Ray Mitcham

Your link doesn't work for me, Vanessa. Any other link?

I agree with most of what you say, Vanessa except that Prayerman is standing in front of the fixed window of the entrance rather than the door.

Dear Mr. Tidd, I respectfully disagree. I think Prayer Man is wearing a long sleeved shirt , not rolled up, and that there is sunlight on his right forearm, making the sleeve on his right forearm look lighter than it really was in comparrison to the rest of his shirt which is in the shade. Note that this lighter color starts right at his right elbow, not a little bit below it which would be the case if the sleeve were rolled up or if he were wearing a short sleeved shirt. I think you can even make out where the right sleeve ends a little short of Prayer Man's right wrist, and the "plaid" pattern on the forearm part of the sleeve. I'm starting to think that Prayer Man was Billy Lovelady after all, and that Altgens 6 "Doorman" and Weigman's "Prayer Man" were one and the same person -- Lovelady. But the question remains: Where is Bill Shelley in either Altgens 6 or Weigman? --Tommy I disagree with Tommy's view that Prayerman's arm is in sunshine. I think it is totally in shadow. Line up the shadows of the people in the foreground and then see how the shadow of the left doorway would put Prayerman totally in shadow. IMO.

Ray, Do you have an opinion as to who that is with the rolled up sleeve, arrowed? Your co-conspirator buddy, --Tommy Nope, sorry, Tommy. Just know it ain't Lovelady.

Rolled up sleeve arrowed. That's my lot. Carry on with your delusions, Bobby.

Lovelady' shirt was not light coloured stripes. It was red and white stripes. If the sun bleached out the red stripes of Lovelady then it should have bleached out the red shirt of doorman. The man you say is Lovelady, is wearing a white shirt with rolled up sleeves. Not a short sleeve shirt.

Strange that the shirt of doorman isn't bleached out in the same photo, isn't it? Now answer the question I put. Which one of the people on the steps do you consider to be Lovelady?

No Bob, not "cannot be readily discerned". They can't be discerned period. Perhaps you could indicate on the photo which person you consider to be Lovelady if it isn't "Doorman"

Please show me a photo which shows Lovelady in a red and white striped shirt outside the TSBD.

I agree entirely, Tommy. (I call it suffering from "Cinqueitis.") Regarding the shirt, simple, he wasn't wearing the red and white striped shirt.

In the FBI report you display. ...LOVELADY stated his picture has appeared in several publications which picture depicts him on the far left side of the front doorway to the TSBD. LOVELADY was exhibited a picture appearing on pages 4-5 of the magazine entitled “Four Dark Days in History” copyright 1963 by Special Publications, Inc. 6527 Hollywood Boulevard., Los Angerles 25, California. He immediately identified the picture of the individual on the far left side of the doorway of the TSBD as being his photograph.....

Looks like the deception is yours, Bob. The arrow Lovelady drew was as shown here in yellow. (You can see the lower arrow line in black and the upper part of the shaft of the arrow on the white background but the top arrow line, and the lower part of the shaft are lost in the black background, in your photo.) Nice try, but no cigar.

The full question. Mr Ball." Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were you when the picture was taken? Mr. LOVELADY - "Right there at the entrance of the building standing on the the step, would be here (indicating)."

Is Prayerman dressed in a dress shirt and tie?

Just because the witnesses said they didn't see him, doesn't mean he wasn't there. If he went out to the front whilst the witnesses were watching the parade, and then went back in before they turned around, then they obviously wouldn't see him, despite the fact that he was there. Where's the dispute?

And me.

Hi Vanessa, I'm sure you are right. There must be someone on here who is competent in the art of upgrading the Prayer man frame. Unfortunately, it's not me. If you haven't read "A Deeper Darker Truth" by Donald T. Phillips, about the computer work of Tom Wilson, i recommend it. (It's available on Amazon.) If, as I believe, Tom's system works as he said it did, then he has shown the problems with the Zap film, the autopsy photos, the Moorman polaroid photo and others.

Thanks, Gary. Good to see you again. This topic is game changer. We really need to promote this work and try to obtain a high quality scan of the relevant films. The question of Prayerman, IMO, can be settled with today's technology. The copy contained on the special edition of JFK by Robin Unger is from a standard definition scan of 576i or 480i. I wonder what a 2k or 4k scan of the negatives could do to the detail in these films? It's a pity that Tom Wilson is no longer with us, as his computer program would probably have helped.

Indeed welcome back, Wack.. Great post regarding Prayerman. I wonder what has happened to Sean. Have pm'd him, but no reply.

Sorrells said that from when the shots were fired to when he returned to the TSBD, it was twenty to twenty five minutes. He then went round the rear of the building spoke to several people and then walked out front where he met Brennan and Euins. (Add about five minutes for these after he arrived back at the TSBD). WC testimony. "Mr. SORRELS - I don't believe it could have been more than 20 or 25 minutes at the very most. Mr. STERN - Then you arrived at the Book Depository Building, and did you see any police officers outside the building? Mr. SORRELS - Yes; there were officers. I recall seeing officers. I could not say any specific one. Now, as I came into the back of the building, there was a colored man standing on the rear platform, a loading platform. And he was just standing there looking off into the distance. I don't think he knew what happened. And I said to him, "Did you see anyone run out the back?" He said, "No, sir." "Did you see anyone leave the back way?" "No, sir." Mr. STERN - Did you get his name? Mr. SORRELS - No, sir; I did not. I did not stop to do that, because I figured he was an employee of the building. I went on the inside of the building and asked someone for the manager and they pointed to Mr. Truly. I identified myself to Mr. Truly. Mr. STERN - Just a minute. Did you establish how long that man had been on the loading platform? Mr. SORRELS - No, sir; I did not. Mr. STERN - There was no policeman stationed at the loading platform when you came up? Mr. SORRELS - I did not see one; no, sir. Mr. STERN - And you were able to enter the building without identifying yourself? Mr. SORRELS - Yes, sir. Mr. STERN - Then you got inside the building and what did you do? Mr. SORRELS - I asked for the manager, and I was directed to Mr. Truly. He was standing there. I went up and identified myself to him. I said, "I want to get a stenographer, and we would like to have you put down the names and addresses of every employee of the building, in the building." And I then walked on out the front door and asked, "Did anyone here see anything?" And someone pointed to Mr. Brennan." This seems to make him talking to Brennan and Euins at about 12.55 or later. The description of Oswald was first broadcast at 12.48. So the description couldn't have come from Brennan via Sorrells. As the description doesn't match what Brennan said anyway, it must have come from another source.

Jon G Tidd, The article I link above states this. "According to information from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today, although successive administrations beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and the deficit is at an all-time high.

IMO you need to look no further than JFK's notion to bring the power of money back to the US Government rather than the FEDERAL RESERVE. They just couldn't afford to let him get his own way. "On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous. http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm

You have blown up my "little bit" comment completely out of all reasonable proportion. I didn't MEASURE the amount of "bunching" that we can see in JFK's jacket in the Croft photo. And YOU haven't "measured" it either. It's impossible to measure the degree of bunching from just looking at the photos and films. So when you continue to post on numerous forums the preposterous argument that my one "little bit" remark somehow means I have admitted that the SBT is completely wrong, you're revealing yourself to be a very silly person. You're displaying your propensity for preposterousness yet again, Clifford. Because only a fool would continue to claim (year after year) that the clothing of JFK somehow trumps the autopsy picture of the dead President which shows precisely where the bullet entered his BODY -- in the upper back. There was only one bullet that struck either of those body parts, Cliff. So your use of the plural ("bullets") is not supported by any evidence at all. I can easily answer your question -- CE399 passed through both bullet holes in the upper back and throat of JFK, and then that bullet went on to hit Governor Connally--which is just exactly what both the Warren Commission and HSCA concluded. No other scenario is even remotely believable (nor supported by any of the overall evidence in this case). And Cliff Varnell's unsupportable claptrap don't qualify as "believable" (or reasonable). David, in the autopsy photo you display, can you explain the complete blacking out of the back of the head, where all the Parkland witnesses said the wound was? Bump. for DVP

Paul, whilst believing that the back yard photos are indeed fakes, I wonder why you think Oswald would concoct three fakes using Roscoe White as a body double.

David, don't know whether you ever read this essay by A.J.MacDonald Jr. https://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/the-arrival-of-jfks-body-at-bethesda-naval-hospital-what-i-saw/ Seems to confirm your helicopter arrival.