Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • 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
William Kelly

Oswald Leaving TSBD?

Recommended Posts

[...]

The clincher however, is when they called Truly back to the Post Office Annex to get him to answer one question under oath - does the lunchroom door with the window through which Baker saw Oswald - does that door have an automatic door closing mechanism - and the answer is yes - it does, securing the fact that the door was tightly closed when Baker saw Oswald on the other side of it - and Truly didn't see Baker go through it.

[...]

Now if this story was concocted by anyone, why wouldn't they tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker? Why would they tell Baker that he saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - and why would they create a scenario that exonerates Oswald?

Bill,

I'm just speculating here.

To answer your question(s), my guess is that the bad guys didn't tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker because they realized that it would be plausible that Oswald had sneaked through that windowed door (and that the door had closed itself) just before Truly (yes, running up the stairs ahead of Baker) had an opportunity to see or hear that happen. And perhaps they did tell Baker that he had to see Oswald through the window of that door for the simple reason that it would be more plausible to have Baker catch a glimpse of the "sneaky, lurking" Oswald through the door's window (which Truly, in his haste, had missed) than to have Baker, who was in a rush to get to the upper floors, make, on a whim, a silly detour on the lowly second floor to the lunchroom, and just happen to "discover" Oswald there.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Baker actually doesn't say a word about Oswald in this statement! He just saw 'a man' standing in the lunchroom. And Truly was apparently not in the vicinity either ('I saw noone else in the vicinity of the lunch room at the time'). It may suggest that Baker is uncomfortable with the whole story and is deliberately vague.

Bjørn Gjerde

Yes, just "a man".

Well spotted, Bjorn.

The main body of Baker's 23 Sep 64 statement--

ZdPREO4.jpg

--reads to me like a very early text, as though it has been lifted straight out of a late-November 63 statement drafted for or by Baker.

No mention of Oswald's name.

No mention of Truly's.

The hesitancy between second and third floor, as though this statement is being delicately harmonised with Baker's disastrous 11/22 affidavit statement ("third or fourth floor").

And, of course, "drinking a coke".

No wonder certain bits had to be crossed out in September 64 before the thing got filed for typing.

This statement was pre-written for Baker by an FBI agent, wasn't it? It is clearly not in Baker's handwriting. Compere the capital "B's" written by Baker to the ones in the report.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This statement was pre-written for Baker by an FBI agent, wasn't it? It is clearly not in Baker's handwriting. Compere the capital "B's" written by Baker to the ones in the report.

Robert, all we know for sure is that it's in the handwriting of FBI Agent Richard Burnett, as is the Truly statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]

The clincher however, is when they called Truly back to the Post Office Annex to get him to answer one question under oath - does the lunchroom door with the window through which Baker saw Oswald - does that door have an automatic door closing mechanism - and the answer is yes - it does, securing the fact that the door was tightly closed when Baker saw Oswald on the other side of it - and Truly didn't see Baker go through it.

[...]

Now if this story was concocted by anyone, why wouldn't they tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker? Why would they tell Baker that he saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - and why would they create a scenario that exonerates Oswald?

Bill,

I'm just speculating here.

To answer your question(s), my guess is that the bad guys didn't tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker, but perhaps did tell Baker that he had to see Oswald through the window of that door because they realized that it would be plausible that Oswald had sneaked through that windowed door (and that the door had closed itself) just before Truly (yes, running up the stairs ahead of Baker) had an opportunity to see or hear that happen, and, given the above, that it would also be plausible that, although Baker had caught a glimpse of the "sneaky, lurking" Oswald through the door's window, Truly, in his haste, hadn't.

--Tommy :sun

Yes, Tommy, I acknowledge that point - if Oswald had been the Sixth Floor Sniper he could have left the sniper's nest and arrived at the Second Floor lunchroom door in time to get on the other side of it and close it and make a funny face - wiggling his fingers in front of his nose at Truly as he came through the steps door - and there is a door there - and thus attracting Baker's attention as he arrived at the top of the second floor steps. But if he had, the DPD would have lifted his prints off the door nob of the door at the top of the steps as well as the door to the lunch room - but they didn't. And while I can imagine it, I don't think it played out that way.

But if you read the post on the Oswald's Coke thread, and it should be repeated here - Jean Davison has identified the master script writer of the whole Second Floor lunchroom encounter - Alfred Goldberg - the DOD historian who wrote much of the Warren Report narrative, and requested the FBI obtain the last minute statements from Baker and Truly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Sean is still trying to be convince us that the Second Floor lunchroom encounter never occurred and was the result of Baker and Truly being told what to say by the nameless screenwriter of the epic JFK assassination coverup, I call your attention to three facts - that the date on the handwritten statement that Sean refers to, with the crossed out "drinking a coke" is dated September 24, 1964, after the Warren Report was written and the day before it was publicly released. What the puck?

Why are they still concerned about this? Because they know its significance, and the fact that if it is reviewed in detail, as the SS did, it exonerates Oswald as being the Sixth Floor Assassin because if Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed lunchroom door, and Truly, ahead of Baker didn't see him go through that door, he didn't enter the lunchroom through that door but through the other door that leads to the offices which he left by.

Truly testified that he didn't know Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door until sometime later, and heard it through the grapevine, just as Baker later heard that Oswald bought the now famous coke and Mrs. Reid saw him with it in his hand.

The clincher however, is when they called Truly back to the Post Office Annex to get him to answer one question under oath - does the lunchroom door with the window through which Baker saw Oswald - does that door have an automatic door closing mechanism - and the answer is yes - it does, securing the fact that the door was tightly closed when Baker saw Oswald on the other side of it - and Truly didn't see Baker go through it.

So Sean would have us believe that the master coverup artists - the author of the fictional second floor encounter - made all this up in order to hide an even more telling truth - that the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter occurred at the front door.

Now its possible that Oswald is "Prayer Man" and he was like an invisible fly on the wall on the top steps of the front door - and maybe "Prayer Man" even held the door open for Baker, but if that's the case, then when Baker and Truly went to the rear of the building, Oswald - whether Prayer Man or not, he went up the front steps and entered the vestibule of the lunchroom from the south door - so Baker saw him through the window of the closed door - and while Truly continued up the steps to the third floor, Baker investigated - and confronted the man - Oswald.

Now if this story was concocted by anyone, why wouldn't they tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker? Why would they tell Baker that he saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - and why would they create a scenario that exonerates Oswald?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, Bill. Your devotion to the lunchroom story is total, and that's fine with me.

You're also perfectly free to mock the notion that the 'investigating' authorities would have worked very hard to cover up inconvenient facts in the case. But you should be aware that when you do so you sound more like David von Pein than your own good self.

**

Now the question you ask is easily answered:

Truly, by the time the 'walking away' element was incorporated into the lunchroom story, had already gone on the record over and over again to the effect that his own first sighting of Oswald post-assassination was of Oswald in the actual lunchroom.

It was too late to embellish along the lines you are suggesting.

**

Why do you keep claming that the lunchroom scenario, as told by Baker and Truly to the WC, "exonerates Oswald"?

Please show us how the following LN scenario is ruled out by Baker and Truly's testimony:

  • Oswald shoots JFK
  • Oswald comes down the stairs
  • Oswald on the second floor, hearing the noise of someone on the way up, hurries over to the second-floor landing door and goes through it
  • Oswald looks through the door window as Truly crosses the landing
  • Oswald is about to go back out onto the landing when he is surprised to see an officer hit the landing
  • Oswald spins around to head for the lunchroom
  • But the officer notices the movement.

I don't need a link to some other discussion.

Please give me your own analytical refutation of the above scenario with close reference to Baker and Truly's testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]

The clincher however, is when they called Truly back to the Post Office Annex to get him to answer one question under oath - does the lunchroom door with the window through which Baker saw Oswald - does that door have an automatic door closing mechanism - and the answer is yes - it does, securing the fact that the door was tightly closed when Baker saw Oswald on the other side of it - and Truly didn't see Baker go through it.

[...]

Now if this story was concocted by anyone, why wouldn't they tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker? Why would they tell Baker that he saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - and why would they create a scenario that exonerates Oswald?

Bill,

I'm just speculating here.

To answer your question(s), my guess is that the bad guys didn't tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker, but perhaps did tell Baker that he had to see Oswald through the window of that door because they realized that it would be plausible that Oswald had sneaked through that windowed door (and that the door had closed itself) just before Truly (yes, running up the stairs ahead of Baker) had an opportunity to see or hear that happen, and, given the above, that it would also be plausible that, although Baker had caught a glimpse of the "sneaky, lurking" Oswald through the door's window, Truly, in his haste, hadn't.

--Tommy :sun

Yes, Tommy, I acknowledge that point - if Oswald had been the Sixth Floor Sniper he could have left the sniper's nest and arrived at the Second Floor lunchroom door in time to get on the other side of it and close it and make a funny face - wiggling his fingers in front of his nose at Truly as he came through the steps door - and there is a door there - and thus attracting Baker's attention as he arrived at the top of the second floor steps. But if he had, the DPD would have lifted his prints off the door nob of the door at the top of the steps as well as the door to the lunch room - but they didn't. And while I can imagine it, I don't think it played out that way.

But if you read the post on the Oswald's Coke thread, and it should be repeated here - Jean Davison has identified the master script writer of the whole Second Floor lunchroom encounter - Alfred Goldberg - the DOD historian who wrote much of the Warren Report narrative, and requested the FBI obtain the last minute statements from Baker and Truly.

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Bill,

Even if they tried to find Oswald's fingerprints on those door nobs. they probably wouldn't have found them anyway (but would have a plausible reason for not finding them) because several other people, including Baker and Truly, had put their grubby mitts on said door knobs by the time they could have been "dusted."

Official announcement:

"Unfortunately, y'all, Oswald's fingerprints was smudged beyond all re-cog-nition when all them people opened them thar doors. But it don't matter none cuz we know he's a guilty son-of-a-gun any how!"

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Sean is still trying to be convince us that the Second Floor lunchroom encounter never occurred and was the result of Baker and Truly being told what to say by the nameless screenwriter of the epic JFK assassination coverup, I call your attention to three facts - that the date on the handwritten statement that Sean refers to, with the crossed out "drinking a coke" is dated September 24, 1964, after the Warren Report was written and the day before it was publicly released. What the puck?

Why are they still concerned about this? Because they know its significance, and the fact that if it is reviewed in detail, as the SS did, it exonerates Oswald as being the Sixth Floor Assassin because if Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed lunchroom door, and Truly, ahead of Baker didn't see him go through that door, he didn't enter the lunchroom through that door but through the other door that leads to the offices which he left by.

Truly testified that he didn't know Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door until sometime later, and heard it through the grapevine, just as Baker later heard that Oswald bought the now famous coke and Mrs. Reid saw him with it in his hand.

The clincher however, is when they called Truly back to the Post Office Annex to get him to answer one question under oath - does the lunchroom door with the window through which Baker saw Oswald - does that door have an automatic door closing mechanism - and the answer is yes - it does, securing the fact that the door was tightly closed when Baker saw Oswald on the other side of it - and Truly didn't see Baker go through it.

So Sean would have us believe that the master coverup artists - the author of the fictional second floor encounter - made all this up in order to hide an even more telling truth - that the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter occurred at the front door.

Now its possible that Oswald is "Prayer Man" and he was like an invisible fly on the wall on the top steps of the front door - and maybe "Prayer Man" even held the door open for Baker, but if that's the case, then when Baker and Truly went to the rear of the building, Oswald - whether Prayer Man or not, he went up the front steps and entered the vestibule of the lunchroom from the south door - so Baker saw him through the window of the closed door - and while Truly continued up the steps to the third floor, Baker investigated - and confronted the man - Oswald.

Now if this story was concocted by anyone, why wouldn't they tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker? Why would they tell Baker that he saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - and why would they create a scenario that exonerates Oswald?

Hi Bill

I don't want to point out the obvious but Sean is trying to exonerate Oswald by trying to prove he is in fact ‘Prayer Man’.

The Oswald/Baker/Truly encounter on the second floor having a coke and singing ‘I do like to be besides the sea-side’ has done nothing to exonerate Oswald in fifty (50) years? So I really don’t get why you (if you believe Oswald is innocent) are so unwilling to entertain the ideas Sean is putting forward.

  1. The Oswald/ Baker encounter (initially with or without Truly) happened on the first floor close to where Oswald/Prayer Man was already located (near the first floor steps/doors/vestibule?

The fact that Oswald/Prayer Man had a coke/didn’t have a coke/maybe had a brandy and coke doesn't change the fact that if Oswald is Prayer Man (who we can clearly see is standing on the steps at the time of the shooting) he can’t be the 6th floor sniper?

  1. The statements of Baker/Truly have evolved over time and been ironed out to make the whole encounter plausible and more favourable to a descending Oswald from the 6th floor coupled with the lone nut persona of an Oswald calmly smooching around the second floor lunchroom drinking a coke and listening to Nat King Cole whilst everyone else in Dealey Plaza is in a state of turmoil and concern because the President has just been shot.

In my opinion the Oswald in the lunchroom looking like an Arctic cucumber distorts and negates the image of an Oswald doing a Usain Bolt down four flights of stairs to such an extent that the Oswald Bolt image (however improbable) is conveniently replaced with the cool callous ‘he must be one psycho SoB’ killer drinking a coke image and therefore counteracts any exoneration one may afford Oswald.

  1. The chances that Baker (with or without super hero Truly) encountering Oswald twice (once on the first floor and once on the second floor) would appear to be (using a Don King quote) “slim and none and slim is out of town”.

Baker and truly mention one incident (even though there appear to be countless versions of it: sitting Oswald, standing Oswald, sleeping Oswald, Oswald dancing around with a brandy and coke, leaning Oswald, walking Oswald ... Oh I give up!) and herein lies the basis of Seans thesis.

If there was only one incident and it happened on the first floor and without any other/new proof that Prayer Man is someone else (and we are not talking about people who work somewhere else or even just flew into Dallas that very morning and decided “out of all the bars steps in all the towns you had to walk stand on this one”) by process of elimination Prayer Man becomes more likelier with every fallen Prayer Man candidate to be Oswald.

Now that’s what you would call exoneration.

Will Sean pull it off? I don’t know. Is he having a good go? You bet he is. However he still has a long ways to go and of course he has to avoid the 'Big Guns' who could start throwing a few more ‘credible’ Prayer Man alternatives in to the works at any time, but that aside the cog of Prayer Man being Oswald and the Marrion Bake encounter taking place on the first floor is slowly beginning to turn.

Regards - Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Sean is still trying to be convince us that the Second Floor lunchroom encounter never occurred and was the result of Baker and Truly being told what to say by the nameless screenwriter of the epic JFK assassination coverup, I call your attention to three facts - that the date on the handwritten statement that Sean refers to, with the crossed out "drinking a coke" is dated September 24, 1964, after the Warren Report was written and the day before it was publicly released. What the puck?

Why are they still concerned about this? Because they know its significance, and the fact that if it is reviewed in detail, as the SS did, it exonerates Oswald as being the Sixth Floor Assassin because if Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed lunchroom door, and Truly, ahead of Baker didn't see him go through that door, he didn't enter the lunchroom through that door but through the other door that leads to the offices which he left by.

Truly testified that he didn't know Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door until sometime later, and heard it through the grapevine, just as Baker later heard that Oswald bought the now famous coke and Mrs. Reid saw him with it in his hand.

The clincher however, is when they called Truly back to the Post Office Annex to get him to answer one question under oath - does the lunchroom door with the window through which Baker saw Oswald - does that door have an automatic door closing mechanism - and the answer is yes - it does, securing the fact that the door was tightly closed when Baker saw Oswald on the other side of it - and Truly didn't see Baker go through it.

So Sean would have us believe that the master coverup artists - the author of the fictional second floor encounter - made all this up in order to hide an even more telling truth - that the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter occurred at the front door.

Now its possible that Oswald is "Prayer Man" and he was like an invisible fly on the wall on the top steps of the front door - and maybe "Prayer Man" even held the door open for Baker, but if that's the case, then when Baker and Truly went to the rear of the building, Oswald - whether Prayer Man or not, he went up the front steps and entered the vestibule of the lunchroom from the south door - so Baker saw him through the window of the closed door - and while Truly continued up the steps to the third floor, Baker investigated - and confronted the man - Oswald.

Now if this story was concocted by anyone, why wouldn't they tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker? Why would they tell Baker that he saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - and why would they create a scenario that exonerates Oswald?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, Bill. Your devotion to the lunchroom story is total, and that's fine with me.

SEAN, THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP BRINGING IT UP?

You're also perfectly free to mock the notion that the 'investigating' authorities would have worked very hard to cover up inconvenient facts in the case. But you should be aware that when you do so you sound more like David von Pein than your own good self.

I DON'T MOCK THE IDEA OF A COVERUP - I MOCK THE IDEA THAT BAKER AND TRULY ARE READING FROM A SCRIPT AND THE INCIDENT WAS MADE UP

AND IF IT WAS MADE UP - I'M GIVING YOU THE NAME OF THE SCRIPTWRITER - OR JEAN DAVISON GAVE IT US - ALFRED GOLDBERG

**

Now the question you ask is easily answered:

Truly, by the time the 'walking away' element was incorporated into the lunchroom story, had already gone on the record over and over again to the effect that his own first sighting of Oswald post-assassination was of Oswald in the actual lunchroom.

It was too late to embellish along the lines you are suggesting.

**

Why do you keep claming that the lunchroom scenario, as told by Baker and Truly to the WC, "exonerates Oswald"?

BECAUSE IT DOES - PLEASE SEE MY JFKCOUNTERCOUP BLOG POST DOORS OF PERCEPTION - WHY OSWALD IS INNOCENT OF BEING THE SIXTH FLOOR SNIPER

Please show us how the following LN scenario is ruled out by Baker and Truly's testimony:

  • Oswald shoots JFK
  • Oswald comes down the stairs
  • Oswald on the second floor, hearing the noise of someone on the way up, hurries over to the second-floor landing door and goes through it
  • Oswald looks through the door window as Truly crosses the landing

YOU LEFT OUT THE PART WHERE HE GIGGLES AND MAKES A FUNNY FACE THROUGH THE DOOR WINDOW

  • Oswald is about to go back out onto the landing when he is surprised to see an officer hit the landing
  • Oswald spins around to head for the lunchroom
  • But the officer notices the movement.

A FURTIVE MOVEMENT THROUGH THE WINDOW OF THE CLOSED DOOR - AS HE WAS PASSING BUY HAVING ENTERED THROUGH THE OFFICE DOOR

HE NEVER LOOKED THROUGH THAT WINDOW AND DIDN'T KNOW BAKER WAS THERE UNTIL BAKER WALKED OVER AND OPENED THE CLOSED DOOR AND POINTED HIS GUN AT OSWALD'S BELLY. BESIDES PROVIDING PROOF - AT LEAST FOR ME - THAT OSWALD DIDN'T GO THROUGH THAT DOOR - BAKER AND TRULY'S DESCRIPTION OF OSWALD'S DEMEANOR - COOL, CALM AND COLLECTED - ALSO INDICATE HE DIDN'T JUST BLOW SOMEBODY'S HEAD OPEN LESS THAN TWO MINUTES EARLIER - AS ANYONE WHO HAS KILLED SOMEONE AND RAN DOWN FOUR FLIGHTS OF STEPS WOULD BY HYPER, HEART PUMPING, BREATHING HEAVY, SWEATING, ETC. THE SECOND FLOOR ENCOUNTER EXONERATES OSWALD AS A SUSPECT, AS TRULY RECOGNIZED, AND GAVE OSWALD A PASS.

I don't need a link to some other discussion.

THEN YOU WON'T LEARN WHAT JEAN DAVISON TELLS US ABOUT THE SEPT. 24 1964 BAKER STATEMENT THAT YOU KEEP POSTING AND REFERRING TO AS PROOF THE SECOND FLOOR ENCOUNTER IS FICTION - AND SHE TELLS US THE NAME OF THE SCRIPTWRITER - ALFRED GOLDBERG -

Please give me your own analytical refutation of the above scenario with close reference to Baker and Truly's testimony.

Edited by William Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Sean is still trying to be convince us that the Second Floor lunchroom encounter never occurred and was the result of Baker and Truly being told what to say by the nameless screenwriter of the epic JFK assassination coverup, I call your attention to three facts - that the date on the handwritten statement that Sean refers to, with the crossed out "drinking a coke" is dated September 24, 1964, after the Warren Report was written and the day before it was publicly released. What the puck?

Why are they still concerned about this? Because they know its significance, and the fact that if it is reviewed in detail, as the SS did, it exonerates Oswald as being the Sixth Floor Assassin because if Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed lunchroom door, and Truly, ahead of Baker didn't see him go through that door, he didn't enter the lunchroom through that door but through the other door that leads to the offices which he left by.

Truly testified that he didn't know Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door until sometime later, and heard it through the grapevine, just as Baker later heard that Oswald bought the now famous coke and Mrs. Reid saw him with it in his hand.

The clincher however, is when they called Truly back to the Post Office Annex to get him to answer one question under oath - does the lunchroom door with the window through which Baker saw Oswald - does that door have an automatic door closing mechanism - and the answer is yes - it does, securing the fact that the door was tightly closed when Baker saw Oswald on the other side of it - and Truly didn't see Baker go through it.

So Sean would have us believe that the master coverup artists - the author of the fictional second floor encounter - made all this up in order to hide an even more telling truth - that the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter occurred at the front door.

Now its possible that Oswald is "Prayer Man" and he was like an invisible fly on the wall on the top steps of the front door - and maybe "Prayer Man" even held the door open for Baker, but if that's the case, then when Baker and Truly went to the rear of the building, Oswald - whether Prayer Man or not, he went up the front steps and entered the vestibule of the lunchroom from the south door - so Baker saw him through the window of the closed door - and while Truly continued up the steps to the third floor, Baker investigated - and confronted the man - Oswald.

Now if this story was concocted by anyone, why wouldn't they tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker? Why would they tell Baker that he saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - and why would they create a scenario that exonerates Oswald?

Hi Bill

I don't want to point out the obvious but Sean is trying to exonerate Oswald by trying to prove he is in fact ‘Prayer Man’.

The Oswald/Baker/Truly encounter on the second floor having a coke and singing ‘I do like to be besides the sea-side’ has done nothing to exonerate Oswald in fifty (50) years? So I really don’t get why you (if you believe Oswald is innocent) are so unwilling to entertain the ideas Sean is putting forward.

  1. The Oswald/ Baker encounter (initially with or without Truly) happened on the first floor close to where Oswald/Prayer Man was already located (near the first floor steps/doors/vestibule?

The fact that Oswald/Prayer Man had a coke/didn’t have a coke/maybe had a brandy and coke doesn't change the fact that if Oswald is Prayer Man (who we can clearly see is standing on the steps at the time of the shooting) he can’t be the 6th floor sniper?

  1. The statements of Baker/Truly have evolved over time and been ironed out to make the whole encounter plausible and more favourable to a descending Oswald from the 6th floor coupled with the lone nut persona of an Oswald calmly smooching around the second floor lunchroom drinking a coke and listening to Nat King Cole whilst everyone else in Dealey Plaza is in a state of turmoil and concern because the President has just been shot.

In my opinion the Oswald in the lunchroom looking like an Arctic cucumber distorts and negates the image of an Oswald doing a Usain Bolt down four flights of stairs to such an extent that the Oswald Bolt image (however improbable) is conveniently replaced with the cool callous ‘he must be one psycho SoB’ killer drinking a coke image and therefore counteracts any exoneration one may afford Oswald.

  1. The chances that Baker (with or without super hero Truly) encountering Oswald twice (once on the first floor and once on the second floor) would appear to be (using a Don King quote) “slim and none and slim is out of town”.

Baker and truly mention one incident (even though there appear to be countless versions of it: sitting Oswald, standing Oswald, sleeping Oswald, Oswald dancing around with a brandy and coke, leaning Oswald, walking Oswald ... Oh I give up!) and herein lies the basis of Seans thesis.

If there was only one incident and it happened on the first floor and without any other/new proof that Prayer Man is someone else (and we are not talking about people who work somewhere else or even just flew into Dallas that very morning and decided “out of all the bars steps in all the towns you had to walk stand on this one”) by process of elimination Prayer Man becomes more likelier with every fallen Prayer Man candidate to be Oswald.

Now that’s what you would call exoneration.

Will Sean pull it off? I don’t know. Is he having a good go? You bet he is. However he still has a long ways to go and of course he has to avoid the 'Big Guns' who could start throwing a few more ‘credible’ Prayer Man alternatives in to the works at any time, but that aside the cog of Prayer Man being Oswald and the Marrion Bake encounter taking place on the first floor is slowly beginning to turn.

Regards - Steve

Steve,

I think what Bill is trying to say is that the lunchroom encounter must have happened because it is highly unlikely that the bad guys would have been so stupid as to fabricate such a (Bill thinks) Oswald-exonerating scenario.

But, then again, Bill says that if they did fabricate it, he says he knows who did it!

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Sean is still trying to be convince us that the Second Floor lunchroom encounter never occurred and was the result of Baker and Truly being told what to say by the nameless screenwriter of the epic JFK assassination coverup, I call your attention to three facts - that the date on the handwritten statement that Sean refers to, with the crossed out "drinking a coke" is dated September 24, 1964, after the Warren Report was written and the day before it was publicly released. What the puck?

Why are they still concerned about this? Because they know its significance, and the fact that if it is reviewed in detail, as the SS did, it exonerates Oswald as being the Sixth Floor Assassin because if Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed lunchroom door, and Truly, ahead of Baker didn't see him go through that door, he didn't enter the lunchroom through that door but through the other door that leads to the offices which he left by.

Truly testified that he didn't know Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door until sometime later, and heard it through the grapevine, just as Baker later heard that Oswald bought the now famous coke and Mrs. Reid saw him with it in his hand.

The clincher however, is when they called Truly back to the Post Office Annex to get him to answer one question under oath - does the lunchroom door with the window through which Baker saw Oswald - does that door have an automatic door closing mechanism - and the answer is yes - it does, securing the fact that the door was tightly closed when Baker saw Oswald on the other side of it - and Truly didn't see Baker go through it.

So Sean would have us believe that the master coverup artists - the author of the fictional second floor encounter - made all this up in order to hide an even more telling truth - that the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter occurred at the front door.

Now its possible that Oswald is "Prayer Man" and he was like an invisible fly on the wall on the top steps of the front door - and maybe "Prayer Man" even held the door open for Baker, but if that's the case, then when Baker and Truly went to the rear of the building, Oswald - whether Prayer Man or not, he went up the front steps and entered the vestibule of the lunchroom from the south door - so Baker saw him through the window of the closed door - and while Truly continued up the steps to the third floor, Baker investigated - and confronted the man - Oswald.

Now if this story was concocted by anyone, why wouldn't they tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker? Why would they tell Baker that he saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - and why would they create a scenario that exonerates Oswald?

Hi Bill

I don't want to point out the obvious but Sean is trying to exonerate Oswald by trying to prove he is in fact ‘Prayer Man’.

The Oswald/Baker/Truly encounter on the second floor having a coke and singing ‘I do like to be beside the sea-side’ has done nothing to exonerate Oswald in fifty (50) years? So I really don’t get why you (if you believe Oswald is innocent) are so unwilling to entertain the ideas Sean is putting forward.

  • The Oswald/ Baker encounter (initially with or without Truly) happened on the first floor close to where Oswald/Prayer Man was already located (near the first floor steps/doors/vestibule?

The fact that Oswald/Prayer Man had a coke/didn’t have a coke/maybe had a brandy and coke doesn't change the fact that if Oswald is Prayer Man (who we can clearly see is standing on the steps at the time of the shooting) he can’t be the 6th floor sniper?

  • The statements of Baker/Truly have evolved over time and been ironed out to make the whole encounter plausible and more favourable to a descending Oswald from the 6th floor coupled with the lone nut persona of an Oswald calmly smooching around the second floor lunchroom drinking a coke and listening to Nat King Cole whilst everyone else in Dealey Plaza is in a state of turmoil and concern because the President has just been shot.

In my opinion the Oswald in the lunchroom looking like an Arctic cucumber distorts and negates the image of an Oswald doing a Usain Bolt down four flights of stairs to such an extent that the Oswald Bolt image (however improbable) is conveniently replaced with the cool callous ‘he must be one psycho SoB’ killer drinking a coke image and therefore counteracts any exoneration one may afford Oswald.

  • The chances of Baker (with or without super hero Truly) encountering Oswald twice (once on the first floor and once on the second floor) would appear to be (using a Don King quote) “slim and none and slim is out of town”.

Baker and truly mention one incident (even though there appear to be countless versions of it: sitting Oswald, standing Oswald, sleeping Oswald, Oswald dancing around with a brandy and coke, leaning Oswald, walking Oswald ... Oh I give up!) and herein lies the basis of Seans thesis.

If there was only one incident and it happened on the first floor and without any other/new proof that Prayer Man is someone else (and we are not talking about people who work somewhere else or even just flew into Dallas that very morning and decided “out of all the bars steps in all the towns you had to walk stand on this one”) by process of elimination Prayer Man becomes more likelier with every fallen Prayer Man candidate to be Oswald.

Now that’s what you would call exoneration.

Will Sean pull it off? I don’t know. Is he having a good go? You bet he is. However he still has a long ways to go and of course he has to avoid the 'Big Guns' who could start throwing a few more ‘credible’ Prayer Man alternatives in to the works at any time, but that aside the cog of Prayer Man being Oswald and the Marrion Bake encounter taking place on the first floor is slowly beginning to turn.

Regards - Steve

Steve,

I think what Bill is trying to say is that the lunchroom encounter must have happened because, Bill thinks, it is highly unlikely that the bad guys would have been so stupid as to fabricate such a (Bill thinks) Oswald-exonerating scenario.

--Tommy :sun

Hi Tom

Yes I understand the premise of Bills point/argument but historical fact dictates otherwise. It does not exonerate Oswald and if it did/had we would not be having this conversation.

The second floor lunchroom story (according to Sean) is the lesser of the two evils (for DPD/FBI) because whatever chance Oswald had of getting to the second or third floors was more likely than any he had of getting to the ground floor. So they simply morphed the story and thanks to a certain Jack Ruby the morph could go into overdrive and practically uncontested after Oswalds death. It is then reasonable to assume a "So what if some of the statements didn’t match up with earlier ones" attitude would then be introduced.

And guess what, it obviously worked because Oswald is still ‘guilty’ and the ‘Second floor lunchroom encounter exonerates Oswald guide to the Galaxy’ book can and should be thrown out of the window.

What person (Truly/Baker/Frazier/) in their right mind would stand alone and say anything that attempts (directly or indirectly) to exonerate Oswald after his death given that all the “evidence” (accumulated by the FBI/DPD) points to a “case closed” Oswald did it?

Hmmm... I seem to recall someone tried that once?

Steve

Edited by Steve Mcdonagh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Sean is still trying to be convince us that the Second Floor lunchroom encounter never occurred and was the result of Baker and Truly being told what to say by the nameless screenwriter of the epic JFK assassination coverup, I call your attention to three facts - that the date on the handwritten statement that Sean refers to, with the crossed out "drinking a coke" is dated September 24, 1964, after the Warren Report was written and the day before it was publicly released. What the puck?

Why are they still concerned about this? Because they know its significance, and the fact that if it is reviewed in detail, as the SS did, it exonerates Oswald as being the Sixth Floor Assassin because if Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed lunchroom door, and Truly, ahead of Baker didn't see him go through that door, he didn't enter the lunchroom through that door but through the other door that leads to the offices which he left by.

Truly testified that he didn't know Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door until sometime later, and heard it through the grapevine, just as Baker later heard that Oswald bought the now famous coke and Mrs. Reid saw him with it in his hand.

The clincher however, is when they called Truly back to the Post Office Annex to get him to answer one question under oath - does the lunchroom door with the window through which Baker saw Oswald - does that door have an automatic door closing mechanism - and the answer is yes - it does, securing the fact that the door was tightly closed when Baker saw Oswald on the other side of it - and Truly didn't see Baker go through it.

So Sean would have us believe that the master coverup artists - the author of the fictional second floor encounter - made all this up in order to hide an even more telling truth - that the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter occurred at the front door.

Now its possible that Oswald is "Prayer Man" and he was like an invisible fly on the wall on the top steps of the front door - and maybe "Prayer Man" even held the door open for Baker, but if that's the case, then when Baker and Truly went to the rear of the building, Oswald - whether Prayer Man or not, he went up the front steps and entered the vestibule of the lunchroom from the south door - so Baker saw him through the window of the closed door - and while Truly continued up the steps to the third floor, Baker investigated - and confronted the man - Oswald.

Now if this story was concocted by anyone, why wouldn't they tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker? Why would they tell Baker that he saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - and why would they create a scenario that exonerates Oswald?

Hi Bill

I don't want to point out the obvious but Sean is trying to exonerate Oswald by trying to prove he is in fact ‘Prayer Man’.

The Oswald/Baker/Truly encounter on the second floor having a coke and singing ‘I do like to be besides the sea-side’ has done nothing to exonerate Oswald in fifty (50) years? So I really don’t get why you (if you believe Oswald is innocent) are so unwilling to entertain the ideas Sean is putting forward.

  1. The Oswald/ Baker encounter (initially with or without Truly) happened on the first floor close to where Oswald/Prayer Man was already located (near the first floor steps/doors/vestibule?

The fact that Oswald/Prayer Man had a coke/didn’t have a coke/maybe had a brandy and coke doesn't change the fact that if Oswald is Prayer Man (who we can clearly see is standing on the steps at the time of the shooting) he can’t be the 6th floor sniper?

  1. The statements of Baker/Truly have evolved over time and been ironed out to make the whole encounter plausible and more favourable to a descending Oswald from the 6th floor coupled with the lone nut persona of an Oswald calmly smooching around the second floor lunchroom drinking a coke and listening to Nat King Cole whilst everyone else in Dealey Plaza is in a state of turmoil and concern because the President has just been shot.

In my opinion the Oswald in the lunchroom looking like an Arctic cucumber distorts and negates the image of an Oswald doing a Usain Bolt down four flights of stairs to such an extent that the Oswald Bolt image (however improbable) is conveniently replaced with the cool callous ‘he must be one psycho SoB’ killer drinking a coke image and therefore counteracts any exoneration one may afford Oswald.

  1. The chances that Baker (with or without super hero Truly) encountering Oswald twice (once on the first floor and once on the second floor) would appear to be (using a Don King quote) “slim and none and slim is out of town”.

Baker and truly mention one incident (even though there appear to be countless versions of it: sitting Oswald, standing Oswald, sleeping Oswald, Oswald dancing around with a brandy and coke, leaning Oswald, walking Oswald ... Oh I give up!) and herein lies the basis of Seans thesis.

If there was only one incident and it happened on the first floor and without any other/new proof that Prayer Man is someone else (and we are not talking about people who work somewhere else or even just flew into Dallas that very morning and decided “out of all the bars steps in all the towns you had to walk stand on this one”) by process of elimination Prayer Man becomes more likelier with every fallen Prayer Man candidate to be Oswald.

Now that’s what you would call exoneration.

Will Sean pull it off? I don’t know. Is he having a good go? You bet he is. However he still has a long ways to go and of course he has to avoid the 'Big Guns' who could start throwing a few more ‘credible’ Prayer Man alternatives in to the works at any time, but that aside the cog of Prayer Man being Oswald and the Marrion Bake encounter taking place on the first floor is slowly beginning to turn.

Regards - Steve

Hi Steve,

Addressing only the section of your last paragraph that I have bold faced, what other credible Prayer Man alternatives do you feel are out there?

My belief is we have already covered the alternatives in a thorough manner. And the outcome keeps turning out the same.

Big Gun or squirt gun, they all have to pass the same litmus test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Sean is still trying to be convince us that the Second Floor lunchroom encounter never occurred and was the result of Baker and Truly being told what to say by the nameless screenwriter of the epic JFK assassination coverup, I call your attention to three facts - that the date on the handwritten statement that Sean refers to, with the crossed out "drinking a coke" is dated September 24, 1964, after the Warren Report was written and the day before it was publicly released. What the puck?

Why are they still concerned about this? Because they know its significance, and the fact that if it is reviewed in detail, as the SS did, it exonerates Oswald as being the Sixth Floor Assassin because if Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed lunchroom door, and Truly, ahead of Baker didn't see him go through that door, he didn't enter the lunchroom through that door but through the other door that leads to the offices which he left by.

Truly testified that he didn't know Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door until sometime later, and heard it through the grapevine, just as Baker later heard that Oswald bought the now famous coke and Mrs. Reid saw him with it in his hand.

The clincher however, is when they called Truly back to the Post Office Annex to get him to answer one question under oath - does the lunchroom door with the window through which Baker saw Oswald - does that door have an automatic door closing mechanism - and the answer is yes - it does, securing the fact that the door was tightly closed when Baker saw Oswald on the other side of it - and Truly didn't see Baker go through it.

So Sean would have us believe that the master coverup artists - the author of the fictional second floor encounter - made all this up in order to hide an even more telling truth - that the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter occurred at the front door.

Now its possible that Oswald is "Prayer Man" and he was like an invisible fly on the wall on the top steps of the front door - and maybe "Prayer Man" even held the door open for Baker, but if that's the case, then when Baker and Truly went to the rear of the building, Oswald - whether Prayer Man or not, he went up the front steps and entered the vestibule of the lunchroom from the south door - so Baker saw him through the window of the closed door - and while Truly continued up the steps to the third floor, Baker investigated - and confronted the man - Oswald.

Now if this story was concocted by anyone, why wouldn't they tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker? Why would they tell Baker that he saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - and why would they create a scenario that exonerates Oswald?

Hi Bill

I don't want to point out the obvious but Sean is trying to exonerate Oswald by trying to prove he is in fact ‘Prayer Man’.

The Oswald/Baker/Truly encounter on the second floor having a coke and singing ‘I do like to be beside the sea-side’ has done nothing to exonerate Oswald in fifty (50) years? So I really don’t get why you (if you believe Oswald is innocent) are so unwilling to entertain the ideas Sean is putting forward.

  • The Oswald/ Baker encounter (initially with or without Truly) happened on the first floor close to where Oswald/Prayer Man was already located (near the first floor steps/doors/vestibule?

The fact that Oswald/Prayer Man had a coke/didn’t have a coke/maybe had a brandy and coke doesn't change the fact that if Oswald is Prayer Man (who we can clearly see is standing on the steps at the time of the shooting) he can’t be the 6th floor sniper?

  • The statements of Baker/Truly have evolved over time and been ironed out to make the whole encounter plausible and more favourable to a descending Oswald from the 6th floor coupled with the lone nut persona of an Oswald calmly smooching around the second floor lunchroom drinking a coke and listening to Nat King Cole whilst everyone else in Dealey Plaza is in a state of turmoil and concern because the President has just been shot.

In my opinion the Oswald in the lunchroom looking like an Arctic cucumber distorts and negates the image of an Oswald doing a Usain Bolt down four flights of stairs to such an extent that the Oswald Bolt image (however improbable) is conveniently replaced with the cool callous ‘he must be one psycho SoB’ killer drinking a coke image and therefore counteracts any exoneration one may afford Oswald.

  • The chances of Baker (with or without super hero Truly) encountering Oswald twice (once on the first floor and once on the second floor) would appear to be (using a Don King quote) “slim and none and slim is out of town”.

Baker and truly mention one incident (even though there appear to be countless versions of it: sitting Oswald, standing Oswald, sleeping Oswald, Oswald dancing around with a brandy and coke, leaning Oswald, walking Oswald ... Oh I give up!) and herein lies the basis of Seans thesis.

If there was only one incident and it happened on the first floor and without any other/new proof that Prayer Man is someone else (and we are not talking about people who work somewhere else or even just flew into Dallas that very morning and decided “out of all the bars steps in all the towns you had to walk stand on this one”) by process of elimination Prayer Man becomes more likelier with every fallen Prayer Man candidate to be Oswald.

Now that’s what you would call exoneration.

Will Sean pull it off? I don’t know. Is he having a good go? You bet he is. However he still has a long ways to go and of course he has to avoid the 'Big Guns' who could start throwing a few more ‘credible’ Prayer Man alternatives in to the works at any time, but that aside the cog of Prayer Man being Oswald and the Marrion Bake encounter taking place on the first floor is slowly beginning to turn.

Regards - Steve

Steve,

I think what Bill is trying to say is that the lunchroom encounter must have happened because, Bill thinks, it is highly unlikely that the bad guys would have been so stupid as to fabricate such an "Oswald-exonerating" scenario.

But, then again, Bill says that if they did fabricate it, he says he knows who did it!

--Tommy :sun

Hi Tom

Yes I understand the premise of Bills point/argument but historical fact dictates otherwise. It does not exonerate Oswald and if it did/had we would not be having this conversation.

The second floor lunchroom story (according to Sean) is the lesser of the two evils (for DPD/FBI) because whatever chance Oswald had of getting to the second or third floors was more likely than any he had of getting to the ground floor. So they simply morphed the story and thanks to a certain Jack Ruby the morph could go into overdrive and practically uncontested after Oswalds death. It is then reasonable to assume a "So what if some of the statements didn’t match up with earlier ones" attitude would then be introduced.

And guess what, it obviously worked because Oswald is still ‘guilty’ and the ‘Second floor lunchroom encounter exonerates Oswald guide to the Galaxy’ book can and should be thrown out of the window.

What person (Truly/Baker/Frazier/) in their right mind would stand alone and say anything that attempts (directly or indirectly) to exonerate Oswald after his death given that all the “evidence” (accumulated by the FBI/DPD) points to a “case closed” Oswald did it?

Hmmm... I seem to recall someone tried that once?

Steve

I edited my post:

Steve,

I think what Bill is trying to say is that the lunchroom encounter must have happened because it is highly unlikely that the bad guys would have been so stupid as to fabricate such a (Bill thinks) Oswald-exonerating scenario.

But, then again, Bill says that if they did fabricate it, he says he knows who did it!

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Sean is still trying to be convince us that the Second Floor lunchroom encounter never occurred and was the result of Baker and Truly being told what to say by the nameless screenwriter of the epic JFK assassination coverup, I call your attention to three facts - that the date on the handwritten statement that Sean refers to, with the crossed out "drinking a coke" is dated September 24, 1964, after the Warren Report was written and the day before it was publicly released. What the puck?

Why are they still concerned about this? Because they know its significance, and the fact that if it is reviewed in detail, as the SS did, it exonerates Oswald as being the Sixth Floor Assassin because if Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed lunchroom door, and Truly, ahead of Baker didn't see him go through that door, he didn't enter the lunchroom through that door but through the other door that leads to the offices which he left by.

Truly testified that he didn't know Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door until sometime later, and heard it through the grapevine, just as Baker later heard that Oswald bought the now famous coke and Mrs. Reid saw him with it in his hand.

The clincher however, is when they called Truly back to the Post Office Annex to get him to answer one question under oath - does the lunchroom door with the window through which Baker saw Oswald - does that door have an automatic door closing mechanism - and the answer is yes - it does, securing the fact that the door was tightly closed when Baker saw Oswald on the other side of it - and Truly didn't see Baker go through it.

So Sean would have us believe that the master coverup artists - the author of the fictional second floor encounter - made all this up in order to hide an even more telling truth - that the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter occurred at the front door.

Now its possible that Oswald is "Prayer Man" and he was like an invisible fly on the wall on the top steps of the front door - and maybe "Prayer Man" even held the door open for Baker, but if that's the case, then when Baker and Truly went to the rear of the building, Oswald - whether Prayer Man or not, he went up the front steps and entered the vestibule of the lunchroom from the south door - so Baker saw him through the window of the closed door - and while Truly continued up the steps to the third floor, Baker investigated - and confronted the man - Oswald.

Now if this story was concocted by anyone, why wouldn't they tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker? Why would they tell Baker that he saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - and why would they create a scenario that exonerates Oswald?

Hi Bill

I don't want to point out the obvious but Sean is trying to exonerate Oswald by trying to prove he is in fact ‘Prayer Man’.

The Oswald/Baker/Truly encounter on the second floor having a coke and singing ‘I do like to be besides the sea-side’ has done nothing to exonerate Oswald in fifty (50) years? So I really don’t get why you (if you believe Oswald is innocent) are so unwilling to entertain the ideas Sean is putting forward.

  1. The Oswald/ Baker encounter (initially with or without Truly) happened on the first floor close to where Oswald/Prayer Man was already located (near the first floor steps/doors/vestibule?

The fact that Oswald/Prayer Man had a coke/didn’t have a coke/maybe had a brandy and coke doesn't change the fact that if Oswald is Prayer Man (who we can clearly see is standing on the steps at the time of the shooting) he can’t be the 6th floor sniper?

  1. The statements of Baker/Truly have evolved over time and been ironed out to make the whole encounter plausible and more favourable to a descending Oswald from the 6th floor coupled with the lone nut persona of an Oswald calmly smooching around the second floor lunchroom drinking a coke and listening to Nat King Cole whilst everyone else in Dealey Plaza is in a state of turmoil and concern because the President has just been shot.

In my opinion the Oswald in the lunchroom looking like an Arctic cucumber distorts and negates the image of an Oswald doing a Usain Bolt down four flights of stairs to such an extent that the Oswald Bolt image (however improbable) is conveniently replaced with the cool callous ‘he must be one psycho SoB’ killer drinking a coke image and therefore counteracts any exoneration one may afford Oswald.

  1. The chances that Baker (with or without super hero Truly) encountering Oswald twice (once on the first floor and once on the second floor) would appear to be (using a Don King quote) “slim and none and slim is out of town”.

Baker and truly mention one incident (even though there appear to be countless versions of it: sitting Oswald, standing Oswald, sleeping Oswald, Oswald dancing around with a brandy and coke, leaning Oswald, walking Oswald ... Oh I give up!) and herein lies the basis of Seans thesis.

If there was only one incident and it happened on the first floor and without any other/new proof that Prayer Man is someone else (and we are not talking about people who work somewhere else or even just flew into Dallas that very morning and decided “out of all the bars steps in all the towns you had to walk stand on this one”) by process of elimination Prayer Man becomes more likelier with every fallen Prayer Man candidate to be Oswald.

Now that’s what you would call exoneration.

Will Sean pull it off? I don’t know. Is he having a good go? You bet he is. However he still has a long ways to go and of course he has to avoid the 'Big Guns' who could start throwing a few more ‘credible’ Prayer Man alternatives in to the works at any time, but that aside the cog of Prayer Man being Oswald and the Marrion Bake encounter taking place on the first floor is slowly beginning to turn.

Regards - Steve

Hi Steve,

Addressing only the section of your last paragraph that I have bold faced, what other credible Prayer Man alternatives do you feel are out there?

My belief is we have already covered the alternatives in a thorough manner. And the outcome keeps turning out the same.

Big Gun or squirt gun, they all have to pass the same litmus test.

Hi Richard

I guess a nicer way to put it would be to say that from a laypersons point of view (an average perspective if you like) there doesn't seem to be much input (either way) from many of the so called ‘big names’ or more ‘renowned’ researchers and naturally I mean no disrespect to any of the people who have contributed when I use those phrases.

It just seems that considering the potential significance of Oswald being ‘Prayer Man’ one would assume that every lone nut man and his dog would have been chiming in with reasons why it can’t possibly be him and presumably suggesting alternatives. I suppose the silence and the lack of ‘credible’ alternatives being suggested could very well speak volumes in and of itself, but the only person that I can recall thus far to offer any alternatives was Pat Speer? And even though I don’t personally subscribe to a necessity for considering people who are on vacation from other offices or even who live in Dallas; at least he tried.

Right now it looks pretty interesting and although I am rooting for Sean only time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But, then again, Bill says that if they did fabricate it, he says he knows who did it!"

Hi Tom

Is this a first step on a path of 'first floor lunchroom encounter' exploration? If so with Bills knowledge it could surely lead somewhere.

Steve

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

×