Alistair Briggs

Happy to work through this with you. If I'm reading you correctly you are saying that in the Darnell frame that the red line associated with the letter B is Shelley standing on the top steps wearing a suit... This is the Darnell frame: The person associated with B there does not appear to be wearing a suit, and it can't be Shelley anyway because Shelley has left the steps by this time.

First of all, regarding the lettering of the people A-G in the 'Altgens6/weigman frame' picture, it wasn't me that put those letters on it. Secondly, as for the identification on those in the 'Altgens6/weigman frame' picture, earlier on I asked for 'help' in identifying the marked people on it, Bart Kamp responded and that is what I have gone on with. That is the same Bart Kamp whose Prayer Man site you directed me to previously, and the same Bart Kamp who has Lovelady and Shelley both having left the steps by the time of the Darnell frame... ... In the Darnell frame there is no "man on the top landing wearing a suit", and even if there was (which there isn't) it couldn't be Shelley because Shelley has left the steps by then! Also, when you say, In none of the 3 images is B pointing to a man in a suit. In all 3 cases it is pointing to someone wearing 'long sleeve white shirt' (less clear in Altgens 6) and that person is Williams!

Ron, I just put that 'quote' from you above here, so that you would get a notification about this post, in case it passes you by. Regards. Here is an image I found on Google of the Altgens 6 (top) and Weigman frame (bottom) on which someone else has put the letters A to G on to match up those people. One has to consider the difference in perspective of where each image was taken (they were both taken at relatively at the same time). (NB: the C in the Altgens 6 should probably be placed more to the right hand side as we look at it and more to 'beneath' the A). A = Molina B = Williams C = Dean D = Reese E = Shelley F = Lovelady G = Jones (NB: Frazier is not seen in these images because he is too much in the 'shade') As we move on let us say that; H = Frazier I = Davis J = McCully At this junction here is the Couch/Darnell sync from which the 'Darnell frame' comes from. It is approx 30 seconds after the time of the 'Altgens6/Weigman frame' picture. Couple of things to look out for there. First the two people walking away are claimed to be Shelley and Lovelady (*although there is some doubt about that) and secondly the man that arrives at the 'traffic light pole' is Jones. Here is a quick image I knocked up of the Darnell frame on which I have put the letters on to match the people from the 'Altgens 6/Weigman frame' picture. A (Molina), B (Williams), C (Dean) and D (Reese) haven't really moved that much in the previous 30 seconds. As mentioned above* E (Shelley) and F (Lovelady) have moved away from the steps and G (Jones) has made his way across to the 'traffic lights pole'. H (Frazier) has now 'come out of the shadows'. Based on the location that Davis said she stood (on the lower steps) with McCully, and McCully said she was with Davis, I have I as Davis and J as McCully (but it might be the other way round to be honest). *In the Darnell frame you can see 3 people in the position that Jones had been 30 seconds previously. None of them were in that position at the time of the shots, and from looking at the following gif an argument can be made that both 'all black' and 'all white' people are returning to the building (ie had been outwith that vicinity at the time of the shots. As for 'white head' person (Who appears to be facing down and talking to 'all black person), I don't know who it is or where they came from to be honest - (some people have made the claim that it is Lovelady and he hadn't left the steps by that time, but that could be a moot point in terms of this discussion anyway.) It has to be stated that the 'Prayer Man' figure is viewable in both the Wiegman frame and the Darnell clip. From looking at the photographic evidence of Altgens 6, Wiegman Frame and Darnell Frame, and cross referencing it with the 'testimony' of those who said they were on the steps at the time it's reasonable to say that 10 of them have been identified; Molina, Williams, Dean, Reese, Shelley, Lovelady, Jones, Frazier, Davis and McCully. Who is left over? Stanton and Sanders If we look at what each of them said as to where they stood; Stanton: says she was with Sanders, Shelley, Lovelady and Williams. Sanders: says she took up a position on the top steps and that Stanton was standing next to her. *Point of contention: Sanders said she was on the top step at the 'East' entrance! *A point of interest; Molina: says he stood at the railings on the 'east side' of the building but does not recall who stood beside him but does know that Sanders viewed the motorcade. As we look at the photographic evidence of the steps, the 'east side' is the right hand side as we look at it, and the 'west side' is the left hand side as we look at it. Molina was certainly correct about being on the 'east side' as that is backed up by the photographic evidence, Sanders can't be beside him because he mentions her after saying that he does not recall who stood beside him! From the photographic evidence the two people that stood 'beside' him look to be Williams (up left as we look at it) and either Davis or McCully (down right as we look a it). So when Sanders said she was at the 'east' entrance that is not backed up by the photographic evidence... ... what if then, when Sanders said 'east' she actually meant the opposite side from where Molina is. How could she make such an error? Look at a compass, which side is East as you look at it? To the right hand side! What if, then, Sanders, when she said she was on the 'east' side she meant the 'right hand side' (from her perspecitve - facing out) and thus she was in real terms standing on the 'west side' of the steps.

Good question Ron, It basically comes down to this part that Sanders said: The 'east end' is the opposite end from Prayer Man... and that is pretty much all that is used to rule her and Stanton out. As you mention though from what the other people on the steps said about who they were near the inference is that both Stanton and Sanders were on the 'west' side of the entrance (the right side looking out from the steps, the left hand side as we look at the photos), and the info from the link does conceed that would put them 'in the right general area'. I don't think we do know about their clothes. Having said that from looking at many of the other photos how many of the females are wearing jackets or dresses and how many are wearing hats or headscarfs. Of course it has to be noted that, as mentioned on the link; To the best of my knowledge no, neither Stanton nor Sanders have ever been reasonably identified in the photos of the people on the steps. I will try and knock up a post about who has been reasonably identified in the photos of the people on the steps. Regards

Aye, 'buried evidence', figuratively of course, not literally.

Is burried not quite a common word in the US to mean 'hidden' - I'm sure I've heard it quite often on US shows. Anyway. Paul just wanted to say the rest of your post is awesome, kudos.

http://22november1963.org.uk/prayer-man-jfk-assassination A decent overview of the whole 'Prayer Man' thing.

Or maybe they have. Maybe just maybe at least one of them has been 'hidden' in plain view all these years... maybe.

How come?

I have read the original Prayer Man thread a few times in its entirety. Didn't mean you personally I meant it that any 'watchers' should go and do their own digging and not just take 'our' word on it. Relatively yes... I have spent much time on Bart's Prayerman site and I have on numerous occassions said that I like it very much. *Of course one can go to the source testimony for themselves and see it there for themselves and work it out for themselves All relatively beside the point though... ... in the 'photographic' evidence where is Sanders and Stanton? If they are to be ruled out then it must be shown where they are.

Prayer Man's height is only really testable if one knows exactly where he stood and how he stood. Sarah Stanton was 'heavy-set and stocky'... are people not debating earlier the 'girth' of PM. Pauline Sanders stood in the east part of the top landing... what if she mistook 'east' for 'west. As I said, look at the testimony of all the people on the stairs and see where they put themselves and who they said they were near; have a look at the photographic evidence and see who is actually where and who is actually standing near each other and who is not, cross check it all and see if anything 'pops out' as being of interest.

Alternatively, someone in 'camp 3' might say that Oswald went ahead of Frazier to 'stash' the rifle somewhere instead of taking it straight in to the building... Anyway, as you say, nobody inside the building saw LHO with a package when he entered, so whether he passed it off to someone else or 'stashed' it somewhere, at some point later the rifle must have entered the building and made it's way up to the 6th floor - the question is 'how' did it make that journey.

Personally I'm not sure if it's a good idea to start with an initial assumption such as Prayer Man was Oswald and it's certainly not about proving that Prayer Man was just anybody! Of course, there does have to be a starting point from which to 'narrow the field'. My starting point has always been that Prayer Man, because of their position, has to have been someone from the TSBD building. To narrow that field down further I would thus make the assumption that it either has to be one of the people who stated they were standing on the steps or A. N. Other (and that with all things considered would be Oswald).. I appreciate what you are saying there Andrej. With regards to the things that point towards it being Oswald, I have read this thread and the other PM thread and some of the things don't quite add up imo and maybe aren't actually useful things to use to point to it being Oswald... ... for example, what was PM holding? Perhaps not holding anything? Some have pushed the idea that it was a camera, but I haven't seen evidence to back that up. Some have pushed the idea that it was a 'coke' bottle - and as evidence of that they mention the 'coke' bottle and lunch bag still visible on the steps later on. Where is the link though? How do they know it belonged to PM? It could have belonged to someone else - for example: Lovelady testified to being on the steps for a period of approx. 30 minutes before the shots, during which time he ate his lunch and drank a bottle of 'coke'. His position on the stairs was closer to the location of the lunch bag and bottle caught in photos and although he doesn't mention leaving it, he also doesn't mention taking it with him - a very good inference can be drawn then that the lunch bag and bottle caught in the photos were actually Lovelady's... ... as much as it may look like PM is holding something in their hand there remains the possibility that they are holding nothing. The image just isn't clear enough to make a definite call on it. For those trying to test that PM = Oswald, the 'burden of proof' is on them to prove it is Oswald, and in doing so they have a starting point that is the same as what I have mentioned above - that PM is either someone who said they were on the steps at the time or Oswald. It appears that some of those trying to 'test' that PM = Oswald have ruled it out as being a woman because it looks like a man. As much as I can agree that from looking at it it does look like a man, that alone doesn't rule it out as a woman! One of the ones that said they were standing on the steps at the time! First, what testimonies support it being Oswald? None. Not one person mentioned Oswald being there! Could Oswald have been there unseen? Could he have 'sneaked' in to that position and not be noticed by anyone? How could he have done that? Consider the positions of the other people and consider how the door opens; the likliehood is that no one could have 'sneaked' in to that position unseen. What's left then? That he was seen and the people just didn't mention it? Wouldn't mention it? Couldn't mention it? For whatever reason... OR the reason no one mentioned Oswald being there is because he wasn't. What other testimony supports Oswald being there? Not Fritz, or Bookhout, or Holmes - ah, but they were making things up, right! Anyway, all the testimony of all of those who were standing on the steps is very easily available and can be cross-referenced with each other to get an idea of who was where and with whom etc. The photographic evidence starts to rule certain people out straight away. Process of elimination shows who is left over, and they need to be somewhere don't they. Looking at who they each said they were standing with or near can further help pinpointing the locations of each. I've done it it all and narrowed it down and let me put it this way, if one of them has just mistaken 'left' for 'right' then that could go a long way... 'proving' it, well selling the idea to the 'masses' is a whole different matter. How tall Prayer Man is, what their body height is, what their size is, what they are holding or not holding is all relatively moot because of the 'quality' of the image. If a better quality image ever surfaced all of those things would still be relatively moot as the better quality image would no doubt show whether it was Oswald or not - and of course, it doesn't really matter who it actually was if it wasn't Oswald, because if it was shown not to be Oswald then it is not Oswald... Whilst we may know how tall Oswald was, we don't know exactly where PM stood, or indeed how PM stood, so not sure why those things would be an issue if testing it as not Oswald. Setting all of that aside... ... find out all those that said they were on the steps, and consider them all, don't rule out the women. Look at where each of them said they were and who else they saw or who they were with. Use all of that to get an idea of where everyone was, cross check that with the different photos (Altgens 6, Weigman frame, Darnell frame) and see whether they moved or not. Start to identify each and every one from the photos and rule them out... see who is left over and then try and see where they could possibly be in the photos.If they can be unequivocally be placed in other positions then they can't be in the PM position, but if one of them can't be unequivocally placed elsewhere, then where must they be by definition...

On the subject of 'girth'... ... earlier on (either in this thread or in the other PM thread) the point was raised that the apparent look of the 'girth' of PM was too wide to be Oswald, the answer that was given to that was that the additional 'girth' was something of an 'illusion' caused by a woman standing lower down the steps in front of PM. However it has now been shown that there was no woman standing lower down the steps in front of PM that could explain the additional 'girth' - that is to say all the 'girth' belongs to PM. Personally, I don't see the 'girth' in and of itself being an issue, inasmuch as, even with it all being PM's it doesn't preclude it from being Oswald because the 'girth' could be explained another way. (For example, as Andrej says about the 'loose' clothing)... However, and considering this thread raises the question of whether Prayer Man may actually be Prayer Woman, it shouldn't imo be ruled straight out that it wasn't a woman... ... earlier on in this thread it was mentioned that 'evidence' of it being a woman was that there was 'buttons' synonymous with a woman's clothes, but that evidence was wholly debunked as the same 'buttons' were all over the image. In the same way that the 'no woman standing in front of PM causing the 'extra girth'' doesn't preclude it from being Oswald, the debunking of the 'buttons' doesn't preclude it from being a woman. Earlier on in this thread it was stated that: There are those who claim that all of that has indeed been proven - and they no doubt believe it has been proven - and there is nothing wrong with that. On the flip-side though, as shown by others raising questions about the 'body shape', is it really a case of the 'body shape is a given'. Considering the 'quality' of the image/clip in question is it really a case that the 'hairline is a given', and as such is it really a case that the 'gender is a given'. *Don't get me wrong, as I have stated earlier, I can look at the image and see it being a man that looks like Oswald, and can explain the 'girth' as being caused by 'loose clothing'. But that in and of itself doesn't prove anything. Earlier on in this thread it was stated that: " No one admitting seeing anyone at all in the PM position" and that "no one admitted being in the PM position". It is true that none of the people who were on the steps at the time either stated they were in the position or who was in that position... however from looking at what each and all of them actually stated about who they were standing with or near and in which location and then trying to match that with what we can see in the different images available of the doorway then we can start 'filling in the gaps' with regards to what each and everyone of them have said... ... and maybe, just maybe, by the process of elimination it might just show something of interest. *I realise that there are those who are dead-set on it being Oswald, and that's fine, I have no problem with that at all. It is predicated on it being a man though, and I haven't yet ruled out the possibility of it being a woman.

Cliff, thanks for the clarification, much appreciated.

Another name of a person who allegedly saw Oswald is Charlie Camplen https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2916.pdf This might help with other names too. https://jfkennedy1963.com/2014/01/18/oswald-seen-at-rifle-range-by-many-witnesses/

The name of one of the people who allegedly saw Oswald is Malcolm Howard Price http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/price_m.htm

Floyd Davis and Virginia Davis http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/davis_f.htm http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/davis_v.htm

Just came across this in an article on the Daily Mail website: Can't recall the owners name, but will try and find it for you so you can look in to it if you want.

Hi Cliff, Just a quick questions for clarification... When you say... Which 'debate' in particular are you meaning?

lol it's a bit more complicated than that when one looks through the testimony of Fritz and the FBI reports of Kelley, and from different interrogations... For simplicity I will quote some relevant parts from Bugliosi's book Four Days In November as it is put as a 'conversation' (he does back it all up btw with references to the testimony and reports etc), I have simplified it further by not including the 'emotion' Bugliosi puts on how it is said. I put this up for informational purposes only and no real contentions on my part.

This article makes mention of it and has the photo... it is the backyard photo and when published in Life in had the scope but when published in Detroit Free Press it didn't have the scope.

I will have a dig about and see if I can come across it. Just to avoid any confusion, I 'qualified' 'that' rifle only because Oswald admitted to Fritz that he had owned a rifle 'a good many years ago'.

I can imagine that there might not be any more to add to the list... ... just on the subject of the rifle etc I have been looking through a couple of books to find the references Oswald is claimed to have said about it under interrogation. There's a couple of things that have jumped out at me a wee bit, so I am going to have to double check it all. I will try and knock something up about it as soon as I can.

No worries Great question you have asked. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.