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

[Greg Burnham]

David Mantik told me a few days ago that at this year's Lancer Conference Buell Wesley Frazier denied that Oswald was anywhere near the front of the TSBD, on the steps, or was Doorman. Frazier is an eyewitness who was there, who knew Oswald, and was in a position to know if LHO was there or not. Frazier was unequivocal about it.

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.

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.

Dear Mr Tidd

"Billy Lovelady had an erect posture"?? I'm not sure what to make of that statement. Are you saying Billy Lovelady never stooped or bent over at all?

Billy Lovelady can be clearly seen in Altgens 6 leaning out past the TSBD entrance to look at the presidential motorcade which accounts for his 'head-thrusting-forward posture'.

Lovelady is also visible standing next to Prayer Man in Weigman as Bart points out in his film.

So Lovelady and his posture are not actually that relevant to the PM debate anymore except in so far as we know that Lovelady is not PM.

If that the only point you can criticise in the film?

Vanessa,

It's my personal opinion that Mr. Tidd doesn't like to look at JFK assassination films and photographs very closely because he thinks that they were all altered. I explained to him on another thread that the reason Lovelady's posture and positioning appear so different in the Altgens 6 still photograph and the Wiegman film clip is due to the wildly different angles of the photographers involved, plus the fact that Lovelady (who was by the center hand rail the whole time) leaned forward at a certain point.

But to no avail.

My only problem with Prayer Person's being Oswald is that in the Wiegman clip you can see Prayer Person lower a 35 mm camera (or a pair of binoculars) from his / her face. Was Oswald known to have taken a 35 mm camera or a pair of binoculars to work with him that day, or were either of those things found inside the TSBD after the assassination?

--Tommy

How do you know it was a 35mm camera or a pair of binoculars? Although I did not at first agree with her, Linda made a very good and believable case for the glowing object, seen in PM's hands, to be a reflex camera. Light travels both ways through the viewing lens, reflecting off of a 45° mirror inside of the camera. The glow seen is merely available light above PM's head being reflected off of this mirror and out the front lens of the camera.

Another interesting thing I discovered about reflex cameras is that not all photographers hold them at their waist and take photos by looking down through the viewfinder. According to one article, it is possible to hold the camera up to the eye, and scan the viewfinder. However, I would actually like to try this myself before I commit totally to believing it. Hard to find reflex cameras nowadays, though.

[Robert Prudhomme]

David Mantik told me a few days ago that at this year's Lancer Conference Buell Wesley Frazier denied that Oswald was anywhere near the front of the TSBD, on the steps, or was Doorman. Frazier is an eyewitness who was there, who knew Oswald, and was in a position to know if LHO was there or not. Frazier was unequivocal about it.

I don't suppose Frazier offered his opinion on who PM might have been, did he? A stranger, perhaps? Another TSBD employee, maybe? It seems a bit ludicrous he could have been standing on the steps in what was an exclusively TSBD group of people, and not recall someone standing right beside him.

[Robert Prudhomme]

BTW, when did David Josephs get banned from this forum?

[Ray Mitcham]

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.

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.

Dear Mr Tidd

"Billy Lovelady had an erect posture"?? I'm not sure what to make of that statement. Are you saying Billy Lovelady never stooped or bent over at all?

Billy Lovelady can be clearly seen in Altgens 6 leaning out past the TSBD entrance to look at the presidential motorcade which accounts for his 'head-thrusting-forward posture'.

Lovelady is also visible standing next to Prayer Man in Weigman as Bart points out in his film.

So Lovelady and his posture are not actually that relevant to the PM debate anymore except in so far as we know that Lovelady is not PM.

If that the only point you can criticise in the film?

Vanessa,

It's my personal opinion that Mr. Tidd doesn't like to look at JFK assassination films and photographs very closely because he thinks that they were all altered. I explained to him on another thread that the reason Lovelady's posture and positioning appear so different in the Altgens 6 still photograph and the Wiegman film clip is due to the wildly different angles of the photographers involved, plus the fact that Lovelady (who was by the center hand rail the whole time) leaned forward at a certain point.

But to no avail.

My only problem with Prayer Person's being Oswald is that in the Wiegman clip you can see Prayer Person lower a 35 mm camera (or a pair of binoculars) from his / her face. Was Oswald known to have taken a 35 mm camera or a pair of binoculars to work with him that day, or were either of those things found inside the TSBD after the assassination?

--Tommy

How do you know it was a 35mm camera or a pair of binoculars? Although I did not at first agree with her, Linda made a very good and believable case for the glowing object, seen in PM's hands, to be a reflex camera. Light travels both ways through the viewing lens, reflecting off of a 45° mirror inside of the camera. The glow seen is merely available light above PM's head being reflected off of this mirror and out the front lens of the camera.

Another interesting thing I discovered about reflex cameras is that not all photographers hold them at their waist and take photos by looking down through the viewfinder. According to one article, it is possible to hold the camera up to the eye, and scan the viewfinder. However, I would actually like to try this myself before I commit totally to believing it. Hard to find reflex cameras nowadays, though.

Bob, If it was the Imperial reflex "he" was holding,(as that is the model he is supposed to have owned), he wouldn't have been holding it up to his eye as that model, unlike better quality SLRs, didn't have an separate view finder for eye level photos.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Ray

How are things going? Typical warm and wet UK winter weather? I've always thought you might enjoy our weather here on the northwest coast of Canada. Today is a typical winter day; 9° C. and rain coming down in buckets. You'd feel right at home!

I know what you mean about the separate viewfinder, such as you would see on an SLR camera. However, in this article which, like a fool, I forgot to bookmark, these photographers claimed they were holding an ordinary reflex camera, such as the Imperial Reflex LHO owned, up to the eye to take photos.

This is why I said I found the article interesting, but would not commit to believing it until I had tried it myself. As a child, I recall my mother having a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye camera in the early 60's, that operated the same as the Imperial Reflex, and I do not remember her ever holding it up to her eye to use. I wish she had kept that camera.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Ed LeDoux]

Hello Dawn

Funny, how you are also prepared to come on here to debate PM and yet Duncan-like won't allow any of us on DP to discuss it. What are you lot so afraid of?

It's false rumour spreading and false uneducated statements like the above which continually get you suspended.

Discussion of Prayer Person is allowed. Perpetual repetative spamming of Prayer Person as a promotional tool for ROKC propaganda and book sales is not allowed.

Learn the difference and you will be fine.

Duncan

Is it not true that those members from RoKC who support Prayer Man as Oswald are all banned from posting on your forum and Deep Politics?

What repetitive spamming are you referring to? I've posted one link to Stan's book on your site (and got almost instantaneously banned weeks ago). I've posted one link to Barto's film on your site (and got suspended almost instantaneously a few days ago).

Duncan, if you really are in good faith about Prayer Man and free speech why did you delete every comment I've ever made on your forum as well as the supposed offending comment?

As far as I'm aware that does not happen on any other forum when a member is suspended or banned. It certainly doesn't happen on the EF.

Frankly I'm still mystified as to why I was suspended this last time.

I am not going to argue with you, nor do I feel the need to explain myself to an ROKC suburdinate messenger minion.

I will say this, however.

I don't care what Dawn Meredith or the rest of the cognitively impaired disciples of Jim DiEugenio's ( A knew B, B knew C, so logically C knew A ) brainwashed gullible goofballs at DP do or don't do regarding the Prayer person issue, or anything else for that matter.

They only visit Earth occassionally, and besides, It's none of my business.

Regarding the JFK Assassination Forum:

Any forum with MacRae at the helm is equal to a cruise on the Titanic.... bon voyage.

Perhaps DM can explain his photoshopping skills and how to dishonestly examine PM images?

Stan has taken the original image from the source and attempted to duplicate what is seen in Duncan's "adjusted" images. Stan was unable to replicate it. So this is not merely a play of contrast, gamma or any other "adjustment" as his minions say. NO! or else it would be easily replicated by such adjustments.

Duncan's (stinky) shows colors, interesting as this is a black and white film.

Recall these were with the Credit: Duncan on them so no wiggle room that it was not DM.

Manipulate much there Duncan?

So Credit Duncan with painting the area to Prayer Man's left black.

Why would this be necessary??? Could it be due to the ghost image of a face in the red oval, and repeated below the oval.

This face seems to be a womans face in profile with a head scarf.

Since Prayer Man is not in profile do not fall for what will be Dumcan and friends claims that its the face of prayer woman.

What the face and Duncan's attempts to black it out show are how dishonest he really is about Prayer Man.

Duncan has sour grapes for breakfast, lunch and he's just been served his supper.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Vanessa and Thomas,

It's a matter of perception and logic.

I observe a photograph and perceive X. X might mean nothing. Vanessa or Thomas observes the same photograph and perceives Y.

Who is correct? Jon? Or Vanessa or Thomas?

Answer: Take your choice.

What I object to is the assertion that there is only one conclusion to be drawn from the photograph.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Richard Gilbride]

Vanessa,

Apologies on the delayed response. Had to visit a hospitalized family member who's the better part of a day's drive away. Just got back to cyberspace. You seem to be slighted that I have not shown the same kind of adoration for Sean's hallowed hoax hypothesis as you. And it's true that I don't esteem your opinion very much. I have read several of your posts over the past year and still do not see you rising above being an ROKC cheerleader. But your response is good, you are getting somewhere.

But you set up a false dichotomy between me & Greg. My beef is with the attacks & insults that are hurled daily from his forum, which has a long laundry list of people it disdains, on a continual basis. Especially those who express opposing views to that forum's consensus. That is disrespect, plain and simple.

You are misunderstanding my position if you don't think I sign on to Prayer Man. I did in 2010 and have never wavered. There is more about that, and a critique of the methodology of ROKC's study of Prayerman, in the beginning of Part 1 of my Rob Clark interview. Part 3, from 13:00- 32:15, discusses the lunchroom hoax issue.

http://www.spreaker.com/user/thelonegunman/ep-88-inside-job-pt-3-final-with-richard

Baker was not going to night school studying to be an architect. He had a nickname with the force- "Mommason"- and was considered somewhat of a dope. Fritz, who assumedly read Baker's affidavit, does not exactly brim over with unequivocable assurance that Baker had in reality met Oswald on a stairway.

This is another of the negative data points assembled to construct the lunchroom hoax hypothesis. They all get assembled in the negative region of the x-y coordinate system. Hoaxers simply ignore data that doesn't fit in this negative region- the filmed Baker interviews, the will-call counter bump, WC Exhibit 3076, the lack of corroboration for Kent Biffle's news blurb, to name several.

This negative region is not the real world. Sean has seen the problem the Stroud document introduces since 2011. When you couple it with an understanding of the A & S and T & B timelines, it invalidates his hypothesis. This led him to discredit the Stroud document as just hearsay, and construct another fantasy- that T & B had taken the west elevator up- in order to salvage his lunchroom hoax fantasy. (see "Murphy's Postulate" at the end of my first lunchroom essay, which has a separate listing in the table of contents at the old ROKC site.)

The hoax hypothesis has yielded no results, save added confusion, in its 10+ years. It gives an imaginary confrontation between Baker & Oswald on the front landing. There is no substantiable evidence for this, just wishful thinking. It gives an imaginary encounter with "Spooky", i.e. the "3rd or 4th floor" man, who was "walking away from the stairway". It leads neophytes to believe Ira Trantham met Spooky and kept that hidden until his HSCA interview.

Believing the lunchroom incident happened gives these results:

1) the traditional critique, that Oswald was too calm to have just raced down from the sniper's nest

2) Howard Roffman's & Bill Kelly's point- that Oswald had to have entered from the direction of the central offices

3) A & S passed T & B while they were in the lunchroom, which Sean conveniently ignored when I posted it at Lancer in 2011

4) If Sean's research about Adams hearing the cables is correct, the west elevator began its descent approx. 60 seconds after the assassination.

[Richard Gilbride]

Tommy,

I'd say Adams & Styles were somewhere on the 3rd-floor landing, when Baker made it to the 2nd-floor landing. This is approx. Z-313 plus 50 seconds, given our current understanding that Baker touches the first step to the entranceway at 22+ seconds.

I didn't download the Lancer film study when I analysed it back in 2009. The meat of it was Sean's Lancer posts #61097 & #61202, from July 18-20, 2007. As I recall he worked in concert with a Jeff Daniels (not 100% on this name) and the politics at the time was debunking Gary Mack's assertion that Baker didn't reach the TSBD until 45 seconds. So my thought is that they may have settled on a compromise value somewhere along the line, adding up the respective factors, just to show that Mack was way off.

The Couch film started at approx. Z-313 plus 10 seconds, according to Roffman, and Baker reached the top of the landing at 15 seconds in one re-enactment.

[Thomas Graves]

I agree that PM presents the perfect enigma, and that pursuit of solving this enigma might be the most important research into the JFK assassination yet. I judge how close to the truth PM research has gotten by the almost panicked reactions of such LN super freaks as Duncan MacRae. This matter has the Dark Side deeply concerned, make no doubt about it.

However, in the process, let us not be so gullible as to swallow whole other "accepted" pieces of evidence in this investigation. For example, everyone simply "knows" that Baker was entering the front door of the TSBD within 15-22 seconds of the last shot. Excuse me for being a pest but, what proof is there that Baker immediately went up the TSBD steps, after crossing the Elm St. extension?

Ba Ba,

What evidence is there that Baker sprinted down to the corner to talk with one or two policemen, instead?

Did anyone say they saw him do that?

--Tommy

Edited December 7, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy,

I'd say Adams & Styles were somewhere on the 3rd-floor landing, when Baker made it to the 2nd-floor landing. This is approx. Z-313 plus 50 seconds, given our current understanding that Baker touches the first step to the entranceway at 22+ seconds.

I didn't download the Lancer film study when I analysed it back in 2009. The meat of it was Sean's Lancer posts #61097 & #61202, from July 18-20, 2007. As I recall he worked in concert with a Jeff Daniels (not 100% on this name) and the politics at the time was debunking Gary Mack's assertion that Baker didn't reach the TSBD until 45 seconds. So my thought is that they may have settled on a compromise value somewhere along the line, adding up the respective factors, just to show that Mack was way off.

The Couch film started at approx. Z-313 plus 10 seconds, according to Roffman, and Baker reached the top of the landing at 15 seconds in one re-enactment.

Richard,

I believe I read in Inside Job last night that you believe Baker and Truly were inside the lunchroom, confronting Oswald, while Adams and Styles were walking across the second floor towards the stairwell.

Logistically speaking, how does that fit in with your answer, above?

In other words, if Baker and Truly were on the second floor landing while Adams and Styles were somewhere on the third floor landing, was there enough time for Truly to get inside the lunchroom before he could be seen by Adams and Styles, given the fact that Truly had (apparently) continued straight ahead and started walking up the stairs to the third floor, and then, realizing that Baker was no longer behind him, gone back down and entered the lunchroom himself?

Thanks,

--Tommy

Edited December 7, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Prudhomme]

I agree that PM presents the perfect enigma, and that pursuit of solving this enigma might be the most important research into the JFK assassination yet. I judge how close to the truth PM research has gotten by the almost panicked reactions of such LN super freaks as Duncan MacRae. This matter has the Dark Side deeply concerned, make no doubt about it.

However, in the process, let us not be so gullible as to swallow whole other "accepted" pieces of evidence in this investigation. For example, everyone simply "knows" that Baker was entering the front door of the TSBD within 15-22 seconds of the last shot. Excuse me for being a pest but, what proof is there that Baker immediately went up the TSBD steps, after crossing the Elm St. extension?

Ba Ba,

What evidence is there that Baker sprinted down to the corner to talk with one or two policemen, instead?

Did anyone say they saw him do that?

--Tommy

Basically, Baker became the Invisible Man, once he reached the steps of the TSBD.

Anyways, you and the others are the ones claiming Baker was inside the TSBD in 15-22 seconds. I'd just like to see what proof you have to offer of this occurring.

[Thomas Graves]

I agree that PM presents the perfect enigma, and that pursuit of solving this enigma might be the most important research into the JFK assassination yet. I judge how close to the truth PM research has gotten by the almost panicked reactions of such LN super freaks as Duncan MacRae. This matter has the Dark Side deeply concerned, make no doubt about it.

However, in the process, let us not be so gullible as to swallow whole other "accepted" pieces of evidence in this investigation. For example, everyone simply "knows" that Baker was entering the front door of the TSBD within 15-22 seconds of the last shot. Excuse me for being a pest but, what proof is there that Baker immediately went up the TSBD steps, after crossing the Elm St. extension?

Ba Ba,

What evidence is there that Baker sprinted down to the corner to talk with one or two policemen, instead?

Did anyone say they saw him do that?

--Tommy

Basically, Baker became the Invisible Man, once he reached the steps of the TSBD.

Anyways, you and the others are the ones claiming Baker was inside the TSBD in 15-22 seconds. I'd just like to see what proof you have to offer of this occurring.

Ba Ba,

So in other words there are no eyewitness statements to the effect that Baker sprinted down to the corner?

With all those people standing around???

A motorcycle officer sprinting in his uniform, boots, and white helmet???

Why should we believe that he did, then?

Because it fits in with your theory?

--Tommy

Edited December 7, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Prudhomme]

Thomas

We have been over this many times. Here is a question for you. How many witnesses on the corner gave statements?

No, there is no proof Baker loitered at the corner. However, there is damn little proof that he immediately ran up the stairs, either, and what "proof" there is, is highly suspect.

Fact: Two eyewitnesses who were standing directly in front of the TSBD front entrance at the top of the stairs, namely Joe Molina and Buell Wesley Frazier, testified to the WC they did not see a "motorcycle officer sprinting in his uniform, boots and white helmet", despite the fact Baker likely had to shove these two men out of the way to get to the door.

Care to have a go at explaining this?