Steve Mcdonagh

Hi Everyone

Has anyone heard of or seen Sean Murphy? His profile page says he has not been active on here since Nov 22nd 2013.

Thanks - Steve

Well then, you have to answer my questions - who made up this story and how come they didn't get it right?

It wasn't sufficiently plausible to the Secret Service when they re-enacted it, and wasn't sufficiently plausible for the Warren Commission lawyers when they called Truly back to ask him if the door had an automatic closing device, and it wasn't sufficiently plausible to Goldberg who had the FBI get additional sworn statements from Truly and Baker on the night before they released the Warren Report, and it wasn't sufficiently plausible to Howard Roffman, a young college student who wrote all about it in "Presumed Guilty," and it wasn't sufficiently plausible to Sylvia Meagher or me or anyone who has looked at the situation even remotely.

It wasn't sufficiently plausible to the 80% of the people who don't believe the Warren Report.

If "Prayer Man" is Oswald, that doesn't prove the second floor encounter is fiction, as Sean contends, I think if Oswald is "Prayer Man" then that gives more weight to the second floor encounter, and Oswald's innocence.

And what if the whole second floor lunchroom encounter - that exonerates Oswald, was made up, and is one big lie? What are you going to do about it?

What can you do with it?

Where are you going to go with it?

Argue about it on Internet forums?

Is that the goal?

I'm sorry you're so frustrated, Bill.

All I've been trying to do is show how the Second Floor Lunchroom Encounter, whether it happened or whether it was just a fabricated story, did not necessarily exonerate Oswald. You think it obviously exonerates Oswald and therefore couldn't have been fabricated, because only idiotic bad guys would have been so stupid as to fabricate a story that actually exonerated Oswald. I'm saying it didn't necessarily exonerate Oswald, so it very well could have been fabricated by non-idiotic bad guys.

I'm finished arguing with you on this. My head is sore from beating it against the wall.

Sincerely,

--Tommy

Tommy I think you are right!

The story worked and it has done its job for fifty years regardless of any imperfections it has.

Bill makes some good points with his reasoning of how a second floor encounter may have played out but I find his comments and insistence that the second floor encounter exonerates Oswald misguided. It doesn’t exonerate Oswald. It never has exonerated Oswald and it never will exonerate Oswald and if it did, could or would then Oswald would surely already be exonerated?

The thing that bothers me about this whole second floor encounter is not that Truly is (or is not) sufficiently leading Baker (a gun toting professional law enforcement officer) up the stairs in search of at least one (could be more for all they knew) gun toting assassin(s) and misses Oswald supposedly going through, walking by or just hanging around a second floor vestibule door; but why was Truly leading Baker at all?

1. Why would Baker allow a civilian to sufficiently lead him (a gun toting cop) up the stairs in search of possible assassins?
2. Why would Truly wish to put his life in danger by sufficiently leading a gun toting cop up the stairs looking for assassins?

The reason I suspect is because it simply did not happen like that. I have serious issues believing that the unarmed Truly is charging up the stairs ahead of an armed professional policeman (Baker) in any way shape or form. I also have difficulty believing that Truly (after first supposedly vouching for Oswald) later becomes suspicious of him to such an extent that he has to alert the DPD?

In my opinion if anyone is susceptible to leading (or having their story enhanced) then surely an apparently unassuming Truly becoming both hero and detective in the same day is a viable candidate. Is Truly the lynchpin of the second floor encounter?

Regards - Steve

Hi Richard

“Bill feels that the traditional Lunch Room story accepted by both the WC and the Critical Community is strong enough to stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald.”

• Yes I get that part but obviously in official circles it doesn't otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Furthermore if it could or was ever likely to ‘stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald” we still wouldn’t be having this conversation.

“I think there is another option. We cannot exclude the possibility of Prayer Man/Oswald going up to the second floor after Truly and Baker had passed through the Lobby. And perhaps after Campbell had ascended the Lobby stairs to the 2nd floor (to vindicate the sighting by the storage closet). Getting Oswald from the 6th floor to the lunch room in time to see Baker is problematic. Getting Oswald from the front lobby to the 2nd floor is not”

• Whilst it is true that the second floor lunchroom encounter cannot be discounted it is also true that both lunchroom encounters cannot coexist. Therefore one or the other has to be in error or even an error that led to a fabrication?

“We know a group of employees went up to the 2nd floor offices right after the assassination. It is entirely possible LHO also decided to go. We have no evidence that precludes this possibility. Could he have made it all the way to the lunch room? Possibly.”

• There are many things that could have happened and some are indeed possible but by all accounts the Baker/Oswald (+Truly) encounter did not involve a group merely these three. So common sense dictates (just like common sense would dictate if someone is going to take the time to hide a gun they would also take the time pick up the shells) that the incident happened before a group ascended on the second floor otherwise there would have been many more accounts of the event.

“A simple sighting of Oswald on the 2nd floor would give strength to any lunch room story, whether it happened as advertised by the WC or was simply a last resort fabrication by the conspirators to get LHO as close to the NW stairs as possible.”

• And this is why I assume this encounter is important to the FBI/DPD but not for reasons of potentially exonerating Oswald but because they needed to put him closer to the sixth floor.

At the end of the day in my opinion there is one fundamental problem with the Baker sees Oswald on the second floor story and that is that Truly did not see him. Truly (according to reports) led this charge of the light brigade up the stairs but he didn’t see or hear anything that alerted his attention to the second floor lunchroom and the question is why?

Are we really to believe that he was fearlessly so far ahead of the gun toting Baker in search of the big bad guys that had just shot JFK that he didn’t see or hear anything when he passed the door thus allowing Oswald and opportunity to slip past the door but unfortunately for him just in time for Baker to see him? Then we have the body popping Oswald sitting, standing and leaning against the table, the counter and the coke machine.

I am sorry but it’s just too much of a pill to swallow. I think Sean is onto something when he says it likely happened on the first floor and the reason Truly didn’t see Oswald through any door before Baker was probably because he hadn’t caught up with Bakers 0-60 in 3.2 seconds dash to the front door vestibule yet. Maybe he should have worn his Nike’s?

Regards - Steve

Steve,

you appear to have inferred content in my post that was neither there, nor implied.

• At no point did I say a group of people entered the Lunch Room. That is an element you introduced.

• You also introduced "both lunchroom encounters" ?? I am aware of only one alleged encounter in the Lunch Room.

• Likewise your last two paragraphs also appear to be taking me to task for items that were not in my post. Were these directed at me?

Just to clarify, my original post had one main idea: Prayer Man/Oswald may have gone up to the second floor. If he did go up to the second floor, it is possible he may have been seen in the vicinity of the Lunch Room.

My replies in purple - RH

Hi Richard

Actually I am not taking you personally to task on any issue, so I am sorry if you perceived that from my response as it was not my intention. I was merely commenting that both encounters cannot coexist and it has to be one or the other.

I still do not know what you mean by "both encounters" ... ? RH

Your comments did however seem to imply there was another option but actually it appears to be just another way of describing a possible second floor encounter which is fine if your hold sway to that event happening. As for the group of people going up the stairs shortly after the assassination and LHO potentially doing the same, well of course this is possible, but again it seems to be just another explanation of how Oswald gets to the second floor lunchroom encounter?

I am not "endorsing" a 2nd floor encounter. I am saying that Oswald may have been seen on the 2nd floor (perhaps in the vicinity of the Lunch Room). There is a difference.

In piecing together Oswald's movements after the shooting, I don't think we should assume he never went to the 2nd floor. RH

Don’t get me wrong I understand you want to explore all possibilities and I respect that (after all I have read all 60+ pages) but Sean is trying to lay the foundation for the second floor lunchroom encounter never happening at all and ironically with every anomaly you guys raise with the second floor encounter you are indirectly helping him to lay it.

Exploring all the possibilities will hopefully lead to the most accurate explanation of what happened. As I have said several times in this thread, Sean is doing a remarkable job. For the most part, I believe he is spot on. There are however, a few points in his narrative where I think alternative possibilities exist. RH

I am no expert like some of you and I don’t pretend to be, but if the encounter did not take place on the second floor, then logically wouldn’t this explain why much of it doesn’t make sense? Bill makes a good point when he says “it would be physically impossible for Truly not to see Oswald if he was going through the lunchroom door” and I not only agree with this point but I believe it to be a perfect example that if you can’t make the second floor encounter work after fifty years then surely there is something fundamentally wrong with it? What if the second floor lunchroom encounter (SFLE) anomalies are in fact errors because there was no second floor lunchroom encounter?

As far as I know nearly every single piece of the JKF case has been argued a thousand times or more; but I have personally never heard anyone argue this point before.

The recent introduction of Prayer Man into the mix has stirred things up a bit. As I said in another thread, early researchers did an outstanding job, but they did not have this information on Prayer Man available to them. RH

Regards – Steve

PS: For what it’s worth Richard I think you have been doing a good job in this thread and have made some excellent points.

Thanks, Steve

Hi Richard

As with Tom above I have edited my post because I felt my response was also a little too curt and after re-reading your post (above) I feel I have a better understanding of your points. Thank you for your patience.

Kind regards - Steve

Hi Richard

“Bill feels that the traditional Lunch Room story accepted by both the WC and the Critical Community is strong enough to stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald.”

• Yes I get that part but obviously in official circles it doesn't otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Furthermore if it could or was ever likely to ‘stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald” we still wouldn’t be having this conversation.

“I think there is another option. We cannot exclude the possibility of Prayer Man/Oswald going up to the second floor after Truly and Baker had passed through the Lobby. And perhaps after Campbell had ascended the Lobby stairs to the 2nd floor (to vindicate the sighting by the storage closet). Getting Oswald from the 6th floor to the lunch room in time to see Baker is problematic. Getting Oswald from the front lobby to the 2nd floor is not”

• Whilst it is true that the second floor lunchroom encounter cannot be discounted it is also true that both lunchroom encounters cannot coexist. Therefore one or the other has to be in error or even an error that led to a fabrication?

“We know a group of employees went up to the 2nd floor offices right after the assassination. It is entirely possible LHO also decided to go. We have no evidence that precludes this possibility. Could he have made it all the way to the lunch room? Possibly.”

• There are many things that could have happened and some are indeed possible but by all accounts the Baker/Oswald (+Truly) encounter did not involve a group merely these three. So common sense dictates (just like common sense would dictate if someone is going to take the time to hide a gun they would also take the time pick up the shells) that the incident happened before a group ascended on the second floor otherwise there would have been many more accounts of the event.

“A simple sighting of Oswald on the 2nd floor would give strength to any lunch room story, whether it happened as advertised by the WC or was simply a last resort fabrication by the conspirators to get LHO as close to the NW stairs as possible.”

• And this is why I assume this encounter is important to the FBI/DPD but not for reasons of potentially exonerating Oswald but because they needed to put him closer to the sixth floor.

At the end of the day in my opinion there is one fundamental problem with the Baker sees Oswald on the second floor story and that is that Truly did not see him. Truly (according to reports) led this charge of the light brigade up the stairs but he didn’t see or hear anything that alerted his attention to the second floor lunchroom and the question is why?

Are we really to believe that he was fearlessly so far ahead of the gun toting Baker in search of the big bad guys that had just shot JFK that he didn’t see or hear anything when he passed the door thus allowing Oswald and opportunity to slip past the door but unfortunately for him just in time for Baker to see him? Then we have the body popping Oswald sitting, standing and leaning against the table, the counter and the coke machine.

I am sorry but it’s just too much of a pill to swallow. I think Sean is onto something when he says it likely happened on the first floor and the reason Truly didn’t see Oswald through any door before Baker was probably because he hadn’t caught up with Bakers 0-60 in 3.2 seconds dash to the front door vestibule yet. Maybe he should have worn his Nike’s?

Regards - Steve

Steve,

you appear to have inferred content in my post that was neither there, nor implied.

• At no point did I say a group of people entered the Lunch Room. That is an element you introduced.

• You also introduced "both lunchroom encounters" ?? I am aware of only one alleged encounter in the Lunch Room.

• Likewise your last two paragraphs also appear to be taking me to task for items that were not in my post. Were these directed at me?

Just to clarify, my original post had one main idea: Prayer Man/Oswald may have gone up to the second floor. If he did go up to the second floor, it is possible he may have been seen in the vicinity of the Lunch Room.

[...]

...Sean is trying to lay the foundation for the second floor lunchroom encounter never happening at all...

[...]

Bill makes a good point when he says “it would be physically impossible for Truly not to see Oswald if he was going through the lunchroom door”

Steve,

A fact that has to be taken into consideration when critiquing the Lunch Room Encounter Story is that, in the story, Baker obviously had to let Oswald get away.

Sean is trying to show that the lunch room encounter story, although flawed, was sufficiently plausible for the task at hand, which was to place Oswald significantly closer to the sniper's nest than the front steps, and to let him "get away" in a manner that was believable and therefore not bound to scandalize the Dallas Police Department.

Truly's telling Baker that Oswald was a TSBD employee didn't exactly exonerate Oswald, but it did lower his "suspect status" so that, given the urgency of the situation, Baker could let him go. This seemed to be a reasonable thing to do, especially since the alleged encounter puts Oswald a full six floors below the place where Baker thought the shots had come from, and because Oswald appeared to be cool, calm, and collected.

Although a Lunch Room Encounter Story was necessary in order to not only put Oswald reasonably close to the sniper's nest but also in a place that was a secluded part of the building where such a private encounter could realistically "happen", and although Baker had to let Oswald "get away," it would have been unrealistic for the fabricators to say,

"Baker encountered Oswald in the lunch room and strongly suspected him of killing JFK, but decided to let him go"

or

"Baker encountered Oswald in the lunch room but didn't suspect Oswald because he didn't notice that he was breathing heavily and sweating profusely."

or my favorite

"Baker encountered Oswald in the lunch room and was trying to arrest him, but Oswald got away."

The story they decided upon was much better than the ones above:

"Baker encountered Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room, which is not far from the north west stairs. Due to the fact that Oswald appeared normal and that Baker was told (by the accompanying) superintendent of the building that Oswald was an employee, Baker decided to let Oswald go so that Baker could continue on his way up to the roof to look for the sniper."

Given the circumstances, it would have been unprofessional of Baker to arrest a cool, calm, and collected male TSBD employee for simply being in the 2nd floor lunch room by himself at the time (if indeed that's where Oswald was). In the story, if Baker had arrested Oswald in the lunch room, I suppose he could have handcuffed him to a drain pipe or something, but Baker still had the roof to search.

In the story, Baker makes the rational decision to let Oswald go because Oswald is only a low-level suspect and because Baker has much more urgent things to do.

In short, The Lunch Room Encounter Story was very well done. It placed Oswald closer to the sniper's nest and let him get away, plausibly.

--Tommy

edited and bumped

Tom

I have edited my post because I felt my response was a little too curt and on reflection I would like it to be more considerate to your views and opinions.

Thanks for your reply above.

Kind regards - Steve

Hi Richard

“Bill feels that the traditional Lunch Room story accepted by both the WC and the Critical Community is strong enough to stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald.”

• Yes I get that part but obviously in official circles it doesn't otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Furthermore if it could or was ever likely to ‘stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald” we still wouldn’t be having this conversation.

“I think there is another option. We cannot exclude the possibility of Prayer Man/Oswald going up to the second floor after Truly and Baker had passed through the Lobby. And perhaps after Campbell had ascended the Lobby stairs to the 2nd floor (to vindicate the sighting by the storage closet). Getting Oswald from the 6th floor to the lunch room in time to see Baker is problematic. Getting Oswald from the front lobby to the 2nd floor is not”

• Whilst it is true that the second floor lunchroom encounter cannot be discounted it is also true that both lunchroom encounters cannot coexist. Therefore one or the other has to be in error or even an error that led to a fabrication?

“We know a group of employees went up to the 2nd floor offices right after the assassination. It is entirely possible LHO also decided to go. We have no evidence that precludes this possibility. Could he have made it all the way to the lunch room? Possibly.”

• There are many things that could have happened and some are indeed possible but by all accounts the Baker/Oswald (+Truly) encounter did not involve a group merely these three. So common sense dictates (just like common sense would dictate if someone is going to take the time to hide a gun they would also take the time pick up the shells) that the incident happened before a group ascended on the second floor otherwise there would have been many more accounts of the event.

“A simple sighting of Oswald on the 2nd floor would give strength to any lunch room story, whether it happened as advertised by the WC or was simply a last resort fabrication by the conspirators to get LHO as close to the NW stairs as possible.”

• And this is why I assume this encounter is important to the FBI/DPD but not for reasons of potentially exonerating Oswald but because they needed to put him closer to the sixth floor.

At the end of the day in my opinion there is one fundamental problem with the Baker sees Oswald on the second floor story and that is that Truly did not see him. Truly (according to reports) led this charge of the light brigade up the stairs but he didn’t see or hear anything that alerted his attention to the second floor lunchroom and the question is why?

Are we really to believe that he was fearlessly so far ahead of the gun toting Baker in search of the big bad guys that had just shot JFK that he didn’t see or hear anything when he passed the door thus allowing Oswald and opportunity to slip past the door but unfortunately for him just in time for Baker to see him? Then we have the body popping Oswald sitting, standing and leaning against the table, the counter and the coke machine.

I am sorry but it’s just too much of a pill to swallow. I think Sean is onto something when he says it likely happened on the first floor and the reason Truly didn’t see Oswald through any door before Baker was probably because he hadn’t caught up with Bakers 0-60 in 3.2 seconds dash to the front door vestibule yet. Maybe he should have worn his Nike’s?

Regards - Steve

Steve,

you appear to have inferred content in my post that was neither there, nor implied.

• At no point did I say a group of people entered the Lunch Room. That is an element you introduced.

• You also introduced "both lunchroom encounters" ?? I am aware of only one alleged encounter in the Lunch Room.

• Likewise your last two paragraphs also appear to be taking me to task for items that were not in my post. Were these directed at me?

Just to clarify, my original post had one main idea: Prayer Man/Oswald may have gone up to the second floor. If he did go up to the second floor, it is possible he may have been seen in the vicinity of the Lunch Room.

Hi Richard

Actually I am not taking you personally to task on any issue, so I am sorry if you perceived that from my response as it was not my intention. I was merely commenting that both encounters cannot coexist and it has to be one or the other.

Your comments did however seem to imply there was another option but actually it appears to be just another way of describing a possible second floor encounter which is fine if your hold sway to that event happening. As for the group of people going up the stairs shortly after the assassination and LHO potentially doing the same, well of course this is possible, but again it seems to be just another explanation of how Oswald gets to the second floor lunchroom encounter?

Don’t get me wrong I understand you want to explore all possibilities and I respect that (after all I have read all 60+ pages) but Sean is trying to lay the foundation for the second floor lunchroom encounter never happening at all and ironically with every anomaly you guys raise with the second floor encounter you are indirectly helping him to lay it.

I am no expert like some of you and I don’t pretend to be, but if the encounter did not take place on the second floor, then logically wouldn’t this explain why much of it doesn’t make sense? Bill makes a good point when he says “it would be physically impossible for Truly not to see Oswald if he was going through the lunchroom door” and I not only agree with this point but I believe it to be a perfect example that if you can’t make the second floor encounter work after fifty years then surely there is something fundamentally wrong with it? What if the second floor lunchroom encounter (SFLE) anomalies are in fact errors because there was no second floor lunchroom encounter?

As far as I know nearly every single piece of the JKF case has been argued a thousand times or more; but I have personally never heard anyone argue this point before.

Regards – Steve

PS: For what it’s worth Richard I think you have been doing a good job in this thread and have made some excellent points.

Hi Bill

“Whether it happened or not, the second floor encounter was a narrative written for the Warren Commission by military historian Alfred Goldberg - that's a fact Jack. “

• This could very well be true and its food for thought but one question springs to mind. When was the first report of the lunchroom story aired?

BK: THE FIRST REPORT OF THE LUNCHROOM STORY WAS WHEN BAKER PUT IT IN HIS FIRST STATEMENT - SITTING AT A DESK JUST OUTSIDE CAPT FRITZ'S OFFICE, WHEN HE COULD HEAR FRITZ SAY 'WHY DID YOU KILL THE PRESIDENT' AND OSWALD RESPOND 'THAT'S REDICULOUS.' SOMETIME LATE FRIDAY AFTERNOON.

“Since 80% of the people don't believe Oswald killed JFK alone, and many site the Second Floor Lunchroom encounter as a reason, it has been effective in helping to exonerate Oswald.“

• Even though I believe the Grassy Knoll to be the reason many people believe there was a conspiracy I cannot fathom for the life of me why you would say it (the ‘second’ floor lunchroom encounter) is “effective in helping to exonerate Oswald”? Nothing has been effective in exonerating Oswald because he is not exonerated? The second floor lunchroom encounter merely places Oswald closer to the sixth floor, its basic math and no doubt if there was a lunchroom on the third floor they may have even gone for that one. Oh wait; didn’t Baker mention the third and fourth floors already?

BK: STEVE, WHILE MORE PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE Z-FILM, THOSE SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN THE ASSASSINATION HAVE READ HOWARD ROFFMAN'S BOOK "PRESUMED GUILTY" WHICH GOES INTO THIS IN DETAIL.

“And I thought "Prayer Man" was Buell Wesley Frazer until Gary Mack said he showed the photo of "Prayer Man" to Frazer and he couldn't identify himself standing on the top step.”

• Maybe Gary should have shown the picture Sean (and others) have included in this thread that clearly seems to show Frazier on the steps. If Frazier cannot even recognise himself in a picture how can he be so certain that the curtain rod bag was only about 24”?

BK: MAYBE BECAUSE IT ISN'T HIM.

“Whether Oswald is "Prayer Man" or not, he most certainly was somewhere on the first or second floor at the time of the assassination, and entered the second floor lunchroom via the office door and was seen by Baker as he walked past the closed lunchroom door that Oswald didn't go through.”

• Bill although many would disagree with you that “he most certainly was somewhere on the first or second floor at the time of the assassination” the second floor lunchroom encounter is by no means certain. If Oswald is Prayer Man then the second floor lunchroom encounter is hastily starting to look a little like Don King’s “slim”.

BK: WELL, OSWALD SAID HE WAS ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND SEAN HAS HIM ON THE FIRST FLOOR LANDING, AND TWO OR THREE OTHER WITNESS LAST SAW HIM ON THE FIRST FLOOR, ONLY THOSE WHO THINK HIM THE SIXTH FLOOR SNIPER KNOW WHERE HE IS FOR SURE.

“And though when asked, Sean said he thought the whole second floor lunchroom fiction was concocted by the FBI, I don't think so. They are following Goldberg's orders, so whether it happened or is fiction, the narrative of the story as published in the Warren Report was written by Goldberg, who is a living witness and can still be questioned about all this. “

• Once again if they are following his orders then how far back or should I say how soon after the assassination was Goldberg pulling the strings (in your opinion of course)?

BK: GOLDBERG IS CERTAINLY PULLING THE STRINGS ON SEPTEMBER 23, WHEN HE HAS THE FBI GET ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS FROM BAKER AND TRULY AND MAYBE RECOGNIZES THERE IS A PROBLEM

Bill I respect you and I like reading what you say, but it’s starting to seem like you have difficulty (like so many others) of embracing potentially new possibilities that do not support or lay within the parameters of your own personal views.

BK: I'M ONLY RESPONDING TO YOU BECAUSE I WANT TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY LITTLE THING IN THIS NICK AND CRANNY THAT ALTERS OUR PERCEPTION OF WHAT HAPPENED. I DO HAVE A PROBLEM EMBRACING POTENTIALLY NEW POSSIBILITIES THAT REJECT REALITY - SUCH AS THE SECOND FLOOR LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER DIDN'T TAKE PLACE - BECAUSE OSWALD IS PRAYER MAN, WHEN OSWALD CAN BE PRAYER MAN AND THE SECOND FLOOR LUNCHROOM ENCOUNTER STILL TAKE PLACE AS DESCRIBED. MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS ARE OPEN TO PERSUASION AND I AWAIT YOU OR SEAN OR ANYONE TO PRESENT NEW AND POTENTIALLY GAME CHANGING INFORMATION THAT WILL ALTER NOT ONLY MY VIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED BUT RESOLVE THE CASE TO A LEGAL AND MORAL CERTAINTY.

This is probably the reason why the JFK case appears to have been at a gridlock for so many years and it is also likely the reason that barring some extraordinary new dense piece of evidence that through its own weight can break down the barricades of stubbornness, it is likely to stay that way until all the LN’s and CT’s have joined that big forum in the sky.

Regards - Steve

STEVE, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU AND RICHARD AND A FEW OTHERS ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LATEST RESEARCH IS AT THE ED FORUM, AND WHILE THAT IS TRUE IN SOME CASES - IT IS VERY FAR FROM TRUE IN OTHERS - AS THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF NEW BOOKS WITH NEW INFORMATION THAT COULD BE GAME CHANGERS - INCLUDING BILL SIMPICH'S NEW BOOK TO BE AVAILABLE ON LINE TOMORROW - FRIDAY - BILL TURNER'S NEW BOOK ON THE CIA IN CUBA, JOHN NEWMAN'S BOOK ON THE CIA AT JMWAVE, TONY SUMMERS UPDATE ON HIS BOOK "NOT IN YOUR LIFETIME" THAT I SUSPECT HAS A NEW INTERVIEW WITH THE MAN ON THE MOTORCYCLE IN MEXICO CITY, AND JOAN MELLEN'S THIRD BOOK OF HER TRILOGY ON THE TEXAS MAFIA, AND I'M SURE THERE WILL BE OTHERS.

THE ONLY THING THAT WILL BREAK DOWN THE BARRICADES OF STUBBORNESS IS TO COME UP WITH REAL EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE AND NEW WITNESSES THAT CAN BE INTRODUCED IN TO COURT AT A GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS - AND THAT WILL GO BEYOND ANY SILLY INTERNET ARGUMENT BY LONE NUTTERS AND CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.

Bill

Thank you for your honest reply and for the heads up on the new books coming out.

Steve

Hi Bill

“Whether it happened or not, the second floor encounter was a narrative written for the Warren Commission by military historian Alfred Goldberg - that's a fact Jack. “

• This could very well be true and its food for thought but one question springs to mind. When was the first report of the lunchroom story aired?

“Since 80% of the people don't believe Oswald killed JFK alone, and many site the Second Floor Lunchroom encounter as a reason, it has been effective in helping to exonerate Oswald.“

• Even though I believe the Grassy Knoll to be the reason many people believe there was a conspiracy I cannot fathom for the life of me why you would say it (the ‘second’ floor lunchroom encounter) is “effective in helping to exonerate Oswald”? Nothing has been effective in exonerating Oswald because he is not exonerated? The second floor lunchroom encounter merely places Oswald closer to the sixth floor, its basic math and no doubt if there was a lunchroom on the third floor they may have even gone for that one. Oh wait; didn’t Baker mention the third and fourth floors already?

“And I thought "Prayer Man" was Buell Wesley Frazer until Gary Mack said he showed the photo of "Prayer Man" to Frazer and he couldn't identify himself standing on the top step.”

• Maybe Gary should have shown the picture Sean (and others) have included in this thread that clearly seems to show Frazier on the steps. If Frazier cannot even recognise himself in a picture how can he be so certain that the curtain rod bag was only about 24”?

“Whether Oswald is "Prayer Man" or not, he most certainly was somewhere on the first or second floor at the time of the assassination, and entered the second floor lunchroom via the office door and was seen by Baker as he walked past the closed lunchroom door that Oswald didn't go through.”

• Bill although many would disagree with you that “he most certainly was somewhere on the first or second floor at the time of the assassination” the second floor lunchroom encounter is by no means certain. If Oswald is Prayer Man then the second floor lunchroom encounter is hastily starting to look a little like Don King’s “slim”.

“And though when asked, Sean said he thought the whole second floor lunchroom fiction was concocted by the FBI, I don't think so. They are following Goldberg's orders, so whether it happened or is fiction, the narrative of the story as published in the Warren Report was written by Goldberg, who is a living witness and can still be questioned about all this. “

• Once again if they are following his orders then how far back or should I say how soon after the assassination was Goldberg pulling the strings (in your opinion of course)?

Bill I respect you and I like reading what you say, but it’s starting to seem like you have difficulty (like so many others) of embracing potentially new possibilities that do not support or lay within the parameters of your own personal views. This is probably the reason why the JFK case appears to have been at a gridlock for so many years and it is also likely the reason that barring some extraordinary new dense piece of evidence that through its own weight can break down the barricades of stubbornness, it is likely to stay that way until all the LN’s and CT’s have joined that big forum in the sky.

Regards - Steve

Hi Richard

“Bill feels that the traditional Lunch Room story accepted by both the WC and the Critical Community is strong enough to stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald.”

• Yes I get that part but obviously in official circles it doesn't otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Furthermore if it could or was ever likely to ‘stand on its own to vindicate Lee Oswald” we still wouldn’t be having this conversation.

“I think there is another option. We cannot exclude the possibility of Prayer Man/Oswald going up to the second floor after Truly and Baker had passed through the Lobby. And perhaps after Campbell had ascended the Lobby stairs to the 2nd floor (to vindicate the sighting by the storage closet). Getting Oswald from the 6th floor to the lunch room in time to see Baker is problematic. Getting Oswald from the front lobby to the 2nd floor is not”

• Whilst it is true that the second floor lunchroom encounter cannot be discounted it is also true that both lunchroom encounters cannot coexist. Therefore one or the other has to be in error or even an error that led to a fabrication?

“We know a group of employees went up to the 2nd floor offices right after the assassination. It is entirely possible LHO also decided to go. We have no evidence that precludes this possibility. Could he have made it all the way to the lunch room? Possibly.”

• There are many things that could have happened and some are indeed possible but by all accounts the Baker/Oswald (+Truly) encounter did not involve a group merely these three. So common sense dictates (just like common sense would dictate if someone is going to take the time to hide a gun they would also take the time pick up the shells) that the incident happened before a group ascended on the second floor otherwise there would have been many more accounts of the event.

“A simple sighting of Oswald on the 2nd floor would give strength to any lunch room story, whether it happened as advertised by the WC or was simply a last resort fabrication by the conspirators to get LHO as close to the NW stairs as possible.”

• And this is why I assume this encounter is important to the FBI/DPD but not for reasons of potentially exonerating Oswald but because they needed to put him closer to the sixth floor.

At the end of the day in my opinion there is one fundamental problem with the Baker sees Oswald on the second floor story and that is that Truly did not see him. Truly (according to reports) led this charge of the light brigade up the stairs but he didn’t see or hear anything that alerted his attention to the second floor lunchroom and the question is why?

Are we really to believe that he was fearlessly so far ahead of the gun toting Baker in search of the big bad guys that had just shot JFK that he didn’t see or hear anything when he passed the door thus allowing Oswald and opportunity to slip past the door but unfortunately for him just in time for Baker to see him? Then we have the body popping Oswald sitting, standing and leaning against the table, the counter and the coke machine.

I am sorry but it’s just too much of a pill to swallow. I think Sean is onto something when he says it likely happened on the first floor and the reason Truly didn’t see Oswald through any door before Baker was probably because he hadn’t caught up with Bakers 0-60 in 3.2 seconds dash to the front door vestibule yet. Maybe he should have worn his Nike’s?

Regards - Steve

"But, then again, Bill says that if they did fabricate it, he says he knows who did it!"

Hi Tom

Is this a first step on a path of 'first floor lunchroom encounter' exploration? If so with Bills knowledge it could surely lead somewhere.

Steve

As Sean is still trying to be convince us that the Second Floor lunchroom encounter never occurred and was the result of Baker and Truly being told what to say by the nameless screenwriter of the epic JFK assassination coverup, I call your attention to three facts - that the date on the handwritten statement that Sean refers to, with the crossed out "drinking a coke" is dated September 24, 1964, after the Warren Report was written and the day before it was publicly released. What the puck?

Why are they still concerned about this? Because they know its significance, and the fact that if it is reviewed in detail, as the SS did, it exonerates Oswald as being the Sixth Floor Assassin because if Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed lunchroom door, and Truly, ahead of Baker didn't see him go through that door, he didn't enter the lunchroom through that door but through the other door that leads to the offices which he left by.

Truly testified that he didn't know Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door until sometime later, and heard it through the grapevine, just as Baker later heard that Oswald bought the now famous coke and Mrs. Reid saw him with it in his hand.

The clincher however, is when they called Truly back to the Post Office Annex to get him to answer one question under oath - does the lunchroom door with the window through which Baker saw Oswald - does that door have an automatic door closing mechanism - and the answer is yes - it does, securing the fact that the door was tightly closed when Baker saw Oswald on the other side of it - and Truly didn't see Baker go through it.

So Sean would have us believe that the master coverup artists - the author of the fictional second floor encounter - made all this up in order to hide an even more telling truth - that the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter occurred at the front door.

Now its possible that Oswald is "Prayer Man" and he was like an invisible fly on the wall on the top steps of the front door - and maybe "Prayer Man" even held the door open for Baker, but if that's the case, then when Baker and Truly went to the rear of the building, Oswald - whether Prayer Man or not, he went up the front steps and entered the vestibule of the lunchroom from the south door - so Baker saw him through the window of the closed door - and while Truly continued up the steps to the third floor, Baker investigated - and confronted the man - Oswald.

Now if this story was concocted by anyone, why wouldn't they tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker? Why would they tell Baker that he saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - and why would they create a scenario that exonerates Oswald?

Hi Bill

I don't want to point out the obvious but Sean is trying to exonerate Oswald by trying to prove he is in fact ‘Prayer Man’.

The Oswald/Baker/Truly encounter on the second floor having a coke and singing ‘I do like to be besides the sea-side’ has done nothing to exonerate Oswald in fifty (50) years? So I really don’t get why you (if you believe Oswald is innocent) are so unwilling to entertain the ideas Sean is putting forward.

1. The Oswald/ Baker encounter (initially with or without Truly) happened on the first floor close to where Oswald/Prayer Man was already located (near the first floor steps/doors/vestibule?

The fact that Oswald/Prayer Man had a coke/didn’t have a coke/maybe had a brandy and coke doesn't change the fact that if Oswald is Prayer Man (who we can clearly see is standing on the steps at the time of the shooting) he can’t be the 6^th floor sniper?

1. The statements of Baker/Truly have evolved over time and been ironed out to make the whole encounter plausible and more favourable to a descending Oswald from the 6^th floor coupled with the lone nut persona of an Oswald calmly smooching around the second floor lunchroom drinking a coke and listening to Nat King Cole whilst everyone else in Dealey Plaza is in a state of turmoil and concern because the President has just been shot.

In my opinion the Oswald in the lunchroom looking like an Arctic cucumber distorts and negates the image of an Oswald doing a Usain Bolt down four flights of stairs to such an extent that the Oswald Bolt image (however improbable) is conveniently replaced with the cool callous ‘he must be one psycho SoB’ killer drinking a coke image and therefore counteracts any exoneration one may afford Oswald.

1. The chances that Baker (with or without super hero Truly) encountering Oswald twice (once on the first floor and once on the second floor) would appear to be (using a Don King quote) “slim and none and slim is out of town”.

Baker and truly mention one incident (even though there appear to be countless versions of it: sitting Oswald, standing Oswald, sleeping Oswald, Oswald dancing around with a brandy and coke, leaning Oswald, walking Oswald ... Oh I give up!) and herein lies the basis of Seans thesis.

If there was only one incident and it happened on the first floor and without any other/new proof that Prayer Man is someone else (and we are not talking about people who work somewhere else or even just flew into Dallas that very morning and decided “out of all the bars steps in all the towns you had to walk stand on this one”) by process of elimination Prayer Man becomes more likelier with every fallen Prayer Man candidate to be Oswald.

Now that’s what you would call exoneration.

Will Sean pull it off? I don’t know. Is he having a good go? You bet he is. However he still has a long ways to go and of course he has to avoid the 'Big Guns' who could start throwing a few more ‘credible’ Prayer Man alternatives in to the works at any time, but that aside the cog of Prayer Man being Oswald and the Marrion Bake encounter taking place on the first floor is slowly beginning to turn.

Regards - Steve

Hi Steve,

Addressing only the section of your last paragraph that I have bold faced, what other credible Prayer Man alternatives do you feel are out there?

My belief is we have already covered the alternatives in a thorough manner. And the outcome keeps turning out the same.

Big Gun or squirt gun, they all have to pass the same litmus test.

Hi Richard

I guess a nicer way to put it would be to say that from a laypersons point of view (an average perspective if you like) there doesn't seem to be much input (either way) from many of the so called ‘big names’ or more ‘renowned’ researchers and naturally I mean no disrespect to any of the people who have contributed when I use those phrases.

It just seems that considering the potential significance of Oswald being ‘Prayer Man’ one would assume that every lone nut man and his dog would have been chiming in with reasons why it can’t possibly be him and presumably suggesting alternatives. I suppose the silence and the lack of ‘credible’ alternatives being suggested could very well speak volumes in and of itself, but the only person that I can recall thus far to offer any alternatives was Pat Speer? And even though I don’t personally subscribe to a necessity for considering people who are on vacation from other offices or even who live in Dallas; at least he tried.

Right now it looks pretty interesting and although I am rooting for Sean only time will tell.

As Sean is still trying to be convince us that the Second Floor lunchroom encounter never occurred and was the result of Baker and Truly being told what to say by the nameless screenwriter of the epic JFK assassination coverup, I call your attention to three facts - that the date on the handwritten statement that Sean refers to, with the crossed out "drinking a coke" is dated September 24, 1964, after the Warren Report was written and the day before it was publicly released. What the puck?

Why are they still concerned about this? Because they know its significance, and the fact that if it is reviewed in detail, as the SS did, it exonerates Oswald as being the Sixth Floor Assassin because if Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed lunchroom door, and Truly, ahead of Baker didn't see him go through that door, he didn't enter the lunchroom through that door but through the other door that leads to the offices which he left by.

Truly testified that he didn't know Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door until sometime later, and heard it through the grapevine, just as Baker later heard that Oswald bought the now famous coke and Mrs. Reid saw him with it in his hand.

The clincher however, is when they called Truly back to the Post Office Annex to get him to answer one question under oath - does the lunchroom door with the window through which Baker saw Oswald - does that door have an automatic door closing mechanism - and the answer is yes - it does, securing the fact that the door was tightly closed when Baker saw Oswald on the other side of it - and Truly didn't see Baker go through it.

So Sean would have us believe that the master coverup artists - the author of the fictional second floor encounter - made all this up in order to hide an even more telling truth - that the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter occurred at the front door.

Now its possible that Oswald is "Prayer Man" and he was like an invisible fly on the wall on the top steps of the front door - and maybe "Prayer Man" even held the door open for Baker, but if that's the case, then when Baker and Truly went to the rear of the building, Oswald - whether Prayer Man or not, he went up the front steps and entered the vestibule of the lunchroom from the south door - so Baker saw him through the window of the closed door - and while Truly continued up the steps to the third floor, Baker investigated - and confronted the man - Oswald.

Now if this story was concocted by anyone, why wouldn't they tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker? Why would they tell Baker that he saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - and why would they create a scenario that exonerates Oswald?

Hi Bill

I don't want to point out the obvious but Sean is trying to exonerate Oswald by trying to prove he is in fact ‘Prayer Man’.

The Oswald/Baker/Truly encounter on the second floor having a coke and singing ‘I do like to be beside the sea-side’ has done nothing to exonerate Oswald in fifty (50) years? So I really don’t get why you (if you believe Oswald is innocent) are so unwilling to entertain the ideas Sean is putting forward.

• The Oswald/ Baker encounter (initially with or without Truly) happened on the first floor close to where Oswald/Prayer Man was already located (near the first floor steps/doors/vestibule?

The fact that Oswald/Prayer Man had a coke/didn’t have a coke/maybe had a brandy and coke doesn't change the fact that if Oswald is Prayer Man (who we can clearly see is standing on the steps at the time of the shooting) he can’t be the 6^th floor sniper?

• The statements of Baker/Truly have evolved over time and been ironed out to make the whole encounter plausible and more favourable to a descending Oswald from the 6^th floor coupled with the lone nut persona of an Oswald calmly smooching around the second floor lunchroom drinking a coke and listening to Nat King Cole whilst everyone else in Dealey Plaza is in a state of turmoil and concern because the President has just been shot.

In my opinion the Oswald in the lunchroom looking like an Arctic cucumber distorts and negates the image of an Oswald doing a Usain Bolt down four flights of stairs to such an extent that the Oswald Bolt image (however improbable) is conveniently replaced with the cool callous ‘he must be one psycho SoB’ killer drinking a coke image and therefore counteracts any exoneration one may afford Oswald.

• The chances of Baker (with or without super hero Truly) encountering Oswald twice (once on the first floor and once on the second floor) would appear to be (using a Don King quote) “slim and none and slim is out of town”.

Baker and truly mention one incident (even though there appear to be countless versions of it: sitting Oswald, standing Oswald, sleeping Oswald, Oswald dancing around with a brandy and coke, leaning Oswald, walking Oswald ... Oh I give up!) and herein lies the basis of Seans thesis.

If there was only one incident and it happened on the first floor and without any other/new proof that Prayer Man is someone else (and we are not talking about people who work somewhere else or even just flew into Dallas that very morning and decided “out of all the bars steps in all the towns you had to walk stand on this one”) by process of elimination Prayer Man becomes more likelier with every fallen Prayer Man candidate to be Oswald.

Now that’s what you would call exoneration.

Will Sean pull it off? I don’t know. Is he having a good go? You bet he is. However he still has a long ways to go and of course he has to avoid the 'Big Guns' who could start throwing a few more ‘credible’ Prayer Man alternatives in to the works at any time, but that aside the cog of Prayer Man being Oswald and the Marrion Bake encounter taking place on the first floor is slowly beginning to turn.

Regards - Steve

Steve,

I think what Bill is trying to say is that the lunchroom encounter must have happened because, Bill thinks, it is highly unlikely that the bad guys would have been so stupid as to fabricate such a (Bill thinks) Oswald-exonerating scenario.

--Tommy

Hi Tom

Yes I understand the premise of Bills point/argument but historical fact dictates otherwise. It does not exonerate Oswald and if it did/had we would not be having this conversation.

The second floor lunchroom story (according to Sean) is the lesser of the two evils (for DPD/FBI) because whatever chance Oswald had of getting to the second or third floors was more likely than any he had of getting to the ground floor. So they simply morphed the story and thanks to a certain Jack Ruby the morph could go into overdrive and practically uncontested after Oswalds death. It is then reasonable to assume a "So what if some of the statements didn’t match up with earlier ones" attitude would then be introduced.

And guess what, it obviously worked because Oswald is still ‘guilty’ and the ‘Second floor lunchroom encounter exonerates Oswald guide to the Galaxy’ book can and should be thrown out of the window.

What person (Truly/Baker/Frazier/) in their right mind would stand alone and say anything that attempts (directly or indirectly) to exonerate Oswald after his death given that all the “evidence” (accumulated by the FBI/DPD) points to a “case closed” Oswald did it?

Hmmm... I seem to recall someone tried that once?

Steve

As Sean is still trying to be convince us that the Second Floor lunchroom encounter never occurred and was the result of Baker and Truly being told what to say by the nameless screenwriter of the epic JFK assassination coverup, I call your attention to three facts - that the date on the handwritten statement that Sean refers to, with the crossed out "drinking a coke" is dated September 24, 1964, after the Warren Report was written and the day before it was publicly released. What the puck?

Why are they still concerned about this? Because they know its significance, and the fact that if it is reviewed in detail, as the SS did, it exonerates Oswald as being the Sixth Floor Assassin because if Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed lunchroom door, and Truly, ahead of Baker didn't see him go through that door, he didn't enter the lunchroom through that door but through the other door that leads to the offices which he left by.

Truly testified that he didn't know Baker saw Oswald through the window of the closed door until sometime later, and heard it through the grapevine, just as Baker later heard that Oswald bought the now famous coke and Mrs. Reid saw him with it in his hand.

The clincher however, is when they called Truly back to the Post Office Annex to get him to answer one question under oath - does the lunchroom door with the window through which Baker saw Oswald - does that door have an automatic door closing mechanism - and the answer is yes - it does, securing the fact that the door was tightly closed when Baker saw Oswald on the other side of it - and Truly didn't see Baker go through it.

So Sean would have us believe that the master coverup artists - the author of the fictional second floor encounter - made all this up in order to hide an even more telling truth - that the Baker-Oswald-Truly encounter occurred at the front door.

Now its possible that Oswald is "Prayer Man" and he was like an invisible fly on the wall on the top steps of the front door - and maybe "Prayer Man" even held the door open for Baker, but if that's the case, then when Baker and Truly went to the rear of the building, Oswald - whether Prayer Man or not, he went up the front steps and entered the vestibule of the lunchroom from the south door - so Baker saw him through the window of the closed door - and while Truly continued up the steps to the third floor, Baker investigated - and confronted the man - Oswald.

Now if this story was concocted by anyone, why wouldn't they tell Truly that he had to see Oswald go through the door ahead of Baker? Why would they tell Baker that he saw Oswald through the window of the closed door - and why would they create a scenario that exonerates Oswald?

Hi Bill

I don't want to point out the obvious but Sean is trying to exonerate Oswald by trying to prove he is in fact ‘Prayer Man’.

The Oswald/Baker/Truly encounter on the second floor having a coke and singing ‘I do like to be besides the sea-side’ has done nothing to exonerate Oswald in fifty (50) years? So I really don’t get why you (if you believe Oswald is innocent) are so unwilling to entertain the ideas Sean is putting forward.

1. The Oswald/ Baker encounter (initially with or without Truly) happened on the first floor close to where Oswald/Prayer Man was already located (near the first floor steps/doors/vestibule?

The fact that Oswald/Prayer Man had a coke/didn’t have a coke/maybe had a brandy and coke doesn't change the fact that if Oswald is Prayer Man (who we can clearly see is standing on the steps at the time of the shooting) he can’t be the 6^th floor sniper?

1. The statements of Baker/Truly have evolved over time and been ironed out to make the whole encounter plausible and more favourable to a descending Oswald from the 6^th floor coupled with the lone nut persona of an Oswald calmly smooching around the second floor lunchroom drinking a coke and listening to Nat King Cole whilst everyone else in Dealey Plaza is in a state of turmoil and concern because the President has just been shot.

In my opinion the Oswald in the lunchroom looking like an Arctic cucumber distorts and negates the image of an Oswald doing a Usain Bolt down four flights of stairs to such an extent that the Oswald Bolt image (however improbable) is conveniently replaced with the cool callous ‘he must be one psycho SoB’ killer drinking a coke image and therefore counteracts any exoneration one may afford Oswald.

1. The chances that Baker (with or without super hero Truly) encountering Oswald twice (once on the first floor and once on the second floor) would appear to be (using a Don King quote) “slim and none and slim is out of town”.

Baker and truly mention one incident (even though there appear to be countless versions of it: sitting Oswald, standing Oswald, sleeping Oswald, Oswald dancing around with a brandy and coke, leaning Oswald, walking Oswald ... Oh I give up!) and herein lies the basis of Seans thesis.

If there was only one incident and it happened on the first floor and without any other/new proof that Prayer Man is someone else (and we are not talking about people who work somewhere else or even just flew into Dallas that very morning and decided “out of all the bars steps in all the towns you had to walk stand on this one”) by process of elimination Prayer Man becomes more likelier with every fallen Prayer Man candidate to be Oswald.

Now that’s what you would call exoneration.

Will Sean pull it off? I don’t know. Is he having a good go? You bet he is. However he still has a long ways to go and of course he has to avoid the 'Big Guns' who could start throwing a few more ‘credible’ Prayer Man alternatives in to the works at any time, but that aside the cog of Prayer Man being Oswald and the Marrion Bake encounter taking place on the first floor is slowly beginning to turn.

Regards - Steve

JFK starts at 38 min mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la5RXghCVc0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la5RXghCVc0

btw great show.- loved his description of JFK the first 20 min of the show. All the hits on JFK's character in the recent years take away from what he really did and what he stood for. Mr. Corsi did an excellent job reminding the auidience why JFK was so important for the time.

Strange. The link at youtube says "This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated."

Steve.

Major development.

Gary Mack has just emailed John Mytton, a LN poster at Duncan's forum:

While the image is an interesting find, the Prayer Man question has probably been answered. I recently sent the Couch and Darnell frames to Buell Frazier and asked what he thought. First, he wouldn’t confirm himself being on the top step because the image isn’t clear enough. He then re-confirmed that Lovelady and Shelley were out on the steps with him, just as he has always said, but he couldn’t confirm Shelley, either, due to the image quality.

Next I asked about Shelley’s appearance and learned he was a little taller than Lovelady (who was 5’8”), had red hair and a slender build. When I asked if Shelley usually wore a coat and tie to work Buell said no, he “dressed daily in slacks and sport shirts.” And he repeated that he, Lovelady and Shelley stayed on the steps for “a short time” after the last shot, but he didn’t estimate how long.

So unless Buell Frazier is still part of the cover-up plot, TSBD “Miscellaneous Department” manager William Shelley, by elimination, must be Prayer Man. According to Shelley’s testimony, “I didn’t do anything for a minute” following the last shot, so the man was standing on the steps before, during and after the time Darnell and Couch filmed those brief scenes.

Gary Mack

**

This is a real breakthrough, and I for one am very grateful to Gary for taking the trouble to contact Buell Wesley Frazier.

Why is it a breakthrough?

Well, not because of the Shelley idea.

For Shelley's own testimony, and that of the person with him Billy Lovelady, rules him out as Prayer Man:

Mr. BALL - How did you happen to see Truly?

Mr. SHELLEY - We ran out on the island while some of the people that were out watching it from our building were walking back and we turned around and we saw an officer and Truly.

Mr. BALL - And Truly?

Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.

Mr. BALL - Did you see them go into the building?

MMr. SHELLEY - No; we didn't watch that long but they were at the first step like they were fixin' to go in.

Mr. BALL - Were they moving at the time, walking or running?

Mr. SHELLEY - Well, they were moving, yes.

Darnell shows Baker just a couple of seconds away from the building entrance.

Prayer Man is still standing up on the steps.

So Shelley is ruled out. Period.

(Unless, that is, someone wants to accuse him and Lovelady of lying in their WC testimony about their run out on to the 'island'. Who wants to go first?)

The reason Buell Wesley Frazier's response is a breakthrough is that Bill Shelley appears to be the only possibility BWF himself can offer when presented with the Prayer Man image. (Although it's not quite clear from Gary's message whether BWF himself nominated Shelley or whether that's Gary's own suggestion.)

Given that he is not giving us some new revelation as to the presence of some hitherto unmentioned other person on the steps at that time (i.e. a stranger to the building), and given that Prayer Man cannot possibly be Shelley, we have just received startling confirmation that Prayer Man can only reasonably be Lee Oswald.

BWF probably knows it's Lee but--for the most understandable reasons in the world--cannot say so.

However, to give him credit, he's just done the next best thing.

Excellent that we finally have heard from Buell Frazier. Would have been nice to see the actual correspondence between BWF and Gary.

But I agree, Sean. BWF, who was standing a couple feet away at the time, has effectively limited the possibilities to Shelley and Lovelady. A powerful statement against any other employee or any stranger being at Prayer Man's location. And we have thoroughly covered the possibilities of either Shelley or Lovelady being PM previously.

This thread just got a turbo boost.

On a side note, this throws a knuckleball into the previous discussions concerning the identification of Shelley and Senkel in the William Shelley thread.

Hi Guys

Are there any pictures, images or film of Shelley circa November 1963? Was he interviewed by any TV crew, snapped in a clear(ish) image or does Buell Wesley Frazier even have an old image of the two of them together around that time?

Sean, I have a couple of questions if you don’t mind.

After reviewing the Darnell film we can clearly see Baker running towards the steps at speed and apart from a lightly running lady in a dress no one else appears to be travelling or even reacting with anywhere near the same speed or purpose. From the speed of Bakers motion it stands to reason that unless he (Baker) suddenly slows down, pauses or stops when he reaches the steps of TSBD, his forward motion will likely carry him right up the steps and into the building. In fact this is the very reason I am convinced Baker enters the building alone and without Truly.

Now herein lays my question. PM man can clearly be seen standing towards the top left of the steps in a relatively consistent position and pose as we have seen him in earlier film/images as Baker reaches the bottom step. So if Baker does indeed continue his run up the steps he will surely pass PM man before entering the building. How does this fit into the sequence and timing of the Baker/Oswald encounter?

Could you please clarify or elaborate on how Oswald/PM, entering the building after Baker but before Truly (whom I presume is somewhere in the melee at the bottom of the steps) and projects himself into a position where he encounters, attracts suspicion and is questioned by Baker necessitating the need for Truly to interject that he (Oswald) is an employee?

Kind regards - Steve

Hi Steve,

here is a link to a thread that tried to establish the photo ID of William Shelley:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19178&hl=%2Bwilliam+%2Bshelley

After BWF's description of Shelley being taller than Lovelady, red hair, and slender, it is probably time to revisit.

Thanks Richard.

Darnell Film?

Major development.

Gary Mack has just emailed John Mytton, a LN poster at Duncan's forum:

While the image is an interesting find, the Prayer Man question has probably been answered. I recently sent the Couch and Darnell frames to Buell Frazier and asked what he thought. First, he wouldn’t confirm himself being on the top step because the image isn’t clear enough. He then re-confirmed that Lovelady and Shelley were out on the steps with him, just as he has always said, but he couldn’t confirm Shelley, either, due to the image quality.

Next I asked about Shelley’s appearance and learned he was a little taller than Lovelady (who was 5’8”), had red hair and a slender build. When I asked if Shelley usually wore a coat and tie to work Buell said no, he “dressed daily in slacks and sport shirts.” And he repeated that he, Lovelady and Shelley stayed on the steps for “a short time” after the last shot, but he didn’t estimate how long.

So unless Buell Frazier is still part of the cover-up plot, TSBD “Miscellaneous Department” manager William Shelley, by elimination, must be Prayer Man. According to Shelley’s testimony, “I didn’t do anything for a minute” following the last shot, so the man was standing on the steps before, during and after the time Darnell and Couch filmed those brief scenes.

Gary Mack

**

This is a real breakthrough, and I for one am very grateful to Gary for taking the trouble to contact Buell Wesley Frazier.

Why is it a breakthrough?

Well, not because of the Shelley idea.

For Shelley's own testimony, and that of the person with him Billy Lovelady, rules him out as Prayer Man:

Mr. BALL - How did you happen to see Truly?

Mr. SHELLEY - We ran out on the island while some of the people that were out watching it from our building were walking back and we turned around and we saw an officer and Truly.

Mr. BALL - And Truly?

Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.

Mr. BALL - Did you see them go into the building?

MMr. SHELLEY - No; we didn't watch that long but they were at the first step like they were fixin' to go in.

Mr. BALL - Were they moving at the time, walking or running?

Mr. SHELLEY - Well, they were moving, yes.

Darnell shows Baker just a couple of seconds away from the building entrance.

Prayer Man is still standing up on the steps.

So Shelley is ruled out. Period.

(Unless, that is, someone wants to accuse him and Lovelady of lying in their WC testimony about their run out on to the 'island'. Who wants to go first?)

The reason Buell Wesley Frazier's response is a breakthrough is that Bill Shelley appears to be the only possibility BWF himself can offer when presented with the Prayer Man image. (Although it's not quite clear from Gary's message whether BWF himself nominated Shelley or whether that's Gary's own suggestion.)

Given that he is not giving us some new revelation as to the presence of some hitherto unmentioned other person on the steps at that time (i.e. a stranger to the building), and given that Prayer Man cannot possibly be Shelley, we have just received startling confirmation that Prayer Man can only reasonably be Lee Oswald.

BWF probably knows it's Lee but--for the most understandable reasons in the world--cannot say so.

However, to give him credit, he's just done the next best thing.

Excellent that we finally have heard from Buell Frazier. Would have been nice to see the actual correspondence between BWF and Gary.

But I agree, Sean. BWF, who was standing a couple feet away at the time, has effectively limited the possibilities to Shelley and Lovelady. A powerful statement against any other employee or any stranger being at Prayer Man's location. And we have thoroughly covered the possibilities of either Shelley or Lovelady being PM previously.

This thread just got a turbo boost.

On a side note, this throws a knuckleball into the previous discussions concerning the identification of Shelley and Senkel in the William Shelley thread.

Hi Guys

Are there any pictures, images or film of Shelley circa November 1963? Was he interviewed by any TV crew, snapped in a clear(ish) image or does Buell Wesley Frazier even have an old image of the two of them together around that time?

Sean, I have a couple of questions if you don’t mind.

After reviewing the Darnell film we can clearly see Baker running towards the steps at speed and apart from a lightly running lady in a dress no one else appears to be travelling or even reacting with anywhere near the same speed or purpose. From the speed of Bakers motion it stands to reason that unless he (Baker) suddenly slows down, pauses or stops when he reaches the steps of TSBD, his forward motion will likely carry him right up the steps and into the building. In fact this is the very reason I am convinced Baker enters the building alone and without Truly.

Now herein lays my question. PM man can clearly be seen standing towards the top left of the steps in a relatively consistent position and pose as we have seen him in earlier film/images as Baker reaches the bottom step. So if Baker does indeed continue his run up the steps he will surely pass PM man before entering the building. How does this fit into the sequence and timing of the Baker/Oswald encounter?

Could you please clarify or elaborate on how Oswald/PM, entering the building after Baker but before Truly (whom I presume is somewhere in the melee at the bottom of the steps) and projects himself into a position where he encounters, attracts suspicion and is questioned by Baker necessitating the need for Truly to interject that he (Oswald) is an employee?

Kind regards - Steve

We will never be able to reconstruct exactly when and by whom each tweak to the second-floor lunchroom story was effected.

The broad evolution of the story is however fairly clear, and it centres around the problem of explaining why Marrion Baker 'popped his head' into the lunchroom in the first place.

**

Roy Truly's first on-the-record statement (his FBI interview given late 11/22) simply states that the officer saw Oswald in the lunchroom.

No details are given as to what exactly he saw Oswald doing:

**

This same vagueness marks Truly's affidavit statement the next day (click to enlarge):

Someone unfamiliar with the layout of the second floor would come away from reading this with the distinct impression that the lunchroom must have been straight off the landing, if not indeed in the officer's path as he made his way to the next flight of stairs--a scenario fitting not the rear stairway story but the very first story of Baker and Truly's having come up the front stairs and then taken a path through the office or corridor leading right by the lunchroom.

**

The FBI report on Truly's affidavit statement--they sat in on the affidavit-taking!--studiously maintains the vagueness necessary to collapsing the earlier version (front stairs) on to the new version (rear stairs):

Lee Oswald was in the lunch room: that's all we need to know.

And we certainly don't need to be informed that the door leading off the landing was not the lunchroom door but an automatically self-closing door leading into a small connecting passage off which there was another door belonging to the lunchroom.

Again the reader is left with the erroneous impression that the officer needed only to take a peek through one door--a door which he was passing in any case--in order to see into the lunchroom.

A very large incompatibility between two stories is being evaded here, and it will take more than a few days to sort it out.

**

It is our friend Jesse Curry who will fill in the gap in the meantime as to what exactly the officer did supposedly see when he looked into the lunchroom:

Oswald sitting at one of the tables, the very picture of post-assassination nonchalance.

Truly himself will endorse this detail:

And it will be reflected in the culminating action of the Oswald stand-in in the Secret Service reconstruction film made within days of the assassination:

**

As far as I have been able to ascertain, this little tableau will survive until nearly the end of the month, along with its supporting fiction of the officer's just having--in a moment of inspiration--happened to have popped his head into the lunchroom.

By the start of December, however, Oswald will have been brought to his feet.

For, if the translation of the front-stairway-to-lunchroom story to the rear-stairway-to-lunchroom story is to be completed successfully, the officer needs to be given a reason for interrupting his flight upstairs, going all the way over to the door to the passage way to the door to the lunchroom and checking out what's in that lunchroom.

Hi Sean

I’m not sure if any of this helps as you seem to have it all figured out, but isn't Truly confirming Baker entered the building alone when he says “I saw an officer break through the crowd and go into our building”

Thanks – Steve

Hi Sean

Are there any pictures/film that show Lovelady and PM in the same frame at the same time?

Thanks - Steve

PS: Great thread so far, keep up the good work you guys.

Hi Steve,

Yes--the Wiegman film, taken in the middle of the assassination:

Sean.

Well if they are sharing the same image they obviously can't be the same person.

Thanks - Steve

The true incident at the front entrance involved Marrion Baker's asking Oswald if he worked there.

Later that evening, the DPD (through Jesse Curry and Detective Ed Hicks) openly talked to the press about this incident, only they gave it a definite spin:

Oswald had been 'stopped' as he was 'leaving' the building.

In reality he had been standing on the steps for the assassination itself, having (as the Hughes film suggests) slipped out just as the President was approaching the turn on to Elm St.

It is possible, indeed likely, that not a soul had noticed Oswald there and that he had only been noticed when Baker ran up to the entrance and addressed him.

**

Thus we have Phase One of the suppression of Oswald's alibi:

Pretend he was exiting the building and had the good fortune to be 'let go' by the officer.

**

This story collapsed, and quickly.

It soon became apparent that too many people had witnessed Baker and Truly's extraordinarily early dash into the building.

The timeline just didn't work.

So the incident had to be relocated to the rear area of the building.

**

Phase Two: Baker's phoney affidavit story of having caught a man "walking away from the rear stairway" on the "third or fourth" floor.

That story collapsed too, and quickly, for reasons that have already been laid out (Vicki Adams & Baker himself).

It gets buried, and not a word of this rear stairway encounter is ever breathed to the press.

**

Cue Phase Three: the second-floor lunchroom story.

It first comes into being in Roy Truly's FBI interview given late on 11/22:

One notes four things:

1. The impression given that the officer had to go through only one door off the landing in order to access the lunchroom.

2. The indication that Oswald was "apparently alone".

3. The lack of any description of Oswald's position in the lunchroom: was he sitting or standing?

4. The heavy emphasis on the lunchroom's lack of windows facing the outside: what a peculiar place for someone to be in when everyone else had been watching the motorcade.

#1 marks what will be an intractable problem at the heart of the lunchroom story.

#2 and #3 marks the hedging of bets as the details are still being worked out.

# 4 discloses the game plan:

The second-floor lunchroom is the only available place anywhere near the rear stairway to which the incident can possibly be relocated, and we're going to make the very best of it.

Oswald's mooching around in the belly of the building will be portrayed as incongruous and suspicious, precisely the kind of place an assassin would take cover and try to act 'normal' in.

**

And this line will be taken up with enthusiasm by the constitutionally defensive Curry on the Saturday, as he tries to make up for his gaffe of the day before.

No, folks, one of our men didn't let Oswald go as he was leaving the building.

For Oswald, cunning killer that he was, took the kind of clever cover that no police officer could have been blamed for being fooled by.

And not alone that, he managed to blend in where there were other people present.

From the New York Times 11/24 (click to enlarge):

The point of course is that Curry is telling the truth in this regard:

He had been told, quite accurately, that Oswald had been 'stopped' by the officer at the front entrance in front of other people.

Now he's clumsily and/or cynically importing this detail up to the second-floor lunchroom in order to deflect criticism of the decision by his officer to let Oswald go.

**

It would be tempting to write this off as Curry's singular error or embellishment.

However the factoid lingers in an FBI report from Dec 10:

Interestingly, the original draft of this 'answer' shows that the "other individuals" was not a carelessly included detail but something considered worthy of definite mention:

All of this is symptomatic of a story that stubbornly refuses to solidify.

Hi Sean

I have an observation/scenario and I wondered how it fits into your timeline/thesis?

Does the speed in which Baker runs into the building likely mean he initially entered the vestibule alone (Truly having not caught up with him yet) and therefore engaged Oswald alone (probably asking for directions to the lift or stairs)? If this is the case then Baker did indeed inadvertently let Oswald leave thereby creating a double embarrassing situation not only for Baker but for the DPD in general, because Oswald will soon be confirmed as both JFK “assassin” and JD Tippit “killer”.

I can’t imagine how much a haunting situation this must have been for Baker, the guilt must have been unbearable? Not to mention any blame attached to him by colleagues for the death of Tippit.

Now enter Truly who likely comes into the action shortly after the Oswald/Baker first floor encounter offering his services and (with a little bit of work in progress over the next 24/48 hours) provides the DPD with the single most “reason” Baker (gun drawn and all) lets Oswald go. And for his timely intervention the ‘ordinary’ Truly not only becomes the main man leading the charge of the light brigade up the stairs, but also the guy who astutely informs everyone that Oswald is missing? Not a bad day’s work under the circumstances.

It’s just an observation but it may negate the need to “pressure” Baker or Truly into anything when smudging what really happened saves the blushes of Baker (and subsequently the DPD) and sends Truly's stock skywards.

Keep up the excellent work.

Thanks – Steve

There was a second powerful reason why, in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, Billy Lovelady had to be artificially kept on the front steps:

he resembled Oswald.

We underestimate at our peril the sheer panic that must have been abroad at DPD HQ and at FBI Special Branch.

The suspect in custody was claiming to have been out front at the time of the assassination.

He was describing events that only someone who had actually been there could have known.

And there was every danger that a photo or film would emerge showing him at the front entrance.

The sum of all fears seemed to come true when people started looking closely at the doorway area in the Altgens 6 photograph which had gone out on newswire.

Cue an immediate investigation by the FBI.

They made a beeline for Billy Lovelady, as he would recall for Dom Bonafede several months later:

The relief of the agents tells us all we need to know:

Oswald's being out front at the time of the shooting was an all too live scenario, for it was the scenario that he himself was claiming in custody.

If Oswald himself were placing himself far from the front entrance--such as in or around the second-floor lunchroom--then there would be no earthly cause for worry about what the assassination-time visual record might thrown up.

But he wasn't, so there was.

The authorities lucked out in a big way on its being Lovelady in Altgens, but what guarantee was there that another Oswaldian image would not show up over the coming days?

And what better way--what other way--to indemnify themselves against this eventuality than to keep Lovelady on the steps for a good 3 minutes should he be needed to explain away any such image?

(That Lovelady has been seriously proposed as Prayer Man by several researchers over the past couple of weeks has shown, this time rather farcically, the continued explanatory power he still holds for those intent on keeping Oswald away from that front entrance.)

Hi Sean

Are there any pictures/film that show Lovelady and PM in the same frame at the same time?

Thanks - Steve

PS: Great thread so far, keep up the good work you guys.

I think Ray has been suspended, not banned, and will be permitted back if he refrains from making off topic posts, including unrelated poetry and music - there is a section of the forum for those topics - and makes his contributions when he is drinking beer and not whiskey. I think he has some serious contributions to make if he will refrain from behaving badly.

That's good news BK - It appears to me his heart is usually always in the right place and besides, he is practically part of the furniture around here.

Steve

Hi David

Sure.

The explanation of blur which appears to show the forward or elongated movement we see on the film.

Zapruda’s reaction to the fatal shot (causing camera movement and in turn blur) would seem natural if a shot was fired close to where he was filming.

The audio recording (in the clip) suggests there were four shots and the timing of shots two and four align with the film.

The short timeframe between shots three and four (on the audio) is consistent with witnesses who said they heard a pause followed by two quick reports or shots.

What about you. Can you share your opinion of the video and audio and what are your views on Josiah Thompson admitting his mistake after 47 years?

Kind regards – Steve

Hello Everyone

I am very much interested in knowing what your opinions are ‘specifically’ to Josiah Thompson's claims that he distributed a “fact” he no longer believes in some 47 years later?

Now I know there is another thread on this forum that initially seemed to be attempting to extract similar opinions about the same subject, but it has (in my opinion after reading the first seven pages) sadly not been successful. Furthermore it does not contain the name ‘Josiah Thompson’ in the title which makes it difficult to Google search if you are not familiar with Josiah’s nickname.

Below is a link to a YouTube clip where Josiah “Tink” Thompson outlines and freely admits the mistake he made nearly half a century ago. Interestingly towards the end he adds a Dictaphone recording apparently taken in Dealey Plaza to the Zapruda film and they appear to align remarkably well. It is a truly fascinating and humble confession and for laypeople and un-fanatical followers of the JFK case (like me) it is very convincing.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/pgHllYzzFWc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Oh and please be respectful to this site and the subject matter at hand. I know there are a lot of smart people on this site and some of you have skills and knowledge many of us can only dream of so try to refrain from using this thread as a medium to open old wounds, settle old scores, spout none topic related theories or just being ignorant and offensive to each other. Some of you may not realise that publicly engaging in these things damages the credibility of this great forum and (more often than not) deters both readers and members from reading and participating.

Courtesy, respect and tolerance won’t cost you anything bar a little patience.

I look forward to your valued comments. Thanks

Kind regards – Steve

PS: Just in case the embedded clip doesn't work it can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgHllYzzFWc

Duncan: don't know where the thread is on this forum.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20185&hl=thompson

Currently under discussion on another thread, but with no videos attached.

Here they both are for easy access.

Hi Duncan (Hope you are well).

I have been looking for a thread discussing these videos but can't seem to find them. Any chance you could point me in the right direction please?

Thanks - Steve

Thanks, Steve,

I don't know where the thread is on this forum.

You can find a lengthy discusiion here, Re: Video 2 http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8400.0.html

And a shorter discussion here, Re: Video 1 http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,8297.12.html

Edit: Karl has now posted a link to the thread you were looking for. See Below.

Thanks both of you, much appreciated.

Kind regards - Steve

Currently under discussion on another thread, but with no videos attached.

Here they both are for easy access.

Hi Duncan (Hope you are well).

I have been looking for a thread discussing these videos but can't seem to find them. Any chance you could point me in the right direction please?

Thanks - Steve