Jump to content
The Education Forum

PRAYER PERSON - PRAYER MAN OR PRAYER WOMAN? RESEARCH THREAD


Guest Duncan MacRae

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Bill:

the witnesses did no fear HIM (Oswald), they feared of the Dallas Police Department and the FBI agents.accused people and witnesses were treated to yield one desired outcome. The well known officer from JFK investigation Gus Rose is one of the key players in this story

In the beginning I believe that no one would have had a reason not to help the police catch the real killer or killers. Oswald was thought to be a loner and Baker and Truly actually did him a favor by running into him in the lunchroom so soon after the shooting. So if someone is wanting me to believe that Truly vouched for Oswald to Baker because he was afraid of the DPD and the FBI, then I say rubbish to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

Show me where the evidence is for that assertion, not your beliefs. Where did Baker and/or Truly say so!

Try not to squirm out of this,  deliver or retract!

Third time Bill Miller.....

Deliver or retract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

I choose not to join a foul mouthed low-brow site. Blame it on how I was raised.   :)

You and your 'reasoning' or 'beliefs' would be chewed out without one iota of foul language. 

That simple.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Thanks, Bart, for posting this. Here is a paragraph from Larry Sneed's "No More Silence" which can be attributed to Roy Lewis:

"Due to my lack of excitement, I was one of the last ones out of the building before the motorcade arrived. That's why I wasn't outside near the street like most everybody else. Instead, when I came out, I was standing with some ladies from up in the offices right in the middle of the steps in front of the building that led to the sidewalk beyond the glass door." 

and:

."...  The people down in front of me hit the ground then everybody started running toward the grassy knoll. Apparently the people assumed that whoever was doing the shooting might have been over there so I followed them. But before we could get far, a policeman stopped us and told us to go back into the building ans wait...."

I read this narrative as indicating that Lewis could only be outside the building just before and after the shooting.

I guess we need to trace the origin of the T15 reference in the chart you posted. Are 22:621 and 24:259 the volumes:pages of the Warren Report, and where does this chart come from? These discrepancies are actually quite informative.

 

Mary Ferrell

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=40395#relPageId=29&tab=page

 

A healthy dose of common sense ought to tell you one thing.

It was not a great thing to be black in the 60's in the south and having to deal with the police. Piper, West and the lads on the 5th floor are all over the place with their statements. Lewis is no exception either. If you see Lewis' video from last year then again the whole thing is unconvincing especially with Larry Rivera assigning him to Carl Edward Jones' position.

I wonder what is taking more of my time these days, reading unsubstantiated drivel or the real deal.

My money is on the former......

Edited by Bart Kamp
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bill Miller said:

I do not buy that witnesses were too scared as I believe that theory has become a convenient excuse for some people. If anyone was with Lee or saw him nearby, then they would have no reason to fear him by offering an alibi for him. And once he was dead - there was no reason to fear him then either.

Pure speculation

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Bill:

I see it differently. Piper was sitting next to some window in the office space area of the first floor during the shooting. He could not see anyone in the vestibule because the vestibule was separated from the open space by a wall. When Piper went back to the north of the first floor, Oswald, if he was in the vestibule, could not be seen by Piper. So, Piper may have been speaking the truth about not seeing Lee Harvey Oswald, however, this has no bearing to Oswald's presence in the vestibule/doorway. 

Roy Lewis's testimony is not conclusive at all:

"On November 22, 1963 at approximately 12 :25,PM I stood by myself on the inside of the front entrance of the Texas School Book Depository Building to watch President John F . Kennedy come by the building in a motorcade . I heard three shots fired from somewhere above me, but was unable to see the person who fired them "

"The inside of the front entrance" could be both the vestibule or one of the lower steps. Roy Lewis was interviewed two years ago, and it seems clear from that interview that he was outside, maybe somewhere around the lower east part of the doorway, or just in front of that corner. He was somehow guided by the interviewer to admit that he was the Afro-American gentleman in the lower west corner of the doorway which very likely was not the truth. Anyway, Lewis did not say that he would be standing behind the glass door during the shooting,  

The relevant instant in this interview starts at: 54.18.

Thus, neither Piper nor Lewis provides any testimony excluding Oswald's presence in the vestibule before and in the doorway during the shooting.

Now, we still have Shelley's, Arnold's and Jarman+Norman's testimonies pinning Oswald to the first floor in instants of the period from the noon onward.  

 

That is about the worst interview ever done, from a sound p.o.v., editing p.o.v. and above all from a badgering p.o.v.

Last year's biggest letdown.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2017 at 3:11 PM, Bill Miller said:

Huh???  How about Oswald being seen walking towards the inner door the 2nd floor lunchroom after having just bought a coke.

Please produce the document of a coke in Oswald's hand when Baker allegedly saw him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

I addressed Truly and Baker's meeting Oswald half way down page 60.

That is not what I asked!

For the 4th time or is it the 5th? Losing count already.

Please produce the document of "Oswald being seen walking towards the inner door the 2nd floor lunchroom after having just bought a coke. "

Edited by Bart Kamp
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

Not speculation, but rather probability.

Merely a belief nothing else. You do not seem to be well aware (a pattern emerges no?) of how the DPD was operating in those days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

That is not what I asked!

For the 4th time or is it the 5th? Losing count already.

Please produce the document of "Oswald being seen walking towards the inner door the 2nd floor lunchroom after having just bought a coke. "

I have not found yet who referenced Lee having bought a coke, which is trivial as far as Truly and Baker meeting Lee on the second floor in the lunchroom.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

Merely a belief nothing else. You do not seem to be well aware (a pattern emerges no?) of how the DPD was operating in those days.

I have read a lot about how the DPD operated in those days, but that doesn't mean that every witness was intimidated by the DPD. There are just some people who couldn't walk ten steps across a fresh fallen snow and look back over their shoulder to see their own prints and think someone must be following them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill:

I think that there is quite a difference in our attitudes towards the Warren Commission Report. You seem to take the Report literally and consider any view which opposes the course of actions as described in the Report as unjustified. Since it has been prepared by the government and since witnesses testified under oath, all what is described in the Report should be the truth. Warren Report in your eyes may contain errors but those only result from lapses of memory, and are not reflecting any evil intention on the part of a witness or the council. A researcher having this view  will stick to the Warren Report "facts" and will happily copy parts of the testimonies again and again considering them to be a proof. Basically, this attitude will only result in highlighting some omissions and discrepancies in the Report but would never question the validity of the Report itself. Researchers of this sort will never come out of the box, and will not cause any crack on the official version. 

Other researchers, and I belong to those, admit that there are pieces of truthful information in the Warren Report. However, this other group of researchers opines that the Report itself is a cover-up, an instrument of the Government to conceal the truth for maybe a noble or a criminal reason. The Report only elaborates on the framework document prepared by the FBI only three days after the assassination. The FBI furnished all visual evidence to the Commission, and also interviewed a number of witnesses on behalf of the Commission. 

As the Report aided only one preconceived version of events, it had to be twisted and information either trimmed or changed to meet the goals. Examples? Moving the back wound from the back to the neck is a good example. Saying that the rifle could be packed in a sack measuring 27 inches means ignoring the fact that the rifle, even if broken, could not fit that bag. Altering Vicki Adams' testimony and accepting her authorised and correct version was criminal. Ignoring a number of witnesses reporting shooting from the Grassy Knoll is a wishful trimming of reality. And there are many more examples, highlighted early on by the pioneers (Lane, Epstein, Sauvage, Josten, Mellen, to mention just a few).

There were innocuous pieces of information in the Report and here I would not doubt their veracity at all. This may include the question to Marina about the clothing worn by Lee Harvey Oswald on the morning of assassination. Such low-voltage question would be asked, answered, and recorded. However, there were also high-voltage questions which referred to Lee Harvey Oswald's whereabouts and which needed to be in line with the lone-nut version. Only these points needed to be carefully checked and sanitised. Thus, having in the Report truthful answers to a large number of questions does not guarantee that the critical questions were also answered truthfully. 

Baker's second floor encounter with Lee Harvey Oswald is one of the high-voltage questions. While you assume that the Report is basically a source of truthful information (within the limits of human memory) and therefore Baker's encounter had to happen as described, other researchers assume that this is actually where the truth needed to be suppressed in the Warren Report else the preconceived lone-nut theory would collapse. It is difficult to prove that Baker's testimony was not faithful. Sean Murphy did this work in the main Prayer Man thread. It is very instructive how Baker's reports of the encounter changed, the timing of testimonies, or the Coke bit. These are the cracks in the official version which allow to say that the second floor lunchroom encounter did not happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrej

A beautifully written and very accurate description of the entire Kennedy case. Now if only we can convince the "conspiracy is everywhere" researchers that not everything  is a conspiracy, we'd  bring a lot more respect  to the CT community.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...