Andrej Stancak

14 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Just there I tried to recreate Prayer Man's arm positions shown in that photo. It felt like quite an uncomfortable position having my right arm across the chest like that unless I put my shoulder against the wall where it felt less ubcomfortable. Both times putting my left hand up in to that position felt wrong, I wanted to have my left arm down at my side, or left hand in my trouser pocket, or resting my left arm behind and hand at the small of my back... hopefully that makes sense. Might just be a preferential thing on how I personally would stand though.

On the subject similarity to the Backyard Photos etc

and

I hadn't come across the subject of similarity between Prayer Man's stance and the Backyard Photos, I will certainly spend a bit of time looking in to that.

Just to return to the above image of Prayer Man,

I would like to take this opportunity to propose an alternative reading in to Prayer Man's stance, and I offer this up only as a possibility with no real contentions on my part of it being this way instead of what we have previously said...

What if Prayer Man is actually standing with his arms crossed - that is to say his left arm is beneath his right arm, his righ hand clasping on to this left elbow, and the left hand tucked underneath his right arm - and what we have previously read as being his 'left hand' is actually a reflection of the radiator that sat behind the glass door!

Alistair:

1. there seem to be a space between both arms, so they may not be crossed in the way you propose. 2. the radiator does not reach to the level of Prayer Man's arms.

1 hour ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Here is that exact image that Robin posted on January 5th on page 183 of the other Prayer Man thread.

...

With the presently available pictures we can't determine Prayer Man's arrival at the doorway... we can speculate on it but unless other pictures become availabe that show him arriving from a different place to that position we can't determine it at all! The location as seen in the presently available pictures carries a strong implication that Prayer Man came from within the building - I can buy in to that thinking - it's still not conclusive though....

... in terms of his height, perhaps from the presently available pictures we can determine Prayer Man's height (many have tried to do it, have any of them been conclusive?). Regardless, even if it was 'proved' from the presently available pictures that Prayer Man was 5ft 9 - the same height as Oswald, it's still not proof in and of itself that Prayer Man is Oswald. It may be held up as 'one more nail in the coffin' (so to speak)...

Not really sure, Andrej, why you disagree with my agreeance with what Lance said especially when you earlier said that you were ' almost to agreement ' with the exact same bit from Lance that I quoted!

Regards

P.S. for clarity I will repeat what I have said a couple of times already - Personally, I am not against the idea of Oswald being Prayer Man, it's just I don't think it's, with the currently available quality of images, possible to actually unequivocally nail the issue down.

"Not really sure, Andrej, why you disagree with my agreeance with what Lance said especially when you earlier said that you were ' almost to agreement ' with the exact same bit from Lance that I quoted!"

Sorry, Alistair, I probably misunderstood some of your statements.

24 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I just returned from the Prayer Man site, where I was checking what Frazier had said about PM - his most recent statement apparently being that he doesn't remember anyone there at all!

As to the arms, they do seem to me to be oddly "away" from the body, as though he were holding something out in front of him.  I tried duplicating this pose in a mirror and my arms were typically closer in to my body.  I can almost convince myself he's holding a jacket or something like that.  But I did see the enhanced portion of the Wiegman film posted by someone named Chris where it appeared to be a coffee mug and with a motion of lifting the mug to the mouth.  What happened with that discussion?

Actually, now that I compare them, he's actually holding his arms quite similarly to the Backyard Photos, the angle of PM being just a little more from the side.  I also note that in many photos LHO appears to have had a sharply sloping right shoulder, and I'll concede that this seems to be noticeable on PM as well.

Lance:

this picture was posted in this and one other (backyard picture) thread before. The top left picture is my Prayer Man reconstruction made in Poser11, and the right picture is of course the backyard picture. Yes, there is a remarkable similarity in the position of arms and legs between Prayer Man and Oswald (I know many will oppose) in Darnell's still and the backyard photograph.

Alistair:

the arms are positioned as we see them, as if holding some object in front of his chest with his right hand, and maybe even with his left hand. I was never able to identify any object in either hand though. However, he surely had something which reflected the light in his right hand in Wiegman's film. Some researcher claim it was a camera, other say it was a mug or a purse,,, I would vote for a bottle.

Alistair:

the picture I referred to was posted on January 5 in the other Prayer Man thread, page 183.

29 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Just for clarity.

Yep, I'm in agreeance with what Lance just said, when he said, and I quote;

Regards

Here I disagree, the discussion may lead somewhere even with presently available pictures if we can determine e.g., Prayer Man's arrival to the doorway, or his body height.

38 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

We almost need a statistician here, but how significant are those 7 items?  Male / Caucasian / 5'9" / worker-type clothing / receding hairline / stance - none of these is even vaguely a unique identifier.  I hate to sound like one of OJ's defense lawyers, but this entire combination could fit thousands of men in Dallas.  "Came from inside the building" is the only one that strikes me as really significant.  And still, no one really wants to deal with the elephant in the room:  Suppose we nail this down to the level of "Yes, we are confident of those 7 factors.  Yes, we are confident this could indeed be LHO."  Do we then say (as I'll bet we do), "There you go.  We've proved it's LHO."  Or do we say, "OK, we're confident it could be LHO - but what do we do with all those other considerations that make it highly unlikely it is LHO?  Just explain them away, because we so desperately want this to be LHO?"  I continue to say the PM discussion is going nowhere until we have a photo that does not require any interpretation at all.

Lance:

here we came almost to agreement. Even if all points listed in my previous post would be proven beyond any doubt, I would still only be able to say that with an unusually high probability close to certainty Prayer Man was Oswald. 

As far as a better photograph is concerned, actually the best Darnell frame (posted by Robin Unger recently) may well be the best we can have. It is a good picture given that it is a frame from a film camera, not a photographic film, the distance, and the quality of the film material. Wiegman's film is a different cup of coffee - there could be a high quality copy somewhere which would reveal some novel aspects. 

I should add, if it is proven that Prayer Man came from inside the building, we then play not against "thousands of men in Dallas" but only against some 50-70 employees of the Depository, and it would actually converge to Lee Harvey Oswald.

2 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

n 1960, the average height of American males was just over 5'8".  It is 5'9" today.  So if PM is actually 5'9", he is Mr. Average.  Things like the "worker type of clothing," "hair line remarkably similar to" LHO, "specific stance which LHO displayed," etc., seem to me to be Rorschach-type projections.  Because of the other high improbabilities that I identified, which you really did not address, even if it could be conclusively demonstrated that PM was a 5'9" male who came from inside the TSBD, and even if I were willing to put on my conspiracy beanie (which I am perfectly willing to do), a more plausible hypothesis to me would be that this mystery figure was actually someone connected with the conspiracy rather than LHO.  This would explain why no one paid any attention to PM or mentioned him - he was an inconsequential stranger.  Perhaps they assumed he was (or perhaps he actually was) a visitor associated with one of the several publishing companies that had offices inside the TSBD.  I'm not pooh-poohing your work - go for it.  But clearly, to me, (1) an intense desire for this to be LHO is driving the PM project, and (2) huge improbabilities that would have to fall into place for PM to be LHO are being ignored or explained away with raw speculation.

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Lance:

You may have not understood my point. We speak about features of Prayer Man which collectively cannot occur by chance. You are right that by chance a stranger would likely measure 5'8''. However, he would also need to come from inside the building (needs to be demonstrated) and none of the Depository employees reported seeing any stranger in the building on that day. He would need to have a hairline matching Oswald's hairline, and he would need to stand with his left leg bent in the knee joint and the right leg pushed back, just like Oswald used to stand. He would also need to wear a worker type of clothing matching CE151 and C157. These are just too many characteristics matching Oswald that the chance that these features would match any random person at Dealey Plaza is just too small. Actually, the odds can be calculated but it does not have sense at this stage.

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

 

I see an Irishman in a tartan kilt holding a bagpipe, doctor.  If nothing else, this thread demonstrates that PM is little more than a Rorschach test.  The approach of PM fans seems to me fundamentally misguided.  By trying to measure the height of the figure, identify the clothing, account for the whereabouts of all the other TSBD employees, etc., we supposedly arrive at a high probability that PM is LHO.  But wait, what is the probability absolutely no one would have said LHO was standing on the steps?  What is the probability the conspirators who were planting LHO's rifle on the 6th floor and setting him up as the patsy would have allowed him to be anywhere near the front steps?  What is the probability LHO would not have been screaming to reporters, “I was on the front steps – ask the other employees who were there!”?  What is the probability Fritz would have stupidly put “out with Bill Shelley in front” in his notes if LHO had actually been saying he was standing out front with Shelley at the time of the assassination?  For each of these, the probability is essentially zero. Cumulatively, these probabilities overwhelm any probability you want to assign to the blurry, grainy photo.  Ergo, in the absence of a photo showing beyond question that PM is in fact LHO, the PM discussion is meaningless.  The logic being applied – oh, well, LHO "probably" did say he was on the steps, others "probably" did identify him but were intimidated or had their statements suppressed, the FBI "probably" confiscated other photos more clearly showing LHO, the conspirators "probably" had good reasons for not even caring if LHO was seen on the steps – is ass-backwards Conspiracy Logic that makes sense only if one has completely lost all perspective.  It's not just that the probability of all these "probablies" is pretty much zero, it's that they make no sense.  I have no foaming-at-the-mouth desire to prove PM is not LHO because all the other probabilities make it a virtual certainty it isn’t.  If it turns out to be, OK cool - but you will never "prove" it is by the sort of analysis being undertaken here, because all the other probabilities make it a virtual certainty your analysis is wrong.  You're going to overcome all those other probabilities, and the one-in-ten-million odds that flow from them, only with a definitive, no-question-about-it photo.

 

Lance:

I see it differently. If it will be possible to demonstrate that Prayer Man measured 5'9'' and that he came from the inside the building, the probability that he was Lee Harvey Oswald would be extremely high against the probability that it was just anyone. We speak about the odds of Prayer Man 1. was a Caucasian, 2. he was a male, 3. he wears a worker type of clothing, 4, his hair line is remarkably similar to that of Lee Harvey Oswald, 4. he came from inside the building (remains to be demonstrated), 5. he is 5'9'' tall (remains to be demonstrated). 6. Prayer Man assumed a specific stance which Oswald displayed on several occasions when photographed while standing upright (remains to be demonstrated).

These characteristics if taken together would be unusually unlikely to occur by chance, we speak about multiplying the probabilities, not about a probability of one single characteristic. The chance level can be evaluated by calculating the probability that any other from roughly 50 Depository employees would match each and every of these characteristics. Thus, the research into Prayer Man has a very good meaning because it narrows down the possibilities for any other employee to be Prayer Man. I agree that only looking on Darnell's picture cannot yield any conclusive confirmation of Prayer Man's identity. However, it is still worthy to bring this investigation to the ultimate endpoint available to us. 

Your post explains why you would never undertake any serious research in Prayer Man, and it has been noted in your earlier posts. Your attitude is basically similar to Bill's or Paul's. Other researchers are different. I would "stick into a dead  horse" just to find out what still can be learned. The further you go, the more difficult it gets. If people would say it is impossible, there would be no landing on the Moon or a discovery of Higgs bosson because why to do any research if the outcome is impossible...

As far as the clothing is concerned, let us stick to empirical data. Marina Oswald testified that the slacks Oswald wore on Friday morning were those shown in CE157, and the shirt was of about the same colour based on evaluation of black-and-white pictures (CE151 and CE157). The slacks had a specific feature - they did not hold the shape too well and were loose, especially in the bottom part. The slacks CE157 are compatible with Prayer Man's clothing and some features of his left leg, and the clothing CE151+CE157 certainly does not contradict the possibility that Prayer Man was Oswald, it rather strengthens it.

The evergreen of those opposing Prayer Man=Oswald hypothesis is that there was no one reporting him to be present in the doorway, therefore he could not have been in the doorway. I have commented on this in my previous posts, however, it is perhaps necessary to do it again. Oswald, if he were Prayer Man, stood in the doorway for a very short period, my estimate is between 45 and 120 s. It was the period overlapping with seconds just following the last shot up to two minutes later as Oswald was seen by Occhus Campbell only two minutes after the last shot in the storage room in the vicinity of the main entrance. During this period, people on steps were upset, perplexed, and viewed towards the Triple underpass/Grassy knoll. Those standing below Prayer Man would not turn their head towards the door to be able to spot Prayer Man. Those standing on the top platform did see Oswald but did not say. If Oswald was in the doorway, suppression of this information would be the first and primary task in the cover up. Frazier, Shelley and Lovelady were taken to the police headquarters almost right away, Molina was visited during the night (this I do not remember accurately). Mrs. Sanders and Miss Stanton gave their negative testimonies and were never seen. There never was a more sensitive issue than the presence of Oswald in the doorway in the whole cover up. If it did happen, we can be sure it would never perspire. If it did not happen, no one has reported. Thus, the absence of witness testimonies has no information value as it does not really exclude the possibility of a short stay of Oswald in the doorway.

By the way, no one actually saw Oswald after he allegedly came down from the second floor holding a bottle of Coke. Why? Is not strange that those employees who already were in the first floor vestibule did seen him passing. Just no one? They did not even see him leaving, supposedly via the doorway. Why? I see a complete blindness and avoidance to shed any light on Oswald's movements from 11.50 onward. Thus, Oswald could have been in the doorway for a brief period of time and no one would say anything. 

Joe:

I like your interesting posts. However, I am not sure that Ruby was just a "pimp" who was used by the DPD as a patsy to kill Oswald. Ruby's background goes much deeper to the criminal underworld than just  being a manager of two local strip clubs. Peter Dale Scott in his book: Deep politics and the death of JFK" devoted several chapters on Ruby's associations with 1) gun running criminals, 2) narcotics business, 3) Cuban connections. All parts of Ruby's  lead to billionaire business circles (e.g., Hunt's) and mafia and intelligence. I read Seth Kantor's book and could not draw any conclusions about who Ruby was in spite of a number of useful details about Ruby and his movements on the assassination weekend. 

Not being too educated in the assassination case, I can only speculate about what was his role in the plot. One can accept Ruby's actions as presented in Warren Report and end up with an improbable explanation that Ruby ruined his life just because he wanted to save Jacqueline Kennedy from coming to Dallas for a trial. Or, one can look deeper while risking to use information which emerged later and which entails a possibility of not being verifiable.  

Or, one could abstract from details and only focus on the primitive logic of what happened: Oswald was a patsy and needed to be killed as soon as possible after killing the President else he would talk about how he ended up as a patsy. So, Ruby was one of the backup executors of Lee Harvey Oswald, and maybe the very last instance. We can ask what were the earlier execution attempts: 1. TSBD? Was the patsy actually be shot on the sixth floor but he was not there? 2. the Marsalis bus allegedly searched by two police officers. If Oswald had a pistol given to him by Ruby, he would be an explainable target if killed. 3. J.D. Tippit or people killing Tippit. 4. Dallas police in Texas Theatre. As nothing worked, Ruby was called, and the Dallas police colluded. It would be difficult to get Ruby to do this job unless he was somehow (and quite significantly) involved in the plot earlier.

   ... I now see that my post deviates from the thread title, I apologise.

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Right, Bill.  There's no motivation for so many TSBD to lie to protect LHO, by agreeing unanimously that LHO was nowhere to be seen near the TSBD front steps or first floor.

The only reason to accuse them all of lying seems to be to protect Captain Will Fritz (and his pals) who testified that LHO claimed that he was out front with Bill Shelley.

The more likely scenario is that Captain Will Fritz lied in order to fully portray LHO as a big fat l-i-a-r.  Yet in doing this, Fritz also gave ammunition to those who maintain not only the innocence of LHO in the JFK shooting (which I also maintain), but also that LHO was an honest and innocent choir boy (which I deny).

It is impossible that LHO was outside the TSBD standing next to Bill Shelley and Roy Truly, but they didn't see him.  Impossible.

Although it's not impossible that LHO himself lied about it, it is more likely that Captain Will Fritz was inventing a story to anger Bill Shelley, to get Bill Shelley to attack LHO more forcefully.  I say this because the rest of the testimony by Captain Will Fritz is carefully packaged, submitted after weeks of delay, and perfectly matches the testimony given by Dallas FBI agents James Hosty, James Bookhout, Dallas SS agent Forrest Sorrels, as well as Dallas Postmaster Harry Holmes -- who also added a full detail of LHO's Mexico City trip for good measure.  It was calculated.

LHO was nowhere to be seen near the TSBD front steps or first floor.  LHO was not Prayer Man.  The search for LHO in photographs and film of the front steps of the TSBD is unlikely to bear fruit.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul:

would the following points change your opinions? 1. Prayer Man was a Caucasian, white male. 2. He was dressed as a worker, with shirt sleeves rolled up to just below the elbow joints. 3. Prayer Man came from inside the building just before Wiegman started filming. 4. Prayer Man had a specific stance often displayed by Lee Harvey Oswald. 5. Prayer Man was a man sized 5'9'' which is the body height of Lee Harvey Oswald. 6. Prayer Man was standing in the doorway only for 45-120 s during a period filled with the most dramatic events whilst people at Dealey Plaza were gazing towards Triple Underpass or Grassy Knoll; thus, Prayer Man came in and went away unnoticed by all the people standing on steps below him. 7. Lee Harvey Oswald was not identified by any witness to be at some other location during the period overlapping with Wiegman's and Darnell's films.

There is simply no one else than Lee Harvey Oswald who would match all these points. It cannot be just "anybody". If you take a standpoint that Prayer Man was someone else than Oswald, it is your turn to suggest who he was. You can start with Revill's list of Depository employees, and tick off females, Afro-American males, those who abstained from work on the day, and those whose locations are verifiable and different to Prayer Man's location. Who will remain? 

Witnesses who had to see and would be able to identify Prayer Man were not called to testify for the Warren Commission (Mrs. Sanders, Mrs. Stanton), or were vulnerable (Frazier, Lovelady, Molina), or maybe even participated in framing Oswald (Shelley). Those who might for some reason remember Prayer Man as a salient person in the doorway and could later associate Prayer Man with Oswald, these people would soon question their own memories once they had listened to TV news ("the case is cinched" etc.), and would not come forwards. Witnesses reporting events and facts deviating from the official version were ignored, threatened, harassed, or their testimonies were falsified. 

We do not know all information about Prayer Man yet which would be necessary to make a qualified and authoritative decision about whether Prayer Man was Oswald or someone else. While a number of forum members continue to work on the points listed above and refrain from posting unless they know the answers, you already know that Prayer Man could not be Oswald.

Please do not expect further comments from me, I stand on my decision to withdraw from posting on Prayer Man issues unless my research is finished. You can either start your own research on Prayer Man and also withdraw from posting until you have novel data, or you can continue posting your conclusions which are only based on your subjective beliefs about what was possible and what was not. It will be interesting to know what path you choose.

Maybe we reached here a deep and long impasse at which the views of those promoting the possibility of Prayer Man being Oswald are balanced out by those having opposing views. This impasse has no immediate solution, and the more one side will push, the more opposition it will face.  The frustration is high and understandable. Anger and denial are very common responses to any sort of frustration. The problem is that this situation may last for quite a long time, e.g., until high-quality images of Prayer Man would be available to the community, or some other relevant documents would emerge.

I would propose to declare a moratorium on posting on Prayer Man threads until a researcher has a novel factual information on the case, or responds to such posting of another researcher. This could be based on a gentlemen agreement of those interested in Prayer Man problem. As the one proposing the moratorium, I will now stop reacting to posts in Prayer Man's thread until I have anything novel coming from my own research which would deserve posting, or unless anyone else posts a strong novel find. I see no problems to discuss partial issues (e.g., Baker's run to the Depository, or Second floor encounter) in other relevant threads. 

The FBI did commit multiple suspicious acts in the process of the immediate and also a later, permanent cover-up. The FBI seized a number of films/cameras directly at Dealey Plaza in the first minutes after the assassination. The FBI interrupted the chain of evidence by first requesting material evidence on the night of assassination which was flown to Washington and returned within one day, and again after one week when all evidence was sent to the FBI for good. In the process, the Minox camera has been eliminated from the list of items sent from Dallas to the FBI; the original six rolls of films depicting all items sent to the FBI was never returned to Dallas or shown to the public. The FBI issued an official report on the assassination within a very short period of time  which already had all lone-nut components in it; the Warren Commission worked within the lines of this report. The FBI was responsible for presenting all photographic evidence to the Warren Commission, and a number of testimonies. All inputs provided by the FBI aided only the lone-nut theory. The FBI deliberately provided a false explanation of Silvia Odio incident. There are much more knowledgeable people on this forum than myself who would be able to explain better the FBI's handling of evidence.

The FBI intimidated witnesses, interrogated the witnesses which might have objected the official line multiple times, and on several occasions simply said to the witnesses things such as:: "You never saw this" . 

What would be a sample though process of a person standing in the doorway who maybe spotted Oswald in his/her peripheral vision? 

Interrogator: Did you see Oswald during the assassination?

Witness: I was perplexed by what just happened in front of me and did not pay too much attention to people who were coming in to the doorway. He may or may not stand in the doorway. He certainly was not there before the motorcade appeared at Houston street as those of us standing there knew each other well, we were having a good chat, and Oswald was not with us. This I know for sure.

Interrogator: Its is very important for us to know if you have seen him or not in the doorway even later, after the assassination. Have you?

Witness: Now, when you mention it again, maybe I did see him. There could be in the doorway someone resembling the man which has been shown on TV on Friday.

Interrogator: Do you understand that Oswald was the assassin, he was shooting from the sixth floor. He also shot a police officer. You could not see him in the doorway, could you?

Witness: That's the point. I thought I have seen him, however, it is just impossible since he shot our beloved  President, therefore, I must be mistaken.

Interrogator: All right, Let me then write for the record that you did not see Oswald during or just after the assassination.

2 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

I will only wish you luck as without a better photo of Oswald being outdoors - in work clothes - its just a flip of a coin. Somewhere there should be a description by Frazier or Truly as to how Oswald was dressed while at work on 11/22/63. Frazier drove Lee to work and Truly saw him in the lunchroom. What have you discovered about this?

Bill:

Marina's testimony appears to be relevant as to her husband's work clothes. Oswald had two similar work slacks, and Marina pointed to CE157 as the slacks he wore on Friday, November 22: 

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0271b.htm

As far as his work shirt is concerned, it would be most likely the one in CE151:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0270a.htm

The combination CE157+CE151 is very likely what Oswald wore on Friday morning. The shirt and the pants appear to be of similar colour on a black-and-white photograph, which is what we see in Darnell's stills. Further, the loose pants CE157 would be exactly what I would expect that Prayer Man had on himself. These slacks do not give a firm contour of the legs which makes it so difficult to draw the contour along the left leg in Darnell's stills.

The reports of different witnesses are not too consistent as to what Oswald wore on the day of assassination. It is sometimes difficult to figure out from some testimonies what Oswald wore, e.g. from the testimonies of the taxi driver Whaley and Mary Bledsoe:

Mr. BALL. Did you notice how he was dressed? 
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. I didn't pay much attention to it right then. But it all came back when I really found out who I had. He was dressed in just ordinary work clothes. It wasn't khaki pants but they were khaki material, blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn't notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants.
He, his shirt was open three buttons down here. He had on a T-shirt. You know, the shirt was open three buttons down there.

And Mary Bledsoe's testimony:

Mr. BALL - Now, what color shirt did he have on? 
Mrs. BL EDSOE - He had a brown shirt. 
Mr. BALL - And unraveled? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Hole in his sleeve right here [indicating]. 
Mr. BALL - Which is the elbow of the sleeve? That is, you pointed to the elbow? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, it is. 
Mr. BALL - And that would be which elbow, right or left elbow? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Right. 
Mr. BALL - Did he have anything on. Was the shirt open or was it buttoned? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes; all the buttons torn off. 
Mr. BALL - What did he have on underneath that? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - I don't know. 
Mr. BALL - Do you know the color of any undershirt he had on? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No. 
Mr. BALL - Notice the color of his pants? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes, they were gray, and they were all ragged in here [indicating]. 
Mr. BALL - Around where? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - At the seam. 
Mr. BALL - At the waist? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - At the waist, uh-huh. 
Mr. BALL - Was the shirt tucked beneath the belt in his pants, or outside the belt? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it in. 
Mr. BALL - Had it tucked in? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No: it was tucked in. 
Mr. BALL - So, that the belt of the pants was outside the shirt? 
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes; uh-huh. 

9 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

A.S. has designed a merry-go-round approach. A 'Who's on First' routine if you will. It goes something like this ...  Prayer Man was probably Oswald - If Frazier won't say this person was Lee, then Frazier must have been too traumatized to remember he and Lee standing together - And if Frazier cannot ID the degraded faded image in the Darnell film, then it must have been Lee Oswald. And the who premise relies on everyone who worked in and around the TSBD all knew one another, which is a crock in my view!

 

Bill:

I can only work on a basis of a hypothesis. A hypothesis needs to be probable and testable. Prayer Man = Oswald is a probable hypothesis: 1) The figure of Prayer Man belongs to a Caucasian white person. 2) Prayer Man, in my view, is a male as he is dressed as a man. 3) The clothing appears to be a worker type of clothing: a long-sleeved shirt with sleeves rolled up to elbow joints, and loose slacks. 4) The man's height appears to be 5'9'' which is the aspect I pursue for months and am hopefully close to resolving it. 5) Prayer Man appears not to be a stranger coming from outside, he was a Depository employee. 7) There is also a point a characteristic Oswald's stance which Prayer Man appears to assume, and I am also working on this point too. 6) There are just no other candidates for Prayer Man fulfilling points 1-5 except Lee Harvey Oswald. 7) Oswald testified, according to Fritz-Bookhout notes, that he has been out to see what all the commotion was about, and he was there with Shelley and Lovelady. How could he knew these people stood in the doorway if he were not there with them. Shelley and Lovelady left the doorway almost immediately after the last shot; Oswald could not see them standing there had he arrived only later. Fritz-Bookhout notes are consistent with Oswald being Prayer Man in Darnell's still. 

These points are sufficient for me to pursue the hypothesis of Prayer Man being Oswald further as a probable scenario. Is it testable? The body height of Prayer Man is a substantial point and it is a testable prediction. Prayer Man stance resembling Oswald's stance is another good circumstantial evidence, and it is tightly linked to the body height problem. The doorway is a 3D space in which perspective, camera view angle and the focal length all play important roles in making an impression about the heights of doorway occupants. It is impossible to correctly estimate the height of a person by only looking on a 2D picture. This is the reason for spending many months (almost two years now) on reconstructing the doorway, all occupants in the doorway, spending funds and time for purchasing and learning complex modelling programs. Does this make me biased towards Prayer Man = Oswald hypothesis? I do not think so. 

Naturally, high quality copies of Darnell and Wiegman films would be the most important step forwards. I hope that research along the line Prayer Man=Oswald may create more pressure towards releasing the films for public view than doing nothing or ridiculing the Prayer Man problem. 

My research is hypothesis driven as I cannot work in a different way, I am spoiled by my profession. However, this also means that I would never suppress any findings if they would refute Prayer Man = Oswald hypothesis.  At one point I will come to the point that I cannot do anything more than I did (the height issue would be resolved, all scenes modelled to a photographic quality and animated, arrival of Prayer Man to the doorway explained). I would  show my reconstructed and rendered doorways to Buell from his view, and hope that the image would refresh his autobiographic memories as much as an old childhood photograph brings vivid memories about a particular day in our lives, or a smell of Christmas tree reminds us of Christmas.  

What will you do to resolve the Prayer Man problem?

1 hour ago, Claude Barnabe said:

It is rather difficult to engage in any debate when the person(s) you're debating begin with the premise that documentation which does not support their argument has been altered. I don't believe for a second that those first day FBI affidavits have been changed. 'Oh what a tangled web we weave......', By the way, try approaching BWF again, this time begin with the question. "Buell, who is that woman standing beside you at your right?" See what response you get.

Claude:

I would hate to be the reason for you not to be engaged in the debate. If you think the person next to Frazier was a woman, it is a legitimate view. Why would you not pursue it further and see where it will lead you. Any name of the woman, any picture, height estimate? Support by a testimony? All this would allow you and other researcher to test your hypothesis. Maybe it would work, maybe not, however, we would learn something in the process. It is obvious that the Prayer Man = Oswald possibility has not been proven in such a convincing way that every researcher would be able to accept it. However, it is useful to have a hypothesis and to try to prove or disprove it because in such a case the research at least follows some plan.

Again, I apologise for being maybe too rigorous in my comments on FBI witness testimonies you posted some days ago. You certainly pointed to the problem of many researchers disproving every single testimony as a lie aiding cover-up. On the other hand, there are just too many cases of the FBI interfering with solving the case. The possibility of Oswald being in the doorway had hounded the FBI already on Friday, November 22 (all those dances around Altgens6 and the FBI visit paid to Lovelady on the evening of assassination). Testimonies taken on Saturday would have to be in accord with the official lone-nut theory even if Oswald were Prayer Man. It was maybe better under these circumstances to testify as not having seen Oswald or even not knowing him at all. The witnesses giving their testimonies on Saturday were already biased by what has been reported, very consistently and vigorously, by low enforcement on Friday afternoon and Saturday. Not calling some witnesses to testify under the oath later would reduce their fear of committing perjury, this could be the deal.

What value has, for instance, the unsigned FBI testimony of Mrs. Sarah Stanton? No one ever spoke to her (to the best of my knowledge), she was never interviewed in the years following the assassination, we do not have any picture of her, and she was not called to testify for the Warren Commission. Would you discount the possibility that Mrs. Stanton saw Oswald in the doorway solely on account of her testimony for the FBI?  

1 hour ago, Bill Miller said:

 

 

Bill,

Frazier was indeed shown Darnell's still and asked who Prayer Man was. Frazier saw this man during a dramatic period and gazed on this man who was less than 3 feet away from him. The man was a Depository employee because no one has said that there was anyone on top steps who would not be an employee. Who twas this man? Will you evade again?

Bill:

How long would you think Prayer Man stood in the doorway? My estimate would be about one minute, and almost certainly less than 2 minutes, This is a very short time window. He stood in the shadow whilst people were distracted by finding out what happened, and it was only for a very brief period of time. Those standing on steps in front of him did not see him coming to the doorway. Some people from outside may have seen him standing there but did not pay any attention to the doorway occupants. If you would ask them who they remember standing in the doorway they would recall no one. People who knew Prayer Man were those standing on the top landing and those who lingered in the doorway on top steps just after the shooting: Joe Molina, Wesley Frazier,Billy Lovelady, Bill Shelley, Sarah Stanton, and Pauline Saunders, Frazier was very close and had Prayer Man in his range of vision, he had to know. The fact that no one had said who Prayer Man was (Frazier was asked directly some two years ago) is very telling.

Your ignorance as to resolving the question who Prayer Man was is staggering, Also staggering is your attempt to ridicule the question itself. If you find the problem laughable, why do you return to it? Prayer Man was there seconds after the shooting and if he were Oswald, it completely shatters the Warren Commission not by some indirect circumstances but directly and completely. This is a serious question. It can be answered by either saying who else than Oswald he was, or by a meticulous research aimed to assemble pieces of this puzzle. This is what many in this and the original Prayer Man thread do. 

If you disagree with the possibility that Prayer Man was Oswald, this is fine with me, and I will try to convince you with my research and arguments. If you disagree, then you (and others having doubts about Oswald hypothesis) have a problem as it is then your turn to suggest who Prayer Man was. There is no third alternative to these two. A third alternative would be to avoid trying which may be all right too, however, it is enough to say it once and then quit posting on Prayer Man subject.

2 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

That is a responsible response - there is no strength in numbers when looking at such a ridiculous image. All it does is open the field up for meaningless theories to be introduced as to who it is. One might as well ask who all thinks Frazier is looking at the guy and winking - no way to know that either.

Bill:

the question of who this man was is not meaningless at all. We have two threads achieving many thousands views and comments. Even you have joined the discussion. This man was on this spot not only some 20 seconds after the assassination but also in the period very close to the last shot. His hairline is unusually similar to Oswald's hairline, and there are other similarities (e.g., his stance, style of clothing) which are less indicative but certainly in line with Oswald's figure. We do not know too much about Oswald's movement from 12.15 when he might have been seen in the first floor till the shooting. This 15 minute period is a long one, and allowed him for instance to stand behind the glass door while the motorcade passed the Depository and to enter the doorway once he "saw all the excitement" associated with shooting.

I also came  late to the discussion but soon realised that the official line has completely ignored this man: neither Warren Commission nor House Select Committee ever mentioned the man standing close to the western wall practically during the shooting. The list of Depository employees who were in the doorway during the assassination is well known. Maybe Judith McCulley'name is sometimes dropped because her initial testimony for the FBI placed her to the fourth floor. If there is a possibility that Prayer Man was Oswald, it needs to be explored and answered since if it were Oswald posing as Prayer Man, this exonerates him completely as the assassin. In the case that Prayer Man and Oswald were one and the same person, I would wish that his family knows, if nothing more. The question posted by Sean Murphy in the original Prayer Man thread in his reply to Mr. Pat Speer still holds: who was this person if not Oswald? If you do not wish to know the answer since you consider the question meaningless, I am not sure why are you actually contributing to the Prayer Man threads. I have not seen any attempt on your part to explain the identity of this man, only quite a dismissive style of commenting to posts of those who explore the issue in great detail.

Claude:

there were no curtain rods in Frazier's car. This was Buel's and his sister's invention. It was designed to save him from prosecution for taking part the murder of President Kennedy. Oswald himself denied he carried any curtian rods. O'Toole's book addressed Frazier's testimonies in detail, Frazier showed always hard stress in his voice once "curtain rods" were pronounced. Some researchers claim, and have good arguments for their assertions, for saying Oswald did not have any rifle in Paine's garage and did not even own one. I think he actually  brought the rifle on Friday morning not knowing it would be used to frame him. Frazier saw the rifle, and maybe they two discussed the rifle. In that scenario, Frazier was in real trouble once he realised that President was killed by gun shots because he assisted by bringing a rifle to the Depository. Curtain rods story was a bail out - he admitted to carry something which could (according the Comission) be a rifle but also not. This may be the true origin of the curtain rod story. 

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That's what it looks to me like too.

I've tried many times imagining PM standing with one foot on the first step down from the top, and it just doesn't fit what my mind expects to see. But granted, things are no always as they seem.

Sandy, maybe at least you would be willing to say if the Prayer Man's left leg in the still I posted was bent in knee joint or not. I am puzzled that no one can answer this simple question.

6 hours ago, Claude Barnabe said:

I went back and reread portions of Joe Molina's HSCA testimony. He was asked point blank: 'Do you have an opinion as to if LHO had been standing on the front steps whether or not you would have seen him?' answer:"I would have recalled if he had been standing there, yes. I don't recall seeing him standing there". Personally, I can leave a 'crack' of doubt that Mr. Molina missed it, in that moment. The first day FBI affidavits however, (remember, the government thought they were going to trial) and reason tells me PM can't be LHO, though I wanted it to be.

Claude:

Molina was a communist agent suspect and was harassed by the low enforcement enough to tell anything it was wished from him. The forces we are speaking about are strong enough to hijack President's body and alter wounds, to capture visual evidence (films) no one ever saw later, to take all evidence to Washington, to plant compromising evidence on Lee Oswald, such as his wallet on the site of J.D. Tippit's killing, and many more. Oswald's setup started sooner than after the assassination, and things such as someone could say Oswald was in the doorway were a relatively small problem. It is the Darnell film which somehow escaped the censorship (to my knowledge it was not shown to the Warren Commission) and revealed presence of Prayer Man what caused a crack in the official version.

To ask a witness if he/she has recalled seeing someone is a comparatively indirect evidence. A direct would be: "Look at this man in this still who was standing in the opposite corner of the doorway whilst you were also standing there. Who he was?" None of the witnesses has been asked this question. Mr. Frazier was shown the picture and asked and he just could not answer. Prayer Man stood even closer to him than to Molina. Mr. Frazier could answer: "This is certainly not a Depository employee" or "It was this and this person".

12 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

 

Just looks to be back in the corner and leaning on the wall as people are filing past him.

Bill:

The question was not to look or not to look on Prayer Man (I can assure I looked carefully over many months) but to say if Prayer Man had his left leg bent in knee joint or not. What is your opinion?

Maybe I can answer with asking another question: could actually Lee Oswald stand as Prayer Man on the top landing in a pose such as in the backyard photographs with his left leg bent and forwards while resting on his right foot and slightly leaning to his right? I am not sure how many inches could this detract from his height but it is something which needs to be tested  I spent a long time on reconstructing that man' stance few months ago, it is not that that difficult to combine the two projects. Sill some work ahead...

I wonder if anyone would agree that Prayer Man in this Darnell's frame has his left leg bent? I took a frame from the first frames in which the doorway start to appear and in which the people on steps still do not obstruct the view. My point is that if the left leg would not be bent and in front of Prayer Man's body, we should see a light spot corresponding to the heater. However, we do not. If the left leg is bent and the foot resting on the top platform, then we can assume that the right leg was straight, in which case this stance would be compatible to the "one-foot-up-one-foot-down" pose.

This would be Poser11 reconstruction on Prayer Man's stance. It is not shown in exact Darnell's angle but it is close.