Bill Miller

It would not be the first time that people log into an account as someone else and write their own review or reviews for others just to give the appearance that good reviews are pouring in. I was on a site one time where one person got nailed for doing just that - he wrote his own review using a handle that he used years ago. In another field there was a guy who has three degrees to his resume and he says he can talk to Bigfoot through telepathy. Wrote a book about it and it too got good reviews. Now Bart says I am hiding behind you, but a review of your position was that you agreed with my own. I remember this site being called an Education Forum for a reason .... not the 'read my version and let me do the thinking for you' forum. It has been my reviewing the things written that allows me to make observations as an investigator and it appears Bart is uncomfortable with that. I respect that.

So now you want me to compound this issue with another guess. I say find better proof if seeker more guesses is what you are need of.

I will quote James Gordon: " Bart, .................. 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. " Bart response: " I'd like to add that the bigger picture and the barrage of evidence puts a very strong case together for Oswald to be Prayer Man. And that the pic. is merely the icing on the cake. The 2nd floor lunch room encounter did not happen. Oswald stated he was on the first floor.having lunch and while the motorcade went past. Many newspaper reports and interrogation reports support this. Shelley and Lovelady lied in their WC testimony when it came to to their timings and observations Truly lied. Baker lied. Reid and Sanders lied. Frazier has been economical With the truth as well. etc. etc. ............................................................................ " Bart response #2: " Crystal clear example of someone who is not up to date with the facts...I rest my case. "

I find it ironic as to how certain individuals will say that all these people "lied" without considering that various people can recall an event with some room for error and actually believe they are being truthful in describing the same occurrence. The lunchroom encounter is one such example. That encounter was investigated on-site and nowhere have I ever read that there was a lunchroom on the first floor that could be mistaken for the lunchroom on the 2nd floor. There was what was called a domino room if I remember correctly. But does that justify claiming people lied because it doesn't fit a personal belief? When Truly and Baker entered the building ... no one had said they went to a 1st floor domino room looking for an assassin. As I recall they had went to the elevator so Baker could get to the top of the building as that was his reason for entering the building in the first place. Once inside - it was the elevator not being readily available that led to Truly leading Baker to the stairway. I personally do not see the confusion here unless someone is wanting to be confused for what ever reason. Shelley and Lovelady's timing of their actions is another one. They basically are telling the same thing despite the poor style of questioning that they were being presented with. They saw Gloria Calvery running towards them crying and saying the President had been shot. That can be interpreted as she came up to the steps to them or they started down the steps to meet her. The Darnell film shows the latter to be the most likely probability. On that particular matter it looks like the only lie that was being told was the one involving our own interpretation of the poorly designed questioning of the witnesses. This is not uncommon when it comes to cross referencing witnesses statements. I personally believe that human error is often overlooked before claiming someone has lied. Both Lovelady and Shelley mentioned going from the steps to the divider/island. I believe it was Shelley when asked if he went straight across the street from the TSBD steps - he replied that it was a bit more angled to the right. And when asked about seeing Truly and the Patrolman entering the building - Lovelady said he looked back after 15 to 25 steps to see Roy and Officer Baker enter the building. I find nothing about what was said on that issue that was a lie. Even the going on from there to the RR Yard - pausing for a while and then heading back to the TSBD for a span of 2 - 3 minutes isn't a big deal as it they only estimated the time out in the plaza before returning to the building. Eventually Lovelady made it back outside and is filmed in the area of the steps, which that was my only interest in the matter. So yes, just keep telling people that everyone lied despite James asking that you make specific references as to how you reached that conclusion. At least if you have nothing more to add, then you won't have to worry about running up the thread count answering questions.

I did not say that either. I said that the Feds had to be careful how to pick and choose their battles so-to-speak. Running up to witnesses and saying they better not say they saw Oswald out front watching the parade is a bit extreme in my opinion. And to save you a lot of time ... those that have known me over the years and participated in the endless discussions of the evidence with me will tell you that I have been one of the more vocal researchers about there being a cover-up in the murder of the President. Several post ago I believe I mentioned how the rifle that sits in the National Archives and said to be the gun that belongs to Oswald is too long to have been the one Lee bought. I am certain that I posted how the WC attorneys went out of their way to not probe into what witnesses meant by the large avulsion in the rear of the President's head. As far as I am aware - I am the first one to animate stabilized frames from the Wiegman film to show there was indeed smoke that drifted through the trees next to the stockade fence just as witnesses had described seeing. I was also the first person to ever find the corresponding evidence in the Zapruder film. This does not even scratch the surface of the evidence I have seen in the case of the President's murder that pointed to there being a conspiracy right through to Dennis David's seeing the slides and film of JFK's head wound that isn't reflected in the official autopsy photos. None of these things preclude Patrolman Baker from meeting Oswald in the lunchroom any more than a witness stating that they did not see Lee out on the steps with them. There very well may be a good image depicting Oswald outside at the time of the shooting - no one has yet to produce it.

You still are not citing me correctly. Any purposeful manipulating of the evidence to mislead or wrongly convict someone of a crime is criminal act and punishable by law. Misstating what a witnesses claims to have said has some wiggle room for plausible denial. But purposeful and obvious falsifying of the evidence would be another matter all together and in that case it could bring about serious consequences for all involved and that is why one would not want to be exposed as being involved after the fact in the murder of the President.

Looked like he was standing there with his hands in his pockets and quickly took them out so to turn and run out of the line of fire.

Read my responses again as I am now thinking that you are purposely not wanting to understand the differences between what could be done that if discovered would be suspicious behavior compared to what would be considered blatant criminal behavior when it comes to the evidence.

I believe there was evidence that some agents within the FBI purposely misstated a witness. Julia Ann Mercer saying she recognized the man driving the truck below the knoll as being Jack Ruby would be one such example. I do not however believe that every time someone doesn't like a statement attributed to a witness that it means the FBI must have altered it, and once again it has nothing to do with Prayer Man being Oswald.or not. You earlier mentioned the large hole in the back of the President's head and how there was an attempt to cover it up within the autopsy photos. So I agree there appears to have been an attempt to downplay the rear head wound, but it was limited to the photos that the Feds had control of. Each time a Dallas Doctor mentioned the avulsion in the rear of the President's head ... the Commission Lawyer simply directed the follow-up questions in another direction. They didn't just remove it from the hearing testimony for to do so and have that act discovered later on would have been committing a crime at the highest level. The same about the Zapruder film being altered to hide something that happened as the car turning onto Elm Street from Houston. No consideration given to Zapruder using a hand-wound camera that had a running time of around 60 seconds. That risking running down the wind and having the camera stop when the President is at his closest to Mr. Z's location doesn't seem to factor in to the equation before claiming film alteration. Not taking the time to see that Tina Towner filmed the President and the First Lady during that non-eventful period slips some peoples minds. The independent testimony of witnesses as to when the first shot was fired gets ignored before going to a mass conspiracy to hide the limos turn onto Elm Street.

I think that had any witnesses had said that Oswald was outside with them watching the parade pass by, then history would have to of been recorded differently. Anyone found attempting to frame an innocent person might as well have pulled the trigger that shot JFK for then they would have to answer as to why they would want to protect the guilty by framing the innocent. There could be no other motive for doing it other than being involved in the killing of the President. With no one being certain that a photo or film might surface months, if not years, later showing Oswald out in front of that building during the assassination - the retribution would have been far too much to risk in my opinion.

I have to wonder if the unidentified woman marked "C" was Peggy Burney because she said the car had passed her location by 15 feet when the first shot had occurred. Peggy Burney: " The car had passed about 15 feet beyond me when I heard the first shot. I did not realize it was a shot; I thought it was a backfire. " Gloria Calvery said the President was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first shot. Hugh Betzner took his photo just before the first shot. His photo equates to Z186, thus the first shot sounded post the Betzner photo. At the time of the first shot between Z186 and Z202 - the President is about 15 feet past woman "C" - and is directly in front of where woman "K" is standing.

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

Not seeing much that I have not already known about for years. The clothing description i did not recall. Oswald tells Fritz that Baker came to him in the lunchroom to which Truly called Baker off by saying that Lee was an employee. Lee goes on to eat his lunch. Its only later that Lee says he was with Shelly outside as Shelley and Lovelady said they came back to the TSBD through the west side of the building. At some point then Oswald would had to of met up with Shelley to ask if he could go on home. But thanks for letting me know how informed you are.

I will only wish you luck as without a better photo of Oswald being outdoors - in work clothes - its just a flip of a coin. Somewhere there should be a description by Frazier or Truly as to how Oswald was dressed while at work on 11/22/63. Frazier drove Lee to work and Truly saw him in the lunchroom. What have you discovered about this?

Your photo when overlaid onto Croft's would certainly tell you if the lady who took the photo for you was at the exact same location and on the same line of sight as Croft. Considering the slope of the street ... a left or right - or an up or down adjustment can be important in how objects can look against each other.

I believe that there were some things that those various institutions and officials could not do and they were well aware of it. For instance - there were far too many people to account for so to insure keeping a lid on certain information from getting out. They couldn't stop witnesses from saying they saw smoke drift out through the trees along the picket fence or that shots had been heard coming from there. They couldn't stop folks from saying that they smelt burnt gunpowder down in the street any more than they could stop the assassination films from showing the strong gust of winds blowing Mary Moorman and Jean Hill's coats open in the direction of Elm and Houston street. (see below) Those same institutions could not possibly have known in the days - weeks - months - and years that a film or a clear photo wouldn't be brought forward to expose this large scale cover-up. I could go on and on with examples where this obviously wasn't done, so the answer is I do not believe Lovelady, Frazier, Shelley, and so on were prevented from saying they saw Lee on the front steps of the TSBD ... any more than someone saying they saw Lee in the lunchroom having his lunch at a time when people along the street were seeing men in the 6th floor windows.

Michael, that is not what I have said at all. Any investigation begins with gathering what available evidence there is and then by formulating a probable scenario based on that evidence. So far there is the Darnell film of a image of someone up in the entrance near the glass which could be about anyone - including Oswald. Next comes the examination of the statements given by the witnesses known to have been on the stairs during that time. Several of them knew who Oswald was and what he looked like. Buell Frazier gave Oswald rides to and from work. Roy Truly knew Lee by sight. Within hours of the assassination - everyone would have known that an employee of the TSBD was a suspect in the shooting of a police officer. Anyone who had access to a television would have been made aware of what Oswald looked like. Lovelady - Frazier - Shelley were among those who went out to the front of the building to wait for the President to come by. These witnesses had little else to do but wait in anticipation for a parade that would soon be coming. They were even afforded an extra 10 minutes to stand around as the motorcade was running late due to two unplanned stops along the way. When these witnesses were asked where they were and who they remembered being with them - they recalled each other. So the excitement didn't make them forget each other and I don't believe they would have forgotten fellow employee - Lee Oswald. But no one saw Oswald standing there with them. And there is a big difference in being asked if they remember whether or not Lee Oswald was there with them Vs was there any people around them that they didn't know. Frazier could know that Lee was not standing next to him atop of the landing while also not being aware of who's name belonged to a poorly washed out figure he was being shown 50 years after the fact. What I am saying is that without more evidence in the way of a photo or someone recalling Oswald standing there with them during and/or post shooting, the investigation has reached a dead end. The premise that if no one recalls Oswald being there with them and yet cannot say who the fuzzy person was in Darnell's film is somehow proof it must have been Lee, then that is not a finding based on reliable evidence in my view.

A.S. has designed a merry-go-round approach. A 'Who's on First' routine if you will. It goes something like this ... Prayer Man was probably Oswald - If Frazier won't say this person was Lee, then Frazier must have been too traumatized to remember he and Lee standing together - And if Frazier cannot ID the degraded faded image in the Darnell film, then it must have been Lee Oswald. And the who premise relies on everyone who worked in and around the TSBD all knew one another, which is a crock in my view!

If Frazier saw Lee next to him, then I don't believe anything would make him forget that. Most everyone else who stood near their friends remembered who they were with. And if someone was showing Frazier that fuzzy faded crap image from Darnell's film that you have been pushing here, then it is little wonder that Frazier couldn't say who the guy was.

What I clearly was saying is that you cannot bring yourself to admitting that you were wrong. I will quote for you what I said to Sandy " You just pointed out what Graves had to of seen, but didn't want to say it ". Your reasons for dancing around the specific is not really my problem. The fact is that you still can't address my observations and will choose to try and deflect attention away from it when possible. I saw the 'poll' thread you started in much the same way. Polls are often times created to try to see if there is support for one position over another as if the majority must be the ones who are right. They really have no definitive value. Taking the two women's image and breaking it done for specific differences is the only way to properly investigate this issue in my view.

Correct, Sandy! You just pointed out what Graves had to of seen, but didn't want to say it. Here is what I was sitting on ... There is no way on earth that I can see someone confusing the two woman as the same person if given a serious examination for differences. Compound this with the DCW remaining near the street at a time Patrolman Baker was racing to the stairs of the TSBD - that Lovelady and Shelley both said they were approached by Calvery as she was returning to the TSBD - and that Molina had Calvery come up to him inside the entrance to the TSBD just after Officer Baker had entered the lobby (and at a time the DCW is still found near the street where the President was shot). I am confident that the two women are not one in the same person and I won't need to bother conducting a poll in hopes of getting some validation.