Mark Haley Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8916.0.html or http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12177.0.html 337 pages of Prayer Man discussion to get your teeth into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 Yes, I am banned, Thomas. I told McRae, on several occasions, that his forum was a haven for disinfo agents. April 1, 2015, aside from being a humourous date to begin a thread, is about two years after McRae claimed they had made "many enhancements" of PM and had engaged in "many discussions" about PM. As I said, much hot air and deception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted August 19, 2015 Share Posted August 19, 2015 I got four pages into it and had this odd sense of deja moo, that strange feeling that you've heard this BS before somewhere. As always, reading anything over there is a complete waste of time, as the LN's are in total denial, and always will be in total denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) On reviewing this work, I was just struck by something in Bookhout's solo report: Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola form the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees' lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly.... Remember, this is supposed to be a report on how Oswald answered the questions being put to him. With that in mind, how does this bit of information find it's way into Oswald's mouth... "the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building." Unless Oswald followed them - how is he supposed to know what the hell Baker did after he left this alleged confrontation? Sure, they could (and did) have Oswald confirming all manner of things that never happened - but Oswald was at least allegedly the one doing those things (or present for them) so that presents no issue. Here however, they have him confirming something he couldn't know about - even if it really did happen. Herein is further evidence that they that put words in his mouth both to destroy his own alibi, but also to confirm the myths they were creating to help shore up their case against him. Edited August 20, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Good catch, Greg. I read that report before and never made the connection. (of course, when I read it, certain words were not italicized ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Well I'm up to page 16 on the "Oswald was not PM" thread and so far it is all tending to confirm that Oswald is PM. So when does the debunking start? (.....and what's up with that Lamson guy?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Well I'm up to page 16 on the "Oswald was not PM" thread and so far it is all tending to confirm that Oswald is PM. So when does the debunking start? (.....and what's up with that Lamson guy?) Hi Vanessa You have a stronger stomach than I do if you've made it to Page 16. I was starting to feel nauseous at about Page 3. Craig Lamson? Sweet guy; wouldn't say poop if he had a mouthful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Hi Bobster I’m up to page 47 and still no debunking. In fact there is a lot of good stuff on who was standing where on the steps. It’s worth persisting. Duncan, I really think you should consider renaming this thread to “Prayer Man could definitely be Oswald”. (………and seriously………what is up with that Lamson guy?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Giovanna Zambanini Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 I doubt we would sell it. There are probably a lot of posts in that thread which are distracting. Has anyone considered writing a paper that would capture the basic information in the thread? With a paper, everything would consolidated, and referenced. As for the thread pinning, we use the upper part of the Forum for business,and TOU, etc,. more or less, because this is the most visited area in the forum. While I understand your frustration, we have to put our information where it can be seen. But we may be able to do something with a research paper. Understood, Kathy. But has anyone considered having an 2 separate pinned areas A & B, for example? One pinning important business, and the 2nd one pinning important threads? Someone at ROKC (can't remember who? Barto?) just wrote an excellent PM synopsis which is posted and pinned there in the JFK section. Also Stan, i think it is, is writing a book about PM! Whoooohooo! And others are working on an undiluted documentary - or planning one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 I doubt we would sell it. There are probably a lot of posts in that thread which are distracting. Has anyone considered writing a paper that would capture the basic information in the thread? With a paper, everything would consolidated, and referenced. As for the thread pinning, we use the upper part of the Forum for business,and TOU, etc,. more or less, because this is the most visited area in the forum. While I understand your frustration, we have to put our information where it can be seen. But we may be able to do something with a research paper. Understood, Kathy. But has anyone considered having an 2 separate pinned areas A & B, for example? One pinning important business, and the 2nd one pinning important threads? Someone at ROKC (can't remember who? Barto?) just wrote an excellent PM synopsis which is posted and pinned there in the JFK section. Also Stan, i think it is, is writing a book about PM! Whoooohooo! And others are working on an undiluted documentary - or planning one. I doubt we would sell it. There are probably a lot of posts in that thread which are distracting. Has anyone considered writing a paper that would capture the basic information in the thread? With a paper, everything would consolidated, and referenced. As for the thread pinning, we use the upper part of the Forum for business,and TOU, etc,. more or less, because this is the most visited area in the forum. While I understand your frustration, we have to put our information where it can be seen. But we may be able to do something with a research paper. Understood, Kathy. But has anyone considered having an 2 separate pinned areas A & B, for example? One pinning important business, and the 2nd one pinning important threads? Someone at ROKC (can't remember who? Barto?) just wrote an excellent PM synopsis which is posted and pinned there in the JFK section. Also Stan, i think it is, is writing a book about PM! Whoooohooo! And others are working on an undiluted documentary - or planning one. I second Linda's proposal about 2 separate pinned areas, one for administration and one for important threads. Great idea Linda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 (edited) Since none of the other esteemed researchers on this forum seem to want to defend Carolyn Arnold's credibility, I think it's safe to assume that I am the "terminally obtuse" person Greg referred to. Again, I have no objection to Oswald being PM. Obviously, if he can be definitively identified as PM or even Doorman, then the entire official story collapses. No more endless debates. No need to rehash the impossible SBT for the millionth time. I think Sean Murphy's research was important. I suspect that Oswald may indeed be Prayer Man. The difference is, I recognize that none of the images available to us are clear enough to be that definitive. I don't rest my beliefs on this particular theory, or any other. Carolyn Arnold's testimony doesn't preclude Oswald from being PM. My objection is to what I believe is the unfair treatment she's being accorded here by Greg Parker. Greg continues to bring up the time differences, and witness corroboration, but ignores the fact that she claimed her statement was inaccurately recorded. I apologize for going around in circles once again with Greg. It's obvious that no one else here outside of David Josephs, Steven Gaal and Jim Hargrove care to challenge his assertions. Since he has now declared that he will authoritatively answer the question of why JFK was killed, in a future volume of his book, I will anxiously await that ground-breaking information. Terminally obtuse would be saying I claim it took her 10 minutes to get downstairs He is a credit to all at the foo... totally represents what the place stands for. Approximate Timeline: Noon to 12:15 Jarman and Norman discuss the crowd outside with Oswald. Piper has a brief word with Oswald about lunch. Oswald replies he is going up OR out to have his. None of the three claim to see where Oswald went after that. Arnold leaves her office and sees Oswald on the first floor on her way out to watch the parade. 12:30 JFK assassinated. Arnold - who has been outside from the time she left her office earlier, now leaves the area entirely. As she knew the motorcade had been due at 12:25 but was unaware it was late, she would later give 12:25 as the time she went home. The above is derived from statements to DPD, the FBI and the WC and HSCA. The times given by Jarman, Norman and Piper are not consistent with each other, or even at times with their own past statements, but can be pinned to the approximate time-frame given because there would not have been any excitement outside to speak of any earlier. Oswald was still on the first floor up to 10 minutes later because he told his interrogators that he had seen Jarman and Norman come back inside. We know from their testimony that they did come back in to go up the 5th. Even though Norman tells the HSCA his interaction with Oswald was between 10 and 11 am, he also insisted it was just before the motorcade was due - again - more consistent with a 12 to 12:15 time-frame. Oswald did what he was known to do on other days. He went upstairs, got a coke and came back down to have it with his lunch. This time however, instead of eating in the domino room, he ate in the PM position. Indeed, the paper bag and bottle can be seen in some frames. Edited September 19, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 You are some piece of "respectable" work, Greg. I would take the most delusional "tin foil hat" adherent over the vile band of preschool-level "researchers" who populate your forum. You even feel the need to defame God, whom I assume you don't believe in, with the "Great Elvis Impersonator" smear. Why smear a nonexistent thing? Do you ridicule Santa Claus, too? You dodged yet another bullet when the moderators reacted to your attack on Duncan MacRae's deceased relative by closing the thread and advising everyone to calm down. This is generally the reaction here to your childish behavior- to lump the objects of your ridicule in with you, much as bullied victims are almost always punished as severely, or more severely, than those who bully them. This is the same theme we see with whistleblowers as well; kill messengers like Manning and Snowden. But in your world, it is you who is being targeted here, not those you attack persistently. I really don't know why you hold back here at all. "Bwian" was a cute, kindergarten-level effort at name calling, but I don't think anyone here will reign you in if you just express yourself as profanely as you like, in the style of ROKC's most valued posters. This place has clearly adopted a "hands off" policy towards you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Scally Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Tommy: FWIW, that Cook footage was - to the very best of my knowledge - taken between 12:40 and 12:45, and certainly no later than 12:50. Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 What I believe this "exercise" demonstrates is that some people aren't particularly accurate at estimating how much time has passed from a particular moment. So if Carolyn Arnold said she left for lunch at 12:15, watched the motorcade, and then left for the day at 12:25, perhaps what she's saying is that, IN HER MIND, only 10 minutes or so had elapsed. And maybe the only significance of her stating "12:25" is that she estimated how much time had passed...whether she was right or wrong...and that perhaps it wasn't an attempt to lie to, fool, trick, or bamboozle anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 The significance of Carolyn Arnold's testimony relates to Oswald being in the sixth floor window in time to have been the assassin. If she saw him at 12:15, floors below the alleged sniper's lair, when the motorcade was actually scheduled to arrive earlier than 12:30, then it begs credulity to imagine him not being in position at that time. If it was closer to 12:25, it become impossible for him to have been firing shots from the sixth floor. Prayer Man aside, Arnold is a strong witness for conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts