Andrej Stancak

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You are indicating that Connally, the silver-haired man, has already been shot through the chest, completely demolishing a rib? But after being shot, Connally has turned around in his chair to check on JFK? 

Yes, the rotation of Connally's body to his right is a part of the process of falling down toward his wife after being shot. The frame 276 does not show what Connally had described as trying to view Kennedy by turning to his right. Connally told he has not been able to see Kennedy after turning to his right; he would be able to see him in frame 276 though. At least, this is what I read in Z-film.

Ben:

my visual analysis of Z-film tells me that John Connally showed signs of distress possibly from being shot around frames 239-241. While I agree that the President was hit earlier than Connally, it may be that the shot that had hit Connally came before frame 284. Frame 284 shows him turned toward the President, however, this was not how he described the shot. He was in the process of turning to his left (i.e., facing the front of car) when he registered being shot.

Of course, I may be wrong as my is just an observation from Z-frames.

11 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Great points. 

Chris: is there any link to Part 1 to the The South Knoll Gunman? I only found a link to Part 2. I would be grateful for posting the link to Part 1, if possible. Thank you.

Do I miss something? The switched-on microphone was supposed to be on Officer McClain's motorbike, not Hargis's motorbike.

Well, I read this lengthy article and it turned out that the crictics cannot account for "I'll check it" being synchronous in both channels (as per James Barger's novel analysis, Appendix A). Ramsey panel in their report attempted to suppress this event. The digital analyses under the auspices of Ramsey panel used a too along time window to compute the pattern cross-correlation (PCC) and failed to detect it. Now, Richard Mullen in Appendix B accomplished it by using an appropriately short window and here the PCC shoots high when "I'll check it" pops up. Mr. Nalli wanted to weaken this finding by claiming the background noise was higher for "Check" than for "Hold" event, however, the level of noise will always be larger (or signal-to-noise ratio smaller) if the spectral window is reduced because less averaging is used to estimate the power spectra. 

As "I'll check it" event cannot be refuted (and it excludes "Hold" as being a genuine cross-talk), the critics aim on every possible aspect of Thompson's work. Their own acoustic analyses refrain to what they could hear with their own ears in the recordings, like that "I'll check it" is actually a completely different statement. Sure, Sgt. Bowles who was tasked with the trancripts of original audio recordings clealy heard "I'll check it" and assigned an ID of "4" (Deputy Fisher) just by mishearing it. The Ramsey panel report reproduced Bowles's transcription by replacing "4" with "?" and added "(discounted by sound spectrogram)" (the wrong spectrogram though,  the one with a long spectral window which could not detect this short phrase"). That says it all. 

13 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

For reference, Wayne January's experiences (based on Matthew's original work with January and my follow on research on the aircraft once we had the tail number) is discussed in more detail in SWHT 2010 if you have that.

Larry:

many thanks for reminding me your 2010 book. Of course, I read it, but it was some three years ago and I could not remember that January's stody was also mentioned in your previous JFKA book. I will consult it immediately.

It is a sheer pleasure to read your and other researchers' posts in this thread that reveal both deep research and in-person investigations. Tipping Point is on myreading list. Will a Kindle version of your book be also available and is it reasonable to wait for it?

Would you know or be able to guess who was the woman that came to negotiate with Wayne January on Wednesday, November 20? There were not many women associated with the case as potential co-conspirators and her identity could tell a lot about who were Lee's handlers in Dallas during this very sentitive period of the assassination plot.

33 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

   I read this account in James Douglass's book JFK and the Unspeakable.

Thanks for reminding me, James Douglas had indeed described Wayne January's story in his book. Your memory serves you well.

The possibility of two parallel plots, one to send Oswald to Cuba in the immediate aftermath of assassination and one to kill the President looks very logical and coherent to me. Lee Oswald played his spy games, he was led to believe he was in a plot against Castro, and he did not know anything about the other plot. This explains why he was genuinely surprised of being arreigned for killing the President when paraded in front of newsmen in Dallas Police headquarters.

There is one more interesting aspect to the other plot. Lee Oswald likely issued a clue during 12 hours of his interrogation of him being associated with one or more intelligence agencies - those that handled him during the summer. This may have been the reason for not having taken any notes, or stenographic or audio recordings during the interrogations. If Captain Fritz gave a call to Langley to check up on Lee Oswlad, he would hear a clear denial but also a strict order not to take any records during the interrogations. 

I have not read Tipping Point yet, however, the close association between anti-Castro Cuban intelligence activities and Lee Oswald and the lack of understanding of his own role has been elaborated in "JFK The Second Plot" by Matthew Smith in 1992, and it kind of matches the discussions here. Lee Oswald was led through a labyrinth of anti-Cuban operations that summer 1963 and after his attempt to get to Cuba in September 1963 failed (it was never really planned to succeed but Lee did not know), he was sent to Dallas to wait for the opportunity to be flawn to Cuba directly using a small aircraft. He was told that this clandestine operation would best take off when the President is in Dallas as nobody will pay any attention to what aaircraft departs from the Red Bird airport. Contrary to my working hypothesis of Oswald involvement (Lee taking part in a mock shooting attempt by bringing his rifle), Lee Oswald hurried from the Depository only because he had a randevous to make, with J.D. Tippitt supposed to provide a transfer to the airport. In the meantime, there was a an APB roughly matching Lee Oswald, and Tippitt became suspicious of possible Lee Oswald's involement in Presindent's killing. The person who lured Tippitt to tranfering Lee Oswald to the airport (Roscoe White?) was at the scene (possibly even brought Lee from North Beckley in a car) and it was that person who shot Tippitt. He had to do it because Tippitt would get to know too much about both plots and who was behind and could point directly to the person who asked for the transfer. Miss Acquilla Clemons's account would match this scenario quite well.

The scenario rests on the author's interview with Wayne January who described in great detail the visit of three persons (Oswald sitting in the car and not present during the talking) at Red Bird airport aimed to rent a small plane with a pilot for flight; the two people told January enough for him to understand that this plane would be hijacked on route, and he declined the contract. However, people in Red Bird  airport area complained about an aircraft revving its engine the whole afternoon as if waiting for a hasty departure.  

Thus, Lee Oswald, according to "The Second Plot" , did not know anything about the plot to kill the President, however, he knew a lot about the second plot and that would be enough to expose the assassination plot. Also, the second plot was based totally on the intelligence operations involving the CIA and the anti-Castro Cuband during summer of 1963. The whole purpose of the second plot was to fly Oswald to Cuba right after the assassination and then pin all guilt on him. The result would be a request of the public to attack Cuba.

3 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

In the Moorman photo, the holes found through MRI analysis are located too far toward the top of the head to have exposed cerebellar tissue that was observed at Parkland, so there must have been another hole created farther down at the back and right side of JFK's head in order for the observations of the Parkland doctors to be based on a real body they examined.  Moorman's photo doesn't show it, so it wasn't yet created at the time her photo was taken, and that's a rock solid foundation upon which you can place Moorman's photo on a time line (thereby revealing exactly what happened before and after it was taken).  Or so it seems to me.

Steven:

I guess the wound of the size of a baseball in the right parietal region of the head described by Parkland doctors cannot be seen in Marry Moorman picture; that wound would be on the right side of the head as a part of the blown-off bone flap. I guess what happend was that a large amount of brain tissue has been torn off from the rest of the brain, basically the whole of the right parietal lobe and a part of the occipital cortex. Therefore, it would have been possible to see the remaining brain tissue through the large wound, and that would be the cerebellum.

Unfortunately,we lack a proper 3D reconstruction of President's head and the head wound in Z-film or Mary Moorman picture which would be of great help. 

Paul:

As far as I can see, the Z-film shows very clearly a flap of bone hanging over the right ear. I may be wrong, however, my interpretation is that a part of this flap, the back portion of this flap, separated from the skin and fell onto the backseat. The remaining flap of bone was turned back, it could even be Jackie who did that, basically closing the enormous wound on the right side of the head. However, since the back portion of the flap was already on the backseat, the Parkland staff saw the back part of the wound;  the wound was in reality much larger than the wound that Parkland doctors and nurses saw. 

It is a speculation on my part, however, I can envisage that the portion of the flap of bone seen in Z-film that was found on the back seat was retrieved by the SS agents and brought to Bethesda. 

The flap of bone hanging over the right ear can only be the result of a tangential shot (if this flap was pushed out by a radial force, there would be an entry wound above the left ear) and such a shot most likely had an entry in the right front temple and exit in the parietal region slightly medial  relative to the large flap of bone seen in Z-film. I guess this is what Tom Wilson and I were able to reconstruct from Mary Moorman photograph.

Detail of the exit wound in Mary Moorman photogaph:

Location of the exit wound in Mary Moorman picture:

Could the whole purpose of the apparent surgery to the head mentioned by agents Sibert and O'Neill be adding the missing part of the bone to cover up the tangential shot which would cast doubts on a shot from the back? 

Mark:

I am not sure if you have read Josiah Thompson's book. The book would address your points better than I can.

The microphone on a motorbike was certainly switched on as it recorded engine sound (this would not be case if the motorcycle were parked somewhere miles away from Dealey Plaza). I was satisfied that it captured "I'll check it" (which occurred only seconds before the shooting) and the motor slowed down right after this message for about three seconds, possibly because the motorcycle was doing the sharp turn to Elm Street. The shots rang out just after "I'll check it" and after about 3 seconds of the motorcycle slowing down. The clue "I'll check it" occurred on both channels due to the crosstalk and there was zero lag (or perfect synchrony) between the channels if simulcast, voice-independent impulses were used to synchronise both channels. This was demonstrated by James Barger in 2018, and he has a chapter describing his analysis in Josiah Thompson's book. 

The array of microphone was capturing the sounds of shots along the path of the motorcade which could not occur just by chance. The sounds of shots were modelled to match the test shots fired at Dealey Plaza with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. The specific architecture of buildings in Dealey Plaza offered several reflecting surfaces which affected the shape of the sound waves produces by a rifle shot. It would not be possible to take the sound wave template, run it through the dictabelt recording and receive statistically significant verifications of the shots by chance (false positives), for instance by falsely detecting electrostatic spikes or other abrupt sounds; the false positives are prevented by implementing statistical analysis which was indeed the case.

I have registered the criticism of acoustic evidence that no picture or film showed officer McLain and his bike at an appropriate location where he would be expected if his microphone registered the shots. Frustrating as it is, the absence of a picture or film showing officer McClain at a certain location is not enough to refute the acoustic evidence. To refute the acoustic evidence, there should be a positive evidence, a picture or film, of officer McLain being somewhere else, e.g., in Parkland area or far ahead of the motorcade. 

I have completed my reading of "Last second of Dallas" and am very impressed by this book. I will read it again more slowly, however, there are a couple of points which immediately caught my attention:

1. The analysis of post-Z313 frames pointing to a head shot coming from the rear was new to me. This shot seemed to have occurred in frame Z328, about 0.71 s after the earlier head shot from the front. In all fairness, even Josiah Thompson could not identify this shot for some 30 years. It was discovered by Keith Fitzgerald around 2005. The shot from the rear explains the forward and downward slump of Kennedy after being thrown earlier to the left and back by the frontal shot. The occurrence and latency of this shot fits with the acoustic evidence.

2. The novel details and analyses of the acoustic data are extremely valuable and add to the strength of the visual evidence. This includes in the first place a new proof of a synchronising event "I'll check it" which occurred simultaneously in both channel 1 and 2 just seconds before the shooting. (Interestingly, the noise caused by the motorcycle engine showed a drop for about 3 seconds just before the shooting, consistent with slowing down during the hairpin turn to Elm street). However, the book, thanks to contributions of James Barger and Richard Mullen (BBN Technologies), also shows that the previous criticism of acoustic evidence based on a almost 1-minute delay in occurrence of "Hold everything" between channel 1 and 2, used by the Ramsey panel to discredit the HSCA conclusions, was wrong: this mismatch was due to copying "Hold" from one channel onto another at a later stage, possibly by mistake. This overdub of "Hold" at a later stage was demonstrated by examining the presence of multiple frequencies of the humming sound in channel 1 which could only happen by copying "Hold" from the other channel including its unique noise frequency (the recordings and copies were made on the Audograph machines each having a unique speed which shifted the 60 Hz noise frequency in a specific manner).

I understand the acoustic and acceleration arguments for two head shots occurring in rapid succession, however, what the Z-film and the MM picture both tell point to only one head shot with an entry probably on the right temple behind the eye and exit probably in the parietal region of the skull, as reconstructed in Mary Moorman's picture. This shot was tangential and caused a large flap of bone to detach from the rest of cranium and hang by the skin. The brain matter including blood and cerebrovascular fluid was discharged upward in various directions - directly upward, slightly to the front and also to the back, creating a wedge. The left-riding motorcycle officers were hit as they arrived at a spot to receive the brain matter and bone particles falling down. 

I just cannot see evidence in terms of the head wounds (on the autopsy pictures or in Z-film) proving another head shot while I admit there may be another shot around the time of the fatal head shot that missed.

The flap of bone hanging over the President's right ear in Z-film suggests a large gaping wound in the right parietal region of the head and this could be the wound that all Parkland medical staff had witnessed. 

I wonder if the bone loosened from the flap and remained in the limousine, was retrieved by the SS agents, brought to the Bethesda hospital, and was crudely mounted back in what was later seen as "apparent surgery to the head" by the FBI agents Sibert and O'Neil.

On 9/11/2020 at 6:49 PM, Steven Kossor said:

The position of JFK's head in the Moorman photo indicates that it was taken a moment before the shot from the front right that exited through the hole in the right rear of his skull since his head isn't yet turned in the correct direction that would have exhausted blood & brain in the direction that it traveled after the shot from the front right side happened. 

Steven: I was thinking a lot about your comment about the timing of Mary Moorman's picture. If Mary Moorman snapped her famous picture before the head shot, the photographic analysis shown in this thread would hang in the air. I am currently reading Josiah Thompson' Last second in Dallas, and the book claims the picture was shot 1/9 second after the head shot (presumably Z313). This would justify seeing the two holes in the right parietal area of the scalp in Moorman's picture.

My current working hypothesis would be that the two small holes seen in Moorman's picture would be the exit holes from the frontal head shot to the right temple, and this tangential shot would cause flipping of a large portion of the skull that would hang by the skin over the right ear. I guess, this is seen in Z film frames after Z313. Could this flap  have separated from from the head and remained in the limousine? 

I can confirm that the delay in response to a noxious impact to the skin (not mentioning the  impact of a gunshot) of 2 seconds is an order longer than the electrophysiological data in healthy humans. A noxious stimulus impacting the skin will cause a brain response within 200 ms (actually the first cortical response can be seen as early as 140-160 ms) and an involuntary motor response to noxious impact occurs in about the same latency (around 200 ms or shorter). This early response is called the motor withdrawal reaction and it is mediated by the spinal cord. Thus, if there was an abrupt motion artefact in Zapruder film and a visible motor response occurred only 2 seconds later, we speak about two shots of which the first perhaps missed.

The problem with the official version is that it is sufficient to identify just one glaring problem and the whole theory crumbles. For me this problem is that Lee Oswald could not enter the second floor lunchroom by a route involving the stairwell on the north of the building.

First, he could be seen through the narrow door window on the door leading to the lunchroom from the stairwell platform from one location, and that location was just in front of the last step on the stairs exiting to the second floor. While this was possible, there is always a history to any action: Roy Truly was steps ahead of Officer Baker and Truly would have to see Lee crossing the door and the door would still be open. However, Truly did not see any movements of the doors or anyone on the platform or in the door.

Second, it takes about 3-4 seconds to cross the distance of the platform between the door at the exit from the stairs and the door leading to the lunchroom vestibule. Lee Oswald would be still on the final steps of those stairs when Baker and Truly would just start ascending through the stairs leading from the first floor; this means these two men had to hear Lee's steps either on the stairs or on the platform, or both. However, they did not. The stairs were old and creaky. Even Buell Wesley Frazier flagged up the problem of no one hearing Lee's steps in his recent interview on Quorum Radio. Vicki Adams confirmed the noise problem to Barry Ernest, and Barry was able to test the stairs himself back in 1969.

Third, Miss Garner placed herself very close to the stairwell on the fourth floor during the critical moments after the shooting. Miss Garner took this post within seconds after Vicki Adams and Sandra Styles disappeared in the stairwell. Thus, not only there was a brief overlap of the time when the girls were on stairs and Lee was allegedly starting his descend (Lee could be at the stairwell around 30 seconds after the last shot), but Miss Garner covered the remaining time of Lee Oswald's alleged descent. It is even worst than that: to connect the exit from stairs leading from the fifth to the fourth floor with the entrance to the stairs leading from the fourth to the third floor, Lee would have to walk on the fourth-floor platform and could therefore be seen by anyone on the fourth floor, especially by Miss Garner who monitored that space.

Lee Oswald could enter the second floor lunchroom and be seen by Officer Baker at one specific time point while he was in the small vestibule leading to the lunchroom, however, he would have to arrive from the hallway of the second floor. And that space is connected with the first floor via the front stairs. 

The timing problem was never properly addressed in official investigations and so the timing problem as if did not exist for those believing in the official version. And those who wonder how could the timing problem be resolved are considered to be fools. 

Denis:

my point was that Mr. Frazier did not even mention his HSCA interview in his autobiography, while he did mention Clay Shaw trial (and of course, his Warren Commission testimony). It certainly could be the case that he did not receive either the tape or the transcript, however, he still could at least mention it and give some details.

15 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

I think Buell made a mistake allowing his book to become too much of an autobiography.

Vince:

But this is also the strength of this book in the sense of deterring the assassination researchers to ask questions and seek answers from Mr. Frazier. It is just an autobiography after all.

As I understand from the silence on his Facebook page, Mr. Frazier has no intention to answer questions. And there are so many.

On page 52, Mr. Frazier writes about being invited by his coworkers in the Depository to go for a beer together to the Carousel Club. Who were these coworkers? No answer, unfortunately.

As I mentioned before, Buell Wesley Frazier was interviewed for the House Select Committee on Assassination in 1977. However, there is just no mention of this 4-hour long interview. Why?

How it is possible not to mention sighting of Lee Oswald just minutes after the shooting,while testifying for the Warren Commission that he had not seen him any longer that day because he went down to basement to have lunch? 

Why could he not say to any law enforcement officer about seeing a man with a rifle in an area between Depository and railroad tracks within a minute of shooting? He could have said this to any ranking officers in the Depository and instead of the inaccurate bulletin about a man of 30 years age, Police could have issued a quite an accurate description of the man and his car. Why instead assuring that suspicious person about not seeing anything?  

Did he really know Charles Harrelson and members of Dixie mafia at the time when he was about to leave for Dallas in 1963? Could there be a plan to place Mr. Frazier into Texas School Book Depository in summer 1963? Could it be that Mr. Frazier associated that unknown man whom he encountered after the shooting with those people? Could it be that it was the moment when he decided to steer truth to oblivion?

Did he ever had any suspicion about the content of the elongated package? The package clearly could not contain any curtain rods - the room at North Beckley only required three rods (or one very long which obviously was not a rod carried by Lee Oswald) and the rods would be lightweight - they would certainly not provide for a bulky package  described by his sister.  One does not need a package 5-6 inches wide to carry three rods each of a diameter of a finger.

What is the reason of not having any memory recollections of people standing near him during or immediately after the shooting (except mentioning a heavy set lady names Sara as standing to the left of him). How could he not recall Officer Baker and Roy Truly storming into the building and shuffling people on steps away? These memory lapses are not due to the long period of time elapsing since the event; Mr. Frazier never described in detail who was with him in the doorway. 

Why would Mr. Frazier describe Lee's hair as blonde?

I am not the judge here, and never was in a situation even remotely resembling Buell Wesley Frazier's experience during the day of assassination, however, it is a fact that he chopped off from his relevant testimonies (such as the one for the Warren Commission) both his encounter with a man with a rifle who was leaving the assassination scene and his sighting of Lee Oswald who clearly had to leave from the back of the building, not via the main entrance a few minutes after the assassination. Had he mentioned the presence of a man with a rifle in that critical area and so close to the shooting, Lee Oswald's fate could have been different because the Police would have a reason to think of somebody else's than Lee Oswald's involvement.

17 hours ago, John Deignan said:

Andrej, just to be clear Buell was the one that said “Don’t worry, I didn’t see anything.” 
  I can understand being scared and not talking about the incident but once he started to speak at engagements why not mention it?

John: 

It was the Buell Wesley Frazier who said that, I explained it clumsily (I will correct this bit in my previous post). Let me quote from the book, page 163:

"As I explained earlier, after the president's motorcade sped off, Mr. Shelley and Billy took off to the grassy knoll area. I walked down to the bottom of the steps, where I had been standing, and I looked toward the triple underpass. I figured I'd walk down to find Mr. Shelley and Billy to see if the knew anything. I walked just twenty yards before I realized there was no way going to find them.

  As I paused to turn around to go back to the entrance of the Texas School Book Depository, a man walked up carrying a rifle. 

  He wore a light-beige slacks with a white shirt and tie and light-brown shoes, and he had a brow-colored plaid tweed sports coat with a brown fedora. I think he was in his late thirties.

  When he walked up and I saw him with the rifle, my heart jumped into my throat. I knew the president had been shot, and I was now face-to-face with someone not in police clothing carrying a weapon.

  I was terrified.

He bored a hole right through me with his brown eyes, and I said, "Don't worry, I didn't see anything". 

  Without missing a beat, he opened the trunk of his car, and I saw what happened to be a pump shotgun. He put his rifle he was carrying in the trunk and shut it. 

  He was calm and never said a word to me, but I'll never forget his face. 

  I turned around and headed back to the front steps of the Texas School Book Depository.

 At the same time, I heard the car door open and close, the car start, and him pull out of the angled parking spot. I never looked back as I walked toward the entrance of the building and then to the corner of Houston and Elm, where a couple was standing"

I have completed my reading of Mr. Frazier's book. The book is an autobiography and describes a lot of family events in a very private and humble way. One can only sympathise with Mr. Frazier and appreciate his sharing of many private details with his readers.

For us, the assassination buffs, the book does raise a number of questions. There are several points necessitating more probing.

One is the complete lack of any mentioning of his interview for the House Select Committee on Assassinations. The House Select Committee on Assassination (1976-1978) recognised the importance of Buell Wesley Frazier's knowledge of Lee Oswald and made an interview with him on October 21, 1977. The tapes containing the interview with Buell Wesley Frazier were eventually deposited at the National Archives at College Park, Bethesda, Maryland. The Councell (Mr. Moriarty) did mention that both a copy of the tape and a copy of the transcript of the interview would be sent to Buell Wesley Frazier. I do not know if this had happened, however, I certainly miss the transcript of this interview in his book. The book contains Mr. Frazier's testimonies for Clay Shaw trial and for the Warren Commission, with details about the venues etc., however, there is a complete silence about his HSCA interview.

I was also puzzled with the description of Lee Oswald's hair. This is Mr. Frazier's answer during Clay Shaw trial:

Q: What colored hair did Lee Harvey Oswald have, as you recalled?

A:  He had a light colored hair. It looked like he had blond, kind of blond browny, maybe it had a red tint to it.

I seriously doubt that this is a correct description of Lee Oswald's hair. 

Also, Mr. Frazier tended to place both Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady to the lower steps across his testimonies or interviews. However, both men were just 2-3 feet away from him during and immediately after the shooting. This, together with the lack of awareness of a police officer who stormed near him to the building while he was still on steps, suggests that there were some serious gaps in Mr. Frazier's recollection of details.

In contrast to these memory lapses, Mr. Frazier newly explained the reasons of his fear that had accompanied him since the day of assassination. It was related to his witnessing of a man with a rifle in the area in front of the Depository. Mr. Frazier saw this man when he (Frazier) went out to find Lovelady and Shelley. Mr. Frazier was just 20 yards away from the steps and just turned around to walk back when he saw a man with a rifle walking from the area of railroad tracks or Grassy Knoll. Mr. Frazier provided a detailed description of this man: he wore light-beige slacks with a white shirt and a tie amd light brown shoes, and he had a brown-colored plaid tweed sport coat with a brown fedora; he was apparently in his late thirties. By that time Mr. Frazier knew President had been shot and he was terrified seeing a person with a rifle who would not be dressed as a police officer. That man looked at Mr. Frazier and Mr. Frazier said: "Don't worry, I didn't see anything". The man opened the trunk of his car and Frazier saw a shotgun in the trunk. 

It is not clear to me why Mr. Frazier did not report to any police officer, and there were plenty around in the building after he returned. He could also tell about this encounter during his late afternoon and night interrogation at Police headquarters. Mr. Frazier explained that he was scared for the life of his sister and family and of his own because the next day he saw a man in a parked car across the street of their Irving house who had a rifle. His sister called Police and the police arrived and appeared to know the man; the car left after the police car left. While this second encounter could have triggered a good deal of fear, this incident happened one day later after the assassination and Mr. Frazier had all time needed to report the presence of the first man with a rifle whom he encountered in front of the Depository building a day ago. What had stopped Mr. Frazier to say anything about that man?

This is a very detailed interpretation of the events surrounding the assassination and Lee Oswald. But the devil is in the detail: your theory assumes three people to be on the sixth floor, including Lee Oswald. How could all these people escape given that neither Vicki Adams with Sandra Styles, nor Mrs. Garner heard or saw anyone. Mrs. Garner positioned herself to the stairway on the fourth floor and she witnessed Baker and Truly going up the stairs. Thus, there was no time for anyone to descend with rifles in their arms during about 2 minutes after the shooting, let alone three people. It was more difficult later on because the employees started to return to the building (e.g., Otis Williams).

2 hours ago, John Butler said:

Prayerman is Oswald

🥇    ... and the rest is your battle, good luck in it!

I am afraid that we will not hear more from Mr. Frazier than what wrote on his Facebook page: "I 100% have no idea who this person is. I can tell you 100% that is not Lee Harvey Oswald". He gives two reasons: One, he simply knows this to be true. But how can he know and what reason leads him to say that he knows this to be true? It sounds more like following a collective agreement about who stood in the doorway. Second, Mr. Frazier thinks that this person has a much larger frame than Lee. But here, I am afraid, he relies on reading from a photograph, and as unhumble as it may sound, I see no reason why Mr. Frazier's opinion would be more relevant than other people's opinion. He saw him 57 years ago; other people studied all available photographs and films showing Lee Oswald and even did a 3D model of his figure, meaning they explored every single detail of Lee Oswald's body. I even consulted Oswald's stance with an orthopedist to hear more expert opinion on Lee's unusual postures and walking.

How can we actually even imagine that Mr. Frazier would suddenly agree that this person could be Lee Oswald? This would crash the whole Warren Commission version of Lee Oswald's guilt.

I am reading Mr. Frazier's new book "Steering Truth" and hope to understand his behaviour and attitudes better. 

Late edit:

What can also be read from Mr. Frazier's statement "I have been looking at this all day" is that he genuinely did not have awareness about the presence of this man who happened to stand some 2-3 feet away from him just after the shooting. The photograph did not revive any memory recollections in form "Oh yes, I remember now, this is XY, he ..." . Mr. Frazier is approaching Prayer Man as an entirely new object. This suggests that Mr. Frazier missed the presence of this man. 

I feel sorry for putting more strain on Mr. Frazier by raising the possibility that Lee Oswald stood besides him just after the shooting. It is a strange twist of fate that Mr. Frazier was exposed to the burden of being Lee's associate (a driver and co-employee in the same establishment) back then, and he is now challenged again. On the other hand, Mr. Frazier is the only person who could shed some light on this issue, and it was necessary to ask the question, even if it was unlikely to learn more about the identity of that unknown person standing at the western wall just seconds after the last shot.

Tony:

Sure, the only thing missing is who in Mr. Frazier's opinion this man was. Mr. Frazier seems to be genuinely surprised that somebody had stood in his vicinity during the seconds after the shooting. Mr. Frazier was not aware of the presence of this man standing next to him and it therefore, could be anybody, including Lee Oswald. However, Mr. Frazier was not even aware that a police officer walked through the glass door while he was still in the doorway, so it does not surprise me he could not recall seeing Prayer Man who behaved inconspicuously and spent only a short time in the doorway.

You may have noted my post on Mr. Frazier Facebook page asking for his comment. I am more than happy to admit that Prayer Man was not Lee Oswald once Mr. Frazier says who that man was and after it could be verified.