Then went outside to watch the P. parade

[James DiEugenio]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

It's interesting to note that out of 331 posts on this thread 117 of them, over one third, are by Dave and Frank.  The Fact that we now have three of their trusted reliable sources saying Oswald said he was out front when the parade went by seems to be disturbing to them.  Has their faith in the Warren Omission been shaken?  They've become extremely defensive on the subject.  Great job stirring the hornet's nest Bart, and of course Uncle Malcom.

I agree Ron.

Its really struck a nerve.  And not just here.

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

16 hours ago, Vanessa Loney said:

David, here you can hear Buell Frazier say he kept quiet out of fear of what could happen to his family. He says it right at the end of the interview IIRC.

https://jfkfacts.org/c-span-to-air-telling-story-from-oswalds-co-worker/#more-6018 

  

 

"You best keep silent, not go around talking, cause I don't want anything to happen to my family .................. I can accept a lot of things happen to me .............. but not my family" - Frazier

Powerful stuff!

 

Has anybody here tried playing the video? I tried and got an error saying the video is no longer available.

 

[Tony Krome]

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Has anybody here tried playing the video? I tried and got an error saying the video is no longer available.

 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?313792-1/lee-harvey-oswald-kennedy-assassination

[David Von Pein]

16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

It's really struck a nerve.

Just one more thing you're dead wrong about.

[David Von Pein]

The Frazier 2013 video is also on the Sixth Floor Museum YouTube channel.....

 

[Vanessa Loney]

17 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

But stuff like this gets taken out of context a lot in this (JFK) case. Take Acquilla Clemons, for example....

"CLEMONS: But see, I take care of an ill man here. And she don’t want me in anything because it would upset him. She’s awful fond of me...

[Dale Myers speaking:] This is the first ah-hah moment – one that has been hidden from public scrutiny for better than fifty years. Here, for the first time, we have Mrs. Clemons explaining that it’s not a cadre of faceless, nameless law enforcement officers harassing her to keep quiet (as everyone has been led to believe by Mark Lane and the conspirati), but rather, a strong suggestion by her employers – John and Cornelia Smotherman – who are no doubt sick and tired of the parade of “journalists” (remember, this is the third visit in as many weeks) who keep showing up at her home." -- Dale K. Myers; November 1, 2017

More:

 

Nice misdirection there David. We are not talking about Clemons we are talking about Frazier who is a key witness. Your side has stated that that the fact the Frazier won't identify PM is evidence that PM wasn't Oswald. The PM side say that quite possibly witnesses, including Frazier, were intimidated.

Frazier says his family were threatened.

And you do a quick sidestep. 

What is your actual response to Frazier's claims? Was he lying?

[François Carlier]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I agree Ron.

Its really struck a nerve.  And not just here.

What ? Are you joking ? You are sooooo wrong !
As a matter of fact, I feel like I am watching people wasting their time on a wild goose chase. Didn't you read my numerous posts ? I actually think that they were very sensical.
I laid out factual and logical reasons why I do not believe for a second that your so-called "prayer man" is Lee Oswald.
But nobody could answer my posts. Certainly NOT Mister Bulman who seems to be only capable of coming here from time to time to write one or two empty sentences. But he'll never be capable of answering my logical arguments.
There is one point nobody ever answered in this thread : You are all saying that "Prayer man" was Oswald, therefore Oswald had an ironclad alibi, therefore he was not JFK's assassin. But wait a minute ! For 55 years, you have all been telling us that Oswald was the patsy, the scapegoat, the victim of a frame-up. He was framed ! But hold on a second, if he was "prayer man", then he wasn't framed. I mean, you can't imagine for a second a conspiracy so ridiculous that they plan to frame someone but don't care where that man is at the time of the shooting and don't know whether he has an alibi or not ????? At the very least, if you want to frame someone, you make sure that he has no alibi and you make damn sure he is not in the open among his colleagues !!!!! In other words, you conspiracy advocates have to explain to us how in the world the conspirators agreed to have Oswald moving freely on the steps of the TSBD. It doesn't make sense.
I'll tell you something : I have no respect for people such as Bart Kamp. He's not only totally wrong, but on top of that he is arrogant, and he flees from the debate. He is just wasting his time and everybody else's time. As I have said several times, Bart Kamp is to "prayer man" what Jim Fetzer was to the "fake Zapruder film" or Barr McClellan to the "Wallace finger print" : a spokesman for a new ludicrous theory that will only last temporarily and eventually die down and disappear.
As a matter of fact, I am quite confident. Very, very confident.
The truth is, I have indeed given several arguments for which you have no answer.
Not to mention David Von Pein's always excellent posts, which I always enjoy reading. You all try to either make fun of him or ask that he be banned from the forum, but you never actually address the points he raises.
All the available, valid evidence points to Oswald NOT being outside during the shooting.
That's a fact.
Now, as I have shown, all you can do is claim that everybody was lying and witnesses were coerced or frightened.
Yeah, sure, and Buell Frazier is still afraid ? Of whom ? Clay Shaw ?
Come on.
Just to sum-up :
- Marrion Baker and Roy Truly talked to Oswald on the second floor of the building
- Oswald himself said he was in the building
- Nobody ever saw him outside at the time of the shooting
And the dirty, easy tactics of accusing honest men of lying is something that I I'll never accept.
I'll tell you what. If anybody here manages to prove that "prayer man" was Lee Oswald, I'll eat my whole book live on line, naked under a thunderstorm.
(I'm fine. I'm safe. It can never happen).
By the way, keep in mind that you are a minority.
Same as Lifton : not many conspiracy-oriented people believe in his body-alteration theory
Same as Fetzer : not many conspiracy-oriented people believed in his fake-Zapruder-film theory
Same as McClellan : not many conspiracy-oriented people believed in his Wallace-did-it theory
Same as Bonar Menninger : not many conspiracy-oriented people believed in his Secret-service-fire-by-mistake theory
Etc.
I have given the names of conspiracy authors who do not buy your "prayer man" theory.
So bear in mind that even among your group of conspiracy believers, you are not able to convince people that you are right.
Let alone among the reasonable people who acknowledge that the evidence clearly points to Oswald.
At any rate, to me, the case is not only closed, it was never open in the first place. I never for one second believed that there could ever be any substance to your wild "prayer man" ideas.
I'm pretty sure that when Kamp finally admits that "prayer man" is not Oswald, he'll begin searching for Oswald among the bystanders in the Zapruder film. Or, worse yet, he'll try to look for Oswald not on Elm Street, not on Houston Street, but on Main Street. Just wait. He'll soon tell you that Oswald was really on Main Street at the time of the shooting.
Be ready !

[François Carlier]

30 minutes ago, Vanessa Loney said:

Nice misdirection there David. We are not talking about Clemons we are talking about Frazier who is a key witness. Your side has stated that that the fact the Frazier won't identify PM is evidence that PM wasn't Oswald. The PM side say that quite possibly witnesses, including Frazier, were intimidated.

Frazier says his family were threatened.

And you do a quick sidestep. 

What is your actual response to Frazier's claims? Was he lying?

Are you saying that Buell Frazier actually saw Oswald near him at the time of the shooting but was such a coward that he never dared say it to anybody, including his family, or even send an anonymous note to a journalist (and thus letting an innocent man be accused of murder), and to this day, fifty-five years later, and though he has appeared on numerous conferences, interviews, documentaries, and everything, he is still afraid that conspirators might come to harm him ?

Is that what you are saying ?

Come on, be honest, tell us.

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Vanessa Loney said:

Nice misdirection there David. We are not talking about Clemons we are talking about Frazier who is a key witness. Your side has stated that that the fact the Frazier won't identify PM is evidence that PM wasn't Oswald. The PM side say that quite possibly witnesses, including Frazier, were intimidated.

Frazier says his family were threatened.

And you do a quick sidestep. 

What is your actual response to Frazier's claims? Was he lying?

Well done! My thoughts exactly. Whataboutism...?? Zzzzz. Frazier's and other's claims of prosecutorial or police malfeseance is totally believable to me. Our family new well what it meant to get snarled up with Texas police (actually anywhere in the deep south) and when this all went down (particularly Oswald's shooting) it raised all sorts of eyebrows. I'm not saying one way or another whether Oswald is PM or killed Kennedy but any suggestion that the "Pros from Dover" at DPD cracked this case in 24 hours is highly suspect. To me it shows gross naivete on American values and norms that existed at the time. I personally know former cops that had several plants on them at all times (they'd brag about it in the bar in hushed tones). They always justified it because they knew better and fixing prosecutions helped streamline justice. Bart's discovery of Hosty's notes just adds another piece of evidence that the original investigators left quite a bit to be desired.

I also wonder whether the Secret Service wanted grab everything they could and get out of Dodge ASAP for exactly that reason. The DPD had a well earned reputation at the time and any testimony taken by them is always suspect in my mind.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Bob Ness

[François Carlier]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Do you believe what FC wrote above?

If Oswald was so innocent (being "prayer man", having the perfect alibi since he had been outside during the shooting sequence), then try explaining to us why he killed a policeman half an hour later !

Uh, sir, we do not know that at all.  To pose just one question:  Did you ever call Officer Nelson to ask him why he drove to Dealey Plaza when the order on the radio told him and TIppit to go to central Oak Cliff?  

And if this was a genuine order, why did it not exist on the first radio transcript the WC got?   After all the WC and the DPD were looking for any excuse to place Tippit anywhere near where he was not supposed to be at that time: 10th and Patton.  You also might have asked Nelson why he did not directly acknowledge that order, it might explain why the dead TIppit did not either.

You could also have looked around to see if there were any crimes in central Oak Cliff that somehow superseded the murder of President Kennedy in importance.  (I kind of doubt it.) And BTW, all of the above is in Henry Hurt's book which dates from decades ago. (pp. 161-63)

You might also ask Howard Willens of the WC why they never deposed Murray Jackson, the actual broadcaster for the DPD.

Now, if there was no emergency to move into that area, then that may explain the rather bizarre order that came across nine minutes later, "You will be at large for any emergency that comes in."   This is about 25 minutes after JFK has been shot.  And they have not found anyone culpable for the crime.

Now, guess what, the third time was the charm.  The third transcript, produced in April, did finally have replies to the order.  But they were not direct replies.  They just said where the two men were at that time.  Did not explain why they ended up in separate places under the same order.

But here is the real puzzler: there already was an officer in Oak Cliff.  His name was William Mentzel.  Now look in the volumes and find where the WC interviewed Mentzel or Nelson.  And I should add, the weird order about being at large for any emergency that comes in, that was only sent to Tippit. (The above material is from McBride's work on the TIppit case, Into the Nightmare, pp 421-25.  Which I am sure FC has not read.) 

Let me know where you have addressed all these questions.  As I would like to see your answers Mr. Carlier.

You may also want to read this https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-case-in-the-new-millennium

The Tippit case has been broken open.

Mister DiEugenio,

Thank you for your long post. I must admit that you do work seriously and that your posts are worth reading (I can't say the same for the c-r-a-p- that some people such as Bulam annoy us with).

Yet, I'm sorry to say that you are wasting your time, and I don't mean to mock you at all when I say that. I'm just telling you the truth. You are wasting your time. Because all that you have written is just side waste, if I may say so.

Mind you, I read Henry Hurt's book in 1990, while I was in the US. I own that book. I am well aware of it.

All the items of your list are questions. Not evidence. And they are trivial.

So, Officer Nelson drove to one place and Tippit to another place ? How interesting !

So Murray Jackson was never interviewed by the Warren Commission ? Is that so ? Then, what ? He was not killed nor threaten. So if he had anything interesting to say, why didn't he say it ? I didn't stop him.

When shots were fired at the President of the United States, well, it doesnt' happen often, and everybody was shocked and surprised. Nobody was prepared for that. There was confusion. OF COURSE !

I mean, you used to be a teacher. Suppose there was a bomb blast in your high school in the middle of class time. What do you think people would do ? Act with precision and calm and order  ? Maybe a touch of class on top of that ? Wouldn't there be some confusion ? What if I wrote an accusing article some years later saying : "Why did Mister DiEugenio take the back stairs, when the south staircase was closer to the high-school sickbay ? Why did he stay in building C, with maths teachers, whereas at least two history teachers where in building B ?" 
You see ? Dumb questions from someone who was not there and has no idea what it is like to find oneself in such a situation.

That leads nowhere.

I have read Dale Myers book and it is exhaustive and very, very good.

As to McBride, well, do you mean the guy who believes that I am a paid disinfo agent ? Well, that shows how "good" his research skills are !!!!!!! 😁

Mister DiEugenio, all your questions won't change the fact that Lee Oswald was seen at the scene of the crime and that Ted Callaway saw Oswald with his weapon in a raised pistol position and he even talked to him !!!!!!!!!! I mean, come on. You, on the other hand, were not there. So I choose to believe Callaway.

No, the Tippit case has not been broken open.

Lee Oswald did kill Tippit. That's an absolute fact. No amount of groundless insinuations on your part or McBride's part can ever change that fact !

Edited February 16, 2019 by François Carlier

[François Carlier]

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, how long will it take for FC to reply?

Oh I forgot, its very late over in gay Paree.

Because, those questions I posed are only the beginning for the newest info on the Tippit case.

If VB had brought that case up--as he should not have been allowed to do in London-- with all this new info, he would get murdered today.

Ted Callaway was there, for Christ's sake ! He talked to Oswald. He saw Oswald with his revolver.

No amount of your so-called "newest info" can ever change that  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[James DiEugenio]

LOL  ROTF

Francois:

I just flipped open Accessorries After the Fact  to p. 258, this is how Meagher quotes Benavides:

1. Callaway had to ask Benavides what had happened.

2.  Callaway had to ask him which way the perpetrator fled so he could chase him.

That is some witness FC.  Callaway also said he never saw Helen Markham at the scene. Would you agree it was hard to miss her in hysterics?

Milo Reech and David Josephs are doing some  remarkable work on the TIppit case over at DPF.  They have gone even beyond the info  in my essay.  

As I said, the TIppit case has been broken open.  And I did not even mention Doris Holan.

Edited February 16, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

delete

Edited February 16, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Eddy Bainbridge]

10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I'm satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald could not possibly have been in a storage room near the front entrance of the TSBDI rejected the Campbell "sighting" because....

1. Campbell, on 11/24/63, said to the FBI he had never seen LHO in his entire life, which contradicts Campbell's alleged statement in a newspaper from the previous day. So, which report should we believe? I really don't know, but I'll ultimately choose the "never seen" report. Why, you ask? See #2 below.

2. I'm satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald could not possibly have been in a storage room near the front entrance of the TSBD on the first flooor shooting at JFK at 12:30.

 

That is a confirmation about what I said about your thought process. You have received two new pieces of evidence (Ochus Campbell article and Hosty report) and your response is ;

 

"I'm satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Oswald could not possibly have been in a storage room near the front entrance of the TSBD".

 

Of one thing there is NO doubt. The new evidence relating to Prayer Man casts doubt on the whereabouts of Oswald around 12.30. It is extremely disturbing that in 2019 we can look back and see a pattern of changing witness evidence.

 

Do you move even slightly from 'beyond all reasonable doubt' when faced with two pieces of contradictory evidence?

[Eddy Bainbridge]

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 7:31 AM, François Carlier said:

 

As far as "Prayer man" is concerned, well, I can safely say this : he is NOT Oswald. Try as you might, you can never prove that this shadow/guy is Lee Oswald. Why ? Because Lee Oswald was inside the building, not there on the steps. And here, see, I am applying critical thinking skills. It's easy, by the way. If someone is somewhere, they are not elsewhere. So, as Oswald was inside, he was not outside. Period. Nobody can ever show something that did not happen, therefore nobody can ever show that Oswald was outside when he was not. 

 

Have a nice day !

I have searched this thread to find a quote that encapsulates the reason I am now adding you to my ignore list. You have had nothing valid to say on this thread. I distinguish you from DVP who I believe presents good contrary arguments and supporting evidence. The above paragraph is drivel. If you present  a child with evidence of their wrongdoing they say ; 'I didn't do it' with no supporting evidence supplied ("Why ? Because Lee Oswald was inside the building, not there on the steps") If you challenge a child as to their thinking skills they say 'no I'm really clever' ("And here, see, I am applying critical thinking skills. It's easy, by the way.").  You are also abusive, another childish trait.

If you ever make a useful post I hope reaction to it will alert me. On ignore now.