James R Gordon

I am well aware that Richard and Sean reflected on other employees. That is described in the book. The point is that when it comes to the point to decide who could be Prayerman only those known to be on the steps and Oswald were seriously decided. It would be different if the Robin Unger image were clear - though I agree it is the clearest so far - but it is not and there is nothing in that image on which serious discussion can be made. It is a grainy image from which all kinds of assumptions can be made. And that is the problem. Prayerman could be anyone. But Stan is convinced it is Oswald and it is clear a third candidate would clearly be inconvenient to the present argument. I understand that, but what is absent in this argument is clear evidence why Prayerman cannot be anyone else but Oswald. Yes it could be Oswald, but so far there is no evidence why it must be Oswald and why it cannot be anyone else. Without that this is a flimsy argument. As regards the second floor meeting, I have yet to get to that part. The 2nd floor meeting is an established part of the JFK assassination literature. I am interested to see the evidence why it actually never took place. Swearing at ROKC is not the only activity there. Character undermining appears to have been the sole activity at ROKC in the recent weeks. James.

I bought the Prayerman book. It is written by Stan Dane. It is written much as a diary and the main ideas are very much opinion and assumption. The real brain behind this theory is Sean Murphy. I remember Sean from Lancer and he was certainly a thoughtful researcher. However Stan is taking his thinking - which was a great number of years ago - as gospel. I have no idea what Sean thinks about his ideas from the 1990’s today. The identification of Oswald as this man is based on spurious evidence. Prayerman is clearly a person, but until the 1990’s when Sean identified him and actually named him, the research community were unaware he was even in the image. One thing that bothers me is the poor research. There is a section where Stan comments that Prayerman was not him, not her and so on therefore he had to be Oswald. But that is utter nonsense. I seem to remember there was well over 100 employees and therefore this Prayerman could be anyone of them. Prayerman is identified as being one of a select group: those who are known to be in the doorway and Oswald. Prayerman could be anyone. Oswald is included in this group because of Fitz’s notes. But we have no idea whether Oswald ever was on these stairs. Oswald says - in Fitz’s notes he was outside - and that is taken as gospel. Fitz's notes have been the source of considerable debate in the JFK assassination community however because Oswald says in these notes he was outside that is considered a fact in the book. That Prayer man could be any one of the other employees in the TSBD is not considered. They do not exist. The only ones from whom the selection of Oswald was made were those known to be on these outside steps and Oswald. Not exactly the pinnacle of academic research. I have not completed the book, but it appears ( based on what I have read so far ) to be very much “castles in the air” type of writing. Bart mentioned the reviews, actually we do not have the real names of many of these reviewers. One is actually called Hidell. I suspect many are ROKC members. So I am not sure these reviews - which are indeed positive - may be friends supporting Stan and not legitimate reviews. There is certainly no academic or a reputable JFK assassination researcher who has reviewed the book - as far as I can see. I will complete the book and write a proper review. James

Bart, I agree with Bill. I have read most of the thread and - aside from the circumstantial evidence throughout the thread - I see no consistent line of thought. On a number of times you have chastised members to read the whole thread. In doing so, you imply that once having read the thread we will better understand your position. It is a real “cop-out” and evasion of the numbers questions that have been raised to respond by saying “read the whole thread.” May I offer a suggestion. It is clear you know the thread better than most. Therefore - rather than constantly referring members to read the whole thread - which contains around 1000+ posts - could you highlight what ( for you are the most important posts ) for us to read to better understand your position. James

I have deleted my posts about where the two individuals were going. I thought I was seeing the entrance to the TSBD, when infant I was not. James.

I believe so Ray. Unless I have misunderstood the the image, it appears to me that the entrance to the TSBD is in front of them. I understood that - if you take the Houston Elm Street crossing then: a) to go from the TSBT to Main Street is to go South. to go from the crossing - on up Houston street - is to go North. Therefore I believe if the two are walking towards the TSBD entrance they are actually walking west. I believe that is correct. Please correct me if I am wrong. James.

Bill, I have just read through the entire thread - a point that Bart suggested. It is such a jumbled thread - which moves in all sorts of directions - you come away somewhat confused. Bart suggests that having read the complete thread the member would fully understand the theory and argument for Prayerman. Well I am not sure anyone is more informed having read the complete thread. From what I can see there is no summary post or starter document as there is in Prayer person. This thread was started by William Kelly wondering whether the Prayer man is actually Oswald leaving the TSBD.The term Prayer Man was created by Sean Murphy - whose contributes in the early pages of the thread - because the figure William Kelly thinks may be Oswald has his hands and arms are positioned in a way that makes it looks like the person is at prayer. James

Bart, I had hoped you might consider debating. I accept your decision. James.

Bart, With respect this is not "Case Closed.” Bill Miller is a highly respected JFK assassination researcher. Photographic analysis is one of his skills. I agree one of the pillars of the Prayerman argument is whether these two individuals are Lovelady and Shelley. From what I can see all Bill is saying there is not the evidence in that image to conclusively argue to for it to be Lovelady or Shelley. I am well aware that Parayerman - Bart - is an important issue to you and I understand the work and effort you have put into this issue. I am well aware of the comments that are flying about at the ROKC site about this thread and - particularly - Bill's intrusion into the debate - something from what I can see you have not involved yourself in. There is a weakness in an argument when you suggest that if Bill cannot appreciate your point of view then it is his loss. I - and indeed the EF - have waited a long time for two serious minded researchers to extensively debate this issue - and that is what we now have. May i ask that you take this opportunity to debate this issue with Bill. I believe you are the most skilled proponent of the Prayerman issue. If you can convince Bill of your position then I do believe it may well be "Case Closed."Bill Miller is only raising the kinds of question any serious researcher would be expected to ask and - to be fair - would surely have a right to expect an answer. James

Sandy you should be able to edit previous posts and delete the attachment there. The problem of using the EF's attachment resource is that it is very limited. Most members who want to posts significant numbers of images etc. use a third party to store them. I use "Photobucket". All you then do is post the link from your storage provider. This way the size of your image is not calculated in your post - as it is if you upload your image directly to the EF. I pay for my "Photobucket" account because I need the size of space for other needs. However if you do not anticipate uploading thousands of images - and/or videos - then Photobucket's free account might be sufficient for your needs. There are many other alternatives to Photobucket all of which have similar provisions. The advantage of this method is that you dod not need to delete previous images to provide room for new images. Also by deleting your image it is removed from your post and it may make your posts difficult to understand. James

Here is a colour image of the shirt james

Hi All, I have just re-sanctioned work on the Lancer Archive. I know I keep changing my mind. I had not heard from Debra Conway and I assumed - wrongly as it turns out - that she had no other backups. Well I was wrong she does have other backups. I do not know whether they are clean backups, corrupted or partial clean/corrupted. I am hoping for the former. Now that there is a real possibility that recovery might be accomplished I have agreed to allow it to go ahead. Sorry for the confusion. I really did think this morning that was an end of the matter. James.

Bart, I agree and I am very disappointed too. I am kicking myself. I was informed two years ago all data could be recovered. I never checked with the developer whether, that was actually the case. That is my fault. I will need to think about it - but I may allow interested parties access to the raw archive. Though going by what has been described as to its quality I am not sure just what good that will do. I had high hopes for this archive, however that is now water under the bridge now. James.

Hi All, I am sorry to announce, but today I cancelled the Lancer Archive project. It was clear from the conversations I have been having that the extent of the hack was so severe that there was a possibility that no data would be recovered or precious little data. It got to the point that I felt it would be better to cut my losses rather than go on. Sorry. I really had hoped this archive could have been restored. James.

Hi all, I had a conversation with the developers of the Lancer archive today. I was curious why it was taking so long. The problem is that those who hacked it "did a real job" as the developer explained to me. Most of the links are unable to be recreated because when re-established they link to porn sites or shoe stores. At present very little is able to be restored. I have contacted Debra to see if - by any chance - she has other back ups that could be used to restore the archive. If anyone knows where other back-ups reside - even partial ones - indeed even very early ones they would be of great help to the developers. To be honest, although the site will be recreated, it is possible that there might be little left of what was once JFK Lancer. The developer commented to me that "unfortunately the files that were provided to us have as much, if not more, malicious code than original material." That said I still live in hope that we can be successful - but I have to accept the reality that a full restoration may not be possible. James

From what I can see the object is an indented screw. James

I am going to lock this thread for a period of time. I believe that this thread is going nowhere at the moment. Andrei Stancak commented that he “will explain the exact location and body orientation of Prayer Man and other figures in the doorway in some of my future posts after I complete the reconstructions.” It is my view that until then further comments are simply going over the “same old" territory and getting nowhere. We are at 39 pages so far and Andrej has made it clear he does not wish to continue this debate until he has his model complete to illustrate his point of view. So this thread is locked until then. Andrej when you feel your model is fit to be posted please contact me and I will immediately re-open this thread. James

Tom, PM's are now "Messages". They are identified by the envelope to the left of your name. Simply click the envelope and choose "Compose New." Essentially this upgrade is the same as the previous system, however there are some differences. It may take us a while to get on top of all the differences. We could not remain with the old software because Invision no longer supported it. Hopefully we will soon iron out all the kinks in the system. James.

I will look into the problem with bios. I am sure they are available, but I am not sure where. I certain Invision would not delete them. James

I contacted Invision about post numbers and got the following reply: “Post Numbers are internally numbered. If you select the share icon in the top left, you will see comment= and a number at the end. This is the internal post number. There is no numbering such as 1,2,3 on an individual post. This was actually removed from the software as it was extremely misleading. The 5th post for example for yourself, may not be the 5th for someone else. Lets say for example you can see post 2 and 3 but they are hidden, for you post 5 would indeed be the 5th post in the database, however for others it would show as post 3 (because they dont see the 2 hidden posts).”

Good point Sandy. I am sure there are post numbers but - like you - I also cannot see them. I will look into it.

David I will will check with Invision about whether the new version can still keep your original hyperlink references. Ray and Thomas, I believe when you click on "Follow" you get a list of who is one line. I will see whether this can be placed at the bottom of each page as before. James

Hi all, I thought I would share where we are with the Lancer Upgrade. The Home page is now complete, with one error correction to be made. There was a tab that linked with the latest Lancer books for sale. Unfortunately the developer believed I wanted that link removed and not the two books highlighted on the Home page. The proper link will be restored shortly. Since posting I see the site has been updated. The links to JFK Lancer are deliberate and reflect the history that JFK Lancer has had on the JFK research community. Assassination Magazine. Lancer used to have a magazine called “Assassination Chronicles.” When the developer put that link in I had not anticipated it. However I decided to leave it and see whether we cannot collectively put together - say - an annual research magazine. After all there is a massive combined resource within this forum. The Assassination Links and Resources are again a reference to the mission of JFK Lancer. When you click on Login you get a choice to either go across to JFK Lancer or continue onto the Lancer rebuild. When you click on Lancer Forum you get a choice between the two essential aspects of the rebuild. The Lancer Rebuild itself. Presentations and Seminars. Presentations and Seminars is essentially a video based forum. This is a site where members can make major video presentations / etc. I am hoping - and I understand the site will be able to support it - that maybe once a year we can run a live seminar/conference. What is happening now is the actual Lancer rebuild. I an still living in hope that the site can be launched for the assassination weekend. The link to the present rebuild:- http://asp.wcukdev.co.uk/designer3/JFKLancerArchiveRebuild/html/index.html I am interested in suggestions and thoughts. James.

I have given permission to Invision to upgrade our Forum software. Our present software is no longer supported and the problems one member has contacted me about an inability to PM another member appear to be related. Once the upgrade is complete the forum may look a little different and we will just need to get used to that. It is better - if we do have problems - that we are using a forum software that is supported. James.

This thread is now open again. James