Guest Duncan MacRae

PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD

1,093 posts in this topic

"Even if he did alter anything, that is a perfectly legitimate practice as long as it is altered to the truth."

??????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Even if he did alter anything, that is a perfectly legitimate practice as long as it is altered to the truth."


Confusing sentence, or Freudian slip?

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.

What's good about it, James?

It was Fritz who added the bit about Oswald saying he was having lunch, not Bookhout.

If there's physivcal evidence for Bookhout "altering" anything I would like to see it, Can ANYBODY show me these altered notes?

Even if he did alter anything, that is aperfectly legitimate practice as long as any alteration is still telling the truth.

I would possibly prefer the word "corrected"

Fritz saying he didn't take notes during the interrogations is also perfectly valid.

He may have created the notes from memory after the interrogations or he took notes from his colleague Bookhouse which would have been a perfectly legitimate thing to do .

Notes being similar to Fritz's notes means absolutely nothing,

Again, I'm not out to reinvent the wheel.

I refer you to http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&p=277440

in which Sean demonstrates pretty comprehensively that Fritz's notes were cribbed from Bookhout.

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.

What's good about it, James?

It was Fritz who added the bit about Oswald saying he was having lunch, not Bookhout.

If there's physivcal evidence for Bookhout "altering" anything I would like to see it, Can ANYBODY show me these altered notes?

Even if he did alter anything, that is aperfectly legitimate practice as long as any alteration is still telling the truth.

I would possibly prefer the word "corrected"

Fritz saying he didn't take notes during the interrogations is also perfectly valid.

He may have created the notes from memory after the interrogations or he took notes from his colleague Bookhouse which would have been a perfectly legitimate thing to do .

Notes being similar to Fritz's notes means absolutely nothing,

Again, I'm not out to reinvent the wheel.

I refer you to http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&p=277440

in which Sean demonstrates pretty comprehensively that Fritz's notes were cribbed from Bookhout.

It is a perfectly legitimate action to alter copied cribbed notes written by a partner, and also to add new information to them, as long as the truth.

is maintained.

Alteration of the original Bookhaus notes did not happen.

What did happen was that Oswald's alibi was changed so that it could be defeated. Kind of like what you're attempting with your pieces of straw here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a disappointment.

IMO, Duncan should not have been allowed to place his paper up before Greg's was up. For the simple reason that Sean Murphy first predicated this concept. So in deference to his very good thread, actually started by Bill, Greg should have gone first.

And then Duncan his, and then the debate would begin as to a comparative analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What did happen was that Oswald's alibi was changed so that it could be defeated. Kind of like what you're attempting with your pieces of straw here.

You have no proof of that.

I'm sorry, but the changes can be seen in the documentary evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What did happen was that Oswald's alibi was changed so that it could be defeated. Kind of like what you're attempting with your pieces of straw here.

You have no proof of that.

I'm sorry, but the changes can be seen in the documentary evidence.

"corrected" would be a better choice of word.

Nope. A correction would be like any other correction. It would be made in the document that was in "error" - or it would be noted in the new document that this information adjusts, supersedes/corrects previous versions.

The alibi was tweaked specifically so it could be defeated. You know something else? The only person not guilty of attempting to put words in Oswald's mouth was the only person sitting in that room (apart from Oswald) who was not trained in the Reid Interrogation System.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The system is taught to local, state police and federal agencies including FBI and CIA. It is also taught in the military.

You know as well as I do that I was referring only to those who wrote published reports. The WCR hints that there were OTHER reports, but that it was publishing only some. Who knows what happened to the unpublished ones or if they included any by Sorrels?

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know as well as I do that I was referring only to those who wrote published reports. The WCR hints that there were OTHER reports, but that it was publishing only some. Who knows what happened to the unpublished ones or if they included any by Sorrels?

There's nothing to be ashamed of in not knowing that Sorrells was there, and trying to cover up your lack of knowledge in this instance.

Nobody knows it all, and we are all here to learn and educate. after all. ;)

The desperation for victory shows in such minuscule and erroneous nitpicks with the accompanying avoidance of substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorrels sat in on the 1st interrogation on the afternoon of the 22nd, the morning interrogation of the 23rd, and the last interrogation on the 24th. (VII pp. 353-356). He did not file a report.

A half-page of handwritten notes from the 23rd spill into Sorrels' handwritten notes from his interrogation of Ruby (XXI p. 543). A search at the National Archives by the ARRB found only photocopies of pages from Sorrels' notebook- not the original notebook ("Lost and Found Oswald Interrogation Notes" by Larry Haapanen, Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Vol. 7, Issue 3, p. 11).

Apparently, he took no notes during that last session on the 24th, and commenced with his Ruby stuff just after his Oswald stuff from the 23rd. What's missing, of course, is Sorrels' account of Oswald's professed whereabouts at lunch- specifically when the President passed the building.

According to Hosty & Bookhout's joint report, filed the 23rd (while Oswald was still alive), "OSWALD claimed to be on the first floor when President JOHN F. KENNEDY passed this building."

The PM position is on the 1st floor.

It is unthinkable that Sorrels would have failed to note where Oswald claimed to be during the assassination. So why did this portion of his notebook disappear?

This was intentional- destruction of evidence. It must have spoken for Oswald's innocence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am absolutely in favor of academic discussion- it produces a refinement of ideas. But there is a greater purpose to this PrayerMan debate that I would like to address in this post.

It's a new year and we really need to get the show on the road as far as obtaining a clearer copy of the Darnell film image. Meaning that we have to get the Sixth Floor Museum to allow access to the film- specifically Megan Bryant, who's the Director of Collections and Intellectual Property.

As far as I understand, Bart Kamp & the ROKC forum have been doing the heavy lifting as far as pushing for access- and with them being mainly overseas, they're fairly easy for the Museum to ignore.

This morning I have sent off a query to the Dallas law firm of Gagnon, Peacock & Vereeke, who advertise themselves as "aggressive intellectual property representation". I asked them whether a Power of Attorney can be served upon the Museum, since it is historical material and the public should have fair use of it. And how much $$ that would cost.

I need information as to how one performs a scan on a film like that. It is an artifact created in November 1963 and we wouldn't want to injure it in any way. I'm not a techie or geek. There must be some kind of gizmo available that can make a high-quality scan. There must be an area on that floor at the Museum, at least in the building somewhere, where this can be accomplished in a few hours' time.

I don't see a better alternative than to try to interest Robert Groden to perform this scan. All I have is his publisher's address, for JFK: Absolute Proof. Does anyone know his P.O. Box, or e-mail? If so, please send me a personal message. By at least Monday morning I will have at least a letter in the mail to Groden's publisher.

Your input is welcome and I will keep you posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard,

I wonder if your appeal for help might be more noticed if it were posted in its own thread. Because of the unpopularity of Prayer Woman, this thread might not be visited by someone who could be of some help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Sandy, I just had a fabulous alternative to Groden suggested to me. So there's a backup or even a cooperative plan shaping up. What is needed now is advice on the proper technology to bring to the Museum to accomplish a scan of this 52-year-old film. I think either Duncan or Bart would have some knowledge of that, or David Healy, and this topic's positioning at the top of the list, with hopefully constantly-changing faces, seems enough of an attention-getter to me.

Determining who to do what, with what, and how to get that, and just when, could take a couple months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am absolutely in favor of academic discussion- it produces a refinement of ideas. But there is a greater purpose to this PrayerMan debate that I would like to address in this post.

It's a new year and we really need to get the show on the road as far as obtaining a clearer copy of the Darnell film image. Meaning that we have to get the Sixth Floor Museum to allow access to the film- specifically Megan Bryant, who's the Director of Collections and Intellectual Property.

As far as I understand, Bart Kamp & the ROKC forum have been doing the heavy lifting as far as pushing for access- and with them being mainly overseas, they're fairly easy for the Museum to ignore.

This morning I have sent off a query to the Dallas law firm of Gagnon, Peacock & Vereeke, who advertise themselves as "aggressive intellectual property representation". I asked them whether a Power of Attorney can be served upon the Museum, since it is historical material and the public should have fair use of it. And how much $$ that would cost.

I need information as to how one performs a scan on a film like that. It is an artifact created in November 1963 and we wouldn't want to injure it in any way. I'm not a techie or geek. There must be some kind of gizmo available that can make a high-quality scan. There must be an area on that floor at the Museum, at least in the building somewhere, where this can be accomplished in a few hours' time.

I don't see a better alternative than to try to interest Robert Groden to perform this scan. All I have is his publisher's address, for JFK: Absolute Proof. Does anyone know his P.O. Box, or e-mail? If so, please send me a personal message. By at least Monday morning I will have at least a letter in the mail to Groden's publisher.

Your input is welcome and I will keep you posted.

I think what is needed is a motion picture film scanner. But I'm sure they are far too expensive... better to hire a service that does this type of work. LA Scanworks is one in Los Angeles. The founder's LinkIn entry is here. I'm not endorsing this guy. But his service is the type that should do the work, not one that does consumer scanning.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what is needed is a motion picture film scanner. But I'm sure they are far too expensive... better to hire a service that does this type of work. LA Scanworks is one in Los Angeles. The founder's LinkIn entry is here. I'm not endorsing this guy. But his service is the type that should do the work, not one that does consumer scanning.

Colorlab is another. Here is their price list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now