quite obviously IS someone in that spot.
And it remains a fact that it could only be Lee Harvey Oswald by a process of elimination + plus general appearance.
Jeeze, You have Tippit stopping Oswald on the grounds that his description matched the 160 pound, 30 year old sspect, yet I suppose you claim PM looks more like Queen Elizabeth than Oswald?
“Why do you suppose those standing on the steps would be asked if they had seen Oswald at the time of the shooting unless he stated that’s where he was?”
What? Every TSBD employee was asked that question, Greg, including those who were outside — even Givens, who was several blocks away. If the WC hadn’t asked that question of every worker, wouldn’t you be giving them a hard time for that, instead? (I can hear it now, someone saying, “They didn’t ask that question because they didn’t want to know.”)
Oswald is on film saying he was inside the building “at the time.” No matter how anyone wants to spin it, the front steps are not inside the building and never will be. Who needs to identify PM to know it wasn’t Oswald? He said so himself!
“But the fact is, no one saw ANYONE in that spot. Yet there quite obviously IS someone in that spot.”
You don’t know who anyone saw in that spot fifty-odd years before someone dreamed up “prayer man” and thought it mattered.
“And it remains a fact that it could only be Lee Harvey Oswald by a process of elimination + plus general appearance.”
The problem with a “process of elimination” has always been the difficulty of being certain that all possibilities have been eliminated. The number of people your theory requires to have lied and participated in a frame-up is too great to be anywhere near plausible. Even Oswald doesn’t agree with you.
Jean
There were 13 TSBD employees on the steps. In their WC testimony they identified other groups of employees on the steps. People standing in front of, behind them and next to them. All TSBD employees.
But they all failed to identify one person. They all failed to identify that there was even a person standing in the PM position.
Not one of them mentioned a stranger on the steps.
They all failed to see and all failed to mention one man and that man was PM.
Yet, PM is there – visible in 2 films.
Vanessa,
From their answers its clear that the TSBD employees were asked something like, “Where were you when the shots were fired and who were you with?” They clearly weren’t asked, “Name or mention everyone around you,” because some mentioned only one or two people standing with them.
“But they all failed to identify one person. They all failed to identify that there was even a person standing in the PM position.”
You’re making a faulty assumption. There was no “PM position” in 1964. There was no reason to mention that particular spot or identify that particular person.
“Not one of them mentioned a stranger on the steps.”
No reason to. Strangers outside the building couldn’t be the 6th floor sniper so who cared if they were there? The workers were asked only if they saw any strangers INSIDE the building.
“They all failed to see and all failed to mention one man and that man was PM.”
You don’t know what they “failed to see” because there was no reason to focus on that particular person before someone dreamed up PM many years later. There was absolutely no reason to ask “Who was standing in that corner?”
Oswald said he was inside, Vanessa. Fritz’s note said “out front with Shelley,” but as Bookhout’s report noted, this was where Oswald claimed he was *after* the lunchroom encounter, *after* the shots were fired.
Plus, you’ve got all those people lying to help frame an innocent man and never letting that secret slip out ever. This is NOT plausible. Even Oswald didn’t claim he was on the steps, when he had ample opportunity. That ought to tell you something.
Jean
There is a serious problem with your interpretation of Fritz’s notes.
If Oswald was ‘out front with Shelley’ AFTER the shots were fired then it appears that Fritz has not noted where Oswald was AT THE TIME the shots were fired. Wasn’t that the single most important question to be answered by Oswald?
13 TSBD employees on the steps and they all failed to identify the same person and all failed to identify that there was even someone standing in the PM spot. That is a very unlikely coincidence.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that no-one in front of PM saw him because they had their backs to him (except for all those coming back up the steps, of course). Then that brings us back to the person standing to PM’s left who even appears to be looking right at him in Weigman.
Buell Wesley Frazier said he was ‘terrified’ to speak in public for 50 years because ‘if’ there were people behind it then he didn’t want his family harmed. He also said Fritz threatened him to get him to sign a false confession.
Do you really think BWF was terrified for 50 years because there was a vague possibility that more people could be involved?
Or is it more likely he was terrified because he knew Oswald was not the assassin because Oswald was standing right in front of him when the shots went off.
All the PM evidence, I’ve previously quoted, puts Oswald on the 1st floor at the time of the shots (Bookhout, Holmes, Curry, DMN, NYT etc). The only question mark is whether he was in the 1st floor vestibule or coming out of the door when he had the encounter with Truly and Baker.
No one ‘dreamed up’ PM. He has been standing in that spot in the films for 50 years. Clearly visible to all those walking back into the TSBD. Why didn’t ANYONE see him that day?
The WC testimony of the TSBD employees accounts for the 13 people we see on the steps – all but one.
Every other TSBD employee is accounted for – except for one.
And that one employee, Oswald, consistently placed himself on the 1st floor or on the TSBD steps over a number of reports (including Fritz’s).
When did Oswald ever place himself on the steps?
In fact, to reporters, he insisted he was “in the building” because “I work in that building.”
Vanessa,
“If Oswald was ‘out front with Shelley’ AFTER the shots were fired then it appears that Fritz has not noted where Oswald was AT THE TIME the shots were fired.”
No, his notes say:
“claims 2nd floor Coke when
off came in
to 1st floor had lunch
out with Bill Shelley in front”
http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html
Are you ignoring that this says Oswald mentioned the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter that supposedly never happened? That it mentions lunch on the 1st floor and then and only then, “out front” with Shelley?
Fritz’s written report says the same thing more clearly — Oswald claimed he was on the first floor having lunch when the shooting occurred and that the policeman had stopped him on the 2nd floor:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=624&tab=page
FBI reports give the same chronology.
“13 TSBD employees on the steps and they all failed to identify the same person and all failed to identify that there was even someone standing in the PM spot. That is a very unlikely coincidence.”
You’re not getting it, Vanessa. Nobody cared or made note of who was standing “in the PM spot.” They had no reason to. The object of CE 1381 wasn’t to locate exactly where everyone was standing. That didn’t matter. The object was to find out who was WITH someone else (and thus had an alibi) and more important, whether anyone saw Oswald at the time of the shooting.
The person in what is now called the “PM position” may’ve been one of the named workers, male or female, or someone unknown. Nobody had reason to remember who it was, even though he/she was probably seen at the time. It wasn’t important.
You say that Oswald “consistently placed himself on the 1st floor…” But it was not just “on the 1st floor,” it was in the 1st floor LUNCHROOM the “domino room” at the back of the building…
“… or on the TSBD steps over a number of reports (including Fritz’s).”
Maybe in some alternate universe Oswald claimed he was on the steps but not in this one. (“Were you in the building at the time?” “Since I work in that building, yes sir.”)
There’s no evidence whatsoever that Frazier saw Oswald in the “PM position” and lied about it from day one, thus helping frame an innocent man. He has made himself available to researchers more than many other witnesses and he has always defended Oswald and said he doubted his guilt. Some thanks he gets! Apparently some CTs think they can accuse anyone of anything, no evidence needed, just suspicion. What rights do they have? Apparently, none.
That’s all I have to say, Vanessa.
No. You’re not getting it, Jean.
The joint Hosty/Bookhout report written while the patsy was still breathing, states:
Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however, he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building.
——————-
After the patsy was killed, Bookhout wrote his solo report changing that chronology. Fritz cribbed his notes from Bookhout. This was amply demonstrated by Murphy who highlighted the similarities in the two.
PS Tom, is this going to take 3 days to go up so that it doesn’t show on the sidebar?
If so – no problem. I’ll just highlight what is happening here on my forum, on FB and and on Twitter.
No it does not say that Oswald was in the lunch room at all.
It says ”claims 2nd floor coke when officer came in”
What it does say is that he had a coke from the 2nd floor when he had the encounter w Baker, it does not say he was in the 2nd floor lunch room.
He was on the 1st floor to have lunch and was after that out with Bill Shelley in front.
I will do you one better!
All of this and the newspaper reports and the joint report from Bookhout/Hosty point to Oswald being on the 1st floor when the limo passed by and the shooting happened. Bookhout amended this with his solo report at which time the 2nd floor lunch room encounter fix was already in.
Page 2 of this report from Nov 23rd 1963 mentions the following: Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunch room; however he went to the second floor where the coca cola machine is located and obtained a bottle of coca cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed the building.
But it is his second, solo, report he turns things around:
Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employee’s lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly.
And even that contradicts the official story as Oswald allegedly left almost straight after this so called LR encounter.
He had lunch AFTER the 2nd fl LRE?
Add on after lunch another 5/10 mins for a pow wow with Shelley who said he did not talk with him!
That puts the journey by bus/cab and walking to blow Tippit away in lala land from a timing perspective!
http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Bookhout-Nov-23-2.jpg
http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Bookhout-solo-report-Nov-24.jpg
Jean
All of the TSBD workers were interviewed by the FBI and gave statements about where they were at the time of the shooting. Not one of them placed themselves in the PM position. So it cannot have been any other TSBD employee – except one.
Now, Jean we have been back and forth over the wording of Fritz’s notes and as you know Fritz was splitting his sentences over a number of lines. They can be interpreted a couple of ways.
“claims 2nd floor Coke when
off came in
to 1st floor had lunch
out with Bill Shelley in front”
Your reading of these lines cuts a sentence in half and doesn’t make sense. “claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in” actually is part of the next line “to 1st floor”.
Otherwise you are splitting up the words “in” and “to” resulting in a nonsensical statement on the next line “to 1st floor had lunch”.
The grammatically correct reading of those lines is “claims 2nd floor Coke when off came in to 1st floor”.
Meaning: (Oswald) claims he had a coke from the 2nd floor when the officer came in to the 1st floor”.
So as Baker came into the 1st floor of the building Oswald was standing there with a coke. The coke machine was in the 2nd floor lunchroom. And if we look at the Darnell film PM appears to be holding a coke bottle.
How do you justify breaking up ‘in’ and ‘to’ in these lines and still keep any meaning?
All I have to do is show that Oswald consistently said he was on the 1st floor and WC defenders have a problem. So are you agreeing Oswald said he was on the 1st floor?
Holmes said Oswald claimed he was in the 1st floor vestibule – that is inside the building. I’m not sure why you keep disputing this point.
Do you have anything at all to say about BWF saying he was threatened by Fritz to sign a false confession? Or Joe Molina saying he was threatened by the DPD to confess to being involved in the assassination?
The only 2 men who said they were threatened that weekend by the DPD to confess to involvement in the assassination and both of them were standing on the TSBD steps.
On second thought, I guess I should answer this, Vanessa.
Part I of II
“All of the TSBD workers were interviewed by the FBI and gave statements about where they were at the time of the shooting. Not one of them placed themselves in the PM position. So it cannot have been any other TSBD employee – except one.”
No, that’s false, since very few of the workers placed themselves in ANY position other than the nonspecific “I was on the front steps” or “on the top step,” neither of which rules out your “PM position.”
“[Fritz:] ‘claims 2nd floor Coke when
off came in
to 1st floor had lunch
out with Bill Shelley in front’
Your reading of these lines cuts a sentence in half and doesn’t make sense.”
That’s how Fritz split the sentence, not me. You need to stop interpreting his notes like they’re tea leaves and look at Fritz’s OWN explanation in his written report and in his testimony.
He said that Oswald was on the *second* floor when the officer came in, which is what Baker and Truly said also. All of them lying dogs, I suppose?
“All I have to do is show that Oswald consistently said he was on the 1st floor and WC defenders have a problem. So are you agreeing Oswald said he was on the 1st floor?”
According to witnesses, he said he was in the domino room at the rear of the first floor, not at the front of the building or outside.
“Holmes said Oswald claimed he was in the 1st floor vestibule – that is inside the building. I’m not sure why you keep disputing this point.”
I dispute it because Holmes didn’t say anything about a vestibule in his 12/63 written report, only in his testimony the following April. In his 12/63 report he said that Oswald claimed to be on an upper floor when the shooting occurred. Right side of this page:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140&search=holmes#relPageId=509&tab=page
By April his memory was obviously different.
QUOTE:
Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule.
Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule?
Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part. [The 2nd floor lunchroom’s “vestibule” has “two sets of doors]
Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?
Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about a Coca Cola or anything like that, if you remember?
Mr. HOLMES. Seems like he said he was drinking a Coca Cola, standing there by the Coca Cola machine drinking a Coca Cola.
UNQUOTE
continued….
Part II of II
Is PM standing by a Coke machine? No, and I think Belin asked this because he realized that Holmes’ memory was muddled.
Holmes also contradicted several other witnesses who said that Oswald flatly denied ever going to Mexico City.
Holmes said Oswald admitted it.
QUOTE:
Mr. BELIN. Did–this wasn’t reported in your interview in the memorandum that you wrote?
Mr. HOLMES. No.
Mr. BELIN. Is this something that you think you might have picked up from just reading the papers, or is this something you remember hearing?
Mr. HOLMES. That is what he said in there.
UNQUOTE
People accept what they “remember” as being accurate even when it’s malarkey.
As for Fritz pressuring BWF and Molina to sign confessions, this suggests to me that the DPD was “grilling” the only two potential accomplices they could find: Frazier who drove Oswald to work and Molina, someone suspected of sharing his leftwing political views. (Molina got a raw deal when he was later fired. Too bad he didn’t sue for wrongful termination.)
Jean
No, not false. There are quite detailed descriptions from those on the steps as to who was standing next to them and who else was out there and that has been matched with their positions in the films and their WC testimony. Buell Frazier is standing where he said he was in his WC testimony and where everyone else said he was standing. Tell me Jean, do you think that is Frazier on the steps or not?
Then there is Billy Lovelady. He actually identified himself in Altgens 6 to the FBI.
We can work through each TSBD employee on the steps this way if you want to. Bart Kamp and others have already done great work on this. No-one placed themselves in the PM position.
I’m happy to take Fritz’s WC testimony as confirmation of his notes. He said that Oswald said he had lunch with the other employees and saw the excitement. The other employees were outside on the steps and Oswald couldn’t have seen anything from the 2nd floor lunch room as it had no windows. It’s reasonable to conclude that Oswald was outside on the steps with the other employees.
As for Baker, I’m still waiting for you to explain why you prefer his WC testimony (4 months after the event) to his 1st day affidavit or the other 3 versions he gave of his meeting with Oswald.
Oswald’s accounts of being on the 1st floor are corroborated by him identifying 3 men that he could not have seen if he was in the sniper’s nest. These 3 men he could have only seen if he was in fact outside or in the vestibule minutes before the shooting – Shelley, Jarman and Norman.
Grilling? We have been discussing the DPD’s woeful record under DA Wade of faking evidence and coercing witnesses – which you have deplored. You asked for any evidence that it happened in Oswald’s case and we have 2 witnesses who said they were threatened and now you are saying that it is a harmless part of the ‘grilling’ they received??
A ‘grilling’ would be presenting Frazier and Molina with some evidence against them and asking some tough questions. Frazier was 19. Do you consider attempting to force a 19 year old (who did not have a lawyer present) to sign a confession of conspiracy to kill the President a legitimate part of the interrogation process?
Molina’s house was raided by the police at 2.00am that weekend and he was threatened to confess to being involved in a conspiracy with Oswald before any evidence was actually gathered from his house.
Jean, are you really saying you are comfortable with these threats from the DPD in these circumstances?
They are the perfect example of the DPD’s MO under Wade where coercion took the place of genuine police work.
Vanessa,
There’s no way I can believe that if Oswald had been outside and a reporter asked him, “Were you in the building at the time” Oswald wouldn’t have responded, “No! I was outside watching the motorcade” or “No, I was on the front steps with some guys I work with.” Oswald talked to his wife, mother, brother, a Dallas lawyer and the media. Nada about being outside the building when the shots were fired.
“[Fritz] said that Oswald said he had lunch with the other employees and saw the excitement. The other employees were outside on the steps and Oswald couldn’t have seen anything from the 2nd floor lunch room ….”
No. You’re assuming he would’ve had to be outside in order to see “excitement,” but Fritz’s memo tells a different story: “…I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a coca cola when the officer came in. I asked him why he left the building, and he said there was so much excitement he did not think there would be any more work done that day…”
Last paragraph here:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=624&tab=page
He “left the building” because there was excitement — like a policeman with pistol drawn rushing into the building, maybe?
“… These 3 men he could have only seen if he was in fact outside or in the vestibule minutes before the shooting – Shelley, Jarman and Norman.”
Problem for you, Vanessa. Oswald didn’t claim he saw Jarman or Norman outside and they weren’t outside at the time of the shooting.
Molina asked to be allowed to testify because he wanted to complain about his unfair treatment by Curry and the DPD. I see nothing about being threatened in his testimony, so where does this claim come from?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/molina.htm
Frazier also said nothing about a “threat” for about 50 years, and then this story appeared:
QUOTE
Dallas police Capt. Will Fritz, who was in charge of the homicide department, came into the room with a typed statement. He handed Frazier a pen and demanded he sign it. It was a confession.
Frazier refused.
“This was ridiculous,” he said. “Captain Fritz got very red-faced, and he put up his hand to hit me and I put my arm up to block. I told him we’d have a hell of a fight and I would get some good licks in on him. Then he stormed out the door.”
UNQUOTE
http://www.richmond.com/news/special-report/jfk/people/article_a9be7f2e-fb7f-5357-91c9-605df00641f7.html
Really?? You believe that?? I don’t. Not because I think Fritz or the DPD were saints. It’s just a ridiculous story, imo, and tales told so many years after the fact are always questionable.
“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.”
The argument that was being run was that PM was all about making money -not that anyone arrived here promoting anything.
It is catch 22 isn’t it, Leslie? You demand citations but then when they are provided, the accusation comes that we are promoting something for monetary gain.
For the second time, I have not even provided a link where one is asked for in the “name” “email” “website”. Some promoter!
And not that it’s any of your damn business, but all proceeds of the book are being donated back to offset ROKC projects. Neither the author nor the publisher picket a plug dime.
“George, this is your fifth week now of protest and distortion in reaction to a transparent decision and announcement I made on 17 April in the routine performance of my responsibilities as comments editor of this website. It is reasonable now, considering the history of your protest and its continuance, to delay approval decision of your submitted comments for 24 hours. You will influence whether this delay is for a brief period, for a longer period, or extended to a 48 hour delay.
https://jfkfacts.org/in-jfk-lore-who-is-prayer-man/#comment-870258”
It is YOU who keeps raising the date like it marks an important mileetone in your life.
You call what you did with mine and Bart’s posts “routine”? If it was so “routine” why were 40 other posts NOT about the damn tapes also moved? IN fact, can you point to any other times you have moved posts like that? “Routine” after all, indicates you do it regularly… let’s see the evidence for that.
This by the way, was your message which accompanied my moved post on that apparently auspicious date:
Hey Greg! It seems JFKfacts.org was overdue to be the target of a prayerman saturation, and here you all are. Unlike on the forum you own and Bart is an admin of, all views are afforded visibility on this site. Your comments appear in this image format because several of you are determined to turn the
discussion here, https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/whats-the-most-important-piece-of-jfk-assassination-evidence-to-surface-in-the-past-5-years/#comment-870073 …in a direction completely away from the only details discussed in the article, the AF-1 tapes.
Anyone with two firing brain cells can recognize that for what it is: deliberate provocation based up on your own personal grievances rather than any rule being broken here.
“Bart, considering your comment arrives during day two of a six day comment vetting for accuracy experiment, (see- https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-6/#comment-876897 ) there seems enough inaccuracy presented in your comment, much of it deliberate, beginning with your assertion I “mpoved” your comment of April 17; it did in fact EVER appear only in one thread on this site, https://jfkfacts.org/in-jfk-lore-who-is-prayer-man/#comment-870258”
Tom, you have resorted here to semantic weasel words. It was not posted to the thread it was intended for and posted at.
“….along with the longstanding conflict of your unsupported opinions vs. the corroborated testimony on record, to justify removing your comment from view owing to the inaccuracies you’ve included in it.”
This is just you trying to form a coherent sentence and failing miserably.
The corroboration has been pointed out numerous times for PM/no 2nd floor encounter. The testimonies you prefer are by and large, the results of the need to cover up the actual facts. Your corroborations are no better than the corroborations supplied by witnesses to a mob hit who are too intimidated to testify truthfully. Others among your witnesses can even be likened to members of the “mob” themselves.
If you were so concerned about vetting for accuracy, how come Wily was allowed to post his uncited and as it turns out, incorrect opinion that Baker’s affidavit was taken in a different office to the Oswald was brought into?
Seems your real concerns are in targeting certain individuals and in doing so, you are quite prepared to make any spurious argument you think you can get away with.
George, this is your fifth week now of protest and distortion in reaction to a transparent decision and announcement I made on 17 April in the routine performance of my responsibilities as comments editor of this website. It is reasonable now, considering the history of your protest and its continuance, to delay approval decision of your submitted comments for 24 hours. You will influence whether this delay is for a brief period, for a longer period, or extended to a 48 hour delay.
https://jfkfacts.org/in-jfk-lore-who-is-prayer-man/#comment-870258
George, if you expect this;
…The testimonies you prefer are by and large, the results of the need to cover up the actual facts. Your corroborations are no better than the corroborations supplied by witnesses to a mob hit who are too intimidated to testify truthfully.…
….trumps this, I wish you success, but you actually indicate you offer nothing specific or of a evidentiary weight standing a prayer’s chance in hell of overcoming the detrimental impact these details have on your claims.:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1381.pdf
“Why would Baker NOT use Oswald’s name as the man he confronted if he knew that name at the time the affidavit was signed off on?” Willy
Gee, I don’t know Willy. I’ll take a wild guess that it’s because Baker never had any encounter with Oswald on any floor above the first, and that that any first floor encounter that may have occurred was entirely unremarkable?
“Gee, I don’t know Willy.”~Greg ‘the George’ Parker
That has been very obvious from the very beginning of this confrontation with you on JFKfacts. All you have produced so far is wild guesses, provocations, and spurious arguments.
A blurry photo and blurry argumentation. It has grown tiresome.
\\][//
Vanessa,
It is simple, Baker didn’t name Oswald in his affidavit because he didn’t know the man’s name yet.
You are a round’about of blithering redundancy Vanessa, taking up half of the forum with this cognitive disruption technique of repeating nonsense ad infinitum.
\\][//
So you’ve shifted from claiming he never saw him at the time his affidavit was being taken?
Very good… but your replacement argument, Willy, is just lame. Are you really claiming he saw him, but not only failed to say the person under arrest is the person I saw, but he can’t even describe him accurately even when eye-balling him???
Just in case you decide to backslide, here is what Marvin Robinson said in his report. Robinson was the officer who took Baker’s affidavit.
“When patrolman ML Baker identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man that he stopped in the Texas Texas School Book Depository Building, Patrolman Baker was in the Homicide Bureau giving an affidavit and Oswald was brought into the room to talk to some Secret Service men. When Baker saw Oswald, he stated “that is the man I stopped on the 4th floor of the book depository.”
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337830/m1/5/?q=marvin
So he allegedly said it, but failed to include it in the statement. He also apparently failed to ask Oswald’s escorts what his name was.
————–
It’s Marvin Johnson Greg.
Plus Johnson claimed Baker picked Oswald out in a line-up which was refuted by Baker.
http://www.prayer-man.com/dpd/marvin-johnson/
Baker’s WC testimony regarding this so called line-up
Mr. DULLES – You saw Oswald later in the lineup or later
Mr. BAKER – I never did have a chance to see him in the lineup. I saw him when I went to give the affidavit, the statement that I saw him down there, of the actions of myself and Mr. Truly as we went into the building and on up what we are discussing now.
I need to correct something.
It was Captain Will Fritz who wrote in his Nov 22nd report that Baker had recognised Oswald in a line-up and not Johnson.
Apologies for the mistake.
Warren Commission Testimony Of Marrion L. Baker
Mr. BELIN – When you started up the stairs what was your intention at that–
Mr. BAKER – My intention was to go all the way to the top where I thought the shots had come from, to see if I could find something there, you know, to indicate that.
Mr. BELIN – And did you go all the way up to the top of the stairs right away?
Mr. BAKER – No, sir; we didn’t.
Mr. BAKER – What happened?
Mr. BAKER – As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this–I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don’t know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.
Mr. DULLES – Where was he coming from, do you know?
Mr. BAKER – No, sir. All I seen of him was a glimpse of him go away from me.
Mr. BELIN – What did you do then?
Mr. BAKER – I ran on over there
Representative BOGGS -You mean where he was?
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir. There is a door there with a glass, it seemed to me like about a 2 by 2, something like that, and then there is another door which is 6 foot on over there, and there is a hallway over there and a hallway entering into a lunchroom, and when I got to where I could. see him he was walking away from me about 20 feet away from me in the lunchroom.
Mr. BELIN – What did you do?
Mr. BAKER – I hollered at him at that time and said, “Come here.” He turned and walked right straight back to me.
Mr. BELIN – Where were you at the time you hollered?
Mr. BAKER – I was standing in the hallway between this door and the second door, right at the edge of the second door.
Mr. BELIN – He walked back toward you then?
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm
\\][//
“Mr. BAKER – I never did have a chance to see him in the lineup. I saw him when I went to give the affidavit, the statement that I saw him down there, of the actions of myself and Mr. Truly as we went into the building and on up what we are discussing now…
When Baker saw Oswald, he stated “that is the man I stopped on the 4th floor of the book depository.”
Now put that together with Baker’s testimony to the WC that I just posted.
At the time of Baker drawing his affidavit, he was still confused as to which floor he was on with Truly. He didn’t know Oswald’s name yet, and he just then as Oswald was taken by the room he was in that that was the same man he had seen at the TSBD, but hadn’t heard his name yet.
Oswald was on the 2nd floor in the lunchroom just beyond the vestibule that Baker had stepped through from the hallway to call out at him. Oswald was NOT out front on the steps as the Prayerman cult keeps insisting.
\\][//
“It was Captain Will Fritz who wrote in his Nov 22nd report that Baker had recognised Oswald in a line-up..”~Bart Kamp
What Nov 22nd report?
Oswald was interrogated for a total of approximately 12 hours between 2:30 p.m. on Friday, November 22, 1963, and 11:15 a. m. on Sunday, November 24, 1963. There were no stenographic or tape recordings of these interviews.
\\][//
Truly did not walk ahead of Baker
http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13339922-ahead-of-me
Baker made no mention of any glimpses through a door or lunchroom, I suppose he was confused about that as well?
And what about the fact that he signed the typed affidavit, an exact copy of his handwritten one.
You are way out of your league here.
“You are way out of your league here.”~Bart Kamp to yours truly.
That is an arrogant and unfounded assertion given your pathetic performance on this blog.
I asked you; “What Nov 22nd report?” as per your assertion; ” Captain Will Fritz who wrote in his Nov 22nd report that Baker had recognised Oswald in a line-up.”
You respond with this totally irrelevant comment: “Truly did not walk ahead of Baker.”
Read Baker’s testimony and do not misrepresent it:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm
\\][//
“Truly did not walk ahead of Baker.”
According to Truly’s own testimony he did indeed walk ahead of Baker. He noticed the officer was not directly behind him, and had to turn around and go back to find Baker speaking to Oswald through the door from the vestibule that enters the lunchroom.
“Baker made no mention of any glimpses through a door or lunchroom, I suppose he was confused about that as well?”~Bart Kamp
Baker’s Testimony:
Mr. BAKER – As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this–I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don’t know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m1.htm
\\][//
Too right mate. Somehow I got a Texan cop mixed up with an English footballer 😉
“When Baker saw Oswald, he stated “that is the man I stopped on the 4th floor of the book depository.”
So he allegedly said it, but failed to include it in the statement. He also apparently failed to ask Oswald’s escorts what his name was.”
~George
It’s simple George, Baker was in a separate little office, he saw Oswald go by with the agents, and recognized him as the guy he saw in the TSBD, but did not know the name Oswald, until he had signed his affidavit and got out of that little office and caught up with the group that Oswald came in with.
You and Vanessa both need to ask yourselves this one reasonable question:
Why would Baker NOT use Oswald’s name as the man he confronted if he knew that name at the time the affidavit was signed off on?
\\][//
Willy
This is exactly the point I have been making.
Baker did not use Oswald’s name because Oswald was not the man he saw.
Dulles and Boggs WC questioning of Baker is designed to make up for the fact that Baker did NOT identify Oswald as the man he saw and for that reason he did not name Oswald in his affidavit.
It took Baker months to get on board with the official version and he is stopped 5 times during his WC testimony by Dulles et al to go off the record. He’s even told to look the questioners in the eye. Weisberg says Baker was railroaded and I agree with him.
I have to say I am surprised that you have so much faith in the official narrative.
“Willy
This is exactly the point I have been making.
Baker did not use Oswald’s name because Oswald was not the man he saw.”~Vanessa
Actually Vanessa, that isn’t the point I have been making at all. Far from it, and for you to posit thus is ludicrous.
You continue with: “It took Baker months to get on board with the official version…” – which is more pure conjecture on your part.
What proof do you have that Baker resisted the further understanding of the layout of the building and where he actually was given Truly’s input?
As far as the time from the beginning of taking testimony by the Commission and the time that Baker and Truly testified; one must consider that the Commission took hundreds of witness testimonies and that takes months in itself.
As far as my supposed faith in the official narrative, I have none in the ‘narrative’, which means the story put to the data.
But I do put store in the actual data, and think it needs to be analyzed on our own cognizance. And as far as that goes, I have absolutely zero faith in your cognizance Vanessa, I think your reasoning ability is akin to a petulant child that simply wants her own way.
\\][//
Vanessa – http://www.wordcounttool.com/
“Willy
I’m not sure why you trust the ‘data’ but not the narrative. …”~Vanessa
Again, your reasoning is stilted and lacking:
I said nothing about “trusting the data”, I said that it needed to be rationally analyzed.
This analysis would be put to determining what datum could be “trusted” or accepted within the context it is presented.
\\][//
#1
Willy
I’m not sure why you trust the ‘data’ but not the narrative. Most of the ‘data’ comes from the same official source as the narrative. And if Oswald is PM then much of the ‘data’ is wrong.
Here is a brief history of Baker’s documented statements on what happened in the TSBD. I’ll post the documents separately if I can.
1. 1st day affidavit – Baker saw and challenged a man between the 3rd or 4th floor. Truly vouches for the man as an employee. There is no mention of the 2nd floor lunchroom or going through a door.
2. FBI report 26 November 1963 – DETECTIVE Baker of Homicide and Robbery advised that PATROLMAN Marrion L Baker was the policeman who first entered the building with Roy Truly and who observed Lee Harvey Oswald in the company snack bar on the 2nd floor.
3. FBI report 29 November 1963 – Patrolman Marrion L Baker advises that he and Roy Truly observed Lee Harvey Oswald on the 2nd floor. Baker asked who he was and Truly said Oswald was an employee. Baker did not see Oswald again until after he was arrested.
#2
4. 25 March 1964 – WC testimony
Mr. BAKER – As I came out to the second floor there, Mr. Truly was ahead of me, and as I come out I was kind of scanning, you know, the rooms, and I caught a glimpse of this man walking away from this–I happened to see him through this window in this door. I don’t know how come I saw him, but I had a glimpse of him coming down there.
Mr. DULLES – Where was he coming from, do you know?
Mr. BAKER – No, sir. All I seen of him was a glimpse of him go away from me.
Mr. BELIN – What did you do then?
Mr. BAKER – I ran on over there
Representative BOGGS -You mean where he was?
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir. There is a door there with a glass, it seemed to me like about a 2 by 2, something like that, and then there is another door which is 6 foot on over there, and there is a hallway over there and a hallway entering into a lunchroom, and when I got to where I could. see him he was walking away from me about 20 feet away from me in the lunchroom.
Mr. BELIN – What did you do?
Mr. BAKER – I hollered at him at that time and said, “Come here.” He turned and walked right straight back to me.
Mr. BELIN – Where were you at the time you hollered?
Mr. BAKER – I was standing in the hallway between this door and the second door, right at the edge of the second door.
Mr. BELIN – He walked back toward you then?
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir.
5. 23 September 1964 – Patrolman Baker dictated a statement to FBI Special Agent Richard J. Burnett stating that “On the second floor where the lunch room is located I saw a man standing in the lunchroom. He was alone in the lunchroom at the time”.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com.au/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html
Vanessa,
As far as your comments of May 21, 2016 at 7:01 am – both 1. & 2., we have been over those same points countless times. This redundancy is tiresome and boring … and it will take you no further than you have gotten with them up to now; which is absolutely nowhere.
\\][//
Willy
You asked me for any evidence of Baker resisting the 2nd floor lunch room story and I have provided it.
The whole fully-fledged 2nd floor lunchroom story does not come from Baker until March 1964 – 4 months after the actual encounter took place.
Yet on 29 November 1963 – 7 days after the crime – Baker had an opportunity to give a detailed statement to the FBI outlining exactly what happened but he fails to do so. Instead we have a generalised account that has been ‘advised’ by Baker. The report doesn’t even appear to be signed by Baker.
Baker is the key witness in the case against Oswald. The WC will use the 2nd floor encounter to conclude that Oswald was alone at the time of the shooting and close enough to the sniper’s nest to have done it.
Why not get this all sorted out on the 1st night? Baker id’s the man in custody, Lee Oswald, as 3rd or 4th floor man while they are within feet of each other at the DPD. Baker then names Oswald in his affidavit.
There would have been no question about whether Oswald could have made it from the sniper’s nest to the 3rd or 4th floor in a matter of seconds.
Baker told one story in his 1st day affidavit and it took another 4 months for him to publicly commit to the 2nd floor lunchroom story.
Why?
Baker is the key witness in the case against Oswald but there is no detailed account from him on his encounter with Oswald until 4 months after the crime?
“Just in case you decide to backslide, here is what Marvin Robinson said in his report. Robinson was the officer who took Baker’s affidavit.”~George
Robinson took an affidavit over the phone earlier in the day.
Are you certain that Robinson was in the presence of Baker when he got back to City Hall to sign it? Was it the same affidavit Baker signed?
I hope you will respond to this sans your standard voodoo psychic woowoo George. If you don’t know the answers, don’t make something up.
EVERY SINGLE witness who was out on the front steps to the TSBD made it crystal clear in their affidavits or testimonies that Oswald was NOT on the steps with them when the shots were fired.
What more does anyone need than this to prove that Oswald is not your Prayerman?
Why the continuing and persistent blithering nonsense here?
This issue was DOA here. And you cannot perform a Lazareth miracle here.
\\][//
“EVERY SINGLE witness who was out on the front steps to the TSBD made it crystal clear in their affidavits or testimonies that Oswald was NOT on the steps with them when the shots were fired.” Willy
Not true, Willy. What they made crystal clear was that they never SAW him when the shots were fired. Do you see the difference?
They did not SEE ANYONE in the PM position. Not Oswald – not ANYONE. Do you see your problem?
No? Then I will spell it out for you. If no one saw ANYONE in that position, then you have a starting point that says PM could be anyone at all.
From that point, you can start eliminating certain categories of people – for example, you can rule out white collar workers and females. You can then start to eliminate other workers from inside the building by using there own statements of where they were. After all of this, you are left with only two possibilities. It’s Oswald, or a complete stranger. But if you are to be perfectly honest about where Oswald placed himself, and then admit the idiocy of someone fighting their way up the steps to take up that position, you are down to just Oswald.
Willy
There were 13 TSBD employees on the steps. In their WC testimony they identified other groups of employees on the steps. People standing in front of, behind them and next to them.
But they all failed to identify one person. They all failed to identify that there was even a person standing in the PM position.
Not one of them mentioned a stranger on the steps either.
They all failed to see and all failed to mention one man and that man was PM.
Yet, PM is there – visible in 2 films.
“Not one of them mentioned a stranger on the steps either.
They all failed to see and all failed to mention one man and that man was PM.”~Vanessa
No one saw Oswald on the steps. That is all there is to it Vanessa. The witnesses named those they knew that they were standing with. All of them knew Oswald worked there.
\\][//
Willy
Buell Wesley Frazier said he was ‘terrified’ to speak in public for 50 years because ‘if’ there were people behind it then he didn’t want his family harmed.
Do you really think he was terrified for 50 years because there was a possibility that more people could be involved?
Or is it more likely he was terrified because he knew Oswald was not the assassin because Oswald was standing right in front of BWF when the shots went off.
How many other witnesses have claimed to be so ‘terrified’ that they haven’t wanted to speak out 50 years? None that I know of.
Rolled down.
http://memberfiles.freewebs.com/80/07/128900780/photos/undefined/step0002.jpg
Hey Leslie and Willy when are you two start providing evidence to the contrary?
I mean 100+ posts with just an opinion is starting to become rather tedious you know!
Finally! thank you Bart Kemp, for that show of good faith and excellent visual. Yes, it is obvious that is a long sleeved shirt with sleeves rolled down. I had not seen your version, and I appreciate the clarification. I’m sure you can appreciate that the glare on the sleeves in the less refined still image does make it appear there are either two layers or bare skin on the forearms. I’m curious why George chose to avoid the question when it was so readily available from your crowd. Yours is an honourable response.
Bart & Leslie,
I am not at all convinced that is all one shirt! I see a distinct ridge above the elbow, like another shirt rolled up over a sweatshirt or sweater.
If this were Oswald his white tee shirt would be very apparent at the collar line.
Most essentially I cannot make out who this person is.
\\][//
Willy Whitten, the image is clear as ‘shadow and light’ on my screen. The sleeves are not rolled up and one can see that the right shirt sleeve is a continuous piece of the same cloth extending from the upper arm to the wrist. What is lost in the blur is any indication of a white t-shirt at the neck which should be evident if the shirt was unbuttoned as alleged. That is probably due to the blurring; but the absence of proof of said t-shirt continues to hold in question whether or not this person is dressed as Oswald was alleged to have been dressed at the time of the assassination. That said, I’m satisfied the image of PM indicates that person is wearing a long sleeved top shirt and the sleeves are not rolled up.
Hey Bart, you ask, “when are you two {sic} start providing evidence to the contrary?’
This is your theory and your burden of proof, Bart.. My issue from the outset has been two fold: the manner your team approached jfkfacts this time around and your failure to provide a synopsis of your hypothesis with supporting arguments presented in linear fashion that Oswald was outside the building. Instead what we’ve been presented here is a free-for-all of disjointed claims in the midst of a distracting undertow of vendetta against the moderator and the host of the site. Absent response to my requests, I went looking and found that Sean Murphy made an attempt back in August, 2013 at Ed Forum; I posted his 8 points and still not one advocate has responded let alone elaborated and/or expanded on Murphy’s effort to succinctly argue his case. Murphy clearly understood the responsibility to do just that as any defence attorney would do in closing arguments. Would that he was around to engage with now.
It’s not my burden to assist you with this (in spite of the fact I think I might be able to-hypothetically – as I’ve written dozens of business plans and understand the process), nor is it my burden to provide evidence to the contrary of your hypothesis. The burden of proof is yours. Call me paranoid, but buried in your assertion that I “must”‘ seems to be an effort to paint me as a Warren Commission defender. That won’t happen, Bart.
Here again is Murphy’s 8 points, early on in the debate evidently as noted by terms like “PERHAPS”. You could begin with that one ambiguity and bring us up to speed with the proof Oswald stepped back in to the building BEFORE Baker is alleged to have encountered him, and go from there. Murphy provides you with a foundation albeit full of supposition and conjecture.
Sean Murphy Education Forum Posted 23 August 2013 – 02:47 AM
I would like to offer a simple scenario that I believe may tell the story of what really happened between Lee Oswald, Marrion Baker and Roy Truly.
ONE: Oswald comes downstairs to lunch in the first-floor domino room at some point after noon
TWO: Several minutes before the assassination he visits the second-floor lunchroom where he buys a coke for his lunch
THREE: He brings the coke downstairs and, just as JFK is passing the building, steps out the glass door at the front entrance and takes up the Prayer Man position
FOUR: Within seconds of the last shot, Marrion Baker rushes up the front steps, revolver drawn
(cont.)
(cont.) Murphy’s 8 points
FIVE: He notices Oswald, who has perhaps stepped inside the door into the lobby area, and asks him ‘Do you work here?’. The reason for Baker’s question is not that he suspects Oswald in any way but that he is looking for someone who can point him the way to the stairs (rather as a credentials-waving man will a short time after this ask Oswald where he can find a phone)
SIX: Just as Baker is beginning to engage Oswald in this way, Roy Truly arrives and tells him, ‘Yes, Officer, he works here but I am the building manager. I will show you the way upstairs’
SEVEN: Baker and Truly run off to cross the shipping floor for the rear elevators
EIGHT: This innocent incident–with its basic elements still intact (Oswald… coke… asking whether Oswald is an employee…Truly confirming)–will later that evening be transplanted up to the second floor lunchroom in a hastily contrived attempt to deprive Oswald of his clear alibi.
I personally blame Tom Scully, had he not mpoved my post I doubt any of this would have happened. I don’t think the transfer of the post was warrented.
Scully disagrees of course, but he also has an axe to grind against ROKC as has been more than evident.
Be that as it may, I don’t class you as a WC defender, they are rather easy to deal with, their research stopped in 1964.
We get more opposition from CTers who think the 2nd LRE is the holy grail of some sort to them. What I do blame you for is not looking into the matter more, as goes for Whitten. Instead we or our work gets attacked without any basis for rebuttal, just because you do not believe something doesn’t mean you are right.
It helps to do some digging yourself. And with that I end this part as I have no inclination to go backwards forwards for days to come, I rather spend my time researching if you don’t mind.
You are referring to 8 points by SM who ‘left’ the scene 2.5 years ago. I personally do not subscribe to the exact scenario in the exact sense SM wrote it up. It is also from Aug, he left on Nov 22nd
But what is clear is that the 2nd fl enc. is a fugezi and that Oswald was encountered on the 1st floor. Not just by Baker, but also Truly, Reid and Campbell.
In that timespan between SM leaving many adjustments have been made and ROKC worked strenuously on tightening the noose on this whole matter at the current and old forum.
We have someone going to NARA, we have a few peeps going through newspapers and pix and so on.
It has been my task for more than a year to put all this info neatly together in some form for laymen to understand. The first attempt was the Movie Prayer Man More Than Just A Fuzzy picture, in Nov.
This ran for about 100 mins. It is on youtube. I see it now as something that shows about 60/70% of what it should do at this time.
It has now come to the point that with so much additional evidence that the movie needs to be split in 4 parts, as by my rough calculation the thing will be over two hours.
The puzzle is THAT big.
The essay I am writing on the 2nd floor encounter is already at 25 pages and that is without the documentation, with it will go to about 80-100.
Lovelady lied about his departure from the steps, so did Shelley. Lovelady lied about the encounter w Vicky Adams, so did Shelley. Truly lied and so did Baker.
But a few weeks from now you will see and until then you got to be patient. What ROKC and Greg Parker have done has gone way beyond Sean Murphy’s research.
Bart, considering your comment arrives during day two of a six day comment vetting for accuracy experiment, (see- https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-6/#comment-876897 ) there seems enough inaccuracy presented in your comment, much of it deliberate, beginning with your assertion I “mpoved” your comment of April 17; it did in fact EVER appear only in one thread on this site, https://jfkfacts.org/in-jfk-lore-who-is-prayer-man/#comment-870258
….along with the longstanding conflict of your unsupported opinions vs. the corroborated testimony on record, to justify removing your comment from view owing to the inaccuracies you’ve included in it.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1381.pdf
“just because you do not believe something doesn’t mean you are right.” — Bart
You seem to employ double negatives; Are you a fan of Yogi Berra?
What you have been confronted with here is your failure to present your case effectively. I viewed much of your first film – the time and energy you have put into it should be lauded regardless – but it seems you ask the audience to see what you see because you believe it when in fact you present suppositions and conjecture that caused at least me to pause. Perhaps your next film will eliminate those.
I’ve read the Ed Forum exchanges and as has been pointed out, there continue to be major questions, contradictions, disputes still outstanding. You have finally intimated here that yours is a hypothesis that is a work in progress, that there are vulnerabilities in your arguments – an example has just been offered by TomS related to the Shelley testimony – and that while you personally are convinced Oswald was outside the building, you are not prepared for trial. No one else in your crowd has had the integrity to step up and make a similar statement. With that, you might be surprised to discover some are rowing with you, not in your boat because it has a history of brawling on board, but along side you. I’m not saying I am among them, I am simply advising you that you shoot yourself in the foot when you assign “us vs. them” especially on this site. It’s unnecessary Quixotic vitriol. Many here at jfkfacts are here in good faith.
The strength of your theory is tying together a number of key events to argue the fundamental assertion that Oswald was outside the building. As long as the glue holds. The weakness is that you have yet to correct the vulnerabilities in those areas. The following 3 examples:
1) Baker appears to be racing up to the front door; the film is cut short. Vulnerability: you cannot prove he paused, made a right turn, etc. so the most logical conclusion is that he did continue up those steps at a rapid pace followed by Roy Truly. If he did, you have yet to explain how PM is in view on the top level but managed to scoot into the building before Baker and Truly reached the door. We are talking split second timing are we not?
(cont.)
(cont.) response to Bart Kamp
2)George, and I assume you as well, presents Chief Curry’s statement “I imagine the officer was checking everyone “as he went into the building”. George fails to acknowledge that 1) Curry is defending Baker’s failure to stop Oswald 2) prior to this statement, Curry had said at least 3 times that Oswald was IN the building, that they knew he was IN the building. Curry’s statement seems to be a cornerstone of the argument fraught with a vulnerability you have yet to overcome.”
3) In your scenario, you have 5 individuals – laymen if you will – lying for as many decades as they each survived. This suggests that those on the front line in the minutes leading to and following the murder were involved in the conspiracy in some fashion. You are asserting each of these individuals decided to perjure themselves. What influence do you think they were under, as a collective? Or do you believe each had his or her own reason for falling in line with an official version? Was it some ideological, political, financial impetus? Or were they simply terrified to say anything other than Oswald was on the 2nd Floor? Why? If you go there, you are obliged to name what held these people in line, and that is something you apparently refuse to do. You can speculate about specifics, timing, etc, but you won’t touch motive. That is a vulnerability in your overall hypothesis, and I find that compelling. Who were these people reporting to? Others in the PM cadre say “that’s not our job”, but a jury will ask – Well hells bells, why would all those good Americans lie?”
“There are a number of other vulnerabilities in the PM arguments presented here at jfkfacts, for instance, a heavy reliance on a press release in the early hours quoting Hicks, but rejection of other press releases that placed Oswald in the 6th floor window. If you accept one, don’t you have to walk a thin line to refuse to accept the others? I think you need more thought out arguments than have been presented here to support your overall and persistent selectivity of facts.
Leslie, perhaps the most comprehensive and logical post on this thread. I’ve read some of the EDU conversations on PM but not in great depth. Same with ROKC to a lesser degree. Some of the unnecessary quixotic vitriol you mentioned here is on all.
I’m not sold on the Warren Omission testimony or statements. They were intimidated, prepared, coached, ignored and had statements changed by the WO, DPD, FBI, SS and most likely the C.I of A.
Regarding collective influence of the step’s witnesses, Truly, Baker, Reid, the building VP etc., See above.
There is documentation for this as most well know. I’ve got to go to work in the morning. Nite.
“put all this info neatly together in some form for laymen to understand.”~Bart Kamp
Let us get straight on what you mean by the term “laymen” here Mr Kamp. Do you mean those who are not well versed in the JFK research?
Or do you mean those who haven’t kept up with the Prayerman research?
I ask, because one of your central problems here is dealing with those of us that are long in the tooth as far as studying the JFK assassination. Hard core veterans to the topic. And it is apparent here that we are the ones that aren’t buying you ‘hypothesis’, which in my view is stretching that word’s real meaning.
So what I would say you really mean by the term “laymen” is the naive beginners that know little about the case, who you can initiate and ‘train’ without the problems you get from experienced researchers.
You boldly claim, “Lovelady lied about his departure from the steps, so did Shelley. Lovelady lied about the encounter w Vicky Adams, so did Shelley. Truly lied and so did Baker.”
You are on a steep incline to prove those assertions. You also have some other very compelling evidence and testimonies to overcome as well.
Some advice, the slurs you keep offering are doing you no good. If you would have begun on a more civilized note, you likely would have been received in the same manner.
It will be very tough now to dispel the initial impressions you made here.
\\][//
Shelly’s first statement
http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Affidavit-In-Any-Fact-by-William-H.-Shelley-4-2.jpg
In the first statement he says that he left the steps almost immediately after the shooting and running into Gloria Calvery after leaving those steps.
WC testimony
Mr. BALL – What happened; what did you do then?
Mr. SHELLEY – I didn’t do anything for a minute.
UTTER RUBBISH, the Couch film shows Shelley having left the steps about 15/20 seconds after the final shot moving west with Lovelady. Nor does it show both of them noticing Baker as they claimed in their WC testimony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL1PrKDumd4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOfZzI9gkQ
Mr. BALL – Then what happened?
Mr. SHELLEY – Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said “The President has been shot” and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute.
MORE RUBBISH
Mr. BALL – Did you see Truly, Mr. Truly and an officer go into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY – Yeah, we saw them right at the front of the building while we were on the island.
Mr. BALL – While you were out there before you walked to the railroad yards?
Mr. SHELLEY – Yes.
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.
Mr. BALL – She ran back up to the door and you had still remained standing there?
Mr. SHELLEY – Yes.
AND MORE LIES
Do I need to go on?
Of course I do.
Lovelady’s WC testimony
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.
Mr. BALL – How many steps?
Mr. LOVELADY – Twenty, 25.
Mr. BALL – Steps away and you looked back and saw him enter the building?
Mr. LOVELADY – Yes.
At no point in the Couch film is Lovelady seen looking back.
Mr. BALL – You heard the shots. And how long after that was it before Gloria Calvary came up?
Mr. LOVELADY – Oh, approximately 3 minutes, I would say.
Mr. BALL – Three minutes is a long time.
Mr. LOVELADY – Yes, it’s—I say approximately; I can’t say because I don’t have a watch; it could.
Mr. BALL – Had people started to run?
Mr. LOVELADY – Well, I couldn’t say because she came up to us and we was talking to her, wasn’t looking that direction at that time, but when we came off the steps–see, that entrance, you have a blind side when you go down the steps.
Mr. BALL – Right after you talked to Gloria, did you leave the steps and go toward the tracks?
Lovelady perjured himself here, but wait there is more to come!
____________________________________
Who was right behind Lovelady, Prayer Man of course!!! And Joseph Ball helps him out of Lovelady’s mess he is about to create.
Mr. BALL – Who was with you?
Mr. LOVELADY – Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me
Mr. BALL – What was that last name?
Mr. LOVELADY – Stanton.
Mr. BALL – What is the first name?
Mr. LOVELADY – Bill Shelley.
Mr. BALL – And Stanton’s first name?
Mr. LOVELADY – Miss Sarah Stanton.
Mr. BALL – Did you stay on the steps
Mr. LOVELADY – Yes.
And
Lovelady also claims that he saw Victoria Adams just after coming back, and throwing doubt on to the descent of Adams and Styles who left almost immediately after the headshot from the 4th fl down the stairs and leave the back entrance, on the first floor of the TSBD, this story according to Victoria Adams is a complete fabrication and this particular part, according to Adams, has been inserted in her testimony after she checked it for errors. This is corroborated by Sandra Styles, they both said they saw a tall black man and that was it! See Barry Earnest’s interviews with both of them in The Girl On The Stairs.
Bart, we are on common ground to a degree related to Victoria Adams’ testimony. The question is why didn’t she lie as well?
Had Sandra Styles been called to testify before the Warren Commission we would have a better idea of those first 5 minutes; the argument on this site has been that Styles had nothing to contribute and that the expense of calling her before the commission was prohibitive. I find that incredulous and always have. Ernst made an impressive effort to sort through this but unfortunately the time lapse introduced skepticism that Styles was capable of accurate recall.
So, my question of you: why didn’t Vicky Adams lie along with Shelley, Lovelady, Reid, Truly, considering how critical her testimony was to proving or disproving that Oswald was in the sniper’s nest?
You are asking me to speculate about Adams not playing along, I think I already answered that ny stating that the Shelley/Lovelady encounter was fabricated by the WC itself and inserted into her testimony
I don’t believe you when you say you were challenging me to see whether I would distance myself from Greg and Stan. If that were the case as you claim you would have said so. As a matter of fact you messed up and are trying to talk your way out of it. It’s not working. Actually if you have to resort to antics like that then all respect goes out of the window, you probably see this as discussing evidence, when you are very economical with the truth. There is no real point in continuing as everything you mention after is suspect.
I am my own man, but at ROKC we all agree on one thing for sure. PM is Lee Oswald.
Regarding Curry: you are trying desperately to paint Curry’s statement as the biggest piece of evidence. It’s not, as I stated a day or so ago it is just ONE piece of evidence that was raised by Vanessa originally.
So here is your challenge; and this is to provide evidence that a “heightened state of anxiety can and often does alter consciousness”
Curry did NOT make the statement at the scene in the immediate aftermath. They had Oswald in their grip when Curry starting talking to the press. This so called “heightened state of anxiety” Curry may have felt AT THAT TIME he started to talk to the journos would have been majorly reduced as it was a few hours after the deed, and let me add on he looks mightily calm In this AF1 inauguration shots.
There is a thing in law called “excited utterances” WHICH ARE EXCITED IN COURT BECAUSE SUCH STATEMENTS MADE IN THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT ARE SEEN AS VERY RELIABLE.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excited_utterance
Regarding IN / INSIDE
0.3 Requirement K1 applies to means of access outside a building only when the access is part of the building (i.e. attached). For example, requirement K1 does not apply to steps on land leading to a building, but does apply to entrance steps which are part of the building.
https://www.specifiedby.com/building-regulations/approved-document-k-protection-falling-collision-impact
ENTRANCE STEPS = PART OF BUILDING – and therefore should be considered part of “inside” the building. Your argument applies to steps leading to the building BUT NOT AN ENTRANCE STEP.
Danny Garcia met the only stranger at the front entrance,
“On the morning of 11-22-63 about forty-five minutes before the arrival of the President’s Motorcade I met an elderly white man at the entrance of the building who asked me to direct him to a rest room….
Looks like I am not the only one who sees the front entrance as in the building when asked.
Nor do I find it believable that a stranger would corner himself on those steps and NOT be noticed and reported when asked whether they saw someone IN the building that resembled a stranger. Frazier, Molina and Shelley all stood on the top landing, not a peep from them.
The stranger scenario is dead in the water, there is no candidate for anyone but Lee Oswald being there.
The guy resembles Oswald by height, outfit and features, and according to his interrogation notes he was “Out with Bill Shelley, in front”. A better scan of the Darnell film will be the cherry on top!
You are exposed for having double standards when you accuse us for ‘making money’ out of this research when nothing further could be removed from the truth and yet at the same time don’t have the guts to put the same thing forward to Jeff Morley. Jeff himself whether he posts at ROKC or not has absolutely nothing to do with it, it’s his right to do so promoting his stuff, as it is his site. But your accusation against us is just based on jealousy and / or spite. It’st he type of tactic you would have to resort to when you have lost the actual arguments.
Now as much as I would like to debate your nit picking much further but there are only that many hours in the day.
Have a great research weekend!
Bart, it’s your option to believe me or not when I insist I wanted to determine whether you were aligned with the conclusions in the Dane/Parker book; your impressive film suggested to me you had pursued issues that they failed to address, and I wanted to build a degree of common ground with you. If that offends you, your problem. And if you want to hold on to Curry, that’s your prerogative as well. I insist he was in a heightened state of anxiety the entire weekend and most likely for weeks afterward considering his department lost their accused assassin. The murder of the president in broad daylight happened on his watch; the murder of the alleged assassin happened right under his nose. Just check out his jawline and his coiled reactions to any movement around him during the interviews, and, assuming you are as perceptive as you claim, you’ll see that he is hardly confident let alone relaxed. I see Curry as one of the more tragic characters in the unfolding drama.
“There is a thing in law called “excited utterances” WHICH ARE EXCITED IN COURT BECAUSE SUCH STATEMENTS MADE IN THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT ARE SEEN AS VERY RELIABLE.” — Bart
So which is it Bart? Curry was in an excited state and his statement made in the heat of the moment is reliable, or he was not at all anxious and we can trust that his statement in defence of his officer – reflecting local vernacular and intonation – is proof that Baker encountered Oswald in the lobby of the building BECAUSE Curry was so calm; or was it on the steps leading to the building since we don’t really understand whether or not Baker made it to the door before Oswald slipped inside? Do you recognize the conundrum(s)? I’m prepared to strike Curry’s “as he went INSIDE the building” from this debate if you are.
Addendum:
Bart, I meant to add that the grade of cement used in a foundation, for load-bearing, is altogether different from exterior concrete construction. Pls look it up.
Bart, Please identify where the terms “In” or “Inside” the building appear in 0.3?
‘ENTRANCE STEPS = PART OF BUILDING – and therefore should be considered part of “inside” the building.’ — Bart
That is a subjective translation that cannot be substantiated. “Part of building” is not IN the building, it is PART of the “building project” that includes interior and exterior, if you study the vernacular. There are hundreds of thousands of variations of steps and walkways and entrances to any construct, but the burden of proof is yours, no exterior steps or levels can be construed as IN or INSIDE a building. I can’t puzzle out why you continue with this unsustainable argument. Your assessment is not a professional nor is it a legal.
‘Danny Garcia met the only stranger at the front entrance,
“On the morning of 11-22-63 about forty-five minutes before the arrival of the President’s Motorcade I met an elderly white man at the entrance of the building who asked me to direct him to a rest room….’ Looks like I am not the only one who sees the front entrance as in the building when asked. — Bart
I have no idea how you construe Garcia’s words as evidence that the exterior steps leading to the entrance are somehow part of the INTERIOR of the building.
In general construction including residential (which I made a living at in a past life), the exterior concrete (or other material used) is poured in the last phase of the project. For instance, the home is under roof and the finish out is underway; only then are the sidewalk, the driveway, and the porches and steps leading to poured. The expense is a separate line item and the space is considered exterior, NOT interior, regardless of whether or not the steps or porch are under an extension of the roof. Steps and porch / top level are NOT IN or INSIDE the house, period full stop. if someone slipped and fell OUTside the house on said porch or top level, insurance applied under specific protocol. You should know that instinctively if not professionally. If the contractor that poured the foundation of the house or the commercial project exits the project before the final phase when the exterior concrete is laid, the new contractor is responsible for that exterior work, but he or she is not responsible for the “under roof” concrete work, and vice versa. It’s so elemental I’m surprised you are pushing this, Bart.
re Jeff’s promotion of his book. Somewhere in this morass someone within the PM community chastised Jeff for self promotion. I pointed out that he was not on a PM site promoting his book. My memory is that there are several instances where the reader has been encouraged to read a book promoted at RoKC. Mine was a reflex response. Mea Culpa. Hypocrisy is impossible to combat by its very nature.
The following was posted today (May 24) by Stan Dane, author of ‘Prayer Man, Out of the Shadows . . . ‘ on the Reopen the Kennedy Case website. Please note that Dane offers a synopsis of the PM argument on behalf of Greg Parker who has been posting under the name “George” at jfkfacts most recently and has apparently refused to provide said synopsis himself. Thanks to Stan Dane.
Dane is evidently responding to a series of questions from RoKC commenter ‘Alan’ who is apparently living in Ireland where Sean Murphy originated his PM hypothesis: Alan’s questions:
1. Did the delay of the motorcade mess up the plan?
2. Was someone meant to make sure Oswald remained in the building and failed to do so?
3. Was Oswald the original Patsy for pulling the trigger? Is it possible that someone else was originally meant to be the patsy for pulling the trigger and Oswald was to be farmed as a fascilitator? Is there anyone else who might have been meant to be the shooter patsy but somehow did something that messed up that plan?
(LS note to Alan: I have asked similar questions numerous times on this forum, i.e. how could Oswald be the “perfect patsy” standing outside the building where he could be filmed. You have been successful in extracting a semblance of response on the PM site. well done Alan.)
Stan Dane response to ‘Alan’:
“About a year ago, Greg was asked over at The Education Forum to outline his version of what happened on 11.22.63. This was his response:
The bare bones without going into the evidence.
Oswald was a long-time CIA asset who became the property of the FBI on return from Russia. What got him into “intelligence” was a program that will be revealed in the upcoming volume. This program both took him to the Soviet Union, and was the one used to get him into the TSBD. He was told he would be taking over from William Lowery in watching and informing on Joe Molina. Lowery had “outed” himself (and thus making him useless as an informant) in September.
The real purpose of having him in there was to use as a potential patsy.
(cont.)
cont.) Dane’s version of Greg Parker’s synopsis:
There were three plans for assassination. The first at the 12:10 point in the motorcade was aborted for reasons I won’t go into here. The second was the one that worked. If that too had been aborted, Molina’s wife, who was set to be one of the women serving lunch at the trade mart, would have been given a poisoned steak for JFK. As soon as it became known she was the wife of a known local “subversive”, they both would become scapegoats.
The people who planned this had the means, motive and opportunity – as well as all the necessary connections.
The framing of Oswald was based around real events from his past, but modified and brought forward to help incriminate him. It also drew heavily on known historical cases. Someone (and I am sure I know who), had access to information about Oswald’s time in Minsk and knew a lot about past communist cases.
You can tear it down now, but I don’t know how you’ll justify that without knowing what evidence I have to support it all. The evidence will stand up.
He will produce the evidence in Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cold War, Volume 3. I look forward to it.’ — Stand Dane, Reopen the Kennedy Case
Question of Stan and Greg: Why has it taken 6 weeks for a synopsis of Greg’s theory to surface at jfkfacts? but far more intriguing, who is going to flesh out this poison steak story? I’m fascinated.
“I am the comments editor of this website. Instead of ignoring a submitted comment I received a complaint about, I chose to display it in another discussion thread exactly on the topic the comment related to, except for the last sentence, a repeat of “the calling out,” of the commentor who had already complained.”
Yet you never moved any other post – about 40 in total – that had nothing to do with the tapes – which were not even mentioned in the thread title anyway.
My post was on topic. You moved it.
Moreover, the rest of your post above betrays your real reason. Your own personal animus. Or maybe you can explain what is said on another forum leads you to conclude that a post needs to be shifted as “off topic” – but not another 40 equally “off topic” posts.
You don’t seem capable of separating the personal from the professional in your decision-making.
George, I’m scouring the Education Forum site, specifically the 4 month period that Sean Murphy made his arguments, and I can’t find where he does anything but make cursory acknowledgement that the forearms of the Prayer Man are either clothed in lighter coloured attire, or they are bare. Can you fast forward and provide the answer that aligns with your hypothesis? It’s such a simple question: Were the sleeves of the PM rolled to the elbows, revealing bare forearms; were the sleeves of the PM’s shirt rolled to elbows revealing a lighter coloured (T) shirt and if so is there any evidence that Oswald was wearing a light coloured LONG sleeved T-shirt under his outer shirt that day? Of all of the aspects of that blurred image including speculation he is holding a coke bottle, a camera, a sandwich, that is the least controversial and should be the easiest to establish as fact. Why is it not central to the Oswald as Prayer Man hypothesis? And why are you avoiding the question?
Okay George,
Then let us revise history here on this account by Hicks.
Oswald shot Kennedy from the 5th floor of the TSBD and was stopped outside by a cop at some indeterminate time after the shooting.
Is this now the version of the assassination of JFK?
Why the coy burlesque here Parker? Since you had a photocopy of your story of the paper you were quoting from, why didn’t you mention it for the last three days? And now that you have, do you really think it trumps the further findings in the case?
\\][//
It is one of the MANY findings that trump the general findings of this case.
“What link do you think could be provided that would make it easier for you to comprehend?” ~George
Links that prove someone called “Hicks tells the press XYZ”
\\][//
————————
So you can’t comprehend a retyped version of the news story?
I don’t think you have used the right word here, Willy. I’m sure you do understand it. What you seem to be indicating is that you don’t trust the retyped version as being accurate.
So here you go. Please however, restrain yourself from now accusing me of trying to drive traffic to my forum:
http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13348898-detective-ed-hicks
Hicks said apparently just about that time . . . ” — George
ap·par·ent·ly
əˈperən(t)lē/
adverb
as far as one knows or can see.
“the child nodded, apparently content with the promise”
synonyms: seemingly, evidently, it seems (that), it appears (that), it would seem (that), it would appear (that), as far as one knows, by all accounts; “More
used by speakers or writers to avoid committing themselves to the truth of what they are saying. “foreign ministers met but apparently failed to make progress”
just about – Idiom
Almost; very nearly: ‘This job is just about done.’
In spite of the ambiguity of the statements in the London Free Press attributed to Hicks, George assures us that: “There is no wiggle room here . . .”
am·bi·gu·i·ty
ˌambəˈɡyo͞owədē/
noun
uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
George further assures us: “We’re talking about the cops who where {sic} there on the scene . . .” Would these cops belong to the same department that he has maligned repeatedly, brothers of Officer Marion Baker whose testimony Mr. Parker has impugned if and when it contradicts his theories?
George closes with “. . . this pretty well matches what Oswald would tell his interrogators . . . ”
Apparently George has pretty well just aboutwrapped [sic] up the case.
——————–
The above from Leslie is just another case of wanting to score points rather than conduct any sort of reasonable debate. Too bad even her attempts at point-scoring fail.
But since it was allowed, I will reply in kind.
Leslie has incorrectly used the word “ambiguity” to describe statements of of Ed Hicks.
ambiguity: something that does not have a single clear meaning : something that is ambiguous
a word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways : an ambiguous word or expression
————————–
The use of a qualifier does not give a word or phrase multiple meanings.
Here it merely indicates something is not from personal knowledge. To preempt the screams of “foul” – I have already done the hearsay hay-dance with Willy. This is not a court of law and if the WC can use truckloads of hearsay, I’m sure an internet forum can cope. We are talking about statements made in that critical first few hours when the facts as they were understood, were not being covered up.
George, on 27 April, you disagreed with my opinion you are making extraordinary claims.:
https://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-872806
I’ll amend my opinion. You are making thinly supported extraordinary claims. If this were not the case, you
would not be presenting random newspaper editors’ rewrites of 23 November, 1963, AP news reports quoting Det. Edward Hicks, the text of which are somehow intended by you to impeach the testimonies of Baker, Truly, Frazier, Lovelady, and Shelley.
23 November, 1963 :
Above snippet is from this page, date/source displayed on top right
…and you resort to insults and other irritating provocations and distortions because your claims are extraordinary but your evidence in support of them is not even ordinary, compared to the record of testimony and other evidence you are obligated to overcome.
As usual Frank, you can’t keep up the Pace. I’m a counter-puncher. I give back what I get. I don’t see you chastising anyone for all of the insults I’ve parried here.
As for provocations… that would be Leslie and Willy’s (albeit flaccid) efforts.
To turn to the main point here. I don’t have to “overcome” WC testimony. The whole point of the WC was to overcome the actual facts – some of which escaped in those first few hours.
If this were not so, WC testimony would far more closely resemble first day statements, there would have been allowance for Oswald to be represented by counsel at the hearings, there would have been no fear of allowing cross-examination. Ditto, there would have been no need for prior meetings with witnesses, nor avoidance of of certain issues and witnesses.
The hostility shown by you, Leslie and Willy to any holes being punched in the official narrative has now surpassed that of any Lone Nutter.
You all must be so very proud.
You’re too skilled for us George, you’ve seen through our play acting, you shrewd sleuth…..
The following text was originally displayed – https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-6/#comment-876917 :
ROKC, aka the Oswald was prayer man incubator is as the author of the National Geographic Mag. article describes,
And the results of a challenge free evidence gathering and analysis process has produced “evidence” found on the front page of numerous newspapers of 23 November, 1963, – https://jfkfacts.org/fact-check-wsj-errs-on-key-jfk-point/#comment-876865
….allegedly strongly supporting Oswald surrounded by his perjurer co-workers on the front steps taking in the sight of JFK’s passing motorcade.
“give back what I get. I don’t see you chastising anyone for all of the insults I’ve parried here.” — George
This will be a test of your research and sourcing skills, George/Greg:
Would you review jfkfacts.org from April 17, 2016 and provide links to the “insults” you have parried? My reality is that you arrived here with a grudge, against the moderator and the host of the site, and your grudge escalated to attacks on commenters here including myself who did nothing other than – in spite of recognizing the fact you had a chip on your shoulder – indulge you and rationally challenge you to bring a cohesive argument to the table.
“Tom, Leslie and Willy” are not a Team, I can assure you. Had you followed this forum from the start you would know that Tom took on the moderator position in late 2015, that Willy Whitten engaged on the site a year earlier and that I was one of the first commenters on the site, engaging in late 2012/early 2013. If we were a team, we were certainly poorly organized,. You would also know that Jeff Morley is not my fan nor am I his as it relates to the approach to the investigation. I do not advocate for a vote; a legal case is not up for grabs by historians. That matters not here other than to establish that I’ve been my “own person” from the outset. A bit of research relating to those issues would have brought you up to speed, but of course the egomaniacal approach you have toward the investigation has precluded you from considering anything other than that blurred image, right “George”?
Not a test at all, Leslie.
Do you deny insinuating I was working with LNers on this site by observing that they mysteriously disappeared as I arrived?
Do you deny Willy has thrown all sorts of slurs my way?
Do you believe my first post here was in any way shape or form, provocative? If so, please expand on that theme.
I have no “grudge” against Tom. Why would I? You have it the wrong way around (as usual). Tom is the one pointing the finger and crying about being banished from my forum. There is your grudge, right there. His insinuation that I came here to further “punish” him is mind-boggling. But it does say a lot about Tom.
Nor do I have any grudge against Morley. I am however bitterly disappointed in any investigative journalist who insists on strong supporting evidence in all other circumstances, requires none, nil, zero in relation to JFK’s alleged -extramarital affairs – all springing from self-serving motives.
That does give me reason for concern.
Your “reality” needs a reality-check.
George, is that what happened? I have a vastly different recollection. You’ve convinced me you delight in distortion, honing it to a reflexive trait.
I am the comments editor of this website. Instead of ignoring a submitted comment I received a complaint about, I chose to display it in another discussion thread exactly on the topic the comment related to, except for the last sentence, a repeat of “the calling out,” of the commentor who had already complained.
As comments editor, I made the decision to display Bart Kamp’s April 17 comment in a thread discussing prayer man, and I would do it again, in hindsight.:
https://jfkfacts.org/in-jfk-lore-who-is-prayer-man/#comment-870258
These are samples of the reactions (protests, and more…) to my seemingly routine moderating decision, begun almost immediately on 17 April, continuing on the 3rd of May.:
https://jfkfacts.org/in-jfk-lore-who-is-prayer-man/#comment-870379
George – April 17, 2016 at 6:44 pm
http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13339170-jfk-facts-website?page=1
http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13339170-jfk-facts-website?page=6
When all is lost, the argument about Kennedy’s sex life surfaces? That will not fly here George. Stay with the issue which is that you have yet to prove your case and as Bart Kamp has intimated, yours is a work in progress. In the early days of April, it was unclear to those not familiar with RoKC or Ed Forum whether or not you were here in good faith or here to sew discord. Then anyone with half a mind was obliged to check out your own site only to encounter the adolescent brawl and decide “these guys are off the rails” and then go in search of the facts at Ed Forum only to discover exactly how uncertain of your position you are. From there one could only question, why bring this uncertainty to jfkfacts. Was it Bill Kelley who drew you here, was it Jeff Morley, was it Tom Scully? You’re demanding time and space here, you’ve been given both; if you think you won’t be challenged in a similar manner to how you accuse others of being WC defenders, think again. Jfkfacts.org is a crucible, and a fairly civilized one by standards if you ask me. Step up or leave, that’s my subjective recommendation.
You’re dancing as fast as you can George, but you’re not following the rhythm of the music, that is obvious. The ambiguity I drew attention to was yours — no wiggle room vs.pretty well — as much as it was the London Press coverage of Hicks’ statements. Where is Hicks’ official affidavit? Please link to that. Where is his testimony? Please link to that.
As Jean Davison pointed out some weeks ago, J. Edgar Hoover made some of the more fantastical statements of that weekend, and he was responsible for Special Agents in Dallas who were on the front line advising him of the latest. Your naiveté is comical.
“We are talking about statements made in that critical first few hours when the facts as they were understood, were not being covered up.” —
Can you advise where precisely you have drawn the line related to the credibility of statements? 2:30 pm? 4:30 pm? 7:30 pm? If you believe you alone can arbitrate when the cover up began, you are operating under delusions of grandeur, and yet again, you harm your own argument through pure hubris.
“This is not a court of law and if the WC can use truckloads of hearsay. . .” If you haven’t figured out that the exercise this past month on this site represents the crucible any attempt to Reopen The Kennedy Case movement would encounter; you are not equipped to pursue let alone drag others with you down that path. You’ve been given a month to argue your case, to hone your arguments, and all you have done is huff and bluff. 10 Point argument. Similar to Sean Murphy’s attempt back in August 2013. This is the real word, George.
Even Murphy ventured an 8 point argument:
Sean Murphy Education Forum Posted 23 August 2013 – 02:47 AM
I would like to offer a simple scenario that I believe may tell the story of what really happened between Lee Oswald, Marrion Baker and Roy Truly.
ONE: Oswald comes downstairs to lunch in the first-floor domino room at some point after noon
TWO: Several minutes before the assassination he visits the second-floor lunchroom where he buys a coke for his lunch
THREE: He brings the coke downstairs and, just as JFK is passing the building, steps out the glass door at the front entrance and takes up the Prayer Man position
(cont.)
(cont.)
Sean Murphy’s 8 point plan:
FOUR: Within seconds of the last shot, Marrion Baker rushes up the front steps, revolver drawn
FIVE: He notices Oswald, who has perhaps stepped inside the door into the lobby area, and asks him ‘Do you work here?’. The reason for Baker’s question is not that he suspects Oswald in any way but that he is looking for someone who can point him the way to the stairs (rather as a credentials-waving man will a short time after this ask Oswald where he can find a phone)
SIX: Just as Baker is beginning to engage Oswald in this way, Roy Truly arrives and tells him, ‘Yes, Officer, he works here but I am the building manager. I will show you the way upstairs’
SEVEN: Baker and Truly run off to cross the shipping floor for the rear elevators
EIGHT: This innocent incident–with its basic elements still intact (Oswald… coke… asking whether Oswald is an employee…Truly confirming)–will later that evening be transplanted up to the second floor lunchroom in a hastily contrived attempt to deprive Oswald of his clear alibi.
Murphy continues . . .
Far-fetched? I can only invite you to consider the following detail:
“Marrion Baker testified before the WC that he didn’t take his revolver out until he was going up the rear stairway from first to second floor.
His claim is exposed as a downright lie by the Darnell film, which shows him reaching with his right arm for his holster, taking out his revolver and pointing it straight ahead . . “
While we have you on the line George, these are the words of Sean Murphy:
Second, intonation is important.
The reporter doesn’t ask, “Were you IN the building at the time?”.
He asks, “Were you in the BUILDING at the TIME?”
Oswald, who is having questions shouted at him left, right and centre, understands the question to relate to his basic LOCATION at the TIME of the shooting.
And he confirms that, yes, the TSBD was his location at the time.
He wasn’t on the sidewalk on Houston St. He wasn’t on the overpass. He wasn’t in his rooming house. He wasn’t at the movies.
He was at his place of work.
Hence the exasperated emphases: “NATURALLY, if I WORK in that BUILDING, YES, sir.”
To repeat Mr. Murphy’s words: Intonation is important. Evidently you agreed with this particular argument. You have vehemently rejected a similar argument related to Jesse Curry’s statements.
This is your achilles heel, imo. You apply a subjective set of standards instead of adhering to the same standard throughout your plea.
Please link to an audio which shows Curry’s alleged intonation – and then link to the post that shows Curry’s “intonation” was ever raised to explain away his statement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tjgH8o4Adw
min. 6:58. Curry’s intonation indicates he is attempting to defend Baker’s failure to arrest an employee of the depository business who was later arrested at the Texas Theatre. You would hear that if you had listened carefully to the questions leading up to what seems to be your Holy Grail. Curry is NOT referencing the fact that Baker had told him anything, he is defending his officer’s failure to prevent Oswald from walking out the door regardless of precisely where inside the building the encounter took place. Why would Curry say “Iyamagine” if it had been relayed to him unequivocally that Baker met Oswald “as he went into the building”. His intonation is defensive, not declarative. ‘Imagining’ what his officer did is hardly definitive and his intonation underscores his defensiveness.
Okay. Got it. Nothing to do now with local vernacular. You’re now pretending it was always about “intonation”.
Like defending a fellow cop means giving misleading/inaccurate information.
Shucks ma’am.
Can’t wait for the next installment of “Let’s Make Stuff Up!”.
“Can’t wait for the next installment of “Let’s Make Stuff Up!”.”~Greg Parker
Just go reread Vanessa’s loopy tripe on this page “George”, you will get plenty of made up stuff.
Heck, you could have stayed home to get that load of kangaroo voodoo doodoo.
\\][//
Intonation and vernacular go hand in hand Greg, in most languages, in most regions – globally. You’re being silly.
If you ask me “then why didn’t Tom stop you from posting on this site?” and I respond “I imagine Tom is trying his best as moderator while you’re here” would you read that as a definitive that Tom is trying his best with any specificity, or would you read it as a defence of Tom as moderator in general?” I’m just curious.
“So Baker has seen Oswald after he was arrested and before Baker made his affidavit.”~Vanessa
You tried this one once before.You are interjecting into these words something that isn’t there. This dialog in no manner says nor intimates that Baker saw Oswald before he made his affidavit.
Boggs obviously is speaking to the affidavit that Baker had written BEFORE he saw Oswald at City Hall. Boggs is simply making clear for the record that the man Baker encountered as per that affidavit was the man Baker later saw at City Hall.
\\][//
Willy,
unfortunately for you and the other WC apologists here, there is other evidence in the form of Marvin Johnson’s statement.
It was Johnson who took Baker’s affidavit. Johnsom ended his statement by saying:
“When Patrolman ML Baker identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man that he stopped in the Texas School Book Depository Building, Patrolman Baker was in the Homicide Bureau giving an affidavit and Oswald was brought into the room to talk to some Secret Service men. When Baker saw Oswald he stated, ‘that is the man I stopped on the 4th floor of the School Book Depository.'”
He identified Oswald AS HE WAS GIVING HIS AFFIDAVIT.
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337554/m1/5/?q=marvin%20johnson
Willy
Baker later says this to Dulles.
Mr. DULLES – You saw Oswald later in the lineup or later?
Mr. BAKER – I never did have a chance to see him in the lineup. I saw him when I went to give the affidavit, the statement that I saw him down there, of the actions of myself and Mr. Truly as we went into the building and on up what we are discussing now.
(At this point Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)
Mr. BELIN – Officer Baker
Mr. DULLES – I didn’t get clearly in mind, I am trying to check up, as to whether you saw Oswald maybe in the same costume later in the day. Did you see Oswald later in the day of November 22d?
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. DULLES – Under what circumstances? Don’t go into detail, I just want to tie up these two situations.
Mr. BAKER – As I was in the homicide office there writing this, giving this affidavit, I got hung in one of those little small offices back there, while the Secret Service took Mr. Oswald in there and questioned him and I couldn’t get out by him while they were questioning him, and I did get to see him at that time.
Mr. DULLES – You saw him for a moment at that time?
Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir.
As Baker is giving his affidavit he sees Oswald.
Why doesn’t Baker name Oswald in his affidavit?
Vanessa, Weisberg covered your question,
https://books.google.com/books?id=s8ktAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT54&lpg=PT54&dq=oswald+not+in+bakers+affidavit&source=bl&ots=yGYBmQt-Wh&sig=BjcEGim1zXCOm1WgaR6wWlnYupQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE4q_0y-PMAhXGbT4KHWI6Atg4ChDoAQgjMAE#v=onepage&q=oswald%20not%20in%20bakers%20affidavit&f=false
…but he simply was not prepared to declare,
Tom
Weisberg is agreeing with my interpretation of Baker and his evidence ie Baker could have proved Oswald’s innocence but was railroaded by the WC.
Is that your position?
Yes Vanessa, OSS veteran Harold Weisberg in his wisdom saw into the future and said to himself “Vanessa Loney will interpret Baker’s capacity to prove Oswald’s innocence.” I’m sure Mr. Weisberg is resting more easily knowing you have everything sorted . . . except for that bit about your doubt that occasionally surfaces over at Ed Forum.
Posted 04 August 2015 – 10:11 AM Vanessa Loney Ed Forum
“Okay Tommy but I don’t think that scenario is supported by any of the first day press reports or affidavits which I’m still giving some credit to. Are you discounting all the first day statements? Because then we really get into completely uncharted waters. Although, I guess, it is actually possible that they are all a mixture of half-truths and non-truths as well. Gawd, it’d be nice to have some certainty in this case.”
Why come here with certainty Vanessa; engage in good faith and acknowledge there are still holes in the Prayer Man theory. That would be a foundation to establish your credibility without having to rely on Greg/George to bolster you personally; otherwise you’re here as a charlatan, in my humble opinion.
char·la·tan
ˈSHärlədən,ˈSHärlətn/
noun
a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraud.
Leslie
I’ve already decided not to respond to any more of the increasingly bizarre personal attacks on here.
They are a waste of everyone’s time including yours.
If you have an actual point to make about Tom quoting Weisberg (who believes Baker was railroaded by the WC) please make it.
I’m puzzled to see Tom appearing to support the notion that Baker was able to prove Oswald was innocent as that was not the impression I had had of Tom’s views up until now.
‘They are a waste of everyone’s time including yours.’
Vanessa, the school principal, I’m well able to determine what wastes my time and what doesn’t. Challenging bombastic assertions that fail the test of logic is a burden we Freedom Fighters take on with honour. I was laughing at your suggestion that Weisberg agreed with you rather than vice versa … your comment was not just silly because of the inherent timeline, but the audacity of suggesting Weisberg might have consulted you . . . unless of course you have not been forthcoming with your history as a skilled researcher and you sat with Weisberg.
“Why doesn’t Baker name Oswald in his affidavit?”~Vanessa
How many more times Vanessa?!?!
Obviously Baker had finished and signed his affidavit. He saw Oswald walk by the little office he was in, and just awhile later heard his name. As Dulles clarifies: “You saw him for a moment at that time?”
Read that whole testimony you just posted Vanessa, it is obvious Baker saw Oswald go by while he “got hung in one of those little small offices back there, while the Secret Service took Mr. Oswald in there and questioned him and I couldn’t get out by him while they were questioning him, and I did get to see him at that time.”
\\][//
Willy
How many more times? I guess it’s up to you because you seem to be wilfully misunderstanding what Baker said.
Baker did not say the he had finished and signed his affidavit. He said this:
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.
……..
Mr. Baker I saw him when I went to give the affidavit,…
……..
Mr Baker. As I was in the homicide office there writing this, giving this affidavit,…
I do not see how you can possibly interpret those statements as Baker had finished and signed his affidavit and then saw Oswald.
Baker has clearly seen Oswald as he is writing the affidavit.
If Baker had named Oswald in his affidavit then the case against him would have been compelling to say the least. It would have put Oswald close enough to the 6th floor to be the shooter.
The most reasonable explanation for Baker not naming the man who has been arrested for killing the President is that Oswald was not the man he saw on the 3rd or 4th floor.
Vanessa,
It is simple, Baker didn’t name Oswald in his affidavit because he didn’t know the man’s name yet.
You are a round’about of blithering redundancy Vanessa, taking up half of the forum with this cognitive disruption technique of repeating nonsense ad infinitum.
\\][//
Willy
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?
Baker agrees.
Are you seriously going to contend that the whole country knew Lee Oswald’s name but not the key witness in the case against him?
“Are you seriously going to contend that the whole country knew Lee Oswald’s name but not the key witness in the case against him?”~Vanessa
Why do you assume Baker heard Oswald’s name?
He wasn’t sitting around watching TV, he was on official business.
And if he did hear why would he connect it to the man he confronted in the TSBD?
He understood that man to be okay, as an employee of the TSDB How would he know it was the same person until he saw Oswald brought in after his affidavit was drawn?
\\][//
#2 for Leslie
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?
London Free Press, Nov 23, 1963:
“Mothers threw their children on the ground, fearing the killer’s bullets.As the presidential limousine sped to the hospital, the police dragnet went into action. Hicks said apparently just about that time Oswald came out the front door of the red brick warehouse. A policeman asked him where he was going. He said he wanted to see what the excitement was all about.”
This story was also published in several US papers. Anyone who dismisses this as hearsay is being deliberately obtuse. We’re talking about the cops who where there on the scene telling Hicks what had transpired a couple of hours prior. There is no wiggle room here. It is not Chinese Whispers. It is processional law enforcement officers we are talking about and the information came within hours to Hicks’ ear. It is no surprise then to find this pretty well matches what Oswald would tell his interrogators later that day. Unless you think Oswald was psychic and knew what would be published the next morning, then the Hicks story is corroboration of a rock solid alibi.
George, why didn’t you say so sooner? Your stellar research breaks the back of the testimonies of Truly, Baker, Frazier, Lovelady and Shelley. Your latest evidence is so overwhelming that their testimonies were complete fabrications, no film evidence of higher quality is even necessary. Now the task begins of getting all of the history books rewritten! If you have not already done so, take the text of your linkless cite on over to the relevant wikipedia pages and rewrite them.
I’m sorry Tom, but it appears that your comment does not contain a link or a citation and also seems to contain a personal attack.
As such it does not meet the rules you have recently posted.
Be a good chap and delete it.
Vanessa,
it’s the rule he never posted that matters. I’m afraid he ‘s got me dead to rights.
Here is the link that proves it.
http://postimg.org/image/4nojqrxap/
Vanessa, how come you arrive on JFK forums to moderate the moderators? I recognized your tone as I scanned thru a Prayer Man thread on another site, Ed Forum, this morning. You’re a cheerleader and a school principal all at once? As sexist as this might sound, the wardrobe must be a real challenge every morning. If women play the card they must be willing to accept the stereotype. I seem to remember we joked about this several years ago on this site when you attempted to exert your version of how this site should be managed. Here you are again, telling the moderator to “be a good chap and delete it.” Oh the cheek of it.
Admonishing the moderator to bend to your influence is a habit?
Posted 27 April 2015 – 11:29 AM Vanessa Loney, Ed Forum
“But I suspect that if Mr Murphy had wanted to engage with the EF he would have done so long ago. . . . Perhaps it’s now up to the rest of the research community to carry forward Mr Murphy’s research rather than rely on him to do all the heavy lifting again. There is a push to move ahead with Mr Murphy’s research and that push has been lead by Greg Parker. If you are really interested in pursuing the Prayer Man thread then the best thing you could do would be to lift the ban on Mr Parker.” . . . As I’ve stated a number of times now ROKC is not disputing the rules of EF around language or rudeness. We are disputing the uneven application of those rules. . . . I would really appreciate an answer to this question James. It goes to the issue of bias. If Greg and Tommy did not break the rules why have they been banned?”
Greg gets a chastisement from you the school principal along with a rush from you the head cheerleader. A psychologist would have a hey day.
In spite of the certitude you displayed when you blew back onto jfkfacts in April, 2016, I see that as early as August, 2015, you could not state your case unequivocally at Ed Forum:
Vanessa Loney
Posted 04 August 2015 – 10:11 AM
“Okay Tommy but I don’t think that scenario is supported by any of the first day press reports or affidavits which I’m still giving some credit to. Are you discounting all the first day statements? Because then we really get into completely uncharted waters. Although, I guess, it is actually possible that they are all a mixture of half-truths and non-truths as well. Gawd, it’d be nice to have some certainty in this case.
That was 7 months ago. In that thread alone, I recognized dozens of instances of uncertainty about Oswald as Prayer Man. Do you want me to cite them? But in April, 2016 you arrive with the zeal of The Apostles at jfkfacts? What gives?
“I see that as early as August, 2015, you could not state your case unequivocally at Ed Forum” Leslie
The ability to change one’s mind, to move on in thinking when new data surfaces, or even just upon further reflection of what is already known, is a hallmark of a healthy mental state.
Your fixed ideation is a hallmark of seeing and NOT seeing at the same time. Denial of what is front of your eyes.
“Freedom can be thought of as a refusal of the fixed ideation, a reaching for possibility, an engagement with obstacles and barriers and a resistant world, …” Philosophical Exploration Through the Mind, Heart and Soul of Nurses By Anita Siccardi & Karen Iseminger
p 113
Vanessa is a Freedom Fighter. What are you, Leslie?
Leslie
I will respond to this shortly although I would posit this is exactly the sort of post that is not advancing this thread.
In the meantime, could we discuss the 2 factual posts I’ve made recently?
1). 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”.
I’ll post #2 separately.
Leslie
I sincerely wish you had spent your time more wisely by reading the Education Forum thread “Oswald Leaving TSBD” (see link) rather than searching the internet for my blatherings. Then we could have a productive discussion about the documentary case for PM that is presented on there.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=1
All I ask from the moderators on ANY forum is that they apply the rules fairly to all posters and that includes themselves. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
The incident you are referring to on Ed Forum happened almost a year ago and it involved Greg and Tommy being banned from the EF. I publicly asked James Gordon to reconsider as they didn’t appear to have broken any rules.
If querying bans placed on other posters on a forum is cheerleading then I’m not sure what you call advocating for free speech.
The discussion on Ed Forum regarding PM is just that. We discuss all the issues surrounding PM including what he’s holding, his height, appearance etc. We tend to go back and forth on each of these issues as posters bring forward new methodologies. Isn’t that what research is all about?
My comment to Tommy was raising the possibility that the media reports are incorrect. As they are all slightly different it’s possible some of the particulars aren’t correct (ie did Baker/ Oswald/Truly meet exactly in the doorway or just inside the vestibule).
If you read the EF thread you’ll see that Sean Murphy questions them (including Baker’s affidavit) to a much greater degree than me.
The only constant of these reports is that Oswald was on the 1st floor at the time the President went past the building.
Obviously I think the weight of the PM evidence places Oswald in the 1st floor vestibule when he met Baker.
What specific words were exchanged between Baker, Oswald and Truly and what exactly happened in that particular encounter is still up for debate. I have my own views on what happened.
If you want to cite all the to’s and fro’s in my thinking about PM feel free to do so. But it’s not actually relevant to the current discussion of PM. Frankly I think it’s a waste of forum time to do so.
Now, can we get back to discussing the documents?
Of course it advances the thread Vanessa if it identifies the possibility that your certainty here is feigned; simply state that the doubts expressed at Ed Forum have been resolved (for instance you are now convinced that Baker did not pass Oswald on the top level before entering the building) since those comments at Ed Forum, otherwise why should your Prayer Man arguments be taken seriously here? THAT apparent uncertainty does not advance the debate but rather creates a cognizant dissonance, in fact sets it back and cancels out any progress you may think you have made. Good faith has been an issue for this site from the outset.
Leslie, my certainty here is not feigned at all.
It’s based on ALL the PM documents, the Weigman and Darnell films and the WC testimony of all involved. I still haven’t finished presenting the documents on here either.
Do I think PM is Oswald? Yes I do. Do I think Oswald was on the 1st floor of the TSBD when the President passed the building? Yes, I do.
Did the Truly/Baker/Oswald encounter happen in the doorway itself or just inside the vestibule? I think that’s still open for debate.
But as I’ve said repeatedly people need to go to the Ed Forum and read the thread and make up their own minds.
‘If you want to cite all the to’s and fro’s in my thinking about PM feel free to do so. But it’s not actually relevant to the current discussion of PM. Frankly I think it’s a waste of forum time to do so. . . . Now, can we get back to discussing the documents?’ – Vanessa
Can I paraphrase, Vanessa: “Game Over”? Those two words surface frequently from the PM cadres and were first applied to the PM argument by Sean Murphy back in the fall of 2013, the 50th anniversary no less; no caveat, no qualifying ‘statement of optimism’, just Game Over. So what is one to think when one checks in where one is directed and finds that the game isn’t actually over at all? Apparently you turned in on yourselves on the RoKC forum and on Ed Forum, and you drug your confusion and uncertainty to this site, cloaked in “Game Over”? Cognizant dissonance Vanessa. Your interpretation of documents has been disputed for 6 weeks now, so yes indeed, lets move on: What was the “motive” of at least 5 depository employees and tenants to lie about the 2nd floor encounter? Why would they all lie, in tandem, for decades? What was their motive? Will you go there?
“But as I’ve said repeatedly people need to go to the Ed Forum and read the thread and make up their own minds.” — Vanessa
Why would you challenge anyone to go to Ed Forum to make up their minds when in fact you have yet to make up yours? As an exercise in observing how urban stories evolve, it’s fascinating; as an exercise in getting up to speed on how you people think, it’s fascinating; as a repository of proof Oswald was outside the building, I for one am not persuaded. That doesn’t mean I couldn’t be, it merely says you’ve failed thus far.
‘Vanessa is a Freedom Fighter. What are you, Leslie?’ —George
That’s pretty funny George, ‘what Freedom is Vanessa fighting for’? American freedom, as a citizen of New Zealand is it? Is she fighting for the “freedom of indigenous peoples in Tasmania or is she enforcing the British Imperialism imposed on those natives for centuries, albeit with a kinder gentler bureaucracy?
Can either of you explain why you have splattered throughout your protestations that you have solved the case? No big deal if you haven’t solved the case, but the fact is you stormed into jfkfacts declaring you had the “ best new evidence” when in fact your “evidence” is not proof; you have a theory and you have information that should be considered carefully, but you have yet to establish it as proof beyond reasonable doubt, so apparently your agenda was to drag others into your bailiwick because your other forums have turned in on themselves? Correct me if I’m wrong.
Hi Frank,
Yes, ( a ) they all lied — OR ( b ) Oswald was psychic and as a result of that psychic power, knew what Hicks had said to reporters OR ( c ) Hicks was involved in a conspiracy with Oswald.
Now call me overly-cautious, but I think of those three options, I’m most comfortable with the one where witnesses before a rigged commission, lied.
If you don’t like any of those options, maybe you can come up with one that involves Henry Crown’s neighbors cousin marrying a guy who was once the pool guy for Carlos Marcello’s accountant?
And don’t forget the links.
“And don’t forget the links.”~~Greg the George Parker
Speaking of links! So “funny” you should bring that up.
Perhaps your “options” would be more clearly defined if you had one. Or do you expect the rest of the readers here to be psychic?
\\][//
In what way do the readers here need to be psychic, Willy?
It really is so simple, a simpleton could follow it.
Hicks tells the press XYZ about Oswald’s run-in with a cop at the front entrance. Oswald tells his interrogators the exact SAME XYZ.
There are only so many ways this can be explained:
a) It was a true story
b) Oswald was psychic because that is the only way he could have known what Hicks had said in order to repeat it (short of Fritz et al telling him)
c) Oswald and Hicks were co-conspirators and Hicks was attempting to provide Oswald with an alibi.
What link do you think could be provided that would make it easier for you to comprehend?
“What link do you think could be provided that would make it easier for you to comprehend?” ~George
Links that prove someone called “Hicks tells the press XYZ”
\\][//
“Hicks said apparently just about that time . . . ” — George
ap·par·ent·ly
əˈperən(t)lē/
adverb
as far as one knows or can see.
“the child nodded, apparently content with the promise”
synonyms: seemingly, evidently, it seems (that), it appears (that), it would seem (that), it would appear (that), as far as one knows, by all accounts; “More
used by speakers or writers to avoid committing themselves to the truth of what they are saying. “foreign ministers met but apparently failed to make progress”
just about – Idiom
Almost; very nearly: ‘This job is just about done.’
In spite of the ambiguity of the statements in the London Free Press attributed to Hicks, George assures us that: “There is no wiggle room here . . .”
am·bi·gu·i·ty
ˌambəˈɡyo͞owədē/
noun
uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
George further assures us: “We’re talking about the cops who where {sic} there on the scene . . .” Would these cops belong to the same department that he has maligned repeatedly, brothers of Officer Marion Baker whose testimony Mr. Parker has impugned if and when it contradicts his theories?
George closes with “. . . this pretty well matches what Oswald would tell his interrogators . . . ”
Apparently George has pretty well just aboutwrapped up the case.
What stupendous BS, that Ronnie Wayne doesn’t realize that he talks funny–so Curry meant an “encounter” with Oswald occurred at the entrance of the TSBD. The deduction of dunces.
Actually accent and vernacular is noticed by outsiders more than a local population. When I first moved to Lake Charles, Louisiana, the people I met there thought I was the one that talked funny and used strange phrases. They said I had the same accent as the Beach Boys. Made sense! I was from the same general locale as they. “Tubular man!!”
In the TV age, most people can tell where other people are from.
Although accent and vernacular is an interesting subject, it has only secondary context to the issue at hand. The crux of the matter is that Curry simply did not say, nor intimate that an officer had an encounter with Oswald at the entrance of the TSBD. PERIOD.
Keep in mind as well that Curry had no first hand knowledge of the incident, and was only relating what he had been told by officers under his command.
Therefore the most important and relevant information comes from officer Marion Baker and Roy Truly who acted as Bakers guide as they went up the steps of the building.
This is why the Prayerman cult needs to attempt to impeach those men’s testimonies.
I agree with Leslie, O’Blazney, and Prudhomme; this thread has reached its circle limit.
Let the cards already on the table be read and assessed by the readership.
I also must agree with Leslie that the Prayerman contingent has not made a convincing case – far from it.
\\][//
hahhahaha…
Willy.
You crack me up.
Now only outsiders can tell when someone is speaking in the local idiom?
I don’t think you could get more of an outsider than me and I don’t detect any vernacular at all in Curry’s simple construct.
Then to add to your madcap hilarity, you come out with “Keep in mind as well that Curry had no first hand knowledge of the incident, and was only relating what he had been told by officers under his command.”
In other words you are saying “and even if Curry is NOT speaking in tongues as we claim, and he really did say Baker encountered Oswald at the entrance, it doesn’t matter one whit because it is… wait for it… HEARSAY!”
My 11 points kicks another goal.
The testimony of Chief Jesse E. Curry was taken at 9:15 a.m., on April 15, 1964
Snippet, indicating Curry’s limited personal involvement in the investigation:
. . . . . . . .
Mr. CURRY … Now, as best I recall, it was probably around 4 o’clock when I got to the city hall, and I started to my office on the third floor, and when I got off of the elevator there I could see that there was just pandemonium on the third floor. There was dozens and dozens of newsmen just crammed into the north end of the corridor. There were television cables running from down the halls, from the administrative office, and I went to my office and talked with some of my staff–I don’t recall who all was in there at the time about what was going on, and I was told by someone, I believe Chief Stevenson that they had a man named Oswald whom they believed to .be the murderer of Officer Tippit, and they had been questioning him in Captain Fritz’ office.
Mr. HUBERT – Did they advise you at that time, or did they know to your knowledge that he was also a suspect in regard to the assassination of President Kennedy?
Mr. CURRY – Someone mentioned that he was also a strong suspect in the assassination of the President.
Mr. HUBERT – That was at that same time?
Mr. CURRY – Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT – When you got back there?
Mr. CURRY – After I returned from Love Field.
[…]
Mr. HUBERT – Did you see Oswald then, or when was the first time you saw him?
Mr. CURRY – I don’t recall exactly the first time I saw him, but I believe it was in the evening–in the early evening. When I did see him I remember that he impressed me as being a sullen, arrogant individual, and he didn’t seem particularly perturbed with the fact that he was being interrogated or that he was causing such a commotion he was pretty cool.
Mr. HUBERT – You didn’t question him yourself, did you?
Mr. CURRY – No, sir; I did not.
[…]
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/curry2.htm
\\][//
“George: You’re not fooling anyone. You are asking an irrelevant, evasive question in order to avoiding giving a direct answer to our science.”
OUR science? Just how many entities inhabit your space, Albert?
This is a post-modern version of Sartre’s ‘No Exit’.
I got off the merry-go-round when I noticed we kept passing the same sign over and over that said “I’m with Stupid —>”
Yep, Bob, I’m tired of trying to ride the fence here. Objectivity is not an accepted practice on this thread. Though both “sides” will object to this statement, unless related to the other “side”.
If one agrees with one side on an issue he/she is attacked by the other. If one questions one side he is attacked by the other.
I don’t believe Oswald was a shooter or on the 6th floor.
I question the 2nd floor encounter. Not much is conclusive on his location to me.
I don’t believe he’s prayerman, I don’t believe he’s not.
Yeah Bob, I need my boot’s for this thread. I often wish for hip waders, or chap’s and a leather jock strap when riding the bob whar fence.
Willy, there were 11 points.
“Scurrilous allegations”? Really? Certain posters here were accused by innuendo of being in cahoots with the regular LNers here. Yet it has turned out that the accusers are the ones now in cahoots with those same LNers.
If you can get up the noses of both LNers and the Tin Foul Hat brigade, you gotta be doing something right.
You have been given the information on where to find rational and substantive argument for Oswald being PM. Refer to my point 3 above as to what the issue is with that.
“You have been given the information on where to find rational and substantive argument for Oswald being PM.”~Greg Parker
Are you asserting that this “rational and substantive argument” has been made here on this forum at some point?
Or are you saying that you have made links available where such a “rational and substantive argument” has been made?
\\][//
Prudhomme is over on the Education Forum re-entering two claims that I already refuted over here. Even after catching him posting at the EF that Lovelady was so noticeably taller than Prayer Man that it threatened the Murphy thesis Bob has now revised that claim to saying Lovelady was equal. He also claims Prayer Man is at the back of the portal – totally ignoring the sun glow, aluminum frame orientation, and 2 gifs that show him to be up front. Finally, Bob is now saying camera height skews perspective. Wrong. With Prayer Man and Lovelady/Frazier in the same depth plane, camera height is irrelevant. Prudhomme is obviously seeking inaccurate excuses around that which he is aware disproves Murphy.
I think the public can see all it needs to know about Bob Prudhomme. He most definitely did emphatically say in the Education Forum Prayer Man thread that Lovelady was so noticeably taller than Prayer Man that it threatened Murphy’s thesis. When I cited it and called him on it he changed his tune in a classic case of damage control, revising his previous certainty about the obvious height difference and now changing it to Lovelady being of similar height. He disappeared shortly after – taking ROKC’s cue. It’s all there right in his own words. And, by the way, counter to what he used as an excuse here, Bob had no clarity issues with the Wiegman shot when making that observation. It’s all right there on the record and Bob refuses to give an honest answer to it. So much for Bob and his credibility.
Bob isn’t cautious and isn’t following the argument. If he had a more credible grasp of the science he would realize his revised similar in height claim makes the same mistake ROKC made. You can make that false claim but if you do you’ll trap yourself with the 7 inch issue. If Bob were following the argument more intelligently he would realize that Wiegman consists of a triangulation of Lovelady on the landing and first step down in comparison to Prayer Man. So once you falsely claim Lovelady is of similar height you are then forced by science to account for the 7 inch difference when Lovelady steps down. If you pay attention Bob is aware of this, which is why he carefully muddles his words to avoid answering it. He knows he’s in trouble so he waffles that Lovelady is similar in height or slightly taller. What he conspicuously avoids, however, is accounting for the visible height difference that would necessarily incur once Lovelady moved down one step.
Murphy backers are an arrogant lot who think they are above good arguments or direct answers and can flame in response to what they obviously can’t answer. Lovelady is clearly 2-3 inches taller when on the landing and 4 inches shorter when on the first step down. Precisely what he would be if framing a 5 foot 5 person.
Those who moderate and defend site integrity have failed here.
Now after all of this banter on several threads at JFKfacts (more that 700 posts), we are still left with nothing but a blurry photo and blurrier reasoning.
Can anyone here give us a succinct answer to why we should accept that it is Oswald in the blurry image referred to as Prayerman?
Parker gave us his “10 points” which again consists mainly as scurrilous allegations against his opponents. Where is the rational and substantive argument that can overcome the image itself, which remains a blur that cannot lead to the identity of any person on the steps of TSBD.
\\][//
\\][//
What we have learned from the Prayer Man discussion?
1. That paranoia runs deep (via accusations that some here are working with certain LNs on this. As it turns out, it is the paranoid ones who are now in bed with the nutters doing their damnedest to protect the Warren Commission version of events.
2. That anything a Texan says can be construed to mean anything you need it to mean in the name of upholding the Status Quo.
3. That horses most definitely cannot be made to drink.
4. That no one has a viable alternative to Oswald as PM.
5. The are no limits to the depths of the absurd the counter claims will sink to.
6. That we need to “imagine” what was in the minds of others to understand the impassibility of PM.
7. That no criticism of the Warren Commission in regard to this matter can be entered into.
8. That Harry Holmes has to be disregarded.
9. That Fritz’s notes are forgeries.
10. That evidence is whatever the WC defenders say it is.*
*Hearsay, for instance, IS in fact evidence (no matter how often Willy and friends stamp their feet and deny it. It is just not evidence that is always accepted in courts. Yet the WC accepted truckloads of it. What we have here is a very selective hearsay rule. That is, it’s only NOT evidence when used to support PM. It IS evidence in all other circumstances.
11. Logic and common sense have no part in the debate – otherwise we could not have the situation where the claim is made that someone reading a library card arbitrarily decides it has the name wrong – and changes it according to the way they think it should be.
That people will ignore pure mathematical proof right in front of them that Oswald can’t be Prayer Man and try to get around it with rhetoric…My height argument conclusively proves Prayer Man cannot be Oswald by science.
Your maths, Albert, is just tricky nottery.
I didn’t go on the list simply because I didn’t think to include buffoonery.
Sorry George, but in the real world you can’t answer good arguments, numbers, and science with name-calling like you ROKC guys do. There’s no doubt I confronted Bart Kamp with his own documented words and instead of answering them he scooted. You and Bart were enthusiastically asked to please back-up your claims about our height argument by directly showing where any of the numbers, descriptions, distances, dimensions, or conclusions were wrong? Instead Bart quit and ran. It is very apparent that once forced to admit ROKC’s claims necessitated Lovelady to be a visible 7 inches taller than Prayer Man when on the landing, Kamp and ROKC could not answer this damning conflict and folded. Sorry George but name-calling is not an acceptable response and ROKC has been allowed to get away with it for far too long on too many forums. As George’s inability to credibly respond shows, we have proven this issue and won this debate. The height argument proves Prayer Man can’t be Oswald.
Can you actually name anyone who buys into the voodoo math you and Drew promulgate?
Albert, you’re a one-man freak show. You are only allowed to post on forums because you attract rubber-neckers who might accidentally click on an ad.
Just for record, I don’t get into debates with Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses either. As with you, It just ain’t worth the effort.
Now scoot from under my feet, you li’l rascal, before you get hurt.
George: You’re not fooling anyone. You are asking an irrelevant, evasive question in order to avoiding giving a direct answer to our science. You are simply showing you cannot answer our arguments or science directly nor can you directly show where any of our measurements or claims are wrong. You call it “voodoo math” but then fail to show exactly how? I think every credible person reading this knows that the reason you won’t debate this directly is because you know you’ll lose, like Kamp so painfully did. Your inability to answer my height argument shows why it is proof. I offer firm arguments and math no one can refute. You offer excuses. You can continue to fool yourself but out here in the real world we’ve proven Prayer Man can’t be Oswald. You’re just in denial. You’ve been called-out to show where anything we wrote is wrong and you can’t do it.
What we have learned from the Prayer Man discussion? — George
1. That paranoia runs deep . . .
LS: In what way is someone who challenges your hypothesis paranoid? Arguments that Oswald was a lone nut and arguments that Oswald was set up as a patsy hardly share the same bed when it comes to the Warren Commission. What’s curious is why you delight in corralling the two and positing that Oswald was outside the building in an absurd effort to dismantle all rational analysis of what really happened on 11.22.63. What will you be left with if it’s determined that Oswald was not standing outside the building?
2. That anything a Texan says can be construed to mean anything you need it to mean in the name of upholding the Status Quo.
LS: Your argument revolves around your interpretation of the words of the natives who were raised and lived and worked in a region. You are not qualified.
3. That horses most definitely cannot be made to drink.
LS: Horses recognize when the water is stagnant or contaminated. They refuse to drink.
4. That no one has a viable alternative to Oswald as PM.
LS: Who is looking for a viable alternative for a blurred image, Greg?
5. The are no limits to the depths of the absurd the counter claims will sink to.
LS: And no limits to the heights of spinning a theory by dredging the bottom of the barrel of nuance and subjective interpretation.
6. That we need to “imagine” what was in the minds of others to understand the impassibility of PM.
LS: Curry used the words “I imagine” … who else is imagining things Greg? Oswald turned his library card upright? Where is your proof?
7. That no criticism of the Warren Commission in regard to this matter can be entered into.
LS: Do your research to recognize that the Warren Commission has been ripped to shreds on this site.
8. That Harry Holmes has to be disregarded.
LS: Harry Holmes established in the earliest hours that Oswald was the alleged owner of the alleged assassination weapon. He cannot be trusted to speak on behalf of the accused.
9. That Fritz’s notes are forgeries.
LS: Fritz’s notes were penned days after the interview. That’s the greater vulnerability of them, not whether or not they were forged.
10. That evidence is whatever the WC defenders say it is.*
LS: Ibid. (Item 7)
11. Logic and common sense have no part in the debate . . .
LS: A common sense Texan would say “you’re barkin’ up the wrong tree Mr.” or permutations thereof related to Curry’s words.
George : http://www.wordcounttool.com/ = 691 words
What we have learned from the Prayer Man discussion? — George
1. That paranoia runs deep . . .
LS: In what way is someone who challenges your hypothesis paranoid? Arguments that Oswald was a lone nut and arguments that Oswald was set up as a patsy hardly share the same bed when it comes to the Warren Commission. What’s curious is why you delight in corralling the two and positing that Oswald was outside the building in an absurd effort to dismantle all rational analysis of what really happened on 11.22.63. What will you be left with if it’s determined that Oswald was not standing outside the building?
G. The paranoia being referred to was the part you deleted.
2. That anything a Texan says can be construed to mean anything you need it to mean in the name of upholding the Status Quo.
LS: Your argument revolves around your interpretation of the words of the natives who were raised and lived and worked in a region. You are not qualified.
G. again – you got it all backwards. I don’t need to interpret the words. They were not part of any vernacular. It is YOU who needs a “special” interpretation of them.
3. That horses most definitely cannot be made to drink.
LS: Horses recognize when the water is stagnant or contaminated. They refuse to drink.
G. That you’ve all been guzzling the WC water for 52 years says otherwise.
4. That no one has a viable alternative to Oswald as PM.
LS: Who is looking for a viable alternative for a blurred image, Greg?
G. The blurred image is officially non-existent. He’s the man who wasn’t there. No one saw him. No one admitted being him. Your lack of curiosity speaks volumes.
5. The are no limits to the depths of the absurd the counter claims will sink to.
LS: And no limits to the heights of spinning a theory by dredging the bottom of the barrel of nuance and subjective interpretation.
G. Subjective interpretation is claiming someone making a plain statement in plain English is really speaking in some mysterious dialect that can only be interpreted correctly by anti-PM types.
6. That we need to “imagine” what was in the minds of others to understand the impassibility of PM.
LS: Curry used the words “I imagine” … who else is imagining things Greg? Oswald turned his library card upright? Where is your proof?
G. This is what you stated: “The reason for that” is the testimony that contradicts your claims, Greg. When you stack it against the words Curry used ++++you should consider that he imagined Baker went throughout the building,++++ and you cannot prove he meant that Oswald was outside the building at the time the shots were fired.
7. That no criticism of the Warren Commission in regard to this matter can be entered into.
LS: Do your research to recognize that the Warren Commission has been ripped to shreds on this site.
G. I’m going on what has been stated here in this thread.
8. That Harry Holmes has to be disregarded.
LS: Harry Holmes established in the earliest hours that Oswald was the alleged owner of the alleged assassination weapon. He cannot be trusted to speak on behalf of the accused.
G. Wrong. He was the only person apart from Oswald in that room not trained in the The Reid Interrogation Technique. If you had read my paper on it, you would no the significance.
9. That Fritz’s notes are forgeries.
LS: Fritz’s notes were penned days after the interview. That’s the greater vulnerability of them, not whether or not they were forged.
G. I never specified I learned that they were forged from you. That comes from your moderator.
10. That evidence is whatever the WC defenders say it is.*
LS: Ibid. (Item 7)
G. See my response to item 7.
11. Logic and common sense have no part in the debate . . .
LS: A common sense Texan would say “you’re barkin’ up the wrong tree Mr.” or permutations thereof related to Curry’s words.
G. But a Texan here has already said that Curry’s words were not any type of vernacular.
George, rather than contribute to the prolongation of this thread which is going in circles in spite of the invitation extended you to present your hypothesis in a cogent fashion, I’m going to leave you with the last word in this litany. Others can draw their own conclusions whether or not you are convincing. I assert you are not.
“Greg, I’m anxious to hear your response to jean. Something seems “off” in your assertions about Oswald leaving the building and the upside down registration of his name. I asked you earlier, if his name was recorded in reverse, why wasn’t the address recorded similarly. I don’t recall your response; perhaps you can refresh our memory?”
I apologize for your state of anxiety leslie. It seems to have left you prone to easy confusion as well.
No one said the “registration of his name” was upside down. His name was recorded reading left to right from a card held upside down.
You’re assuming Oswald never realized he was holding the card upside down and put it right way up for the reading of the address.
It’s also possible that people process numbers differently to words.
Bty, there are many many points I have made that I can recall no response to.
Maybe we should compare lists of unresponded to points?
Greg, I can’t seem to find that you’ve made this assertion previously on this thread: ‘Oswald realized he was holding the card upside down and put it right way up …..’
On May 7 you commented: “We know what happened next via Revill’s list. He flashed his library card upside down so that it was written by the cop as “Harvey Lee Oswald”.
I asked you about the address discrepancy and a day or so later Jean Davison also asked: “Do you have any explanation by the way, for the first names being around the wrong way around – or for the address that is listed . . . The “605” was surely from his library card, which had the number 5 written over the correct one . . . ”
And now you are proffering: ‘You’re assuming Oswald never realized he was holding the card upside down and put it right way up for the reading of the address.’
It seems obvious to me that you painted yourself into a corner by stating your theory on May 7 how Oswald’s name was transposed yet you failed to explain why the address was NOT transposed. Now you are scrambling to some degree to argue that we should – on your authority – assume Oswald realized the card was upside down and being a good citizen he quickly turned it where it could be read correctly; but that begs the question, If the address was (almost) correctly recorded on the list, why wasn’t the name struck thru and written as it appeared on the card when the card was read right side up?
Like an amateur director with his first Indy film, in this scenario you have your lead character, Oswald, realizing he was holding the card upside down and honorably putting it right side up for the reading of the address but unfortunately one of your characters is recording the address (nearly) correctly yet failing to make the obvious adjustment to Oswald’s name which was by then ‘staring him in the face’. A script editor would have a field day with this, Greg.
as an aside, or perhaps central, something about your statement seems to contain a double negative: ‘You’re assuming Oswald never realized he was holding the card . . .’ Wouldn’t the more logical phraseology be that YOU are assuming Oswald realized he was holding the card upside down, and YOU don’t understand why I or anyone would challenge your assumption? Would that be more along the lines of what you meant, and might your failure to communicate precisely what you meant have been influenced by how you think and write as a native of the region you grew up in?
“as an aside, or perhaps central, something about your statement seems to contain a double negative: ‘You’re assuming Oswald never realized he was holding the card . .” .Leslie
You really need to look stuff like this up before lecturing. What I said was not a double negative.
“Wouldn’t the more logical phraseology be that YOU are assuming Oswald realized he was holding the card upside down” Leslie
No, because I am not talking about anyone’s assumptions but yours.
and YOU don’t understand why I or anyone would challenge your assumption? Would that be more along the lines of what you meant, and might your failure to communicate precisely what you meant have been influenced by how you think and write as a native of the region you grew up in? Leslie
Blathering on about your own irreverent musings doesn’t help your cause. It simply makes you look desperate to score a point.
“It seems obvious to me that you painted yourself into a corner by stating your theory on May 7 how Oswald’s name was transposed yet you failed to explain why the address was NOT transposed. Now you are scrambling to some degree to argue that we should – on your authority – assume Oswald realized the card was upside down and being a good citizen he quickly turned it where it could be read correctly; but that begs the question, If the address was (almost) correctly recorded on the list, why wasn’t the name struck thru and written as it appeared on the card when the card was read right side up?
Like an amateur director with his first Indy film, in this scenario you have your lead character, Oswald, realizing he was holding the card upside down and honorably putting it right side up for the reading of the address but unfortunately one of your characters is recording the address (nearly) correctly yet failing to make the obvious adjustment to Oswald’s name which was by then ‘staring him in the face’. A script editor would have a field day with this, Greg.”
This from one of the little group defending the status quo by the occasional use of that old favorite “you expect precision from the cops in that high pressure situation yada yada.
Isn’t that the stock excuse for Baker not realizing his big encounter with Oswald was in a second floor lunch room and not the stairwell of the 3rd or 4th floor?
No Leslie. I think it’s far more likely that the cop was completely ignoring how he’d written the name and was now focused on the address.
Do you swallow Jean’s theory that the cops purposely ignored how it was typed and the card and decided his name was most likely “Harvey Lee” and not “Lee Harvey” and wrote THEIR way because they knew better than any stinkin’ library?
“Do you swallow Jean’s theory that the cops purposely ignored how it was typed and the card and decided his name was most likely “Harvey Lee” and not “Lee Harvey” and wrote THEIR way because they knew better than any stinkin’ library”
Greg,
That you’d say this is my theory when I said no such thing is pretty telling, I think.
Here’s my theory. Revill said he got the Elsbeth address from the arresting officers not the name. He didn’t need anyone to tell him who was under arrest. I think the name error must’ve been Revill’s alone. I don’t know why he wrote “Harvey Lee” — or why the other people in the records wrote it that way. But they did.
Search for “Harvey Lee Oswald” (like that, in quotes”) on this page and you’ll see that it was a very common error:
http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/JFK_Assassination.html
[QUOTE]Greg,
That you’d say this is my theory when I said no such thing is pretty telling, I think.[/QUOTE]
Here is what you said, Jean.
[QUOTE]I suspect the first names were reversed because in that era the name “Lee” was a very common middle name in the South — e.g., southerners Tommy Lee Jones and Jerry Lee Lewis. One of Robert Oswald’s two middle names was “Lee.” Because of that, imo, “Lee Harvey” would’ve sounded strange to many Texans, unlike Harvey Lee[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Greg,
That you’d say this is my theory when I said no such thing is pretty telling, I think.[/QUOTE]
Here is what you said, Jean.
[QUOTE]I suspect the first names were reversed because in that era the name “Lee” was a very common middle name in the South — e.g., southerners Tommy Lee Jones and Jerry Lee Lewis.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know any other way to interpret that except that you are saying someone saw the name on the library card and decided it that even though it said Oswald, Lee Harvey – it was really meant to be “Oswald, Harvey Lee” cos goshdarnit, no one in the South has Lee as a first name.
Your insistence that it was written the wrong way a couple of other times is meaningless – unless you’re saying every single time it was written the wrong way, the author of it was a Southerner.
Those darn Southerners! We can interpret their words any way we want – and they themselves can write names any way they want!
Greg,
I didn’t mean that Revill or anyone else *deliberately* reversed the names. It was a mistake they made, possibly because of their familiarity with Lee as a middle name. I don’t know for a fact that was the reason.
What’s *your* explanation for those examples I linked to (and the others in the record) of people reversing the names, if it wasn’t human error?
The name Harvey Lee Oswald was a common error. It showed up in news clippings, letters to the FBI, etc.:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=105771&relPageId=14&search=“Harvey_lee Oswald”
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60397&relPageId=73&search=“Harvey_lee Oswald”
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10537&relPageId=26&search=“harvey_lee oswald”
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62495&relPageId=23&search=“Harvey_Lee Oswald”
Many other examples are in JFK Documents at maryferrell.org.
‘. . . by the occasional use of that old favorite “you expect precision from the cops in that high pressure situation yada yada.’ — George
Huh? Are you saying that “Curry’s statements were precise” about Baker’s pursuit of the crime scene, but his statements referring to The Suspect Negro and The Suspect Subversive are to be weighed cautiously in light of – in your words – ‘the high pressure situation yada yada?’
“Do you swallow Jean’s theory that the cops purposely ignored how it was typed . . . “any stinkin’ library’? — George
Once again, your agenda to insinuate that I agree with Jean Davison on any aspect of the assassination is transparent and comical. We are here momentarily in agreement that your hypothesis alleging Oswald was outside the building is flawed. That binds us briefly, in spite of what is becoming more and more apparent an agenda to confuse and conflate the evidence. Sad indeed, Greg, given the stakes.
Well Leslie, you stated ‘unfortunately one of your characters is recording the address (nearly) correctly yet failing to make the obvious adjustment to Oswald’s name which was by then ‘staring him in the face’.”
to which my response was in stating that you are one of those who excuse Baker from any precision about which floor he was on when he encountered Oswald on the basis of the heightened crisis situation. You really have no other recourse but to excuse him in that way, do you? Yet when it comes to a cop at the door having ID flashed at him in that same heightened crisis situation – you expect he was be attuned to detail.
Bit hypocritical, if you ask me. But I guess that must be a cultural (like everything else).
You’re crying because I say you’re in agreement with Jean on the PM and related issues, and then admit that you ARE in tune with them?
So I’m guilty of accuracy once again?
Unlike you who insinuated that myself and others were working with the LNs on this site in some sort of conspiracy… no evidence to support it – just an agenda-driven smear.
George, before I respond, a question I haven’t seen broached on this site: if Oswald was wearing long sleeves that day, why do we see uncovered forearms of the Prayer Man? Were his sleeves rolled up? And where is the hint of the white T-Shirt Oswald was wearing?
‘Unlike you who insinuated that myself and others were working with the LNs on this site in some sort of conspiracy… no evidence to support it – just an agenda-driven smear.’ – George
If in the end the shoe fits George, you will have to wear it. Why would anyone choose to “smear” you? That sounds paranoid. You’ve assured us that you aren’t overtly/consciously in league with those who argue Oswald was a ‘lone nut’, a term I seldom use for a number of reasons. What I argued is that you will be left with a true conundrum if or when it is proven that Prayer Man is NOT Oswald and through your efforts, the evidence he was inside the building has been muddled, and eventually? Oswald will end up on the 6th Floor precisely where the Warren Commission concluded. As you have yet to establish beyond a doubt that Oswald was outside the building and as you have yet to explain the pre and post allegations about Oswald, i.e. you have not explained the defection to Russia, George deM and Everett Glover and Ruth & Michael Paine, Priscilla Johnson McMillan, events in NOLA, etc. yours is still a work in progress. You took the time to pen an11 point litany of ridicule, why can’t you lay out your fundamental argument in similar fashion? As a sign of good faith, why not take 20, 30, 40 bullet points – as many as necessary to explain your rationale in detail on this forum.
I hope our moderator is not growing weary of these exchanges that lack supporting links, but there really isn’t anything else to sink one’s teeth into bar film footage showing Baker rushing toward the steps which remains unresolved (and on other forums it is clear you too are uncertain about that piece of alleged evidence); a blurry photograph that has introduced a tall can of worms pun intended; and “as he went inside the building”, which has been thoroughtly compromised by the fact that Curry stated 4-5 times that Oswald was IN the building before he said what he imagined Baker did. So unless you anti-up with a concise argument, my contribution to this conversation is exhausted, with the caveat: I would be very interested in your answer to the bare forearms and white T-Shirt question.
“The reason for that” is the testimony that contradicts your claims, Greg. When you stack it against the words Curry used you should consider that he imagined Baker went throughout the building, and you cannot prove he meant that Oswald was outside the building at the time the shots were fired. You can however logically consider that Baker saw Oswald where he said he did further into the building. That is the rational hypothesis, imv, otherwise you’ve got a bunch of liars to contend with don’t you?
It’s pointless to pursue the debate related to Curry’s choice of words with you any further; you can’t know what you don’t know, and your arrogance precludes your from becoming informed. Sounds to me like Curry is a cornerstone of your argument; perhaps that explains your resistance.” – Leslie
—————–
Seems to me, arrogance is insinuating someone is an uneducated hick so you can shoehorn any old meaning you want into every ordinary, mundane sentence hr utters if and when it suits you.
‘You want me prove that when Curry made a plain statement about what happened as he went into a building is actally what he meant.’
A comment using the term “imagine”is hardly a “plain” statement, Greg, assuming I understand your choice of words here. And Curry’s words do not reflect what happened when ‘he’ went into the building, they reflect what Curry imagined occurred when Officer Baker pursued the alleged crime scene. If you’re going to argue precision, maybe you should apply it first to your own comments.
Leslie, I see. So the word “imagine” is not used in its ordinary meaning in Texas. It too, is part of the vernacular. Like “into”.
Wow! Do you have any idea how ridiculous your arguments are getting as you squirm to defend the official version of events?
Greg, I’m even more skeptical of your boisterous arguments now that I have taken the time to transcribe a portion of Curry’s live interviews specific to Baker’s pursuit of the crime scene. In addition to possible misinterpretation and failure to grasp the dialect of the region, you’ve taken Curry’s statement “as he went into the building” out of context.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tjgH8o4Adw
Min. 5:25
Reporter: Could you detail for us what lead you to Oswald?
Chief Curry: Not exactly except uh IN the building we uh, when we uh went to the building, why (a colloquialism), he was observed INthe building at the time but the manager told us that he worked there and the officers passed him ON UP (a colloquialism) then because the manager said he was an employee . . .
Note: Curry used the phrase, IN: are you arguing he meant ‘at the entrance of the building’? If so, why didn’t Curry say “at the entrance of the building” in this earlier statement”
Note: Curry also said ‘passed him ON UP’. How do you interpret that phrase? Baker passed Oswald “up” on some stairs? or did Curry mean, “they passed on by Oswald”? If it was “on up”, what stairs was Curry referring to? If he meant they passed “on by” Oswald, why didn’t Curry say “the officers passed him ON BY”?
Continuing:
Min. 6:41
Reporter: Did you say chief that a policeman had seen him IN the building?
Chief Curry: Yes
Note: Curry affirms his own previous statement that a policeman saw Oswald IN the building.
Note: At this juncture, why didn’t he say, “as he went into the building?”
Reporter: After the shot was fired?
Chief Curry: Yes
Reporter: uh why didn’t he uh arrest him then?
Chief Curry: Because the manager of the place told us that he was an employee, ‘said he’s alright he’s an empoyee.”
Reporter: Did he look suspicious to the policeman at this point?
Chief Curry: Iya‘magine the policeman was checkin’ everyone he saw as he went inta the building.
Note: This is not a parody but how anyone listening to Curry would transcribe his statement. The meaning of a term or phrase can also be effected by the inflection; for instance, “inta” the building means as Baker pursued the crime scene, from the second he hit the steps, after which he did not pass Oswald on the top level, and then encountered him “IN” the building as he said in his first two statements.
Min.10:42:
Reporter: And you have the witness who places him there after the time of the shooting.
Chief Curry: My police officer can place him there after the shooting.
Reporter: Your officer wanted to stop him and then was told by the manager that he worked there.
Note: If there were other individuals standing around where you allege Baker first encountered Oswald ‘as he went into the building’ why didn’t Truly say “don’t worry about “THOSE” people, they all work here?
“The quirks of Dallas are not superior or inferior to any other regional or national quirks, they’re just different; the simple fact is they must be taken into consideration when evaluating the drama of events related to the scene of the crime, Dallas. The issue has surfaced on numerous occasions on this site; unless you’re familiar with and factor in the vernacular, the social, economic and ideological dynamics of the city, you won’t understand why the conspiracy and the ongoing cover up were successful.” Leslie
Your problem here is that you cannot demonstrate that what he said was in any vernacular. You haven’t even bothered demonstrating that that Curry used any vernacular. Your whole original spiel was all but pained Curry as an uneducated hick from the boondocks. Unfortunately for you, his bio data says otherwise.
“Ask yourself how Curry’s equal in Chicago or Miami might have phrased things.” They would have phrased it the same way, or very similarly. Because like Curry, they were very likely not uneducated hicks. Or maybe you think the Chicagoan would have said something like “Man, dat dude done footworking into dat buildin shakin down every hipster he eyeballed.”
“Your underlying defensiveness is showing – by gosh those Texans aren’t all that special – and may well be distorting your interpretations.” My defensiveness? LOL Nowhere has anyone used so many words, stretched so much credulity or chutzpahed so much claptrap in defense of the Warren Commission as you and your very own Smiley Burnett, Willy Boy.
“Curry was likely referring to Baker’s activities throughout the building and you cannot prove otherwise. This particular piece of alleged proof that Oswald was outside the building does not hold up under scrutiny.”
This is a prime example. You want me prove that when Curry made a plain statement about what happened as he went into a building is actally what he meant.
Sorry, but in the real world, the onus is on you to prove he meant something else. So far, all you have given is your insistence that a simple, everyday phrase was some sort of esoteric Texan vernacular. However, Not one piece of evidence for that proposition has been forthcoming.
There’s a reason for that.
“The reason for that” is the testimony that contradicts your claims, Greg. When you stack it against the words Curry used you should consider that he imagined Baker went throughout the building, and you cannot prove he meant that Oswald was outside the building at the time the shots were fired. You can however logically consider that Baker saw Oswald where he said he did further into the building. That is the rational hypothesis, imv, otherwise you’ve got a bunch of liars to contend with don’t you?
It’s pointless to pursue the debate related to Curry’s choice of words with you any further; you can’t know what you don’t know, and your arrogance precludes your from becoming informed. Sounds to me like Curry is a cornerstone of your argument; perhaps that explains your resistance.
“The reason for that” is the testimony that contradicts your claims, Greg.” Leslie.
Of course testimony contradicts first day evidence. That was the whole point of the Commission.
[quote]Revill said he got the Elsbeth address from the cops who arrested Oswald and I see no reason to doubt it:[/quote]
Good. So that would have been investigated, no?
Firstly as to who exactly it was who gave that address and how they managed to get it slightly wrong… and secondly, someone would have been dispatched IMMEDIATELY t that address.
But neither of those things happened, did it Jean? Nor any explanation as to how the first two names ended up back to front.
Revill gave a vague and non-committal answer so that it can’t be proven a lie. You don’t really expect he is going to admit the name and address came from the cop who stopped him at the front door just as Oswald’s alibi and news reports imply?
Greg,
The police first checked out Oswald’s current known addresses in Irving and Oak Cliff instead of rushing to the one on his library card, which listed a previous employer and was therefore older.
If you’ll search the maryferrell archive you’ll find quite a few examples of the name written as “Harvey Lee,” including a translation of a Russian document. I’m sure none of these people ever saw Oswald’s driver’s license.
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57016&search=%22harvey_lee%22+AND+oswald#relPageId=82&tab=page
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96215&relPageId=41&search=“harvey_lee” AND Oswald
“Revill gave a vague and non-committal answer so that it can’t be proven a lie. You don’t really expect he is going to admit the name and address came from the cop who stopped him at the front door just as Oswald’s alibi and news reports imply?”
Revill was “non-committal” because he wasn’t sure who’d given him the address. He had nothing to “admit,” because the building wasn’t sealed off when Oswald left. People were still going in and out (e.g., the reporter, some of the workers who’d been outside — see CE 1361 mentioned earlier).
Library card, not driver’s license. Duh.
We know that James Hosty was very much involved with Oswald. When Revill got to City Hall (around 2:45 PM), he encountered Hosty in the garage.
Hosty ran up to him excited and told him, “a Communist killed President Kennedy”. Hosty then said it was Lee Harvey Oswald, “He’s in our communist file. We knew he was here in Dallas.”
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=40&search=#relPageId=43&tab=page
We know that Hosty knew most everything about Oswald, in particular where he lived. It is most likely that Oswald was working with Hosty in Oswald’s operation to infiltrate Bannister and Ferrie’s project with the Cuban Exiles and the JMWave CIA faction. Hosty was almost certainly involved in setting Oswald up as the patsy.
But apparently Hosty was only just a bit forthcoming with Revill, just enough to plant the “Commie” label on Oswald.
Revill seemed genuinely baffled as to why Hosty hadn’t notified the Dallas Criminal Intelligence Unit about Oswald, and that FBI thought Oswald “capable” of assassination.
\\][//
Willy
Speaking of Hosty, here is his account of where Oswald said he was, courtesy of FBI Agents Bookhout and Hosty’s co-written first day interrogation report (11/22/63).
“Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch. Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building”.
“Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building”
“Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building”
~Vanessa
You are completely ignoring the first predicate sentences:
“Oswald stated that he went to lunch at approximately noon and he claimed he ate his lunch on the first floor in the lunchroom; however he went to the second floor where the Coca-Cola machine was located and obtained a bottle of Coca-Cola for his lunch.”
. . . . .
Where was Oswald when the shots were fired at Kennedy? Eating his lunch in the Domino Room of the TSBD. Shortly thereafter he went up the corner stairs from that 1st floor lunchroom to the 2nd floor lunchroom that had coke machines. There he bought a coke shortly before being confronted by officer Marion Baker. Roy Truly assured Baker that Oswald was an employee there, and Baker let Oswald go and went on his way with Truly.
Oswald then went from that lunchroom across the office next to it where he encountered Mrs Reid as they both passed her desk going in opposite directions. It is not certain where Oswald went from there and which route he took to leave the building.
This is the only reasonable proposition that I have found to determine Oswald’s whereabouts during the shooting.
\\][//
Yep. Then bookhout reversed the order of events in his solo report
“Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home.”
So according to this, Oswald was getting his coke on the 2nd floor, got shaken down by a cop, then came down, casually ate lunch in the domino room amid the mayhem, then went outside, stood around for an age with Shelley, then left.
This is the BS that Fritz cribbed his notes from after Oswald was dead.
This lunch time fairy tale only survived in fact, because Oswald was killed.
If Bookhout had contemporaneous notes from the interrogations that this solo report was based on, how is it he signed off on a different version of Oswald’s alibi prior to this?
Moreover, it is normal clerical and bureaucratic practice to note that you are correcting a report and the reasons for the corrections. Here, we get nothing. Just a whole different version bereft of any clarification for the need for the change.
Everyone has had their say, insulted each other, presented opinions, repetitively and even some facts. Going forward, this is an example of the level of supported commentary that has some chance of appearing in this discussion. I expect there will be few additional comments.
Part I of II
Part II of II
“Gee Greg, you seem to know so much about Texas and Dallas and how people behave there-but have you ever even been to the state or the city?”
It would be more accurate to say I have a pretty god idea of what they did and and said from the extant record. Which is precisely why you wouldn’t put it that way.
Texas is not unique. Every place on earth has its regional quirks.
‘Texas is not unique. Every place on earth has its regional quirks.’
Texas bravado, let alone parodies and caricatures of ‘Texans’ has nothing to do with what has been introduced related to Curry’s earliest statements. The quirks of Dallas are not superior or inferior to any other regional or national quirks, they’re just different; the simple fact is they must be taken into consideration when evaluating the drama of events related to the scene of the crime, Dallas. The issue has surfaced on numerous occasions on this site; unless you’re familiar with and factor in the vernacular, the social, economic and ideological dynamics of the city, you won’t understand why the conspiracy and the ongoing cover up were successful. Ask yourself how Curry’s equal in Chicago or Miami might have phrased things. Your underlying defensiveness is showing – by gosh those Texans aren’t all that special – and may well be distorting your interpretations. Curry was likely referring to Baker’s activities throughout the building and you cannot prove otherwise. This particular piece of alleged proof that Oswald was outside the building does not hold up under scrutiny.
So you have never been there. Never been to Austin, one of the most liberal cities in the U.S. Never been to San Antonio. Never been to Houston. And yet you are an expert on Texas and Texas “culture”-a state with more diversity and population than your entire country. Sorry Greg, you are just another Conspiracy wannabe with little practical knowledge of specific venues aside from stereotypical impressions formed by second hand sources. How you can pontificate on and on about your Prayerman baloney when it is obvious that you have never even been to the space in question and never even seen the TSBD in person is beyond me-as anybody who visits the TSBD and Dealey Plaza soon recognizes that distances and perceptions gleaned only from photographs are greatly misleading. Ergo, the assumptions made based on inaccurate perceptions of distances. (eg. Ignorance of the true dimensions of the “Grassy Knoll”) often lead to inaccurate conclusions ( such as the actual size of the Prayerman entrance and what can and cannot be visible from the street.)
Greg, I suggest that you go to Dalles and see the TSBD; such a trip has cured many of Conspiracy fever – if they are willing to open their eyes.
“So you have never been there. Never been to Austin, one of the most liberal cities in the U.S. Never been to San Antonio. Never been to Houston. And yet you are an expert on Texas and Texas “culture”-a state with more diversity and population than your entire country. Sorry Greg, you are just another Conspiracy wannabe with little practical knowledge of specific venues aside from stereotypical impressions formed by second hand sources.”
This is too funny for words. Accusing me of stereotyping when it is those on your side of this debate who are arguing that Curry is a stereotypical Texan so that they can twist ordinary language into whatever they want it to mean.
But Photon if you’ve never been to Australia how do you know how diverse we are compared to Texas?
Apart from the ‘credibility’ and ‘credentials’ angles I think that the ‘foreign alien’ angle is one of your favourite “go to’s” to avoid discussing the facts.
I have been to Texas and the English spoken there was not so unusual that “as he went into the building” meant “as he searched the building” or “as he went through the building”.
I’ve been to the TSBD and the Knoll. There was a little track worn in the grass next to the Grassy Knoll fence where all those ‘cured’ of conspiracy fever went to have a look at the second gunman.
Please cite some examples of a Texan saying “as he went into the building” and meaning something else other than the plain English reading of that statement.
Vanessa,
You are asserting that Baker went into the building and didn’t go any further than the entry way, which is of course absurd.
Your argument is absurd, and it is doubly absurd that you keep pushing it.
\\][//
“Vanessa,
You are asserting that Baker went into the building and didn’t go any further than the entry way, which is of course absurd.
Your argument is absurd, and it is doubly absurd that you keep pushing it.”
Nothing of the sort is being asserted. Baker encountered a number of people who had just gone in a head of him. Curry was trying to cover for why Oswald would be singled out among them for questioning by saying he (Baker) probably checked everyone out that he saw as he went in. The rest of the building search was not under discussion.
Of course not Willy. I’m asserting that the encounter which Curry and the reporters are discussing – Baker meeting Oswald happened “as he went into the building”.
(PS Thanks Parker.
btw what time is the Blood Oath Ceremony this week? I’ve got the guinea pig for the sacrificial offering).
There you go Tom, something for you to spread around the internet. 🙂
“I’m asserting that the encounter which Curry and the reporters are discussing – Baker meeting Oswald happened “as he went into the building”.
~Vanessa
And I am reminding you once again that Curry makes no mention of an “encounter” — YOU are interjecting that term into Curry’s dialog.
Baker stated that the encounter happened up the stairs. Truly stated that the encounter happened up the stairs. YOU know this, and insist everybody that made a statement that spoils you little game here are liars.
This thread has gone on for more than 600 comments on this nonsense attempting to back up your blurry photo, and none of you or your cult have produced anything even slightly reasonable. Are you going to repeat your tripe for another 600 posts? Another 1,000 posts?
Until Doomsday?
At least you aren’t sacrificing an abby in your ritual…
\\][//
Willy
I did not say that Curry used the word ‘encounter’.
I am using that word to discuss whatever happened when Baker and Oswald had an interaction in the TSBD. Call it a ‘meeting’ if you want, call it an ‘interaction’. Personally I think ‘encounter’ is the best description.
What I am saying is that Curry is referring to the ‘interaction’ between Baker and Oswald and the specific location he mentions is “as he went into the building”.
Just for you, Willy I am going to post the 4 different versions at 4 different times that Baker gave of his encounter in the TSBD. Just waiting for a day off to write it.
” A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” is an obscenity in Oz , but just a colloquial saying in Texas.
Um Photon, no it isn’t. It has the same meaning here that it does in the USA.
But, please weren’t you finding some examples of Texans saying “as he went into the building” meaning something else?
Or can’t you find any?
We don’t live in Oz.
But if you prefer to distract with colloquial euphemisms.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Or if you prefer, spit in one hand, wish in the other, see which one fills up first.
Keep wishing the Warren Omission was True.
Oh Photon,
Uhhhh, I have been to Dallas on four separate occasions, and unlike the members of the WO, I have proof of my visit, and my attempts to learn what really happened on November 22nd. The first time was in 1981, and the the fourth time was in 2014. I have also been to all of the Texas cities you mentioned. I am not quite sure what visiting the site has to do with interpreting the “evidence,” but I can tell you that the “official version” kinda falls apart when you stand next to the sixth floor window and you can see that the first shot that LHO supposedly fired and missed was, BY FAR, the easiest of the three. And, you also realize that Howard Brennan’s identification of LHO’s clothing and his standing/kneeling/praying is even more dubious, unless he had Superman’s vision, which is possible since you have told us the JFK’s neck was made of carbon fiber or titanium, which caused the magic bullet to be even more magical.
So feel free to rag on Vanessa all you wish, but I would be glad to discuss the “facts” of this case if you would like to talk to someone who has made multiple visits to Dallas.
How do you know when the first shot was fired?
You betray your ignorance of JFK’s cushingoid features with your carbon fiber-titanium comment. Apparently you do not realize that muscles, tendons,ligaments,bone are composed of what can be described as “carbon fibers”-mostly arraigned in an alpha helix.
Oh Photon,
“How do you know when the first shot was fired?” I don’t. Do you? Could you enlighten me? What I DO know is if the first shot occurred as the limousine was coming towards the TSBD, or as the car turned the corner, then one could have dropped a baseball on JFK’s head from the 6th floor, if indeed there was a shooter there. How do I know this? Because I have stood next to the 6th floor window on three separate occasions. Have you, Photon? Or, is this another case of your “expertise,” when in fact you are blowing smoke?
JFK’s neck was similar to carbon fiber? That’s odd. The last race car I looked at was made up of actual carbon fibers, not human flesh and ligaments, etc. Is this some more of your gas?
I really don’t know if a man who is not required to give a real name, a working e-mail address, and is sitting at the local Starbucks or in his mother’s basement is really qualified to speak about anyone’s intelligence. Do you, Photon? You NEVER post a single piece of evidence to back up your goofy assertions. You should be grateful to Tom S., because you are the only member on this site that is allowed such freedom. It really is kind of sad that YOU didn’t serve on the WC, because you would have been a PERFECT commissioner/investigator. No proof required, no evidence required, refusal to reveal qualifications—you would have made Gerald Ford or Arlen proud!
Obviously Photon has watched AVATAR one too many times:
“Apparently you do not realize that muscles, tendons,ligaments,bone are composed of what can be described as “carbon fibers”-mostly arraigned in an alpha helix.”~Dr Photon
Hahaha!!
\\][//
Steve, next time you visit Dallas e-mail me a few weeks in advance. Jeff and Tom here by have my release to give it to you.
It’s a fascinating place in some respects but I wouldn’t want to live there.
Oh Photon,
BTW, my trips to Dallas have yet to cure me of any fever, but reading that Allen Dulles and John McCloy were on the board of directors for the United Fruit Company when the US government decided to do a little invading of foreign countries to help the mega rich DID cause me to wonder those two “upstanding men” ended up on a blue ribbon commission that was “investigating” a murder of a president.
But then i remembered this is US democracy at its finest—a murderer sets up a commission filled with murderers to investigate a murder. Kinda cool how that works, huh Photon? I mean, I was hoping that John Dillinger had survived so he could have been on the jury for Al Capone. You?
Photon, I live in Texas. Born and raised. Ask me.
I live in Indiana, was raised in Southern California, and watched TV growing up. I used to watch DALLAS with Larry (I Dream of Jeanie) Hagman. Most of us are familiar with the Texas vernacular and accent.
That is why Vanessa’s assertions about Curry’s remarks seemed especially disingenuous to a lot of us.
“Boy howdy!”
\\][//
Willy, I’ve responded to this but the reply is up the thread about 10 posts.
Vanessa,
You complain to me saying; “I did not say that Curry used the word ‘encounter’.”
Then you turn around and say, “Personally I think ‘encounter’ is the best description,” after inviting me to, “Call it a ‘meeting’ if you want, call it an ‘interaction’.”
So why the complaint that you did not use the word ‘encounter’ and the needless verbiage to only end up saying it is “the best description”???
Can’t you see why it is so frustrating to read your loopy commentary here? You just went in a circle there for no rational reason whatsoever.
Then you repeat your assertion that this “interaction” took place “as he went into the building” without adding any more support to that assertion than you did before. DESPITE the fact that Baker himself said that the encounter took place further up the stairs.
\\][//
Willy
We seem to be having a massive failure to communicate here. I’m not sure why.
Curry did not use the word ‘encounter’ to describe the meeting between Oswald/Baker/Truly.
I did not say that Curry used the word ‘encounter’ to describe their meeting.
I used that word to describe their meeting.
Curry only refers to Baker seeing Oswald and then Oswald being cleared by Truly as being suspicious as he is an employee.
Curry doesn’t mention what Baker said to Oswald that made Truly speak up for Oswald.
I refer to this Baker/Truly/Oswald incident as an ‘encounter’.
Now let me get to posting the Baker evidence iterations.
PS meant to say ‘Truly cleared Oswald as NOT being suspicious because he was an employee’.
[quote]So there is this grimoire referred to as the Warren Report. Which is indeed a book of spells meant to put one in the trance of acceptance of the spin that is put on the information therein. It is agreed that this report is a “lie’ in the impression it attempts to give.
Yet the Warren Commission Report and attendant 26 volumes, in fact holds the keys to it’s own destruction as per it’s skewed conclusions. In aggregate the testimony proves that Oswald could not possibly be the shooter. That the Manlicher Carcano was in fact just a stage prop and was never fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963. All of this information is contained within the pages of the report and 26 volumes of hearings.
It was Garrison’s reading of this report and hearings that he realized that the conclusions conflict with the data used to reach the false conclusion.
So we are often confronted with adversaries who bawl out in a knee-jerk reaction, “Oh that is from the Warren Report and everyone knows it is a big lie!”[/quote]
No. What we are often confronted with is people who generalize and paint with broad brushes.
That Oswald was on the first floor, and for a very short time, on the front steps during the relevant periods is NOT proven by claiming the whole of the 26 volumes are a pack of lies. It is proven by the totality of the evidence which particular regard to Peter Dale Scott’s theory about the negative template – which involves looking very closely at the evidence ignored or buried by the commission.
You (and the Commission) can only arrive at your conclusions about where Oswald was and about the veracity of the 2nd floor lunch room encounter by ignoring everything bar the final versions of the story which emerged only during the hearings.
This approach o evaluating ALL of the evidence – with particular regard to the earliest and to ignored and buried – is as far from a knee-jerk as you can get.
The reactionary knee jerk comes in the responses – a defense of the Warren Commission versions and a continual denial of all other evidence.
It is the “Three Wise Monkeys” approach and you are welcome to it.
So there is this grimoire referred to as the Warren Report. Which is indeed a book of spells meant to put one in the trance of acceptance of the spin that is put on the information therein. It is agreed that this report is a “lie’ in the impression it attempts to give.
Yet the Warren Commission Report and attendant 26 volumes, in fact holds the keys to it’s own destruction as per it’s skewed conclusions. In aggregate the testimony proves that Oswald could not possibly be the shooter. That the Manlicher Carcano was in fact just a stage prop and was never fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963. All of this information is contained within the pages of the report and 26 volumes of hearings.
It was Garrison’s reading of this report and hearings that he realized that the conclusions conflict with the data used to reach the false conclusion.
So we are often confronted with adversaries who bawl out in a knee-jerk reaction, “Oh that is from the Warren Report and everyone knows it is a big lie!” But then these same people will cite testimony from the report chosen for their own agenda, claiming that the testimony was led by the interrogators, or that the witnesses themselves had a motive for lying. And they spin it to support their argument. Of course in the first place this is utter hypocrisy to say in a blanket statement that nothing in the Report is trustworthy, and then turn around and use those statements in ones argument.
Of course there ARE other critical sources of information from principal players, Fletcher Prouty being of prime importance, Garrison another from another angle, Mark Lane and a legion of other primary researchers. Much of their work puts the lie to the Warren Report by reporting the facts as they were in 1963 as opposed to the spin put on those facts by the commission.
This case is much more complex than attempting to identify a character in a blurry photograph. It is in fact an unnecessary and spurious attempt, as Oswald in fact has a solid alibi, not only for that day and time of the hour, but as to who and what he really was. Oswald was an agent of OSI working to infiltrate the Cuban Exile community and Bannister and Ferrie’s connections to them. What he found was the connection of US intelligence involvement with the fore described milieu. This made him the most likely candidate for a patsy to take the fall for the assassination. It would get rid of Oswald’s findings as well as frame him for the perpetrators crime.
As in all historical cases, this one must be analyzed from a systemic perspective. Grasping the means and methods, the modus operandi of the System itself is of the essence. The architecture of modern political power must be understood in its entirety. A forensic assessment of history gives us the blueprints and schematics for this architecture.
\\][//
Hi Willy
Just curious to know which piece of evidence tells you the rifle, C2766, was never fired on 22/11/63.
Prudhomme was there the whole time it was proven that there is no chain of custody for CE399. This leads to the conclusion that it was a planted bullet, ergo; it was not fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963.
\\][//
Just curious, what method was in place and available to researchers to enable someone to know that the Carcano was not fired on 11/22/1963?
Just another made-up conspiracy myth.
The first 4 links in the chain of custody of the bullet found a Parkland are unable to identify it as CE399.
They are:
1. Orderly Darrell Tomlinson >>
2. Parkland hospital security director O.P. Wright >>
3. SS Agent Richard Johnsen >>
4. Agent Rowley (Secret Service Chief).
A break in the chain of custody at this proximate point proves that the bullet of record, CE399 is NOT the bullet found at parkland, and therefor CE399 is a planted bullet by the highest authorities themselves.
Let me remind you once again: A memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas on June 20th to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet”
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59607#relPageId=29
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59607#relPageId=86
Warren Commission Testimony vol. VI
TESTIMONY OF DARRELL C. TOMLINSON
The testimony of Darrell C. Tomlinson was taken on March 20, 1964, at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Arlen Specter, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission
http://jfklancer.com/docs.maps/tomlinson.html
However, at the time Tomlinson was questioned by Specter, he had not seen CE399. When Tomlinson finally did see CE399, he said that it was not the bullet he found at Parkland.
The Parkland Bullet is a distinct and different bullet from CE399.
\\][//
There was no way to physically identify if a round had been fired from the Carcano on 11/22/1963. All the rest of your ” chain of custody” nonsense is not supported by anybody who would actually know the specifics of the legal principle ie. a trial lawyer. Willy, can you give us a judge who supports your interpretation of ” chain of custody ” in this case?
Photon can you give us a judge who disputes my interpretation of ” chain of custody ” in this case?
Chain of Custody
Paul C. Giannelli
Case Western University School of Law, paul.giannelli@case.edu (1996)
Crime Scene Protocol 1963
It was standard practice and mandated by FBI protocol in 1963 (up until the 1980s) to mark a shell or hull with a unique mark for chains of custody.
“Police Markings”
See:
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Handbook of Forensic Science 100 (rev. ed. 1984); C. O’Hara
…
“Burden and Standard of Proof
The burden of proving the chain of custody rests with the party offering the evidence. Prior to the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the courts described the standard of proof in various ways. The most common expression of the standard was that the offering party had to establish the identity and condition of the exhibit by a “reasonable probability.” Phrases such as “reasonable certainty” and “reasonable assurance” seem only variants of this standard. The reasonable probability standard appears to require no more than the “preponderance of evidence” or “more probable than not” standard, and some courts have explicitly expressed the standard in those terms. This standard is the typical standard in evidence law. Under this view, chain of custody “requirements go to the competency of the evidence, not merely to its credibility.” Under this view, the trial court determines whether this standard has been satisfied.”
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1344&context=faculty_publications
\\][//
Come on Willy, your source makes no mention of the JFK case and in no way is an endorsement of your theory. It specifically mentions a rifle found at a crime scene by a third party, but that does not apply to this case, where the rifle was found by the police.are you implying that your High School graduate level of legal expertise trumps every trial lawyer and judge in this country? I asked you for an example of a judge who agrees with your interpretation of the chain of custody issues in this case. You have never been able to do so-because there probably are none. Linking to an article that makes no reference to this case and then claiming that it supports your viewpoint is disingenuous at the least, deliberate obfuscation at the worst.
I am still waiting for that magic firearms test that proves that the Carcano wasn’t fired on 11/22/1963, which you specifically claimed in your previous post.
Sometimes it is best to avoid a topic that you really don’t know much about instead of making unsubstantiated claims that you can’t back up with real sources.
“I am still waiting for that magic firearms test that proves that the Carcano wasn’t fired on 11/22/1963, which you specifically claimed in your previous post.”~Photon
There is no “magic firearms test,” Photon. There is the chain of custody issue which you cannot defeat so you are trying to distract from the actual issue at hand.
\\][//
Photon,
It is very clear:
“The burden of proving the chain of custody rests with the party offering the evidence”.~Paul C. Giannelli – book, ‘Chain of Custody’
\\][//
CE399 was a stage prop, like most of the so-called “evidence” in the JFK case.
https://i0.wp.com/www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide5-1.GIF
https://i0.wp.com/www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide6.GIF
\\][//
What does the chain of custody for CE 399 have to do with whether or not C2766 was fired on 22/11/63?
If it could be proven it was shot from that gun on that date it would support somebody shooting that gun that day.
Since this is not provable it’s a moot point
I’m wrong again Bob, it’s not a moot point.
“What does the chain of custody for CE 399 have to do with whether or not C2766 was fired on 22/11/63?”~Bob Prudhomme
Seriously Bob?
The fact that the Parkland Bullet is not CE399, can only lead to one logical conclusion; CE399 is a planted bullet.
Ergo, if the bullet was planted, it was not fired from C2766 on 11/22/1963.
Additionally it is hard evidence of official malfeasance, an attempt to frame an innocent man for murder.
\\][//
Willy
This is the kind of circular logic that allows the WC apologists to label us as “kooks”, and it is a very difficult thing to prove them wrong on this with people like you on our side.
Think over your argument for a minute. You are saying CE 399 was not fired from C2766, therefore no other bullets were fired from C2766 on 22/11/63.
There could have been 1000 rounds fired from C2766 on 22/11/63, and the chain of custody problems with CE 399 would be totally unrelated to this.
“Think over your argument for a minute. You are saying CE 399 was not fired from C2766, therefore no other bullets were fired from C2766 on 22/11/63.”~Prudhomme
A most perceptive observation Bob! Do you know of any other Mannlicher Carcano bullets that were proved to have been fired on 11/22/1963?
\\][//
Now let me ask you this Prudhomme;
Is it your intent to put that rifle in Oswald’s hand shooting at Kennedy on 11/22/1963?
You are already intent on erasing Oswald’s alibi of eating in the Domino Rm and going up to buy a coke. All to try to back up your blurry picture of “Prayerman” as Oswald.
I say that you and all your comrades in this effort are on a fools errand.
\\][//
Willy
I have fired bullets from a rifle into a hillside, and been completely unable to find any of them. Just because no bullets were produced, does not mean C2766 was not fired on 22/11/63.
Two mistaken assumptions, something you are becoming famous for; on this forum and others.
1. I am trying to put the rifle in Oswald’s hands on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination.
2. I am trying to destroy Oswald’s alibi about eating lunch on the 1st floor.
Neither of these are true. I am simply asking you for proof C2766 was not fired on 22/11/63, the same as I am asking you for proof Baker ascended the steps of the TSBD, immediately after crossing the Elm St. extension.
What you fail to realize is the JFK murder case is chock full of assumptions such as these, and it is very likely many of these assumptions were fuelled by the very perpetrators of the coverup.
P.S.
One more mistaken assumption you have made, Willy. Without a shred of evidence to back you up, you have included me in the “PM has to be Oswald” crowd.
At the very least, you seem to be quite consistent, if nothing else.
“I am simply asking you for proof C2766 was not fired on 22/11/63″~Prudhomme
You are making the logical fallacy of asking me to prove a negative Bob.
It is up to you to prove there were other Carcano bullets fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963.
As far as your other complaints they have been dealt with adequately here.
If you are NOT a supporter of the Prayerman assertions, what IS your trip Bob?
\\][//
No, Willy, I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you something very simple.
How do you know C2766 was not fired on 22/11/63?
What is my trip? My trip is tripping up fools such as you who “know” so many things about this case, especially things that no one can prove. That also includes fools who just “know” that PM was Oswald, despite the fact a true ID cannot be made.
It is people that “know” so much about this case that have kept the investigation from going anywhere, and driven any sane thinking person away from this case.
“What is my trip? My trip is tripping up fools such as you who “know” so many things about this case, especially things that no one can prove.”
~Prudhomme
Mr Prudhomme plays fast and loose with the word “fool” here, while at the same time denying the obvious fact that he is asking me to prove a negative, when asking me to prove there were no other Carcano bullets fired in Dealey Plaza. As I point out it is Mr Prudhommes place to prove that there were other Carcano bullets fired — to prove a positive.
“Positive/Negative” like black/white. Does Mr Prudhomme know the difference between black and white? It is that simple.
He doesn’t seem to grasp that since CE399 is proven to be a planted bullet, that this precludes any assertions that the Mannlicher-Carcano C2766 was fired in Dealey Plaza UNLESS it can be proven that other Carcano bullets were fired.
Mr Prudhomme has made no effort to prove such.
Mr Prudhomme has made no argument that CE399 is the bullet found at Parkland Hospital. This is the one wise thing Mr Prudhomme has done, not making an obvious losing argument such as that, as the evidence is clear that the chain of custody is broken.
Mr Prudhomme after long debate in favor of the arguments FOR the Prayerman assertion, now denies that he has been of the opinion that it is likely Oswald on those steps. Fine, I will accept that with a certain sense of wonder and reservation after all that has gone down on this page.
I want to also note that these assertions that my arguments are in agreement with the “LN” faction is spurious defamation. Also the assertion that my arguments have somehow given that side aid in comfort is an obvious falsehood.
My argument is and remains that the Prayerman assertion is based on a blurry photograph that cannot identify any person on the steps to the TSBD, and that all of the arguments made beside that to support the Prayerman assertion are irrational, fallacious, and disingenuous.
\\][//
Federal Rules of Evidence # 406
Habit; Routine Practice
“Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.”
–Chain of Custody by Paul C. Giannelli
. . . . .
This rule officiates the concept of Modus Operandi as relevant evidence in criminal law.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What does this mean in our argument about CE399 Mr Prudhomme?
It means that the MO has been established that CE399 was a planted bullet. This extends to an MO that would plant other evidence in the attempt to frame Oswald.
Moreover this MO of Intelligence agencies to coerce, plant evidence, and corrupt crime scenes is extant in their known histories of operations.
\\][//
Sorry, Willy, I was unaware of the fact we were discussing CE 399. I never mentioned C 399, and merely asked you how you knew C2766 was never fired on 22/11/63.
“I never mentioned C 399, and merely asked you how you knew C2766 was never fired on 22/11/63.”
~Prudhomme
What kind of bullets does a Mannlicher Carcano fire Bob?
\\][//
“Here is Curry again: “I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building.””
“I imagine” means he’s speculating. It’s a guess.
Why would Baker check everyone he saw near the entrance? Did he think the shots came from the front steps or nearby? Of course not. He was trying to get to the stairs and the roof.
On the same page of this transcript Curry mentions that he’d been reading the local news. He said (on another topic), “I read in the paper where someone said…”
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140&relPageId=785&search=curry_AND “i imagine” AND policeman
This was on Saturday “p.m.” Maybe he’d also read a story claiming Oswald had been seen on the 1st floor and assumed it was accurate.
[quote]“Here is Curry again: “I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building.””
“I imagine” means he’s speculating. It’s a guess.[/quote]
Yes, but why is he s[eculating about checking everyone?
Let’s look at the thing in context Jean:
Q: Did you say chief that a policeman had seen in the building?
Curry: Yes.
Q: After the shots were fired?
Curry: Yes.
Q: Why didn’t he arrest him then?
Curry: Because the manager of the place told us he was an employee; said “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.
——————-
Curry is caught by the question, which in essence, was asking why Oswald was singled out for questioning. He tried to get out of it by suggesting it was not just Oswald – everyone was being checked out. The follow-up question should have been “but then why was Oswald the only one challenged by the officer?” but luckily for him, the question never came. His “I imagine” was simply Curry being equivocal to avoid specifics. You know, like you, Leslie and Willy.
[quote]On the same page of this transcript Curry mentions that he’d been reading the local news. He said (on another topic), “I read in the paper where someone said…”[/quote]
Jean, the “Oswald being confronted by a cop at the entrance stories” in the newspapers that weekend all came from Detective Hicks.
No matter what OTHER information the papers had about OTHER aspects, the police themselves KNEW Oswald was questioned by a cop at the entrance. And it wasn’t Baker for the very reason you insist. It was a ludicrous place to suspect a shooter. And it was equally ludicrous to single one person out – unless they were in fact acting suspiciously – but then you would take them in, wouldn’t you? And we know that never happened.
No. Oswald was challenged by a cop later, as he tried to leave. And as stated by Oswald and recorded by Holmes, he was told to stand aside so his details could be taken. We know what happened next via Revill’s list. He flashed his library card upside down so that it was written by the cop as “Harvey Lee Oswald”. He was then cleared to leave – the first one to do so, thus explaining his name at the very top of the list.
“Curry is caught by the question, which in essence, was asking why Oswald was singled out for questioning.”
Okay, why WAS Oswald singled out for questioning? The other employees said they weren’t allowed to leave until mid-afternoon. What’s so special about Oswald that he was allowed to go?
The building was sealed off and Barrett, at the door, said he wasn’t letting anybody out that early except lawmen. Should I add Barrett to the liars list?
“His “I imagine” was simply Curry being equivocal to avoid specifics. You know, like you, Leslie and Willy.”
Ha, good one, Greg. I’m the one avoiding specifics.
“Jean, the “Oswald being confronted by a cop at the entrance stories” in the newspapers that weekend all came from Detective Hicks.”
Thanks, I didn’t know that. Do you mean J.B. Hicks, who said he didn’t report for work until around 3 p.m. that day? How would he know?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hicks.htm
“No matter what OTHER information the papers had about OTHER aspects, the police themselves KNEW Oswald was questioned by a cop at the entrance.”
They “knew” this from Hicks, who wasn’t there?
“No. Oswald was challenged by a cop later, as he tried to leave. And as stated by Oswald and recorded by Holmes,…”
As incorrectly recalled by Holmes in April 1964, contradicting several other witnesses to the interrogation.
Should I add Revill to the list of liars (how many does that make, btw?).
[quote]Okay, why WAS Oswald singled out for questioning? The other employees said they weren’t allowed to leave until mid-afternoon. What’s so special about Oswald that he was allowed to go?[/quote]
That’s just it Jean. He wasn’t singled out. He went through the same process as everyone else – except he was first.
[quote]The building was sealed off and Barrett, at the door, said he wasn’t letting anybody out that early except lawmen. Should I add Barrett to the liars list?[/quote]
Now Jean… you are once again reverting to type – the old stock standard responses. How many liars were there in the Watergate Scandal? Do you think for a Texan minute that good ol’ boy Barnett is gonna admit letting Oswald out? Do you think he’s gonna let Team DPD down like that? You surely can’t be serious.
[quote]Thanks, I didn’t know that. Do you mean J.B. Hicks, who said he didn’t report for work until around 3 p.m. that day? How would he know?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hicks.htm
“No matter what OTHER information the papers had about OTHER aspects, the police themselves KNEW Oswald was questioned by a cop at the entrance.”
They “knew” this from Hicks, who wasn’t there?[/quote]
Was I wrong aout you? That you had better than average critical thinking skills?
No Jean – they didn’t know from him. He knew from them.
Why do you think there was no retraction from the police? They much preferred to just forget the story and bury it under a barrage of evidence leaks. rather than wake that sleeping giant and prod reporters to probe further into it.
“No. Oswald was challenged by a cop later, as he tried to leave. And as stated by Oswald and recorded by Holmes,…”
[quote]As incorrectly recalled by Holmes in April 1964, contradicting several other witnesses to the interrogation.
Should I add Revill to the list of liars (how many does that make, btw?).[/quote]
Incorrectly recalled? LOL. Out front with Bill Shelley. Went to second floor to buy coke. Ate lunch on first floor. Saw 2 others come in – Jarman and Norman, etc etc, all in the reports of others.
Who says Reuill has to be added to your list? His office simply compiled the report from the data gathered by the cops at the TSBD.
Oswald being on top of that list is a good indicator that he was on top of the list handed in.
Do you have any explanation by the way, for the first names being around the wrong way around – or for the address that is listed? You’re aware no doubt that this is used by the Oswald theorists, while others claim the info was given by Col. Jones of the 112th MIG. No evidence for either of those claims. My claim is just common sense. He had a library card with that address – and if flashed upside down, his name reads as Harvey Lee Oswald – just as shown on the list. No conspiracy BS and NO LN bs about it – just a common sense solution from the known facts. Those inside had to give name and contact details before leaving and that is exactly what Oswald did.
Gee Greg, you seem to know so much about Texas and Dallas and how people behave there-but have you ever even been to the state or the city?
Your claims are not consistant with Photon’s Paradox.
Greg,
Oswald didn’t check out at the door, he was out of there before the building was sealed off. We know this from knowing the approximate times he directed a reporter to a phone on his way out, arrived at Beckley, etc.
CE 1361 (signed statements from every other employee) shows that no one still in the building was allowed to leave right away. E.g., Georgia Hendrix said she left about 2:20 p.m. after being checked out by the police. All these witnesses answered the same questions, including “did you see Oswald at the time of the shooting?”.
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=679&tab=page
When you say, “Out front with Bill Shelley. Went to second floor to buy coke. Ate lunch on first floor…..” you’ve got it backwards. Both in Fritz’s notes and Bookhout’s report, the sequence is that he had lunch on the 1st floor, THEN “out front” with Shelley. (see 5/1 3:33 post above)
Revill said he got the Elsbeth address from the cops who arrested Oswald and I see no reason to doubt it:
QUOTE:
Mr. RANKIN. And the words 605 Elsbeth Street, was that given by you?
Mr. REVILL. Yes, sir; this is the address we were given or I was given by some of the officers involved in the arrest.
Mr. RANKIN. Who gave that to you?
Mr. REVILL. I believe Detective Carroll, Carroll or Detective Taylor, they were both there.
Mr. RANKIN. And was that at the time you made this out that you were given that information?
Mr. REVILL. Shortly before I made this out.
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=40&relPageId=51&search=“605_elsbeth”
“Do you have any explanation by the way, for the first names being around the wrong way around – or for the address that is listed?”
The “605” was surely from his library card, which had the number 5 written over the correct one:
http://s25.postimg.org/z7yt07byn/LHO_Library_Card.jpg
Oswald had the card on him when he was arrested.
I suspect the first names were reversed because in that era the name “Lee” was a very common middle name in the South — e.g., southerners Tommy Lee Jones and Jerry Lee Lewis. One of Robert Oswald’s two middle names was “Lee.” Because of that, imo, “Lee Harvey” would’ve sounded strange to many Texans, unlike Harvey Lee. Revill’s list isn’t the only record in which these two names were reversed.
People make mistakes.
Greg, I’m anxious to hear your response to jean. Something seems “off” in your assertions about Oswald leaving the building and the upside down registration of his name. I asked you earlier, if his name was recorded in reverse, why wasn’t the address recorded similarly. I don’t recall your response; perhaps you can refresh our memory?
Ah, Photon’s ever changing paradox. What criteria are we using this time? For the uninitiated, please state your so-called paradox.
“Well y’all were gonna be “going into” this mess as deep as we can ’till we got it all figgered out”~Texan vernacular
This isn’t just “Texan vernacular” Greg, this is Good Ol’Boy vernacular throughout the entire South…and beyond. You and Vanessa are grasping at straws. Your whole raft has splintered into loose straws…and you are waterlogged and sinking, “glub glub”
\\][//
I ask Leslie for a specific example in the vernacular where a Texan might use “into the building” instead of “throughout the building” and instead, I get the above from Willy.
There is a reason why no specific example has been given.
You can’t even show any of the Dallas cops saying anything like the above, let alone using “into” for “throughout”.
There is a reason why you can’t.
Moreover, the person being attacked by you and Leslie for allegedly speaking like a hick, was not exactly Jethro Bodene.
Curry graduated high school and studied optometry for a while before getting a regular job. At the time he entered the police force, he was a small business owner. After entering, he worked his way up partially on the back of passing public service exams. He also went through studies at SMU.
The broad brush you are painting with shows your desperation.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
” . . . using parody while illustrating your point. . .” — George
The very fact you think this phrase is a parody proves my point: ‘He was ridin’ out to where the cattle were and came up on a buncha rattlesnakes in the herd’, I recall hearing similar phraseology growing up and I wasn’t living inside a Larry McMurtry film; he and L’Amour et al recorded what they heard, not vice versa. You’ve mistakenly interpreted it as parody, an indication that you may well have misinterpreted the words of witnesses and authorities including Jesse Curry. Prove me wrong. I know people whose family members would have known Jesse Curry personally so you shouldn’t suggest I haven’t studied this. I did not say he was semi-literate. That’s your interpretation of my words and a projection of parody when in fact Curry responded as most Texans would have to define Baker’s search throughout the building. This coming from someone who has for decades researched the tenants and owners of the school book business so I’m no apologist for Truly et al; but distortion of the testimony to place Oswald outside the building is counter productive and possibly a dishonest model.
The true veneer in this debate is a blurred, still- frame extracted from film footage that you’ve attempted to lacquer over with arguments that the testimony is as you have interpreted it for no other rationale than to support your argument that Oswald was where you want him to have been.
Why do you need Oswald to be outside the building when the testimony that he was inside but not in a position to have fired shots from the sniper’s nest is sufficient to establish him as the patsy?
Leslie
I did respond to your comments about Texan vernacular but the comment is back up this thread where we were discussing Curry’s hallway exchange with reporters.
“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?
[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.
\\][//
Your denials have been duly noted.
Not that they amount to much.
So desperate, you’re willing to call a real person captured on film as fictitious.
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.
[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.
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. 😉
No no George, you were on the wrong page; it’s this one:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/forensics-ballistics-jfk/#comment-13426
\\][//
“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.
\\][//
\\][//
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”.
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.
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.
Thank you ILL and D’Amour Library, Western New England University.
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.
Very impressive letter George! We’ll said!
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.]
\\][//
An Open Letter to the People of America
http://gregparke4.wix.com/gregrparker#!An-Open-Letter-to-the-People-of-America/c1q8z/56cee8c90cf29064e5f16064
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/
\\][//
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
\\][//
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.
Hi Tom
How long do you plan to allow Albert’s defamation campaign to continue?
Hi Pot ….errr I mean Bob,
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.
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.
It’s your circus, Tom, and you are welcome to it. Have at it.
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?
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.
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.
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!
\\][//
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.
\\][//
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.
\\][//
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.