• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Guest Duncan MacRae

PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

1,094 posts in this topic

Duncan,

I have two problem with your thesis.

a) The quality of the image is so poor how is it possible to make any reasoned judgement?

B) I see a lighter colour on page 6 but I cannot see why - against all other explanations - it has to be a button. A similar point could also be made for the purse - outlined on page 6.

Do we not need more definitive evidence if we are to agree with your conclusions?

James.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to momentarily permit cookies to get at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duncan,

I have two problem with your thesis.

a) The quality of the image is so poor how is it possible to make any reasoned judgement?

B) I see a lighter colour on page 6 but I cannot see why - against all other explanations - it has to be a button. A similar point could also be made for the purse - outlined on page 6.

Do we not need more definitive evidence if we are to agree with your conclusions?

James.

Yes James, and I say this in the closing sentence of the article.

"The truth of course will never be known until clearer images surface, and a new, and hopefully objective

analysis can begin."

Duncan,

That is perfectly fair and proper. You have advocated on this site and in your research document that this person is a woman.

The clearest image that you have is on Page 1. I do not see that person as a woman. In that picture I do not see the Purse. What appears to be the image off the purse on page 6 - on page 1 is light reflection on the left arm.

When you move to close up - especially on poor images - the image can mislead you.

I feel it is better to work from the image on page 1. And I cannot see that as a woman.

I think your work on Page 4 on the height of the person is convincing.

For me, if we are going to discuss the image then we should use the image on page 2,

James.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • · Prayer Person, the term should be accredited to you Duncan since you changed Ian Kingsbury’s thread ‘You Aint Got A Prayer Man’ to ‘Who Is Prayer Person’.
  • · Pauline Sanders is not to be considered a possibility, as she stated in CE 1381, she stood on the east end of the stairs, and Prayer Man (!) stands on the west end of the stairs, and she also stated that Sarah Stanton was standing next to her (Pat Speer please take note!)
  • · The images originate from CineCam, but are more than likely from video tape. NBC5 has only videotape of the films for duplication available for documentaries and the like. The artefacts seen as buttons by you are a prime example and have been debunked in my article: The Death of Prayer Woman.

· The First Impressions Chapter is filled to the brim with speculations and half-truths.

  • You assume Prayer Man is short in comparison to BWF (Frazier’s height does not give us any clue whatsoever with regards to Prayer Man’s height) and you fail to provide any real evidence for this. The option that Prayer Man is standing one step or perhaps even two steps below from where Frazier is standing does not apply for some reason to you, many members already debunked your method two years ago in the Bill Kelly thread Oswald Leaving the TSBD. Standing one or two steps below Frazier is more than likely since Prayer Man is most likely seen drinking from a bottle which is found on the stairs and seen in various photographs taken by William Allen.

The bottle in question is placed in a corner along with a lunch sack, one step below and it is highly unlikely anyone would place the bottle and sack one step below from where they would be standing whereas the same level makes a lot more sense, also take PM's physical position into consideration.

bottle-1.jpg

download%20vvv.jpg

Bottle_notes.jpg

Will%20Fritz%20leaving%20the%20TSBD.jpg

TSBD%20employees%20leaving.jpg

The bottle is still there when Fritz and the TSBD employees are leaving which is around 2PM, so the bottle has been there at least for 90 mins!

  • Your claim of: They simply want the mystery person to be OSWALD...AT ALL COST...regardless of the researchable evidence which strongly suggests otherwise

As a matter of fact the barrage of evidence available contradicts this statement no it actually destroys it, it shows that you are only going partially through all the available evidence. The Pauline Sanders testimony mentioned above is a great example. Further and more importantly is the fact that the photograph is the icing on the cake and not the primary piece that THAT is Lee Oswald. The photograph, a better copy if that, would merely confirm what is already known from the statements/testimonies/newspaper reports that Oswald was seen on the 1st floor just before and straight after the shooting. It is mind boggling how many people ,LNers and CTers, do not take the effort to read all the available material before blurting out their opinion(s).

  • John Mytton, a character who has been dead 200 hundred years, how can anyone take his ‘research’ seriously. People like him, Photon and Albert Doyle that hide behind (dead) people’s names are suspect. They are not allowed to post here so this begs the question are you allowed to intro their work here?

The graphics shown are without merit purely because of the ‘researcher’s name and as pointed out earlier the false assumption that Prayer Man is short, 5 ft 3”. A fantasy to say the least, you have nothing to show or proof that Prayer Man is standing on the top step / landing next to BWF. Your flash render of the colour photograph and the Darnell frame is based on nothing as well. Do you know the measurements of the steps? Has the Darnell shot and the colour shot been taken from the same vantage point? The metrics plastered in resemble your white arrows to point out bags and buttons without any proof nor is anything verifiable. This is just an opinion nothing more and is easily dismissed.

  • Your usage of the close-up Darnell frames has been debunked in my blogpost already (that it is from Sean Murphy means nothing either, it has been enlarged and possibly sharpened already), the adding of more sharpening, contrast and brightness doesn’t proof your case one bit.
  • ·Your claim of: Some researchers claim as a fact that Oswald is the mystery person, and that his hairline is clearly visible in any analysis. This is of course, complete nonsense is not true either, it is misleading, one example against your claim are Will Fritz’s notes, and go on then let’s add Harry D Holmes and James Bookhout’s statements as well while we are at it. This alone destroys your poor assumption. Oswald was out front with Bill Shelley!

· In the chapter Can the gender of the mystery person be determined?

-Item 1 is not true as I have already pointed out you have no basis for determining the height of Prayer Man and also has already been debunked two years ago.

-Item 2 doesn’t fare much better, you presume he has long hair but do not allow for the sweeping motion that the camera makes from left to right and back again, this is a vital element with regards to the blur and for the record have a look at his ear. If it happens to his ear, does this not happen to his hair?

-Item 3 The buttons, straight from lalaland, no evidence to back this up and again heavily (!!!) debunked in my piece The Death Of Prayer Woman already. The ‘buttons’ seem to appear everywhere in the overall Darnell shot. Just using a close-up and pointing this out is extremely misleading.

-Item 4 is without any foundation as well, pure speculation and above all Fetzerian thinking by you.

Your recap points fail as well, as per earlier statements made by me above.And I have been repeating myself 2 or 3x already

The photograph of Prayer Man is merely the icing on the cake.

Yes we do need a better image, and we are working hard on this, are you?

The majority of so called researchers in this matter don’t know the half of it, due to their blatant refusal to educate themselves about the many documents that show how much is being twisted for Oswald to be thrown under a bus. Read The Bill Kelly thread Oswald Leaving the TSBD for starters,

Sean Murphy’s research, Richard Hocking’s deductions, Greg Parker’s research (soon to be enjoyed here with his research paper!), Stan Dane’s book, my film Prayer Man More Than Just A Fuzzy Picture (and V2 is in the making!) and the book to follow show how high the possibility is that it was Lee Harvey Oswald who was standing on those steps and is Prayer Man.

I look forward seeing you debunk Greg’s piece.

Edited by Bart Kamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New approach same as the old approach.

Vive le differance.

It's difficult to have a proper debate as envisaged when the proposer of the debate refuses to engage in it when confronted with rebuttal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That this "research' should have been legitimized by granting inclusion here was a mistake imho - and this result was inevitable.

MacRae only insisted upon this because he was harboring the mistaken belief that I would be reinventing the wheel on Prayer Man. That fight is done and dusted over hundreds of pages here and neatly summarized in book and video form. After agreeing to the initial request to do this, I decided it was a pointless exercise. What I will be presenting will not be an attempt to "prove" what's already been proven. It instead, will place PM into the proper context of police methodology.

MacRae missed the boat again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have hidden a number of posts.

In these threads we are supposed to be arguing ideas and theories. It would appear to me that Bart's post deserve a more thoughtful response. I am not saying Bart is right, but I am saying he deserves a response.

Jon G Tidd's comment is a comment that should not be made. This back and forth is acceptable in normal threads, but these threads were all about ideas. Jon's comment is one of disappointment and I agree with his disappointment.

I know we have two opposing ideas but that is the purpose of these threads to see whose ideas withstand scrutiny better.

Please - gentlemen - let's return to talking about the ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • · Prayer Person, the term should be accredited to you Duncan since you changed Ian Kingsbury’s thread ‘You Aint Got A Prayer Man’ to ‘Who Is Prayer Person’.
  • · Pauline Sanders is not to be considered a possibility, as she stated in CE 1381, she stood on the east end of the stairs, and Prayer Man (!) stands on the west end of the stairs, and she also stated that Sarah Stanton was standing next to her (Pat Speer please take note!)
  • · The images originate from CineCam, but are more than likely from video tape. NBC5 has only videotape of the films for duplication available for documentaries and the like. The artefacts seen as buttons by you are a prime example and have been debunked in my article: The Death of Prayer Woman.

· The First Impressions Chapter is filled to the brim with speculations and half-truths.

  • You assume Prayer Man is short in comparison to BWF (Frazier’s height does not give us any clue whatsoever with regards to Prayer Man’s height) and you fail to provide any real evidence for this. The option that Prayer Man is standing one step or perhaps even two steps below from where Frazier is standing does not apply for some reason to you, many members already debunked your method two years ago in the Bill Kelly thread Oswald Leaving the TSBD. Standing one or two steps below Frazier is more than likely since Prayer Man is most likely seen drinking from a bottle which is found on the stairs and seen in various photographs taken by William Allen.

The bottle in question is placed in a corner along with a lunch sack, one step below and it is highly unlikely anyone would place the bottle and sack one step below from where they would be standing whereas the same level makes a lot more sense, also take PM's physical position into consideration.

The bottle is still there when Fritz and the TSBD employees are leaving which is around 2PM, so the bottle has been there at least for 90 mins!

  • Your claim of: They simply want the mystery person to be OSWALD...AT ALL COST...regardless of the researchable evidence which strongly suggests otherwise

As a matter of fact the barrage of evidence available contradicts this statement no it actually destroys it, it shows that you are only going partially through all the available evidence. The Pauline Sanders testimony mentioned above is a great example. Further and more importantly is the fact that the photograph is the icing on the cake and not the primary piece that THAT is Lee Oswald. The photograph, a better copy if that, would merely confirm what is already known from the statements/testimonies/newspaper reports that Oswald was seen on the 1st floor just before and straight after the shooting. It is mind boggling how many people ,LNers and CTers, do not take the effort to read all the available material before blurting out their opinion(s).

  • John Mytton, a character who has been dead 200 hundred years, how can anyone take his ‘research’ seriously. People like him, Photon and Albert Doyle that hide behind (dead) people’s names are suspect. They are not allowed to post here so this begs the question are you allowed to intro their work here?

The graphics shown are without merit purely because of the ‘researcher’s name and as pointed out earlier the false assumption that Prayer Man is short, 5 ft 3”. A fantasy to say the least, you have nothing to show or proof that Prayer Man is standing on the top step / landing next to BWF. Your flash render of the colour photograph and the Darnell frame is based on nothing as well. Do you know the measurements of the steps? Has the Darnell shot and the colour shot been taken from the same vantage point? The metrics plastered in resemble your white arrows to point out bags and buttons without any proof nor is anything verifiable. This is just an opinion nothing more and is easily dismissed.

  • Your usage of the close-up Darnell frames has been debunked in my blogpost already (that it is from Sean Murphy means nothing either, it has been enlarged and possibly sharpened already), the adding of more sharpening, contrast and brightness doesn’t proof your case one bit.
  • ·Your claim of: Some researchers claim as a fact that Oswald is the mystery person, and that his hairline is clearly visible in any analysis. This is of course, complete nonsense is not true either, it is misleading, one example against your claim are Will Fritz’s notes, and go on then let’s add Harry D Holmes and James Bookhout’s statements as well while we are at it. This alone destroys your poor assumption. Oswald was out front with Bill Shelley!

· In the chapter Can the gender of the mystery person be determined?

-Item 1 is not true as I have already pointed out you have no basis for determining the height of Prayer Man and also has already been debunked two years ago.

-Item 2 doesn’t fare much better, you presume he has long hair but do not allow for the sweeping motion that the camera makes from left to right and back again, this is a vital element with regards to the blur and for the record have a look at his ear. If it happens to his ear, does this not happen to his hair?

-Item 3 The buttons, straight from lalaland, no evidence to back this up and again heavily (!!!) debunked in my piece The Death Of Prayer Woman already. The ‘buttons’ seem to appear everywhere in the overall Darnell shot. Just using a close-up and pointing this out is extremely misleading.

-Item 4 is without any foundation as well, pure speculation and above all Fetzerian thinking by you.

Your recap points fail as well, as per earlier statements made by me above.And I have been repeating myself 2 or 3x already

The photograph of Prayer Man is merely the icing on the cake.

Yes we do need a better image, and we are working hard on this, are you?

The majority of so called researchers in this matter don’t know the half of it, due to their blatant refusal to educate themselves about the many documents that show how much is being twisted for Oswald to be thrown under a bus. Read The Bill Kelly thread Oswald Leaving the TSBD for starters,

Sean Murphy’s research, Richard Hocking’s deductions, Greg Parker’s research (soon to be enjoyed here with his research paper!), Stan Dane’s book, my film Prayer Man More Than Just A Fuzzy Picture (and V2 is in the making!) and the book to follow show how high the possibility is that it was Lee Harvey Oswald who was standing on those steps and is Prayer Man.

I look forward seeing you debunk Greg’s piece.

1. The change of thread title was changed because several same topic threads were merged, and required a new neutral title.

2. As per the article:

In Simple English - No claim is being made here.

Quote from article: "Prayer woman being identified as being Pauline Sanders is only a considered possibility."

3. One has to assume in any analysis of such a poor quality image, that there is no other alternative.

You are also making assumptions.

You assume that the mystery person may have been standing one or two steps down,

and you assume that the mystery person may have been drinking from a bottle.

Photographs of an empty bottle hours after the event is proof of nothing

4. So only one John Mytton exists or has ever existed on planet Earth? Amazing!!!

5. The close up of the Darnell image has not been debunked.

An opinion from you based on the same crappy image, and that's all it is, is not a debunking, it's an opinion... Gimme a break!!!

6. Some researchers do claim that Oswald is the mystery person, and that his hairline can be seen in the Darnell images. This is a fact.

7. Regarding your linked articles and irrelevant link promotion to the review and purchase page at Amazon for the Stan Dane's book

Everything contained within the book and these articles is speculative, and not proof of anything.

Until people like you learn that speculation is not proof, you will get nowhere with your research.

BIG claims about the gender identity of the mystery person require BIG proof.

You have no BIG proof, and neither have i

EVERYONE is merely guessing the gender identity of Prayer Person.......This a fact!!!

You are admitting that what you present is not research, but merely guesswork?

That this "research' should have been legitimized by granting inclusion here was a mistake imho - and this result was inevitable.

MacRae only insisted upon this because he was harboring the mistaken belief that I would be reinventing the wheel on Prayer Man. That fight is done and dusted over hundreds of pages here and neatly summarized in book and video form. After agreeing to the initial request to do this, I decided it was a pointless exercise. What I will be presenting will not be an attempt to "prove" what's already been proven. It instead, will place PM into the proper context of police methodology.

MacRae missed the boat again.

You have proven nothing.

Which is why I don't take credit for it and won't try and reinvent it.

Sean Murphy however, did prove that

  • Oswald's alibi was altered by Bookhout, with Fritz cribbing from Bookhout's alteration
  • Numerous first day news accounts quoting police sources and TSBD officials support Oswald's alibi
  • No one admitting seeing anyone at all in the PM position
  • No one admitted being in the PM position
  • No one admitted seeing any strangers that day
  • Notwithstanding that no one saw any strangers, no stranger would have been likely to take up the PM position anyway, since it meant battling past a crowd to take up a worse position than any on the street

The gender is a given

The body shape is a given

The hairline is a given

All signposts point to one man. That is what has been proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proven... to a legal degree of certainty -you are correct - is still no guarantee of factuality. It is however, what a reasonable person would accept as fact, short of absolute proof.

All you are demonstrating is your refusal to act like a reasonable person.

My conclusion is worth repeating so that you get a second chance to let it sink in: All signposts point to one man. That is what has been proven.

Yougetitnow?

The list of items all point to one man. All those items may be wrong in pointing to one man - but as it stands - that's where they do point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • · Prayer Person, the term should be accredited to you Duncan since you changed Ian Kingsbury’s thread ‘You Aint Got A Prayer Man’ to ‘Who Is Prayer Person’.
  • · Pauline Sanders is not to be considered a possibility, as she stated in CE 1381, she stood on the east end of the stairs, and Prayer Man (!) stands on the west end of the stairs, and she also stated that Sarah Stanton was standing next to her (Pat Speer please take note!)
  • · The images originate from CineCam, but are more than likely from video tape. NBC5 has only videotape of the films for duplication available for documentaries and the like. The artefacts seen as buttons by you are a prime example and have been debunked in my article: The Death of Prayer Woman.

· The First Impressions Chapter is filled to the brim with speculations and half-truths.

  • You assume Prayer Man is short in comparison to BWF (Frazier’s height does not give us any clue whatsoever with regards to Prayer Man’s height) and you fail to provide any real evidence for this. The option that Prayer Man is standing one step or perhaps even two steps below from where Frazier is standing does not apply for some reason to you, many members already debunked your method two years ago in the Bill Kelly thread Oswald Leaving the TSBD. Standing one or two steps below Frazier is more than likely since Prayer Man is most likely seen drinking from a bottle which is found on the stairs and seen in various photographs taken by William Allen.

The bottle in question is placed in a corner along with a lunch sack, one step below and it is highly unlikely anyone would place the bottle and sack one step below from where they would be standing whereas the same level makes a lot more sense, also take PM's physical position into consideration.

The bottle is still there when Fritz and the TSBD employees are leaving which is around 2PM, so the bottle has been there at least for 90 mins!

  • Your claim of: They simply want the mystery person to be OSWALD...AT ALL COST...regardless of the researchable evidence which strongly suggests otherwise

As a matter of fact the barrage of evidence available contradicts this statement no it actually destroys it, it shows that you are only going partially through all the available evidence. The Pauline Sanders testimony mentioned above is a great example. Further and more importantly is the fact that the photograph is the icing on the cake and not the primary piece that THAT is Lee Oswald. The photograph, a better copy if that, would merely confirm what is already known from the statements/testimonies/newspaper reports that Oswald was seen on the 1st floor just before and straight after the shooting. It is mind boggling how many people ,LNers and CTers, do not take the effort to read all the available material before blurting out their opinion(s).

  • John Mytton, a character who has been dead 200 hundred years, how can anyone take his ‘research’ seriously. People like him, Photon and Albert Doyle that hide behind (dead) people’s names are suspect. They are not allowed to post here so this begs the question are you allowed to intro their work here?

The graphics shown are without merit purely because of the ‘researcher’s name and as pointed out earlier the false assumption that Prayer Man is short, 5 ft 3”. A fantasy to say the least, you have nothing to show or proof that Prayer Man is standing on the top step / landing next to BWF. Your flash render of the colour photograph and the Darnell frame is based on nothing as well. Do you know the measurements of the steps? Has the Darnell shot and the colour shot been taken from the same vantage point? The metrics plastered in resemble your white arrows to point out bags and buttons without any proof nor is anything verifiable. This is just an opinion nothing more and is easily dismissed.

  • Your usage of the close-up Darnell frames has been debunked in my blogpost already (that it is from Sean Murphy means nothing either, it has been enlarged and possibly sharpened already), the adding of more sharpening, contrast and brightness doesn’t proof your case one bit.
  • ·Your claim of: Some researchers claim as a fact that Oswald is the mystery person, and that his hairline is clearly visible in any analysis. This is of course, complete nonsense is not true either, it is misleading, one example against your claim are Will Fritz’s notes, and go on then let’s add Harry D Holmes and James Bookhout’s statements as well while we are at it. This alone destroys your poor assumption. Oswald was out front with Bill Shelley!

· In the chapter Can the gender of the mystery person be determined?

-Item 1 is not true as I have already pointed out you have no basis for determining the height of Prayer Man and also has already been debunked two years ago.

-Item 2 doesn’t fare much better, you presume he has long hair but do not allow for the sweeping motion that the camera makes from left to right and back again, this is a vital element with regards to the blur and for the record have a look at his ear. If it happens to his ear, does this not happen to his hair?

-Item 3 The buttons, straight from lalaland, no evidence to back this up and again heavily (!!!) debunked in my piece The Death Of Prayer Woman already. The ‘buttons’ seem to appear everywhere in the overall Darnell shot. Just using a close-up and pointing this out is extremely misleading.

-Item 4 is without any foundation as well, pure speculation and above all Fetzerian thinking by you.

Your recap points fail as well, as per earlier statements made by me above.And I have been repeating myself 2 or 3x already

The photograph of Prayer Man is merely the icing on the cake.

Yes we do need a better image, and we are working hard on this, are you?

The majority of so called researchers in this matter don’t know the half of it, due to their blatant refusal to educate themselves about the many documents that show how much is being twisted for Oswald to be thrown under a bus. Read The Bill Kelly thread Oswald Leaving the TSBD for starters,

Sean Murphy’s research, Richard Hocking’s deductions, Greg Parker’s research (soon to be enjoyed here with his research paper!), Stan Dane’s book, my film Prayer Man More Than Just A Fuzzy Picture (and V2 is in the making!) and the book to follow show how high the possibility is that it was Lee Harvey Oswald who was standing on those steps and is Prayer Man.

I look forward seeing you debunk Greg’s piece.

1. The change of thread title was changed because several same topic threads were merged, and required a new neutral title.

2. As per the article:

In Simple English - No claim is being made here.

Quote from article: "Prayer woman being identified as being Pauline Sanders is only a considered possibility."

3. One has to assume in any analysis of such a poor quality image, that there is no other alternative.

You are also making assumptions.

You assume that the mystery person may have been standing one or two steps down,

and you assume that the mystery person may have been drinking from a bottle.

Photographs of an empty bottle hours after the event is proof of nothing

4. So only one John Mytton exists or has ever existed on planet Earth? Amazing!!!

5. The close up of the Darnell image has not been debunked.

An opinion from you based on the same crappy image, and that's all it is, is not a debunking, it's an opinion... Gimme a break!!!

6. Some researchers do claim that Oswald is the mystery person, and that his hairline can be seen in the Darnell images. This is a fact.

7. Regarding your linked articles and irrelevant link promotion to the review and purchase page at Amazon for the Stan Dane's book

Everything contained within the book and these articles is speculative, and not proof of anything.

Until people like you learn that speculation is not proof, you will get nowhere with your research.

BIG claims about the gender identity of the mystery person require BIG proof.

You have no BIG proof, and neither have i

EVERYONE is merely guessing the gender identity of Prayer Person.......This a fact!!!

MacRae keeps missing the boat and then some. This 'Research' thread is starting to look like a huge weight around his neck and everyone is here to see it happening.

1/ I don't believe you since your history of deleting/altering threads at your own forum is well known inside the JFK Research community, but let's leave it at that. Unless you wish to continue on this........

2/ I fail to see the point of putting P Sanders forward with a feeble back up which is incorrect, meaning what is your point?

3/ I may assume that Oswald was standing one step down, since it makes logical sense, the bottle add on strengthens this. You on the other hand put a 5ft 3" height forward without any basis whatsoever. As a matter of fact it is shocking that you are trying to sell this junk to anyone. And as earlier stated, your thesis was debunked inside the Bill K. thread more than 2 years ago.

4/ Mytton is a fictional character, you know this and so do most researchers.. Since you do not provide any proof to counter my accusation it is a given he is a fake. Albert Doyle is another.

5/ The entire Darnell image is littered with your buttons. Debunked? I'd say devastatingly so.And no, no break coming.

Prayer-Woman-Dead-and-Buried.jpg

6/.......................

7/ The only person that has been speculating here is you, and on almost every front. Like Greg, Ed and I have been saying time and time again. It is not about a fuzzy picture. The available evidence as presented in my film and Stan Dane's book and Greg's research paper which shall be published here soon, will put an end to your dreamlike scenario of complete denial.

It is also painfully clear that just shouting NO NO NO, doesn't mean much around here and only exposes you more and more.

And with this I am done, the 'research you present is worthless. Sure there are elements about Prayer Man which can be discussed until the cows come home due to the quality of the picture.

But!

Your actual thesis is that the gender can't be proven. Then why did you write a paper about it being female? Your "effort" is disingenuous to say the least and the thread should therefore be deleted on that basis alone.

edit: spell error

Edited by Bart Kamp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg Parker Posted Today, 09:58 AM

The list of items all point to one man. All those items may be wrong in pointing to one man

Speculative "items" as you call them, all pointing the blame at someone is not proof,

I honestly don't understand how you don't get this. :blink:

The blame?

It's not me that's not getting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're simply wrong about everything being speculative.

One example, The first item on my list:

  • Oswald's alibi was altered by Bookhout, with Fritz cribbing from Bookhout's alteration

The first part is NOT speculation. Going from memory, so there may have been more than one change, but in the combined Hosty-Bookhout report, it simply noted that Oswald had seen Junior and another employee re-enter the building. In Bookhout's later solo report, this gets changed to a claim of having lunch with Junior. This was easy to refute. They simply asked Junior if he had lunch with Oswald - the answer was "no" - so there goes the alibi.

Fritz claimed he took no notes during the interrogations. Yet notes later turned up. Those were very likely rough notes copied from Bookhout. Sean simply put the notes beside Bookhout's report and noted how well it all matched up. Absolute proof? No. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? I think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're simply wrong about everything being speculative.

One example, The first item on my list:

  • Oswald's alibi was altered by Bookhout, with Fritz cribbing from Bookhout's alteration

The first part is NOT speculation. Going from memory, so there may have been more than one change, but in the combined Hosty-Bookhout report, it simply noted that Oswald had seen Junior and another employee re-enter the building. In Bookhout's later solo report, this gets changed to a claim of having lunch with Junior. This was easy to refute. They simply asked Junior if he had lunch with Oswald - the answer was "no" - so there goes the alibi.

Fritz claimed he took no notes during the interrogations. Yet notes later turned up. Those were very likely rough notes copied from Bookhout. Sean simply put the notes beside Bookhout's report and noted how well it all matched up. Absolute proof? No. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? I think so.

Good point Greg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.