Vanessa Loney

Still waiting for this guy to produce the "many discussions" and "many enhancements" he claims to have occurred over at his forum. (sounds like BS to me) I checked the link out and it amounts to nothing. Why not post some of that stuff here, Dunc? I agree Bob. In fact didn't Paul May (aka Photon) say that Duncan had debunked PM months ago? Still waiting for Paul's link to Duncan's evidence too. So how about we see your debunking on here Duncan. Why not make Paul May do it? All Duncan said is that it's been discussed many times on the JFK Assassination Forum website. Has anyone gone there and done a "search"? I must admit, however, that I don't understand Duncan's logic when he says, "[Prayer Man] is not Oswald as Baker has not even reached the front entrance of the TSBD at this point in the film." --Tommy I'd be happy for Paul May to present the debunking evidence, Tommy. Paul, over to you. Either Paul or Duncan would do. Let's all see what the debunkers have.

Still waiting for this guy to produce the "many discussions" and "many enhancements" he claims to have occurred over at his forum. (sounds like BS to me) I checked the link out and it amounts to nothing. Why not post some of that stuff here, Dunc? I agree Bob. In fact didn't Paul May (aka Photon) say that Duncan had debunked PM months ago? Still waiting for Paul's link to Duncan's evidence too. So how about we see your debunking on here Duncan.

Agreed, Greg. Nowhere has it been shown that Oswald possessed an Imperial reflex. For somebody like Oswald, allegedly interested in photography, he wouldn't have chosen such a cheap camera, anyway. Agreed, Ray. One has only to look at one of the other cameras he owned, or at least were found in his possessions at the Paine residence, to grasp the full meaning of your statement. Pictured above is a Stereo Realist camera, manufactured by the David White Company from 1947 to 1971. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_Realist This camera exposed two images on 35 mm film, from slightly different angles, and allowed a person to view his photos in three dimensions in a stereoscopic viewer. Wouldn't Oswald have much preferred to view himself in the BYP's in 3D? Of course, then there is the expensive Minolta "spy" camera found at the Paine's by the DPD, with the serial number that made it only available in Europe at the time of the assassination. It magically morphed into a Minolta light meter when it got into the hands of the FBI. Dumb question but, why would someone with a cheap Imperial Reflex camera be in need of a Minolta light meter? That's a good question Bob - they wouldn't. All of these cameras look incredibly clunky to me. Surely if PM was holding one of these monsters we would be able to see more of it in this latest gif.

I totally agree with you, Vanessa! It's just a little more than coincidental that we find that pop bottle and some sort of napkin or wrapper there on the steps where PM /LHO was standing! What appeared to me at first to be crinkled napkin around the bottle, i suddenly realized had the look, not of an opaque white napkin, but of the grayish semi-transparent look of crinkled waxed paper with it's charactestic white lines where the crinkles are! Low and behold one of the items confiscated from Beckley i think it was, was some brand of waxed paper - apparently this was pre-Saran wrap days and he usually wrapped his sandwhich in waxed paper. So I'm convinced that's his lunchtime garbage that he had to leave there when all hell broke loose. Just a reminder from someone born in '56, of what crumpled waxed paper looks like - I've actually met some young people who don't know what waxed paper is or what it looks like! Hi Linda - apologies, I meant to get back to you earlier than this. There are actually much better Allen photos back on SM's thread where the item beside the bottle looks a lot more like a paper bag. If I have time tomorrow I'll have a look and see if I can find the page number.

Thanks Stan and Chris - this gif is very clear. It seems there is a consensus that when the flashlight effect is lowered that is when PM would be taking a photo with the IR (if he is holding one) and when the flashlight effect is raised that is when PM could be drinking out of a bottle. When the flashlight circle is raised we see PM's right elbow gets illuminated by the sun but whatever he is holding doesn't get any further illuminated. If it was the IR camera which seems to be a bulky sort of camera wouldn't we expect to see a bit more of it illuminated? But we still just have the flashlight and I can't see any further substance around it. Which would tend to support the bottle theory. I couldn't agree more that if theories are discredited we need to be able to ditch them and move on.

Vanessa, I'm kinda gravitating to the idea that Baker ran right past Oswald on the steps without paying any attention to him, and went up to the fifth floor and searched it by himself (Bonnie Ray Williams told the FBI that right after the shots, a policeman (he could see the top of his white motorcycle helmet) came off the elevator and pretty thoroughly searched the fifth floor where Williams and Jarman still were), and then left. Meanwhile, Oswald had put his camera away in the small storage room by the front door (because he'd run out of film), and was encountered there by Campbell and someone else (Reid?, Truly?), and then when the "fix" came in, all of them started changing their stories. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/williams.htm Case Closed ( LOL ) --Tommy And the amazing thing is that any one of these speculative scenarios has a chance of being true. True, I could still go either way on whatever it is that PM is holding, if anything.

Vanessa, I'm kinda gravitating to the idea that Baker ran right past Oswald on the steps without paying any attention to him, and went up to the fifth floor and searched it by himself (Bonnie Ray Williams told the FBI that right after the shots, a policeman (he could see the top of his white motorcycle helmet) came off the elevator and pretty thoroughly searched the fifth floor where Williams and Jarman still were), and then left. Meanwhile, Oswald had put his camera away in the small storage room by the front door (because he'd run out of film), and was encountered there by Campbell and someone else (Reid?, Truly?), and then when the "fix" came in, all of them started changing their stories. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/williams.htm Case Closed ( LOL ) --Tommy Vanessa, I'm kinda gravitating to the idea that Baker ran right past Oswald on the steps without paying any attention to him, and went up to the fifth floor and searched it by himself (Bonnie Ray Williams told the FBI that right after the shots, a policeman (he could see the top of his white motorcycle helmet) came off the elevator and pretty thoroughly searched the fifth floor where Williams and Jarman still were), and then left. Meanwhile, Oswald had put his camera away in the small storage room by the front door (because he'd run out of film), and was encountered there by Campbell and someone else (Reid?, Truly?), and then when the "fix" came in, all of them started changing their stories. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/williams.htm Case Closed ( LOL ) --Tommy Okay Tommy but I don't think that scenario is supported by any of the first day press reports or affidavits which I'm still giving some credit to. Are you discounting all the first day statements? Because then we really get into completely uncharted waters. Although, I guess, it is actually possible that they are all a mixture of half-truths and non-truths as well. Gawd, it'd be nice to have some certainty in this case.

Thanks Tommy - there was a paper lunch bag next to the coke bottle in the same photo (the photographer's name escapes me at the moment but it gets discussed back on the thread by SM). Calling it an 'idea' might be dignifying it a bit more than it deserves I think. My wild, unfounded guess that Oswald could have dumped the camera in the storage room is nothing more than that. But I agree it does beg the question, if he was innocent, why dump the camera. I tend to agree with Bob on the issue of Oswald not having time to get inside before Baker got to him. It's possible, but I think the press reports support the idea that their encounter happened outside the door. (Although I am glad to see Bob has got Baker onto those steps at least). But it's occurred to me that if the camera flashlight in Weigman is in fact the light reflecting off the bottom of a coke bottle as it's being drunk out of (as some claim) then maybe in Weigman we should be able to identify the fact that the coke is not next to the steps. Because the coke cannot be being drunk by LHO and on the steps at the same time. Ahem. Barto - got any time to verify that there is only one coke bottle in Weigman? It'd prove your point that Oswald isn't holding a camera.

Hi Vanessa, Good to hear from you again. To answer your question -- I can't think of any other reason for him to go into that small storage room by the front door on his lunch break, and it was close to the front door! LOL Now, if they encountered him in the storage room back in the north west corner, as some researchers claim, that would be a different matter altogether. In that case he was probably there to get a Dr. Pepper! Also, I'm now convinced that Prayer Man was holding a twin lens "reflex" camera (with a light-reflecting and transmitting "viewing lens") and therefore needed to have both hands free for its operation. If Prayer Man was Oswald and he'd only half eaten his cheese sandwich or his apple, he might have stashed them in that storage room right before he walked out onto the top step or "landing area" with his camera. But all of this Prayer-Man-was-Oswald and he-had-his-camera-with-him raises a sticky issue -- wasn't Oswald's Imperial Reflex found at Ruth Paine's place? Edit: I've just read in Accessories After the Fact that the FBI, etc. apparently overlooked the camera at Ruth's place a few times, and Robert Oswald allegedly took it home with him from there on December 8, 1963. --Tommy Another Devil's Advocate Edit: In Accessories After the Fact, Sylvia Meagher quotes Ruth Paine's March 21, 1964, WC testimony as saying that Oswald once showed her the camera he had bought in Russia, and complained to her that he couldn't buy film for it in the U.S. because of a size difference, and Meagher goes on to say that only two (actually three) photographs are known to have been taken in the U.S. with that camera -- the backyard backyard photos. https://books.google.com/books?id=9XEhAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT212&lpg=PT212&dq=oswald+%22imperial+reflex%22+paine&source=bl&ots=yIkkvQvWdC&sig=pHz6yCzP8qicqhMzzDIegEtpEyc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMI8pjKy6mOxwIVlDSICh0tqAU5#v=onepage&q=oswald%20%22imperial%20reflex%22%20paine&f=false If it's true that Oswald couldn't buy film for that camera (but I doubt that because I think it used size 620 film which was commonly available back then) in this camera, it makes no sense that he would take it to the TSBD to get some photos of -- well, whatever. BTW, It's interesting to note that Marina, in her WC testimony, said the camera was black. Oswald's was silver-grey: Final thought for now: If Prayer Man had been holding this camera in Wiegman and Darnell / Couch, I think its light color would have been highly visible in those films. Hi Vanessa, Good to hear from you again. To answer your question -- I can't think of any other reason for him to go into that small storage room by the front door on his lunch break, and it was close to the front door! LOL Now, if they encountered him in the storage room back in the north west corner, as some researchers claim, that would be a different matter altogether. In that case he was probably there to get a Dr. Pepper! Also, I'm now convinced that Prayer Man was holding a twin lens "reflex" camera (with a light-reflecting and transmitting "viewing lens") and therefore needed to have both hands free for its operation. If Prayer Man was Oswald and he'd only half eaten his cheese sandwich or his apple, he might have stashed them in that storage room right before he walked out onto the top step or "landing area" with his camera. But all of this Prayer-Man-was-Oswald and he-had-his-camera-with-him raises a sticky issue -- wasn't Oswald's Imperial Reflex found at Ruth Paine's place? Edit: I've just read in Accessories After the Fact that the FBI, etc. apparently overlooked the camera at Ruth's place a few times, and Robert Oswald allegedly took it home with him from there on December 8, 1963. --Tommy Another Devil's Advocate Edit: In Accessories After the Fact, Sylvia Meagher quotes Ruth Paine's March 21, 1964, WC testimony as saying that Oswald once showed her the camera he had bought in Russia, and complained to her that he couldn't buy film for it in the U.S. because of a size difference, and Meagher goes on to say that only two (actually three) photographs are known to have been taken in the U.S. with that camera -- the backyard backyard photos. https://books.google.com/books?id=9XEhAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT212&lpg=PT212&dq=oswald+%22imperial+reflex%22+paine&source=bl&ots=yIkkvQvWdC&sig=pHz6yCzP8qicqhMzzDIegEtpEyc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMI8pjKy6mOxwIVlDSICh0tqAU5#v=onepage&q=oswald%20%22imperial%20reflex%22%20paine&f=false If it's true that Oswald couldn't buy film for that camera (but I doubt that because I think it used size 620 film which was commonly available back then) in this camera, it makes no sense that he would take it to the TSBD to get some photos of -- well, whatever. BTW, It's interesting to note that Marina, in her WC testimony, said the camera was black. Oswald's was silver-grey: Final thought for now: If Prayer Man had been holding this camera in Wiegman and Darnell / Couch, I think its light color would have been highly visible in those films. Thanks Tommy! I know this is just speculation but I think it makes more sense for Oswald to eat his lunch on the steps (as Fritz said LHO said) and then put it down to use the camera which was on a strap around his neck. Maybe he left the camera in the storage room........??. The story of the camera is a whole other mystery in itself. I agree that it's possible the flashlight affect in Weigman is Linda's light affect. It's such a good explanation I want to believe it. I think ROKC is heading towards thinking the camera that Robert Oswald produced months later and said was Lee's was actually Robert's.

Isn't it perfectly possible for both encounters to have occurred? Baker runs up the steps seconds after the shots and encounters Oswald there. After that Oswald goes inside the TSBD and is seen by Occhus Campbell in the storage room when he (OC) returns to the building 'shortly' after the shots? Tommy, why do you think Oswald went inside to get his lunch after the shots? Sorry, I've probably missed a lot. I find it incredibly coincidental that Oswald said he had his lunch out on the steps with Shelley and lo and behold, there is an Oswald-type lunch left on the steps right next to where PM was standing. Who else on the TSBD steps actually said they ate their lunch on the steps that day? Maybe Molina? IIRC all the rest claimed they ate before or after being on the steps. I think it's not unreasonable to assume that whoever left that lunch on the steps actually ate out there. Otherwise it's an odd spot for someone to leave their rubbish if they'd eaten their lunch elsewhere. Why not dump it in the building's rubbish bin if they were going back inside? I know I've got a bee in my bonnet about the lunch but it's one of those dot-connecting things that I think forms part of the whole picture and tends to confirm that Oswald is PM.

Hi Vanessa, Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad to see you're still around. Robert Prudhomme has pointed out that Baker actually veers and runs behind the guy who is sidestepping out of Baker's way, motioning him up the steps. But you're right -- the suited guy obviously thought that Baker was going to run up the steps, as did at least two women in the Darnell clip who seem to be scurrying out of Baker's way. I've incorporated most of this in my new thread, "Gerda Dunckel's Synchronized Couch and Darnell Clips." --Tommy Hi Vanessa, Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad to see you're still around. Robert Prudhomme has pointed out that Baker actually veers and runs behind the guy who is sidestepping out of Baker's way, motioning him up the steps. But you're right -- the suited guy obviously thought that Baker was going to run up the steps, as did at least two women in the Darnell clip who seem to be scurrying out of Baker's way. I've incorporated most of this in my new thread, "Gerda Dunckel's Synchronized Couch and Darnell Clips." --Tommy Thanks Tommy - I'll check it out.

Hi Tommy (this is for your comment at #40) I hadn't really actually noticed the guy motioning Baker up the steps before. I think that's very significant, and if I may suggest it, I think you should put this comment on the main PM thread. If Baker ran past this guy instead of going up the steps then he would have had to push past him. And this motion shows that this person was convinced Baker was going up the steps. But the biggie is "Who is this man?". He's got on a suit (and maybe a hat?) so a management type. He's in the vicinity of the TSBD steps seconds after the shots are fired. He seems to be heading back into the building himself until he spots the police officer and lets him go first(?) Or am I reading too much into that? If we can work out who he is then maybe he gave WC testimony and we can see if he saw Baker. Because if he didn't then that would be.....strange. As strange as all the others on the steps who didn't see Baker or PM that day. I nominate a management type from the TSBD - maybe one of the publishers??

Hi David But if you are going to go with the 'out front with Shelley' statement happening after the assassination then that leaves you with a problem in Fritz's notes of the interrogation. Because it means that Fritz has neglected to ask Oswald where he was during the assassination. I don't find that very likely.

Prayer Man does not remotely look like a woman. He looks like Lee Oswald. No, not at all. And he is leaning back into the corner, which makes him appear shorter. Enough to account for the severe difference in height with Frazier? Perhaps a re-enactment with a man Oswald's height and a man Frazier's height is in order. And he told Will Fritz that he was "Out with Bill Shelley in front" when the President passed by. Nope. Will Fritz wrote notes saying "Out with Bill Shelley in front". When one reads the report written on these notes, it seems probable this is a reference to his leaving out the front door after the shooting, not his being outside during the shooting. The only extraordinary claim here is the claim that Lee shot JFK. That is the extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof -- something no one will ever see. I got news, Pat: Every man is presumed innocent until proven guilty! Wait. So you have it in your head that anyone thinking Oswald isn't Prayer Man...is claiming Oswald was guilty? Where do you get this from? The official story--the one supported by the witness statements, suggests Oswald was cool as a cucumber when first seen after the shooting...wearing clothes that didn't match that of the shooter on the sixth floor...in a location more suggestive of his innocence than his guilt. That's enough for me to have reasonable doubt. When you add in the difficulty of the shooting, and the probability he hadn't practiced with the rifle, and Frazier's testimony reflecting that Oswald didn't bring the rifle into work that morning, and then his claiming he was a "patsy" before being shot down in a room filled with police, well, then you have more than reasonable doubt, IMO. So, for me, Prayer Man is a needless distraction. Frazier has consistently claimed the bag was too small, and his description of the shots is also quite helpful. I have met him, and his son. It is my impression that he just wants' to tell the truth. I don't know anyone who has met him, and spent time with him, who thinks he's lying to cover up that Oswald was on the steps. So, to me, it's plain silly to throw one of our most important witnesses under the bus, simply because a shadowy figure in some footage kinda sorta looks like Oswald...to a small minority of researchers. Hi Pat In regards to the issue of Prayer Man being a woman. I'd have to say the figure doesn't remotely look like a 1960's woman - in that they all seem to be wearing dresses, big hair, makeup, high heels and are otherwise 'done up' to the nines in comparison with PM. If PM is a woman then she's a very strange bird for 1963 - mans' haircut, male pattern hairline, man's shirt. Just take a look at the other women around PM he doesn't match them at all. I have no doubt at all that PM is a male.

I agree with Mr Parnell, it's a fraud. And a ridiculous one at that.

Hi Ken I've tried to copy your posts in here but I keep getting the error message that I've copied too many blocks of text so I'm putting the comment here. Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I was at work today. Here are two of the comments made by David about people from down under. He made a third slur on Australians which I can’t find at the moment. DJ: “Maybe it’s just that you speak a different English down under?” DJ: “Just count the days Parker... you can do that, unless math is also different down under fitting 125+ days into less than a single semester is almost as good as the SBT...” I’m a bit puzzled as to why you think these comments might not be offensive to Australians. They are not compliments, they are meant to insult. What if we substitute some other countries in there say “India’ or ‘America’. Are you getting my drift now? In regards to your other comment about there being more Australians than Americans involved in the JFK assassination debate I doubt that’s actually the case, certainly not on here, JFKFacts or ROKC. In fact I’d be surprised if that were true of any site. But if you’re really asking “Why do Australians care so much when it wasn’t their President?” then I would say I can only speak for myself but in case you’ve forgotten the American President and his foreign policy has a huge impact on the rest of the world. Jim di Eugenio on CTKA has written some great articles on this issue. Just as one example, Australia fought in Vietnam and lost soldiers there, not to mention the social division that war caused in this country and the terrible impact it had on Vietnam itself (including the outflow of refugees to Australia). A country which IS actually in our region of the world. There is plenty of documentation now to say that JFK would never have sent ground troops to Vietnam and was looking for a way to extricate the USA from that war. Secondly, I would say that Australia (and the rest of the Western world), is in general, a few steps to the left of America politically so the loss of a visionary, liberal President such as JFK resonates. President Obama has always had consistently higher approval ratings in Australia (75% at one point) and the rest of the world, than America. And thirdly, the Warren Commission Report was an incredibly inadequate investigation of the President’s murder. At the most basic level its conclusions are not supported by the evidence contained within the Report. I’m not going to go into the evidence any further than that because I’ve taken up enough time on this thread as it is. These are just my thoughts, but does that answer your question?

Oh David, the first rule of name-calling is that if you’re going to do it then you really need to have the wherewithal to own it. Because otherwise it’s looks a bit like you don’t have the gumption to stand behind your own words when challenged. I’m sure you already know I’m a member at ROKC, hence the derogatory name-calling designed to provoke Greg, as are your comments about Australians. As for ROKC, Stan Dane does satire. It may be offensive to some but that’s the price we are all willing to pay for free speech. He has NEVER done racism (and nor has anyone else on ROKC). If you cannot tell that a line can (and should) be drawn between the two then I can see why you are having so much trouble distinguishing between reality and fantasy in the Harvey and Lee debate. And to be blunt, I have zero to contribute to the debate on Harvey and Lee. I didn’t even know anyone took it seriously until I came on here. My main interest in the assassination is to get better resolution copies of the PM image because I think it will actually solve the case. My point in commenting on this thread was to call you out on your comments about Australians because national insults should have no place on here. There are some types of comments that should not be accepted or tolerated by anyone, including you, David. I have no problem if you want to get into personal attacks on me, all I asked was that you put a bit of elan into it. J

Mods, really - personal attacks like this are okay? Come on. Enforce your rules. Where are you James?

No David, you may have been debating with Greg but as part of an attempt to goad him you are making broad-brush insults against people from 'down under' which I'm sure you know are completely unacceptable. Mods, really he should be banned for these comments about Australians. Would you have allowed it about any other nationality? If you're not going to uphold standards on racism on here then where does it stop? As for the swipe directed at me David, all I can say is, is that really the best you can do? You're not in grade school any more David - this is where the adults play. So you're really going to have to lift your game on the name calling. Put some brains and initiative into it. But I have a feeling that whatever you come up with, it's going to hurt you a lot more than it's going to hurt me. (Because to tell you a secret David, I'm pretty much impervious to the games that go on over the internet. I've been insulted by experts on other sites who are professionals and it doesn't bother me a bit.) And do you know why? Because I figure that sort of name calling says a heck of a lot more about you than it does about me. So bring it on, David. Let's see what you've got.

If that's the case David stop making broad-brush insults about people from downunder. Not that hard is it? Or are you just trying to provoke a reaction? Is that your apology btw?

More Aussie-bashing, David? Is this allowed mods? How about you substitute 'the blacks' or 'the jews' for 'down under' David? Doesn't scan quite so nicely, does it? Are you getting my point, David?

What was Pat Speer referring to exactly B.A.? I noticed if we quote someone and leave just the name date and time in at the top here there is a jump back feature so anyone can check what was said in full and in what context. Just an example above. I have to say too that the example video you chose on extraordinary evidence doesn't sit well with me. If I believe in the possibility that PM could be Oswald I should have no trouble with the resurrection? That could be just me but anyway I get your point B.A. Keep the faith. post #571 Bump

Who are "they" and wasn't it "they" who sent Oswald to Odio's place to start with? So they had to do the Mexico City thang because they didn't really think the Odio plan through properly? Another problemento!!!! Why wasn't Oswald calling himself LEON in Mexico City? Remember those dumb Latinos thought he might be from outer space with a strange name like "Lee"!!!! ANSWER David Josephs on the Mexico City Trip: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6. start here http://www.ctka.net/2014-Josephs/Josephs_Mexico%20City_Part%201.html !!! gaal If this is indicative of the rest of it, I don't think I'll bother reading any further: Josephs states: While the article repeatedly claims that there is no indication that Oswald was in Wisconsin, it never even hints at why or who would be putting that name with DALLAS in mid September when Oswald was in New Orleans with Marina (who was 8 months pregnant) and his first child June. What follows is a either a figment of my imagination or Josephs is maintaining his usual standard: Now what, David? Go from claiming they never tried to explain it to... they invented the phone call above? I guess that will have to be it, You've got nothing else to fall back on. Maybe it's just that you speak a different English down under? While the article repeatedly claims that there is no indication that Oswald was in Wisconsin, it never even hints at why or who would be putting that name with DALLAS in mid September Would you provide the source for this quote please and then show how it is contained in the article I refer to above... as I never mention anything about an FBI follow-up report... you going to offer the source of this report or do we have to just take your word? When someone uses a noun "this article" followed by a pronoun, "it never hints at why or who" most people understand the sentence refers to the article which I posted in the essay. I'm glad you found an FBI report of a phone call from an unknown woman about an unknown man and unknown reasons... but the ARTICLE as I state, does not hint at this. Additionally, the article goes on to state that the woman at the Fox and Hound was told that she was not to say a word, "I was advised not to say anything" by the FBI. And if we are just going to believe any phone call then your Radionics call from Oxnard and the Tippit call regarding Oswald's real relatives in NYC must also be accepted as authentic evidence... ok.. fine with me. So you see, once again in your effort to find fault in work you barely comprehend you twist the meaning of the words to suit your purpose. You are once again wrong in your analysis of what is very simple to follow. This is the Evidence as it was offered. I do not state that I or anyone believes Oswald was actually there yet even you have to admit that a random call from a unknown person owning up to writing "Lee Oswald Dallas, Texas" in Wisconsin on Sept 14th when Oswald lived in New Orleans seems a bit more than a simple prank. But since all we have are anonymous calls and that article I include the real article in the presentation as opoposed to some FBI explanation which may or may not have any further corroboration. Harvey and Marina Oswald did not live in Dallas all that summer... but Lee did. How would these unknown people know to put DALLAS when our Oswald in only in Dallas from October 1962 thru April 1963 and then again from October 1963 on.... Nice try though Greg... Now David, resorting to national insults won't make your arguments any more persuasive. We Australians speak English as it is written by those who invented it - the English*. So I don't think there is any problem with our comprehension. If you've any problems with that you should take it up with the English. *albeit with a distinctive accent.

Personally I think just the normal sort of evidence is required on PM. As in, evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". No need for the 'extraordinary' at all.

I think it's the "Buell Wesley Frazier: Where's your Rider?" thread.