David Von Pein

59 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

CE 1389 [sic; Kamp is wrong about the CE number here; it's really CE1381] is not of much use as a document.

The same six questions put together by Hoover asked to 73 TSBD employees.

4 months after the deed.

Oswald is dead anyway, so why go against the grain and stick your neck out and risk your job, livelihood or worse your life?

This is a very poor argument, in my opinion.

Kamp is obviously implying that at least a FEW employees on the steps DID see and recognize Lee Oswald as a person who was also on the front stoop of the Depository Building at 12:30 PM, but due to the evil strong-arming tactics of the authorities (FBI, DPD, etc.), absolutely none of these TSBD employees (zero!!) had the courage to come forth in CE1381 (aka Commission Document No. 706) and tell the truth about Oswald being on the front porch of the Depository.

In other words, all of those witnesses who DID see Oswald out there simply LIED through their individual and collective teeth in CD706/CE1381! And Buell Frazier, who would have been standing within just a few short feet of LHO, must surely be one of those l-i-a-r-s, right Kamp?

6 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

I quote : "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at that time"
Yet another person who was there and who says unequivocally that Lee Oswald was not there !
Sadly, I doubt that the Larsen/Kamp group will take that into account.
As I wrote yesterday, they don't take those things into account...

And there's 70+ more in CD706. All of which say "I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald...". These statements mean NOTHING to the PM CTers, of course....

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11104&relPageId=2

4 minutes ago, Bart Kamp said:

That pic tells me more than anything you ever brought forward.

HA! Get real yourself, using Brian Doyle to put an argument forward.

Pathetic. Get some sleep you are tired and not up to it any more.

Kamp uses a batch of pure mush and visual slop to try and prove a point, and yet it's me who is "pathetic".

Ya gotta love the arrogance of ABO CTers.

Just now, François Carlier said:

The more I learn about that case, the more I am convinced that Lee Oswald was not "prayer man".

Seeing as how ALL of the physical evidence in the whole case points right at Oswald.....how could anyone believe "Prayer Man" is LHO?

~shrug~

1 minute ago, Bart Kamp said:

Nor is there one pic of those films showing her standing next to Lovelady at all.

The best you can hope for is.

 

And Lovelady had left by then.

Stanton stood east and at no time did she stand west, like Oswald did.

You think that batch of worthless fuzziness can tell us ANYTHING at all?

Get real.

7 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Frazier was there for sure, I'm saying if that's Stanton standing next to him, she made no mention of him

Chalk one up for Tony Krome. Good point.

For any person who believes that the "Prayer Man" figure is Lee Harvey Oswald and for those who are unaware of the document linked below, I'd recommend that they read that document, which is an April 3, 1964, FBI report consisting of signed statements from 73 different Book Depository employees. The FBI, in these statements, sought to discover some basic information from those 73 TSBD employees, including whether each of the employees had seen Lee Harvey Oswald at the time of JFK's assassination.

And if you read through all 73 statements, you'll find that there wasn't a single employee who said they saw Oswald at the time the shooting took place --- not even among the several people who said they were located on or near the front steps of the Depository at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63.

Do the "Prayer Man" advocates think all of the people who were in a position to see Oswald on or near the steps were lying? Or were they all just not very observant? And if it's the latter option, then conspiracy theorists have got to admit one thing for sure --- any conspirators who might have been attempting to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for President Kennedy's murder on November 22nd sure as heck got awfully lucky when their designated "patsy", who was standing right out in the open in front of the building for all to potentially see, just happened to go totally unnoticed in the eyes of every single spectator who was standing nearby.

Patsy-framing assassination plotters don't get that lucky very often. Do they? ....

For any person who believes that the "Prayer Man" figure is Lee Harvey Oswald and for those who are unaware of the document linked below, I'd recommend that they read that document, which is an April 3, 1964, FBI report consisting of signed statements from 73 different Book Depository employees. The FBI, in these statements, sought to discover some basic information from those 73 TSBD employees, including whether each of the employees had seen Lee Harvey Oswald at the time of JFK's assassination.

And if you read through all 73 statements, you'll find that there wasn't a single employee who said they saw Oswald at the time the shooting took place --- not even among the several people who said they were located on or near the front steps of the Depository at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63.

Do the "Prayer Man" advocates think all of the people who were in a position to see Oswald on or near the steps were lying? Or were they all just not very observant? And if it's the latter option, then conspiracy theorists have got to admit one thing for sure --- any conspirators who might have been attempting to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for President Kennedy's murder on November 22nd sure as heck got awfully lucky when their designated "patsy", who was standing right out in the open in front of the building for all to potentially see, just happened to go totally unnoticed in the eyes of every single spectator who was standing nearby.

Patsy-framing assassination plotters don't get that lucky very often. Do they? ....

48 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

So it doesn't have to be true to share...

Of course it doesn't. Most of the junk I "share" on my site taken from CTers' posts at this place isn't true. Far from it.

However, I have no reason to believe (as of this moment) that Brian Doyle just MADE UP that quote from Debra Conway that he posted at Duncan's forum.

28 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Can't see Frazier on her list

So, you DON'T think Buell Frazier was on the steps at all, huh?

~shrug~

15 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

From MacRae's forum via Doyle...this is true?

Beats me. I just happened to spy it on Duncan's forum tonight, so I thought I'd share it.

11 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

David: you would not believe anything that Mr. Doyle says, would you? Mrs. Stanton had thick grey hair on the top of her 5'6'' body. She was seriously obese and she was, of course, a woman. Where can you see these features in Prayer Man? 

Maybe somebody should ask Buell Wesley Frazier that question, instead of asking me.

From Duncan MacRae's forum.... 

"I just had a nice half hour phone conversation with Debra Conway and she told me Buell Frazier has told her several times that Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton. Conway then told me, "I know Buell, and I don't think he would lie about a thing like that"." -- Brian Doyle; February 17, 2019

FWIW....

"I just had a nice half hour phone conversation with Debra Conway and she told me Buell Frazier has told her several times that Prayer Man is Sarah Stanton. Conway then told me, "I know Buell, and I don't think he would lie about a thing like that"." -- Brian Doyle; 2/17/2019

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

What was the original format that Darnell and Weigman [sic] were shot on?

From Richard Trask's outstanding 1994 book, "Pictures Of The Pain":

"A Texas Department of Public Safety driver was assigned to this car [Camera Car #3] which also carried local Dallas TV 16mm cameramen Jim Underwood, Malcolm Couch, and Jimmy Darnell." -- Page 437 of "POTP"

[...]

"Wiegman's camera was a FILMO, almost identical to Craven's, except that Wiegman did not use a handle. .... The wide angle lens he used varied from a 9mm, 10mm, or 13mm, though on the Texas trip, Wiegman thinks he used a 10mm." -- Pages 363-364 of "POTP"

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Damn this is cool!  [ http://www.prayer-man.com/marina-oswald-its-lee ]

But at the same time....so meaningless.

Marina Oswald looked at the same crappy, fuzzy image that all of us have looked at, and yet she somehow KNOWS "It's Lee".

Yeah, right. 

Ron Bulman said:

It's interesting to note that out of 331 posts on this thread, 117 of them, over one third, are by Dave and Frank [aka Francois Carlier].

David Von Pein said:

Where did you get that info? Does Edu. Forum offer detailed analytics on every thread? (Or ---- Don't tell me you actually went through all 23 pages and counted the posts by hand? You didn't really do that, did you? Surely not.)

Ron Bulman said:

Well Dave, the forum does provide the total number of posts for a topic. I used the scroll button on my mouse and just started counting 1-2-3-4, 96-96-97 [sic] every time I saw you or [Francois'] name. Didn't come close to 5 minutes.

Ten-Four. I was just curious if this forum offered up some kind of "Thread Participant Statistics" or something like that there.

But thanks for admitting you performed such a meaningless manual mathematics task in order to try and bash Francois and myself some more. Good job!

Ron Bulman said:

I certainly didn't waste any time reading yours or his posts. His I pretty well skip over. Yours I generally skim and ignore.

Yeah, I usually do that same thing when I see your posts too----"skim & ignore".

Ron Bulman said:

But there are so many by the two of you, it seems you're quite upset by the three references to Oswald being (likely briefly) out front when JFK was shot. I mean, it gives credence to the possibility of Oswald being Prayerman, and that would really upset your apple carts.

I'm not "upset" in the least. I'm actually kind of pleased that this thread was started, because it has given me some opportunities to add some of my thoughts about certain aspects of the case that I don't think I had yet archived at my website in the past ---- such as these comments concerning Buell Wesley Frazier, which have arisen in this thread....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-arguments-part-1308.html#The-Rough-Treatment-Of-Buell-Wesley-Frazier

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-arguments-part-1308.html#Frazier-2002-Bombshell

My "Part 1308" is getting to be pert-near as long a page as Part 1058 (the "Hidell Money Order" discussion, which I think has the current record for "longest page" on my site at this time; that one takes about a year-and-a-half to read [~wink~]; but it's worth it, because it's such a fun battle, with more twists and turns and conspiracists in denial than a whole month's worth of posts at EF & DPF combined!).

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

According to Walt Brown's book, The Warren Omission, Campbell was not deposed by the WC.

Is that really true?

He is mentioned a couple of times in the WR though, right? 

When looking this up in the Warren Report, I noticed a rare error in the WCR's Index, where it says "O.V. Campbell" is mentioned on three pages of the Warren Report, including Pages 334-335. But when going to p.334-35, we find it's not "O.V. Campbell" being mentioned at all, but instead it's Don Campbell on those two pages. So O.V. Campbell is mentioned only once in reality---on p.154.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0452b.htm

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

How did the Dallas Morning News know there was "a storage room on the first floor" ?

That's a fair question. (And, yes, I know what you're implying by asking that question. I'm not quite as stupid as most CTers want to believe.)

And I don't have an answer to your question, Tony. I have no idea. But, as I stated in a previous post, I definitely do think there was some "conflation" of the facts going on in those early stories that were being printed in the various newspapers around the country and being broadcast on TV and radio.

It's my belief that the Dallas Morning News article is really describing the encounter with Oswald that took place on the second floor, not "in a storage room on the first floor". But the DMN, quite obviously, must have gotten the (erroneous) info about the "storage room" from somebody. They certainly didn't just make it up out of whole cloth.

So, yes, somebody told someone from the DMN that a policeman had stopped Oswald on the first floor. Who provided that information to the DMN? I haven't the foggiest. Maybe it was Ochus Campbell. I don't know. Do you know? Does anybody?

But, to me, there is ample corroboration between both Marrion Baker and Roy Truly to verify and prove that the one and only "encounter" that Officer Baker had with any person (i.e., suspect) inside the Book Depository occurred on the second floor and no other floor.

The above paragraph is either true---or the conspiracy theorists who think otherwise are going to have to do some picking-and-choosing of their own when it comes to which first-day story they want to believe....i.e.,

Do CTers want to believe what was printed in the Dallas Morning News on Saturday morning, November 23, 1963, which says that an "officer", with his "gun drawn"...."spotted Oswald"...."in a storage room on the first floor"?

Or do conspiracists want to believe Marrion Baker's 11/22/63 signed affidavit, which states that Baker encountered a man on "the third or fourth floor"?

They can't both be accurate, right? So one of those two accounts must be wrong. Although, strangely enough, it seems as though many conspiracy theorists seem to want to embrace both of those accounts as being the absolute truth. ~shrug~

Or, as an alternative, do CTers want to believe that there were really TWO different "encounters" between police officers and suspects within the TSBD on 11/22/63, with one of those encounters occurring on the 3rd or 4th floor, while another encounter (involving, apparently, a policeman who was not Marrion L. Baker) occurred "in a storage room on the first floor"?

It looks to me as if the CTers also have a choice to make as far as the things they want to accept as "true" vs. "erroneous" when it comes to evaluating some of the first-day information that was being revealed in the newspapers and in affidavits.

And, as everyone knows, erroneous information gets published and broadcast on television and radio all the time. And there were quite a few mistakes that made it "on the air" concerning this (JFK) case [see the video below].

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I said this already.

A friend of mine asked Frazier this question about three years ago.

He said that he could not answer due to the poor quality of the photo.

Take that for what you think its worth.

Yeah, but what was the EXACT question that Frazier was asked?....

Was he asked: Is this person [Prayer Man] Lee Oswald?

Or was he asked: Do you know who this person in the doorway is?

That could make a big difference in the response you'd get from Buell Frazier.

14 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Do you move even slightly from 'beyond all reasonable doubt' when faced with two pieces of contradictory evidence?

Yes. (Slightly.)  

But it's going to take a LOT more than that Ochus Campbell contradiction to get me to believe that Lee Oswald was located in a storage room on the first floor at the time of JFK's death. For one thing, Campbell's story seems to change slightly again when you read the 11/23 Dallas Morning News. In that particular newspaper story, it's implied that it was NOT Campbell who actually saw Oswald in the "storage room", but it was Roy Truly and a policeman instead. The DMN says Campbell was running toward the Grassy Knoll at that time. So the story in the Dallas Morning News about the "storage room" doesn't match the New York Herald Tribune story at all.

So I think there's some major conflation of the facts (plus some erroneous "facts") in BOTH of those newspaper accounts involving Mr. Ochus Campbell.

16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

1. Callaway had to ask Benavides what had happened.

2.  Callaway had to ask him which way the perpetrator fled so he could chase him.

Of course Callaway needed to ask those questions.

Why?

Because Ted Callaway DID NOT SEE THE ACTUAL SHOOTING OF OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT WHEN IT WAS OCCURRING. Callaway saw only the aftermath. And he needed to confirm that the guy he did see (Oswald) was the ONLY shooter.

How was Callaway supposed to know those things from a block away? Mental telepathy?

Geesh, use your head, man. This is incredibly obvious stuff.

16 hours ago, Vanessa Loney said:

Frazier says his family were threatened. 

When did Buell Wesley Frazier ever say that his family was "threatened" (your word)? Please point that out to me.

And if you're talking about this 2013 interview with Frazier, you're wrong. Because Frazier most certainly did not say that his family had been "threatened" by anyone. He was merely speculating about what he thought could happen to his family if others besides Oswald were involved in JFK's murder.

You, Vanessa, are reading something into Frazier's words that simply are not there (if you are referring to that 2013 interview, that is).

The Frazier 2013 video is also on the Sixth Floor Museum YouTube channel.....

16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

It's really struck a nerve.

Just one more thing you're dead wrong about.