Comment of the week

Lee Farley – April 18

There is always “that guy” isn’t there?

Here we go:

1. Comments were made about Prayer Man on a thread entitled “What is the most important piece of JFK assassination evidence?”

2. Bill Kelly, who has his head buried in the sand about Prayer Man, has spread misinformation about Prayer Man, does not want to face the facts concerning Prayer Man, and believes the pursuit of millions more pieces of paper is a much more useful exercise than helping get HD scans of the films, made a complaint that a couple of comments made by Bart and Vanessa should be moved.
3. Tom immediately moved them citing that they were “off topic”
4. Yet the majority of topics on the Air Force One thread are not about Air Force One and are also off topic. They, by some twisted logic are okay to stay in situ.
5. Therefore, the allegation is thus, Tom Scully moved the said comments out of bias against Prayer Man. The reason? Because Prayer Man is now firmly associated with the members of Reopen Kennedy Case.
6. Tom doesn’t like Reopen Kennedy Case because he was banned from there
7. Therefore, he has been asked why he has acted this way concerning the topic of Prayer Man but has not acted this way concerning any of the other topics on the AF1 thread.
8. Tom, upon being asked why he has demonstrated this bias immediately brought up the treatment that he believes he received whilst a member of ROKC.

So, if that doesn’t tell you all there is to know about the moderator here and why he moved the comments from the thread entitled “WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF JFK ASSASSINATION EVIDENCE?”, a thread where Prayer Man BELONGS by the way, then I can’t help you.

As far as you taking exception to my being here, spare me, please. It won’t work. If you want to speak to me about your feelings, your experiences, your likes/dislikes – then knock yourself out but don’t think to speak on behalf others. I’m sure they’re all perfectly capable of doing that for themselves. I have written a two part reply to Willy further up that explains exactly why all of the type of behaviour that Tom has demonstrated relates to the issue of Prayer Man and is further evidence of certain individuals being incredibly afraid of what Prayer Man might ultimately mean.

204 comments

  1. ” . . . further evidence of certain individuals being incredibly afraid of what Prayer Man might ultimately mean.” — Lee Farley

    Mr. Farley, TomS as moderator of this site with a weekly responsibility of determining what constitutes “comment of the week” has chosen yours.

    I’m a frequent commenter here. My question of you is who exactly are these “certain individuals being incredibly afraid of what Prayer Man might ultimately mean? ”

    It’s a very simple question: WHO might be “incredibly afraid” of what the PM might mean?

    Admittedly I am very deliberately holding your feet to the fire, especially if you continue to be afforded the respect of engaging on this forum. You seem a rational person; why make sensational claims without supporting documents? Who precisely is afraid of what the Prayer Man theory might ultimately mean? Some names Mr. Farley?

    • George says:

      “Mr. Farley, TomS as moderator of this site with a weekly responsibility of determining what constitutes “comment of the week” has chosen yours.}”

      Yup. Tom is showing us all how wrong certain of us have been about him. I know kids who are angels in front of adults, too… but then sneak off and burn the barn down and blame everyone else aftewards.

      The ones who remove comments about it on a thread asking about what people think is the best new research and then claim it was “off topic’.

      People who bar discussion of it altogether (Deep Politics and Greg Bunham’s forum) and those who allow it only so that they can control it an steer it and and try and change perceptions of it to something that it a joke (MacRae’s forum). Then there are those who DELIBERATELY conflate Cinque and Fetzer’s nonsense re Doorway Man with Prayer pretending it is the same thing… or those who claim it is just a photo that is comparable to the Badge Man Rorschach Test where you see a person that does not exist at all. There are too many in those last two categories to name.

      • So to get this straight, you want to discuss the discussion, is that right? Do you intend to bring to this forum the facts, distilled to a succinct series of comments with source links, to support the Prayer Man theory? So far, it seems to me that you’re attempting to redirect the readers who check in on this site to other forums, ironically perhaps those hosted by you and yours?

        • George says:

          Yes… do it get it straight.

          1. I am responding to what is being thrown about.
          2. I happy to discuss PM.
          3. I am not going to debate PM here because
          ( a ) The level of knowledge displayed on the subject is low (thus my request for people who want to talk about it, to read up on it first.
          ( b ) in any case, some of those have no real interest in PM, they just want to argue for their own perverse reasons
          4. You were doing so well on the assassination…. I mean reading one post, I almost thought, gee – he must have hacked my computer… you were so so close… a few more steps… and then you turn around with a completely crap observation about me wanting to redirect traffic to my site. Listen up genius. If I wanted to do that, don’t you think I’d provide a link? Not only haven’t I given one to my site, I haven’t linked it into the “name” “email” website” thing. Hell, I haven’t even NAMED my site here, FFS.

          I mean, this is the level of crap I get and you want me to be “nice” in return?

  2. Okay Farley,

    You have your very own thread to make your case for Prayer Man.

    Let us have your substantive argument, rather than your hyperventilating hyperbole and complaints.

    What do you have? What do you hope to have in the future? And what is the distinction between the two?
    \\][//

  3. eddy says:

    I think ‘Prayer man’ is fascinating, because the case that it is Oswald has several promising threads. I can imagine he drifted into place with hardly anyone noticing, and then noone recalling he was there. I think the theory has been damaged by straying off into discussions as to the sequence of events that are conjecture. One fact appears to be inviolable; nobody has given a demonstrable alternative to Oswald.

    • Photon says:

      Actually Duncan MacRae has made a very convincing case that Prayer Man is actually a woman wearing a coat with 3 identified buttons.
      That is certainly an alternative to Oswald. You really don’t know much about this topic, do you? Perhaps everybody fascinated with this top is can tell us what the man with the Stetson is doing.

      • Eddy says:

        I read Duncan MacRae’s posts until they became ludicrous. He has admitted he never seriously believed the theory, and was using it as a device to challenge the Prayer Man proponents.

        Did he actually conclude who she was after I got bored?

  4. I think that it would be spectacular if it could be proven that this image of so-called “Prayer Man” could be proven to be Lee Harvey Oswald!

    It would have to be rock solid clear, no “maybe” about it. But if the original film can be located and analyzed by independent professionals, with clear unambiguous results, it would be the game changer. It would prove conclusively beyond the slightest doubt that Oswald could not have shot JFK.

    While I think the overall evidence already proves this is another issue all together. I would be thrilled if it can be proved that Prayer Man is truly Oswald.
    \\][//

    • Vanessa says:

      That is what we are trying our darndest to do, Willy. We think this is a massive game changer.

      If anyone with professional qualifications wants to email 6FM or NBC Archives regarding releasing the film for enhancement that would be great.

      And would add to the number of requests flowing their way.

      • “We think this is a massive game changer.”~Vanessa

        Yes, Vanessa it is unmistakable that this is what you and your crowd think. While it could be, it isn’t yet, and that is where you and your comrades come into conflict with others, by posing as if the proof is already in the pudding. IT IS NOT.

        It remains CONJECTURE, who the person in the shadows is. Don’t loose sight of this, because that is when you start to piss off reasonable people.
        \\][//

        • Vanessa says:

          Willy, we are seeking the film for enhancement so clearly we don’t think it’s Game Over.

          However, I personally think the documentary evidence stands by itself in showing that Oswald was on the steps.

          Are you willing to discuss just 2 of the list of documents I put on the other (now closed)thread?

          This is Baker’s first day affidavit.

          Friday November 22, 1963 I was riding motorcycle escort for the President of the United States. At approximately 12:30 pm I was on Houston Street and the President’s car had made a left turn from Houston onto Elm Street. Just as I approached Elm Street and Houston I heard three shots. I realized those shots were rifle shots and I began to try to figure out where they came from. I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building. As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were. A man stepped forward and stated he was the building manager and that he would show me where the stairs were. I followed the man to the rear of the building and he said, “Let’s take the elevator.” The elevator was hung several floors up so we used the stairs instead. As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me. The manager said, “I know that man, he works here.” I then turned the man loose and went up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5’9″, 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket.

          There is no mention of a 2nd floor lunchroom encounter here and the description of the employee does not match Oswald or his clothing. But Baker does mention encountering people at the entrance of the TSBD.

          Here is a small portion of Cpt Fritz’s WC testimony.

          Mr. BALL. At that time didn’t you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
          Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him–I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.

          Baker or Truly tells Fritz that they met Oswald on ‘the stairway’. But the ‘investigation shows’ they actually met Oswald in the lunchroom.

          Fritz seems to be saying that Baker initially told him that he met Oswald on a stairway. But the investigation found that Baker had actually met Oswald in the lunchroom.

          These documents raise some questions including:

          1. Why did the investigation show Baker met Oswald on the 2nd floor when Baker initially said he met him on the stairway?

          2. Why didn’t Baker mention meeting Oswald in the lunchroom?

          3. Why doesn’t Baker’s description match Oswald?

          4. How could Baker confuse the lunchroom with the stairs as the location he met Oswald?

          • “Why did the investigation show Baker met Oswald on the 2nd floor when Baker initially said he met him on the stairway?”~Vanessa

            Because he wasn’t as familiar as Truly with the TBDB. He is in an unfamiliar setting, in a rush of excitement.

            Truly’s 11/23/1963 affidavit:
            http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0487-001.gif

            \\][//

          • “Willy, we are seeking the film for enhancement so clearly we don’t think it’s Game Over.
            […]
            Are you willing to discuss just 2 of the list of documents I put on the other (now closed)thread?”

            No Vanessa, I am going to simply state the facts and skip any of your attempts at rumination.

            The fact is you have an image that is smudged, blurred and useless as identification. That is the bottom line – everything else is mere conjecture.
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Willy

            Baker was a trained policeman. How could he confuse an encounter on the stairway with an encounter in a room? A room he had to open the door to get into.

            And if you are going to maintain that Baker could not tell the difference between stairs and a room then I don’t see how you can rely on his evidence at all.

            Baker’s 1st day statement with no lunchroom encounter is a fact.

            Fritz’s WC testimony stating that Baker’s meeting with Oswald was changed from the stairway to the lunchroom is a fact.

            Baker wasn’t confused about where he met Oswald at all.

            But his evidence had to be changed (Fritz says so) to get Oswald off the ground floor of the TSBD.

            Because Oswald could not have possibly shot the President from there.

          • Pardon me for noticing Vanessa, but you and your Prayerman cult are making the same arguments about Oswald not being in the lunchroom that the Warren cult has been making all these years.

            So those arguments are well known and firmly dealt with here already.

            You do not have ANYTHING but a blurred image, the rest is biased rhetorical nonsense trying to cover for the fact that you don’t have anything but presumptions.
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Willy, you seem determined not to see the point I am making with Fritz’s testimony.

            He openly acknowledges that the investigation changed Baker’s view on where he met Oswald. Doesn’t that raise any red flags with you?

            Here’s another fact for you Willy.

            In a phone call between Hoover and LBJ on 29 November Hoover says this.

            “J. Edgar Hoover: He would have been hit three times from the fifth floor of that building where we found the gun and the wrapping paper in which the gun was wrapped… and upon which we found the full fingerprints of this man Oswald. On that floor we found the three empty shells that had been fired and one shell that had not been fired… He then threw the gun aside and came down. At the entrance of the building, he was stopped by a police officer and some manager in
            the building told the police officer, “Well, he’s all right. He works there. You needn’t hold him.” They let him go… And then he got on a bus… He went out to his home and got ahold of a jacket…. and he came back downtown… etc.”

            The operative words here are “At the entrance of the building, he was stopped by a police officer and some manager in
            the building told the police officer, “Well, he’s all right. He works there. You needn’t hold him.” They let him go….”

            Hoover says “At the entrance of the building”. The entrance of the building is not on the 2nd floor and it is not a lunchroom.

            How do you explain this statement by Hoover?

          • ” . . . He then threw the gun aside and came down. . . He went out to his home and got ahold of a jacket…. and he came back downtown… ” JE Hoover as presented by Vanessa Loney

            Vanessa, if you’re going to argue that FBI Director Hoover’s words hold keys to the Prayer Man case then you’ll have to address the discrepancies in his earliest statements: 1) the shooter “threw the gun aside .. . ” we know that the rifle was carefully placed some tens of feet from the sniper’s nest; 2) “he came back downtown” . . . where is the evidence that Oswald (that’s who Hoover is speaking of) traveled back downtown?

            You can’t have your cake — Dir. Hoover’s earliest statements when speaking with Lyndon Johnson are fraught with errors. Weaving his comments into the Prayer Man hypothesis only raises further red flags to the suggestion that Oswald was outside the building. I read Sean Murphy’s interpretation of the responses that Oswald made to a reporter in those early hours while he was in custody. ‘Sean Murphy’s interpretation’ is the operative phrase. Oswald had every opportunity to state loud and clear “I was outside the building” at the time of the assassination. He did not.

            Oswald was in the middle of a cat and mouse game of the mind, his and those who maneuvered him into the building at 411 Elm weeks before Kennedy arrived in Dallas.

          • Vanessa says:

            Thanks for your response Leslie.

            I respectfully submit that getting the entrance of the building confused with the 2nd floor lunchroom is a bigger error than saying “Oswald threw the rifle down” instead of “Oswald placed the rifle down” or something similar.

            Where Baker met Oswald is a crucial piece of the entire case against Oswald. If the meeting happened on the 1st floor (ie ground floor) then Oswald could not have been the shooter.

            If the encounter happened on the 2nd floor then it’s in the realm of debate.

            But if Hoover’s phrasing is sloppy how about in Oswald’s own words?

            Here’s the WC testimony of postal inspector Harry Holmes on what Oswald said in custody on the Sunday morning.

            Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?
            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.
            Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor?
            Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor.

            Mr. HOLMES. There was a commotion outside, which he later rushed downstairs to go out to see what was going on. He didn’t say whether he took the stairs down. He didn’t say whether he took the elevator down.
            But he went downstairs, and as he went out the front, it seems as though he did have a coke with him, or he stopped at the coke machine, or somebody else was trying to get a coke, but there was a coke involved.
            He mentioned something about a coke. But a police officer asked him who he was, and just as he started to identify himself, his superintendent came up and said, “He is one of our men.” And the policeman said, “Well, you step aside for a little bit.”
            Then another man rushed in past him as he started out the door, in this vestibule part of it, and flashed some kind of credential and he said, “Where is your telephone, where is your telephone, and said I am so and so, where is your telephone.”
            And he said, “I didn’t look at the credential. I don’t know who he said he was, and I just pointed to the phone and said, ‘there it is,’ and went on out the door.”

            Holmes says that Oswald said he was on the “First floor. The front entrance to the first floor”.

            That is pretty clear.

          • Vanessa says:

            Willy, yes that’s the WC’s version of what happened on the 2nd floor. And it’s as truthful as the rest of the WCR.

            Is that what you are referring to?

            Or are you referring to the 2 vestibules issue?

            if so, I’ve only ever known a ‘vestibule’ to refer to the entrance part of a building to what we would call a lobby or a foyer. I don’t call doors on a hallway a ‘vestibule’.

            Or do you mean something else?

          • Vanessa says:

            Here’s some more evidence of where Oswald said he was courtey of FBI Agents Bookhout and Hosty’s co-written first 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 Kennedy passed the TSBD.

          • “Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting?
            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.”~Vanessa

            Can you read a plat Vanessa? I have posted an image of the plat of the 2nd Floor of the Book Depository Building. The vestibule is clearly on the 2nd Floor. There is only ONE vestibule in that building – that is where Baker encountered Oswald by ALL accounts…whether the witnesses actually knew where the vestibule was located or not.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “But if Hoover’s phrasing is sloppy how about in Oswald’s own words?

            Here’s the WC testimony of postal inspector Harry Holmes on what Oswald said in custody on the Sunday morning.”

            Those are not Oswald’s own words, they are Harry Holmes’ own words in April 1964. What’s more, Holmes’s words contradict his 12/1963 report which states that Oswald claimed to be on an upper floor at the time of the shooting (2nd paragraph here):

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=660&tab=page

            What you quoted might be described as “garbled hearsay.”

            Oswald’s actual own words were recorded on film.

            QUOTE:
            Reporter: Did you shoot the president?

            Oswald: I work in that building.

            Reporter: Were you in that building at the time?

            Oswald: Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir.
            UNQUOTE

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

            Incidentally, isn’t that a strange response to “Did you shoot the president?”

            Not, “No, I was standing on the front steps with several coworkers at the time,” which any sane innocent man would say if it were true, but “I work in that building.”

          • “Or are you referring to the 2 vestibules issue?”
            ~Vanessa

            There is only ONE vestibule in the TBDB, it is on the second floor a small double door area from the hallway leading to the room with the coke machine.
            Oswald went there to buy a coke while eating lunch in the first floor lunch room.

            There are NO COKE MACHINES at the front doors on TBDB, there is no vestibule inside the front doors, just a hallway leading into the building.

            Notice that the room with the coke machines is on the second floor on the OTHER SIDE of the building from the front entrance and outer steps.
            \\][//

          • QUOTE:
            Reporter: Did you shoot the president?

            Oswald: I work in that building.

            Reporter: Were you in that building at the time?

            Oswald: Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir.
            UNQUOTE
            . . . .

            “Incidentally, isn’t that a strange response to “Did you shoot the president?”~Jean Davison

            You are misframing this encounter Jean, many questions were being shouted at Oswald, and you cherry pick that one answer to highlight it. You know as well as anyone else here that Oswald denied shooting the President. He said, “I didn’t shoot anybody”.

            Play straight here Jean, we have enough BS from these Prayerman cultists on this thread, we don’t need the Warren cultists stirring the same pot with two opposing spoons.
            \\][//

          • Vanessa, if Harry Holmes’ testimony is the best on offer as proof that Oswald was Prayer Man, you don’t have much. His is second hand and would most likely be relegated to ‘hear say’; he was not even authorized to be in any interrogation of Oswald. He was an invited guest and who knows what prompted that. So the very man who places the alleged murder weapon in the possession of Oswald becomes the voice of Oswald, the accused? I would think anyone pursuing justice for Oswald would find that objectionable.

            In the youtube film linked in another comment, I asked how could Baker pass Prayer Man on the steps and then encounter him anyplace, on any floor minutes later? If Oswald was PM how did he scoot around Baker and manage to be in front of the search rather than following him in the door? Perhaps this is addressed by the experts on this hypothesis on other sites, but if we’re teasing out the primary facts here on this site, can someone just answer a few fundamental questions?

          • It is my position that the only words spoken by Oswald while he was in custody that can be judged reliable, are the words he said on camera to the press.

            What anybody else claims he said is hearsay. Oswald should have been recorded during interrogation. He wasn’t, that is the fault of the authorities. They blew the whole case, from crime scene investigation to follow up.
            The ‘Keystone Cops’ excuse doesn’t fly. It was not incompetence, it was collaboration with the plot to frame Oswald.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Don’t miss the main point, Willy. Oswald said he was inside the building when JFK was shot.

            “Prayer Man” wasn’t Oswald — he said so himself.

          • “Don’t miss the main point, Willy. Oswald said he was inside the building when JFK was shot.

            “Prayer Man” wasn’t Oswald — he said so himself.”

            Okay Jean, I agree with you there. He did say he was inside the building, and that IS the main point here.
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Leslie

            I’m presenting the documentary evidence here for Prayer Man being on the 1st floor (ie ground floor) when the President passed the building. So far we have:

            1. Baker’s 1st day affidavit;
            2. Hoover & LBJ’s phone call;
            3. Fritz’s WC testimony;
            4. Holmes’ WC testimony; and
            5. I’ve just posted Bookhout and Hosty’s report.

            And I’ve got about 4 more pieces to post.

            All these documents are on Sean Murphy’s PM thread on the Ed Forum but he puts them together in a much more compelling and logical way than me.

            But I can’t seem to persuade anyone on here to have a look at Sean’s thread so I’m posting the documents here fyi.

            So, no I’m not just relying on Holmes’ testimony.

            Some of these documents explicitly state that Oswald was at the entrance of the TSBD and some just say ‘1st floor’ without specifying a location.

            Put together all these documents place the Baker/Oswald meeting either at the PM position or just inside the front doors in the TSBD lobby area including the small storage room.

            I’ll put the rest up and you’ll see what I mean.

          • Vanessa says:

            Willy

            Here is google’s definition of a vestibule:

            “an antechamber, hall, or lobby next to the outer door of a building”.

            “Next to the outer door of the building”.

            The front entrance of the TSBD meets this definition of ‘vestibule’ – the 2nd floor does not.

            Oswald was referring to the vestibule on the 1st floor (ie ground floor) as Holmes’ said he did.

          • “Oswald was referring to the vestibule on the 1st floor (ie ground floor) as Holmes’ said he did.”~Vanessa

            For fifty years or more NOBODY has ever had a problem with using the word vestibule to describe that small room between the hallway and the snack room and adjoining lunchroom.

            That is until the Prayerman cult came along with the idea of fitting everything into a little box to support a blurry photograph to “prove” that smudged, fuzzy image is actually Oswald.

            Vestibule is in fact the PERFECT term to describe that small area with doorways to several other rooms in connection to the outer hallway.
            \\][//

          • “1. Baker’s 1st day affidavit”~Vanessa

            Baker’s 1st day affidavit say’s, Quote:

            “As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me.”
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Leslie

            Here is the Washington Post of 11/23/63

            “He apparently got out of the building during the time we were surrounding it” Curry said. As an officer rushed into the building Oswald rushed out. The policeman permitted him to pass after the building manager told the policeman that Oswald was an employee.

            “He apparently lost himself in the crowd then” Curry added.

            As an officer rushed into the building Oswald rushed out.

          • Vanessa says:

            Willy

            It may be that no-one has had a problem with the word ‘vestibule’ for 50 years. That does not mean it was where Oswald was actually referring to.

            We’ve only discovered PM after 50 years. Whether he is Oswald or not that is still a new discovery.

            Who knows where this all will lead us?

            (For example there is now a case to be made that Oswald never lived at Nth Beckley just like he claimed in his interrogation).

          • Vanessa says:

            Jean

            We’ve been over this before with the TV interview.

            As mentioned in my post to Leslie we have 2 possible locations for the encounter between Baker and Oswald. The 1st is at the PM position and the 2nd is in the lobby.

            And his statement about working in that building would seem to put the encounter in the lobby (or indeed the vestibule).

            As Holmes’ said he did.

          • Vanessa says:

            Willy

            Baker’s 1st day affidavit does not match with the final WC story on where Baker met Oswald.

            According to the WC it happened in a lunchroom on the second floor where Oswald (coke in hand) was coolly standing next to a coke machine.

            Baker’s evidence went through several iterations before becoming the official story we know today. As Fritz said in his WC testimony it was changed.

            Sean Murphy spells out the evolution of Baker’s evidence much better than me on Ed Forum. It happened over a number of months.

          • Vanessa says:

            Another day, another document.

            Sean Murphy (ED Forum) “In March 1964 the managing editor of the Dallas Morning News gathered together the personal recollections of fifty-one press people relating to the assassination and its aftermath.

            DMN reporter Kent Biffle was one of these fifty-one. Included in his piece is the moment when Roy Truly alerted the police to the ‘missing’ status of employee Lee Oswald. Biffle then adds the following fact:

            “The [TSBD] superintendent [Truly] would recall later that he & a policeman met Oswald as they charged into the building after the shots were fired.”

          • “The [TSBD] superintendent [Truly] would recall later that he & a policeman met Oswald as they charged into the building after the shots were fired.” — Vanessa

            And your point is?

            “as they charged into the building”?

            The film of Baker rushing into the building indicates he is running past the figure you claim to be Lee Oswald. HOW in the heck did that figure, PM, scoot past Baker and Truly and appear in front of them as they entered the building? Or are you suggesting that Truly and Baker meant that they both encountered Oswald on the steps and that is what is meant by this report “he & a policeman met Oswald as they charged into the building after the shots were fired.” Why would Frazier CHARGE into the building if he had been standing near Oswald on the steps in the first place. What are we missing here Vanessa? A linear argument, 10 points or fewer, to explain what it is you perceive occurred. Simple as that.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Leslie, 4/28, 11:31.
            I guess “They” would say the simple answer is Oswald walked in the door right in front of Baker, who then said with his gun drawn and Oswald with a Coke in his hand “Do you work here? Where are the stairs? Whereupon Truly caught up and said he works for me, I’m the manager, follow me.
            Ha.

          • Vanessa says:

            Leslie

            “as they charged into the building” is referring to Baker and Truly charging into the building. Not Frazier and Oswald.

            There is no evidence indicating Frazier and Oswald ‘charged’ anywhere.

            According to Kent Biffle Truly said that as he and Baker charged into the building they met Oswald. That does not put the encounter on the 2nd floor or in the lunchroom.

            “as they charged into the building” puts the encounter at the point where Truly and Baker entered the building.

            It’s also worth pointing out that the Darnell footage unfortunately cuts off just at the point that Baker reaches the foot of the stairs. We do not actually see him go up those stairs.

            There are a lot of people crowded on those stairs – it’s possible that in the time that it took Baker to get up them that Oswald opened the door and went into the lobby (vestibule) where Baker and Truly then encountered him.

            I will attempt to present a 10 point argument shortly but it has to be said this isn’t the best format to present documents and links etc. That is why I have referred you to Ed Forum where this is all already laid out.

        • “Baker’s 1st day affidavit does not match with the final WC story on where Baker met Oswald.”~Vanessa

          YOU are the one who cited Baker’s first day affidavit Vanessa.
          YOU are the one claiming this affidavit somehow proves that encounter took place at the front entrance to the TBDB.
          YOU are the one who is making ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE here.
          \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Willy

            I see we’re not communicating clearly here.

            Baker’s 1st day affidavit is the foundation stone of Oswald’s innocence and paradoxically that is precisely because he is not mentioned in it at all.

            Baker’s affidavit says he went into the building, noticed some people standing around and asked them where the stairs where. Truly stepped up and showed him up the stairs. On the 3rd or 4th floor they encounter a man who does not match Oswald’s description.

            Later that day Baker is down at DPD giving his affidavit. Oswald is brought in as the suspect in JFK’s murder. It’s all over the news. Mailer tells us in “Case Closed” that Baker ID’d Oswald as the man who was on the 3rd or 4th floor.

            If Baker did ID Oswald why is it not in his 1st day affidavit?

            It would have been the primary witness evidence placing Oswald near where the rifle was found, and by a policeman no less. Case closed indeed.

            But Baker’s affidavit does not ID Oswald and this is why. Because Oswald was standing either at the entrance of the TSBD (or just inside the doors).

            “As I entered the door I saw several people standing around. I asked these people where the stairs were”.

            One of these people was Oswald.

            And the reason Baker does not ID Oswald as the 3rd or 4th floor man in his affidavit is because it wasn’t him that Baker saw.

            Does that demonstrate why Baker’s affidavit is such a crucial piece of evidence in the PM case?

          • ‘Later that day Baker is down at DPD giving his affidavit. Oswald is brought in as the suspect in JFK’s murder. It’s all over the news. Mailer tells us in “Case Closed” that Baker ID’d Oswald as the man who was on the 3rd or 4th floor. . . . If Baker did ID Oswald why is it not in his 1st day affidavit? . . . .It would have been the primary witness evidence placing Oswald near where the rifle was found, and by a policeman no less. Case closed indeed.’ — Vanessa

            Vanessa, not wishing to be contrary here and with respect, this is a jumble of facts jumping from real to the absurd. What precisely are you claiming? That Norman Mailer (in “Oswald’s Tale”) or (Gerald Posner) in “Case Closed” reported accurately that Baker identified Lee Oswald as having been on the 3rd or 4th Floor when he encountered him BUT Baker did not identify Oswald in his first day affidavit BUT if he had there would be first day evidence that Oswald was close enough to the 6th floor sniper’s nest at a time critical to proving his guilt BUT Baker didn’t provide that evidence BUT Norman Mailer (or Gerald Posner) did? Do you see how convoluted this argument becomes UNLESS you provide links to the claims, and better yet UNTIL someone in your fold comes up with a 10 point or less bullet presentation of the argument that Prayer Man was Lee Oswald. Otherwise this appears to be a cat and mouse game introduced on this site to sew contention and to distract. “I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house down?”

            If this has been designed to generate traffic on the ROKC site for reasons other than contributing to the exposure of the conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy, shame on you. If it’s a genuine effort to engage and inform, present the argument that Oswald was Prayer Man in a linear, succinct fashion. It’s as simple as that, IF it’s as simple as that.

          • “If Baker did ID Oswald why is it not in his 1st day affidavit?”~Vanessa

            He did ID Oswald, Baker simply did not know Oswald’s name at the time. He was also confused about the floor he was on.

            If you do not combine Truly and Baker’s affidavits you are missing the whole thing. We know they were both together. Truly knew the building and the employees there.

            You are still grasping at straws and making absurd arguments.
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Willy

            Oswald’s name was all over the news – he was in the same building as Baker.

            Norman Mailer claims that Baker ID’d Oswald as 3rd and 4th floor man.

            I’m saying that there is no record of that identification and if it had happened then Baker would have put Oswald’s name in his affidavit.

            The 2nd floor in the TSBD was actually only 1 flight up. That is because the ground floor was called the 1st floor.

            In other countries it’s more usual to have the ground floor then 1st floor and so on.

            The TSBD started at the 1st floor. So Baker’s run up the stairs to the 1st floor was one flight of stairs.

            He encountered someone on the 3rd or 4th floor. If it was the 3rd floor he would have had climbed 3 flights by then and more for the 4th floor.

            I don’t see how anyone could get confused between running up 1 flight of stairs and running up 3 flights.

            Try it and see if after 3 flights you think you’ve only climbed up 1 flight.

            Baker wasn’t confused Willy. His 1st day affidavit is a true record of what happened.

            And, as Fritz says, Baker’s evidence was changed.

            Sean Murphy gives a good account of how Baker’s evidence evolved over a period of months. I’ll post some of the affidavit evidence when I have a moment.

          • Vanessa says:

            Here is part of James Jarman’s statement to the HSCA on 9/25/77.

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

            HSCA Interviewer: Oh

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

            This statement from Jarman confirms the Baker/Oswald meeting happening at the entrance of the TSBD.

          • “This statement from Jarman confirms the Baker/Oswald meeting happening at the entrance of the TSBD.”~Vanessa

            No it doesn’t Vanessa, only your biased reading of it could frame it that way. Jarman does not say anything near what you are asserting.

            We ALL already understand that Oswald was confronted by officer Baker and let go. We all know that Oswald eventually left the building. You have established no timeline to back your current assertion.
            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Tom

            Would you mind posting my response to Leslie’s comment of 28/4/16 at 11:06pm? Leslie’s comment contains a specific accusation which I’ve addressed in my response and I think it’s only fair that you should post that too.

          • Tom S. says:

            Vanessa,

            I have no comment of yours to approve/post, in reply to Leslie. If you submitted one, it was approved shortly after.
            Is it possible you are describing this comment you addressed to Leslie?
            https://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-873092

            You’ve recently replied, not far below its position in the thread.:
            https://jfkfacts.org/22269-2/#comment-873293

          • Vanessa says:

            Willy

            The timeline is established by the presence of Truly being with Baker and vouching for Oswald.

            Baker and Truly encountered Oswald together only once that day and it was either in the 2nd floor lunchroom, between the 3rd or 4th floor or on the TSBD steps.

            Jarman says Lovelady said it happened on the steps.

            It corroborates every other piece of evidence that I’ve listed here for placing the encounter between Baker, Oswald and Truly on the 1st floor of the building either at the door or just inside it.

          • “Jarman says Lovelady said it happened on the steps.”~Vanessa

            So now you are trying to convince this forum that Roy Truly didn’t know the layout of a building he had managed for some 30 years? And you are basing this on secondhand “testimony” of Jarman, said he said…

            I am sick of your nonsense Vanessa, you know this, and still you taunt with your juvenile tripe.

            Tie your kangaroo down and let your abbies go loose. They are of no further use.
            \\][//

          • The Dunning–Kruger Effect

            The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is.

            Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately. Their research also suggests corollaries: highly skilled individuals may underestimate their relative competence and may erroneously assume that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.

            The bias was first experimentally observed by David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University in 1999. They postulated that the effect is the result of internal illusion in the unskilled, and external misperception in the skilled: “The miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.”

            http://psych.colorado.edu/~vanboven/teaching/p7536_heurbias/p7536_readings/kruger_dunning.pdf

            \\][//

          • Vanessa says:

            Willy

            What is your view of Roy Truly? Do you think he was an honest player with no links to the intelligence community? No suspicious role in employing Oswald? No suspicious role in sending the police after Oswald?

            If you think Truly was without blemish in the framing of Oswald then you are sorely mistaken. Truly played a key role in the framing of Oswald from the time he decided to accompany Baker into the TSBD in pursuit of an armed assassin to the moment he sent the police after Oswald and on to his conveniently flexible statements denying Oswald his alibi.

            There is some major research to come on Truly but it’s not my place to say what it is before it’s published.

            In any case, what we already know of Truly’s actions that day is sufficient to put him under suspicion.

            In particular, his role in sending the police after Oswald before the rifle had been found and when he believed that the shots hadn’t come from the TSBD. But he sends the police after Oswald even though he has supposedly just exonerated him to Baker 15 minutes earlier.

            Now, will you address Jarman’s HSCA testimony with the seriousness it deserves?

  5. Max says:

    I have been an avid reader of jfkfacts.org since its inception, and have left an infrequent comment here & there over the past year or two. I’ve commented on Prayer Man several times because I believe there is intriguing evidence that Oswald was not on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, and that evidence, in my opinion, is thoughtfully, and best presented by Sean Murphy in the Education Forum.

    I have no affiliation with ROKC. I think they have done important work with the JFK case on several fronts, and not just on the Prayer Man issue. We all know that the JFK research community has been plagued with some of the worst infighting & bizarre group of characters imaginable. It’s set back real research of this case by a generation.

    I like the polite tone set here at jfkfacts.org….it has its place in the larger debate. I also like the free-for-all at ROKC, it’s not a place for snowflakes…and it has its place in the larger debate. I can understand why there is friction when these two groups interact. And I don’t know how to resolve that. It might be wise if Lee, Barto & the group low-key it over here, do in Rome as the Romans do and all of that.

    I think jfkfacts.org & ROKC are two of the better sites doing JFK research these days. So I hope these issue that have seen daylight here can be pushed aside, cause this personal stuff is not helping anyone.

    As for Prayer Man….read Sean’s research. That’s what’s important.

  6. Jeremy Gilbert says:

    I’m new to this subject of “Prayer Man.” I’ve seen photos with Baker heading to the doorway and “Prayer Man” in the same shot – since Baker encountered Oswald probably 45 seconds later getting or holding a bottle of Coke, doesn’t this eliminate Oswald as being that person?

    • Max says:

      Read the research by Sean Murphy, or go over to ROKC, they have an outstanding time-line of this encounter that they have constructed over the past several years that explains your concerns in detail.

    • George says:

      Jeremy, long story short — there was no second floor encounter.

      And the coke was purchased pre-assassination.

      As Max suggested, every conceivable objection is covered in threads in other forums. They are also covered in the book by Stan Dane and in the video by Bart Kamp.

      • In the clip below – assuming in good faith it is legitimate footage – we see Baker rushing toward the steps, AND we see the blurred image that has been argued as being Lee Oswald/aka the Prayer Man. Did Baker rush past Oswald on those steps and then encounter Oswald inside the building or did Baker rush past Prayer Person and then encounter Oswald inside the building? It would be good to hear from Sean Murphy personally rather than be directed to log into a semi-commercialized site. It’s a simple question and shouldn’t require much thought let alone a convoluted argument. Either Officer Baker passed by Prayer Man on the steps or he didn’t? That’s a game changer and if Sean Murphy has worked it out, could we hear from him? [caveat: if this footage is bogus, disregard the question entirely.]

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJckuJtgg6A
        (blankdogman, ‘nuggets’)

  7. David Hazan says:

    Has anyone considered that Praying Man could actually be James Franco, who has traveled back in time to stop the assassination???

    • “Praying Man could actually be James Franco”~David Hazan

      Well I looked closely at that enhanced shot of Prayerman you sent by email, and I have to say I find it very convincing. Whatever sharpening software you are using is utterly AMAZING!
      \\][//

      • Jordan says:

        Actually, upon further review, without a cloud of smoke and Seth Rogan, I don’t believe that it is James Franco….YMMV….

  8. What could a covert op by the Australians accomplish with a load of nonsense about the Prayerman?

    Eliminate the initial alibis that Oswald has been proven to have had.
    Such as the Truly-Baker lunchroom encounter.

    Then suddenly discover Prayerman was someone else!
    WHOOPS!!!
    . . . .
    MR BELIN: “And then what did you do?”
    MRS REID: “Well, I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in the back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several feet and I told him: ‘Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they didn’t hit him.’ ….. He had gotten a coke and was holding it in his hands ….. The only time I had seen him in the office was to come and get change and he already had his coke in his hand ….. ” (3H 274).
    Mrs Reid saw Lee Oswald after Baker and Truly saw him. (3H 275). Reid also said that Lee’s coke bottle was full. (3H 278). We cannot prove when the coke was purchased from her account. Griffith, however, tells us that A WARREN COMMISSION COUNSEL also said Baker saw a coke in Lee Oswald’s possession:

    “During a radio program on December 23, 1966, Albert Jenner, a former senior WC counsel, said that when Baker saw Oswald in the lunchroom, Oswald was holding a Coke in his hand. Said Jenner, “the first man this policeman saw, was Oswald with a bottle of Coke” (17:226).”

    Now, why would he do that? Is it true that this coke might have become a “myth” by then, as Oswald-did-it theorists maintain? But if so, how? And why would a Warren Commissioner senior counsel bring it up? Griffith goes on to say:

    “The fact that Oswald was holding a Coke when Baker confronted him in the lunchroom was one of the details that Chief Jesse Curry of the Dallas police mentioned to reporters the day after the shooting.”

    http://oswald-not-guilty.blogspot.com/2012/08/lee-harvey-oswald-was-innocent-agent.html
    \\][//

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      “the day after the shooting” is important Willy. Baker didn’t mention anything about a lunch room encounter in his report on 11/22. I don’t think Truly did either.
      By 11/23 they had conversed with the DPD and most likely the FBI and Secret Service.
      JFK loyalists Kenny O’Donnell and Dave Powers changed their story of shots from the front for the FBI/SS. They were riding in the SS car behind the limo. This is per Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil if memory still serves.
      If they would change their story would a loyal member of the corrupt DPD or a manger for Harold Dry Hole Byrd do so?
      Speculation, yes but the O’Donnell, Powers, O’Neil part are documented.

      • ” . . . or a manager for Harold Dry Hole Byrd do so?” — Ronnie Wayne

        Ronnie, some clarification. Truly had worked for the school book depository business since before the war, spent time with North American Aviation in the Fort Worth area during it, then returned to manage the school book operation and was working for Jack Charles Cason and O.V. Campbell at the time of the assassination who were leasing 411 Elm from DH Byrd. It’s an important distinction I think because of Cason in particular.

        Mr. TRULY. I went to work for the Texas School Book Depository in July 1934.
        Mr. BELIN. And have you been employed by the Texas School Book Depository since that date, since July 1934?
        Mr. TRULY. That is right.

        As Russ Baker pointed out in “Family of Secrets”, Cason was the ‘long time head of the American Legion post’. Baker doesn’t however emphasize that the American Legion held their national convention in Dallas in September, 1964, 10 months after the assassination of their Commander in Chief in the very city. The program for the convention dutifully is dedicated to President Kennedy.

        Col. Alvin M. Owsley, one of the original founders of the Legion in the United States married into the Ball Corporation dynasty, based in Indiana along with the first chapter of the legion, settled in Dallas after serving as Ambassador to Rumania and Ambassador to Ireland (during which time his statements related to the Irish culture were less than flattering to the culture of the people), and was President of the American Legion National Convention Corporation of Texas whose board of directors was a virtual who’s who of the welcoming committee for President Kennedy’s visit to Dallas just ten months before. Owsley was former American Legion National Commander 1922-23.

        The AL parade route assembled at Industrial Blvd, proceeded down Commerce to Houston to Main Street and traveled East down Main, contrary to some claims that all parades thru downtown Dallas traveled West down Main.

        http://archive.legion.org/handle/123456789/4835

        • Tom S. says:

          A Catholic Priest was informed that Lee Harvey Oswald’s Employer Desired JFK Shot

          http://jfk.education/node/9
          The president of the Texas School Book Depository, Jack Charles Cason, responded to June, 1964 questioning by the FBI about an accusation that he or his wife had made the statement during a 1961 social gathering to the effect that it would be a good thing if President Kennedy was shot, by declaring, wait just a minute, do you have any idea who I am?….

          • “A Catholic Priest was informed that Lee Harvey Oswald’s Employer Desired JFK Shot” –TomS

            I’m looking for the source of that statement. Reading the material provided, there’s no suggestion that Fr. Drew was reporting something he had heard in confessional so I’m wondering who or what is the source of the provocative headline?

            My assertions related to Cason did not mention his wife’s comments made two years prior to the assassination, nor do I weigh those reports about her comments in the evaluation of ownership of the school book depository business, their manager Roy Truly or the tenants of 411 Elm and 11.22.63. Cason’s role with the American Legion, the National Convention of 1964, Alvin Owsley and his finance board (meaning those who funded the 1964 Convention in Dallas) and how they relate to the welcoming committee for the Kennedy visit, their involvement in the selection of the motorcade route, is sufficient for me. Mrs. Cason is but a sideshow in investigation records as far as I’m concerned.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Never seen that one Tom. I’d read about VP Campbell but never really thought about who the President of the TSBD was. Has anybody ever dug into Campbell, Cason or Truly regarding say Intelligence or Police sources?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            So Truly was the loyal employee of Cason who was head of the local (right wing) American Legion? Interesting… anything else?

        • This discussion was in response to Ronnie Wayne’s assertion that Roy Truly worked for DH Byrd. Truly had worked for the school book depository business since 1934, and in 1963 that business was owned by Jack Cason and OV Campbell and they leased 411 Elm from DH Byrd. From there I noted that Jack Cason was an American Legion Commander and from there that by providence the National Convention of the American Legion was held in Dallas 10 months after the assassination of their Commander in Chief, a salve for those whose allegiance on 11.22.63 lay with President Kennedy no doubt.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Excuse my slowness Leslie. I’m wrong, Byrd owned the TSBD and leased it to them. Oswald indirectly worked for Cason through Truly.
            Also excuse my old “theory” as I embarrass myself here as I have no documentation.
            Somebody was given a key or a door was left open the night of 11/21/63, rifles were brought in and communications systems were tested by Morales. Thus they were familiar with the 6th floor for the next day. The outside would have been cased previously (documented?) Probably the inside too by (?) Morales (?).

            I, know. A preposterous theory.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            If not Morales then his designated appointee. But, who was the dark complected man on the sixth floor identified as such by a Dealy Plaza witness before the assassination. El Indio, “We Got that SOB”?
            FREETHEFILES

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            No conclusions on my part here, just a suspicious mind, wandering.

    • George says:

      If ignorance is bliss, you must be in a state of perpetual nirvana.

    • George says:

      O the irony. You’re linking to a known fabricator to boost your case for a fabricated story.

      This alleged encounter with Reid took place right in front of Geneva Hine… yet Hine somehow missed it. How? Because it never happened AFTER the assassination. Reid was still outside when this was alleged to have happened. If she saw him with a coke on the 2nd floor, it was before the assassination. If Baker saw Oswald with a coke, it was on his way inside.

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

      Campbell was quoted in the paper the next day as saying “We saw him [Oswald] in a small storage room on the ground floor”

      This was on the way back in. Who is the “we”? Campbell, Reid and the others named by Hine as entering together…

      Once again — you need to educate yourself on all of this or you are going to get smashed from pillar to post. Your choice, Willy.

      • Tom S. says:

        …Mr. BALL. Do you have any definite recollection of Mrs. Reid coming in?
        Miss HINE. No, sir; I only saw four or five people that came by and they all came and were all talking about how terrible it was.
        Mr. BALL. Do you remember their names?
        Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
        Mr. BALL. Who were they?
        Miss HINE. Mr. Williams, Mr. Molina (spelling), Miss Martha Reid, Mrs. Reid, Mrs. Sarah Stanton, and Mr. Campbell; that’s all I recall, sir.

        Campbell was quoted in the paper the next day as saying “We saw him [Oswald] in a small storage room on the ground floor”

        This was on the way back in. Who is the “we”? Campbell, Reid and the others named by Hine as entering together…

        Once again — you need to educate yourself on all of this or you are going to get smashed from pillar to post. Your choice, Willy.

        (Absent any lecturing…..)

        http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1435.pdf
        OCHUS V. CAMPBELL, 7120 Twin Lakes Lane, Dallas, Texas, furnished the following information:
        …………
        He then observed the car bearing President KENNEDY to slow down, a near stop, and a motorcycle policeman rushed up. Immediately following this, he observed the car rush away from the scene. He then immediately rushed into his building without having seen anything unusual from any window of his building. Inside he was told shortly thereafter by the warehouse superintendent, Mr. TRULY, that all the employees of the company had been rounded up and one employee, LEE HARVEY OSWALD, was missing.

        Mr. CAMPBELL observed a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, bearing New Orleans, Louisiana No. 112 723, and stated that he is sure this is a photograph of the employee named above, but added that he is not personally aquainted with him and has never seen him. He advised that he has always given Mr. TRULY the responsibility for hiring employees for the warehouse.

        on 11/24/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43

        By Special Agent EDWARD C. HARDIL & PAUL L. SCOTT Date Dictated 11/24/63

        http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/15/1529-002.gif
        Statement of Mr. O.V. Campbell – February 17, 1964
        ….I did not know Oswald. I told Mr. Truly to tell the officers about him and what he looked like….
        http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/15/1529-002.gif
        end of Statement of Mr. O.V. Campbell – February 17, 1964

        • ” Mr. CAMPBELL observed a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, bearing New Orleans, Louisiana No. 112 723, and stated that he is sure this is a photograph of the employee named above, but added that he [O.V. Campbell] is not personally aquainted with him and has never seen him. . . .

          . . . I .[O.V. Campbell] did not know Oswald. I told Mr. Truly to tell the officers about him and what he looked like….”

          distilling this down, should we draw the conclusion that OV Campbell recognized a photograph of Lee Oswald and that he had never seen Lee Oswald?

          • Tom S. says:

            No, Leslie, an error of attribution in the early reporting of one newspaper is irrefutable evidence, or at least enough to instigate jumping up and done and repeating hearsay as justification for publication and for attempting to denigrate Willy, but I only know what I read of multiple sources, and I have no agenda other than fact finding. I’m not yet in the ranks of the self-professed, only note worthy researchers, these days…..

          • This might be an opportune moment to introduce the fact that Roy Sansom Truly was raised in Hubbard, Texas; a cousin, most likely 2nd, Ralph Truly from Hubbard was occupant in 1963 of 1412 Ohio Street, Midland, TX which had been recently vacated by the George H. W. Bush family; Roy and Ralph were related to Dorothy Truly who was an administrative assistant at the Dallas Morning News and all were related to Midland resident John Patrick Truly who was sports editor at the Midland Telegram owned by Bush ‘best friend’ (until a falling out), Jimmy Allison.

            Roy Truly’s address on Jade Street in Oak Cliff was within a block or two of Oswald’s former supervisor at Jaggers Chiles. It was a small town back then.

          • “No, Leslie, an error of attribution in the early reporting of one newspaper is irrefutable evidence, or at least enough to instigate jumping up and done and repeating hearsay as justification for publication and for attempting to denigrate Willy, but I only know what I read of multiple sources,” …

            I think I’m not following this TomS. Please elaborate?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Campbell made the statement on 11/24, when everybody knew what Oswald looked like.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317&relPageId=875&search=“mr_campbell observed”

        • Tom S. says:

          Dallas Morning News did not attribute O.V. Campbell as spotting Oswald, neither did either
          Campbell statement to law enforcement.
          http://phw02.newsbank.com/cache/ean/fullsize/pl_004242016_2309_47957_322.pdf

        • George says:

          and in response, you offer up later self-serving official records. Brilliant.

      • Hine contradicts herself three times in her testimony above, if you didn’t notice Mr Parker:
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
        Mr. BALL. Mrs. Reid told us she came in alone and when she came in she didn’t see anybody there.
        Miss HINE. Well, it could be that she did, sir. I was talking on the phones and then came the policemen and then came the press.
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
        And then two more times she contradicts that:

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

        YOU figure out the 3rd one – it is right there in your own comment.

        YOU need to sharpen your reading comprehension skills.
        \\][//

        • Bart Kamp says:

          Willy……..what weighs heavier?
          The fact that Hine was in that office whereas Reid wasn’t.

          Reid is Truly’s secretary

          Contradictions?

          In the FBI affidavit of Nov 23rd Geneva Hine is quoted that she was alone in the office between 12:25 pm and 12:35 pm.
          In that very statement at the very end it says: ”In conclusion, Mrs. Hine advised that she saw Lee Harvey Oswald almost every day at work, however, she did not see him at all on November 22nd 1963.

          So did Hine see Oswald? NO! No matter how you spin it with Reid. And that partial message you try to convey.

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

          • This is the 5th time that Miss Hine’s testimony before Ball has been presented here. No one is disputing what Miss Hine said in that testimony. Noting has changed in the wording from the time I was first offered here.

            Why are you presenting it yet again? It STILL contains the same contradictions as it did the first time.
            \\][//

  9. “the day after the shooting” is important Willy. Baker didn’t mention anything about a lunch room encounter in his report on 11/22.”~Ronnie Wayne

    It doesn’t make sense to me, that the Warren Commission would find, or manipulate the testimony of Baker to the point that he was describing the encounter in the lunchroom on the second floor rather than the “third or forth floor” as the 11/22 statement by Baker.

    Actually Truly’s 11/22/1963 signed deposition says there was an encounter in the lunchroom: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0487-001.gif

    Have you EVER known the Warren Commissioners to make their job framing Oswald harder by pushing evidence in such a manner?
    Baker wasn’t familiar with the building. Truly was (of course) – plus you have other people’s testimony, such as Mrs Reid who saw Oswald in her office which is on the same floor as the lunchroom.
    \\][//

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Willy, Truly’s affidavit is dated 11/23. Can we forget Prayer Man the Picture and back up? Many people believe Oswald was not a 6th floor shooter. As Curry said they never could put him in that window with that rifle. So where was he?
      Did he eat lunch with the black guy’s in the domino room (they said no) Then go get a Coke to wash it down?
      Carolyn Arnold insisted she saw him in the break room between 12 and 12:15. Was he buying and drinking cokes for up to 30 minutes?
      Yes, Mrs. Reid contradicts this. If I recall right she was Truly’s secretary, which probably means nothing. However, her story about re-entering the building is in conflict with another woman in the lobby area.
      VP of the TSBD Ochus Campbell, Truly’s boss (who watched the assassination with him, Reid, and Arnold) is quoted on 11/22 saying he saw Oswald just inside the front door when they “rushed” back into the building.
      DPD Homicide Captain Will Fritz’s notes, copied from FBI agent Bookout’s as he didn’t take any tell us Oswald said he was “out front with Shelly”.
      Oswald also reported he directed what he thought was a Secret Service (?) agent to the phone in the lobby after the assassination. A National press agent (Pierce Alleman?) confirmed such but I believe couldn’t identify Oswald (surprising ?).
      The coke. An evolving story? He was sitting down at a lunch table, he was leaning against the counter, he was standing in front of the coke machine. Baker opened the door to the lunch room, he saw Oswald through the window.
      I wondered for years and still do if O shut off the electricity to the building or the elevators.
      I don’t know.
      I still don’t think Oswald shot JFK.
      But where the hell was he?

      • Tom S. says:

        Ronnie….Ronnie….Ronnie, you’re requoting their Campbell hearsay, sourced from one, cherry picked newspaper report? I often do not tell you want you want to hear, do I?
        Ronnie, I suggest you read this carefully.:
        http://www.prayer-man.com/tsbd/ochus-v-campbell/

        Why would anyone confidently assert that Campbell’s actual statements are impeached by ambiguous hearsay in some, but not all newspaper reporting?

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Tom, you don’t often tell much of anybody what they want to hear. Maybe that’s a good thing for a moderator regarding honesty and facts. Does it encourage comments or interest?

        • George says:

          You do understand that JFKFacts is not a courtroom, Tom and that hearsay rule is simply designed to rule out statements made outside court and not under oath? One exemption to the rule is “excited utterances” – statements made close to the time of the event in the excitement of the moment.

          But if you want to go down this path… you have ruled out almost 100 % of your posting history because it is almost all hearsay from news reports.

          Furthermore, this is one reason why the earliest statements (regardless of who they are made to) are always assumed to be the best.

          Can’t have both ways – even as moderator.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          I’m sorry Tom, I don’t understand, how is Campbell’s statement on 11/22 heresy. While the rest of the story is typical of the first day confusion the assassination the statement I thought was first hand. I don’t know if it was or not. Is the reporter alive?
          I wasn’t knowingly “cherry picking”.

      • Jordan says:

        I believe it was Robert MacNeil who asked Oswald about the location of a phone….Yes, THAT Robert MacNeil…

  10. Tom S. says:

    In another thread, in response to an off topic comment, David Hazan replied:

    https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/lee-harvey-oswalds-application-to-work-at-the-texas-school-book-depository/#comment-872012
    …Personal observation: Praying man is either in eye contact, or in the process of talking to what seems to be a female at the top of the stairs, who is fully facing our praying mantis…

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

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

    What is that ghostly blur above the hands, in the image presented by Sean Murphy? It looks like a more detailed face than any other in the image, except it is fog-like….floating just under the chin of the prayerman head, partially obscuring the neck. Just trust those
    who make so much of this, buoyed by their reinterpretation of the record of testimony?

  11. David Hazan says:

    My apologies about the “off” aspect of my post. In my defense, I’ll just say that the core of my comment was to evaluate the current “operation praying mantis” that is being staged on these pages. If you feel my comment would better off on this thread, please feel free to move it.

    As for the invisible woman in front of PM…. At face value, Her head seems to have disappeared into the shadow… But, is the implication of what you are quoting above that the image, in its available form, has been doctored? Or, is it just pointing out that there is someone there.

    I stand by my assertion that PM’s head is turned towards the female (the person) at the top of the stairs, who is turned, full body, towards him.

    • Tom S. says:

      David,
      It is no fault of yours that Mr. Farley comments about film in a thread related to Oswald’s job application(s),
      but is not commenting yet in this thread.

      I’m saying that the person given the most credit for origins of prayerman research, Sean Murphy, presented
      an animated gif emphasizing a described female figure in an area that does not obscure the neck holding up
      the head in the corner. The area highlighted in black by Sean Murphy does not look compatible with the hands
      positioned just below the ghost head. The ghostly face seems to me to display eyes and a nose, and this orb
      does block the camera’s view of a portion of the neck under the head in the corner. I do not see that Mr. Murphy’s point is all that specific, do you? I was reacting to your interpretation of what you saw, in a different version of the image.

      • Tom could you direct David to that gif image that shows the movement on the steps you are talking about?

        I remember seeing it, but don’t recall the URL.
        \\][//

        • Tom S. says:

          Willy, I did….

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

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

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Thanks Tom. After looking at the picture in the book I thought what are they talking about? I could see the leg but after that it all just blended in with PM’s chest below his arms. I can see her back outlined in this. Hard to tell for sure but the leg does seem to be facing left though I don’t know about back and to the right as it looks like she’s standing a step or two down from PM.
            It is interesting since you can see her white leg below a skirt or dress that you don’t see a white face.
            I guess maybe, as David alludes to, if she had dark hair and was facing PM it would blend in with the background.
            Did PM have a girlfriend, does that mean he’s not a woman?
            The way Stephen King’s series should have ended: She turned to Oswald on the front steps in her Polka dot dress and said “We Got Him, We Got Him!
            Then “They” erased all the polka dots from her dress, and her face and blurred Oswald’s image. Ha.

        • David Hazan says:

          Thank you Tom. I had seen the GIF… But it just shows a blinking black element, presumably where the woman’s head is meant to be… However, using this woman’s hips and feet as a reference point, the blinking head a little too high, and its size is a little too big.

          From the little bit of visible data on this image, I believe the options are either that there is a dark haired person which is blending into the dark background, or, the head of this person is purposefully removed.

          There is a hint of a foot at the bottom that gives the impression that the woman is standing facing left. If that is the case, then one does expect to see a profile face somewhere. But, at this point, as some readers my observe, we are into a 4-5 level deep hypothetical argument based on ghosts, absence of detail, etc., which means I’d better stop speculating. We don’t even know the chain of custody for the video that is being circulated… Or the authenticity of the individual frame grabs.

          I will write an email to the museum and ask for the original. I will report back once i receive it. I can’t, for the life of me, think of a good reason why they would not comply.

          • Tom S. says:

            David, we have a source that can possibly be traced back.:
            http://quaneeri2.blogspot.com/2014/12/darnell-crop-showng-person-dubbed.html

          • David Hazan says:

            Thanks for that, Tom. I appreciate it.

            I am afraid I am not able to accept JFK, The Movie as a “clean” source. Not because I don think it is not… But, because I do not know that it is..

            Do we know Stone’s source?

          • Watch this film a few times. Notice what a wild hand held ride that camera is taking. It is obvious that the focus problems are due to this. Watch from 19 seconds in to 30 seconds when they are finally in front of the pagoda area, and apparently stop and get a focus on the people who have ducked to the lawn.

            NOTE: Do you think these news guys shooting this footage really thought the shots came from the TBDB? Hell no, they zoomed past there and got out of the press car at the pagoda, where the limo had been hit, where the real action seemed to be.

            https://youtu.be/UdRr4KHbhqg?t=19

            \\][//

      • George says:

        And it’s not Mr. Farley’s fault that Willy introduced the subject into that thread in one of his many attempts to bait me.

        If you are going to allot blame, Tom, you need to get it right.

  12. After spending quite a bit of time studying the Wiegman Film, I am convinced that the blurring is due mainly to two conjoined causes:

    The first consideration is that it was a drive by film capture – that means horizontal movement – image smearing. Then there is the hand held scan of the scene. Add those together and you have blurring in the original. If I am correct in this there is simply no sharpening software in the world that will correct to the point of bringing out an identifiable image of the people on those steps.
    \\][//

  13. George says:

    “Pardon me for noticing Vanessa, but you and your Prayerman cult are making the same arguments about Oswald not being in the lunchroom that the Warren cult has been making all these years.

    So those arguments are well known and firmly dealt with here already.

    You do not have ANYTHING but a blurred image, the rest is biased rhetorical nonsense trying to cover for the fact that you don’t have anything but presumptions.” Willy W.

    You really are clueless, Willy. Or maybe not? Point me to where the Warren Commission made the same arguments that the 2nd floor encounter never happened because Oswald was not there.

    This should be good!

    • “Point me to where the Warren Commission made the same arguments that the 2nd floor encounter never happened because Oswald was not there.”
      Greg the George

      Ask Vanessa. She is the one arguing the lunchroom encounter did not happen.
      \\][//

      • George says:

        No Willy. You specifically said… ““Pardon me for noticing Vanessa, but you and your Prayerman cult are making the same arguments about Oswald not being in the lunchroom that the Warren cult has been making all these years.”

        “The SAME argument” Willy.

        Citation please showing that the WC made the SAME argument regarding the 2nd floor.

        • I am going to clarify one more thing here for Mr Parker, and then I am through with the bozo:

          “the Warren cult” is Photon, McAdams, Jean Davison, Von Pein, and others who buy into the WCReport; NOT the WC itself.

          It is these people who have been making the same argument that Vanessa is now promoting.
          ….
          One more thing for clarity:

          As Ball pointed out. Ms Hine contradicts Mrs Reid’s own testimony as to her coming in by herself.

          Then there is this exchange, clear as a bell:

          Mr. BALL. Do you have any definite recollection of Mrs. Reid coming in?

          Miss HINE. **No, sir**; I only saw four or five people that came by and they all came and were all talking about how terrible it was.
          . . . .

          I have had enough of this oinkfest from our prayerman cult. I am out.
          FINI
          \\][//

          • George says:

            O puhleeeze! to McAdams et al the 2nd floor encounter is Holy Writ – as it is with you. You’re the one with fleas here, pal.

            Mr. BALL. When you came back in did you see Mrs. Reid?
            Miss HINE. No, sir; I don’t believe there was a soul in the office when I came back in right then.

            Mr. BALL. Did you see Mrs. Reid come back in?
            Miss HINE. Yes, sir; I think I felt sure that I did. I thought that there were five or six that came in together. I thought she was one of those.

            Miss HINE. No, sir; I only saw four or five people that came by and they all came and were all talking about how terrible it was.
            Mr. BALL. Do you remember their names?
            Miss HINE. Yes, sir.
            Mr. BALL. Who were they?
            Miss HINE. Mr. Williams, Mr. Molina (spelling), Miss Martha Reid, Mrs. Reid, Mrs. Sarah Stanton, and Mr. Campbell; that’s all I recall, sir.

            ————-

            She said “no sir” in response to being definite — after answering several times that she HAD seen her.

            If you keep getting asked the same question, sooner or later, you are going to realize they need you to give a different answer before they will let up.

            You are sounding more and more like a WC apologist every time you type. Now apparently you hold the view that that no one was ever badgered to change an answer – even if slightly as is the case here. In the end, all she is saying is “how can you be 100% certain of anything. I have already told you I BELIEVE sh was one of the group than came in together…”

          • Bart Kamp says:

            Good riddance I’ll say since you have proven to be not up to this at all, if only you posted Hine’s entire paperwork and testimony, a whole different picture would emerge.

            You are as bad as Photon, MacAdams etc.

    • This is why it is futile to argue with these Prayerman enthusiasts, they don’t even pay attention to what each other are saying, and Parker doesn’t even pay attention to what he himself is posting…the Hine testimony wherein she contradicts herself three times for example.

      And I made that comment to Vanessa, and obviously Parker didn’t even realize what Vanessa was saying — denying that Truly and Baker ran into Oswald on the 2 floor vestibule between the hall and the lunchroom.

      They are discounting Baker witnessing Oswald with a coke, when he said he saw Oswald drinking a coke when he first saw him. Yes this was then scratched out…but why? The conjecture is why the coke sentence was scratched out – NOT that Baker didn’t say it in the first place.

      But NONE of this is going to sharpen that image in the shadows on the steps of the TBDB. And it turns into a carousel, going back and forth on the side issues of that ground fact.

      When and if it is proven that Prayerman is Oswald, then we can talk about this some more. Until then. I am with David Hazan, these exchanges are futile nonsense.
      \\][//

      • George says:

        “This is why it is futile to argue with these Prayerman enthusiasts, they don’t even pay attention to what each other are saying, and Parker doesn’t even pay attention to what he himself is posting…the Hine testimony wherein she contradicts herself three times for example.”

        That’s because she doesn’t contradict herself, Willy. You’re reaching. Really reaching.

        Saying you sure you saw someone come up with others and then admitting that no “I’m not 100% certain, but I believe I did see see what I just described” is hardly a contradiction. It is a testament to her credibility. After all, she can’t PROVE that the Mrs Reid she saw come up with others wasn’t really a Lizard alien creature who had assumed Mrs, Reid’s form.

  14. https://i0.wp.com/i797.photobucket.com/albums/yy253/seanmurphyroi/BakerCokehandwrittenmarked_zps76613f4f.jpg

    Excerpt from Baker’s FBI statement:
    . . . .
    Dallas,Texas – September 23, 1964

    I, Marion L. Baker, do hereby furnish this voluntary signed statement to Richard J. Burnett who has identified himself to me as a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
    […]
    On the second floor , where lunchroom is located, I saw a man *standing in the lunchroom drinking a coke.* He was alone in the lunchroom at this time. (*this part is crossed out but legible*)
    . . . .
    \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Willy

      If you look carefully, you will see that the statement was written out by Burnett, and the entire thing is in his hand writing. Baker’s hand writing is quite different than Burnett’s, as can be seen from his signature and his initials, when he crossed out the part about drinking a Coke.

      Is it not possible Burnett wrote the statement without contribution from Baker, including the erroneous notion of Oswald drinking a Coke? And that Baker corrected him?

      • “Is it not possible Burnett wrote the statement without contribution from Baker, including the erroneous notion of Oswald drinking a Coke? And that Baker corrected him?” ~Bob Prudhomme

        It is “possible” Bob, but I think it is unlikely because of others saying that Oswald had a coke in his hand at the time of the encounter. Where was the coke machine Bob? Just beyond the vestibule where Baker was at the door of looking into when he confronted Oswald.
        \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Or, the whole Baker seeing a Coke in Oswald’s hand could be a myth that started shortly after the assassination, as he was seen with a Coke shortly after the assassination. Burnett may have simply mistakenly believed that myth.

          After all, does Baker mention the Coke any other time?

          “Mr. BELIN – Was–his back was away from you, or not, as you first saw him?
          Mr. BAKER – As I first caught that glimpse of him, or as I saw him, really saw him?
          Mr. BELIN – As you really saw him.
          Mr. BAKER – He was walking away from me with his back toward me.
          Mr. DULLES – Can I suggest if you will do this, put on there where the officer was and where Lee Oswald was, or the man who turned out to be Lee Oswald, and which direction he was walking in. I think that is quite important.
          Mr. BELIN – Yes, sir. We are going to get to that with one more question, if I can, sir. When you saw him, he then turned around, is that correct, and then walked back toward you?
          Mr. BAKER – Yes, sir.
          Mr. BELIN – Was he carrying anything in his hands?
          Mr. BAKER – He had nothing at that time.”

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Of course, if the 2nd floor lunch room encounter never happened, Oswald could have had a Coke in his hand at the time the shots were fired, and Baker would not have any knowledge of it. Mrs. Reid did see him with a Coke in his hand shortly after the assassination, and the creators of the 2nd floor lunch room encounter may have tried to incorporate the Coke into the story, until they realized this might have placed Oswald in the wrong location in the lunch room to be spotted by Baker.

          • Bob,

            I have read both Truly and Baker’s testimony to the WC many times over.

            What I am interested in is the hand written statement written out by Burnett for Baker to sign. Why did Burnett include the coke in hand statement in the first place? Surely Burnett didn’t make that up out of whole cloth.
            \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            No, I don’t think Burnett made it up. I believe it is possible he, like others, were confusing the Coke reported by Mrs. Reid, supposedly a few minutes later.

            Speaking of Mrs. Reid, she must have really booked it up those stairs, in order to be able to confront Oswald so soon after the 2nd floor lunch room encounter, wouldn’t you say?

  15. David Hazan says:

    Dear Lee and George,

    Don’t you guys worry… I will not pick up fortune telling, mind reading, diffusing arguments, arbitration, collective bargaining, reconciliation, marriage guidance, or any other form of dispute resolution.

    My specialty is in people, their behavior, and what makes them tick. I engage and make people talk, they expose themselves, so that I can analyze the true characters of douchebags like you who confuse mere facts of a historical event with a childish (and dickish if I might add) ego trip, or worse..

    What is it with you guys and the praying man? Is it that one of you discovered this possibility and made it his raison d’etre? Who built this basket you are putting all your eggs in????

    Let’s cut though the bullcrap….

    Are you essentially claiming there are people here, who are actively arguing to sabotage your efforts to obtain the original copy of this footage??? I ask you again, very simply and directly. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? How and where have they done this? Ok, I know, Tom moved your post… Boohoo… Is that all you’ve got??? You are commenting here freely, there’s even a discussion about it independent of you two bozos… What exactly is your bone???? If you feel we do not know enough to see what you are seeing, then make a few comprehensive posts, argue your point, enlighten us, and see how that goes. From where I’m sitting, looks like you actually prefer to have opposition, even if none exists. Why would that be? And who called him the praying man, anyway. He could be picking his nose in that shot, and you wouldn’t know, would you?

    Let’s just ask Tom directly.

    Tom, would you be opposed if these gentlemen were to obtain original copies of the footage in question, and, as a result, we discovered LHO was the praying mantis???

    Willy, Leslie, and all others… (Photon, stay out of this please) would you guys be opposed to finding out there was finally hard proof of a vast conspiracy that murdered the president in broad daylight, and took over the government and the military???

    I’ll tell you what.. George and Lee… I hereby offer you two post-dated, egg-on-my-face, heartfelt apologies.

    You can cash in the first one if anyone regularly commenting on this blog comes out against trying to obtain the original copy. Lone nutters don’t count!

    The second one is bigger… And it’s due date is the day you actually get the original copy…. Wow, that’s gonna be embarrassing for me. All of the eggs in that basket, on my face!!!

    I will still enjoy it though… After all, wouldn’t it be f’n great to have Oswald caught on camera, at the entrance of SBD??? I’ll say to myself “Hats off to Farley and George… They did it! I wonder if they are celebrating at a bar, or a pub… Because they have both…”

    Until then, I bid you farewell. You won’t hear from me again.

    • George says:

      “Until then, I bid you farewell. You won’t hear from me again.”

      How are we gonna see that egg on your face, then? What a tease!

      “Let’s cut though the bullcrap….”

      That is twice now one of you lot has said that… after dishing it out and being called on it…

      “My specialty is in people, their behavior, and what makes them tick. I engage and make people talk, they expose themselves, so that I can analyze the true characters of douchebags like you who confuse mere facts of a historical event with a childish (and dickish if I might add) ego trip, or worse..”

      Let’s leave psychology off your resume, as well. If you were any good at at it, you’d have picked a few people here for what they really are by now.

  16. Now, I have been studying the JFK assassination for close to forty years. In that time I have come across a penumbra of datum, many rational arguments, and many irrational arguments. I have collated all of this and analyzed it all countless times and have come to my own personal conclusions.

    Most of what is being put forward today by the Prayerman enthusiasts is what I would call common knowledge and information to the larger research community. To suggest that we consider their arguments and give them a fair hearing is one thing, but for them to demand that I or any other drop our previous perspectives and conclusions in deference to their views is unreasonable.

    It is particularly egregious for them to cop the attitudes they have, and then turn around and expect us to have sympathy for their positions.

    And then to be confronted with Circular Arguments, as described below:

    They have determined that Oswald is Prayerman in that image. So then to buttress this determination they seek out “evidence” that would favor that determination. The argument being, “since it is Oswald in the image, these other “proofs” are simply “cherries on top”. Of course this is also “confirmation bias”.

    So we have two combined illustrations of false argumentation made by this group.
    Add to this the paranoid hostility that sees those who do not buy into such ludicrous argumentation, and we have a prime example of cult behavior in this gang of trolls.

    They defeat their own aims and ends by such an aggressive assault on these pages. Persuasion by the use of a big stick is doomed to failure by any who have no penalty to mete out but their own ire.
    \\][//

    • George says:

      “They have determined that Oswald is Prayerman in that image. So then to buttress this determination they seek out “evidence” that would favor that determination. The argument being, “since it is Oswald in the image, these other “proofs” are simply “cherries on top”. Of course this is also “confirmation bias”.

      It comes as no shock that you have it completely the wrong way around. The other evidence alone is sufficient o determine it is Oswald and any reasonable, fact seeking police force or agency would have found the same at the time. In fact, if they had (and they should have), you would STILL be claiming any contrary view was based on “confirmation bias”. Why? Because in your heart, you’re a reactionary apologist.

      No Willy. The cherry on top has always been a clear scan from the Darnell.

  17. George says:

    “No, Leslie, an error of attribution in the early reporting of one newspaper is irrefutable evidence, or at least enough to instigate jumping up and done and repeating hearsay as justification for publication and for attempting to denigrate Willy,”

    ATTEMPTING TO DENIGRATE WLLY??? The “man” who has on several occasions referred to me as a 12 year old girl?

    Careful Emperor, your clothes are starting to take on a threadbare appearance.

  18. George says:

    “I think I’m not following this TomS. Please elaborate?”

    He can’t. Historically speaking, Tom has often been the only person to comprehend Tom’s words of wisdom.

    But he has demonstrated why it is mistake to debate this issue on a forum.

    You supply one piece of evidence and someone like Tom will try and tear it down – on this occasion by calling it “hearsay” as if this is a court and NO ONE, LEAST of all Tom – has ever used hearsay in this case (sarcasm – Tom is married to hearsay through his data dumps of news clippings). Moreover, they will pretend that this one single piece of evidence is all there is — forcing you to bring on more. Then that is dismissed on whatever bogus grounds and again, it’s taken on it’s own and not as part of a very large package of evidence.

    Sorry. Not playing that game here. All the evidence is laid out on other sites, in videos and Stan Dane’s book.

    • “Sorry. Not playing that game here..”~Greg Parker

      Happy trails Greg d’George! You are more than welcome to your other sites. You have overstayed your welcome here.
      \\][//

  19. Ronnie Wayne says:

    After visiting rokc I think possibly the best thing Tom has implemented here may be the George Carlin rule. Civil, though heated at times debate is great. Cussin’ somebody out to get your point across pisses me off. Even if I don’t agree with the person getting cussed out at some point. Certain words DO incite reactions that prevent reasonable discourse.
    One of the reasons This site is the best on the subject of JFK’s assassination where anyone can post.
    Regarding Prayerman, it’s a shame we can’t discuss “Where was Oswald” without the picture. I hope they clear this up.

  20. George says:

    “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.

    • Tom S. says:

      “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….

      You are delusional, a hypocrite. Mind boggling deceit and conceit, in just one short comment.
      No disagreement of significance is tolerated by your deputies. You select and encourage them.

      It is not difficult to take Richard Gilbride, for example, at his word;
      http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22616&p=328604
      ….after also taking what is on this page into consideration.:
      http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13329778-oswald-s-alibi-and-the-reid-technique?page=3

      Greg, we didn’t change, you did.:

      http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t424p120-prayer-man-poll
      Re: Prayer Man Poll
      Post by dwdunn(akaDan) on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 1:14 am
      …I’ll add some things that’ve been on my mind since Tom Scully brought up some issues several weeks ago — forum pageviews and gaining a wider readership…..When I first read your discussion with Carmine, I took your point to mean that BW Frazier’s ambivalence/reluctance/prevarication on the issue was “the icing on the cake” — to all of what Sean had presented. I thought it might be helpful to mention that when I saw you and Carmine got into a debate about Frazier’s equivocation being sort of the main issue (as opposed to the last nail in the coffin, as I took it); and since that’s how I took it, I was a bit mystified about seeing an objection to putting Frazier on a witness stand….

      Post by greg parker on Wed 22 Oct 2014, 2:19 am
      …Me too. And “fundamentally decent” is how I see all regular posters here, as well, regardless of differences in opinions…..

      Another member of your forum posted several hundred times.:
      http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1089-a-second-look-at-guy-banister

      He disagreed about the strength of the actual evidence supporting the theory Oswald was filmed
      on the TSBD vestibule steps. You and your group hounded him mercilessly, across the internet.
      You also went after me…:

      https://web.archive.org/web/20150421133643/http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13151457-message-to-tom-scully
      Forum Home > MISCELLANEOUS > Message to Tom Scully
      Greg Site Owner
      March 14, 2015 at 5:06 AM
      …As for your NumbScully belief that Carmine was the victim here because he only spoke what he believed to be true… explain to me how the (expletive) he was victimized, you sanctomonious pile of canary (expletive) wrapped in yesterday’s news…..

      Readers can weigh your claims in your “campaign” here, vs. other more informed opinions.:

      The closest I can come to describing your (and your deputies’) manner and tactics are internet wide enforcer/punisher(s) (aka thought police).

      • George says:

        Tom, this is just another of your cherry picked data dumps without any discernible narrative.

        There is always a reason for cherry picking.

        But as usual with you, no attempt to respond is going to necessarily hit any marks because who knows what your point is?

        I will say this: both Savastarno and Gilbride left of their own volition. And my comments aimed at you (from memory) were in response to incorrect comments you were making at another forum about the dispute with Savastarno.

        Yes, you had a falling out with the site owner at the ed forum. What a shock. But are going to deny that you were the most complained about hall monitor there because of your style?

        I know because I was one of your few defenders — on the grounds that at least you were not acting out of spite and bias – as were at least two others.

        You’ve certainly managed to convince me that either YOU changed, or I got it terribly wrong back then.

        You are the one who has picked this fight, Tom. I did not come looking for it.

      • Bart Kamp says:

        Impressive Tom, now then can you get back to the real issue at hand here?

        Why did you move my post when there was no reason for it since many other subjects were brought forward as the most important part of the evidence. You still have not answered that.

        And all this ‘mess’ is because of that.

        This is your design Tom, nothing less!

        • “Impressive Tom, now then can you get back to the real issue at hand here?”~Bart Kamp

          “The the real issue at hand” is whether “Prayerman” is Oswald. Isn’t that your issue Mr Kamp?

          Prayerman is a blur, nothing else. It will be nothing but a blur until the original film is brought forth. In fact it is not certain that it will be anything more than a blur even then, should that film ever be made available. You know this, we know this.

          We also know this is why the central issue of the image is not being discussed – because there is nothing more to say about it!

          So now we have the ‘Prayerman Campaign’ shifting to other issues concerning the whereabouts of Oswald. Great long arguments verbosium, spinning rhetoric, long accusatory harangues against those who recognize you have no case with that image.

          We have Greg Parker arguing that Ms Hine’s testimony before Ball is not self contradictory, when it is clearly so. Regardless of his “interpretation” as to WHY it is contradictory, his denial that it is contradictory is a prima facie falsehood.

          Mr Parker complains that this is a forum, “not a trial or legal proceeding”. This is a cheesy attempt to discard the jurisprudence and reason of law, in favor of conjecture, supposition and argument from rancor.

          I submit that the people who have attacked this site, it’s moderator, and it’s membership, are pretenders; less concerned with finding the facts than of playing the same thuggish games they play on their home turf.

          Rather than squalling about the JFKfacts forum, why do these people not make their case for their so-called “Prayerman”?
          It is obviously because they have no case.
          \\][//

          • Bart Kamp says:

            You are not really paying much attention Willy, do you?

            I already pointed out your lack of focus and selective presentation regarding this matter. What more can a person do when the other person refuses to pick any of it up………

          • “I already pointed out your lack of focus and selective presentation regarding this matter.”
            ~Bart Kamp

            “You are really not do you…”???

            The “lack of focus” of the film is what this is all about, ‘or did you don’t thunkit that makes a Geiger Countess?’

            You get taxed for glumpy syntax here as well as lack of critical thinking, and lack of specificity in your comment I am answering.
            \\][//

        • Tom S. says:

          No, Bart…”all this mess” is because you pressed Bill Kelly inappropriately, he called you on it, I moderated your comment by simply choosing to have it appear in, (The only place it has appeared on this site) in a discussion in which it was reasonable for it to be available for readers to read. The reaction is the problem, it is beyond the pale…..

          https://jfkfacts.org/whats-the-most-important-piece-of-jfk-assassination-evidence-to-surface-in-the-past-5-years/#comment-870073
          William Kelly
          April 16, 2016 at 9:53 am

          No photo evidence including prayer man has changed what we know about the case – it’s a shame Prayer Man Disciples must hijack a thread about the AF1 tapes and can’t start a thread on Prayer Man and how and why it’s important. No new evidence can be significant unless everyone recognizes it and accepts it and while Prayer Man and all the photo evidence is controversial – the AF1 tapes are undisputed.

          BK

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

          …and Bart, I understand that what we do here, actually permit all opinions to be viewed by
          JFKfacts.org readers is a foreign concept to George (aka Greg), Lee, yourself, and most members of your forum. We attempt to minimize censorship, as should be quite obvious to you, especially considering what is expressed in the “Comment of the week” in which I am responding to your seemingly limitless criticism of my decision to display your comment (in the image above) in a thread other than the one to which you submitted it.

          Over on George-Greg’s/your forum, your group eviscerated this former member, and then hid the childish vendetta thread against him, titled “Pugsley”.:
          Now you see the “Pugsley” revenge thread;

          https://web.archive.org/web/20150228162834/http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13086832-pugsley?
          (..and now you don’t see the “Pugsley” revenge thread.: http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13086832-pugsley? “Only moderators have permissions to view this, you are not signed in. “)

          Carmine Savastano
          Member – Posts: 33

          “Lee,

          I see clearly from you usual insult laden tripe that you cannot seperate your pet thoery from evidence. So allow me, I have actually not stated my true feelings so I shall for you now.

          Prayer Man is unproven. No matter how many witnesses you contend, no matter how many names you call me or how you might specualte about me personally, write it in the stars and it will remain unproven…..

          I have not insulted anyone personally because I do not find childish attempts to discuss everything but the facts prove anything.

          …I said I would suport this forum and its members who actually have the capacity to debate facts not just specualtions they claim are facts.

          Cube Head? Ah another inspired term, perhaps the evidence will in time too be able to prove it, yet I doubt it. I too am done.

          ….if you want to call people names and back slap over unproven evidence feel free.

          Greg I will still recommend this place but you may want to institute a reasonable way to keep the unproven Member (expletive) to a minimum.”

          • Bart Kamp says:

            Let me get this straight Tom, in that whole reply of mine only the very last sentence was ample reason for you to move the thread. Well I hope you stick to those standards for everyone, I for one seriously doubt you will.

            Furthermore, you of all people ought to know that Prayer Man is more than a fuzzy picture, the selective representation does you no good whatsoever.

            The so called fuzzy picture is merely the cherry on top, I thought that that message was clearly conveyed, then again…..

            And regarding all this stuff underneath the graphic of my post, I had sod all to do with that!

            Besides a massive grudge against a forum and its entire (core) membership I see no merit for it to be there.

            Enjoy your stay here dude……………

          • Tom S. says:

            Bart, the issue here is that you and the others “team commenting” at this website have no
            credibility. Scrubbing your scribbles from the internet is not going to change that fact. Actors….. all of your recent presence at JFKfacts.org is posturing, an act ….as always.:

            https://jfkfacts.org/a-question-for-2016-presidential-candidates/#comment-746763
            Tom Scully
            April 13, 2015 at 12:31 am

            “Fair enough,” Vanessa. Will you be using this same playbook again this time, to advance your idea? April 10, 2015 at 6:09 AM

            http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13083285-scribbles?page=5
            (Before George-Greg, Lee, Bart, Mr. Yusuf, & co. hid the thread, the link above resolved
            to his page, hence my question posed to Vanessa last year, and consider her reply, below the page image….)

            Vanessa
            April 13, 2015 at 8:44 pm

            Hello there Tom, nice to meet you.

            I’m not quite sure what you mean by that comment. I was talking to Terry about how we ROKCers were all banned from Ed Forum. We’re now reinstated but I found I had to remind them and was advising him to do the same.

            Could you please expand on what you mean?
            Reply

            Yes, I can expand on what I mean. How many episodes of feigned indignation, jumping up and
            down, and stamping of feet is team ROKC capable of staging on JFKfacts.org

          • Bart Kamp says:

            And where do I fit into all that jibber jabber Tom?

            I do not see my name anywhere in all of this.

            You are painting a very misleading picture.

          • Vanessa says:

            Well Tom, you are in good company in thinking I have no credibility. It was one of the first things Photon said to me when I came on this site. And that view is shared by such gems as Craig Lamson.

            I’m not a researcher I don’t claim any particular credibility for myself.

            However, Sean Murphy’s arguments are credible. And they are credible regardless of what you think of me.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Seriously, Greg?

  21. George says:

    “And where do I fit into all that jibber jabber Tom?

    I do not see my name anywhere in all of this.

    You are painting a very misleading picture.”

    Which is his standard MO with these selectively quoted and out of context data dumps, Bart.

  22. George says:

    “Yes, I can expand on what I mean. How many episodes of feigned indignation, jumping up and
    down, and stamping of feet is team ROKC capable of staging on JFKfacts.org” Tom

    We’re just responding to the crap being tossed our way. Stop tossing the crap, and chances are, we’ll stop responding to it.

    How many acts of feigned indignation, jumping up and down and stamping of feet have you pulled over your dumping at the Ed Forum, Tom? and over how many years and on how many forums?

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Speaking of feigned acts of indignation, how about the tantrum Lee Farley threw over absolutely nothing, threatening to leave the ROKC, unless I was expelled?

  23. WHERE WAS OSWALD FROM 11:50 to 12:35 P.M. ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION?

    Michael T. Griffith — 1998

    “Yet, it is common knowledge among assassination researchers that when Givens was initially questioned, he mentioned nothing about seeing Oswald on the sixth floor after everyone else had left. In fact, Givens, who had a police record involving narcotics, originally told the authorities he saw Oswald reading a newspaper on the FIRST FLOOR at 11:50 (14:75). Two other TSBD workers likewise put Oswald on the first floor from 11:50 to 12:00 (17:68). And, Book Depository employee Bonnie Ray Williams told the WC that he ate lunch on the sixth floor from around noon until 12:15, perhaps even until 12:20, AND THAT HE SAW NO ONE ELSE ON THE FLOOR. This was, at the most, just fifteen minutes before the President’s motorcade passed in front of the Depository. Even if Williams left the sixth floor at 12:15, Oswald still would not have had enough time to construct the sniper’s nest, reassemble the Carcano rifle, and arrange the supposed gun-rest boxes before the motorcade arrived (and, keep in mind, too, that the motorcade was scheduled to pass the TSBD at 12:25, and Oswald would have had no way of knowing that it was going to be five minutes late).
    […]
    Oswald allegedly told the police that he ate lunch in the domino room on the first floor (which was often used as a lunchroom by employees), and that he went upstairs to the second-floor lunchroom to buy a Coke and had just finished getting the Coke from the soda machine when Officer Marrion Baker approached him and asked him to identify himself. Three witnesses, Eddie Piper, Bill Shelley, and Charles Givens, reported seeing Oswald on the first floor between 11:50 and 12:00 (19 H 499; 6 H 383; 7 H 390; CD 5; 14:76-77). There is other evidence that supports Oswald’s story, as Summers explains…”

    http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/where.htm
    \\][//

  24. Tom S. says:

    George, the other link is not resolving. Try this one.

    http://www.countofwords.com/

    https://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/
    …..
    10. Comments that are more than 500 words long (or less than four or five words) will not be considered. (Comments consisting only of a link or links with no explanation or description will be mistaken for spam.)

    • George says:

      Thanks Tom. I see it does not apply to you. Or copy and pasted screen dumps (with lots of words) from other forums don’t add to the word tally?

      Must be in the fine print somewhere.

  25. Ronnie Wayne says:

    I think we can finally settle this discussion, maybe not the bickering.
    “According to Marvin Johnson who took Baker’s affidavit, Baker identified Lee Oswald as the man that the stopped on the FOURTH Floor”. Oswald was brought in while Baker was giving his affidavit
    Pg 127, Prayer Man, no source.
    Case Closed.

    • Vanessa says:

      Ronnie

      Is there an actual source for that claim in ‘Case Closed’?

      Because it’s a matter of dispute as to whether Baker did ID Oswald even though they were down at HQ together.

      Because if Baker did ID Oswald that weekend why is it not in his affidavit? Surely it could have been amended.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Vanessa, that’s straight out of Prayer Man, page 127 but I’m wrong about the source. A couple of pages before this is underlined in copies of Johnson’s report of the afternoon.
        Case closed was sarcasm.

  26. George says:

    Les,

    You may or may not have heard of the Reid Interrogation Technique. It is the root cause of most wrongful convictions and is used by most police, federal and military offices and agencies in the US.

    Harry was most likely invited to sit in to question Oswald regarding those things which Harry had been dealing with – the weapons orders and the PO boxes. Harry was also the only person in that room, apart from the accused, not trained in the Reid Technique. Harry went off the reservation when he questioned Oswald about his alibi and faithfully recorded it. He had no idea what he was doing to the prosecution case, because it wasn’t HIS area.

    Please explain how Oswald would know that people were being stopped from leaving in order to obtain their details?

    Please explain why Oswald’s name appears at the TOP of Revill’s list of such names and reads Harvey Lee Oswald – address of 605 Elsbeth

    You may have read over the years, the conjecture that this was actually supplied by Military Intelligence. Utter and unsubstantiated BS.

    It has also been used by the 2 Oswald buffoons to support their nonsense.

    As usual, there is actually a simple and sane solution. But no one likes it because on either side of the picket fence because it demolishes the universally beloved 2nd floor myth.

    The solution is that Oswald was asked to stand aside as per Holmes’ testimony, in order to give his details before being allowed to leave.

    In response, Oswald has flashed his old library card – upside down.

    If you look at his library card it reads Oswald, Lee Harvey. Held upside down, it is Harvey Lee Oswald. Looking quickly at the 2 in the street number upside down might also explain why it was written as a 5.

    So that is corroboration of the much maligned Holmes – as are the stories published the next day quoting Det. Hicks saying that Oswald was stopped by police at the front door.

    Again – you need to acquaint yourself with the PM evidence, instead of relying on what is “common” knowledge from 50 + years of willful ignorance which I find objectionable.

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

      ‘Harry was most likely . . . ‘ — Geo.

      “Most likely” is ambiguous and asks your reader to “trust you, you’ve got this handled” when in fact Harry Holmes was not qualified let alone authorized to interrogate the prime suspect in the president’s assassination. If he was present to assist authorities in the terminology and procedures of the US postal system that is somewhat acceptable, but to become the spokesperson for the very man he implicated in ownership of the alleged weapon(s) is outrageous. In your own words: “it wasn’t HIS area.”

      ‘Harry went off the reservation’ . . . ‘He had no idea what he was doing’ – Geo.

      And you know this how? Have you spoken with the man or do you have sources to prove this allegation, or is it speculation? We all ‘speculate’ but you do so with such certainty it defies definition.

      “. . . and reads Harvey Lee Oswald – address of 605 Elsbeth . . . If you look at his library card it reads Oswald, Lee Harvey. Held upside down, it is Harvey Lee Oswald. Looking quickly at the 2 in the street number upside down might also explain why it was written as a 5. – Geo.

      Setting aside your ambiguity “might also explain”, I find your logic here difficult to follow: ‘Might’ not the 6 look like a 9, and if the 2 appears as a 5, could it not be read as 509 upside down or, following your thinking (I think!) 905? Or any permutation? Again, it seems like information on a magnet tossed in with other facts – that are clearly subject to your own interpretation – on more magnets and working from that refrigerator of yours, you’ve arranged them to prove your theory.

      ‘ . . . the much maligned Holmes’ — Geo.

      I’m not maligning Holmes; I’m maligning law enforcement and authorities who inveigled him into proceedings during the critical hours following Oswald’s arrest. Perhaps they could have called Jack Ruby in to question Oswald about the ‘Fair Play for Cuba Committee” since he was an ‘expert’ and hanging around, ready to advise the DA on the organization?

      ‘ . . . relying on what is “common” knowledge . . .’ Geo.

      If you had followed my comments on this site over the last 3 years you would know that I do not rely on ‘common’ knowledge.

  27. George says:

    “Can you read a plat Vanessa? I have posted an image of the plat of the 2nd Floor of the Book Depository Building. The vestibule is clearly on the 2nd Floor. There is only ONE vestibule in that building – that is where Baker encountered Oswald by ALL accounts…whether the witnesses actually knew where the vestibule was located or not.”

    The definition below is from wiki, but do check other sources for yourself.

    “In modern architecture, vestibule typically refers to a small room next to the outer door and connecting it with the interior of the building. In ancient Roman architecture, vestibule (Latin: vestibulum) referred to a partially enclosed area between the interior of the house and the street.”

    Oswald used the word correctly in regard to the first floor entrance-way. When the encounter got shifted up to the second floor, the vestibule had to be shifted up as well.

    You were warned to do your home-work, Willy.

    • “vestibule *typically* refers to a small room”–Dictionary

      *typically › in a way that ​shows the characteristics of a ​particular ​kind of ​person or thing, or gives a ​usual ​example of a ​particular thing:
      “It’s a typically American ​town.”
      “I typically go ​running at ​lunchtime.”
      …..
      There are atypical uses of many words and phrases in language. Such as when a word fits a situation; as does vestibule for a small enclosed room leading to another room from and outside hallway.

      Now prove there were coke machines near the front entrance to the TBDB.
      \\][//

    • Several examples from a simple google search for “2nd (3rd, 4th) Floor Vestibules”

      http://www.wolfsonian.org/about/facility-and-rentals/event-spaces/second-floor-vestibule
      Home » About » Facility and Rentals » Event Spaces
      2nd FLOOR VESTIBULE (Private space)
      Share this
      997 square feet
      Accommodates:
      Up to 60 for a seated lunch or dinner and up to 80 for a cocktail reception
      Features:
      • Ideal for small cocktail receptions and private dinners
      • Art and objects from The Wolfsonian’s collection, including furniture from the First Class Milan Train Station Lounge Fully customizable space Wireless access

      https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g187870-d241742-Reviews-Ca_Pisani_Hotel-Venice_Veneto.html
      Ca’ Pisani Hotel Photo: Each room is accessed via a vestibule off a wide corridor.

      http://wyominghouseforsale.com/page6.html
      ‘Climbing the 14 oak stairs from the 3rd to the 4th Floors brings us to the 4th FLOOR VESTIBULE, a room formed by the intersections of the half-timbered North Gable, the ~ 60 foot long east-west North Wing with 60o roof slopes (which ends in the half-timbered North West Gable and the half-timbered North East Gable) with the northern end of the 45o Central Section roof. The Vestibule is illuminated with 5 ceiling lights and two 2-tube ceiling fluorescent lights.’

      • George says:

        PROSECUTOR
        And how can you be on the first floor when you claim you were in the vestibule and the vestibule is on the 2nd floor? Just what are you hiding Mr Oswald? Are you accusing the fine gentlemen owners of the TSBD and Dallas’ finest of duplicity in robbing you of your alibi?

        I put it to you that this is preposterous, Mr Oswald. Do you not know that there are about a half a dozen buildings in the world that have vestibules on upper floors? Half a dozen, Mr Oswald! Case closed.

        What’s that? The space on the first floor matches the description of a vestibule right down to being at the front entrance to the building? I laugh at the fact that if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck that it must be a duck, Mr. Oswald. Really!

        Your Honor at this point, I would like to hand up Exhibit A. It is a plat of the building made especially for those august gentlemen of the Warren Commission, and it specifically shows the one and only vestibule to be on the…[dramatic pause] SECOND FLOOR!

        OSWALD REPRESENTING HIMSELF BECAUSE AFTER 52 %%&*&^ YEARS, THERE ARE A****HOLES STILL DENYING HIM DUE PROCESS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATION, AND WHO STILL TAKE THE WORD OF CORRUPT OFFICIALS OVER ANY AND ALL EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
        Your Honor, may I call my first witness, Buell Wesley Frazier?

        JUDGE
        I’ve heard enough. Guilty as charged. Get the prisoner out of here. Smells like he hasn’t had a shower in 52 years. That’s the trouble with today’s youth. Poor hygiene leads to homicidal rages. I read that in National Inquirer or JFKFacts or some place like that.

  28. Choosing Harry Holmes as the key to exonerating Oswald is preposterous.
    Holmes is actually the key to the setting up Oswald as the patsy in this burlesque.

    As Dallas Postal Inspector Holmes had the means and opportunity to intercept both the Carcano rifle and the S&W 38 pistol, secure them and pass them on to DPD for props in staging the so-called “snipers nest’ in the TBDB, as well as the attempt to plant the pistol on Oswald at the Texas Theater.

    Further, Holmes’ unprecedented and illegal presence at the interrogation of Oswald, implicates him in stalling the transfer of Oswald from the Dallas jail to the County Jail. Oswald was scheduled to be brought down for transfer at 10:00 AM (see: Fritz) — but Ruby hadn’t showed up as scheduled; as we now know Ruby was stalling and had called in a warning that Oswald was in danger.

    So Holmes kept Oswald talking until he was tipped that Ruby had at last arrived for his hit job (around 11: AM), almost an hour later than the transfer of Oswald had been scheduled for.

    “Prior to the assassination, Holmes had already become an FBI informant. One of his functions was to keep the FBI (and, incidentally, the Secret Service) appraised of changes in the allocation of post office boxes in the Dallas area.”~Ian Griggs

    For more on Harry Holmes, see:
    http://www.jfklancer.com/Holmes.html

    \\][//

    • Paul May says:

      So much assumption and speculation. Ruby was stalling? Per his roommate George Senator Jack was walking around his apartment drinking a cup of coffee in his underwear at 10:00 AM 11/24. You then state “Ruby hadn’t shown up as sceduled”. Scheduled by whom? “As we know Ruby was stalling and called in a warning that Oswald was in danger”. Firstly, one cannot state with any certainty Ruby made the call. Secondly, if Ruby indeed made the call his lawyer could argue Jack had a premonition something might happen. Point is, it’s purely speculative. Ruby arrived in the basement some 30 to 45 seconds before the transfer. This is documented by the time stamp on the MO he purchased at the P.O.. How was Holmes “tipped” Ruby had arrived when he did? I’m not interested in further speculation on this matter. Can you provide hard credible evidence for your statements?

      • “I’m not interested in further speculation on this matter.”
        ~Paul May

        And I’m not interested in what Paul May is interested in.
        \\][//

        • Paul May says:

          Interesting response. This is taking place in JFKfacts org. I simply and civilly asked you to defend your comments. Your response? As appears typical of you, you lash out at anybody daring enough to question you. That your uncivil and reprehensible tone and demeanor is tolerated here is somewhat surprising. The good news? I click a button and you’re history. Perhaps Tom or Jeff might do the same.

  29. George says:

    Oh dear. Out of the millions upon millions of buildings in the world, there are a handful that use the term “vestibule” incorrectly to refer to a space on an upper floor.

    The very etymology of the term is “early 17th century (denoting the space in front of the main entrance of a classical Roman or Greek building): from French, or from Latin vestibulum ‘entrance court’.”

    MAIN ENTRANCE OF A BUILDING.

    So according to you guys, the TSBD is the ONLY building on Earth that has NO vestibule where it should be – and where there is something that exactly matches the description of a vestibule – but has one on the second floor which in fact is just a space created by fire safety codes.

    Every mention of a building vestibule in documents held by MFF refers to a building entrance – EXCEPT in regard to the TSBD. Why is that?

    Do I really need to spell it out AGAIN that the reason is because it was where Oswald said he was, so it had to be moved upstairs to the ONLY other space in the building that they might get away with calling a vestibule?

    You guys have this all wrong. You give the police a free pass despite the mounting evidence of their corruption, while dismissing the mountain of evidence proving that very corruption in their specific denial of Oswald’s alibi.

    • “Do I really need to spell it out AGAIN that the reason is because it was where Oswald said he was, so it had to be moved upstairs to the ONLY other space in the building that they might get away with calling a vestibule?”~’George’ aka Greg Parker

      That is NOT “where Oswald said he was,” that is where Holmes said Oswald said he was. You are resting your case on the words of Holmes, someone who should be considered a suspect in the case.

      Greg/George says we, “give the police a free pass”: Nonsense, Holmes was working on behalf of the police — the very police involved in the plot to frame Oswald.
      \\][//

  30. ‘You guys have this all wrong. You give the police a free pass despite the mounting evidence of their corruption, while dismissing the mountain of evidence proving that very corruption in their specific denial of Oswald’s alibi.’ — Georgie

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

    What is disconcerting is your reliance on Holmes’ testimony that you seem to argue establishes Oswald’s alibi. Do you have Oswald recorded – not ‘on record’ according to Holmes – but Oswald’s own voice using the term “vestibule”? That would be a point of reference from which to proceed. If you are using Holmes as your sole source to claim that Oswald said he was in a “vestibule”, any vestibule, you’ve lost me in this debate. Not interested.

    I presented examples that a vestibule can be on any floor; if you’ve had experience with architects please quote one who says a vestibule is always and only on the first floor or i.e. the area immediately adjacent to the entrance of a building. I deliberately offered a hotel in Italy – no slouches when it comes to architecture for a number of millennia – that refers to vestibules throughout the 4-5 story structure.

    You are grasping imo.

    • Bart Kamp says:

      Type in ”vestibule” and wikipedia will give you this:

      an entryway
      a lobby, entrance hall, or passage between the outer door and the interior of a building
      an enclosed area between two railroad cars
      a reception area
      a footstool
      a toilet
      a bar stool
      an antechamber
      an entry room
      a laundry chute in an American apartment building
      a passageway acting as an airlock between two environments
      Also known as a mud room in the American Home Association

      At dictionary.com it will provide you with:
      a passage, hall, or antechamber between the outer door and the interior parts of a house or building.

      Or also at wiki
      Early 17th century from French vestibule ‎(“entrance court”),

      Images:
      https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vestibule&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=911&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikyuyr2rPMAhWYOsAKHXPoAHEQsAQINA&dpr=1

      Now then Leslie, how do you wish to play this?

      • Bart, I’m not surprised you resort to wikipedia. Not exactly original research on your part, is it? Aside from that, what exactly is your point? You presented an argument to insist that the “vestibule” in Holmes’ version of Oswald’s statements had to have been at the entrance to the building; I shared with you examples including two that are architecturally driven to educate you that a vestibule can be on any floor. It wasn’t complicated.

        • George says:

          Leslie,

          what would YOU call the area between doors that seem to describe a vestibule, according to common definitions?

          If you don’t agree it’s a vestibule, then what is it?

          If you do agree it’s a vestibule, them why oh why is there zero reference to that fact – EXCEPT by Oswald via Holmes? What was being hidden by refusing to call it a vestibule while continually referring to an area on the 2nd floor as one? You don’t see – or just don’t wish to acknowledge the manipulation involved here?

          Even if I allow that the 2nd floor area is a vestibule – the area that most people would call a vestibule is on the 1st floor. Especially so here, because the building was constructed at a time when the inclusion of vestibules ON THE FIRST FLOOR was common in the US.

          “From about 1880 to 1930 vestibules were popular features in new homes because they create an additional barrier that keeps heat or cool air in and street noise out.”
          https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/vestibule

          • George, I think you’ve missed this particular plot as well: Holmes introduced his version of Oswald’s statements that included the term “vestibule”. Someone, I think it was you or perhaps Bart, argued that was proof Oswald meant that he was at the entrance of the building. Aside from the inadmissible evidence – Holmes saying what he thought Oswald said when it was Holmes himself who placed the alleged weapon(s) in the possession of Oswald – we have no way of knowing if the term “vestibule” was Holmes’s or Oswald’s; beyond that a vestibule can be on any floor of any building so there is NO rationale for using the term as proof Oswald was outside the building. It’s a flawed argument on many levels – pun intended. Sorry.

      • vest, vested, vesting, vests, vestments, invest, invested, investor, investment, vestal, vestibule…

        [from Old French vestir to clothe, from Latin vestīre, from vestis clothing]
        \\][//

        • George says:

          A vestibule is a little area just inside the main door of a building, but before a second door. You often find vestibules in churches, because they help keep heat from escaping every time someone enters or exits.
          The noun vestibule, pronounced “VES-tih-bule,” probably comes from the Latin word vestibulum, which means “entrance court.” From about 1880 to 1930 vestibules were popular features in new homes because they create an additional barrier that keeps heat or cool air in and street noise out. If you have a vestibule, you can hang coats and leave shoes and gloves there instead of bringing them into the living room, kitchen and so on.
          https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/vestibule

  31. George says:

    “George, I think you’ve missed this particular plot as well: Holmes introduced his version of Oswald’s statements that included the term “vestibule”. Someone, I think it was you or perhaps Bart, argued that was proof Oswald meant that he was at the entrance of the building. Aside from the inadmissible evidence – Holmes saying what he thought Oswald said when it was Holmes himself who placed the alleged weapon(s) in the possession of Oswald – we have no way of knowing if the term “vestibule” was Holmes’s or Oswald’s; beyond that a vestibule can be on any floor of any building so there is NO rationale for using the term as proof Oswald was outside the building. It’s a flawed argument on many levels – pun intended. Sorry.

    Leslie, your avoidance is once again, what is really telling.

    Let’s take it one little step at a time and try again.

    Regardless of whether or not there is a vestibule on the 2nd floor, is the area on the first floor between the two doors ALSO a vestibule. If you claim it is not, them please enlighten as to what it is.

    • “Regardless of whether or not there is a vestibule on the 2nd floor, is the area on the first floor between the two doors ALSO a vestibule. If you claim it is not, them please enlighten as to what it is.”~George

      Yes, the entrance area can be called a vestibule as well. I hadn’t seen the first floor plat until a day ago. And that area has double doors and a small “room” between them that can properly be called a vestibule.

      So there are 2 such areas in the TBDB, the one at the entrance to Elm, and the one off the hallway leading to the 2nd floor lunchroom and the corner stairs down to the Domino Room.
      \\][//

      • George says:

        Thank you, Willie. One small step accomplished.

        Now why do you suppose there is no mention of this obvious vestibule anywhere in the 26 volumes – except by Oswald as recalled by Holmes – yet the 2nd floor area is mentioned so often as a vestibule, it may as well have neon signs outside the entrances reading VESTIBULE – FLEEING ASSASSIN REST AREA?

        • “Now why do you suppose there is no mention of this obvious vestibule anywhere in the 26 volumes”~George

          “Vestibule” is in the WCReport, read Roy Truly’s testimony.

          I am not going to follow you around in circles here Mr Parker. I’ll let you keep making yourself dizzy, I am not interested in such childish games.
          \\][//

          • George says:

            Willy,

            The obvious vestibule is the one at the front entrance – you know – the one that best fits the usual definition of vestibule.

            That is my point. The fact that a vestibule is mentioned many times on the 2nd floor – when that is not the usual place for such a space – and never mentioned at all – except by Oswald – in the place you would expect to find a vestibule – the place you would expect to be called a vestibule – should give any thinking person pause to consider what smoke and mirrors are at work here.

          • One more time George:

            “Vestibule” is in the WCReport, read Roy Truly’s testimony.

            Attempts to relitigate a point that is already settled in simply spook business Mr Parker.
            \\][//

          • Jake says:

            A vestibule is a transitional entity linking what can be generally defined as the individual gestalten of what would otherwise be system isolated from one another: The outside world and the inside world; The conjunction of dissimilar super structures; The public world and the private world; Ignorance and enlightenment.

            Typically vestibules are reserved for entities whose meaning, significance, or physical differences warrant the added adornment and/or functional assets they can provide. In the context of the area outside the second floor lunchroom the only feasible definition of the word ‘vestibule’ would be as a nexus between a truth and a falsehood, since there was no encounter there, but there was one in the vestibule downstairs.

        • Mr. BELIN. All right. Number 23, the arrow points to the door that has the glass in it.
          Now, as you raced around, how far did you start up the stairs towards the third floor there?
          Mr. TRULY. I suppose I was up two or three steps before I realized the officer wasn’t following me.
          Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
          Mr. TRULY. I came back to the second floor landing.
          Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
          Mr. TRULY. I heard some voices, or a voice, coming from the area of the lunchroom, or the inside vestibule, the area of 24.
          Mr. BELIN. All right. And I see that there appears to be on the second floor diagram, a room marked lunchroom.
          Mr. TRULY. That is right.
          Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
          Mr. TRULY. I ran over and looked in this door No. 23.
          Mr. BELIN. Through the glass, or was the door open?
          Mr. TRULY. I don’t know. I think I opened the door. I feel like I did. I don’t remember.
          Mr. BELIN. It could have been open or it could have been closed, you do not remember?
          Mr. TRULY. The chances are it was closed.
          Mr. BELIN. You thought you opened it?
          Mr. TRULY. I think I opened it. I opened the door back and leaned in this way.
          Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
          Mr. TRULY. I saw the officer almost directly in the doorway of the lunch-room facing Lee Harvey Oswald.
          Mr. BELIN. And where was Lee Harvey Oswald at the time you saw him?
          Mr. TRULY. He was at the front of the lunchroom, not very far inside he was just inside the lunchroom door.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
          \\][//

    • Bart Kamp says:

      Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting? 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.
      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.

      Two sets (!) of doors? Where would that be? 1st or 2nd floor Leslie?

      Add on that Holmes did not write his report until 3 weeks after the deed he did everything from his memory.
      If you wish to dismiss all of it because of that then I can dismiss 99% of everything that is related to this case as I will find fault wherever it could be and we can all walk away and consider this case closed. The CIA/FBI/Govt the whole lot!!!! Jeff would be out of a job……Photon can sleep tight, MacAdams can yack about global warming…….now we don’t want that do we?

      • “Add on that Holmes did not write his report until 3 weeks after the deed he did everything from his memory.”~Bart Kamp

        No, I dismiss it as hearsay. It is simply not Oswald’s testimony. It is what Holmes says Oswald said, and Holmes is a ripe suspect himself in the setting up as Oswald as the patsy.

        “Mr. HOLMES. Seems like he said he was drinking a Coca Cola, standing there by the Coca Cola machine drinking a Coca Cola.”

        So now you prove there was a Coca Cola machine at the Elm Street entrance to the TBDB.
        \\][//

  32. Ed Ledoux says:

    The Coca Cola question and vestibule/floor are different questions Willy.

    They are not in chronological order.

    Cheers, Ed

    • Ed Ledoux,

      However the vestibule/floor being the 2nd floor lunchroom where Oswald was encountered by Baker and Truly, is NOT up to question. And that leaves your blurry image without an ID.

      Whether Oswald bought the coke before or after the Baker confrontation is moot to your argument; As Oswald and Mrs Reid passed one another in front of her desk in her office, as she was walking toward the 2 floor lunch room and Oswald was walking toward the door to the stairway – he had that coke in his hand at that time as per Reid’s testimony.
      \\][//

      • Bart Kamp says:

        Well I could bring Geneva Hine up one more time, who did not want to rat on Reid, but what about Sarah Stanton, did you happen to read her statement? She went in immediately after the shooting up to the 2nd floor offices, yes the ver same Reid, Oswald and Hine were at……hmmmmm. This is becoming a tad complicated no?
        Reid lied (he wore a white tshirt….), and so did Stanton.
        The whole thing about the 2nd floor encounter reeks to high heaven, why?
        it never happened as such, dig into my latest essay, where EVERYTHING is pointed out. Only 23.300 words to plough through, there is no bigger investigation into this matter than this article.
        http://www.prayer-man.com/anatomy-of-the-second-floor-lunch-room-encounter/
        _____________________________________________________________

        Holmes:”Apparently there is two sets of doors”
        Are there two sets(!) of doors on the 2nd floor?

        And why did Holmes mentioned “step aside” twice?

  33. Ed Ledoux says:

    Actually Oswald was encountered on the first floor, that is where the vestibule is also located. What you claim is a vestibule is in all actuality a hallway.
    Oswald was not referring to a second floor hallway nor was Holmes.
    Key word Willy is Entrance.

    • “Oswald was not referring to a second floor hallway nor was Holmes.”
      ~Ed Ledoux

      Oswald didn’t refer to anything Ledoux, those words are Holmes’ words.
      Oswald was not tape recorded nor was a stenographer at the interrogation. Every word claimed to be those of Oswald are put into his mouth by others.

      Harry Holmes is a witness for the prosecution. He is also a suspect in the setting up of Oswald as a patsy.

      The issue of the definition of “vestibule” has been addressed here. The term can be used properly in a wider range of variables than you will admit, as Leslie Sharp has shown. The hallway is outside of the vestibule leading into the 2nd floor lunchroom.

      No one claims the “encounter” took place on the first floor but you and your cult. Truly and Baker claim it took place on the 2nd floor, agreeing after Baker cleared up his confusion as to how many floors in an unfamiliar building he had climbed while following Truly.

      Your comrades are dismissing Reid’s testimony in favor of Hine’s, even though is is obvious that Hine’s testimony contained three contradictions in the same series of answers.

      You call everyone that testified in a manner that spoils your theory liars.

      “This ain’t the way to have fun son”~Randy Newman
      \\][//

      • Tom S. says:

        You call everyone that testified in a manner that spoils your theory liars.

        https://jfkfacts.org/mark-lanes-legacy-right-counsel/#comment-876391
        Willy Whitten-
        ……
        You cannot prove that Oswald pulled that gun in the the Texas Theater. You and Jean tried and failed miserably.

        • I did not say that Jean or Photon were liars Tom, I said they failed miserably.

          I didn’t say the witnesses who supposedly saw the gun in Oswald’s hands liars.

          I DO claim that the arresting officers planted that pistol on Oswald and lied about it.

          Shall we go through the testimony of the witnesses who are supposedly key witnesses to the arrest and seeing the pistol in Oswald’s hand at the time of the scuffle in the theater? None were in a position to see Oswald pull the gun.
          Like I said, I went over this in detail with Jean.
          \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Willy, your response is that you have strong grounds to accuse the Oswald was prayer man presenters of accusing multiple witnesses of lying because those accusations are required to bolster the prayer man in the vestibule argument, but when it comes to you declaring,

            ….You cannot prove that Oswald pulled that gun in the the Texas Theater. You and Jean tried and failed miserably

            http://www.kaamradio.com/On-Air-Hosts/111489
            7:00AM – 10:00AM
            “The AM Show with Jack Davis”
            23 years with Crawford Radio.
            “Gospel Jack” – Having been in broadcasting for more than 40 years, Jack is a “walking music encyclopedia,” who loves entertaining the listeners and sharing the rich history behind the music. In February, 2011, he was inducted into the “Texas Gospel Music Hall of Fame” for his work as a DJ/MC. Amazingly, one week shy of his 19th birthday, Jack was sitting in a movie theatre only two seats away from where the hiding Lee Harvey Oswald was found that tragic day when JFK was shot.

            …”failed miserably,” is not predicated on what reasonably looks an identical hurdle you must overcome? I’m not going to waste my time ticking off the long list of
            evidence that must be impeached to make your “failed miserably,” seem reasonable. You did not say, “I suspect Oswald brandished no revolver in the theater.” The prayer man
            presenters do not say, “I suspect Oswald was prayer man.” Willy, I suspect a number of things you seem to feel so strongly are proven fact (-See
            https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-12/#comment-851206 ) that you taunt and ridicule those
            who disagree with you. What limits me from going “all in,” is the record of testimony and other evidence, items like the BYP and the order form for the revolver, and even the spent shells DPD claim to have found in Oswald’s shirt pocket more than two hours after his arrest. There is also testimony of Barbara Jeanette Davis.

            I pointed out that I thought you were the pot calling the kettle black because your opinion about the revolver evidence is along the same lines as the prayer man presenters’
            treatment of the testimony of Truly, Baker, Frazier, Shelly, and Lovelady. As you do when you declare, “You and Jean tried and failed miserably,” the prayer man presenters minimize or ignore all evidence to the contrary of their belief.

            I ask often in my comments, Willy, who does any commentor expect the audience is for what they present in their comments? I expect for the most part that JFKfacts.org readers are reasonable people. Assuming this, I try to present reasonably. I don’t think prayer man presenters reasonably deal with the record of evidence that is in the way of what
            they are trying to convince their readers actually did happen. I don’t think, “You and Jean tried and failed miserably,” is a reasonable claim, considering the evidence.

          • And what exactly did Jack Davis say about Oswald pulling a gun in the Texas Theater?
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            And what exactly did Jack Davis say about Oswald pulling a gun in the Texas Theater?

            Willy, please accept my apology. I filter using “what would a reasonable person believe?” and “is it useful or practical to present against a record of
            multiple corroborating witnesses?” tests. Had I read this recent National Geographic earlier than today, I would not have replied to your comment.

            I am going to try to make this a wake up call and comment quite a bit less. In all sincerity, I have better things to devote my time to, this article has reminded me.:

            http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
            ……..
            How to penetrate the bubble? How to convert climate skeptics? Throwing more facts at them doesn’t help. Liz Neeley, who helps train scientists to be better communicators at an organization called Compass, says that people need to hear from believers they can trust, who share their fundamental values. She has personal experience with this. Her father is a climate change skeptic and gets most of his information on the issue from conservative media. In exasperation she finally confronted him: “Do you believe them or me?” She told him she believes the scientists who research climate change and knows many of them personally. “If you think I’m wrong,” she said, “then you’re telling me that you don’t trust me.” Her father’s stance on the issue softened. But it wasn’t the facts that did it.

            If you’re a rationalist, there’s something a little dispiriting about all this. In Kahan’s descriptions of how we decide what to believe, what we decide sometimes sounds almost incidental. Those of us in the science-communication business are as tribal as anyone else, he told me. We believe in scientific ideas not because we have truly evaluated all the evidence but because we feel an affinity for the scientific community. When I mentioned to Kahan that I fully accept evolution, he said, “Believing in evolution is just a description about you. It’s not an account of how you reason.”…

          • Jack Davis said Oswald sat next to him as the credits were running. That would be before Tippit was murdered:

            “According to further Burroughs testimony, the “1:00-1:05” Oswald came back to the concession stand to buy popcorn at 1:15, then returned to the theater and sat next to a pregnant woman. Another witness in the theater that day was Jack Davis, who saw a man enter the theater and sit right next to him just after the opening credits of the 1:00 movie. Davis thought this action a bit peculiar since there were only about 20 people in the 900-seat theater.”
            http://scribblguy.50megs.com/intrigue.htm

            “Meanwhile, on the Applin front, Dale Myers used the latter’s FBI interview
            to demolish fellow witness Jack Davis’s insistence that he saw Oswald
            enter the theatre shortly after 1pm. Davis had “recalled seeing the
            opening credits of the feature film a few ‘minutes past the 1pm starting
            time’. Shortly thereafter, a man [later identified as Oswald] came in &
            sat next to him….” (p617) But Applin stated that “the show began ‘at
            approximately 1:00pm’ with a cartoon & a newsreel… the feature did not
            begin until ‘approximately 20 minutes later’.” (WM p617)”
            https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/GmjrYTwrmDk

            \\][//

          • Tom,

            I accept your apology. Let’s just move forward and let the angst pass.
            \\][//

  34. THE PRAYERMAN CULT Blurry Pictures & Blurrier Reasoning

    A study in hysterical thinking by Magus Maverik

    The story begins in the earlier days of JFK assassination research…
    `Prayer Man’ in the TSBD Doorway

    Dave Wiegman and Jimmy Darnell, two of the news cameramen travelling in the motorcade, began filming when they heard gunshots. For several decades, the significance of their two films was thought to lie in their portrayal of the spectators along Elm Street and the cars in the motorcade. More recently, attention has been drawn to the films’ depiction of the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository, and in particular to a previously ignored figure who, according to some observers, may have been Lee Harvey Oswald.

    https://www.amazon.com/forum/history?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMSG=addedToThread&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx2ATN5ZE14VRZP&newContentID=Mx3U9ETQV0N29C2&newContentNum=2#CustomerDiscussionsNRPB

    \\][//

  35. Ed Ledoux says:

    Oswald being on the first floor during the excitement is not good enough. If he is guilty he must have been shooting a rifle from the window where tbe shell casings were claimed to be discovered. Too bad you have zip showing anyone firing from the the “SNIPERS NEST”…Funny how SS and FBI watched films and found no shots coming from that window.
    Still unable to name this Non-Oswald entity in the corner of the vestibule? No surprise.
    As to you it must be anyone but what logically is the best candidate.
    Then again you seem stuck on a image from a vhs copy. Glad Sean Murphy spelled out the reactionaries take on his research.
    Bravo for being your own stereotypes
    And cheers to you brave internet warriors, dont let your chair get cold.

  36. George says:

    “One more time George:

    “Vestibule” is in the WCReport, read Roy Truly’s testimony.

    Attempts to relitigate a point that is already settled in simply spook business Mr Parker.”

    ——————–

    Are you really this obtuse, Willy?

    Where have I dispute that Truly used the term “vestibule” in regard to the 2nd floor? That is the crux of the issue.

    So again – one more time for YOU. Vestibules are commonly found on the first floor at the entrance to a building. Having one on the 2nd floor is NOT common.

    Yet nowhere in the volumes is the front entrance area referred to as a vestibule EXCEPT by Oswald. Yet there are several references to a vestibule on the 2nd floor.

    It reeks of a deliberate attempt to shift the vestibule one floor up in order to be able to shift Oswald one floor up.

    In no other situation would the front area of the TSBD NOT be referred to as a vestibule. The avoidance of that word in regard to that specific area is a giant red flag.

    No surprise that you keep avoiding that point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.