James R Gordon

Paul,

I agree and you comment about his "meticulous research" is for me the critical point and the reason I can accept ( or at least reserve my opinion ) on what would otherwise be outrageous theories. Those - and especially LN's - who openly criiticise his opinions have not undergone the nearly 50 years of primary research that he has conducted. That work deserves an unbiased hearing.

And James, I agree the absence of the new volume is a mystery. I am assuming David is working on further evidence. However - that said - it is one of the books I am most looking forward to.

James.

I am  sorry to hear that news. I am also very grateful for the number of times Bernice helped me with images I was trying to acquire.

I found her to be a very positive person and a great contributor to this forum. She will be sadly missed.

Admin has decided to close this thread. It is clear - that after 76 pages - the debate is going nowhere. The proponents of PrayerMan are so grounded in “their truth” that any alternatives suggested are quickly dismissed.

There does exist a forum that supports this theory and - maybe - that is where the supporters of this proposition should now congregate and endlessly repeat their views to the like minded resident there. The Education Forum stands for thoroughly researched evidence and theories and although serious attempts have been to introduce logic and discipline into this topic the supporters of PrayerMan have made that impossible.

An update on the Lancer Archive:-

I do not know whether I mentioned it but the original files that Debra Conway transferred into our safe keeping were horrendously corrupted. The developer informed me that he had never witnessed a hack this severe. There was no possibility of a restoration as  [ not only were the files corrupted ] the very structure of the site had been destroyed. At that point it appeared that the project had come to an end.

However - just on a hope - I contacted Debra to see whether she had stored earlier backups. She answered that she had earlier backups and sent us one. However not only was this backup corrupted it did not contain the a backup of the data files.

Hoping that there was still in existence an earlier backup I contacted Debra and asked for a copy of the structure files as well as the data files. Debra informed me that although this was a difficult time for her she would download a further copy. Unfortunately the download did not fully work and it was never received.

Recently I became aware what Debra meant by it being a "difficult time" for her. Her sister - Sherry Fiester - is very ill. And it is the kind of situation I  prefer not to disturb Debra at this point in time.

So where are we?

First:- It appears that clean backups of the JFK Lancer do exist. And therefore it appears a restoration is indeed possible. However - being earlier copies - it is not clear just how much of the archive will now be able to be restored.

Second:- Restoration is on hold. Debra has enough on her plate without me reminding her to re-download the set that earlier did not download properly.

Third:- the developer is happy to pause the restoration until the clean set of data is sent to them.

Fourth:- I suspect it will be a little while before the restoration is begun again.

James.

Sandy,

I believe the original site has expired.

There is a new one. 

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/forum

James.

One of the features of this forum dating back to its very origin is the requirement that members conduct their conversations in a courteous manner. 

Generally speaking that has been the overwhelming norm on this forum. 

That said some threads have been more lively of late and this expected standard has - on occasions - dropped.

It is not acceptable that when discussions become heated - as discussions are on the Oswald has left the TSBD thread - to resort to insulting members. 

We - members of the admin - ask members to abide the established code of discussion. 

Those who continue to transgress will be rewarded with an extended holiday from posting on the forum. However it is hoped that will not be required to be implemented.

James

Thanks Robin,

Do we have any kind of time stamp for this image? I know Lovelady and Shelly are not insight at this point, but they are out of picture and making their way along Elm.

It would be helpful to know approximately when this image was taken.

James

15 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

James you now also confirmed that you are not up to date with all the material either.

Why do people in here do not ask questions about the material instead of stating their opinion based on the partial evidence they only are aware of.......and with questions I mean the ones that have not been asked/discussed before. The search system on this forum is one of the best around!

The second floor encounter fugezi is all the more telling for placing Oswald away from the 1st floor where Oswald stated he was.

Bart,

I am making my way through this book. I know the book is called “Prayerman: out of the shadows and into the light.” However it could very easily have been titled “What Sean Murphy said.”

I do not know if you are involved in the slagging-off that is currently going on in ROKC and the members there. It says a great deal about the character of those members but more important the extent ROKC and the membership will go to when they notice someone criticising an issue they hold to be important to them. I can understand the abuse that Bill Miller and I have received. But I am appalled that just because Robin Unger commented that he did not believe Prayerman was Oswald a whole page in their current web of abuse directed at EF membership has been devoted to unseemly abuse directed solely at Robin. I say shame on ROKC and shame on those members who participated in this kind of criticism. I do hope you are not a party to this behaviour for although I disagree with you on this issue I have found you to be an honourable person.  

And now to respond to the second floor encounter. It has become clear to me that this is a critical issue - and one the supporters of this theory cannot allow to stand. 

There is a very telling moment in Chapter 2. Stan quotes Sean Murphy reflecting that if the encounter with Baker took place at the second floor lunchroom then Prayerman is unlikely to be Oswald. Throughout the book it becomes very clear that the second floor lunchroom meeting becomes a crucial part of the narrative. If it can be questioned and undermined then it will support Prayerman being Oswald and - if it cannot be questioned - the second floor meeting will destroy the idea that Prayerman is Oswald.

Aware of the damage if this meeting could be established as factual Sean muses that even if Oswald/Prayerman is in his position outside and sees Baker rushing into the building there was still time for him to leave his position rush upstairs to the second floor grab a Coke and be there in time for the meeting. This scenario goes nowhere because it is quickly realised just how ridiculous it is. 

However - ridiculous though this idea is - it underlined just how critical the second floor meeting is and how if not dealt with it could explode the idea that Prayerman was Oswald.

And this has raised a thought. Throughout the book we are told this person lied, this did not happen, this testimony is false. I am now wondering whether this is all gamesmanship to protect Oswald being Prayerman rather than the fruits of research.

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.

3 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

I have posted several times that I had started reading the thread. What I have seen so far is circumstantial evidence.

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