PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

[Paul Trejo]

12 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

The post awaited by you is just above. It compares a Living History interview with Mr. Frazier with his testimony for the Warren Commission. Mr. Frazier apparently lied to the commission about when he saw Oswald for the last time, and about his movements after the shooting. Mr. Frazier did not report his updated movements and his late sighting of Lee Oswald for 50 years. He either concealed the true course of events and lied in his sworn testimony, or he concocted his new route towards the east corner of the building and seeing Oswald on Houston/Elm only now (fifty years after the fact). In either case, Mr. Frazier lost his credibility. The question on him would be: Did you lie under oath when you said that your last sighting of Oswald was after 10AM?

I hope this helps.  

Andrej,

Yes, this helps enormously.  Thanks for sharing this.

Here are my opinions.  

1.  You say that Frazier either lied under oath in his WC testimony, or he lied in his "Living History" interview.

2.  I say Frazier lied in his "Living History" interview.  It was not perjury, however, because he was not under oath.

3.  I agree that it was not a recall problem -- you say he adds details -- he expands on his WC testimony.  That's important.  

4.  Yes, he made an addition, but that addition has many signs of a lie.  For example, it has the characteristics of a dream.

5.  In a common dream, important people are seen, but they don't say anything.  

6.  Also as in a dream, Frazier says he is talking to "a lady," and he doesn't identify her.   He doesn't remember her name or her face -- just as in a common dream.

7.  Also, he doesn't say what they were talking about.  Nothing about their conversation is recalled -- just as in a common dream.

8.  If I wanted to push my own CT, I would seize upon this, because Frazier is here saying that LHO came out of the TSBD by a rear exit; the one at Houston Street.   But I won't, because this alleged memory of Frazier is so wispy.

9.  It actually harmonizes with the story of Baker/Truly, who agree they saw LHO on the 2nd floor, near the lunchroom there; and then left the TSBD somehow.  But that is neutral -- it neither convicts nor exonerates LHO.   Still, the "memory" is too wispy to be real.

10.  LHO took weekly rides from Frazier -- and Frazier sees LHO walking away from the chaos of Dealey Plaza (crossing Houston Street) but Frazier doesn't call out to his riding buddy?   No, "hello Lee!?"   No wave?   Nothing?   It's like a dream.

11.  Now, since Frazier lied, we must ask why?   You say that nobody wishes to lie -- but we are always forced.   I disagree.  There are many people who enjoy lying for the fun of it -- to fool people and laugh -- or in the hopes of getting attention -- or extra attention -- or fame. 

12.  Why would Frazier lie (when he was not under oath)?   IMHO, Frazier was paid for this interview, and he hoped to get more interviews.  After all, look at all the attention and money that Ricky White got in 1990 when he came out publicly to say that his father, Roscoe White, a DPD cop, confessed that he was one of the JFK shooters on 11/22/1963.   Lots of money.

13.  My further evidence that nobody led Frazier, is that this lie serves no other purpose than toying with the interviewer.  It neither convicts LHO nor exonerates LHO.

14.  Finally, if LHO was never at the front steps of the TSBD, he wouldn't have to walk through the 1st floor to get out by a rear exit.  The 2nd floor lunch room was already close to a rear exit.   

15.  IMHO, LHO left the TSBD by a rear exit, however, Frazier didn't see him.  He only dreamed it.

Interesting material, Andrej.   Thanks for sharing.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Andrej Stancak]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Andrej,

Yes, this helps enormously.  Thanks for sharing this.

Here are my opinions.  

1.  You say that Frazier either lied under oath in his WC testimony, or he lied in his "Living History" interview.

2.  I say Frazier lied in his "Living History" interview.  It was not perjury, however, because he was not under oath.

3.  I agree that it was not a recall problem -- you say he adds details -- he expands on his WC testimony.  That's important.  

4.  Yes, he made an addition, but that addition has many signs of a lie.  For example, it has the characteristics of a dream.

5.  In a common dream, important people are seen, but they don't say anything.  

6.  Also as in a dream, Frazier says he is talking to "a lady," and he doesn't identify her.   He doesn't remember her name or her face -- just as in a common dream.

7.  Also, he doesn't say what they were talking about.  Nothing about their conversation is recalled -- just as in a common dream.

8.  If I wanted to push my own CT, I would seize upon this, because Frazier is here saying that LHO came out of the TSBD by a rear exit; the one at Houston Street.   But I won't, because this alleged memory of Frazier is so wispy.

9.  It actually harmonizes with the story of Baker/Truly, who agree they saw LHO on the 2nd floor, near the lunchroom there; and then left the TSBD somehow.  But that is neutral -- it neither convicts nor exonerates LHO.   Still, the "memory" is too wispy to be real.

10.  LHO took weekly rides from Frazier -- and Frazier sees LHO walking away from the chaos of Dealey Plaza (crossing Houston Street) but Frazier doesn't call out to his riding buddy?   No, "hello Lee!?"   No wave?   Nothing?   It's like a dream.

11.  Now, since Frazier lied, we must ask why?   You say that nobody wishes to lie -- but we are always forced.   I disagree.  There are many people who enjoy lying for the fun of it -- to fool people and laugh -- or in the hopes of getting attention -- or extra attention -- or fame. 

12.  Why would Frazier lie (when he was not under oath)?   IMHO, Frazier was paid for this interview, and he hoped to get more interviews.  After all, look at all the attention and money that Ricky White got in 1990 when he came out publicly to say that his father, Roscoe White, a DPD cop, confessed that he was one of the JFK shooters on 11/22/1963.   Lots of money.

13.  My further evidence that nobody led Frazier is that this lie serves no other purpose than toying with the interviewer.  It neither convicts LHO nor exonerates LHO.

14.  Finally, if LHO was never at the front steps of the TSBD, he wouldn't have to walk through the 1st floor to get out by a rear exit.  The 2nd floor lunch room was already close to a rear exit.   

15.  IMHO, LHO left the TSBD by a rear exit, however, Frazier didn't see him.  He only dreamed it.

Interesting material, Andrej.   Thanks for sharing.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul:

an interesting interpretation of yours that Mr. Frazier constructed the new route and the late sighting of Lee by not differentiating between his dream and reality. I wonder if his conversation about Lee's not carrying a lunch to work on Friday morning could also be based on a dream. It would be a pretty bad dream as this dream denies Lee the possibility to carry his lunch e.g., in his jacket. This no-lunch-for-Lee dream plays into the cards of the official version placing Lee Oswald to the six floor as the shooter. He would be neither in the second nor first floor lunchroom after 12noon since he did not bring or buy any lunch - what would he then do in any of the lunchrooms. So, it seems Wesley uses to dream along the notes of the Warren Commission. Or, it was not a dream at all...

Dream or not, how can Mr. Frazier be trusted e.g., in the question of Prayer Man's identity after providing a false information of this scale? 

  

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Andrej Stancak

[Alistair Briggs]

2 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Thanks for the new link.  So, Frazier's first mention of his new route was not during his Living History interview but 11 years earlier. I did not know that the 2002 interview also contained about the same information as he then described with more details in his 2013 interview. However, this does not change the discrepancy between information given during his Warren Commission testimony and in his two late interviews. The problem is whether he did describe his movements truthfully and gave a correct time of his last sighting of Oswald during his Warren Commission testimony. It is the question of Mr. Frazier's credibility. Your opinion? 

My opinion? FWIW... if the question is of Frazier's credibility, and it's raised because of a 'discrepancy' between what he said to the WC compared to what he has more recently said, I would personally have to consider what difference it makes, and also the context in which it was said. In terms of the 'discrepancy' I don't see any issue with it at all... he 'added' details later on... perhaps he was embellishing things, perhaps he just felt more comfortable in later years to 'reveal' what he had seen... perhaps at the time of the WC he didn't feel like saying it for whatever reason... I don't know... I just don't see it being an issue... and I don't think it, in and of itself calls in to question Frazier's credibility.

*A neutral may well ask why is it so important to call Frazier's credibility in to question?

Perhaps to offer up a response to that one should consider something that Frazier has always been consistent about (apart from the 'length' of the package. )

First, from his WC testimony;

Quote

Mr. BALL - Anybody else you can remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - There was a lady there, a heavy-set lady who worked upstairs there whose name is Sarah something, I don't know her last name.

From his Clay Shaw trial testimony;

Quote

Q: Mr. Frazier, do you recall who you were with during the presidential motorcade?
A: Yes, sir, I can. When I was standing there at the top of the stairs I was standing there by a heavyset lady who worked up in our office, her name is Sara, I forget her last name, but she was standing right there beside me when we watched the motorcade.

From his 2002 interview;

Quote

Gary: Was there... was there anyone back there with you?

Buell: (nodding) Yes, there was a lady that worked up in one of the offices, and I do not remember her name.

From his 2013 interview;

Quote

And so we looked bewildered. And I turned to Sarah: she said "She said somebody shot the President", I said I doubt that's what she said. She said that she did say that. So we stood there for a few minutes,

Frazier has always been consistent on that point then that before, during and after the shots Sarah Stanton was standing near him.

...

On page 54 of this thread, Andrej, you and I had a bit of discourse around this subject. at the end of which I stated: " in the 'photographic' evidence where is Sanders and Stanton? If they are to be ruled out then it must be shown where they are.". Your response was 53 years already passed and somehow no one saw them, my counter response to that was the somewhat 'jocular' " Maybe just maybe at least one of them has been 'hidden' in plain view all these years... maybe. "

There is only a finite amount of space on the steps to accommodate all the people who said they were there... we have 3 different images (Altgens 6, Weigman Frame, Darnell frame) that shows some of the people some of the time... surely those can be used to place the known ones in the known places, then surely it is about 'filling in the gaps'... it's only a finite space after all... If I had the 'techincal abilities' I would have a go a it... perhaps Andrej you may be able to help me out?

Regards

I think I will take this opportunity to respond to Mr Doyle's protestation's First, yes I had noticed that " Stancak never answered your last post to him" whether a person responds to another persons post or not, well, that's surely their right, no?   Secondly, " people who mock instead of acknowledging good evidence " yeah what an annoyance that is... spoiled somewhat by your continuing 'mocking' of people alas. Thirdly, and this is my favourite, you said, and I quote: " Frazier's 2013 statement, however, offers some very specific orienting detail that makes it the much more meaningful reference to Sarah Stanton's location. What do Alistair Briggs and Bart Kamp do? They totally ignore it while they ask people to take them seriously as Prayer Man analysts. " I genuinely lolled at that. Anyone who has read my posts on this would know that I haven't 'totally ignored' it, in fact I have gone as far as to highlight it on more than one occassion... I can also say categorically that I have never asked anyone to take me 'seriously' as 'Prayer Man' analysts - and my posts show that... Anyway, lastly, when you said, and I quote: "I don't know who this asshole Alistair Briggs is but while mocking me he ignores the entire intelligent argument I'm making while pretending to be a serious debater.". Nope, I have not ignored the entire 'inelligent' argument you are making, and nope not pretending to be a 'serious debater' either - I stand by my comment (said somewhat flippantly) earlier of you 'protesting too much'. Thank you kindly for validating it; your 'intelligent argument' rebuttal of calling me an 'asshole' did the trick... lol Peace.

 

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Paul:

an interesting interpretation of yours that Mr. Frazier constructed the new route and the late sighting of Lee by not differentiating between his dream and reality. I wonder if his conversation about Lee's not carrying a lunch to work on Friday morning could also be based on a dream. It would be a pretty bad dream as this dream denies Lee the possibility to carry his lunch e.g., in his jacket. This no-lunch-for-Lee dream plays into the cards of the official version placing Lee Oswald to the six floor as the shooter. He would be neither in the second nor first floor lunchroom after 12noon since he did not bring or buy any lunch - what would he then do in any of the lunchrooms. So, it seems Wesley uses to dream along the notes of the Warren Commission. Or, it was not a dream at all...

Dream or not, how can Mr. Frazier be trusted e.g., in the question of Prayer Man's identity after providing a false information of this scale? 

Andrej,

In my opinion, people change when they take the Sacred Oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God."

They actually tell the truth.  The presence of the Judge helps to keep this oath -- as does the presence of the bailiff, who is ready to escort the witness directly to jail in case he is charged with perjury on the spot.

So -- in my opinion -- Frazier told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when he was under oath.  The great limitation in every case, of course, is that the witness is often strictly instructed to only answer the question, and nothing else -- or sometimes just to answer "yes or no" without any elaboration.   This often confuses witnesses who have long stories to tell, and when the whole story is complex, with nuances that really rest beyond a simple, either/or, yes or no.

Frazier answered the questions he was asked.  If the WC attorney had asked different questions, then I feel sure we would have received more information.   But no.

When Frazier was being paid for an interview -- the stakes were very different.   There was no Sacred Oath.  There was cash being paid.  It was like a circus, because the JFK assassination has become worldwide Entertainment.   Liars make thousands of dollars with their fictions, inventions, and made up stuff.   So, it has a different atmosphere.

In my opinion, we can trust Frazier's WC testimony as it stands.  

The one wiggly part is the length of LHO's paper package.   Frazier did not KNOW the actual length -- because what sane person takes every paper package they see, and insists on measuring the exact length?  

Nobody.

So, Frazier didn't know.  So, it was silly of the WC attorneys to continue to stretch out the question of the length of the package -- for hours it seems -- when all Frazier could do was guess, based on a three-month-old memory of a few seconds' observation.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 18, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

lol Me thinks he (Doyle) doth protest too much.

It is a nice show to watch for a select few, how he rambles from his padded cell. He has done this for a couple of years now, most amusing

He does belong to us though!

Small point -  Sanders didn't say 'standing right next to her', she said 'standing next to her'.
Small point - from the time Sanders reached the steps (12:20) and the time of the shots (12:30) people could have moved.

Small point indeed thanks for that correction, another small point is:

"I recall while standing there Mrs Sarah Stanton standing next to me, but I am unsure about the others. Mrs Stanton is likewise an employee of the TSBD."

There is no evidence she moved West. Nor is there any photographic evidence the person is female.

There is no girth, pure make believe as the image(s) are just too crappy, add on the shirt Oswald was wearing, that was by no means a slim fit.

And any female with forearms like that belongs in a wrestling team, ok I stole that bit from Jim D., but he had a valid point. And it still stands. The Davidson Gif shows nothing and nor is there any supporting evidence for this, only in Doyle's mind, which we have seen here how it works. Good riddance indeed.

Had Stanton moved East then it would have been pointed out by Frazier  after Alberto Rossi showed Frazier the PM pic to him, he would have said that it was her and it would have killed it all off, but he did not. In all those years he never said so, and he will not do so. Take note Doyle! And this is where it becomes interesting. Prayer Man as Oswald is more alive than ever. This is something that confuses and hurts people like Miller, Doyle and so on. The blatant refusal to even entertain the idea.......my my.

Furthermore Stanton states people that stood close to her. Shelley, Williams, Sanders and Lovelady. That is the second indicator she stood East on the top level. Something the clown from Sanibel seems to forget. 

 

 

 

[Andrej Stancak]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Andrej,

In my opinion, people change when they take the Sacred Oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God."

They actually tell the truth.  The presence of the Judge helps to keep this oath -- as does the presence of the bailiff, who is ready to escort the witness directly to jail in case he is charged with perjury on the spot.

So -- in my opinion -- Frazier told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when he was under oath.  The great limitation in every case, of course, is that the witness is often strictly instructed to only answer the question, and nothing else -- or sometimes just to answer "yes or no" without any elaboration.   This often confuses witnesses who have long stories to tell, and when the whole story is complex, with nuances that really rest beyond a simple, either/or, yes or no.

Frazier answered the questions he was asked.  If the WC attorney had asked different questions, then I feel sure we would have received more information.   But no.

When Frazier was being paid for an interview -- the stakes were very different.   There was no Sacred Oath.  There was cash being paid.  It was like a circus, because the JFK assassination has become worldwide Entertainment.   Liars make thousands of dollars with their fictions, inventions, and made up stuff.   So, it has a different atmosphere.

In my opinion, we can trust Frazier's WC testimony as it stands.  

The one wiggly part is the length of LHO's paper package.   Frazier did not KNOW the actual length -- because what sane person takes every paper package they see, and insists on measuring the exact length?  

Nobody.

So, Frazier didn't know.  So, it was silly of the WC attorneys to continue to stretch out the question of the length of the package -- for hours it seems -- when all Frazier could do was guess, based on a three-month-old memory of a few seconds' observation.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul:

Mr. Frazier might have told the truth under oath as you suggest. All what Mr. Frazier was did after the shooting was to remain clean, and it was certainly his interest not to lie under oath. The exact wording of the questions can certainly help to answer without committing a perjury. We agree on this point.

In his testimony he was asked about his exact movements after the shooting, and about his last sighting of Lee Oswald. The answers to these questions were clear and definite. They could not be "amended" later.

I also agree that Mr. Frazier would more likely allow himself to say a changed story in his later interviews. Unfortunately, one cannot have both sets of his statements (one for Warren Commission, another set in his interviews). A witness cannot "amend" story in such a way that s/he changes a sworn testimony - this certainly poses a big question about the credibility of the witness. Mr. Frazier did just this - he changes his original testimony. His credibility, if it depends on future offers for interview as you suggest, is in ruins.

Back to the length of the package: Mr. Frazier described a precise way how Lee Harvey Oswald carried the parcel. This specific style of carrying the parcel also defines accurately the length of the parcel. The parcel could only have the length of the arm of a man 5'9'' minus about 3 inches as the fingers were flexed to create a cup on which the parcel rested. There is no wiggle room here. I may be wrong but his curtain rods in a parcel of about 27'' x 5'' was designed to allow for both the curtain rods and a disassembled rifle. Maybe, Mr. Frazier though that Lee's disassembled rifle  would be about 2 feet long. Then saying the curtain rods story would exonerate him as the accessory to the fact since even if it would have been a rifle, Mr. Frazier could have been justly unaware about the true content of the parcel. Unfortunately, the disassembled rifle measured some 36'' ... Mr. Frazier could only continue maintaining his original curtain rod story even if could not account for the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. It is very likely that both the DPD and the Commission knew that the parcel actually contained a rifle but let Frazier get along with his false curtain rod story.

 

   

  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Andrej Stancak

[Andrej Stancak]

59 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

There is only a finite amount of space on the steps to accommodate all the people who said they were there... we have 3 different images (Altgens 6, Weigman Frame, Darnell frame) that shows some of the people some of the time... surely those can be used to place the known ones in the known places, then surely it is about 'filling in the gaps'... it's only a finite space after all... If I had the 'techincal abilities' I would have a go a it... perhaps Andrej you may be able to help me out?

 

Alistair:

I have opinions about the locations of Mr. Saunders and Mr. Stanton but no proof. I would post my views if I am certain and have some proof. Their locations are important to the whole research community

[Alistair Briggs]

2 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I have opinions about the locations of Mr. Saunders and Mr. Stanton but no proof. I would post my views if I am certain and have some proof. Their locations are important to the whole research community

I understand. Hopefully there may be someone out there who could act as a 'sounding board' privately and help you gather the proof you need.

P.S. if you don't mind me asking, what country do you orginiate from? (I'm just being a bit nosey. lol)

Regards

[Paul Trejo]

13 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Paul:

...Back to the length of the package: Mr. Frazier described a precise way how Lee Harvey Oswald carried the parcel.

This specific style of carrying the parcel also defines accurately the length of the parcel.

The parcel could only have the length of the arm of a man 5'9'' minus about 3 inches as the fingers were flexed to create a cup on which the parcel rested.

There is no wiggle room here. I may be wrong but his curtain rods in a parcel of about 27'' x 5'' was designed to allow for both the curtain rods and a disassembled rifle.

Maybe, Mr. Frazier though that Lee's disassembled rifle  would be about 2 feet long. Then saying the curtain rods story would exonerate him as the accessory to the fact since even if it would have been a rifle, Mr. Frazier could have been justly unaware about the true content of the parcel.

Unfortunately, the disassembled rifle measured some 36'' ... Mr. Frazier could only continue maintaining his original curtain rod story even if could not account for the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

It is very likely that both the DPD and the Commission knew that the parcel actually contained a rifle but let Frazier get along with his false curtain rod story. 

Andrej,

The wiggly part of Frazier's testimony is the length of LHO's paper sack package.   Yet he never perjures himself, IMHO.

Frazier always qualifies his remarks -- "as far as I can remember."   "Something like that."   "Approximately, sir."

Frazier was justified, because the stupid WC attorneys kept pressing Frazier to remember the exact length of the paper sack, which Frazier never even dreamed of measuring.

It was a vast waste of time.

Yet the stakes were high -- Frazier was liable to be charged with knowingly transporting the JFK murder weapon, and if Frazier slipped just a little bit in his testimony -- it's no joke -- Frazier could have been charged with conspiracy to commit murder, and could have received the death penalty.

Frazier knew this.  The DPD (who really killed JFK) were happy to accuse Frazier of being a Communist -- it was nothing to them.

It was really Frazier's Christian minister and Frazier's sister who saved Frazier from these vicious attacks.  We must recollect the context.

Frazier did say that LHO carried his sack under his armpit -- but even this is wiggly and approximate.   How CLOSELY did Frazier view this?  Was it directly in the armpit?  Was it slanted even a little bit?   Was Frazier CERTAIN about this?   Of course not.  

Just a little bit of slant in carrying an oblong package under the arm can be a difference of six inches.  IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE ACCURATE WITHOUT A MEASURING ROD.

I don't believe that Frazier lied about LHO's curtain rod story.   I personally believe that LHO really did bring his rifle to the TSBD that day (even though I maintain that LHO shot at nobody that day).   I believe that LHO was playing spy games with Interpen, in the context of a plot to assassinate Fidel Castro in the near future.  That is why he lied to Frazier, and told him it was "curtain rods."

I believe that Frazier believed LHO -- that it was curtain rods.   THAT IS WHY FRAZIER DIDN'T MEASURE THE PACKAGE.

Frazier's sister upheld Frazier's story -- after the fact -- because she didn't want to see her little brother get the electric chair for no good reason.

IT HAD TO LOOK LIKE THE SIZE OF CURTAIN RODS TO SAVE BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER'S LIFE.

There was no exact measurement -- ever.  It certainly COULD have looked like curtain rods.  That was clearly the SAFEST story.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Andrej Stancak]

Just now, Alistair Briggs said:

I understand. Hopefully there may be someone out there who could act as a 'sounding board' privately and help you gather the proof you need.

P.S. if you don't mind me asking, what country do you orginiate from? (I'm just being a bit nosey. lol)

Regards

I would appreciate your personal view on any Prayer Man issue as I can see the tremendous progress you made over a short period of time.

I was born in East Slovakia, close to Hungarian and Ukrainian border, and moved to the Czech Republic to complete my studies, and ended up having a Czech citizenship. However, my third and current home is Liverpool, UK, for more than ten years now. I also lived in Minnesota as a Fulbright fellow for about six months. I  had a chance to know the US and the American people, and I like the US very much. The state of affairs in the USA is of importance for the whole world, and it certainly matters to me. However, my motivation to find out the truth about the assassination of President Kennedy dates further back, to my childhood years. 

 

[Alistair Briggs]

4 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I was born in East Slovakia, close to Hungarian and Ukrainian border, and moved to the Czech Republic to complete my studies, and ended up having a Czech citizenship. However, my third and current home is Liverpool, UK, for more than ten years now. I also lived in Minnesota as a Fulbright fellow for about six months. I  had a chance to know the US and the American people, and I like the US very much. The state of affairs in the USA is of importance for the whole world, and it certainly matters to me. However, my motivation to find out the truth about the assassination of President Kennedy dates further back, to my childhood years.

Ah good stuff. I think I had previously read somewhere on this forum you were in Liverpool... I must say my knowledge of Slovakia isn't too much; there was a Slovakian footballer, Vladimir Weiss, who played for the team I support, Glasgow Rangers, a few years ago. And I know thier team Captain, Martin Skrtel, played for Liverpool. Small world then. lol I digress. lol

8 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

I would appreciate your personal view on any Prayer Man issue as I can see the tremendous progress you made over a short period of time.

I'm always happy to throw out a personal opinion on something. Whether we agree or disagree on anything that's ok... my inbox is always open if you have any questions.

Regards

[Sandy Larsen]

There is talk in this thread that Frazier didn't commit perjury.

If Frazier has been telling the truth since the early 2000s, claiming to have see Oswald outside after the shooting, then of course he committed perjury. If he used a qualifier like "to the best of my recollection" before the WC, then he still perjured himself. Because 40 and 50 years later he still remember what happened.

If Frazier didn't lie in 1964, then he has been lying lately.

I'm not saying Frazier is an evil person. Only that he has lied.

One person here asks what difference the lie makes. It makes a lot of difference. It tells us that we can't trust Frazier's testimony. Don't make excuses for Frazier, by saying we all make mistakes or leave things out. Frazier's was a colossal mistake. Colossal because it was about the accused assassin... about his whereabouts.

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Andrej Stancak]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

There is talk in this thread that Frazier didn't commit perjury.

If Frazier has been telling the truth since the early 2000s, claiming to have see Oswald outside after the shooting, then of course he committed perjury. If he used a qualifier like "to the best of my recollection" before the WC, then he still perjured himself. Because 40 and 50 years later he still remember what happened.

If Frazier didn't lie in 1964, then he has been lying lately.

I'm not saying Frazier is an evil person. Only that he has lied.

One person here asks what difference the lie makes. It makes a lot of difference. It tells us that we can't trust Frazier's testimony. Don't make excuses for Frazier, by saying we all make mistakes or leave things out. Frazier's was a colossal mistake. Colossal because it was about the accused assassin... about his whereabouts.

 

Thanks, Sandy, for expressing very clearly the impact of Mr. Frazier's altered version of important parts of the case. I see it the same way.

[Bill Miller]

19 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Prayer Man as Oswald is more alive than ever. This is something that confuses and hurts people like Miller, Doyle and so on. The blatant refusal to even entertain the idea.......my my.

You are not being truthful here - It was entertained and reasons have been given for why it is not Oswald. Your not agreeing with those reasons does not mean the idea wasn't entertained.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

You are not being truthful here - It was entertained and reasons have been given for why it is not Oswald. Your not agreeing with those reasons does not mean the idea wasn't entertained.

Rubbish, like Doyle you only grab one snippet and hammer it to death thinking it changes anything when it comes to the big picture.

You did jump in the Bill Kelley thread without even reading it beforehand.

And once your mistakes are pointed out, you squirm and try to wiggle your way out of it.

Smoke and mirrors Miller.......