David Von Pein

But what, then, do the CTers do with Oswald's long-sleeve shirt? If PM is Oswald, then PM should be wearing the brown long-sleeve shirt he wore to work on 11/22, right? Plus, the PM image is so incredibly crappy, the PM person could very well be wearing a long-sleeve shirt (IMO). I think the sun could be reflecting on PM's amazingly lengthy (?) right forearm, making that forearm look lighter than other parts of his (or her) body which are in the shade. (This is a photo by Duncan MacRae....)

The funny part about that is: I don't even need a single witness to know beyond all doubt that Oswald murdered Tippit. And you know why that is so, don't you Paul?

Hi Mark! In the same photo you posted above, I can see two other possible "Prayer Man" candidates---the two young men I've drawn arrows to. Is there any reason why either of these two guys couldn't be PM? You see, the PM possibilities are almost endless.

Explain please...

And I guess you also have no interest in the other nine witnesses that Bill mentioned....i.e., witnesses who place Oswald out on the street in Oak Cliff and not inside the Texas Theater between 1:15 and 1:20 PM CST on Nov. 22nd. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit

The person who has been labeled "Prayer Man" might very well be lurking in some of the other pictures and videos that I have on my websites. It's especially hard to know, though, because the PM figure could conceivably be almost anybody in any of the Dealey Plaza photos. My goodness, there's even been debate about whether the PM figure is a man or a woman. So when searching for him/(her) in my photo/video collection, that broadens the possibilities considerably. Here's a good place to start looking for Prayer Man (or Woman). These two pictures below were taken very shortly after the assassination:

Yes, I would agree with you there....kinda....sorta. 😇 But the films are just too low-quality and indistinct to allow us to make anything close to a positive identification of the Prayer Man figure. And that must, indeed, be very frustrating for many conspiracy believers who think Oswald was innocent of the assassination. Heck, it's even frustrating for me as well, because I'd like to know for sure who the PM figure is too. But there are many things that tell me PM is not LHO. The biggest of which is the fact that Oswald himself didn't tell the waiting press---on Live TV---that he was outside on the steps when JFK was being shot---and that was right after LHO was asked, point-blank, "were you in the building at the time?". And that live television broadcast at 7:55 PM CST on Nov. 22 was a TV broadcast that could not have been controlled by the "evil" DPD.

I've been collecting photographs for my "Dealey Plaza Through The Years" webpage (linked below) for nearly ten years now. I'm always looking for more though (especially any pre-1963 photos). So if anyone has any more rare images they'd like to share, please post them in this thread. .... Sample images from the above webpage (most of these can be enlarged by clicking on them): 1935: 1948: 1954: NOV. 25, 1963: JULY 20, 1972: NOV. 21, 2013:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-203.html#Oswald-Prints jfk-archives.blogspot.com/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html#Oswalds-Prints

Precisely. And those two words apply to PM's identity as well.

Ask Buell Frazier if he thinks the view was lousy. And, again, if the view was so darn lousy, why did that "pack of Depository employees" decide to use those steps as a place to watch? Were they nailed to the steps or something? Or were all those employees just plain idiots?

Well then, by the same token, why would a TSBD employee feel compelled to stay on the steps when they could have easily gone down to Elm for a closer look? That same logic would apply to TSBD workers too, right? (Also check my edit to my last post, re: Buell Frazier.)

Can you prove that Prayer Man is not merely a stranger? I kind of doubt you can. BTW / FWIW.... Buell Wesley Frazier, in his more recent interviews, has said that he had the best seat in the house (when referring to his parade-watching location on the top step of the TSBD). And he was standing practically right next to "Prayer Man".

Here's some more info on that 1964 Secret Service film (courtesy of The Sixth Floor Museum website): ------------------------------------------------------ http://web.archive.org/web/20150702014536/http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/about/zapruder-film-chronology

Which would not prove anything, since the "Prayer Man" figure could very easily be a non-TSBD person (i.e., a total stranger). A stranger, who might have been looking for a good place to watch the motorcade from, might very well have climbed to the top of the Depository stairs in order to view the parade from that vantage point. And no one can possibly prove that such a scenario didn't happen.

You're wrong about this. The whole Z-Film assassination sequence is shown in the SS film. It's a crappy B&W version, yes. And the very bottom of the frame is trimmed throughout the whole Z-Film sequence, but you can still see the backward movement of Kennedy's head in this SS film (at about 8:20). So why you're saying the SS omitted it is a mystery to me. As to why the very bottom of the frame is cut off for this entire Z-Film sequence, I really don't know, but I do recall seeing a trimmed version like this in the past. I think it's just a case of the FBI & SS having to settle for low-quality copies of the Z-Film that (for some reason) suffered from that trimming at the bottom of the frame. The Secret Service copy seen in this 1964 SS film is, in fact, almost certainly a copy of an FBI copy. So, naturally, it's not going to be crystal clear. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9E6ed_4-hx6clV0SHhkN1dESHM/view

I wonder if a single one of those "scapegoats" behaved the way Lee Harvey Oswald behaved on November 21st and 22nd, 1963? Let me know if any of them did.

Thanks for another informative post, Pat. I guess I was just unaware that the act of confessing to a crime you never committed was so widespread and (somewhat) commonplace in the law enforcement world. A person would, indeed, have to be very "mentally deficient" to do something like that.

Beats me. As I said in my previous comments above, "I am not positive" that the '64 SS film was available to the public. But, then too, if it wasn't made for the public to see (or for schools or universities), what WAS the reason for the film being produced? Just for Secret Service personnel and nobody else? ~big shrug~

I'm a little bit perplexed by the above comment of yours, Pat. Are you implying here that many of the Henry Wade cases that have recently been overturned in Dallas County (due to new DNA results being available) are cases in which the arrested suspects actually confessed to crimes they never committed? Even if Fritz & Wade had lied to those suspects about certain things, why would a completely innocent person want to confess to something he didn't do? Can you elaborate, Pat?

Pat, Thank you for your last post above. Many of the things you said do make sense. Although I have no proof either, I have a feeling that the scenario you talked about in this portion of your last post is probably a tactic that some police officers have, indeed, employed (especially in a case where the police had a lot of physical evidence against the suspect): "I remember coming across some books on law enforcement techniques saying it was perfectly okay for an interrogator to lie to a suspect--the classic ones being that someone saw them do it or that their presumed colleague had already fingered them--to get them to cooperate." -- P. Speer

1964 Secret Service Re-Enactment Film...... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9E6ed_4-hx6clV0SHhkN1dESHM/view http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/1964-secret-service-film.html#Discussion Note concerning the above SS film.... Since we can see that the Zapruder Film is being displayed in full motion (and in real time) in this 1964 Secret Service film [8 minutes in], such an occurrence (within a U.S. Government filmed production) would certainly tend to debunk the notion that many conspiracy theorists continue to endorse to this day—i.e., the notion that Abraham Zapruder's motion picture film of JFK's assassination was being deliberately suppressed or hidden from the general public until 1975 (or at least until 1969, when the Zapruder Film was shown in open court at the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans). Although I am not positive, I would assume that this Secret Service reconstruction film was available to the public shortly after it was completed sometime in late 1964. It possibly was made available at certain libraries, schools, and universities around the country. And if that was the case, then the conspiracists who think the U.S. Government was attempting to hide the Zapruder Film from public view for many years are just simply dead wrong. Because this Secret Service film, although probably not seen by very many people prior to the age of the Internet, would have still been out there and available to view by anyone who had an interest in doing so many years prior to 1975 (or 1969).

And I am sorry if I'm coming across as brusque or uncaring when I speak of the plight Lee Oswald found himself in while in the custody of the DPD. But knowing the evidence that exists against Oswald as I do know it in BOTH cases of murder he was charged with in 1963, it's very difficult for me to muster any measure of sympathy or compassion for LHO at all. I guess I am biased against Oswald. But overwhelming evidence has a tendency to do that sometimes.

Who did I "insult", Pat? (Other than Lee Oswald.)

"Cajoled" I can easily believe (and even expect) from a guy in Fritz' occupation. But have you got any proof regarding that "lied" allegation, Pat?