Greg Parker Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Greg, Really what is the point? I will not convince you, and after all that has occurred I do not care about this. I have offered my view, and you have yours repeatedly. So just push the idea despite the problems. I am beyond the point of interest. You do not wish to consider any other opinion besides the one you have. No need for me to offer evidence and get in the way. So can you move on? I can. Unless I'm mentioned, I need not respond. Not convince me of what, Carmine? We have never really discussed this because we can't seem to get past laying out a framework for a discussion. Even when I agree with you on something, as I just did, it's taken as an affront and an excuse for you to bow out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Thanks Bob. Not as civilised as JFKFacts I take it? Ohhhh, sorry for not recognizing your name right away. NOW I know who you are. No, Jeff is definitely a little more restrictive about what gets posted over there. You should see some of my comments that are still "awaiting moderation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Greg, Ok how about the video that Oswald states he was in the building that you dismiss? Perhaps if you could carry on a reasonable conversation it would not be so tiresome to converse with you. I have never bowed out, especially to those without evidence to prove their assertions. Okay. Now tell me what the question was he was responding to. It's called context. If you have no context for the statement, it is as meaningless as all the statements from those on the stairs who don't mention PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Thanks Greg. As you say, I'm pretty sure they are under the control of the 6th Floor Museum. But wouldn't it work with copies? I mean given what Gerda Dunckel was able to do with the copies she had I would think with whatever state of the art technology is out there that we would get something even better than that. Personally I thought Gerda's stuff was not that far off giving us an identifiable face. Or are you referring to the copyright issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 No probs at all Bob. Really? If you don't mind me asking what sort of stuff was blocked? I didn't think they blocked anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Thanks Carmine Here's the bit of Lovelady's HSCA interview referred to by Sean Murphy. "First the HSCA interviewer asks Lovelady to identify himself in Altgens. Lovelady immediately does so. Next Loevely is show an image he has never seen before: a frame from the John Martin film showing him (Lovelady) standing over by the east side of the entrance some 8-15 minutes post-assassination (a time estimate given by photographic consultant Robert Groden, who is present in the room). Lovelady identifies himself immediately. Then the interviewer; out of nowhere, adopts a very curious line of questioning: HSCA: If a move camera showed you farther in the centre of the doorway than that person there (ie Lovelady in Altgens, who appears, due to the deceptive angle. to be well over to the left/west of the entrance) would you still identify that person as being yourself? Loveladay: Sure would. I would say the other picture was not taken at the split second as the one to the left is. HSCA: Okay, alright. If it showed two figures in that doorway at the same time, and you could positively identify one as yourself, would that have any bearing on your identification of that other figure? Lovelady: No, that's still me at the left (of the) doorway. Whether knowingly (ie with knowledge of the Prayer Man figure in Weigman) or unknowingly (ie by pure speculation) the HSCA interviewer has pre-empted the very discussion we have been having in this thread." That's Sean Murphy's entire quote I hope. This seems a clear indication to me that the HSCA were aware of this unidentified figure in the TSBD doorway and yet failed to follow up on identifying him. The question is why? Everyone else on the TSBD steps was identified why not him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hi Carmine I will post the Norman, Jarman, Shelley info tomorrow when I'm on a more user friendly computer. But my basic contention is that the WC timeline does not give Oswald an opportunity to see any of these men and that he can only have seen them unless he was on the TSBD steps or in the foyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Greg, Ok how about the video that Oswald states he was in the building that you dismiss? Perhaps if you could carry on a reasonable conversation it would not be so tiresome to converse with you. I have never bowed out, especially to those without evidence to prove their assertions. Okay. Now tell me what the question was he was responding to. It's called context. If you have no context for the statement, it is as meaningless as all the statements from those on the stairs who don't mention PM. Greg, you have struck the crux of the matter: CONTEXT. A statement means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, if we don't have the correct context for it. For all we know, someone might have [but likely didn't] asked Oswald where he was when the lunch truck [we called those food vendor trucks a "roach coach"] pulled up at the dock selling sandwiches. [i fully realize that was NOT the question...but without the proper context, it might as well have been the question that caused Oswald to say he was in the building.] So Greg's point is not only valid, but spot-on. If you're giving us a statement by a witness or a principal in the assassination, we need the context from which the statement is drawn. Without context, any conclusion about the statement [and what it means] is speculation, not evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Well said, Lee. The point is NOT that this photo or sequence of frames from a movie or two shows Lee Harvey Oswald on the steps, beyond the tiniest shadow of a doubt; the point is, this sequence introduced REASONABLE doubt about the whereabouts of Oswald at the time of the shooting. I think Sean Murphy has done an excellent job of ensuring that the doubt IS reasonable....with a large assist from Robin Unger's clearer photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 No probs at all Bob. Really? If you don't mind me asking what sort of stuff was blocked? I didn't think they blocked anything. Hi Vanessa Most of my comments that never got past the moderators were rather personal digs I was making at "Dr." Photon. I think Jeff's aim is to keep things polite and cordial, and to attack the argument, and not the man. Probably not a bad idea but I often give in to the temptation to be nasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Murr Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hi Lee: Nice to see you posting again and I look forward to your overview on Sean's work in this area. It is a subject matter that never ceases to intrigue and one that I have been interested in for a long time. Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 What Gary said Lee, good to see you back.... Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) It is interesting how we often focus on the big picture, and often ignore or gloss over some of the smaller details, yet it is often these smaller details that open the door to solving the mystery. While I understand how easy it would be to terrify Buell Wesley Frazier into not remembering seeing Prayer Man standing beside him on the steps, and why certain parties would want his memory to lapse on this matter, there is something else he testified to not seeing on the top of the steps. It has always bothered me, as his lack of recall on this could not possibly aid the perpetrators of the cover up; at least not in any way I can conceive. Although Frazier was standing in front of the door to the TSBD, and likely almost got run down by him, he had no recollection of seeing a helmeted motorcycle cop run by him into the TSBD. "Mr. BALL - But you stood right there, did you? Mr. FRAZIER - Right. Stood right where I was.Mr. BALL - And Mr. Shelley was still standing there?Mr. FRAZIER - Right.Mr. BALL - And also Billy Lovelady?Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.Mr. BALL - The three of you didn't go any place?Mr. FRAZIER - I believe Billy and them walked down toward that direction but I didn't. I just stood where I was. I hadn't moved at all.Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody after that come into the Building while you were there?Mr. FRAZIER - You mean somebody other that didn't work there?Mr. BALL - A police officer.Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I stood there a few minutes, you know, and some people who worked there; you know normally started to go back into the Building because a lot of us didn't eat our lunch, and so we stared back into the Building and it wasn't but just a few minutes that there were a lot of police officers and so forth all over the Building there.Mr. BALL - Then you went back into the Building, did you?Mr. FRAZIER - Right.Mr. BALL - And before you went back into the Building no police officer came up the steps and into the building?Mr. FRAZIER - Not that I know. They could walk by the way and I was standing there talking to somebody else and didn't see it." Sorry, I just do not believe him. But why lie about Officer Baker entering the TSBD? There is film evidence of Baker running into the TSBD within seconds of the last shot, and Frazier testified he "stood there a few minutes". Edited March 17, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Indeed welcome back, Wack.. Great post regarding Prayerman. I wonder what has happened to Sean. Have pm'd him, but no reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Did LOVELADY provide testimony to the HSCA? Does anyone have the links to a transcript or video? I do not see any info from the HSCA that LOVELADY testified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts