Great New Movie Spells out the Case for Oswald as Prayer Man

[Vanessa Loney]

http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13282603-prayer-man-the-movie-part-1

Great new movie spelling out the case for Prayer Man. It

- demolishes the second floor lunchroom encounter.

- establishes the documentary case for PM being Oswald.

- moves the debate beyond 'a bunch of blurry pixels'.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Vanessa Loney

[Richard Gilbride]

Your claim that this film demolishes the 2nd-floor lunchroom story is based upon Sean Murphy's faulty hypothesis that the incident never occurred. The principle of garbage in garbage out applies here. I wrote a screenplay where Eddie Piper was the sniper's nest shooter. Would a movie have made that more accurate?

The Prayer Man phenomenon is thereby linked with something proven incorrect, and proven several years ago- when Barry Ernest discovered the Martha Jo Stroud document in the Dallas US Attorney papers in the National Archives. Sean got indignant, angry and bitter as he realized the Stroud document made his precious lunchroom hoax hypothesis impossible. And he accused Ernest of deceptive research methodology. This key excerpt demolishes Sean's hypothesis:

Mr. Belin was questioning Miss Adams about whether or not she saw anyone as she was running down the stairs. Miss Garner, Miss Adams' supervisor, stated this morning that after Miss Adams went downstairs she (Miss Garner) saw Mr. Truly and the Policeman come up.

After reading this in 2011 I immediately posted at Lancer that Adams & Styles had to have passed Truly & Baker while the latter pair were in the lunchroom. And I woke up and quit believing in Sean's hoax hypothesis.

It is part of the group-think, Cheka-like, tribal-intimidation schtick at ROKC that members have to swallow this hoax mullarkey, or else. And it will be more painful for you, the longer you hang onto it. You will do yourself a favor to educate yourself on a critique of the hoax, and you will find one on pp. 26-36 of my essay at jfkinsidejob.com

Mixing the lunchroom hoax with Prayerman is like adding hemlock to a milkshake. Are you going to continue to abandon your innate ability to think critically and make judgments for yourself in favor of being popular with the tribe?

[Thomas Graves]

Your claim that this film demolishes the 2nd-floor lunchroom story is based upon Sean Murphy's faulty hypothesis that the incident never occurred. The principle of garbage in garbage out applies here. I wrote a screenplay where Eddie Piper was the sniper's nest shooter. Would a movie have made that more accurate?

The Prayer Man phenomenon is thereby linked with something proven incorrect, and proven several years ago- when Barry Ernest discovered the Martha Jo Stroud document in the Dallas US Attorney papers in the National Archives. Sean got indignant, angry and bitter as he realized the Stroud document made his precious lunchroom hoax hypothesis impossible. And he accused Ernest of deceptive research methodology. This key excerpt demolishes Sean's hypothesis:

Mr. Belin was questioning Miss Adams about whether or not she saw anyone as she was running down the stairs. Miss Garner, Miss Adams' supervisor, stated this morning that after Miss Adams went downstairs she (Miss Garner) saw Mr. Truly and the Policeman come up.

After reading this in 2011 I immediately posted at Lancer that Adams & Styles had to have passed Truly & Baker while the latter pair were in the lunchroom. And I woke up and quit believing in Sean's hoax hypothesis.

It is part of the group-think, Cheka-like, tribal-intimidation schtick at ROKC that members have to swallow this hoax mullarkey, or else. And it will be more painful for you, the longer you hang onto it. You will do yourself a favor to educate yourself on a critique of the hoax, and you will find one on pp. 26-36 of my essay at jfkinsidejob.com

Mixing the lunchroom hoax with Prayerman is like adding hemlock to a milkshake. Are you going to continue to abandon your innate ability to think critically and make judgments for yourself in favor of being popular with the tribe?

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Richard,

Let's say Adams and Styles started going downstairs from the 4th floor thirty seconds after the assassination.

Would that have given Baker and Truly enough time to get to the 2nd floor lunchroom before Adams and Styles passed them on the stairs, given the fact that we know from Couch / Darnell that Baker was running towards the front steps about 20 seconds after the assassination?

Thanks,

--Tommy

Edited December 5, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Richard Gilbride]

The evidence we are given says Adams & Styles left the 4th-floor window moments after seeing Clint Hill jump onto the limo trunk. They left no later 10 seconds after Z-313.

Sample timelines are given right on the 1st two pages of that section of the essay. Simply to illustrate that it is beyond the bounds of reason to expect that the girls escaped Truly & Baker's notice down on the first floor of the warehouse.

But the November 22nd actual timeline, the section implies, was slower than that for Adams & Styles, because it looks like Baker made it to the 2nd-floor landing by 50 seconds.

I wish we had the original 2007 Lancer film study to examine, which concluded Baker touched the first step at about 22 seconds. They were mainly interested in defeating a push by Gary Mack, who contended it was as long as 45 seconds.

The information from Howard Roffman's book, which states that Couch began filming about 10 seconds after the head shot, as well as Baker's re-enactment ride, which took him to the landing in only 15 seconds, leads me to think that the value of 22 seconds is too much time.

[Richard Gilbride]

Firewater does not help lift the veil of illusion. It does add to confusion, killing brain cells slowly but surely.

[Vanessa Loney]

Your claim that this film demolishes the 2nd-floor lunchroom story is based upon Sean Murphy's faulty hypothesis that the incident never occurred. The principle of garbage in garbage out applies here. I wrote a screenplay where Eddie Piper was the sniper's nest shooter. Would a movie have made that more accurate?

The Prayer Man phenomenon is thereby linked with something proven incorrect, and proven several years ago- when Barry Ernest discovered the Martha Jo Stroud document in the Dallas US Attorney papers in the National Archives. Sean got indignant, angry and bitter as he realized the Stroud document made his precious lunchroom hoax hypothesis impossible. And he accused Ernest of deceptive research methodology. This key excerpt demolishes Sean's hypothesis:

Mr. Belin was questioning Miss Adams about whether or not she saw anyone as she was running down the stairs. Miss Garner, Miss Adams' supervisor, stated this morning that after Miss Adams went downstairs she (Miss Garner) saw Mr. Truly and the Policeman come up.

After reading this in 2011 I immediately posted at Lancer that Adams & Styles had to have passed Truly & Baker while the latter pair were in the lunchroom. And I woke up and quit believing in Sean's hoax hypothesis.

It is part of the group-think, Cheka-like, tribal-intimidation schtick at ROKC that members have to swallow this hoax mullarkey, or else. And it will be more painful for you, the longer you hang onto it. You will do yourself a favor to educate yourself on a critique of the hoax, and you will find one on pp. 26-36 of my essay at jfkinsidejob.com

Mixing the lunchroom hoax with Prayerman is like adding hemlock to a milkshake. Are you going to continue to abandon your innate ability to think critically and make judgments for yourself in favor of being popular with the tribe?

Well hello Richard, don’t believe I’ve had the pleasure before.

Actually that quote from the Stroud document says that after Adams went downstairs Garner saw Truly and Baker come up. This in no way puts the encounter in the second floor lunchroom. In fact, all it says is that Garner says she saw Truly and Baker come up the stairs.

Richard, I did myself a favour and read your critique but I found nothing there that was actually relevant to Oswald not being PM. Just stairs and elevators. You’re going to have to make your case a bit clearer.

Marrion Baker’s first day affidavit says nothing about the lunchroom at all. And here’s Will Fritz explaining why at the WC.

Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?

Mr. FRITZ. They told me about that down at the bookstore; I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him--I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.

So Baker or Truly tells Fritz that they met Oswald on the ‘stairway’ but the investigation ‘showed’ that they actually saw him in a lunchroom.

How could Baker get the place that he met Oswald wrong? So wrong in fact that the investigation showed that Baker actually met Oswald in the lunchroom on another floor.

So we have Baker’s same day affidavit making no mention of the lunchroom and we have Fritz confirming in his WC testimony that Baker didn’t mention the lunchroom. And, most importantly, we have Fritz stating that it was the investigation that ‘showed’ the lunchroom encounter happened.

What do you make of that, Richard?

Just to make something crystal clear. I’ve been following the JFK assassination debate ever since I saw the Zapruder film on the TV in the 70’s. I came across the PM thread on the EF a couple of years ago. It was discovering that, that made me join a few other websites in order to see what had happened to this issue. To my dismay it seemed like nothing had progressed at all on what I considered to be the most significant development in the case for years.

I ended up at RoKC because after trying to debate PM on other sites it seemed like RoKC were the only one’s interested in PM. And in particular the only ones interested in actually solving the case by progressing with PM. They are a very talented bunch and having now met a few of them in person they are also lovely people. On RoKC we are an opinionated bunch of strong-minded individuals. No-one tells us what to think.

Greg Parker is a fundamentally decent man and a researcher of the utmost integrity. He’s treated you with a dignity and respect which you don’t seem obliged to return for some reason. Why is that?

Edited December 6, 2015 by Vanessa Loney

[Vanessa Loney]

http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13282603-prayer-man-the-movie-part-1

Great new movie spelling out the case for Prayer Man. It

- demolishes the second floor lunchroom encounter.

- establishes the documentary case for PM being Oswald.

- moves the debate beyond 'a bunch of blurry pixels'.

An unbiased review

Thank you Vanessa, Fantastic

I have just found the perfect cure for my insomnia, marvelous, simply marvelous.

After around just ten minutes of listening to the drollest of droll voices from the narrator, alongside viewing the mind blowing disorderly barrage of mega pixelated images which gave me flashbacks, and made me think someone had dropped a tab of acid in my hot toddy glass, I dropped off to sleep with no problems for the first time in years.

I have just one itsy bitsy teenie weenie complaint, however. There is no information supplied which provides a postal address ( along with cost plus postage and packing details } whereby I may purchase this fine "knockout" movie, pardon the pun. Please provide details.

Yours Sincerely

Duncan MacRae

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyvotNsD8_U

Duncan, old fellow, lovely to chat with you on here.

Although I was fully prepared to do so on jfkassassination forum until you suspended me for a month and deleted all my comments including the link to the Prayer Man movie. And that was just one day after I accepted your invitation to RoKCers to come back on and you promised we wouldn't be banned or censored anymore.

On the one hand you have a new-found commitment to free speech but on the other hand you don't want it to be exercised in relation to PM. As I've asked you before, "What is your game?"

If you want to actually pay for a movie which is being supplied online free that is your lookout.

And, as you know, I make no pretence of being unbiased in the Prayer Man debate. It's pretty much the only topic I'm interested in debating and that's very clear across a number of websites.

Your comment doesn't seem to contain any factual criticism of the film so I'll assume you don't have any.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Vanessa Loney

[Thomas Graves]

The evidence we are given says Adams & Styles left the 4th-floor window moments after seeing Clint Hill jump onto the limo trunk. They left no later 10 seconds after Z-313.

Sample timelines are given right on the 1st two pages of that section of the essay. Simply to illustrate that it is beyond the bounds of reason to expect that the girls escaped Truly & Baker's notice down on the first floor of the warehouse.

But the November 22nd actual timeline, the section implies, was slower than that for Adams & Styles, because it looks like Baker made it to the 2nd-floor landing by 50 seconds.

I wish we had the original 2007 Lancer film study to examine, which concluded Baker touched the first step at about 22 seconds. They were mainly interested in defeating a push by Gary Mack, who contended it was as long as 45 seconds.

The information from Howard Roffman's book, which states that Couch began filming about 10 seconds after the head shot, as well as Baker's re-enactment ride, which took him to the landing in only 15 seconds, leads me to think that the value of 22 seconds is too much time.

Richard,

I'm a bit confused, so, to "cut to the chase" (so-to-speak), where do you think Vicki Adams and Sandra Styles were when Baker reached the second floor landing?

Thank you,

--Tommy

Edited December 5, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Dawn Meredith]

The MOVIE???? OMG. First "the book", now the movie? I guess there are no more topics to explore on this case so one has to start inventing them.

This ranks up there with Ralph Cinque's "doorway man" obsession.

Say goodnight Gracie.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

The MOVIE???? OMG. First "the book", now the movie? I guess there are no more topics to explore on this case so one has to start inventing them.

This ranks up there with Ralph Cinque's "doorway man" obsession.

Say goodnight Gracie.

Dawn

WOW, it's even worse than I thought. The guitar was nice, however. I guess that was just the trailer.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Dawn Meredith

[James DiEugenio]

Duncan I understand. He is a dyed in the wool LHO did it advocate. His only idea of a plot is the Baron somehow manipulated LHO. Which reminds me of the story told by Oltmans, which HSCA counsel Bob Tanenbaum did not buy for five seconds.

But the others?

Look, I am not sold on the whole PM concept. The main problem being that the image quality is simply not up to snuff. But give these people credit, they are trying to find film of a better image quality. And as far as I know, they are the only ones doing it. Everyone else is simply snapping their jaws or making flawed "enhancements" which they then interpret according to their own belief of who killed Kennedy. David Josephs (who I think should be allowed back on here) did some very nice work exposing this at DPF.

As for production value, c'mon. People work with what they have. I mean CBS had a lot of money. Their documentaries are pretty much worthless today. Just like the Peter Jennings/Gus Russo 2003 show has no value. Simply because the shows are not honest and contain little or no new info. OTOH, Jeff Carter and Len Osanic's series 50 Reasons for 50 Years is very helpful since it does contain new info, even though they did not have a lot of money.

If our side ever gets a lot of money to do a big production, and the right people do it, and it gets on a network or major cable company hey, it would shock hundreds of thousands of people. Maybe millions. Because the public is so used to this crap, like ITTC.

I appreciate the work these people did on the unresolved issue of PM. And I understand a part two is coming. Its a serious inquiry into an important matter.

Duncan just wants it to go away. Sorry, it will not.

The people on our side should be interested in it and tossing in constructive criticism.

Edited December 5, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Thomas Graves]

The evidence we are given says Adams & Styles left the 4th-floor window moments after seeing Clint Hill jump onto the limo trunk. They left no later 10 seconds after Z-313.

Sample timelines are given right on the 1st two pages of that section of the essay. Simply to illustrate that it is beyond the bounds of reason to expect that the girls escaped Truly & Baker's notice down on the first floor of the warehouse.

But the November 22nd actual timeline, the section implies, was slower than that for Adams & Styles, because it looks like Baker made it to the 2nd-floor landing by 50 seconds.

I wish we had the original 2007 Lancer film study to examine, which concluded Baker touched the first step at about 22 seconds. They were mainly interested in defeating a push by Gary Mack, who contended it was as long as 45 seconds.

The information from Howard Roffman's book, which states that Couch began filming about 10 seconds after the head shot, as well as Baker's re-enactment ride, which took him to the landing in only 15 seconds, leads me to think that the value of 22 seconds is too much time.

Richard,

Your writing has got me a bit confused.

Question: Where exactly do you think Vicki Adams was when Baker reached the second floor landing?

Thank you,

--Tommy

edited and bumped

[Cliff Varnell]

The people on our side should be interested in it and tossing in constructive criticism.

I chimed in, opined that the figure had a male attitude, in my opinion.

I was attacked by Bart Kamp on ROKC, compared with Craig Lamson!

It was the latest personal attack I've taken from that forum.

A couple of the main guys there think I should have my head bashed in because I focus on the physical evidence in a murder case.

A couple of other main guys cast homo-erotic insinuations because I push the significance of "compartmentalization" in intelligence operations.

Their approach to the case suffers the same tragic flaw as Jim DiEugenio's -- they mistake a study of the Oswald assassination for a study of the Kennedy hit.

A teachable moment: never marry your Pet Theory.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Jon G. Tidd]

Cliff,

I don't understand why you're attacked for your "compartmentalization" thinking. You are correct.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Thanks, Vanessa.

The film to which you link is interesting but typical. Typical because the narrator takes ambiguous data and out of the date makes assertions.

Assertions are opinions that masquerade as facts, which masquerade as "evidence".

The film to which you link is interesting but is unconvincing in some respects. For example, Billy Lovelady had an erect posture. The Billy Lovelady character in the 11-22-63 films had an unusual, head-thrusting-forward posture.