Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

DVP: "A person standing on the front steps couldn't be an assassin." 

Just remember that DVP said this.  

Why? Is that blatantly obvious fact---that a person can't be in two places at the same time---supposed to somehow come back and bite me in the rear end in the future?

~shrug~

 

Quote

My second comment: that whole second floor lunch room encounter has been decimated by, among others, Bart Kamp, Greg Parker, and Sean Murphy.  

It was manufactured and Baker never got his story together about it.  Anyone who supports that today simply is either not aware of the new work, or is just denying the new facts.

And it's my opinion that anyone who could possibly think that the second-floor lunchroom encounter never occurred at all is a person living deep within a fantasy world all their own. There are many reasons to disregard the conspiracy fantasists who constantly insist that the Baker/Oswald encounter never happened at all. (See link below.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/THE LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER

Excerpt....

"It seems as if a whole new breed of conspiracy theorist is among us. And members of this new breed, in addition to being part of the proverbial "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity, are now also members of the "It Never Happened At All" club too.

I can remember not that long ago when CTers would argue in FAVOR of the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter happening just where all sensible people know it happened--in the second-floor lunchroom of the TSBD. With those CTers using that FACT as "proof" (they would say) of conspiracy, because they'd say that Oswald couldn't possibly have made it down to the second floor in time to see Officer Baker in the lunchroom.

But now we get INHAA [It Never Happened At All] members (like Mr. DiEugenio) who can never use that other "He Couldn't Have Made It There In Time" argument ever again---because DiEugenio is convinced the encounter never happened at all.

And the same with the "paper bag" argument. In past years, that brown paper bag (CE142) that Oswald was seen carrying on the morning of November 22, 1963, was propped up as a "proof of conspiracy" crown jewel by the conspiracy faithful, with the CTers insisting the bag itself was proof that Oswald never carried any rifle into the Depository on November 22 because the bag was way too short.

But now, it's a new ballgame with the bag. And people like Jim DiEugenio can never again utilize the "Too Short" argument. Why? Because Jimmy assures the world that Oswald never had a bag at all on November 22. Go figure.

Kind of funny, isn't it? I think so." -- DVP; July 2015

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone looked into the Psychological Stress Evaluator and Voice Stress Analyzer test done sometime in the 90's that say that LHO was telling the truth when he said, No, I didn't kill the President?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a whole book written about it.  By a former CIA agent named George O'Toole.

Its a good book.  In addition to Oswald telling the truth, he also concluded that Frazier was not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To continue with what I was saying, if Oswald is out front, the second floor lunch encounter is complete BS.  Because Baker dashes past the PM figure.

Therefore all the things that have become so suspect about that piece of mythology become accurate.

Recall the problems with Baker.  Once he says LHO did have a Coke in his hand, in another he did not.  Truly said Oswald's hands were empty. 

In one version of his story, Baker said he encountered LHO on the first floor.  Truly identified him as an employee and they rushed past him to the stairs.(The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 217)

When Dulles and Belin finally questioned Baker on this story, they went off the record no less than five times. (p. 218)

In my book I also detail how Oswald's words were altered over time, especially after he was dead.  On the 24th, the FBI has him remembering the gun in his stomach. (p. 219)

Isn't it amazing what the FBI can do if the defendant has no attorney, and then passes on in the arms of the police?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

To continue with what I was saying, if Oswald is out front, the second floor lunch encounter is complete BS.  Because Baker dashes past the PM figure.

Right. And that's just one more reason (among many) to conclude that Prayer Man is most definitely not Mr. Lee H. Oswald.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"When Dulles and Baker... finally questioned Baker five times, off the record."  So Baker was questioned 5 times, off the record, by Warren Omission director Allen Dulles, former CIA director fired by JFK? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Derek Thibeault said:

I tend to believe what he said, at least the stuff we have on tape from the police station. I know criminals lie, but my opinion is he didn't do it so I believe him but I still don't believe he was in the doorway. Doesn't mean I am right. For some reason, it's not what he says that strikes me but his reaction when told that he, in fact, was charged with JFK's murder. His face says it all to me.

I agree with you, totally.  Oswald didn't shoot JFK.  Period.  DVP's point of view is skewed and completely off the sanity radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, if Lee Oswald was Prayer Man, he could not be the President's assassin. This is the reason why Prayer Man identity will always attract attention and cause a lot of excitement on this or other forums. The consequence of Lee Oswald being Prayer Man would be a total destruction of the official version of JFK's assassination which many, including the mainstream media, would like to prevent by all means.

So, what evidence is there to support the possibility of Lee Oswald being Prayer Man?

1. Cpt. Fritz's (FBI Agent Bookhout) notes indicate that Lee in his own words allegedly went out to see what was the excitement about. He allegedly spoke to Bill Shelley while outside the building. This would be consistent with Lee being somewhere on the first floor during the shooting where he could hear the excitement. It is my personal view that he happened to be in the vestibule behind the glass door sipping Coke from a bottle he purchased on the second floor from a vending machine there. It is not clear whether he was passing the glass door after he descended from the second floor using front stairs or whether he stood there for a brief period of time before going out.

2. Thus, Lee was not watching the motorcade outside. He himself told during his interrogations that he did not watch the motorcade (Inspector Kelley's affidavit). The evidence for Lee's and Prayer Man's absence in the doorway during the passage of the motorcade could only be provided by Hughes film. The doorway is captured from about 30 degrees southeast angle (Hughes standing on the left-hand sidewalk of Houston) and it therefore shows the western wall as a dark plate. The film is very blurred, however, it still shows gross contours of persons who stood in the doorway and who could be captured from Hughes camera angle. After spending a lot of time on frames of Hughes film, I can say that there are spots belonging to Billy Lovelady, Carl Jones, even Buell Wesley Frazier, but no traces of Prayer Man. I will prepare a reconstruction of Hughes doorway scene in due time, however, the outcome of a 3D analysis will hardly change anything on Prayer Man not being at his spot at the western wall.

3. We cannot know about the presence of Prayer Man in the doorway from Altgens6 as the western wall is in a blind space in that photograph. Prayer Man is first seen in Wiegman film. The timing of Wiegman relative to Z-film and Altgens6 is important. My analysis suggests that the doorway scene changed quite substantially between Altgens6 and Wiegman suggesting that several seconds have elapsed. Some changes in people's locations require detailed reconstructions of Altgens6, Wiegman and Darnell and this is beyond the scope of this thread or post. However, an easy-to-spot difference is that Carl Jones is looking towards the east (Houston Street) in Altgens6 but towards a general area of Tripple Underpass in Wiegman.  There are other more substantial differences in the constellations of doorway occupants between Altgens6 and Wiegman to which I will come at some point later. Thus, there was a period of potentially several seconds which elapsed between Z-255 (Altgens6) and the moment of Prayer Man's presence in the doorway during which, I conjecture, Lee Oswald might have squeezed himself through the semi-open glass door and jumped (in two steps) to the only available space which would not obstruct the view of other people (Mrs. Stanton, Mr. Frazier).

4. The physical resemblance of Lee Oswald and Prayer Man (based on my reconstruction of the doorway using the realistic figure of Lee Oswald posing as Prayer Man).

A. Prayer Man was 5'9'' which was the body height of Lee Harvey Oswald.

B. Prayer Man was a male as was Lee Harvey Oswald. The gender can be determined by both the appearance and the body height - there was no chance in 1963 that a female would measure 5'9''.

C. Prayer Man was a white Caucasian as was Lee Oswald.

D. Prayer Man was a Depository employee. There is no evidence or any witness testimony by people standing in the doorway that an unknown person would step up to the top landing during the shooting.

E. Prayer Man wore a shirt which had long sleeves rolled up to the elbows, the shirt was of a light colour (but not bright such as white or yellow) as it yielded a light grey tone after converting it into a grey scale on a film. We cannot see the waist or belt on Prayer Man, therefore, the shirt was worn with the front and back facings pulled out of pants. The top one or two buttons on the shirt are open, and possibly the lower buttons as well because the shirt wraps around the waist and hips. All these features are consistent with Lee's light-red, button-down collar shirt (CE 151) which he wore on Thursday and on Friday morning before changing it for the dark CE150. The image below shows both shirts, the CE151 worn in the morning, and CE150 worn in the afternoon of that fateful Friday. Pat Speer should be credited for obtaining the coloured version of CE151 from NARA in 2016 (patspeer.com, Chapter 4b in Pat's book). 

44920015_2162001783811058_63086398892733

 The distribution of dark spots on CE151 in a diagonal fashion from the lower left front facing to upper right chest suggests that the owner of this shirt had often carried dusty boxes, like this:      

ja_krabice.jpg?w=246&h=300

 

My 3D model reproduces the dark spots on the shirt CE151, however, Darnell stills are too blurred to be able to see these details on Prayer Man's figure.

F. Prayer Man shows dark hair compatible with Lee Oswald's hair colour if converted into grey scale. The hairline seen in Prayer Man's figure matches Lee Oswald's hairline very well.

G. Prayer Man effectively stands with his right foot backward (this foot bears the body weight) and his left foot forward and bent in the knee joint. There are numerous examples of Lee Oswald standing in this posture from childhood to adulthood. Here is an example  of Lee showing such posture when he visited his brother Robert while on leave: 

yo_all.jpg

 

 And a 3D reconstruction of this posture:

yo_varia.jpg

 

Give Lee steps, and he will step with his right foot on the lower step to support his body and with his left foot on the top step to keep balance - the left leg would be bent in the knee joint in this case.

H: Finally, the match between the 3D model of Lee Oswald and Prayer Man (shown on page 2 of this thread). This match, while not a proof, is a very strong indication that Lee Oswald actually could be Prayer Man. There is no single physical feature in Prayer Man which would not be compatible with Lee Oswald's figure. I hope those who do not believe that this would be possible could now understand better that there are researchers finding compelling data to support the possibility that Lee Oswald was Prayer Man.

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected by David Von Pein, on Truly/Baker and what they said.  Marion Baker said he saw someone on the 3rd or 4th floor.  But, guess who was with him when he saw that person.  Roy Truly.  Truly doesn't mention this event at all.  We still do not know who this person was.

In my mind Baker and Truly are in the same category.  When I think of one I think of the other.  Particularly, in the 2nd floor story that is not mentioned early on in Baker's 11 22 63 statement.  Their stories don't match.  Some one is being untruthful or both.  There is variation in their testimonies over time in what they said.  This is similar to other witnesses whose statements vary from what they originally said.

Von Pein is correct with my memory slippage but, only in that case.

 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To follow up on point 4G in my previous post,  there is an eerie similarity between Prayer Man's posture and Lee Harvey Oswald's posture in the infamous backyard photograph. Of course, the authenticity of backyard photographs has been questioned for good reasons; yet the resemblance of this man's and Prayer Man's arm and leg postures is staggering.

 

andy_3panels.jpg

 

 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, John Butler said:

I stand corrected by David Von Pein, on Truly/Baker and what they said.  Marion Baker said he saw someone on the 3rd or 4th floor.  But, guess who was with him when he saw that person.  Roy Truly.  Truly doesn't mention this event at all.  We still do not know who this person was.

That's because there was no encounter on the 3rd or 4th floor at all. Baker simply made a mistake on the floor numbers.

And it's quite obvious---from the very first day when Baker filled out his affidavit---that Baker wasn't sure which floor he encountered Oswald on.....because Baker mentions TWO different floor numbers.

So why not cut Marrion L. Baker a tiny bit of slack on this "3rd or 4th floor" error. Jiminy Christmas!

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

More Musings:

Let's see.  Marion Baker needs to be cut a little bit of slack in his story error of the 3rd or 4th floor meeting a man on the steps.  If he had said the 2nd or 3rd floor then one could cut slack for Baker but, not for that kind of error by an unindicted co-conspirator who changed his story to be similar to another man (Truly) who gave his story a day later.  It's a story to keep Oswald in the building when he was out on Elm Street taking pictures of the motorcade (Prayer Man) and after it passed he returned to the steps of the TSBD to be filmed by Couch (Darnell) and Weigman.  We call this fellow Prayer Man/Oswald.  And, Marion Baker passed him on his way into the building and that is clear in the film.

Echoes of James DiEugenio.  Jiminy Christmas!  Should I say case closed? 

Edited by John Butler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2019 at 4:41 PM, David Von Pein said:

Well.....yeah. (Duh.)

Difference being:

A person standing on the front steps couldn't be an assassin. And a person who was on the sixth floor at 12:30 could very well be an assassin and would have wanted to put as much space between himself and the scene of the crime as possible in the 90 seconds that immediately followed the murder that he himself had just committed.

You couldn't figure that out yourself, Andy?

Replay needed here ----- Duh!

 

Glad you wrote it in big letters so I could understand. But as I said earlier, just because you are a jerk doesn’t make you right. My point in making the comment was that nobody believes Oswald sprinted down 4 flights of steps to get a Coke without being seen. It’s as absurd as him dashing up there to get a Coke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

My point in making the comment was that nobody believes Oswald sprinted down 4 flights of steps to get a Coke without being seen. It’s as absurd as him dashing up there to get a Coke.

Well, then, why the heck didn't you mention the word "unseen" in your previous post that I responded to? How was anybody supposed to know what you meant? You left out the key words --- "without being seen". I wouldn't have responded with my Double-"Duh" if you would have put in that extra information. I'm not a mind-reader. The way you wrote your first post makes it seem as if you think it was totally absurd for an assassin on the sixth floor to merely have a desire to go downstairs in order to get the heck away from the crime scene.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian Doyle just ripped Jim D and Kathy Beckett on Facebook for being banned from here because he was arguing against the Prayer Man theory. Called Jim a fraud. I assume it was more than that since many people who don't agree are still here. That's what this forum is for the right to discuss issues with differing opinions. I believe in a lot of what Jim says but I still don't subscribe to the Prayer Man theory, of course with the right convincing I could.

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

×