Oswald Leaving TSBD?

[Robert Prudhomme]

He might have, he might not have. That does not interest me nearly as much as this question; why would he and Lovelady change their stories so dramatically when they testified to the Warren Commission?

[Robin Unger]

2 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

He might have, he might not have. That does not interest me nearly as much as this question; why would he and Lovelady change their stories so dramatically when they testified to the Warren Commission?

 

That is a good question. ?

It interests me, because that goes to the heart of the " is the running woman seen in Darnell Gloria Calvery " issue

[Robert Prudhomme]

Which, of course, brings us right back to the discussion Thomas and I are having regarding just who and where was the real Gloria Calvery?

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."  ~~Hamlet~~ by William Shakespeare

[Robert Prudhomme]

While it is easy for us to speculate that Running Woman or a host of other women were Gloria Calvery, the fact remains there are three sworn statements given to the FBI by Karen Westbrook, Karan Hicks and Carol Reed stating that Gloria Calvery was one of a group of five women that also included Westbrook, Hicks and Reed, standing just east of the Stemmons Freeway sign.

Not only does the woman ID'ed as Calvery look nothing like the real Calvery, this woman remained on the grassy area next to the Stemmons sign long after Baker supposedly entered the TSBD; seriously bringing into question whether Running Woman could be Gloria Calvery.

Without the FBI statements of Hicks, Reed and Westbrook, I would write this off as a simple case of misidentification of Gloria Calvery.

[Robin Unger]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bill Miller]

5 hours ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

It might have been. What kind of punishment do I face for this faux pas?

Exposure was enough punishment.

[Bill Miller]

1 hour ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

Not only does the woman ID'ed as Calvery look nothing like the real Calvery, this woman remained on the grassy area next to the Stemmons sign long after Baker supposedly entered the TSBD; seriously bringing into question whether Running Woman could be Gloria Calvery.

Without the FBI statements of Hicks, Reed and Westbrook, I would write this off as a simple case of misidentification of Gloria Calvery.

The fact that the dark complected woman was with two other woman demonstrates that these friends that went out to the street together did not necessarily stand arm and arm. In fact, as the Bronson Photo shows - there was plenty of spacing between the Elm Street witnesses for about anyone to walk down to the curb and get in between any of them.

I am also surprised that you care at all what was written in the FBI statements because I thought you were one of those people who has held the position that any statements taken by the FBI were not to be accepted as accurate.

[Sandy Larsen]

Bill,

What I am about to post is extremely important. EVERYBODY please read it carefully... it is a very simple SMOKING GUN:

Yesterday I pointed out that Bill Shelley, in his WC testimony, said that it was 3 to 4 minutes after the shooting that Truly and Baker went into the TSBD. Which of course contradicts the official story, which is that they entered the TSBD 20 to 30 seconds after the shooting.

Mr. BALL - Do you have any idea how long it was from the time you heard those three sounds or three noises until you saw Truly and Baker going into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY - It would have to be 3 or 4 minutes I would say because this girl [Gloria Calvery] that ran back up there was down near where the car was when the President was hit.
Mr. BALL - She ran back up to the door and you had still remained standing there?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.

Your excuse, Bill, was to say that Shelley got confused in making that 3 to 4 minute statement. That the correct timing was more like 20 to 30 seconds... what we see in the films.

Okay then, lets just see what Lovelady had to say about this event in his WC testimony:

Mr. BALL - You heard the shots. And how long after that was it before Gloria Calvary came up? 
Mr. LOVELADY - Oh, approximately 3 minutes, I would say. 
Mr. BALL - Three minutes is a long time. 
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, it's---I say approximately; I can't say because I don't have a watch; it could. 
Mr. BALL - Had people started to run? 
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, I couldn't say because she came up to us and we was talking to her, wasn't looking that direction at that time, but when we came off the steps--see, that entrance, you have a blind side when you go down the steps. 
Mr. BALL - Right after you talked to Gloria, did you leave the steps and go toward the tracks? 
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you run or walk?
Mr. LOVELADY. Medium trotting or fast walk.
Mr. BALL. A fast walk?
Mr. LOVELADY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. How did you happen to turn around and see Truly and the policeman go into the building?
Mr. LOVELADY. Somebody hollered and I looked.
 

Oh noooo!  Lovelady also said 3 minutes!

Hopefully, Bill, you're not going to try and convince us that both Shelley and Lovelady made the very same ridiculous error in the timing of this event. Are you?

The truth is:

This corroboration of testimony proves that Gloria Calvery arrived about 3 minutes after the shooting, and that Baker and Truly didn't enter the TSBD till shortly after that.

Either that or Shelley and Lovelady were coached what to say regarding this event, and the coaching -- which served to discredit Victoria Adam's damaging testimony -- accidentally contradicted the official Baker story.

Either way, the 2nd floor Baker/Oswald narrative is destroyed by this pair of testimonies. It's that simple, folks.

 

(I hope I haven't made a silly blunder here.)

Edited January 1, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

He might have, he might not have. That does not interest me nearly as much as this question; why would he and Lovelady change their stories so dramatically when they testified to the Warren Commission?

To discredit Victoria Adams' timing.

[Robert Prudhomme]

22 hours ago, Robin Unger said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think these girls all copied off one essay when they wrote their exams, Robin. They all wrote the same thing.

[Robert Prudhomme]

22 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

The fact that the dark complected woman was with two other woman demonstrates that these friends that went out to the street together did not necessarily stand arm and arm. In fact, as the Bronson Photo shows - there was plenty of spacing between the Elm Street witnesses for about anyone to walk down to the curb and get in between any of them.

I am also surprised that you care at all what was written in the FBI statements because I thought you were one of those people who has held the position that any statements taken by the FBI were not to be accepted as accurate.

Whether these women were doing a group hug or standing with ten feet between each of them is irrelevant, Bill.

Read their FBI statements, which Robin has so graciously reproduced for us here. They obviously knew each other, and recognized themselves as a group, and this is reflected in their statements.

[Robert Prudhomme]

22 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

Exposure was enough punishment.

You're about one post away from going into my "Ignore File".

[Robert Prudhomme]

21 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

To discredit Victoria Adams' timing.

I love it when we agree on things.

 

[Guest]

18 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

 

Bart,

 

I am making my way through this book. I know the book is called “Prayerman: out of the shadows and into the light.” However it could very easily have been titled “What Sean Murphy said.”

 

I do not know if you are involved in the slagging-off that is currently going on in ROKC and the members there. It says a great deal about the character of those members but more important the extent ROKC and the membership will go to when they notice someone criticising an issue they hold to be important to them. I can understand the abuse that Bill Miller and I have received. But I am appalled that just because Robin Unger commented that he did not believe Prayerman was Oswald a whole page in their current web of abuse directed at EF membership has been devoted to unseemly abuse directed solely at Robin. I say shame on ROKC and shame on those members who participated in this kind of criticism. I do hope you are not a party to this behaviour for although I disagree with you on this issue I have found you to be an honourable person.  

 

And now to respond to the second floor encounter. It has become clear to me that this is a critical issue - and one the supporters of this theory cannot allow to stand. 

 

There is a very telling moment in Chapter 2. Stan quotes Sean Murphy reflecting that if the encounter with Baker took place at the second floor lunchroom then Prayerman is unlikely to be Oswald. Throughout the book it becomes very clear that the second floor lunchroom meeting becomes a crucial part of the narrative. If it can be questioned and undermined then it will support Prayerman being Oswald and - if it cannot be questioned - the second floor meeting will destroy the idea that Prayerman is Oswald.

 

Aware of the damage if this meeting could be established as factual Sean muses that even if Oswald/Prayerman is in his position outside and sees Baker rushing into the building there was still time for him to leave his position rush upstairs to the second floor grab a Coke and be there in time for the meeting. This scenario goes nowhere because it is quickly realised just how ridiculous it is. 

 

However - ridiculous though this idea is - it underlined just how critical the second floor meeting is and how if not dealt with it could explode the idea that Prayerman was Oswald.

 

And this has raised a thought. Throughout the book we are told this person lied, this did not happen, this testimony is false. I am now wondering whether this is all gamesmanship to protect Oswald being Prayerman rather than the fruits of research.

James,

I do not think you are giving this book a fair treat, almost every remark you have posted on Stan Dane's book so far reeks of negativity. The book is a summarisation of this thread of which Sean Murphy put forward the large majority of the material. 

Regarding the 2nd floor lunch room encounter, you are right it is an integral part to support Prayer Man. What this thread does not fully expose is how messed up the actual story is.

When I did the interactive presentation I started with the movies and used the 2FLRE as the third chapter. It has now become its opener, due to the abundance of the material I managed to grab together and put into the first essay "Anatomy Of A 2nd Floor Lunch Room Encounter". The amount of quoted material inside that essay utterly destroys the fakery of the 2FLRE. This essay is the most complete collection of works available regarding this matter. And a considerable update will be published in about two weeks.

It also exposes the lies by Truly, Reid, Baker, Johnson, Fritz, Bookhout etc.

Add on the lies by Shellley and Lovelady.

Here's the challenge for anyone out there: show me they did not lie. And that those so called 'developments' in their witness testimonies are truthful compared to their first statements.

Game on?

HNY!

 

[Bill Miller]

58 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Either that or Shelley and Lovelady were coached what to say regarding this event, and the coaching -- which served to debunk Victoria Adam's damaging testimony -- accidentally contradicted the official Baker story.

I thought you were another one that believed the powers that be got to the witnesses .... seems if you truly believe that, then the first day statement would be the accurate one which seems to support the Darnell film.