Vanessa Loney

That's fantastic Greg. I'll have to take back all my complaints about lack of press coverage! Shall write a memo to my bosses getting this ground-breaking journal on to our daily reading lists.

Thanks Carmine but we seem to be back to square one here. I'm arguing that there is a difference between an argument that is well substantiated and an argument that is proven. You seem to be requiring that Sean Murphy has proven his argument beyond doubt before it can be called substantiated. If you want to identify specifically where Sean has not provided documentation to back up his claims then I would like to see that. Otherwise I'm happy to accept the ruling of Mark Knight that no threads be pinned because the moderators don't want to run this forum that way.

Hi Thomas .. were you going to say charming....? Maybe I'm over-interpreting this but I thought his "I'll give you abnormal" comment was a vote for the films being genuine. I could be wrong on that though, obviously.

Hi Carmine Well, if we had a clear picture the issue would not just be substantiated but absolutely resolved - either it is Oswald or it's not. So I don't think the lack of a clear picture is a lack of a compelling argument (especially as this person cannot be ruled out as Oswald). I think the lack of witnesses is a big problem for those that say that Prayerman was some random guy off the street. We can see in Weigman the TSBD employees streaming back into work - they are about to squash this guy in the doorway to get past him. Yet not one single witness mentions this stranger on the doorstep. Wouldn't he have stuck out as a suspicious character who wasn't supposed to be there? As for Oswald saying he was in that building because he worked there. Yes, he clearly did say that. But we can't quite hear what question he has been asked (in my view) because his response about working in the building doesn't make much sense if he's responding to the "Did you shoot the President?" question. And the context of his response is very important. I don't know Sean either but I wish he would come back on to the debates. So really you are saying that Sean does substantiate his case but the thread shouldn't be pinned because no threads should be pinned? I can live with that. I have to say I'm a bit puzzled by your lack of enthusiasm for some sort of joint effort on getting a better resolution on the photo. I've been following the Prayerman debate for some time now hoping, and expecting, it to appear in the media. But there has been nothing - so seeing it progressed in any form would be great as far as I'm concerned. I"m not sure what you mean by that last comment, Carmine. But can I just say, there are a lot of deep feelings about the assassination and most of us tend to get carried away at some time or other. I myself have used some foul language in some particularly trying moments. But I'm one of those annoying people who thinks that those who are on the same side of the debate should make maximum effort to get along. I have to say I don't really understand the personal politics at all.

I'm very impressed with your accounting there Thomas. Did you leave out Bob P. though?

Good idea Bob. Must dash - I'll check in later.

Hi Carmine I think there's two issues here. One is the film (or photo) which we all agree needs a higher resolution. Although I think that it is significant that it is definitely not, not Oswald ie not a woman, not African-American, not a child but a white male about the right height with the right hair and the right clothes to be Oswald. But yes we need a better picture. Can we band together on this issue? The other aspect is the case that Sean has put together underpinning his argument that this person is Oswald. I'm sorry if I'm getting confused here but I thought you said that the thread shouldn't be pinned because Sean hadn't substantiated his case. If you're going to make a claim like that then I think some examples are warranted. Just so long as we keep our JFKFacts-honed manners about us I think we'll be fine.

Hi Carmine Well, I think even Sean says the picture is unclear (as we all do) so I don't think that is something that he hasn't substantiated. I was thinking that you were saying that the case he puts forward is unsubstantiated - so I'm wondering if you can give an example of that. Like to join with me in calling for someone to come forward with the right computer or software or whatever is needed to improve the resolution?

Now Carmine, I asked you first. All I am asking for is one example where Sean hasn't substantiated his case. Bob Prudhomme has nominated the thread as important - others agree so I guess as the one who is arguing that the thread isn't substantiated I think the onus is on you to provide some examples of that of lack of substantiation. If you were objecting to it being pinned on the basis of Mark Knight's case that that would open the floodgates then I would say 'fair enough'. But you seem to be saying its not important because it is not very well put together and I would disagree with that strongly. I also would like to see a much better resolution of the film. Shouldn't we be banding together to see if we can't make that happen? Surely someone in the research community has the right computer? I'll answer your questions after you answer mine.

Thanks Carmine But are you able to nominate any points that Sean has made that he hasn't substantiated? For the sake of argument, let's say that is Oswald in the doorway. All those points you make re-witnesses etc would still make it perfectly possible for it to be him. In fact, some might argue that the complete lack of any witness on the TSBD steps that day mentioning a man standing in the corner is in itself extremely telling. Prayerman is standing behind the door (which opens outwards btw) and is thus being a complete nuisance to anyone wanting to go in and out that door. He is also in a spot to be seen by everyone going in and out that door. No-one at all has mentioned this man - yet he is there. Doesn't that raise some red flags with you? PS Still would like to here what you consider an important thread, thanks.

Thanks for your response Carmine. Are you able to provide an example of where Sean Murphy hasn't substantiated the claims he has made? I don't think anyone is relying on a blurry film here, so I'm not quite sure why you say that. I think the Weigman film is the icing on the cake of Sean's argument to be honest. I would still be interested to know what threads you would nominate as more important than the SM/BK one?

Hi there Carmine I'm sorry but I have to ask, are you being serious when you say the Sean Murphy/Bill Kelly thread is not important? Can I ask what threads you do think are important. I think the SM/BK thread is massively important not only because of the staggering implications if it is true but also because of the excellent way it has been substantiated. Thanks for your views.

That's what we're expected to believe, Vanessa. Take the case of cameraman, Ron Reiland who shot the arrest... nothing visible. Poor Ron didn't have the right filter on or some such thing. Maybe he left the lens cap on. I dunno. But how unlucky is that? Wouldn't happen to Ron again in a million years. Freakishly unlucky, I'd say, Greg. Makes me wonder what else has survived out there. Because if there is one piece of film that, I would imagine, some would want disappeared forever would be that of the SS stand-down at Love Field. Thanks for your kind words about the link btw. But I am truly 'not gifted' when it comes to these things. And speaking of film - is there no chance at all that someone in the research community has the computer equipment to enhance Robin Unger's copy of Prayerman even further? Is it worth putting a shout-out thread on this site? Are we allowed to do that?

Hi Mark I agree with others on the importance of this thread. I think what distinguishes it from the other threads you have mentioned is that Sean Murphy has substantiated each point he has made along the way with solid evidence including original affidavits, newspaper reports, witness statements etc, etc. I think he has really set the gold standard in online research with his approach. Could it not be pinned even if just to show what other researchers/commenters should aspire to in substantiating their claims? Just a humble suggestion.....

Hi Ray Is there no-one else at all in the research community that has a computer that could do this? Is it worth posting a thread on Ed Forum asking for someone with that technology to help out?

Totally agree, Thomas. The films are completely normal and credible. I wasn't even aware that anyone was claiming that they were staged until I came on here. The only query I have about the films taken that day by the media though is this. Up until a few years ago all the footage of the limousine leaving Love Field did not show the SS Agent leaving the post behind JFK on the limousine. In fact when you watch the footage there is a bit of a jump where this piece should be. So it seems that someone at some stage has edited that part out. It has since appeared on the internet but I don't know if we have a clear idea of where this footage came from and who posted it. But in any case it's been in existence for 40 plus years somewhere and we didn't know about it. My question is this - a lot of the media footage of the day lasts about 5 - 10 seconds that seems unusual to me. Were all the cameramen that day turning their cameras off after a few seconds? Even O'Donnell's footage from behind JFK cuts out every few seconds. Was it the style in the 1960's to do this? Were all cameramen incompetent numpty's in those days? I doubt it. It strikes me that the films from the media we have been shown are highly edited. And if the Love Field footage is anything to go by the bit that has been left out is probably more significant than the bits that have been left in. My direct reply button doesn't seem to be working properly - apologies if this response pops up out of order.

Thanks so much Greg. My apologies I am hopeless at copying links.

Hi Bob Apologies about the link. The interview is on Greg Parker's 'Reopen Kennedy Case' forum. I'll follow up with them about the link and let you know. Can I ask, do you find it significant that HSCA clearly knows about Prayerman but doesn't follow up on identifying him?

Hi Bob I agree there's something strange about Frazier not saying that he saw Baker. He must have seen him. If he's on board with a cover up why not be all in?

Hi Robert Lovelady was interviewed by the HSCA in May 1978. The audio of the interview is at http://www.reopen....net/audio.html. Sean Murphy's posts referring to this remarkable information are at #1155 and #1156 on the thread. I agree it is not easy to find this on the internet though.

Hi Bob I think we all do - especially when it comes to Photon. I don't know what he was thinking to post that claim about being a doctor. I don't know if he actually forgets what he's posted (and where) or whether he thinks he can make any old claim and other posters won't remember. He's got the hide of an elephant that's for sure.

Hi Lee I look forward to seeing that summation of yours. It would be great if a higher resolution photo could be obtained. I personally would be willing to donate money to that cause.

Thanks Evan! I think there is a bit of an Aussie presence in the assassination debate.

Hi Carmine I will post the Norman, Jarman, Shelley info tomorrow when I'm on a more user friendly computer. But my basic contention is that the WC timeline does not give Oswald an opportunity to see any of these men and that he can only have seen them unless he was on the TSBD steps or in the foyer.

Thanks Carmine Here's the bit of Lovelady's HSCA interview referred to by Sean Murphy. "First the HSCA interviewer asks Lovelady to identify himself in Altgens. Lovelady immediately does so. Next Loevely is show an image he has never seen before: a frame from the John Martin film showing him (Lovelady) standing over by the east side of the entrance some 8-15 minutes post-assassination (a time estimate given by photographic consultant Robert Groden, who is present in the room). Lovelady identifies himself immediately. Then the interviewer; out of nowhere, adopts a very curious line of questioning: HSCA: If a move camera showed you farther in the centre of the doorway than that person there (ie Lovelady in Altgens, who appears, due to the deceptive angle. to be well over to the left/west of the entrance) would you still identify that person as being yourself? Loveladay: Sure would. I would say the other picture was not taken at the split second as the one to the left is. HSCA: Okay, alright. If it showed two figures in that doorway at the same time, and you could positively identify one as yourself, would that have any bearing on your identification of that other figure? Lovelady: No, that's still me at the left (of the) doorway. Whether knowingly (ie with knowledge of the Prayer Man figure in Weigman) or unknowingly (ie by pure speculation) the HSCA interviewer has pre-empted the very discussion we have been having in this thread." That's Sean Murphy's entire quote I hope. This seems a clear indication to me that the HSCA were aware of this unidentified figure in the TSBD doorway and yet failed to follow up on identifying him. The question is why? Everyone else on the TSBD steps was identified why not him?