James R Gordon

Admin
  • Content count

    826
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About James R Gordon

  • Rank
    Admin

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

14,239 profile views
  1. I am sorry to hear that news. I am also very grateful for the number of times Bernice helped me with images I was trying to acquire. I found her to be a very positive person and a great contributor to this forum. She will be sadly missed.
  2. Admin has decided to close this thread. It is clear - that after 76 pages - the debate is going nowhere. The proponents of PrayerMan are so grounded in “their truth” that any alternatives suggested are quickly dismissed. There does exist a forum that supports this theory and - maybe - that is where the supporters of this proposition should now congregate and endlessly repeat their views to the like minded resident there. The Education Forum stands for thoroughly researched evidence and theories and although serious attempts have been to introduce logic and discipline into this topic the supporters of PrayerMan have made that impossible.
  3. An update on the Lancer Archive:- I do not know whether I mentioned it but the original files that Debra Conway transferred into our safe keeping were horrendously corrupted. The developer informed me that he had never witnessed a hack this severe. There was no possibility of a restoration as [ not only were the files corrupted ] the very structure of the site had been destroyed. At that point it appeared that the project had come to an end. However - just on a hope - I contacted Debra to see whether she had stored earlier backups. She answered that she had earlier backups and sent us one. However not only was this backup corrupted it did not contain the a backup of the data files. Hoping that there was still in existence an earlier backup I contacted Debra and asked for a copy of the structure files as well as the data files. Debra informed me that although this was a difficult time for her she would download a further copy. Unfortunately the download did not fully work and it was never received. Recently I became aware what Debra meant by it being a "difficult time" for her. Her sister - Sherry Fiester - is very ill. And it is the kind of situation I prefer not to disturb Debra at this point in time. So where are we? First:- It appears that clean backups of the JFK Lancer do exist. And therefore it appears a restoration is indeed possible. However - being earlier copies - it is not clear just how much of the archive will now be able to be restored. Second:- Restoration is on hold. Debra has enough on her plate without me reminding her to re-download the set that earlier did not download properly. Third:- the developer is happy to pause the restoration until the clean set of data is sent to them. Fourth:- I suspect it will be a little while before the restoration is begun again. James.
  4. Sandy, I believe the original site has expired. There is a new one. http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum James.
  5. One of the features of this forum dating back to its very origin is the requirement that members conduct their conversations in a courteous manner. Generally speaking that has been the overwhelming norm on this forum. That said some threads have been more lively of late and this expected standard has - on occasions - dropped. It is not acceptable that when discussions become heated - as discussions are on the Oswald has left the TSBD thread - to resort to insulting members. We - members of the admin - ask members to abide the established code of discussion. Those who continue to transgress will be rewarded with an extended holiday from posting on the forum. However it is hoped that will not be required to be implemented. James
  6. Thanks Robin, Do we have any kind of time stamp for this image? I know Lovelady and Shelly are not insight at this point, but they are out of picture and making their way along Elm. It would be helpful to know approximately when this image was taken. James
  7. Bart, I am making my way through this book. I know the book is called “Prayerman: out of the shadows and into the light.” However it could very easily have been titled “What Sean Murphy said.” I do not know if you are involved in the slagging-off that is currently going on in ROKC and the members there. It says a great deal about the character of those members but more important the extent ROKC and the membership will go to when they notice someone criticising an issue they hold to be important to them. I can understand the abuse that Bill Miller and I have received. But I am appalled that just because Robin Unger commented that he did not believe Prayerman was Oswald a whole page in their current web of abuse directed at EF membership has been devoted to unseemly abuse directed solely at Robin. I say shame on ROKC and shame on those members who participated in this kind of criticism. I do hope you are not a party to this behaviour for although I disagree with you on this issue I have found you to be an honourable person. And now to respond to the second floor encounter. It has become clear to me that this is a critical issue - and one the supporters of this theory cannot allow to stand. There is a very telling moment in Chapter 2. Stan quotes Sean Murphy reflecting that if the encounter with Baker took place at the second floor lunchroom then Prayerman is unlikely to be Oswald. Throughout the book it becomes very clear that the second floor lunchroom meeting becomes a crucial part of the narrative. If it can be questioned and undermined then it will support Prayerman being Oswald and - if it cannot be questioned - the second floor meeting will destroy the idea that Prayerman is Oswald. Aware of the damage if this meeting could be established as factual Sean muses that even if Oswald/Prayerman is in his position outside and sees Baker rushing into the building there was still time for him to leave his position rush upstairs to the second floor grab a Coke and be there in time for the meeting. This scenario goes nowhere because it is quickly realised just how ridiculous it is. However - ridiculous though this idea is - it underlined just how critical the second floor meeting is and how if not dealt with it could explode the idea that Prayerman was Oswald. And this has raised a thought. Throughout the book we are told this person lied, this did not happen, this testimony is false. I am now wondering whether this is all gamesmanship to protect Oswald being Prayerman rather than the fruits of research.
  8. I am well aware that Richard and Sean reflected on other employees. That is described in the book. The point is that when it comes to the point to decide who could be Prayerman only those known to be on the steps and Oswald were seriously decided. It would be different if the Robin Unger image were clear - though I agree it is the clearest so far - but it is not and there is nothing in that image on which serious discussion can be made. It is a grainy image from which all kinds of assumptions can be made. And that is the problem. Prayerman could be anyone. But Stan is convinced it is Oswald and it is clear a third candidate would clearly be inconvenient to the present argument. I understand that, but what is absent in this argument is clear evidence why Prayerman cannot be anyone else but Oswald. Yes it could be Oswald, but so far there is no evidence why it must be Oswald and why it cannot be anyone else. Without that this is a flimsy argument. As regards the second floor meeting, I have yet to get to that part. The 2nd floor meeting is an established part of the JFK assassination literature. I am interested to see the evidence why it actually never took place. Swearing at ROKC is not the only activity there. Character undermining appears to have been the sole activity at ROKC in the recent weeks. James.
  9. I bought the Prayerman book. It is written by Stan Dane. It is written much as a diary and the main ideas are very much opinion and assumption. The real brain behind this theory is Sean Murphy. I remember Sean from Lancer and he was certainly a thoughtful researcher. However Stan is taking his thinking - which was a great number of years ago - as gospel. I have no idea what Sean thinks about his ideas from the 1990’s today. The identification of Oswald as this man is based on spurious evidence. Prayerman is clearly a person, but until the 1990’s when Sean identified him and actually named him, the research community were unaware he was even in the image. One thing that bothers me is the poor research. There is a section where Stan comments that Prayerman was not him, not her and so on therefore he had to be Oswald. But that is utter nonsense. I seem to remember there was well over 100 employees and therefore this Prayerman could be anyone of them. Prayerman is identified as being one of a select group: those who are known to be in the doorway and Oswald. Prayerman could be anyone. Oswald is included in this group because of Fitz’s notes. But we have no idea whether Oswald ever was on these stairs. Oswald says - in Fitz’s notes he was outside - and that is taken as gospel. Fitz's notes have been the source of considerable debate in the JFK assassination community however because Oswald says in these notes he was outside that is considered a fact in the book. That Prayer man could be any one of the other employees in the TSBD is not considered. They do not exist. The only ones from whom the selection of Oswald was made were those known to be on these outside steps and Oswald. Not exactly the pinnacle of academic research. I have not completed the book, but it appears ( based on what I have read so far ) to be very much “castles in the air” type of writing. Bart mentioned the reviews, actually we do not have the real names of many of these reviewers. One is actually called Hidell. I suspect many are ROKC members. So I am not sure these reviews - which are indeed positive - may be friends supporting Stan and not legitimate reviews. There is certainly no academic or a reputable JFK assassination researcher who has reviewed the book - as far as I can see. I will complete the book and write a proper review. James
  10. Bart, I agree with Bill. I have read most of the thread and - aside from the circumstantial evidence throughout the thread - I see no consistent line of thought. On a number of times you have chastised members to read the whole thread. In doing so, you imply that once having read the thread we will better understand your position. It is a real “cop-out” and evasion of the numbers questions that have been raised to respond by saying “read the whole thread.” May I offer a suggestion. It is clear you know the thread better than most. Therefore - rather than constantly referring members to read the whole thread - which contains around 1000+ posts - could you highlight what ( for you are the most important posts ) for us to read to better understand your position. James
  11. I have deleted my posts about where the two individuals were going. I thought I was seeing the entrance to the TSBD, when infant I was not. James.
  12. I believe so Ray. Unless I have misunderstood the the image, it appears to me that the entrance to the TSBD is in front of them. I understood that - if you take the Houston Elm Street crossing then: a) to go from the TSBT to Main Street is to go South. to go from the crossing - on up Houston street - is to go North. Therefore I believe if the two are walking towards the TSBD entrance they are actually walking west. I believe that is correct. Please correct me if I am wrong. James.
  13. Bill, I have just read through the entire thread - a point that Bart suggested. It is such a jumbled thread - which moves in all sorts of directions - you come away somewhat confused. Bart suggests that having read the complete thread the member would fully understand the theory and argument for Prayerman. Well I am not sure anyone is more informed having read the complete thread. From what I can see there is no summary post or starter document as there is in Prayer person. This thread was started by William Kelly wondering whether the Prayer man is actually Oswald leaving the TSBD.The term Prayer Man was created by Sean Murphy - whose contributes in the early pages of the thread - because the figure William Kelly thinks may be Oswald has his hands and arms are positioned in a way that makes it looks like the person is at prayer. James
  14. Bart, I had hoped you might consider debating. I accept your decision. James.
  15. Bart, With respect this is not "Case Closed.” Bill Miller is a highly respected JFK assassination researcher. Photographic analysis is one of his skills. I agree one of the pillars of the Prayerman argument is whether these two individuals are Lovelady and Shelley. From what I can see all Bill is saying there is not the evidence in that image to conclusively argue to for it to be Lovelady or Shelley. I am well aware that Parayerman - Bart - is an important issue to you and I understand the work and effort you have put into this issue. I am well aware of the comments that are flying about at the ROKC site about this thread and - particularly - Bill's intrusion into the debate - something from what I can see you have not involved yourself in. There is a weakness in an argument when you suggest that if Bill cannot appreciate your point of view then it is his loss. I - and indeed the EF - have waited a long time for two serious minded researchers to extensively debate this issue - and that is what we now have. May i ask that you take this opportunity to debate this issue with Bill. I believe you are the most skilled proponent of the Prayerman issue. If you can convince Bill of your position then I do believe it may well be "Case Closed."Bill Miller is only raising the kinds of question any serious researcher would be expected to ask and - to be fair - would surely have a right to expect an answer. James