Greg Parker Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hi Carmine Of course, I agree we are all entitled to our opinions. And I think we are all searching for evidence-based information which is why I personally find the Prayerman thread so compelling because not only do we have the photographic evidence but the detailed research done by Sean Murphy to eliminate all other possible TSBD employees. I'm sorry I don't really know if you're a WC defender or not as I'm new on here. But I was making a general comment that I haven't seen anyone come up with a plausible explanation of who it could be (other than Oswald) and why this man wasn't identified by the WC or the HSCA. Especially as it seems that the HSCA was aware of this person appearing on Weigman/Darnell and mentioned it in Billy Lovelady's questioning. Thanks for your views. Vanessa, We are all entitled to our opinions. However as you might observe from the tactics and insults employed by some objective is not the word I would use. As I prior stated testimonials do not prove the assertion. Independently verifiable evidence does. It is not just me, but most who demand that. Some do not wish to believe, we wish to know. I am not a WC defender. I support a conspiracy, but one based on evidence. I hope you can observe the difference between my and Greg's approach. Greg, Since you could not contain yourself a single post it is a lost cause. So be yourself and so shall I. Reasonable expectations of proof are not "forlorn insistence", they are required to prove something. No contending evidence? Really? So where are all the witness reports or Oswald's statement of being there exactly where you state? I will not repeat the list, it is in the thread. There is substantial contending evidence you refuse to address. If you wish to proceed that way so be it, do not blame me for that method you choose. Carmine, calm down. Oswald saying he is was in the lunch-room has no bearing on anything unless you can prove he was referring to the brief time-frame of PM. And as I've already said... a lack of witness reports is just that... a LACK of evidence... it is NOT "contending evidence" as you claim. A LACK of evidence proves nothing - one way or the other. I hope you can grasp that. You jumped into this thread, Carmine. You don't have to stay, but if you do want to discuss rationally -- we need to start with a rational agreement on what certain terms mean - starting with "independent corroboration". It's not a trick question. It's a starting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hi Carmine That's it? I don't usually scare them off as fast as this. Anyway if you have the time and inclination at a later date I would like to hear who you think this could be and why he hasn't been identified. Even though it seems that the HSCA was aware of an unidentified man on the Weigman/Darnell film. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Vanessa, I am happy to give you a brief synopsis. I told Greg and others when this first came up last year I supported it was feasibly a worker from the area or a member of the crowd. This is based on the DPD's highly incompetent actions and lack of recording all those present at critical points and deposing them. Now consider that due to the blurriness, the lack of all the other factors of discernment, and I will admit it is possible, but highly improbable in my view. Similar to the other claims based largely on an unverified picture and testimonials. I wish I would have been allowed to say this in Greg's forum without being attacked. I left over the issue. Now it seems some cannot accept my dissent. I no longer care to be pleasant after their many deficient claims and allegations. Carmine, Get some sleep. --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Perhaps, A clear picture, perhaps an original picture, perhaps a witness statement? How about some expert assessment? Perhaps any sort of verifiable evidence would help. Just a suggestion. No need for insults and off topic commentary if you have that. Greg, There is no lack of evidence, there are witness reports and they do not contain what you contend. Additionally, Oswald himself stated in the video I showed you and other's from Len Oceanic's series that he was feasibly in the building during the shots. By the way add no clear picture that can be discerned to verify Oswald on the stairs, no authentication, no expert appraisal. So why believe? Greg, I am here to stay, don' t worry about that. I'm just not going to silently endure claims that have no substantial evidence. Carmine, when asked, you said in the first quote that you would accept witness statements as "verifiable evidence". You say in the second quote that we already have witness statements. You can't have it both ways. What you were, in effect, requesting in that first quote was witness statements as to the IDENTITY of PM. What you say in your second statement is that we already have witness statements and none say who PM is. That would be great -- except none mentioned anything at all about the person in the PM position. So you send us back to square one. Those witness statements don't help me, as you quite rightly hint at. But you are absolutely mistaken if you believe they help you. They don't. Absence of evidence (in this case, absence of any mention of the person in the corner) is not the same thing as your catch-cry of "contending evidence". Not sure why you're not getting that. Edited March 17, 2015 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Apologies if I'm keeping you up Carmine - please feel free to respond another day. Have you seen Billy Lovelady's HSCA testimony though? It's included in the thread I believe. I'll find the link if I need to but I'm assuming you know what I'm referring to. The question is framed in such a way that the HSCA implies that they know this person in the corner was filmed on Weigman and is not Lovelady and want Lovelady to confirm that. If they were able to identify 'umbrella man' after all those years why not Prayerman? (which is not to say I believe the identification of umbrella man). I thought the identification of all those on the TSBD steps was quite comprehensive by the WC (and in the various testimonies of who was standing next to whom) except for Prayerman. Is there anyone else on the steps who remains unidentified that you know of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hi Carmine Sorry, do you mean I should post the HSCA query to Lovelady link? I don't believe that there were any other unidentified people on the TSBD steps that day. I also think that Oswald's knowledge of Bill Shelley's, Junior Jarman's and Harold Norman's whereabouts at, or close to, the time of the shooting demonstrates that the only place he could have seen them all was from the TSBD steps. I'll post some detail on this when I have a moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Perhaps, A clear picture, perhaps an original picture, perhaps a witness statement? How about some expert assessment? Perhaps any sort of verifiable evidence would help. Just a suggestion. No need for insults and off topic commentary if you have that. Greg, There is no lack of evidence, there are witness reports and they do not contain what you contend. Additionally, Oswald himself stated in the video I showed you and other's from Len Oceanic's series that he was feasibly in the building during the shots. By the way add no clear picture that can be discerned to verify Oswald on the stairs, no authentication, no expert appraisal. So why believe? Greg, I am here to stay, don' t worry about that. I'm just not going to silently endure claims that have no substantial evidence. Carmine, when asked, you said in the first quote that you would accept witness statements as "verifiable evidence". You say in the second quote that we already have witness statements. You can't have it both ways. What you were, in effect, requesting in that first quote was witness statements as to the IDENTITY of PM. What you say in your second statement is that we already have witness statements and none say who PM is. That would be great -- except none mentioned anything at all about the person in the PM position. So you send us back to square one. Those witness statements don't help me, as you quite rightly hint at. But you are absolutely mistaken if you believe they help you. They don't. Absence of evidence (in this case, absence of any mention of the person in the corner) is not the same thing as your catch-cry of "contending evidence". Not sure why you're not getting that. Hey Greg There is one witness who came very close to telling us all who Prayer Man was, but a certain WC lawyer cut him off just as he was about to upset the apple cart: "Mr. BALL - You ate your lunch on the steps? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Who was with you? Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me Mr. BALL - What was that last name? Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton. Mr. BALL - What is the first name? Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley. Mr. BALL - And Stanton's first name? Mr. LOVELADY - Miss Sarah Stanton. Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the steps Mr. LOVELADY - Yes. Mr. BALL - Were you there when the President's motorcade went by Mr. LOVELADY - Right." I think Mr. Ball knew exactly who PM was, and old Billy forgot his lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hi Bob - nice to see you on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hi Greg I think there are a lot of us who find Sean Murphy's research and the Weigman and Darnell film compelling evidence of Oswald being on the steps. Is it worth going the next step further and crowdfunding the development of the films to a higher resolution? That way a large number of people who are specifically interested in this issue could contribute from all around the world. And it would be in the hands of the research community. Thanks for your views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hi Vanessa, welcome to the Funny Farm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hi Carmine I'm trying to cut and paste some info on here but it's not working. Is there some trick to it or do I have to type it from scratch? Thanks for any tips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanessa Loney Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Thanks Bob. Not as civilised as JFKFacts I take it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Greg, I am tired of your assumptions about my words. Present your evidence if you have it. Savvy? Vanessa, I'm happy to review such evidence. No one ever stated Oswald on the stairs. Some stated he was inside, this includes him in my view. As we agreed before we are all entitled to our opinions, not our own facts. Carmine, you said in post #1526 to Bob "Bob, What is never said in my view does not prove anything." I'm glad to report we agree on this. It is the very reason I said in post #1518 that the witness statements don't help you any more than they help me - because they are SILENT on the person we know as Prayer Man. What is NOT said proves nothing. We agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Perhaps, A clear picture, perhaps an original picture, perhaps a witness statement? How about some expert assessment? Perhaps any sort of verifiable evidence would help. Just a suggestion. No need for insults and off topic commentary if you have that. Greg, There is no lack of evidence, there are witness reports and they do not contain what you contend. Additionally, Oswald himself stated in the video I showed you and other's from Len Oceanic's series that he was feasibly in the building during the shots. By the way add no clear picture that can be discerned to verify Oswald on the stairs, no authentication, no expert appraisal. So why believe? Greg, I am here to stay, don' t worry about that. I'm just not going to silently endure claims that have no substantial evidence. Carmine, when asked, you said in the first quote that you would accept witness statements as "verifiable evidence". You say in the second quote that we already have witness statements. You can't have it both ways. What you were, in effect, requesting in that first quote was witness statements as to the IDENTITY of PM. What you say in your second statement is that we already have witness statements and none say who PM is. That would be great -- except none mentioned anything at all about the person in the PM position. So you send us back to square one. Those witness statements don't help me, as you quite rightly hint at. But you are absolutely mistaken if you believe they help you. They don't. Absence of evidence (in this case, absence of any mention of the person in the corner) is not the same thing as your catch-cry of "contending evidence". Not sure why you're not getting that. Hey Greg There is one witness who came very close to telling us all who Prayer Man was, but a certain WC lawyer cut him off just as he was about to upset the apple cart: "Mr. BALL - You ate your lunch on the steps? Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Who was with you? Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton, and right behind me Mr. BALL - What was that last name? Mr. LOVELADY - Stanton. Mr. BALL - What is the first name? Mr. LOVELADY - Bill Shelley. Mr. BALL - And Stanton's first name? Mr. LOVELADY - Miss Sarah Stanton. Mr. BALL - Did you stay on the steps Mr. LOVELADY - Yes. Mr. BALL - Were you there when the President's motorcade went by Mr. LOVELADY - Right." I think Mr. Ball knew exactly who PM was, and old Billy forgot his lines. Yeah, thanks Bob. I think that came up somewhere in the 1,225,428 pages in this thread. But that's not say it's not worth a reminder now and then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Hi Greg I think there are a lot of us who find Sean Murphy's research and the Weigman and Darnell film compelling evidence of Oswald being on the steps. Is it worth going the next step further and crowdfunding the development of the films to a higher resolution? That way a large number of people who are specifically interested in this issue could contribute from all around the world. And it would be in the hands of the research community. Thanks for your views. It's a great idea, Vanessa, but my understanding is that those films are under the control of the 6th Floor Museum. If I'm wrong about that (and I could be) hopefully someone can chime in and tell us who does have control of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts