In JFK lore, who is ‘Prayer Man’?

A man captured n the proverbial shadows of Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. But he was not Lee Oswald, said the late Gary Mack. Bill Kelly explains.


  1. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Don’t post I tell myself, joining this fray further will only result in frustration, possibly personal attacks from one “side” or the other, it’s just not worth it. But I’m already frustrated by the animosity and acrimony of many posters towards others all supposedly seeking the “Truth” Jeff mentions in this website’s title.
    I don’t peruse the ROK site anymore because of the cussing out on it of a poster I considered reasonable.
    But I’m still looking for the Truth regarding many aspects of the assassination.
    I guess my personal “problem” is that for many years I’ve believed from the reading I’ve done and visiting Dealy Plaza that Oswald was not a shooter on the sixth floor. That and well before I ever heard of Prayer Man I questioned the veracity of Roy Truly. Also before PM I read Baker’s affidavit from 11/22/63 and thought about “a guy walking away from us on the third or fourth floor” but no mention of pointing his gun at a employee in the second floor lunch room or a Coke??? I wondered what would a loyal Dallas cop at the time say after coaching, possibly intimidation by his superiors and or the FBI or say Secret Service?
    Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the lunchroom shortly before 12:15, did he run back upstairs to shoot JFK at 12:30?
    TSBD VP Ochus Campbell saw Oswald in the entrance area when he re entered the building after the assassination.
    Truly told a reporter he couldn’t see Oswald’s hands in early 64 (RE, a Coke). He told the Warren Commission he could see both of them, with nothing in them.
    He also thought the shot’s came from the grassy knoll area.
    But would never talk to his family about it.
    He also later dismissed interviewers with a that’s in the past statement if memory serves.
    I don’t know the truth but I’m still looking.
    Does anyone else?

  2. Mariano says:

    For those not aware of the hijack of this thread look up ROKC or where you will see some of these names: Vanessa/Lee/Bart/Hassan. This is a concerted effort by members of a JFK site for whatever motivations to undermine Tom.
    Who cares about your dirty laundry guys?
    Let it go, and just contribute in a civil manner.

  3. George says:

    Tom, quoting “Albert” Doyle is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

    In fact, everything you’ve done and said in defense of your decision to remove posts from the other thread, have been designed to fool readers, conceal your true nature and to dodge directly responding to the core issue. That includes choosing Lee for your comment of the week. It is simply a ploy to “prove” how unbiased you are

    You were removed as moderator from the ed forum because of the sheer number of complaints about your style, along with your inability to work with other moderators. This was highlighted by your acting on own volition to among other things, hide posts.

    You have never stopped complaining about your removal since because you have a deep psychological need to have a position of authority. To that end, you joined as many other forums as you could, and at one stage, attempted to start your own forum.

    When Morley needed a moderator there WAS no one WHO wanted the job – except YOU. When it became known that Morley was going to accept you for the position, he was warned it would be a mistake. But in the end, you got it because he was desperate, and you were the only volunteer.

    No applicant for a job as a cop or prison warden should go to anyone who is desperate not to serve – but to have authority over others.

    The same principle should apply to anyone desperate to be a moderator. Especially someone who has shown no personal insight and has ignored all attempts at providing some. I know because I have been among those who once beat his head against a brick wall trying to save you from yourself.

    • George,

      Who’s the real leader of your club? Who is the one that first presented this “Prayer Man” nonsense?

    • leslie sharp says:

      “When Morley needed a moderator there WAS no one WHO wanted the job – except YOU.” — George

      George, in the spirit of the mission statement of this site, could you provide evidence of your claim? How precisely do you know there were not others stepping up to the plate when Peter left?

      ‘When it became known that Morley was going to accept you for the position, he was warned it would be a mistake.’

      My recollection is that ‘Vanessa’ offered a public admonition on this site along those lines, and then she disappeared, only to surface in the last few days on this thread. Do know of any other “warnings” Jeff Morley was sent to insist that TomS would be a mistake? Maybe you should link to any emails of protest instead of hiding behind “he was warned.” As a matter of interest, I wouldn’t be crazy about spending time on a Kennedy assassiantion research site whose host would be influenced by “warnings’, let alone any with the bias you present in these recent comments, and on the contrary, I’m guessing that Morley himself would laugh at the suggestion he could be bullied. (that coming from someone who does not always agree with Jeff Morley’s position on the assassination research.)

      ‘But in the end, you got it because he was desperate, and you were the only volunteer.’

      You gotta know you don’t have any evidence to support that assertion, George. If you do, present it; otherwise to maintain your credibility with readers of this site, I think you might want to retract.

      • George says:

        I know because I have seen the email from Morley. I am not about to post OTHER people’s emails however, on a public forum.

        Where did I say Morley could be bullied by Scully or anyone else?

        I doubt Morley interferes with Scully much at all – that was the whole idea of having a moderator – to gt rid of that headache.

        • Tom S. says:

          “George”, you’re presenting claims using an alias. However, I’ve grown indifferent under the influence of “feedback” initiated by Robert Morrow continuing through the remarkably similar abuse you delight in dishing out.

          I have approved the last comment I will ever involve myself with on this website, at least until Mr. Morley weighs in on the veracity of your accusations against him. If these claims of Greg Parker, disguised as “George” are accurate, I will not be back. If they are denied by Jeff Morley, “George” will not be back.

    • Steve Stirlen says:


      If I may be so bold, would you rather have McAdams or Photon as the moderator? I think Tom S. does a wonderfully thankless job wonderfully. No one is ever going to please everyone on this topic. There are bound to be beefs among folks, because of the nature of the beast, and the fact that the “evidence,” such as it is, can be interpreted in a million different ways. Then, you add in people who think THEY are the story, and egos are bound to get bruised. I don’t know what your problem with Tom S. Is, and it is not my intent to get in the middle of anything, but I would rather have Tom S. than a helluva lot of people that could be moderating.

  4. George says:

    “Anyone who thinks this can be blown up to a identifiable image is daydreaming.”

    Exactly right, Willy.

    Which is why we want the original or 1st generation to scan. I am no photo expert, but it is the opinion of 3 photographers with over 60 years experience between them, that the image is not blurred. The “fuzziness” is just the result of being multi-generational. The same issue does not arise with a scan from the original. It will yield the kind of detail that will allow identification of the individual.

    • “The “fuzziness” is just the result of being multi-generational.”

      You say that this is “the opinion of 3 photographers with over 60 years experience between them”?

      Nonsense, generations do not induce “fuzziness” they cause build-up of contrast, ie; the lights get lighter and the darks get darker. You may note the overall gray tone of the film you already have. If it were a matter of generations, the contrast would be blown. This film is mostly mid-tone. The problem is one of minute size and hand held camera jiggle.

      WHO are these “professional photographers” you cite? Where can they be sourced? What is the precise language they used? So far you are only offering hearsay.

      • George says:

        “Fuzziness” is my term to describe the lack of clarity. You are correct about the size as that was another point raised by them. The main point they made though, is that the frame being used is not blurred. So on that point, there may be disagreement if you believe there is “jiggle” blur.

        As for who they are – it’s no secret. They have all given their opinions in their real names online at various forums. Their expertise is in both motion and still photography.

  5. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Lee Farley

    I should think you would be delighted by Tom S. giving you your very own thread regarding PM. Just think, should one of us stray off topic, the rules can be invoked to bring us all back on topic discussing PM.

    What more could you ask for?

  6. Mariano says:

    Lee, George, Bart et al – why don’t you play this personal disagreement outside the thread and allow others who are genuinely interested in the subject to experience it without your dirty laundry.
    Whatever your differences, Tom has an important role to play here, and most believe Tom does a commendable job.
    It takes both sides to tango in bringing this to an end and if you have designs on hijacking this thread or others, please shove off.
    All your comments have have appeared for all to see, and if you do not approve of your treatment by moderation whether you feel it is right or wrong, you should go back to your devices and let off steam the way you do on the other site.
    It does appear as though your presence and tone on this thread might have been calculated to bait the moderator, that you are not here purely to contribute to the subject.
    Most of us are here because we have a passion to know the truth about JFK’s assassination, and I think I speak for most observers by stating that we are not interested in the conversation that has transpired between you all and Tom.

    • Bart Kamp says:

      You seem to have completely missed the point what this is actually about! I suggest after you have gone back to your own device and give it all another read then perhaps you may get ‘it’ Mariano. Until then….

    • Lee Farley says:

      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.

      • Tom S. says:


        Every Tuesday, as close to 3:00 pm New York time as I can manage, a reader submitted comment is featured
        in the “Comment of the week,” article. From what I can determine so far this week, your comment (directly above) will be the featured comment of tomorrow’s new weekly edition. This will put you, your grievances, and your theory in a front page article and discussion for at least several days. In between berating me for approving your and your likeminded associates’ unfettered opportunity to…..berate me, maybe you will even find time to present what you claim you’ve been discouraged by me and my vengeful, psychological disorder from communicating to readers of

        • Lee Farley says:

          What has this got to do with Prayer Man? Might I suggest you move this comment to a more suitable thread?

          Maybe you could call it:

          “Tom Scully: Nothing more than a cryptic crossword clue?”

          If you, and your mate Mariano, cannot see how the subject of Prayer Man BELONGS on the “What is the most important JFK assassination evidence?” thread then you are truly disturbed. I have always suspected you were somewhat unhinged, what with your overbearing and strange obsession with me over at the Education Forum, to you using my private email address to contact me with more details of your persecution complex, to signing up at ROKC using the name “Frank Pace”, to your never ending griping about how John Simkin treated you, and also your nonsensical 10,000 word posts that were only understandable by one person; you. The cast of strange characters I have met on these forums over the past decade is nothing short of indescribable. You are up there with the strangest of the strange.

          I’ll say it one more time with some vain hope that it might sink in, although, knowing you, it won’t.

          You acted on Bill Kelly’s call to remove Prayer Man as off-topic, not because it was the right thing to do, but because you have a “beef” with ROKC, its owner and its members. I have shown how dozens upon dozens of other comments, all of them OFF TOPIC, are left in situ. Why? Because Bill didn’t have a problem with any of those off-topic comments. Only Prayer Man.

          Why is that?

          Is it because Bill, and Jeff, and Greg Burnham, and Robert Groden, and Albert Doyle, and Richard Gilbride, and Pat Speer, and Dawn Meredith, and a host of others do not want discussion of Prayer Man? Is that why they either all conflate Prayer Man with Altgens/Lovelady or, alternatively, spread disinformation about Prayer Man being Frazier or a woman or a stranger?

          The logic you used to move the comments is warped, it is biased and it is indicative of you as a person. What the hell has you approving my comments here got to do with anything? Does that have any bearing on this matter in any way, shape or form? Oh, wait, yes, yes it does! Silly me. It has a bearing because you will have created something in your twisted mind to make it so. Ain’t that right? It has to be about you being a better person than me. It has to be about you being such a great guy and your perceived enemies being atrocious human beings.

          Looking forward to the “Comment of the Week”. It sure is an honour. I’ve only been posting here for 9 hours and I get this thrust on me. Sweet!

      • “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.”~Lee Farley

        Actually I for one do not need your help in determining why your comments on the PrayerMan were moved to this page; as the title of and topic of this page are all that one needs to know as to why your comments belong here.

        Now, when we get to the nitty gritty of this conversation, perhaps on the new Comment of the Week thread Tom has mentioned. You Mr Farley are going to be cross examined as per what your knowledge level of photography is — NOT digital photography Farley – FILM photography. Prepare yourself appropriately.

        • Lee Farley says:

          You didn’t even know what Prayer Man was. That’s your level of expertise in this matter.

          And the comment you quote was directed towards another member. I never asked if you needed help so you line up as another answer to a question that no one has asked.

          So, what have you demonstrated to me so far?

          1. That the topic you are commenting on here, you know nothing about.
          2.That you confuse comments that were directed at others as somehow being aimed at you.
          3. That you believe the Second Floor Lunchroom is backed up by the evidence.
          4. That you, quite obviously, don’t like being told you know sod-all.

          And who says I’m going to be “cross-examined”? You? Don’t make me laugh. I have no need for any knowledge of “photography” nor have I claimed any. So, why would you like to cross examine me? It’s a bit weird if you ask me. But, par for the course being involved in this case online for the last decade. There’s always one weirdo trying to outdo the last.

          You Mr. Witten, will be cross examined on the Periodic Table and the gravitational forces on Jupiter! How’d you like them apples?

          When we get to the “nitty gritty” of this conversation one would hope you will have developed an understanding that Prayer Man has nothing to do with Altgens-6!

          Have you heard the saying that you should never correct a fool because they’ll hate you for it!

          Altgens-6 and Prayer Man are not the same thing, old sport.

          Prepare yourself. Click a link.


          • Bart Kamp says:

            Come on Tom, let that faker called Doyle really participate, you are well aware he has been trolling wherever he wants to. But then again you know it will just open the floodgates no?

            As you are well aware that Doyle is a liar and a coward who hides behind multiple ids and never provides any evidence of any kind.

          • “You didn’t even know what Prayer Man was. That’s your level of expertise in this matter.”~Lee Farley

            Of course I knew what Prayer Man was. I have seen the photos and the montage. Anyone who thinks this can be blown up to a identifiable image is daydreaming.

            I did not say that Prayerman and the Lovelady/Oswald dispute were the same. I said mean level of expertise of those “analyzing” these images are on par with one another.

            When “Periodic Table and the gravitational forces on Jupiter” become relevant to the JFK assassination I will be quite willing to discuss those issues. Astronomy has been one of my favorite subjects from a very early age.

            The name “Whitten” has an “h” after the “W”. Be precise with me Mr Farley, and don’t attempt to blow smoke.

            Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with my own expertise and experience:



          • Photon says:

            What is most interesting about all of this Prayerman hype is the 800lb gorilla seen in the same photos that none of these sharp eyed observers mention-despite being able to discern a man, a woman, Oswald or any number of creatures out of a collection of shadows with insufficient resolution to make any claim valid. It reminds me of the comment about the observations of canals on Mars in the early 20th century: obviously those canals were the product of an intelligent life form, but at which end of the telescope? That 800 lb gorilla is the only definite thing related to the assassination that can be observed in these photos. You don’t have to imagine what you see-it is plainly evident. Of course it will probably take months for the “research” community to pick up on this.

  7. George says:

    “George” you’ve submitted comments displaying a good number of false accusations, including this one.
    Sorry “Frank” but I have a lot of emails which support that claim. I have posted one here. How can you act like I haven’t?

    If need be, I will embarrass you by posting every email pertaining to these issues that I can find.

    Here is another in response to a third party inquiry about what happened:
    He was not kicked out of ROKC for the reasons he states. That happened AFTER he was booted.

    The fact is that he made 2 or 3 attempts to join the forum using the alias “Frank Pace”. He (as Frank Pace) also sent me several bizarre PMs. I had no idea who it was so just rejected the membership. Scully then got in touch complaining that he wasn’t allowed to join. So… now knowing “Frank Pace” was Scully, I approved his membership. He didn’t last long after that. His first post was one of his famous 400, 000 word critiques of weddings. Do you want that garbage clogging up your bandwidth? So he was shown the door.

    As above – you were shown the door because you did not meet our criteria for membership. We are after serious researchers – not wedding data-dumpers.

    Accept reality, or reality is going to bite you you on the ass, Tom.

  8. Lee Farley says:

    Site Rules:

    Number 1.Comments must pertain to the subject of the original post.

    The Subject of the original post was the question “What is the most important piece of JFK assassination research?”

    The subject contains a question. If the writer of this subject did not want replies pertaining to this question then the writer should have written a statement such as “The Air Force One Tapes: The most important piece of JFK research” or “Why I believe the Air Force One tapes are the most important piece of JFK research.”

    Therefore, whatever is posted underneath that original subject question is fair game just as long as the comment answers the question thereby sticking to forum rule number one “Comments must pertain to the subject of the original post.”

    Bill Kelly seems to think the following:

    a) That the Air Force One Tapes are “the most important piece of JFK assassination evidence” although he also claims that the actual evidence that is important is no longer on them. So they are important because stuff is missing. What stuff? We don’t know – because it’s gone. If there is anything actually on these tapes that helps solve this case I would be interested in someone, anyone, pointing out what it is.

    b) That any discussion of Prayer Man on the “What is the most important piece of JFK assassination research” thread is a “thread hijack” even though the dozens upon dozens of comments, prior to Prayer Man being brought up, were in no way shape or form related to the Air Force One tapes and were simply answering the question posed.

    Bill did not raise any issue with Bart Kamp asking him a direct question about anything. Bill simply requested that one topic, and one topic alone, be quarantined from the discussion and a new thread started. Bill did not ask that comments about the Z-Film have a new thread, or comments about body alteration start a new thread, or comments about the ballistics start a new thread, or comments about Clint Murchison start a new thread. Nor did he ask for new threads pertaining to any of the couple of other dozen topics raised that answered the subject question. No. Bill just said that comments about Prayer Man should be made on a new thread. The actual reasons for moving Prayer Man comments from that thread to this one have either been made up after the fact by individual/s moving the comments or discussed in private prior to the moving of comments.

  9. George says:

    “George” I was a member of your forum with posting privileges twice, and you banned me both times.

    Yes, Tom. I now you have issues about getting over such things, but for the sake of your well-being you should try.

    You should also try to be accurate. As I have already said, you have the exact same privileges at my forum as I do here through the “comments” facility” provided for guests. Say anything you want through that Tom. so long as it nothing that will cause legal issues.

    Of course, you being banned there has nothing to do with your “moderating: my post out of the thread where it was made. That would silly, Wouldn’t it, Tom?

    And yet you seem to keep bringing it up in your defense of your actions here…

    • Tom S. says:

      I “moved” your comment. I could have simply ignored it. It is visible for others to read, and for you to
      use as a cudgel for much of what you’ve presented here today. I presented a quote of Vanessa describing
      my posting activity on your forum. See-
      I used the alias “Frank Pace”. You are commenting here using an alias.
      You are complaining at length because I moved your comment. Can you provide a link to any of the posts I
      contributed on your forum, under the alias “Frank Pace”?

      I submit that you cannot provide a link, because you deleted all of my posts on the present version of your forum. I am very surprised at your audacity and the sheer lengths of your hypocrisy. As Willy commented, if I conducted myself at all like you actually have, no one here would even know of your disingenuous projecting.

      • Bart Kamp says:

        Look Tom, it seems that you DO have an issue or two, and that has influenced your decision to move all these posts, and it also shows that this debate has moved solely towards that.

        Excluding PM from that post is rubbish, because I had a dig at BK, after BK had a grudge/dig at PM (and he has for almost two years).

        You mean to tell me that if I had not asked him about the book review (which is something he said he would do when he would be sent a FREE copy of Stan Dane’s book) that post of mine would have been admitted?
        NFW Tom.
        And that brings it to your personal decision, and let’s face it, you are heavily biased when it comes to PM. You rather waffle on about documents that do not bring a proper solution any further.
        Bravo Tom!

      • George says:

        What projecting what that be? “George” is a nickname. My real name – as you well know – is embedded in my email address.

        When you attempted to join as Frank Pace, you got off to a great start by sending a series of offensive personal messages without any indication of who you really were.

        Even if there was a speck of truth in your version of reality, what you are attempting to say is “what I did wasn’t as bad as what I claim you did.” It has NAUGHT to do with anything. Either what you did was was actually proper and warranted, or it wasn’t. Efforts to make some point on equivalence is just you playing dodge ball with the facts here.

        • Tom S. says:

          When you attempted to join as Frank Pace, you got off to a great start by sending a series of offensive personal messages without any indication of who you really were.

          We know this is a false accusation. You banned me and deleted my posts on your forum because I am critical of the group think eneveloping your forum. Your invented justification paints me as a split personality. Here is your sidekick Hasan, thanking me, (January 16, 2015 at 8:38 AM – ) just as you were readmitting me as a member of your forum after you informed me in an email that you had deleted my membership and several posts because you claimed you did not recognize my alias, which is precisely the point of using an alias.

          I shared a definition of “projection” with you. It is the dysfunctional strategy or symptom of accusing others of the offenses you are actually the one who is committing. Remember, your “activity” here was triggered by the mere “moving” of one comment you’ve submitted. In almost every comment you’ve submitted since, and I’ve approved the visibility of all of them, you’ve leveled a series of false accusations against me that describe offences you have committed.

          • George says:

            an email I sent to my moderator at the time.

            To: Hasan Yusuf

            Hasan, I rejected or deleted that entity either at the new or the old site because of a comment the entity made that led me to believe it was a joke or troll account. The same entity has tried to re-register once or twice since, but I have rejected it each time because I remembered the first instance.

            Now I know who it is, I will overturn it if I can. If I can”t, he can pick another name to register under. It was not the pseudonym that caused it though.

            It was dated 17/01/2015

            Never ever call me a liar, Tom.

          • Tom S. says:

            Never ever call me a liar, Tom.

            “George” you’ve submitted comments displaying a good number of false accusations, including this one.

          • Lee Farley says:

            Let’s see if we can place some understanding around this shall we?

            Bill Kelly starts a discussion around the question “What is the most important piece of JFK assassination evidence?” and he states his belief that it is the AF1 tapes.

            Then 400+ replies occur. Most of which are not about the AF1 tapes.

            Then Bart Kamp and Vanessa Loney post a couple of comments about Prayer Man being the most important piece of JFK assassination evidence and Bart asks Bill why he hasn’t done something that he said he would do.

            So, Bill, for the first time in over 400 comments, states this is a thread hijack and you, the moderator immediately move them.

            You then state that the reason for moving them is because they don’t pertain to AF1 and that Bart issued a challenge to Bill.

            But Bill never mentioned the challenge, he just mentioned the topic.

            And you also didn’t seem concerned that the majority of other comments are not about AF1 and left them in situ. Even though there are 31 comments, taking place over 10 days, that you yourself participated in, concerning the Z-Film.

            Then this thread, that is supposed to be about Prayer Man gets turned into you griping about being banned from a different venue after being asked why the comments were moved.

            Yet, you claim you removed the PM comments from the AF1 thread because they were not about the subject, even though they were.

            And then you yourself post comments here that are not about this subject. Although you have a bee in your bonnet about PM not being related to the AF1 tapes thread.

            Have I caught up? Is this an accurate reflection of what has happened here?

          • Tom S. says:

            As May 6, 2014, JFK Facts has a new comment policy:
            10. Comments that are more than 500 words long will not be considered.


          • Hasan Yusuf says:

            I can confirm that the email George refers to was in fact sent to me in January of last year. I can post a screen shot of it if you like? Sidekick? I’m touched. How’s your sidekick, Carmine?

  10. George says:

    Thanks for outlining your motives – “You’ve banned me twice on your own forum.”


    You live for it – and the chance to talk about it. while abusing moderation “powers” bestowed upon you as the only volunteer for the job. That’s the other thing you live for. A little bit of power in your hands.

    Sorry, but you have been told why you banned. I am not going to accommodate your desire to make YOU the subject here. Or me, for that matter.

    Your explanation for moving my post is nonsensical. What Bart does is nothing to do with me. Who moderated what on that thread is immaterial. Except that it shows no consistency between what YOU allow and what OTHERS allow. And that is certainly no surprise.

    Because this has nothing to do with the post being “off topic” has it Tom…

    • Tom S. says:

      My “motives”? I am your mirror opposite. You permit no one to criticize you where you have the power to permit or deny access.

      It is clearly established here that the abuse from you and other members of your cult is not blacked out,
      ……as opposed to what you’ve made a practice of doing when you have the choice.

    • George,

      Do you have anything of substance to say on the issue of ‘Prayerman’, or did you just come here to bitch at Tom Scully?

      The moderator is NOT the subject of this thread. Perhaps you noticed that much at least.

      • George says:

        He is the one making his personal history with me the subject. His excuse for moving my post here from “the most important recent research” thread was bolox. All I did was mention Prayer Man. My post was about the tapes and what they contain and how that compares to PM. Meanwhile others have had lengthy discussions about the Z film, the autopsy and LBJ did-it books on that same thread. None of these were “moderated”.

        Tom, the real difference is that my forum requires membership. You failed to meet the requirements for membership. This place has no membership. You are comparing apples and oranges.

        I do provide guests the ability to leave comments. You or anyone else, can criticise me to your hearts content through facility.They won’t be taken down unless they break any laws.

        • Tom S. says:

          Tom, the real difference is that my forum requires membership. You failed to meet the requirements for membership. This place has no membership. You are comparing apples and oranges.

          “George” I was a member of your forum with posting privileges twice, and you banned me both times. I am contrasting your practice of muting your critics with my practice of approving, say…. your critical comments and Vanessa’s.
          You are both a hypocrite and a teller of untruths. All of which is irrelevant, because you have not
          been discriminated against on this website, by me. “Tinyrabbit” has you pegged.:

          Projection is where you think someone else is feeling or behaving in a particular way when actually they’re your feelings or behaviour.

          October 27, 2015 at 6:23 pm
          Hi JohnR
          I know Tom Scully has used the pseudonym, Frank Pace, on RoKC.

          Tue 05 Aug 2014, 4:46 am
          Nice work, Tom.

          FWIW, I don’t think Osborne was connected to the assassination except as a witness. His avoiding of the FBI was most likely in relation to being a scam artist – ripping old ladies off for “charity” donations.

          I tend to be the odd man out in that I actually think he was the only honest bus witness they had.

      • One gets the impression here George, that you are purposely taunting Tom in an attempt to get him to ban you. Are you then seeking victim-hood for yourself?

        After all, Tom could simply not moderate your comments and that would be the end of you here. Wouldn’t it?

        • George says:

          Not at all, Willy. He moved my post from where it was made and I have been trying to find out why. His reaction to that has been to blather on about how I’m here to turn you all into Prayer Man cultists, to complain that his membership was revoked at my forum, and to go on about what someone else which as nothing to do with me.

          If ultimately he “bans” me, I have no control over that. I’m just looking for a sane explanation for the moving of my post when it was on topic and there must be close to a 100 OFF topic posts in that same thread.

          Tom would be better off just ignoring me rather than to continue proffering nonsensical excuses. If he had a reasonable excuse for moving the post here, why can’t he just spell it out?

  11. George says:

    Hey Tom,

    I see you haven’t changed. Still misconstruing reality and abusing power to contrive and promote your own victim-hood.

    You say that other thread is solely about the AF1 tapes? Really? It looks to me like Morley was asking the opinions of others and giving his own on what the most valuable research is. I counted 40 posts that never even mentioned the tapes – and I hadn’t even scrolled a quarter of the way through. Those posts were about the Z film alteration Phil Nelson’s book on LBJ and medical/autopsy issues. Why did they get past as fit for that thread? My post was substantially on topic. I was looking at the relative merits of the tapes as compared to the relative merits of PM.

  12. George says:

    Hey Tom,

    I see you haven’t changed. Still misconstruing reality and abusing power to contrive and promote your own victim-hood.

    You say that other thread is solely about the AF1 tapes? Really? It looks to me like Morley was asking the opinions of others and giving his own on what the most valuable recent research is. I counted 40 posts that never even mentioned the tapes – and I hadn’t even scrolled a quarter of the way through. Those posts were about the Z film alteration Phil Nelson’s book on LBJ and medical/autopsy issues. Why did they get passed as fit for that thread? My post was substantially on topic. I was looking at the relative merits of the tapes as compared to the relative merits of PM.

    Your hubris and your willingness to abuse moderation are once again, evident for all to see.

  13. Bart Kamp says:

    Sorry, but did BK get a free pass here Tom?
    You have people arguing about the bullets, people arguing body alteration, people arguing frontal neck shots, you have people arguing about what they think is the “most important piece of JFK assassination evidence” But Prayer Man needs to be sectioned off somehow?

    Where is the logic in that decision Tom?

    Do tell.

    Thank you.



    • Tom S. says:

      You’ve made an argument that amounts to this. The theme of this website is JFKfacts. Prayerman opinions are related to JFKfacts. If enough effort is expended, prayerman can be introduced in every comment in every thread in response to every article and become the emphasis of
      There is no mention of prayerman in the article prayerman was “introduced” into the discussion of. The article clearly was about ONLY the AF-1 tapes. The owner of this site wrote the article. I see absolutely no indication in the text of the article that the writer’s intent was to spur a discussion of anything other than the AF-1 tapes and Bill Kelly’s involvement with them. You claim the title of the thread gives you broad license. Kindly repeatedly attempt here in this thread to hold Bill Kelly to account, over a review of Stane Dane’s book about prayerman you believe Bill Kelly should share, instead of in that thread discussing an article about the AF-1 tapes.

      • Bart Kamp says:

        You do realise that this is an utter rubbish argument you are putting forward Tom, as you are aware of the zillions of other posts in that thread that have no bearing on the AF1 tapes.
        Try not to fool anyone here dude.

    • Tom S. says:

      Hey Greg! It seems was overdue to be the target of a prayerman saturation, and here you all are. Unlike on the forum you own and Bart is an admin of, all views are afforded visibility on this site. Your comments appear in this image format because several of you are determined to turn the
      discussion here, …in a direction completely away from the only details discussed in the article, the AF-1 tapes.

      • Lee Farley says:

        Tom Scully said to George “Your comments appear in this image format because several of you are determined to turn the
        discussion here, …in a direction completely away from the only details discussed in the article, the AF-1 tapes.”

        And later said to George “You are both a hypocrite and a teller of untruths.”

        So what Tom is saying is that a couple of comments on the “What is the most important piece of JFK assassination evidence?” thread are moving the direction completely away from the only details discussed in the article.

        Tom also says that he “began as comments editor here at JFK on or about 25 October, 2015. Your critique of the thread you are intent on transforming to resemble the front page of the Education Forum, JFK Debate, is comprised for the most part, of comments I was not involved in approving.”

        Yet on March 4th, 2016 a comment was left by DG Michael on the supposed AF1 thread. DG Michael raised the Z-Film as being the most important piece of JFK assassination evidence. There were 31 replies to this comment. All of them debating the accuracy of the Z-Film. The back and forth went on for 10 days. All comments APPROVED by Tom. In fact he even joined the debate himself. So, a back and forth, lasting 10 days, and consisting of 31 comments, between DG Michael, Jean Davison, John McAdams, Willy Whitten, Ronnie Wayne, and Tom Scully about the Z-Film, blood splatter, kinetic energy, head shots, ballistics and a variety of other Z-Film observations IS SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE AF1 TAPES? This conversation, in some weird parallel universe, DID NOT MOVE THE DIRECTION AWAY FROM THE AF1 TAPES and they all MUST HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY ANOTHER MODERATOR?

        I’ll let the readers work out who the “hypocrite”is when it comes to all this.

  14. Tom S. says:

    The comment in the image below has been approved for this discussion instead of for this one.:

    It should be obvious why.

    • Vanessa says:

      Tom S.

      I fail to see how this comment is not appropriate for the best new evidence thread. Bart is responding directly to Bill who has complained about Prayer Man even being on that thread. Surely Bart’s response ought to be on the same thread as Bill’s.

      • I have always been curious why some people pick up some obscure notion such as this “Prayer Man” assertion and turn it into a BIG DEAL. Frankly the image is so blurry that anyone can interpret it to be most anyone they please.

        The most reliable exculpatory evidence for Oswald is that he was seen on the 2nd floor having just bought a soda, by Truly and Officer Baker.

        The assertions that Bill Lovelady was actually Oswald standing out front has seemingly been retired, as it should be. It is proven beyond doubt that Lovelady was wearing that shirt, and that the features on the person in the Altgens’ photo is no doubt Lovelady.

        When are serious researchers going to get a clue that charlatans such as Cinque and Fetzer are moles working for ‘the other side’? You can take it to the bank; if Jim Fetzer is part of it, it is BS.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Curiosity got to me and I bought and read the book a couple of weeks ago. I remain unconvinced that it is Oswald. That said there is a very good chance from statements and observations that it could be him. Somebody, thus far unidentified is standing next to Fraizer. That he can’t remember if it was somebody off the street or Joe Blow from the other warehouse makes me wonder if he has selective memory. I know he was still being shepherded by Hugh Aynesworth on the 50th.
          I did wonder if this issue might have been part of his lengthy questioning the night 11/22/63 at which I’ve read he was threatened with a beating.
          I must admit it seems perplexing that NBC and the 6th floor will not let a reputable independent third party blow up frames of the original film and let people decide for themselves and, maybe, settle this issue.
          Do they think there is something to hide?

        • Bart Kamp says:

          Willy your beliefs and observations are as fubar as Cinque and Fetzer.

          You are mixing Prayer Man with Doorway Man and that 2nd floor lunchroom encounter never happened, there is way to much around that it was all going on the 1st floor instead.

        • Vanessa says:

          Hi Willy

          With all due respect I think you are confusing Cinque and Fetzer’s Doorman identification of Lovelady as Oswald in Altgens.

          This is not what the Prayer Man case is about. We totally agree that Cinque and Fetzer’s case is rubbish.

          Prayer Man is a different person to Lovelady. He is standing behind Lovelady in the corner of the TSBD steps and is visible on the Weigman and Darnell films.

          The case for that person being Oswald is based primarily on documentary evidence NOT the film. That documentary evidence includes

          1. Baker’s first day affidavit not mentioning the 2nd floor encounter;
          2. First day newspaper reports claiming that Baker encountered Oswald as he entered the building;
          3. The transcript of Hoover’s phone call to LBJ on the day after the assassination claiming that Baker encountered Oswald at the entrance of the TSBD;
          4. Fritz’s WC testimony stating that Baker had ‘incorrectly’ said that he encountered Oswald on the steps but the investigation had then ‘found’ that the encounter actually occurred in the 2nd floor lunchroom;
          5. Fritz’s notes stating that Oswald said that he was out front with Shelley at the time of the assassination.

          All these documents need an explanation. They do not fit the official story. They all place Oswald on the steps of the TSBD at the time of the assassination.

          And we have two films (Weigman and Darnell) that corroborate that there is an unidentified man standing on those steps.

          This man is standing right next to Oswald’s work team for that day. This man has the same height, hair & shirt as Oswald that day.

          Please join the dots on the documentary evidence first then consider the film.

          • “With all due respect I think you are confusing Cinque and Fetzer’s Doorman identification of Lovelady as Oswald in Altgens.”~Vanessa

            Not so, if you read what I said, it was that it was good that theory had been retired. I didn’t claim there was a connection between the two assertions, OTHER THAN to note that both are reliant on those who are ignorant of Photograph. I put this is the same category as those who claim the Z-film was altered.

            All of these assertions are due to ignorance of film, special effects, and film making machinery. As well as ignorance of the nature of light and shadow. And I might add the lack of rational and critical thinking on the part of those who fall for such nonsense.

        • Lee Farley says:

          Part I

          There has been a concerted effort by some individuals, some of them key players in the JFK arena I might add, to conflate the Altgens photo theory with the Prayer Man theory. Many of these individuals have done this on purpose, wilfully knowing that the two ideas, and the evidence supporting them, are completely different.

          Now, I wouldn’t want to accuse you of wilfully conflating the two concepts on purpose but I fail to see how reading the comments in this thread and reading the content of the links provided would result in someone with two brain cells to rub together walking away with a belief that the Prayer Man theory has anything to do with the appearance of Billy Lovelady in the Altgens photo.

          So, therefore, I will assume you haven’t read many of the comments here and have certainly not read the content provided by the links. If that is the case then why are you commenting here? Because your comment smacks of pure ignorance of the subject matter and should probably be moved to a new thread entitled “Things I get confused about when it comes to the JFK assassination.” That’s only fair now that Tom Scully has drawn his line in the sand about topic comments – don’t you think? I say this because your comment has got absolutely sod-all to do with Prayer Man and thereby should be sanctioned and sent off somewhere else.

          Let me educate you so you can stop spreading misinformation. Prayer Man appears in Darnell and Weigman films that were shot less than a minute after the assassination. The figure is unidentified. Sean Murphy made a case, using all of the available evidence, that the figure could be Lee Oswald. The photo, once one has absorbed the record concerning the events in and around the TSBD that afternoon, is simply the cherry on the cake for most of us who believe there is a high likelihood that the figure in shadows is LHO.

          We have many detractors. Why? I couldn’t tell you. All that we want is a High Definition scan of the Darnell and Weigman frames. That is it. We asked the community to band together to place pressure on the 6th Floor Museum and NBC to allow these High Definition scans to take place. A process, I might add, that should happen anyway from a preservation perspective. Since this has happened we have been subjected to mud slinging from all quarters. 100% of which has come from critics of the official narrative. Why? I couldn’t tell you.

          Continued in Part II

          • “We have many detractors. Why? I couldn’t tell you.”~Lee Farley

            Well then let me give you one man’s opinion on that. You have a blurry photo that could be of anybody. There is no way to identify anyone from that photo.

            The concept conflicts with already existing exculpatory evidence of officer Baker and Truly witnessing Oswald on the 2nd floor with a soda in his hand just moments after the shooting.

            Further, you are making the same error that the Horne-Fetzer crew are making with the Z-film. Blowing up scans of emulsion…not blowing up reality.

            If you don’t know what I mean by that, learn something about light, photography, film dyes and emulsion and how they all work together to create a photographic image.

        • Lee Farley says:

          Now, here is the kicker. The critics of this theory, Tom Scully being one, have said we have no proof that it is Oswald. They are right. But we have evidence that it is Oswald and we have lots of it. To gain the proof, one way or the other, we need the HD scans of the films. I know for a fact that the level of detail that can be drawn out of these original films using a 4K or 8K scanner will 100% identify the figure in the doorway. It is a cast iron guarantee. But we have faced a very big problem. Not only have we had detractors at every turn but we have also been stonewalled by NBC and have been bare-faced lied to by the Sixth Floor museum. Gary Mack, before his passing, said that they had a first generation print of one of the films. Since his death we are told that they do not have the film.

          Since day one the critics of Prayer Man, and let me repeat they are ALL supposed critics of the official story, have tried every trick in the book to block and undermine what we have been trying to achieve. We have been faced with a barrage of nonsense claiming that Prayer Man is a woman. That Prayer Man is a stranger. That Prayer Man is too short. You name it – it’s been slung.

          But if the figure is not Oswald in the doorway – then why won’t NBC and the 6FM let us make fools of ourselves by allowing High Definition scans to be made of these movies. If this happens not only are they preserved in the highest detail currently possible – and we are all made to eat crow pie.

          This one question COULD end ANY AND ALL DISCUSSION of LHO’s involvement concerning the assassination of JFK. And the heat and mud slinging that has occurred because of bunch of well meaning people want a resolution to this avenue of research has been completely mind-boggling to me especially when we are willing to pay for the scans out of our own money.

          If having the chance to prove, with categoric certainty, that LHO was stood in that doorway during the assassination ISN’T the single most important thing that has happened in JFK research over the last 50 years then I, and the rest of us, have wasted our precious time researching this case.

          • Lee Farley says:

            Wow, Willy!

            A round of applause. You finally get it. Congratulations!

            As you now know, we don’t actually have ANY FILM of the Darnell and Weigman footage. What you are looking at when you see the images online are taken from video transfers of the film, who knows what generation we are looking at but it’s crappy, isn’t it?

            Can you imagine the detail that is on the original film? Which is why we want them. But NBC won’t allow it. And the Sixth Floor Museum says they don’t have the one that they had at the beginning of last year.

            Weird that, isn’t it?

            Thanks for your helpful comments in educating others concerning this issue. It’s much appreciated.

  15. Vanessa says:

    See the latest article from Greg Parker on Oswald as Prayer Man here!oswalds-alibi-and-the-reid-technique/c1ltw

    If the link doesn’t work it’s on Reopen Kennedy Case.

  16. Franz Eric Dorn says:

    Alibi is a defense that must be proven by a defendant to a preponderance of the evidence.(51%) Alibi is not an element of the crime that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

    Prayerman isn’t there yet. Frasier could clear it up but would have to implicate himself. Maybe he should be immunized I believe Oswald (and possibly Ruby and others) thought the plot was to kill Connally, while the main plot know to others was to kill Kennedy. Oswald was asked by reporters whether he killed the president. Oswald said no “I have not been charged with that”. I think he is saying that he wasn’t the shooter but there was a question in Oswald’s mind of whether he was guilty of the charge felony murder or aiding and abetting- perhaps by agreeing to be a patsy and/or furnishing the rifle(s)(whether M/C and or Mauser) to Frasier. I believe Frasier took the rifle(s), already assembled into the building.

  17. Barto says:

    Prayer Man The Movie

    • Vanessa says:


      The movie is fantastic. I hope everyone on here gives it a chance and watches it.

      • Bart Kamp says:

        Thank you Vanessa, it has been a lot of work, more than I had anticipated. I hope everyone who watches it has as much fun and learns a thing or two as I had while making it.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Hi Bart

      Good to see that you folks have put this all on film.

      There are a few details I have slight disagreement with, though, although none of them are directly related to PM. I have expressed them before, and almost been branded as a heretic for my efforts. Experience has taught me, though, that this is often a sign I am getting close to the truth.

      1. Marrion Baker is seen running toward the TSBD steps, but is not actually seen ascending those steps. However, I am not suggesting he did not go up those steps. I believe, instead, that he did not go directly up the steps, and might have gone to see the two cops on the corner first. My belief is supported by the WC testimony of Wesley Frazier and Joe Molina, neither of whom could recall seeing a white helmeted cop enter the TSBD, despite the fact both are seen standing directly in front of the door in Darnell.
      2. There is no proof whatsoever that Gloria Calvery is the woman seen running up the Elm St. extension in the Darnell film. In fact, researchers at the Ed forum produced photos from Gloria Calvery’s wedding, earlier in 1963, and the short dumpy Calvery bears no resemblance to the slender long legged woman seen running in Darnell.


      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        3. While stills of the Darnell film appear to show two men walking side by side, and they bear some resemblance to Shelley and Lovelady, watching the two close up in slow motion shows that “Lovelady” actually catches up to and passes “Shelley”, without the slightest recognition between the two of them. I agree with you that the WC testimony of these two is completely false, and a total contradiction of their first day statements, in regards to their claim to the WC they remained on the steps for 3-4 minutes, and did not leave the steps until Gloria Calvery returned from her position near the Stemmons sign, with news of the shooting.

        However, in his first day statement, Shelley claimed he and Lovelady crossed the extension and met Gloria Calvery on the concrete island, where she related what she knew about the shooting. More importantly, neither man mentioned, in their first day statements, anything about heading down the Elm St. extension to the rail yard. Instead, both claimed to go back into the building.

        The problem is with the timing of it all. In order for Baker to be in the 2nd floor lunch room when he claimeed he was, he only had about 20 seconds, from the time of the last shot, to race his motorcycle to the TSBD and race up the stairs and through the door. If Gloria Calvery was down near the Stemmons sign, could she have caught up to Baker? What about her rendez-vous on the opposite side of the street with Shelley and Lovelady? That would have taken even more of her time and, from there, S & L somehow had to get 25 steps down the extension, in order to be able to look back and see Truly and Baker ascending the steps.

        None of it works, timing wise, UNLESS Baker is delayed ascending the steps, giving Calvery time to return from below to meet with S & L.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          I have to make a correction to my last post.

          In Shelley’s first day statement, he did not state that he and Lovelady ran across the street to the corner of the park, where they met and talked to Gloria Calvery. Rather, he only stated that he himself ran across the street.

          According to his first day statement, Lovelady went back inside the TSBD after the shots were fired.

        • Barto says:

          Item 3/ Shelly’s first statement makes barely a mention of anything, nor did Lovelady’s. They ended up being synced and they lied through their rotten teeth and then some after that. Furthermore they claim that they stayed up there on those steps for about 3 mins according Lovelady’s testimony. This is simply not true. Lovelady is nowhere to be seen in Darnell besides making his way west. As a matter of fact the Darnell image shows clearly that everyone in front of PM had left the steps. Lewis, Lovelady and Shelly. And that there is a group of people making their way back in.

          The follow up will have better graphics and more footage and stills and the women are coming into play as well.The whole thing of what happened inside the TSBD was a bare faced lie.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Tell me, do you think Gloria Calvery was a track star or something? In order for that woman seen running behind Baker to be Calvery, she would have to leave her position down near the Stemmons sign at a dead run in order to arrive at the TSBD steps almost simultaneously with Baker.

            Assuming Shelley had no reason yet to lie about his encounter with Calvery on the OPPOSITE side of the Elm St. extension when he gave his statement on 22/11/63, how do you reconcile this running woman with his account of stopping to speak with her on the opposite side of the street, when the man supposedly ID’ed as Shelley is already moving away from that location?

            What you, and a great many other researchers, do not get is just how deeply and thoroughly we have been duped on this matter. Ever think that some of this “evidence” we have been offered (ie. “Calvery” running behind Baker or “Shelley” and “Lovelady” walking down the extension) is not just a bone thrown to us to make us think we’ve solved it all, when the real truth lies much deeper?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:


            Shelley’s first day statement specifically states that he, not he and Lovelady but just he, crossed the Elm St. extension to the corner of the park where he met Gloria Calvery crying, and that she told him the President had been shot.

            I would hardly call that statement “barely anything”.

            You might alsso want to take a closer look at the Darnell film. There is someone on the steps who is either bending over to speak to someone, or is sitting on the steps. During the film, you can see him rise up, and he bears a strong resemblance to Lovelady.

            Remember, only Shelley claimed, in his first day statement, to leave the steps. Lovelady only claimed to go back inside after it was all over. It was not until Lovelady gave his testimony to the WC that he remembered he went down to the rail yard with Shelley.

      • Barto says:

        Item one: Pauline Sanders did

        Item 2, opinions differ, actually in my foirst version I said some people think this is GC, which I left out on this third version. Narrating takes a full day and is a tough thing to do esp. when you are not used to doing it. But your arguments do not wash since it was shot with a wide angle lens compared to a longer focal lens later for her wedding. But I grant you half a point.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Pauline Sanders was, according to the FBI, the only person on the steps of the TSBD who could recall Baker running up the steps of the TSBD. Her statement is one of those famous FBI “reports” that somehow managed to pass for evidence with the WC.

          If you look closely at this report, you’ll notice three things:

          1. Pauline Sanders did not sign this report. Do you think she actually got to read it?

          2. The report is written in the third person (she said this and she said that, etc.) and is hardly what one would call a real statement.

          3. The report is dated 24/11/63, just about the time the finer points of the coverup were being worked out.

          Now, if Baker did run up those steps within ten seconds of the last shot, as this report claims, there is then even LESS time for Calvery to make her mad dash up from below, speak to Shelley and Lovelady at the concrete island and get these two 25 steps down the extension so they can look back to see Truly and Baker ascending the steps of the TSBD.

          “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.” ~~ Mark Twain ~~

  18. Vanessa says:

    An interesting update on the ongoing hunt for the Weigman and Darnell films showing Prayer Man.

    • leslie sharp says:

      Vanessa, are you saying that proof of Oswald on the steps of the TSBD is to be found in the films contained in the Channel Five collection? Apologies, and I may not be up to speed but I don’t see/hear an update in this clip other than the suggestion that the archives is a vast repository of untapped evidence.

      • Vanessa says:

        Hi Leslie

        Apologies I’ve only just seen your comment.

        My understanding is that given the blurry nature of the copies of the Darnell film an original is being sought. It is believed by the photographic experts on RoKC that a high scan resolution of the original Darnell will give enough resolution of the Prayer Man image to identify him.

        The Darnell original is with NBB5 who have refused to loan it for high resolution scans.

        However, as Bart’s movie below points out the evidence for Prayer Man being Oswald is not just in the Darnell film but in the WC testimony of all those on the TSBD steps and the film evidence that confirms who was standing where that day.

        I hope you’ll give the movie a look.

        • Tom S. says:

          …However, as Bart’s movie below points out the evidence for Prayer Man being Oswald is not just in the Darnell film but in the WC testimony of all those on the TSBD steps and the film evidence that confirms who was standing where that day. …..

          Is it not fact that no witness stated they observed Oswald in the TSBD vestibule, and that Wesley Frazier stated to
          Albert Rossi?:

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

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

          • Vanessa says:


            As you know the 13 people standing on the TSBD steps were all TSBD employees. Their WC testimony and the films confirm who was standing next to whom. The new Prayer Man movie outlines who was standing there very clearly.

            Not one of those 13 mentioned seeing PM in their WC testimony even though he is clearly visible and BWF even appears to be looking at him.

            The FBI had every employee of the TSBD state that they saw no strangers hanging around the building that day.

            What makes more sense to you about those 13 people not seeing PM? Is it

            1. Not one of them saw PM even though they had to walk past him to get back into the building?; or

            2. Some saw PM (who was a stranger) but all forgot to mention that in their WC testimony and then specifically denied seeing a stranger in their FBI statements?

            How do you account for all those 13 people not seeing someone who was there?

            No one is banned from RoKC for disagreeing with the Prayer Man debate.

            Come on over, Tom and join the fun. 🙂

          • Vanessa says:

            PS Tom, as you also know, Police Officer Marion Baker is the source of all the first day accounts of Oswald being on the TSBD steps.

            But as stated in Fritz’s WC testimony Baker’s evidence had to be altered to move their encounter to the 2nd floor lunch room.

            I’ll post the links later.

          • Bart Kamp says:


            sounds like you are not aware of all the facts, I suggest you give the movie a try.

            fact 1/ No one claimed they saw Molina either, except Vicky Adams who had come down from the stairs and saw him when going back to the TSBD after trying to get to the rail road yard and being sent back by a copper. Not even Otis Williams his colleague for many years did acknowledge him even when he stood just in front of him, and not even in No More Silence many years later. Does that mean he was not there either?
            The whiff of Molina being a subversive and a communist (outed by Curry while Molina was interrogated and without a shred of evidence) made people distance themselves from him there and then.
            Compare that to Oswald, who is being outed as a commie sympathiser, you reckon they’d embrace that?
            Roy Edward Lewis did anyone mention him? Of course not, why would anyone mention an African American who were regarded in those days as sub humans to many (like Roy Truly i/e).

            I can go on, but like I said watch the movie.

  19. Vanessa says:

    For those interested in reading more about Prayer Man, a new book by Stan Dane has just been published and is available on Amazon.

  20. Max says:

    Stan Dane has just published his new book: Prayer Man: Out of the Shadows and into the Light. I really suggest everyone read this, including you Jeff. Really astounding research along with a cleaned up set of photos that scream: Oswald.

  21. Avinash says:

    What a joke. A sad tragic, pathetic, joke.

    Sounds like you are defining the Warren Report.

  22. Ray Mitcham says:

    Where did he say that, Bill?

  23. Bill says:

    I find it totally insane that people are willing to allege anything to Alibi Oswald. Factually….he was seen heading toward the front stairs. He told ‘someone’ where the phone was located. He was seen carrying a soda 2x.

    He exits and he either sees Shelley standing around as he exits the building or had seen him at an earlier time (possibly setting up his shooting position.

    It’s comical: LHO, has the brains to say he was near Shelley at the time of the shooting. Tell you what: If I’m LHO….and I didn’t shoot JFK because I’m standing on those steps near the front…I’m going to be singing about who I spoke to and everything else.

    What I’m not going to do is say: ‘Gee….after the President was shot I decided go running up those stairs to grab a soda and then come right back down!!!”

    What a joke. A sad tragic, pathetic, joke.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:


      How many times must I point out to you that it would have been impossible for Oswald to have known that Bill Shelley was standing on the front steps of the TSBD, if Oswald was in the 6th floor Sniper’s Nest the whole time of the assassination?

      Your assumption that Oswald merely craned his neck out the 6th floor window to see Shelley on the steps six floors below reveals a lack of knowledge of the basic facts of this case, as the entirety of the TSBD steps are recessed into the building. No matter where Shelley stood on the steps, he would have been hidden from view of someone on the 6th floor, and neither his statement or his testimony mention his leaving the TSBD steps until after the assassination.

      Your next mistaken assumption is that Oswald encountered Bill Shelley on the steps of the TSBD as Oswald was fleeing the building. Once again, your ignorance of the basic facts of this case is revealed. According to the official story line, Patrolmen Marrion Baker heard the three shots fired and raced his motorcycle to the TSBD, entering the TSBD roughly twenty seconds after the last shot. He and manager Roy Truly raced to the back of the 1st floor and ascended the stairs. On the 2nd floor, they encountered Oswald in the lunch room.

      The flaw in your theory (one of many, I might add) is that Bill Shelley had left the TSBD steps for the Grassy Knoll area after the assassination, and testified to looking back to see Patrolman Baker entering the TSBD. Do you see the problem here? Bill Shelley was long gone from the steps, on his way to the Grassy Knoll area while Oswald was supposedly still on the 2nd floor or descending the stairs to arrive at the 2nd floor. By the time Oswald got to the TSBD steps, Shelley would have been nowhere in sight.

      Of course, your theory might have some legs if you began with the assumption the 2nd floor lunch room was a total fabrication, and that Oswald was nowhere near the 6th floor during the assassination.

      One more time, Bill, just how did Oswald know that Bill Shelley was standing on the front steps of the TSBD?

    • Alan Daly says:

      What I’m not going to do is say: ‘Gee….after the President was shot I decided go running up those stairs to grab a soda and then come right back down!!!”

      What a joke. A sad tragic, pathetic, joke.

      You’re missing the point, Bill. Oswald told Fritz he went to the second-floor lunchroom for a soda ~before~ the assassination. Carolyn Arnold saw him there shortly before she went out to watch the motorcade. The lunchroom encounter described by Baker and Truly never happened.

    • Fairy Floss says:

      Hi Bill

      Oswald mentioned 3 men he had seen as his alibi. Norman and Jarman and Shelley. According to the WC, Oswald was in the sniper’s nest from 11:50 to 12:33pm.

      Based on Norman, Jarman and Shelley’s testimony about their own movements Oswald did not have an opportunity to see any of these men while in the sniper’s nest.

      Norman and Jarman’s own testimony says that they did not return to the TSBD and then go up to the 5th floor until 12:25pm.

      How and when did Oswald see these two? In particular, how did he know that Norman and Jarman were together?

      The most credible explanation for Oswald knowing the location of these 3 men was because he was somewhere where he saw them and not in the sniper’s nest at all.

      Based on the testimony of the three men on their whereabouts the only places that Oswald could have been to see all 3 is on the front steps of the TSBD or in the first floor vestibule.

    • JohnR says:

      Bill, I find it equally astonishing the extent to which LN’s are willing to go to place Oswald on the 6th floor during the shooting, especially in light of the dearth of evidence. Face it, you put him there because you want him to be there.

  24. Derryn johnson says:

    I believe Mrs Kennedy knew what was going to happen and probably everyone in the car even possibly Mr. Kennedy had some idea also, I also recently came to the thought that the three films of the assassination were placed in convenient positions, dare I Say it but I also believe they were there for the people behind the shooting to have a record of it on tape.

  25. Eddy says:

    For me the weakest part of Prayer Man being Oswald is the recent behaviour of Buell Wesley Frasier. He looked at Prayer man, he gave Oswald a lift to work, and has recently spoken at Conferences about Oswald. He appears to be an honest man giving his account of an historic event. Is he really hiding the truth of such a world changing event? There are some people who you suspect may not have told the whole truth (Baker and Truly?), but Frasier?

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Buell Wesley Frazier was standing directly in front of the entrance door to the TSBD, seconds before Officer Marrion Baker entered the TSBD, as seen in the Darnell/Couch film. The landing Frazier was standing on was a bare 3 feet wide; about the width of the door. I believe it is fair to assume that Frazier either moved out of the way of the white helmeted Baker or was moved out of the way by Baker yet, when giving testimony to the Warren Commission, Frazier has NO memory of seeing Baker enter the TSBD.

      How could he miss him? If he lied about Baker, could he not also lie about Prayer Man?

    • Barto says:

      Eddy is you are convinced that BWF is so truthful then I suggest you have a look at this:

  26. Bob Prudhomme says:

    From the Warren Commission testimony of postal inspector Harry D. Holmes, who was present with Fritz at the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald:

    “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.”

    • Derryn johnson says:

      The phone line were dead at the time of the shooting as far as I know

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Another assassination factoid. The power was off to the elevators briefly but, the phones were working just fine.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          The elevators having their power off is a very interesting point. Truly stuck his head in the shaft and saw them stuck on the 5th floor I believe (did he take time to count the landings?). He’s the building manager, he didn’t know where the breaker was? When he and Baker got to the 5th or 6th floor he noticed one was gone (down to the 1st floor? did he look in the shaft again?). Somebody had to cut the power to them off – before the assassination (?) then back on after Baker and Truly started up the stairs. Was that Ozzie’s job so the shooter and spotter could get away?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            The elevators were off a second time some minutes later. Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney had gone to the rail yard, adjacent to the Triple Underpass, and searched there until Sheriff Bill Decker told Mooney and Officers Sam Webster and Billy Joe Victory to surround the TSBD. Not quite following orders, these three lawmen left a citizen guarding the rear door and entered the building. Mooney entered the freight elevator on the ground floor, along with a couple of women returning to their office. According to Mooney’s supplementary report, “As the elevator started up, we went up one floor and the power to the elevator was cut off.” Mooney then proceeded to the 6th floor via the stairs.


          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Not a theory but a question. A question that should been asked and has never been answered.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Bottom line from what I’ve read. Truly said he tried the elevator, looked in the shaft, saw it stuck on the 5th floor.
            Ran up the stairs with Baker and found one elevator had descended from the 5th/6th.
            Likely the at least two men seen on the sixth floor from outside descended in the elevator while they were running up and disappeared. I don’t personally believe Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired whether he was on the front steps or not (seems more likely now he was). Somebody, not necessarily Oswald cut the power to the elevator off, then back on at crucial times. Facts. Further evidence of a conspiracy.

        • JohnR says:

          He’s probably thinking of the secure lines in D.C. I’ve always wondered if that was true.

  27. Jake says:

    Perhaps if on Saturday there was any fuzziness still in the minds of witnesses out front as to whether or not they saw PM on the steps on Friday, then by Sunday afternoon surely their memories had become quite crystal clear. He wasn’t there on the steps. No way.

  28. Avinash says:

    Clear proof of Oswald’s innocence.If he was on the TSBD steps during the shooting,then he could not have been on the sixth floor firing at the president.

  29. Jack says:

    H/T, Mr. Morley

    Appreciate your bold decision to address this significant breakthrough.

    While others may claim he (Prayer Man) is a she; or, he is too this or too that to be who he genuinely is, Lee Harvey Oswald, at the very least folks are no longer ignoring the importance of addressing this issue head on as oppose to pretending it doesn’t even exist.

    We certainly hope & pray that all is well with Sean Murphy, and it was a personal decision to step away, reenergize and return again at some point to lend his exemplary research prowess. Am just encouraged that others have stepped up to carry his work forward, and wish all of them success. It’s way past time to put this fairytale about a lone gunman to rest.

  30. Eddy says:

    The answer to the conundrum lies with some direct questioning of Wesley Buell Frasier. Its entirely his prerogative to answer them , but Sean Murphy’s research leaves little wriggle room for him, and his own identification of himself on the steps puts him in the spotlight.
    Come on Warren Commission defenders, where is the flaw in the argument that this is LHO? Please play fair when using Baker and Truly’s testimony, by pointing out how their testimonies changed over time, and that early statements made matched what Sean Murphy’s claims.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:


      Buell Wesley Frazier is indeed a conundrum. He was on the top step of the TSBD entrance immediately following the assassination, he was the closest person to Prayer Man, he appeared to be looking directly at Prayer Man (as these two stills from the Darnell/Couch film show) yet, although he has identified himself in film of the steps, he cannot identify Prayer Man; nor does he seem to recall a person being there.

      Of course, Frazier was also unable to recall, during Warren Commission questioning, seeing a white helmeted motorcycle cop run past him on his way into the TSBD. This is puzzling, considering that Frazier was standing directly in front of the TSBD front door, and the cop (Baker) likely had to move Frazier out of the way to get in. However, this is not that unusual, as no other witness on the steps could recall Baker running into the building, except for Pauline Sanders, whose memory vastly improved several months later in an FBI statement. This is the same statement in which her time for leaving the TSBD to go watch the motorcade changed from 11:25 A.M. to 12:20 P.M.

    • Alan Daly says:

      As I understand it, Murphy made two revolutionary claims:

      1. The lunchroom incident never happened, as Oswald’s encounter with Officer Baker took place at or near the entrance. Murphy marshaled a massive amount of documentary evidence in support of this claim.

      2. Prayer Man = Lee Harvey Oswald.

      Although Murphy became more and more convinced of claim 2, he did state that even if Prayer Man turned out not to be LHO, the documentary evidence still placed him somewhere near the first floor front entrance when Baker ran up the front steps.

      It is hard to read the now famous “Oswald Leaving TSBD?” thread on the Education Forum without coming away convinced that Murphy’s claim 1 is correct and his claim 2 probably correct.

      I keep coming back to the question: why was the FBI so freaked out by the Altgens photograph?? They themselves must have had good reason to believe that Oswald was at or near the front entrance for the assassination.

    • mitchum22 says:

      Again, why would a Dallas cop make up such a story when it provides very strong circumstantial evidence of Oswald’s innocence?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        How would the 2nd floor Baker/Oswald encounter provide evidence of Oswald’s guilt?

      • Jake says:

        For starters, it was far better circumstantial evidence that he did do it than standing on the front steps was. Now one might ask, why would a cop who probably went in the building as a hero ready to face down an assassin make up a story to pin it on anyone? Don’t forget the crushing weight that Oswald fingered as a cop killer was. They weren’t going to let a cop killer weasel out of anything. (not that Oswald did kill Tippet, just that the Dallas cops definitely were convinced he had done so).

      • Alan Daly says:

        First of all, Baker almost certainly wasn’t the one who made the story up. What’a amazing is how quiet he goes in the days and weeks following the assassination! Not surprising as he had first gone on the record about encountering an employee walking away from the stairway on the third or fourth floor…
        Secondly the lunchroom was probably the best the police and/or FBI could come up with at short notice on the night of the assassination. Where else could they have convincingly put the invented encounter??
        Thirdly, they probably underestimated how quickly Baker and Roy Truly ran into the building. And that created a nightmare for the Warren Commission – and grist to the mill of course for generations of Warren Commission critics!
        Someone has made the interesting suggestion that Billy Lovelady’s correct identification of himself on the evening of the assassination as Altgens doorway man is what made the authorities think they could get away with moving the front entrance encounter to the lunchroom.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Because he was influenced by his superiors between the time he wrote his initial report on 11/22 which mentioned no 2nd floor encounter and his later account including it.

        • Barto says:

          The 2nd floor encounter was made up after Oswald fessed up he was there to get a coke.

          That is how they placed him there after the shooting while he was actually there before the shooting.

          Look at all initial statements made before this whole scenario comes into play.

          Read Baker’s first statement and Shelly’s
          Neither mention ANYTHING related to Oswald or the 2nd fl.

      • Bill says:

        Mitchum 22:

        I actually have though of the amazing amount of bs the DPD spun out after the shooting of JFK. Check out he reports of Stavos Ellis, one of the lead Motorcycle Officers if you want to read complete banality. The was this man paints his picture is that he actually drove back toward the Motorcade while the assassination was ongoing, saw bullets hitting curbs and road, made the visual on JFK being hit, Rode up to inform Curry et al. Just complete nonsense. One had to wonder WHY???? Especially when there are photos showing Ellis and his other bikers were well ahead of the LIMO as it exited D. Plaza (can’t recall the name of the two photos which show this event).

        But you’re onto something. The cops are BS in Dallas in 1963.

    • Frank Abbot says:

      If it was Oswald he would have told the cops when he was arrested. It would have been a perfect alibi.But he said that he was in the lunchroom, which logically should put an end to this story.
      What I don’t get is why nobody who is obsessed with these pictures has noted the most important fact-there is a guy in a cowboy hat looking directly up toward the area of the supposed sniper nest.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        According to what we have to work with, Oswald claimed to have gone outside to see what all te excitement was about; something he could have only noticed if he had been on the 1st floor to begin with.

        Many have tried to claim the “excitement” he allegedly spoke of was the assassination itself, but I disagree. The Darnell/Couch film clearly shows there was no commotion going on on the front steps, and that many employees were re-entering the building in a slow and orderly fashion. I believe the first real indication of alarm they felt was when Baker ran up to the building.

        The “excitement” Oswald was most likely referring to was the approach of the motorcade, and the rising crowd noise ahead of it. If he ducked out the front door and remained in the corner on the top step, the people in front of him would have all their attention focused on JFK, and would not have noticed this small man.

        The person that should have seen Oswald standing right beside him was Buell Wesley Frazier. However, Frazier also did not see a white helmeted motorcycle cop (Baker) run past him, either; despite the likelihood that Baker had to move Frazier away from the door to get into the building.

      • Alan Daly says:

        QUOTE: “If it was Oswald he would have told the cops when he was arrested. It would have been a perfect alibi.But he said that he was in the lunchroom, which logically should put an end to this story.” UNQUOTE

        How do you know Oswald said he was in the lunchroom at the time of the assassination?

      • Jack says:

        Do you have any idea if that gentleman in the cowboy hat has ever been identified?

        Curious minds would like to know. It wouldn’t surprise me the least bit if someone with extensive theatre-production happened along this post and suggested he was a prop of some sort.

  31. Bob Prudhomme says:

    One has to wonder about the many researchers studying the JFK murder case.

    Jeff Morley has chosen to quote two authorities on this case, Bill Kelly and the late curator of the 6th Floor Museum, Gary Mack.

    I have already pointed out the errors in Mack’s argument, that being the elusive Prayer Man is Bill Shelley. As anyone who has even glanced at photos of witnesses from 22/11/63 will tell you, Bill Shelley was dressed in a dark suit and tie over a white shirt that day, and cannot possibly be Prayer Man. So elementary, you have to wonder why Mr. Mack would have made such a mistake.

    Bill Kelly makes two rather elementary mistakes in his blog which, of course, concludes that Prayer Man was not Oswald but was actually Buell Wesley Frazier.

    From his blog:

    “Despite Gary Mack’s certainty that William Shelley is Prayer Man, Shelley is pictured in photos as wearing a suit and tie and testified that he and Lovelady immediately went across the street to the traffic island where he looked back and observed Officer Baker enter the front door. So it can’t be Shelley. It is also troubling that Frazer can’t identify himself in the photo, especially if he is Prayer Man, as I suspect.”

    First mistake. Bill Shelley did NOT testify to the Warren Commission that he and Lovelady immediately left the steps after the last shot. He actually testified that he and Lovelady remained on the Steps for at least three minutes following the last shot, and did not leave the steps until Gloria Calvery had returned to the steps from her position halfway down to the Triple Underpass.

    While it appears that Mr. Kelly is helping the Prayer Man case by removing Shelley from the steps, he quickly changes gears and tells us he believes Prayer Man to be none other than Buell Wesley Frazier.

    Once again, big mistake. Frazier was six feet tall and a thin, gangly nineteen year old. Not only is he clearly visible in films, standing in the middle of the top step and looking toward Prayer Man, he has identified himself as the tall gangly youth in these stills.

    Can’t be Frazier, and Mr. Kelly has no excuse for making such a mistake.


  32. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Jean Davison

    Will Fritz’s interrogation notes of the Oswald interrogation actually read:

    “claims 2nd Floor coke when off. (officer) came in to 1st fl (floor) had lunch out with Bill Shelley in front” *paranthese mine*

    Correct me if I’m wrong but, where in Fritz’s notes does it say he had lunch with Junior Jarman?

    • Jean Davison says:


      QUOTE: Will Fritz’s interrogation notes of the Oswald interrogation actually read:

      “claims 2nd Floor coke when off. (officer) came in to 1st fl (floor) had lunch out with Bill Shelley in front” *paranthese mine*” UNQUOTE

      CTs usually write it as one long phrase, but it’s written on separate lines (indicating imo 3 separate incidents):

      “claims 2nd Floor coke when
      off came in
      to 1st fl had lunch
      out with Bill Shelley in

      Upper right here:

      Reading it that way is consistent with Fritz’s written report and testimony as well as reports/testimony of others who said Oswald claimed he’d had lunch on the 1st floor. The CT version (i.e., lunch with Shelley out front) isn’t consistent with anybody’s report/testimony or with Oswald’s own statement that he was inside the building at the time.

      Correct me if I’m wrong but, where in Fritz’s notes does it say he had lunch with Junior Jarman? UNQUOTE

      It’s from his written report, 1st paragraph:

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Yes, it is possible he had his lunch on the 1st floor. How do you explain the “out with Bill Shelley in front”? And please don’t take the cop out that Oswald had to be lying about this. If Oswald was up on the 6th floor the whole time, how did he know Shelley was out in front of the building?

        • Bill says:

          Roberto: How did Oswald know that Shelley was out front? Well, there are three reasons.

          1. He was there on the steps.

          First: In order for Oswald to have been there (on the front steps with Shelley) he would have had to been VERY THIRSTY. In fact, Roberto, he would have had to watch JFK ride on past, hear the shots, then INEXPLICABLY decide to go and have a coke while all heck was breaking loose around him. Oh, I forgot, he would have to do this just ahead of the Baker who was running inside and up those stairs. He would also have to have been preparing for his Hollywood role as the new invisible man movie. So, let’s rule this one out. Ok?

          Second: It is just as likely that silly little assassin LHO simply looked out the window on the 6th floor in the minutes before he shot at the President and noticed that Shelley was out there with others. Seem’s as if he could have easily done this just to use that info at a later date as anything else.

          Third: Most obvious. Mrs Reid saw the aforementioned assassin simply walk out the front doors after she came back in (what…maybe 2 min after the shooting or so??). So, it’s just as likely that Ozzie walked right past Shelley in the moments after he shot JFK.

          Fourth: Elementary my dear Watson.

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Number 1 is not even worthy of consideration. Numbers 2 & 3 look quite logical at first glance, Bill, but, upon analysis, fall apart; just like the majority of Lone Nut talking points.

            Number 2. Oswald merely leaned out the window, and looked down to see Bill Shelley standing on the steps? No. Unfortunately for you, the TSBD front steps of the TSBD are recessed into the front of the building and, as Shelley was standing on the upper part of the steps, he would not have been visible from the 6th floor window.

            Number three. Are you really sure you want Oswald and Shelley together on the steps at the same time? According to Shelley’s (and Lovelady’s) Warren Commission testimony, he and Billy Lovelady were well on their way walking down toward the Grassy Knoll area when they looked back to see Officer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly entering the TSBD front entrance. If your theory is correct, this would have placed Oswald and Shelley on the steps together LONG before Baker even got to the steps. This would mean that Oswald was out of the building LONG before the second floor lunch room encounter with Baker and Truly could have happened.

            Once again, Billy boy, how did Oswald know Shelley was on the front steps?

          • Bill says:

            Robby: How did Oswald know that he was on the front steps?

            Well….have you ever just stood for minutes and minutes, OR ONLY ONE, on a step waiting for someone/thing? If you ever have, you would know that you don’t just STAND THERE…you move up a step or two…down a step or two….step out of the way for people passing by you (to go in our out) etc. So, this answer is just as plausible as any assassination theory you may interject. Try to keep in mind Robby…that people back in 1963 are a little more civilized and polite than today. They actually MOVE and say excuse me when doing something such as blocking a stairs.

            Now…of course Number 1 is ridiculous. It just destroys the notion that Oswald was Prayer man silly. Unless of course Ozzie was Flash Gordon and running up and down stairs.

            So what is left, given the polite nature of people at the time, is that Oswald, while busy setting up boxes to have a bit of privacy up on the 6th floor, happened to peek down and saw Shelley who was conversing with Lovelady and others. It’s that simple. Also, knowing that Oswald was not a fool, he could have just as easily put that crumb of info away and use it when/if he were to be questioned. Just like he was come to thick of it.

            Regarding number 3. I don’t think you are reading and understanding the issue well here. I don’t really care about Shelley or Oswald. Now pay attention:

            Whether Oswald saw Shelley NEAR (notice not on….just too many people moving onto them and into and out of the TSBD after the should know that) AFTER the shooting is superfluous.

            The main point being that Oswald had already factored in Shelley’s appearance there in either putting the nest together or in visually seeing him as he bounced out of the building after the shooting.

            The rest of your post is, sadly, once again, just you lack of understanding and conspiracy building with information you fail to process clearly. Robby??

      • Alan Daly says:

        Bob asked you about Fritz’s notes not his later interrogation report! Why didn’t you answer his question?

        Here is what Fritz’s notes actually say:
        “say[s] two negr.[oes] came in
        one Jr. + short negro”
        Nothing about having lunch ~with~ them!

        Oswald did indeed see Junior Jarman and Harold Norman when they “came in” to the building via the back door very shortly before the assassination. Oswald at the time was in the domino room, having already gotten his coke from the second floor lunchroom. According to Murphy’s theory, he shortly after this made his way to the front entrance. Either he was Prayer Man or he was still en route to the front entrance when the shots rang out.

        • Jean Davison says:


          You say that “very shortly before the assassination” Oswald “was in the domino room, having already gotten his coke from the second floor lunchroom. According to Murphy’s theory, he shortly after this made his way to the front entrance.”

          This conflicts with Mrs. Reid’s testimony that she returned to the second-floor office approximately 2 minutes after the shooting and saw Oswald coming from the direction of the lunchroom with a full Coke bottle in his hand.

          Reid’s testimony is consistent with Baker and Truly seeing Oswald on the second floor just before this.

          Oswald himself is on film saying he was inside the building when the President was shot. Again I ask, “Do you think he was lying?”

          • Alan Daly says:

            QUOTE This conflicts with Mrs. Reid’s testimony that she returned to the second-floor office approximately 2 minutes after the shooting and saw Oswald coming from the direction of the lunchroom with a full Coke bottle in his hand.

            And Mrs. Reid’s testimony conflicts with that of Geneva Hine, who would have seen any Reid-Oswald encounter in the open office area.

          • JohnR says:

            Jean, I know you appreciate it when posters answer your direct questions. Here goes nothing. NO, Jean, I do not think Oswald was lying when he stated that he was inside the building. As he reminded everyone, he did work there.

            While we are on the subject of lying, Do you think Oswald was lying when he told Fritz that he was stopped by a policeman on the FIRST floor, and was cleared after being vouched for by Mr. Truly? That’s according to Harry Holmes’ testimony.


            Officer Baker’s initial statement, according to Chief Curry, was that he encountered Oswald shortly after he entered the building, THEN went to the elevator. Later, he moves this encounter to the second floor lunchroom. Who is lying?


            Mrs. Reid testified that she encountered Oswald on the second floor, leaving the lunchroom with a coke in his hand, approximately two minutes after the assassination. Was she lying?


            According to Harry Holmes, Oswald also told Fritz that he met a man on the first floor who asked for a telephone. It has long been speculated that this man was reporter Robert MacNeil, though MacNeil never positively identified Oswald. According to MacNeil, William Manchester timed this encounter at four minutes after the assassination, based on the timing of the ensuing phone call. Are they lying?


            I’ll summarize the timeline:

            Less than two minutes after assassination, Baker enters building, encounters Oswald on the first floor.

            Approximately two minutes after assassination, Mrs. Reid encounters Oswald on the second floor.

            Approximately four minutes after the assassination, Oswald is possibly encountered just inside the front door, on his way out of the building.

            Hardly the picture of a guilty man, fleeing the scene of a crime. All of the above statements jive with Oswald’s answers to Fritz’s questions. Yet, you think Oswald was lying?

  33. mitchum22 says:

    Btw, the great Rob Clark did a very interesting popcast on this topic:

  34. mitchum22 says:

    If we’re voting here — and I write this as a dyed-in-the-wool rejector of all things “Lone Nut” — I vote for Billy Lovelady. Prayer Man’s arms are too thick to be Oswald’s and his hairline is too receding.

    Damn, doesn’t anything cohere in this case!

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Too bad, so sad; do your research next time before you post about things you don’t know about.

      There is a still from the Wiegman film that clearly shows Prayer Man AND Lovelady on the steps at the same time.

      Can’t be Lovelady.


      • mitchum22 says:

        What’s sad is how the moderator of this forum picks and chooses what sort of king-of-the-hill snark he let’s fly. As opposed to the helpful follow-up such as posted by Alan and Vanessa. Okay, it isn’t Lovelady.

        But what do I know? I know the difference between thick arms and scrawny arms, between a full short neck and a long thin one, between a receding hairline and one that isn’t receding. I also know that if PM is Oswald then the whole Marion Baker story is a lie, a story which has been the bane of LNers for 50 years. Why make up a such a story when the story all by itself pretty much disproves the official version of events? And why has there never been a single witness, TSBD or otherwise, claiming to have seen Oswald on those steps at that time?

        • Jake says:

          For that matter, where is the witness account from PM himself? Did he take off running? Did he quietly walk away? Why would he do that? Everybody else in the picture had plenty to say about what had just happened, except for PM of course.

          As far as the official record is concerned, PM vanished into thin air. Not a peep out of anyone. Oswald left the scene and was not interviewed like the others were, just like PM did.

    • Alan Daly says:

      When Prayer Man was first talked about several lone nut people (and the late Gary Mack) immediately identified him as Lovelady. However it was quickly pointed out that Prayer Man cannot be Lovelady as Prayer Man and Lovelady can be seen feet apart from one another in the Wiegman film!
      So Prayer Man is absolutely definitely not Lovelady.
      It’s hardly a great leap to go from that to identifying him as another Depository employee who looked rather like Lovelady – Lee Harvey Oswald.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Hi Alan

        You actually make a distinction between “lone nut people” and the late Gary Mack?

    • Vanessa says:

      Hi Mitchum22

      PM cannot be Billy Lovelady – they appear in the same frame of Darnell/Couch together.

      They’re identified together on the PM thread on the Ed Forum links on here.

  35. Bob Prudhomme says:

    I would like to point out how easy it is for a thread, such as this, to be sidetracked from its main topic by a skilled professional, and how we should be aware of maneuvres such as these, and not let those who would support the lone gunman theory distract readers from the relevant issue at hand.

    The topic of this thread is an unidentified man seen on the upper step of the TSBD entrance, discovered in a number of films and strongly resembling Lee Harvey Oswald, at a time the WC maintains LHO was on the 6th floor shooting at JFK. Jean deftly managed to spin this into a discussion about women seeing or not seeing LHO in the 2nd floor lunchroom, and we eagerly responded with four posts (two of which were mine) like a pack of dogs chasing a passing car.

    This is just one of the many tricks employed by the deniers in their efforts to quell any voices that would oppose the WC findings. Now that Prayer Man is out in the open on this forum, be prepared for an onslaught of denial the likes of which you have never seen before. It is that important to them that the PM genie be kept in the bottle.

    • Jean Davison says:


      “Jean deftly managed to spin this into a discussion about women seeing or not seeing LHO in the 2nd floor lunchroom, and we eagerly responded with four posts (two of which were mine) like a pack of dogs chasing a passing car.”

      Pure fiction. It was Alan Dale, not me, who introduced the topic of Carolyn Arnold and the 2nd floor lunchroom (Sept. 1 6:53 pm and again on Sept. 3 11:30 am)

      I didn’t reply on this topic until Sept. 4.

      The spinning here was all yours, Bob.

      • Alan Dale says:

        Hello Jean,

        Please note that the distinction between a vowel and a consonant can make all the difference in the world.

        I am many things, but I am not “Alan Daly.”

        • Jean Davison says:


          I apologize for writing your name instead of “Daly.” My error, sorry.

        • pat speer says:

          You’re not Alan Daly, Alan, and “Prayer Man” is most probably not a man, and almost certainly not Oswald. The operating thesis from the get-go for those claiming “Prayer Man” is Oswald has been that because the blurry figure looks like Oswald, to them, the burden is on others to prove it isn’t Oswald. From the very beginning I urged caution, seeing as “Prayer Man” looked more like a woman to me than a man. I also noticed that Buell Frazier claimed he’d been talking to a woman, Sarah Stanton, during the shooting, and that no one had identified Stanton in any of the pictures. So why didn’t the Prayer Man pushers find a picture of Stanton, identify her on the steps, and prove she was not Prayer Man? Because they “knew” Prayer Man was a Man. Well, I dropped out of the discussion at that point, as I will at this point. You can’t argue with religion. And the belief in “Prayer Man” has reached the point where it’s pretty much a religion, IMO.

          • Jake says:

            “The operating thesis from the get-go for those claiming “Prayer Man” is Oswald has been that because the blurry figure looks like Oswald, to them, the burden is on others to prove it isn’t Oswald.”

            This is noteworthy in its inaccuracy. The thesis is based on two mutually dependent components: First is the order of elimination of all TSBD employees except for one, LHO. The second is the image of a man on the steps.

            It is a man by virtue of the haircut, clothing, and the physique. The women in the pictures are readily identifiable as women. There is nothing about the picture that makes him not Oswald. The key point is that there is a man standing there. Combined with the roster of possibles (total of one), they form a rational basis for saying it is indeed Oswald.

            It is on the basis of the two combine components that it should become a matter of national priority to obtain better scans of the imagery, imho.

          • Alan Daly says:

            QUOTE I also noticed that Buell Frazier claimed he’d been talking to a woman, Sarah Stanton, during the shooting, and that no one had identified Stanton in any of the pictures. UNQUOTE

            Pat, I’m sorry but this misrepresents both the facts and your own history of interpreting them.

            ~Before~ the Prayer Man controversy came along, you yourself were pointing out quite correctly that Billy Lovelady’s identification of a woman in the Altgens photograph as a second-floor employee pretty much sealed the deal as to whom he must have meant: Sarah Stanton.

            “It seems likely,” you wrote, “that the woman was Stanton.”

            What made you suddenly leap from this to the surprising suggestion that Sarah Stanton is in fact Prayer Man, a figure nowhere near where Pauline Saunders places Sarah Stanton, and a figure who cannot be seen in Altgens??

            For a much-needed trip down memory lane go to posts #1 and #10 at the link below!

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Pat

            Sarah Stanton has been identified on Gayle Nix Jackson’s website. She is in the same frame of Weigman as PM. So she can’t be PM.

            Please see this link


          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Sorry, Pat, you are dead wrong about Sarah Stanton being Prayer Man, and this is not the first time this has been pointed out to you.

            In a statement given on March 19, 1964, Pauline Sanders places herself on the top step of the TSBD entrance steps and on the EAST side of the entrance.

            To quote Ms. Sanders, “I recall that while standing there I noticed Mrs. Sarah Stanton standing next to me, but I am unsure as to the others.”

            As Prayer Man is on the WEST side of the entrance, Sarah Stanton cannot be Prayer Man.

          • Pat Speer says:

            Well, these responses prove my point. One person says the Prayer Man figure-which to me is almost certainly a woman-is clearly a man, and that we can therefore assume it is Oswald. This is ridiculous. it’s a blurry picture. Oswald, from what we can tell, never said he was out on the steps. And no one who was out on the steps has ever said he was out on the steps. I mean, we would be on firmer ground claiming the figure is Jesus, than Oswald. At least Jesus wasn’t asked where he was at the time of the shots, and then failed to say he was out on the steps.

            As far as Stanton, yes it’s true, Lovelady IDed her in the Altgens photo. But the Prayer Man footage is from several seconds later, is it not? To be clear, I have no idea if Prayer Man is Stanton. My point is that Frazier has claimed repeatedly that he stood by and spoke to Stanton just after the shooting, and no one selling Prayer Man juice has even bothered to find a picture of her and ID her location just after the shots in the Prayer Man footage. And no, someone writing her name over a blob on Gayle’s site doesn’t count.

          • Alan Daly says:

            QUOTE As far as Stanton, yes it’s true, Lovelady IDed her in the Altgens photo. But the Prayer Man footage is from several seconds later, is it not? To be clear, I have no idea if Prayer Man is Stanton. My point is that Frazier has claimed repeatedly that he stood by and spoke to Stanton just after the shooting UNQUOTE

            Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
            1. First you point out that Lovelady ID’d Stanton in Altgens. Then, when Prayer Man emerges, you conveniently forget this fact and suggest that Stanton is actually Prayer Man, a figure who cannot even be seen in Altgens!
            2. You now reveal that you don’t even know that Prayer Man also appears (in ~exactly the same spot~) in the Wiegman film which takes in the second when Altgens was taken!
            3. You conveniently forget that Frazier himself has repeatedly been asked about Prayer Man and has said not one word about Sarah Stanton, whom both Pauline Saunders and Billy Lovelady place on the other side of the steps!

            I’m sorry, Pat, but the record shows that Murphy owned you on your Stanton theory a couple of years back on the Education Forum. Yet here you are, popping up again as though none of that happened.
            Please, stop embarrassing yourself!

    • Jean Davison says:

      QUOTE: “I would like to point out how easy it is for a thread, such as this, to be sidetracked from its main topic by a skilled professional, and how we should be aware of maneuvres such as these….Jean deftly managed to spin this into a discussion about women seeing or not seeing LHO in the 2nd floor lunchroom….”

      That’s not what happened, Bob, and the thread shows it. The subject of the 2nd floor lunchroom and Carolyn Arnold was introduced by Alan Dale, not me — first on 9/1 at 6:53 pm and again on 9/3 11:30 am. On 9/4 I replied to what he wrote.

      The only “spinning” here was done by your imagination.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Of course, Jean, we just won’t discuss your witness Pauline Sanders and her two FBI “statements” with departure times from the TSBD almost an hour apart.

        BTW, who do you think Prayer Man is? Oswald, perhaps?

      • Alan Daly says:

        “The subject of the 2nd floor lunchroom and Carolyn Arnold was introduced by Alan Dale, not me — first on 9/1 at 6:53 pm and again on 9/3 11:30 am. On 9/4 I replied to what he wrote.”

        Correct, Jean. But it is equally important to note that you then failed to reply to my reply. Are you still claiming that Pauline Sanders and Jeraldean Reid’s statements rule out Oswald’s having been in the second-floor lunchroom several minutes before the assassination? If so, I’d like to hear your reasoning.

        • Jean Davison says:


          QUOTE: “Are you still claiming that Pauline Sanders and Jeraldean Reid’s statements rule out Oswald’s having been in the second-floor lunchroom several minutes before the assassination?” UNQUOTE

          No, I didn’t say “rule out.” The presence of others in the lunchroom is only one of many reasons I doubt that Arnold saw Oswald there on that particular day. More important is the fact that 15-year-old memories simply can’t be relied on.

          IMO, Lovelady misremembered which day the FBI interviewed him about the Altgens photo. This 2-page document says it was on 11/25:

          If you doubt that Lovelady and Arnold could misremember details like this, please Google “memories reliable,” e.g., and read some of the research articles that come up.

      • Alan Daly says:

        QUOTE No, I didn’t say “rule out.” The presence of others in the lunchroom is only one of many reasons I doubt that Arnold saw Oswald there on that particular day. More important is the fact that 15-year-old memories simply can’t be relied on. UNQUOTE

        But… you have failed to demonstrate that ‘the presence of others in the lunchroom’ coincides with the time Arnold places Oswald there. You have failed therefore to establish any timeline problem for Oswald being in the lunchroom alone several minutes before the assassination.

        As for the ‘unreliablity’ of Arnold’s emphatic and outraged insistence to Golz and Summers that the FBI interview report completely misrepresents what she told them, what you really seem to be saying is that you trust implicitly in the reliability of the FBI. I guess that’s one way of screening out inconvenient information.

        As for Lovelady’s ‘unreliable’ recollection of the FBI’s visit to his home, he gave it to Bonafede only a year and a half after the assassination.

        In his May 1978 HSCA interview he goes into further detail: when he arrived at his apartment house at 22 Hume Drive at around 6pm on the evening of the assassination, he found two FBI men waiting for him on the porch. His wife, in this HSCA interview, corroborates his recollection. They’re both wrong? Of course they are!

        And if, as you believe, Oswald himself had confirmed repeatedly in questioning that he was nowhere near the front entrance at the time of the shooting, why were the FBI men who visited Lovelady so visibly relieved when he identified himself as the figure in Altgens? If the visit was on 11/25, as you believe, their reaction is even more strange!

        I’m sorry, Jean, but your bias is showing. An over-anxiety to dismiss as ‘unreliable’ the recollections of inconvenient witnesses, an over-eagerness to place unquestioning faith in the reliability of the FBI. Your doubts seem to go one way only, every time.

        • Jean Davison says:


          “…you have failed to demonstrate that ‘the presence of others in the lunchroom’ coincides with the time Arnold places Oswald there. You have failed therefore to establish any timeline problem for Oswald being in the lunchroom alone several minutes before the assassination.”

          Whether that’s true or not (I don’t think it is), it’s not up to me to disprove your theory, it’s up to you to prove that Arnold’s 1978 account is true. Her memory alone doesn’t prove it.

          If you doubt that Arnold’s memory could change without her realizing it, just read some of the research that has been done on how memory works:

          There are many other research papers online on this subject.

          QUOTE: “I’m sorry, Jean, but your bias is showing. An over-anxiety to dismiss as ‘unreliable’ the recollections of inconvenient witnesses, an over-eagerness to place unquestioning faith in the reliability of the FBI. Your doubts seem to go one way only, every time.” UNQUOTE

          You are mistaken — I place *no* faith in *anyone*, Alan. Not in the FBI, the CIA, the WC, or anyone else. I look for the strongest/most reliable evidence available and try to find the most reasonable explanation for it all. Eyewitness testimony is just not as reliable as other types of evidence, especially when it’s years old and uncorroborated.

  36. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Of relevance to this discussion is the fact that Baker did not mention the lunchroom encounter in his initial report on 11/22 or 23.
    He did mention someone on the I believe the 4th floor Truly dismissed as an employee. I’ve questioned for years now this story.
    Call me too suspicious but could building manager Truly have been influenced by building owner Harold Dry Hole Byrd (LTV, Dallas Petroleum Club W/Bush +, creator of Civil Air Patrol = Ferrie & Oswald)? Dry Hole was in Africa on his first safari collecting tophy mounts when JFK was killed. Then the CIA was interested in school books, was one of the businesses in the TSBD a CIA front? Giving them special access? Yes, not facts, pure speculation, but realistic?

    • Barto says:

      what is an important fact that has been omitted by many is that Marrion Baker’s first hand wrote his report and then signed a typed up version of that hand written report as well.

      So the 1st handwritten report cannot be dismissed that easily since he confirmed it!

  37. Eddy says:

    Thankyou Jeff for this thread, it had to be done. I think this is a big deal.

  38. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Important links in this link regarding this subject.

  39. Max says:

    Researcher Sean Murphy has done some excellent work on this subject, and though we still can’t identify who this individual is due to the poor quality of the image, it’s no longer far-fetched that this could be Oswald.

  40. Vanessa says:

    I agree with the Bobster on this. Gary Mack got it wrong. Bill Shelley was wearing a white shirt and tie on the day of the assassination. PM is wearing a dark coloured shirt and no tie. They can’t be the same person.

    Also Shelley is pictured standing near PM on the TSBD steps but not in the PM position. Shelley’s WC testimony did not place him in the PM position.

    Please see Bart Kamp’s explanation of who was where on the steps – it leaves only one possible option for PM and that is Oswald.

    If the link doesn’t work it’s “Reopen Kennedy Case” – Prayer Man topic.

    I think it’s interesting that Gary Mack went for the Bill Shelley option though instead of a random stranger. PM can’t be Bill Shelley for the reasons outlined above.

    So why didn’t GM go for a random stranger?

    Because Sean Murphy demonstrates it can’t be a random stranger.

    And it would also mean that there was a random stranger on the steps of the TSBD who wasn’t accounted for by any of the witnesses on the steps. The FBI had every TSBD employee state that they did not see any strangers around the TSBD that day.

  41. Barto says:

    From Stan Dane’s up and coming book

    Despite evidence to the contrary, many people think Prayer Man is anyone but Lee Oswald.
    Some even thing Prayer Man is a woman.  Police initially admitted the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter happened on the front steps just
    after the assassination.  The Shelley-Lovelady timeline was distorted to keep them on the front steps longer so as to
    explain away Oswald’s “out with Bill Shelley in front” comment to mean when Oswald left
    the building after the fictitious Second Floor lunchroom encounter.  The Second Floor lunchroom encounter was a series of stories.
     The first account simply has Oswald “in” the lunchroom.

     Then Oswald is “sitting at one of the tables.”

     Next, Oswald is “leaning against the counter.”

     Finally, the story is Oswald standing at the coke machine sipping a Coca-Cola.

     The reason for this was to provide a reason for Marrion Baker to enter the Second Floor lunchroom—the sound of the coke machine in operation.

     Marrion Baker had problems remembering what he told to the Warren Commission concerning which the Second Floor lunchroom encounter, slipping back to his earlier affidavits. He had to be coached and corrected.

     Baker doesn’t even mention Oswald by name in his September 1964 statement.
     There is much inertia associated with the Second Floor lunchroom encounter, i.e., there’s resistance to any ideas that challenge the notion that it ever occurred in the first place.

     It’s highly significant that Buell Wesley Frazier was unable to identify Prayer Man as someone other than Lee Oswald when Gary Mack showed him the improved Darnell image.

     Many people are openly hostile to the notion that Lee Oswald is Prayer Man and to the work of Sean Murphy in general.

    • Jake says:

      It was always puzzling why Baker and Truly both said Oswald was calm and composed if he was supposed to have fired the weapon, hid the gun, and run down four flights in seconds too few. Even if they were setting him up, why not say he was wild eyed and hyperventilating? Then I realized, they had to justify leaving him there in the lunch room. If he was all stressed out, they would have been in the wrong for not detaining him immediately, so he wasn’t. Of course that became the rap on him while he was in custody too. Calm and collected after he killed the president and the same after Tippet. Cool as a cucumber, cold blooded even, or maybe it was because he didn’t kill anybody and he wasn’t in the lunch room after the shooting anyway.

      • Alan Daly says:

        That’s it exactly. This is also why the Baker/Oswald encounter couldn’t be moved up to a higher floor like the fifth or sixth . There would have been no justification for having let ‘the man’ go!
        Murphy suggests another likely reason why the second floor lunchroom was chosen: it was known that Oswald really had gone in there to buy a Coca Cola close to the time of the assassination. Always better to build a fiction on a fact: Oswald ~did~ buy a coke, but before the assassination… Oswald ~did~ encounter Baker, but at the front entrance.
        Carolyn Arnold’s sighting of Oswald in the lunchroom a few minutes before the motorcade really does destroy the official lunchroom story, which was invented to destroy Oswald’s 100% alibi.

        • Jean Davison says:

          “Carolyn Arnold’s sighting of Oswald in the lunchroom a few minutes before the motorcade…”

          Arnold didn’t make this claim until 1978 and there’s reason to doubt her memory. Other employees were in the 2nd-floor lunchroom during the lunch hour and didn’t see Oswald there — Pauline Sanders and Mrs. Reid, e.g.:

“pauline_sanders” AND lunchroom

“left_the lunchroom”

          Fritz and others present during Oswald’s questioning said that he claimed he ate in the 1st-floor domino room, not on the 2nd floor.

          • Vanessa says:

            No Jean, Fritz claimed that Oswald said he was having lunch out in front with Shelley. As confirmed by Fritz’s WC testimony where he mentions Oswald having lunch with other employees when he ‘saw’ the excitement.

            As we’ve discussed before, Oswald couldn’t see anything from the second floor lunch room as it didn’t have any external windows.

            It was Bookhout who claimed Oswald said he had lunch in the first floor lunch room.

          • Alan Daly says:

            Hi Jean,
            Look again at your own links!
            Pauline Sanders says she left the second floor lunchroom at “approximately 12:20PM”.
            Jeraldean Reid estimated she left it at 12:30, which obviously cannot be right as she was out in very good time for the motorcade. It must have been significantly earlier than that. 12:30 may even be a typo for 12:20.
            Mrs. Reid also said this:

            Mr. BELIN. Were there any men in the lunchroom when you left there?
            Mrs. REID. I can’t, I don’t remember that.
            Mr. BELIN. All right.
            Mrs. REID. I can’t remember the time they left.

            In short, there is no difficulty in Oswald’s having gone into the second-floor lunchroom several minutes before the assassination. Unless, that is, you don’t want him there!

            According to Murphy’s theory, Oswald told his questioners, truthfully, that he paid a visit to the second-floor lunchroom and the domino room and then went to the front entrance – just in time to catch the motorcade.

            Now if his claim was that he was in the domino room at the time of the assassination itself, why were the FBI so worried about the figure in the doorway in the Altgens photo? So worried that they paid Billy Lovelady a home visit that very evening?

            Looks like Fritz and friends had good reason to put words in Oswald’s mouth!

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Are you sure you would like to use Pauline Sanders as a witness to prove Oswald was not in the second floor lunch room, Jean? She allegedly gave two statements to the FBI, and the times she gave do not match at all.

            From her Nov. 24, 1963 statement to the FBI, we have the following:

            “She said on the morning of November 22, 1963, she went outside to watch the Presidential parade at about 11:25 a.m.”

            However, her March 19, 1964 statement to the FBI changes her departure time from the TSBD:

            “At approximately 12:20 P.M. on November 22, 1963, I left the lunch room on the second floor of the building and went out the front entrance to await the arrival of the Presidential Motorcade which I knew was due to pass the Depository building at 12:30 P.M.”

            Please tell us which version we are to believe, Jean.

            I get so confused when the FBI provides us with so many versions of the same event.



          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Regarding Carolyn Arnold being unreliable, Jean, you seem to be leaving out a few details.

            This well researched article will fill in some of the details you chose to omit:


          • Jean Davison says:

            “Fritz claimed that Oswald said he was having lunch out in front with Shelley. As confirmed by Fritz’s WC testimony where he mentions Oswald having lunch with other employees when he ‘saw’ the excitement.”

            No, Vanessa, Fritz wrote that Oswald told him he had lunch with “Junior” and another “colored” employee on the “first floor”:



            Hosty and Bookhout also said Oswald claimed to have eaten in the first floor lunchroom:


            Secret Service Inspector Kelley wrote, “He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him… “Junior” and a “short Negro boy.”


            Junior and his companion were photographed in the 5th floor windows and were certainly not with Shelley.

            Even Oswald himself said he was inside the building when the President was shot.
            It’s on YouTube.

            Was he lying?

            Or are you arguing that Shelley, Lovelady and PM were “inside the building” at the time they were photographed?

            Also, Oswald didn’t have to look out a window to see the “excitement.” When Mrs. Reid came back inside she told him someone had shot at the President and before he walked out the front door a reporter rushed in and asked him where to find a phone.

          • Alan Daly says:

            “Hosty and Bookhout also said Oswald claimed to have eaten in the first floor lunchroom:


            You forgot to mention that Bookhout’s report of Sat 23 Nov. states quite explicitly that Oswald claimed he ate lunch ~alone~ in the domino room?

            “Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period.”

            Clearly Fritz and co. (after Oswald’s death, of course) distorted Oswald’s claim into the self-incriminating lie ‘I ate lunch with those two men’.

    • Alan Daly says:

      Excellent points!
      What leaps out for me from Sean Murphy’s pretty painstaking research is:
      1. If Oswald himself was not claiming to have been at the front entrance at the time of the assassination, then why were the FBI so worried about the Altgens photo? Billy Lovelady was visited by them with a blowup of the photo on the evening of the assassination itself. He later recalled that when he identified himself (correctly) as the man seen in the doorway, they gave a sigh of relief. Why?? It just doesn’t make sense if Oswald was claiming to have been nowhere near the front entrance. So it’s kind of ironic that the mistaken identification of the Altgens doorway man have indirectly pointed us to the true identity of a different figure in the doorway: Prayer Man!
      2. Oswald’s encounter with motorcycle officer Marrion Baker took place not in the second-floor lunchroom but at the front entrance (ie less than half a minute after the assassination) – and the Dallas police in the first hours after the assassination were themselves telling reporters about this incident! This later got turned into an invented second-floor lunchroom story. (Murphy believes that Oswald did visit that lunchroom for a coke, but before the assassination, not after it. Carolyn Arnold saw him there.)
      3. Baker did not ‘confront’ Oswald after running up the front steps, he just asked him if he worked there (ie did he know the way to the nearest stairway). Building manager Roy Truly then came along and offered to help Baker.

      There were reports a while back that Carolyn Arnold still has more to tell on what she saw on November 22 1963 but doesn’t wish to do so until after her death (via a statement of some sort). Did she see Oswald/Prayer Man at the front entrance at the time of the motorcade? I wouldn’t be at all surprised…

    • JohnR says:

      Could I please have an original source for the following?

      “Police initially admitted the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter happened on the front steps just after the assassination.”

      Everyone else here in these comments,CT and LN alike, seems to accept it as common knowledge.

      Where is Photon?

  42. Alan Daly says:

    Gary Mack believed that Prayer Man was Bill Shelley. This is not possible as Shelley had already left the front steps by the time the Darnell film caught the front entrance of the Texas School Book Depository.
    Bill Kelly, using a very poor version of Darnell, believes Prayer Man is Buell Wesley Frazier. This is not possible as Frazier himself has recently identified himself as the gentleman to Prayer Man’s left (our right as we look).
    So who is Prayer Man? My money, after initial skepticism, is on Sean Murphy’s theory: Prayer Man is Oswald.
    It needs to be stated clearly that Murphy’s theory has nothing to do with the discredited ‘Oswald is Doorwayman in Altgens’ theory, except insofar as it uses the firm identification of Billy Lovelady in Altgens to rule out Prayer Man’s being Billy Lovelady. (Both Prayer Man and Lovelady can be seen together in the Wiegman film.)
    Oswald, according to Murphy, must have visited the second-floor lunchroom just before the assassination (as Carolyn Arnold revealed to Tony Summers in 1978), not just after it.
    For a decent image of Prayer Man, simply google “Prayer Man” + Oswald.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Hi Alan

      I agree with everything you say, except for the time line concerning Bill Shelley. In his (and Billy Lovelady’s) testimony to the WC, he and Lovelady testified to remaining on the steps for 3-4 minutes following the last shot, and only left the steps after Gloria Calvery returned to the steps with news of the assassination. According to his and Lovelady’s testimonies, they they proceeded to the rail yard next to the Grassy Knoll, and returned to the TSBD via a rear entrance.

      In Lovelady’s statement from 22/11/63, he tells quite a different story. In this version, he ran across the Elm St. extension, to the corner of the park, where he encountered Gloria Calvery crying and talking about the President being shot. Billy Lovelady’s 11/22/63 statement does not even mention leaving the steps of the TSBD but, rather, him going directly into the TSBD following the shots. Following his brief conversation with Gloria Calvery, Shelley stated he went back inside the TSBD to phone his wife.

  43. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Oops, just read it again and saw it mentioned that Shelley was photographed in a suit and tie. My apologies.

    Mack had no excuse, though. This man should have known better than anyone that Shelley was in a suit and tie, and was obviously spreading disinformation.

  44. Bob Prudhomme says:

    My God, Jeff, I can’t believe you’re repeating this garbage from Gary Mack. Do you not fact check anything? A quick look at any of half a dozen photos from 22/11/63 will show Shelley in a suit and tie.

  45. Bob Prudhomme says:

    A few misconceptions in both Sorenson’s and Mack’s interpretations.

    Shelley is photographed shortly after the assassination wearing a suit ant tie; not a sport shirt and slacks.

    Frazier has identified himself as the tall lean figure to our right of Prayer Man, standing in front of the door.

    Shelley did NOT testify to immediately leaving the steps for the concrete island. This was in his first day statement. In his Warren Commission testimony, he stated he remained on the TSBD steps for 3-4 minutes after the last shot. Billy Lovelady testified the same thing to the WC.

    Despite valiant efforts by Mack and others in their “Anyone but Oswald!” campaign, Prayer Man continues to remain unidentified.

exam: Money Back Guarantee 5A0-120 Exam Demo Online Shop, Best AWMP Exam Dump Guaranteed Success, Latest Updated 640-801 Exam Guide Are Based On The Real Exam, New Updated 650-125 Cert Exam Latest Version PDF&VCE, We Provide LOT-410 Vce Dumps Sale, Reliable and Professional 000-572 Real Exam Questions With New Discount, 50% Discount 000-400 Exam Demo UP To 50% Off, Most Hottest 000-503 Exam Dumps Pdf Is The Best Material, 100% Success Rate C4060-080 Cert Exam With High Quality, 50% OFF 70-536 Exam Collection Are The Best Materials, 100% Pass Rate 070-640BIG5 Exam Dumps Online, 50% OFF 050-720 Latest Dumps For Each Candidate, The Most Effective 1Z1-031 Brain Dumps 100% Pass With A High Score, High Pass Rate 090-075 Actual Test Are Based On The Real Exam, Pass the JN0-322 Certification Dumps Are The Best Materials, 50% Discount 70-401 Self Study ,

male enhancement: why has my sex drive decreased gnc mens vitamins side effects of being sexually inactive to your door best product for premature ejaculation alpha muscle review how to increase penis size naturally how to get a massive cock his cock is to big best mens vitamins male testerone pills staxyn vs viagra inserted penis ejaculation sympathetic how expensive losing interest in sex how long viagra lasts best testosterone booster gnc garlic and vitamin c enlarge your peni magnesium and ed male sexual performance enhancers md complete skin care male enhancement utah black sex cartoons male enhancement youtube avaerage penis size how to get ro male enhancement binaural beats penis massage techniques male enhancement non prescription foods that lower sex drive

weight loss: black seed oil for weight loss extreme weight loss full episodes thyroid medication weight loss kelp pills for weight loss weight loss goals chart weight loss experiment gaba weight loss sonakshi sinha weight loss diet swedish bitters weight loss hibiscus weight loss serious weight loss pills methylphenidate weight loss how much turmeric for weight loss weight loss calculator time june honey boo boo mom weight loss how much weight loss on keto diet acetic acid weight loss wheatgrass powder benefits weight loss 3 week weight loss meal plan diet food for weight loss does nexplanon cause weight loss pills that help you lose weight fast how to do water fasting for weight loss office weight loss challenge ideas stomach filler for weight loss fda weight loss pills that work nuratrim weight loss pills weight loss planner calculator quick weight loss center decatur ga swimming for weight loss medi weight loss diet week 2 amino acid supplements for weight loss

vape: vape website universal ecig like logic vape walmart vape electric how to charge vape battery lemon tart vape juice drag 2 vape imren 18650 3000mah vape istick 50 watt ecig battery vapor shark mods baja blast vape juice homeport vapor aspire breeze all in one vape starter kit ecig external battery charger fruity menthol vape juice vapers mods beard vape vape pen vs box mod vape gold rba build kit smok tfv3 watts to ohms vape chart voopoo panda aio aegis geekvape 200w best vape shop gold snow wolf wismec reuleaux 200 uwell crown coils free shipping is vaping healthier than smoking weed when can you buy voopoo alpha one kief in vape juice

cbd oil: cbd companies to invest in cbd causing insomnia miracle cbd oil amazon does marijuana help asthma enjoyable cbd is marijuana oil legal best cbd drinks cbd and kratom combo cbd hemp pre rolls cbd oil legal in wv cbd shatter effects cbd oil for trigeminal neuralgia uk cbd molecule necklace mole removal sydney cbd dutch natural healing sagely cbd turmeric find updates united pet group summary traduccion cbd oil in gladstone mo what does physiological mean in medical terms cbd hempdropz hot definition slang how to reset smok alien cbd clinical trials cancer cotton candy cbd oil hot sex tube pure weed oil is cbd oil good for parkinsons disease pure cbd vapors review organabus terpene infused cbd vape oil vape brat cbd