Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
J. Raymond Carroll

Prayer Man: A Memo to James Gordon

Recommended Posts

Although I agree with Carroll, the fact is that the ID of PM as Oswald is going to be resolved, if not perfectly, then as close to perfectly as is possible for a bunch of garbage collectors. And I promise everyone it will be a case of letting the chips fall where they may. We will not resile from admitting error if the efforts conclusively show it isn't Oswald.

All the non-garbage collectors can please themselves whether they will accept reality if the opposite is true.

Let's not over-reach on the importance of this. It proves conclusively that Oswald did not fire any weapons. It doesn't prove a conspiracy, since there is the minute possibility of a different "lone nut" on the job. And if there was a conspiracy, it does not prove that LHO was not involved in it.

For the record - I have no doubt that there was a conspiracy and that Oswald's sole "connection" to it was as designated patsy. That case is coming.

Also for the record, simply proving beyond all doubt that Oswald never fired any weapon from that building should be enough on it's own to warrant reopening the case. Whether that will happen is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't prove a conspiracy, since there is the minute possibility of a different "lone nut" on the job. And if there was a conspiracy, it does not prove that LHO was not involved in it.

As my readers know, I believe Lee Oswald was a completely innocent man, who was framed for the Tippit murder and for the JFK

murder..

greg parker is an Oswald accuser who won't let go even when he knows that Lee is innocent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever occur to you that he was not answering the question, "Did you shoot the President?" and was, instead, answering another reporter?

I mean, c'mon Dave, if someone asked you if you shot the President, would you reply with "I work in that building"? What kind of an answer is that?

And if the first two are not connected, it's quite likely that Oswald was not referring to the shooting of the President when he responded to "Were you in the building at the time?"

Just because the microphone we are listening to picked up the question about shooting the President, does not mean Oswald heard and responded to it.

Oh, brother. Bob Prudhomme just raised denial to yet a new height of absurdity.

Oswald's answer of "I work in that building" was his attempt to use his status as "Depository employee" to deflect attention away from his involvement in the crime. That fact is quite obvious. (Except to Robert Prudhomme, I guess.)

But maybe you can answer this question for me, Bob....

What "time" do you think Oswald was referring to when he said he was in the building "at the time". Do you think Oswald was referring to being in the building a week ago Tuesday? Or on New Year's Eve? Or maybe Veteran's Day?

Given the fact the whole world was buzzing about JFK being killed, what other "at the time" would any reporter confronting Lee Harvey Oswald be referring to at that moment in time at 7:55 PM CST on Nov. 22nd when the reporter knows full well he is directing his question at the man who has been arrested on suspicion of murdering the President?

Put on your "Denial" hat again, Bob, and try answering that question.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps among those who think the 'prayer man' idea is important there is someone who can summarise the idea and post it as a new topic in 'JFK Research'. Or just copy the whole thing to there?

Or, if pinning the topic somehow makes it better perhaps the topic can be copied (with permission) to a site that wants to mingle admin pinned topics with member topics and pin it there.

I agree with Brian*, btw. A bunch of fuzzy pixels is not enough. If you hitch your wagon to this, thinking it will take you all the way, you're gambling. It's ridiculous. If it is the real deal you wont have to.

Either way, the admin here has stated its position on this type of thing. I find it curious that the matter is revisited.\

*edit correct name, sorry Bernie didn't mean to misrepresent your position.

Edited by John Dolva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spin, spin, spin. What a funny little man you are. The response "I work in that building" could just as easily have been to a question such as "What were you doing in the TSBD?".

You see, Dave, once again we have to rely on something the Lame Nuts think is some form of real evidence. That something is called assumption, and it is about as far from real evidence as you can get.

"Did you shoot the President?"..."I work in that building." There's no connection there at all, Dave.

P.S.

Where I grew up, standing in the vestibule is considered to be still in the building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't prove a conspiracy, since there is the minute possibility of a different "lone nut" on the job. And if there was a conspiracy, it does not prove that LHO was not involved in it.

As my readers know, I believe Lee Oswald was a completely innocent man, who was framed for the Tippit murder and for the JFK

murder..

greg parker is an Oswald accuser who won't let go even when he knows that Lee is innocent!

And Carroll shoots as straight as a dog's hind leg. Let's put it this way, if Carroll had been the sniper, he wouldn't have needed no goddamn magic bullet.

What Carroll deliberately omitted from his quote because he is an amatuer putz is this: For the record - I have no doubt that there was a conspiracy and that Oswald's sole "connection" to it was as designated patsy. That case is coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spin, spin, spin. What a funny little man you are. The response "I work in that building" could just as easily have been to a question such as "What were you doing in the TSBD?".

Pot meets Kettle again.

It's Bob P. who is spinning this thing like a top. I'm not spinning at all.

Just LISTEN to the audio....

OSWALD ANSWERS REPORTERS' QUESTIONS

There is not a speck of a doubt that the ONLY question being asked by any reporter just one second before Oswald said "I work in that building" is this question --- "Did you shoot the President?"

There are no questions coming from any other reporters at that time. None. And yet Bob Prudhomme seems to believe Oswald was responding to some unknown and unheard reporter's question that Bob just made up.

And yet I was just berated by Bobby for "spin, spin, spin". Hi-lar-ious!

"Did you shoot the President?"..."I work in that building." There's no connection there at all, Dave.

Sure there is. I just explained that to you a few posts back. Oswald was trying to get himself off the hook by the mere fact he worked in the building. It's obvious. And that IS a responsive reply to the question. He just didn't put a "No" at the beginning of it.

P.S.

Where I grew up, standing in the vestibule is considered to be still in the building.

More "spin" from Bob P.

This OPEN AIR entranceway to the Book Depository cannot reasonably be described as a portion of the INSIDE of the actual building. If I was standing on these steps, I would not be INSIDE the Depository building. No way. No how. If I was on the steps, I'd be OUTSIDE the front doors (as we can easily see here). I'd be, therefore, OUTDOORS. But keep spinning, Bob. You must be about ready to fall over after your last two dizzying posts....

Texas-School-Book-Depository-Building.jp

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all respect, the thread is almost two years old and maybe with the exception of a day or two, it's always been on the first page here anyway. What else is there to talk about? A lot of people think it looks a lot like Oswald; I don't think it's that striking of a resemblance, but it could be him. It's just too blurry to tell for sure, and I'm not sure we will ever have a remedy for that. From my understanding, even with future technology, you can't create something out of nothing, i.e. you can't extrapolate pixels that aren't there, but I could be wrong.

My main problem with the whole premise is that if it were Oswald, wouldn't someone have remembered him there and said something?

"My main problem with the whole premise is that if it were Oswald, wouldn't someone have remembered him there and said something?"

The fact is that nobody said they saw ANYONE there. Even BWF who is looking right at him! Clearly someone was there. If not Oswald I throw the question back to you. How come nobody mentions this guy?

Of course, if it is Oswald then the whole conspiracy comes crashing down.

Consequently no one reports seeing Oswald. And anyway he is stood right at the back against a wall at the exact moment the President is driving past who would have seen him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all respect, the thread is almost two years old and maybe with the exception of a day or two, it's always been on the first page here anyway. What else is there to talk about? A lot of people think it looks a lot like Oswald; I don't think it's that striking of a resemblance, but it could be him. It's just too blurry to tell for sure, and I'm not sure we will ever have a remedy for that. From my understanding, even with future technology, you can't create something out of nothing, i.e. you can't extrapolate pixels that aren't there, but I could be wrong.

My main problem with the whole premise is that if it were Oswald, wouldn't someone have remembered him there and said something?

"My main problem with the whole premise is that if it were Oswald, wouldn't someone have remembered him there and said something?"

The fact is that nobody said they saw ANYONE there. Even BWF who is looking right at him! Clearly someone was there. If not Oswald I throw the question back to you. How come nobody mentions this guy?

Of course, if it is Oswald then the whole conspiracy comes crashing down.

Consequently no one reports seeing Oswald. And anyway he is stood right at the back against a wall at the exact moment the President is driving past who would have seen him?

Right on, Bernie. BWF never saw Oswald, never saw anyone standing in the corner and never saw a policeman in a white motorcycle helmet go by him on the way into the TSBD when, in all likelihood, Baker probably just about ran him over on his way in.

Did Frazier see ANYTHING????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't prove a conspiracy, since there is the minute possibility of a different "lone nut" on the job. And if there was a conspiracy, it does not prove that LHO was not involved in it.

As my readers know, I believe Lee Oswald was a completely innocent man, who was framed for the Tippit murder and for the JFK

murder..

greg parker is an Oswald accuser who won't let go even when he knows that Lee is innocent!

And Carroll shoots as straight as a dog's hind leg. Let's put it this way, if Carroll had been the sniper, he wouldn't have needed no goddamn magic bullet.

What Carroll deliberately omitted from his quote because he is an amatuer putz is this: For the record - I have no doubt that there was a conspiracy and that Oswald's sole "connection" to it was as designated patsy. That case is coming.

Mister Parker is a GARRISON GROUPIE, conscious or unconscious I don't know which.

Lee Oswald told reporters: "They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union,

I'm just a Patsy."

The word "Patsy" has always meant nothing more than an innocent man falsely accused,

and you can find it frequently used in the popular novels of Michael Connelly, e.g. Trunk Music.

But Garrison gave it a special meaning, implying that Lee Oswald was an idiot who conspired

in his own undoing, and Garrison followers like Greg Parker have been attributing that special meaning to the word "Patsy" ever since.

Its a bummer when people don't understand the English language!

Lee Oswald said that he knew nothing about the assassination or the murder of J.D. Tippit

and his accusers, including Greg Parker and David Von Pein, are barking up the wrong tree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything that happened on the steps just after the shots were fired arouses suspicion. Although everyone assumes Baker ran up the steps of the TSBD, simply because we are all sheep and this is what the Warren Commission told us to believe, the Couch film only shows Baker running toward the stairs, and neither it or any other film shows him going up the stairs. No witness on the stairs, including Buell Wesley Frazier and Joe Molina, could recall a motorcycle cop in a white helmet going past him.

The only two witnesses who claim to have seen Baker going into the TSBD are Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley, who claimed to be twenty-five paces down the Elm St. extension when they looked back to see Truly and Baker enter the TSBD. Their testimonies are highly suspect as their first day statements say nothing about going down Elm St. Also, according to their WC testimonies, they remained on the steps for 3-4 minutes and did not leave the steps until a Ms. Gloria Calvary came running up to the steps from way down on Elm St. where the shots had been fired. As Baker had supposedly parked his motorcycle and been running to the TSBD within seconds of the final shot, how could Shelley and Lovelady be twenty-five paces down the Elm St. extension at this time? They should have been still on the steps for another two minutes after Baker's arrival.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything that happened on the steps just after the shots were fired arouses suspicion. Although everyone assumes Baker ran up the steps of the TSBD, simply because we are all sheep and this is what the Warren Commission told us to believe, the Couch film only shows Baker running toward the stairs, and neither it or any other film shows him going up the stairs. No witness on the stairs, including Buell Wesley Frazier and Joe Molina, could recall a motorcycle cop in a white helmet going past him.

The only two witnesses who claim to have seen Baker going into the TSBD are Billy Lovelady and Bill Shelley, who claimed to be twenty-five paces down the Elm St. extension when they looked back to see Truly and Baker enter the TSBD. Their testimonies are highly suspect as their first day statements say nothing about going down Elm St. Also, according to their WC testimonies, they remained on the steps for 3-4 minutes and did not leave the steps until a Ms. Gloria Calvary came running up to the steps from way down on Elm St. where the shots had been fired. As Baker had supposedly parked his motorcycle and been running to the TSBD within seconds of the final shot, how could Shelley and Lovelady be twenty-five paces down the Elm St. extension at this time? They should have been still on the steps for another two minutes after Baker's arrival.

Robert,

Sorry to nitpick, but wasn't Roy Truly a witness, too, and didn't he claim he saw Baker enter the TSBD?

Yes, I know that Truly's testimony is just as suspect as Lovelady's and Shelley's.

Just sayin'.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...